Tag: second amendment

Court: Cop who arrested an innocent citizen illegally has no immunity

2:06 pm

Still in effect
Still in effect

A federal three-judge panel has now ruled that a policeman who illegally arrested an innocent citizen simply because that person had a concealed carry permit cannot claim qualified immunity from suit or prosecution.

The actions of the policemen, Nicholas Andrzejewski, were incredibly inappropriate and abusive.

On November 12, 2018, Basel Soukaneh’s life was significantly disrupted. Soukaneh was looking for a house he was considering purchasing, but the GPS on his phone, held in a holder on the dash of his car, had frozen. He was unfamiliar with the area. Soukaneh pulled over to correct the problem, left the engine running, and had the interior lights on. A Waterbury police officer quickly knocked on his window and demanded to see his driver’s license. Soukaneh handed him the license and his legal concealed carry permit, then told the officer where his firearm was located in the vehicle.

The officer, Nicholas Andrzejewski, grabbed Soukaneh, dragged him from the car, and violently handcuffed him, causing significant pain. Andrzejewski then stuffed Soukaneh in the back of his police car and searched Soukaneh’s car, including the trunk. Several other officers came to the scene. One of them put Soukaneh in an upright, seated position instead of where Andrzejewski had stuffed him, with his head near the floor. After another half hour, he was released. It is not clear if he was charged with a traffic violation.

» Read more

7 comments

Real pushback: Defiance from all sides to New Mexico’s unlawful suspension of the 2nd amendment

1:27 pm

Michelle Lujan Grisham

When New Mexico’s Democratic Party governor Michelle Lujan Grisham suddenly declared on September 8, 2023 that she was unilaterally suspending the second amendment by outlawing for 30 days the right to carry firearms by any citizens in Albuquerque and its surrounding Bernalillo county, no one should have been surprised.

All Grisham was doing was following the many precedents set during the COVID epidemic, where nationwide governors routinely made unilateral and unlawful declarations violating the Constitutional rights of citizens, with no pushback at all. Grisham was merely following those precedents. To her, it was now okay for a governor to routinely declare a “health emergency” for any reason under the sun (in this case the violent shooting death of an innocent eleven-year-old boy), and declare any law she didn’t like to be null and void.

Grisham was simply demonstrating forcefully the worst lessons learned from the COVID panic. It taught power-hungry politicians that they could get away with any abuse of power they conceived, as long as they dressed that power grab as part of some sort of “health emergency.”

You see, power is very habit-forming, and when you find you suffer no pain for abusing it it is then very easy to abuse it again, and again and again.

The response to Grisham’s unlawful abuse of power however suggested strongly that things are no longer going to follow the script of the COVID panic, when the public meekly went along. Instead, the uproar in the past three days has been astonishing, not so much from the ordinary citizens defying the ban, but from politicians and pundits from across the entire political spectrum.
» Read more

20 comments

Today’s blacklisted American: Biden administration increases closures of gun stores by 500%

11:36 am

The goal of Democrats: Banning the 2nd amendment
The goal of Democrats: Banning the 2nd amendment

They’re coming for you next: The Biden administration has increased its forced closures of legal gun stores by more than 500%, often revoking licenses for minor reasons such as typos.

In the years before the Biden-Harris administration took over the White House, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives usually revoked an average of 40 Federal Firearm Licenses (FFLs) per year. But, in the 11 months since Joe Biden declared war on “rogue gun dealers,” the ATF has revoked 273 FFLs — an increase of more than 500%. However, rather than targeting the true rogues, Biden’s ATF is revoking FFLs for the most minor of paperwork errors, which were never a concern for the ATF until Biden weaponized the agency.

“This has nothing to do with the ATF and everything to do with the DOJ,” said John Clark of FFL Consultants. Clark is a firearm industry expert who said the ATF announced the number of revocations at a recent Firearm Industry Conference. “The vast majority of the ATF don’t like this any more than the industry does,” he said. “It’s Biden.” [emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, the investigative journalism project of the the Second Amendment Foundation has been stonewalled by the ATF, having filed freedom of information requests with it on this issue almost a year ago, with no response.

The consequences of this harsh Biden policy has of course not reduced the number of gun crimes, in the slightest. What it has done however is to discourage gun dealers from working with the ATF, out of fear of being shut down for the slightest infraction:
» Read more

12 comments

Police seize guns of Missouri couple used to defend their home from rioters

10:03 pm

They’re coming for you next: St. Louis police today used a warrant to search the home of the Missouri couple and seize the weapons they had used to ward off threatening rioters last month.

Authorities in St. Louis executed a search warrant Friday evening at the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who made headlines last month when they took up arms to defend their homes from protesters. During the search, police seized the rifle that Mark McCloskey was shown holding during the June 28 incident, KSDK-TV of St. Louis reported, citing information from a source.

The pistol that Patricia McCloskey held during the June confrontation was already in the possession of the couple’s attorney, the station reported.

There was no immediate indication that the McCloskeys were arrested or charged with a crime. [emphasis mine]

It appears to me that their only crime was that they are white and that they took up arms to defend their lives and home from a group of trespassers linked to Black Lives Matter/Antifa.

It might be possible that they did not have the guns legally (in the original video it clearly appeared they, especially the woman, had never held or used guns before). Nonetheless, they hurt no one, they were on their own property, the protesters were trespassers, and those trespassers had also made actual threats against them, their property, and even their dog. Their description of what happened matches well with the videos available.

In the June incident, Patricia McCloskey said, the couple was startled just before dinnertime when “300 to 500 people” entered the gated community where they live. “[They said] that they were going to kill us,” Patricia McCloskey told Hannity on Monday night. “They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead, and they were pointing to different rooms and said, ‘That’s going to be my bedroom and that’s going to be the living room and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room’.”

So what does the local Democratic government do? Do they prosecute any rioters? No, they release them, and then go after these citizens to deny them the ability to defend themselves.

The McCloskeys fortunately have enough resources to hire a security company to protect themselves. Other ordinary citizens in St. Louis however be warned. If you take action to defend yourself, your local Democratic politicians will come after you. And they will move to disarm you so you will be helpless to the mob.

14 comments

California: where politicians consider criminals their base and ordinary citizens their enemy

1:11 pm

Three stories (two from today and one from two days ago) illustrate starkly the fascist mentality of California Democrats, clearly more interested in giving criminals as much freedom as possible while restricting the freedoms of ordinary law-abiding citizens.

The first story is especially grotesque. Senator Harris (D-California) wants to release criminals into the general population, even though these individuals cannot generally be relied upon to follow any quarantine restrictions. In prison however they are in the perfect quarantine, easily isolated from others.

Harris however is horrified by this. As she writes,

[The Federal Bureau of Prisons] is responding to the threat of coronavirus with extreme measures that both maintain current levels of incarceration and penalize the incarcerated community— including by suspending social and legal visitation, suspending inmate facility transfers, and potentially locking down institutions.

O the horror! We must release these individuals immediately, since restricting their freedom is so against what America stands for!

Meanwhile, the second story illustrates how California politicians have no problem imposing these same restrictions on innocent citizens. While Harris wants to release criminals, San Francisco politicians have imprisoned every citizen in these counties, while shutting down numerous businesses at great cost to their owners.

And the third story reveals the hidden fascist reasons for these actions in California. Because a flu-like virus might someday infect a lot of people, San Jose officials decide they have to shut down a gun shop.

Makes sense to me. We can’t have those evil Wuhan viruses buying guns, can we?

The goal of Democratic politicians in California (and elsewhere) isn’t to stop the virus. Their goal is to establish a totalitarian state, with them in power. This epidemic is only making this fascist desire more obvious.

11 comments

Democrats in VA and AZ issue a warning: “We will oppress you if you elect us!”

3:49 pm

They’re coming for you next: Much has been made of the onerousness gun control laws passed by the Democrats in the Virginia state legislature this past week.

When it became clear that the Democrats were going to pass such laws, having gained control of both the legislature and the governorship, 95 counties and cities in the state made it publicly clear they would not enforce these laws, announcing that they were now second amendment sanctuary counties. Then, more than 22,000 Virginians gathered in protest at the statehouse, peacefully but forcefully declaring their opposition to these proposed laws.

None of that mattered to the modern Democrats now in charge in Virginia. They passed the laws, one of which gives the state “the authority to confiscate certain types of magazines that are considered ‘high capacity.'” I don’t know how they think they will enforce that confiscation right, but since they think it appropriate and just, don’t be surprised if they impose new laws to strengthen their ability to do so, including the right to do house-to-house searches.

Most of the the discussion about this story has been focused on the opposition to the laws themselves. I want to focus on what it tells us about the modern Democratic Party. You see, these fascist actions — which do nothing to reduce violence or crime while making law-abiding citizens criminals — are being planned by practically every local Democratic Party operation across the nation. All they require to make them law is to obtain power, as they have in Virginia.

My proof? Consider the comparable gun control law proposed yesterday by the Democrats in the Arizona state legislature:
» Read more

19 comments

Illinois joins NY in demanding social media histories of gun owners

10:12 am

They’re coming for you next: Illinois has joined New York with a new proposed law that would demand the social media histories from anyone wishing to own a gun.

State Rep. Daniel Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, has filed HB 888 which would require those who apply for a state-issued Firearm Owners Identification Card– mandatory for legal gun owners– turn over a list of their social media accounts to authorities under threat of a Class 2 felony. The State Police would use the information to determine if the accounts have any “information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation” of a FOID card.

Democratic legislators in New York had proposed a similar proposed law last year.

The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution. These proposed laws are designed to circumvent this, by allowing the government to do fishing expeditions looking for any reason it can to deny a citizen this right.

Freedom of speech is also guaranteed in the Constitution. These proposed laws are designed to circumvent this also, by allowing the government to delve through your speech looking for any reason it can find to hurt you because of it.

Either way, what we have here is a 1984-like government intrusion into the privacy of citizens, with no restrictions. And it increasingly appears to be future Americans face, mostly due to their own choices at the ballot box.

7 comments

Boston mayor wants doctors to grill patients about guns

9:52 am

They’re coming for you next: Boston’s liberal mayor want to require doctors to ask patients if they own guns and then lecture them about gun safety.

This act would require medical professionals to ask patients about guns in the home, and bring up the topics of gun safety. The goal, Boston Police Commissioner William Gross said, is to identify those at risk for domestic violence, suicide or child access to guns in order to guide people to mental health counseling, resources or other help. “We’re just asking them to help identify ways to save lives,” Gross said.

The fact that a patient owns guns would not be put in their medical record, and is not intended to have physicians help solve crimes.

If my doctor asked me this, I would tell him to jump in a lake. It is none of his business. However, this is clearly aimed at raising the social cost of gun ownership by making society more hostile to it. The next step would be to demand this data be recorded, which would then provide the government a list of gun owners that they can target.

16 comments

3D gun files still available to public despite judge’s ruling

4:36 pm

Pushback: Despite a judge’s apparently unconstitutional ruling that banned the free give-away of the plans for printing 3D guns, the company that is producing them has instead made them available for purchase, at any price the buyer designates.

The ruling was intensely shaky and a jab to both the First and Second Amendment, so naturally Democrats were aroused.

But their celebration was premature.

Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson crushed their short-lived happiness during a Tuesday press conference where he revealed that he actually won’t be stopped from sharing technical data; he will simply sell the files via his website, defcad.com. (Yes, he can do this.) “This judge’s order, stopping us from simply giving things away, was only an authorization that we could sell it, that we could mail it, that we could email it, that we could provide it by secure transfer. I will be doing all of those things, now,” announced Wilson.

“A lot of this to me was about principle,” he continued. “For many years, I just chose not to sell these files, because I’m an open-source activist. I believed in demonstrating that there was a right to commit this information to the public domain.”

“But, this is my opportunity to correct the media all in one place. To read headline after headline about how you can no longer 3D-print a gun, you can no longer have these files, this is not true. This has never been true. I now have to demonstrate this to you, forcefully, to deliver the point.”

There is no set price for the material; patrons are asked to give whatever they’d like in exchange. Wilson said the money would be used for further legal fees.

The judge’s ruling was completely bogus, especially since the Trump Justice Department had already settled the suit that the Obama Justice Department had brought. Moreover, since when can a judge ban the publication of any information the U.S.? His ruling appears to violate the First Amendment, and possibly the Second Amendment as well.

15 comments

Inventor of 3D gun wins lawsuit against Justice

5:14 pm

The inventor of a 3D gun has won a free speech lawsuit against the Justice Department for its order blocking the publication of his 3D gun designs.

Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) reached a settlement with the Department of Justice allowing unfettered publication of 3D gun files and other information in a case centered on free speech. Breitbart News reported that SAF filed a suit on behalf of Defense Distributed on May 6, 2015, seeking to free Wilson from a federal mandate that he not post blueprints for The Liberator pistol online.

Over three years later, the announcement comes that Wilson and SAF won. SAF sent a press release to Breitbart News, explaining details of settlement, saying, “The government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.”

In other words, the Justice Department had no authority under the Constitution to block the publication of these 3D gun plans, and in its effort to try it has lost badly.

What this really means is that it is now literally impossible for any government to impose gun control. If you want a gun, all you will need is the right kind of 3D printer (getting better all the time) and the right plans, soon to be available on the web. While this might make guns more available for bad guys, I guarantee that they will quickly be outnumbered by the good guys.

6 comments

California bans handguns

9:27 am

Fascist California: The California Supreme Court has upheld a handgun law that requires that each gun microstamp an identification on any bullets it fires, something that remains technologically impossible and has essentially banned the sale of new handguns in the state.

The gun law, passed in 2007, is supported by police organizations that say the stamps would help officers to determine the source of bullets found at crime scenes. It requires that new brands of semiautomatic pistols introduced for retail sale in California carry markings in two places that would imprint the gun’s model and serial number on each cartridge as it is fired.

The law didn’t take effect until 2013, when the state certified that there were no patent restrictions on the technology. But gun manufacturers have not sold any new models of semiautomatic handguns in California since then, and in 2014 a gun group sued to invalidate the law, saying its standards could never be met.

A state appellate court allowed the suit to proceed, relying on an 1872 California statute that declared, “The law never requires impossibilities.” On Thursday, however, the state’s high court dismissed the suit and said the law would remain on the books, even if it was difficult to enforce.

…The ruling effectively ends the case, but other gun organizations have sued in federal court, claiming the law is unconstitutional. Their case is pending before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

For now, no new models of semiautomatic handguns will be marketed in California, said Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which challenged the law in state court. He said the number of handgun models sold in California has dropped by about 50 percent since the state certified the micro-stamping law in 2013. “California will experience a slow-motion handgun ban,” Keane said. He said sales would “never go up because no new model can meet the impossible requirement.”

This entire story demonstrates perfectly why I call California fascist. While the law does not ban handguns, something that would likely be politically unacceptable, its succeeds in doing so by demanding gun-makers meet an impossible standard, thus forcing them to abandon sales in California.

The story also illustrates the fundamental dishonesty of the left. They want to ban guns, but they can’t do it in a straight-forward manner. So they create a dishonest law to do it for them. Expect more laws like this in Democratically-controlled states, nationwide.

8 comments

California police raid home, confiscate guns, from man who tried to register AR-15

8:48 am

Fascist California: Police raided the home and confiscated the guns of a man who had made a sincere effort to follow new California laws requiring the registration of his AR-15.

The man also now faces a dozen felony charges.

Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann attempted to register an AR-15 with the California Department of Justice last month but instead found himself in significant legal trouble. The California DOJ accused Kirschenmann of illegally modifying the rifle he attempted to register. Law enforcement officials raided his home in Bakersfield before ultimately confiscating a dozen firearms and a few hundred rounds of ammunition, then charging him with a dozen felonies, KGET reports. Kirschenmann was accused of possession of assault weapons, two silencers, and something referred to as a “multi-burst trigger activator.” He does not appear to have been charged with any violent crimes.

All this does is drive decent ordinary gun-owners underground. It makes them criminals for doing nothing morally wrong, and thus a target that the state can now oppress.

6 comments

The history of the second amendment

10:31 pm

Link here. Anyone who wishes to avoid being willfully ignorant about the reasons and background to the second amendment and presently feels lacking in knowledge will find this essay immensely clarifying. Bottom line:

Again, both sides [in the debate over the ratification of the Constitution] not only agreed that the people had a right to be armed, both sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to preserving liberty. The framers quite clearly had adopted James Harrington’s political theory that the measure of liberty attained and retained was a direct function of an armed citizenry’s ability to claim and hold those rights from domestic and foreign enemies.

And from the conclusion:

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government’s instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual’s right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people’s right to a free state, just as it says. [emphasis in original]

Read it all. It puts this issue of gun rights into historical and accurate context. That there are Americans today that do not know these facts, and refuse to learn them, speaks very poorly of them. It also suggests their goal is not the prevention of violence but the oppression of others. Such a goal is directly threatened by these historical facts — describing the British and American search for liberty and freedom — which is why they do not wish them known, and often do whatever they can to suppress them.

18 comments

Not one citizen of New Jersey complies with bump stock ban

10:05 am

Update: It appears that the same thing has happened in Denver, where no one has turned in their bump stocks also.

Pushback: Despite a new law that criminalizes the possession of bump stocks and requires their surrender, not a single citizen of New Jersey has complied.

Despite the fact that New Jersey residents who are caught with bump stocks could face up to 5 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines, reports have claimed that not a single bump stock has been turned in, even though the deadline to turn the newly illegal accessories over to police was last month.

New Jersey is not alone. Massachusetts became the first state to ban bump stocks earlier this year, and even though the state’s new legislation threatens violators with up to 18 months in jail, only four people have complied by voluntarily surrendering their bump stocks to police.

These laws are stupid, and are unconstitutional in that they are a taking of private property without due compensation, one of the main reasons people are not complying.

As the gun control efforts by the left accelerate and become more radical, expect more people to defy their efforts. Sadly, that is not really a defeat for the left, as one of their goals here is to encourage contempt for the law, thus making it culturally easier for them to defy it as well. Since they can never win at the ballot box, they need to create a circumstance where it becomes acceptable for them to take power by force, and this can only happen if they have convinced enough people that such illegal action is acceptable.

Everything the left (and the Democratic Party) has been doing politically since Donald Trump’s election suggests this. The worst aspect of it unfortunately is that they are succeeding. Nor has this effort been limited to their gun control proposals. The ability of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats to avoid all prosecution for some very obvious crimes contributes to this effort as well.

8 comments

Former Obama Education Secretary calls for school boycott over guns

2:29 pm

I actually agree with him! The former Secretary of Education from the Obama administration, Arne Duncan, is calling for parents to pull their kids from public schools until the “gun laws are changed to make them safe.”

Personally, if I had children I would have never allowed them to attend any of today’s public schools, not because of gun safety but because they do a worse than horrible job of teaching kids anything.

Moreover, educating your kids either in a private school or at home gives you a much better chance of protecting them. At home you can be armed. Private schools have more flexibility, and will more likely include armed teachers if that’s what the parents want.

Public schools, and the unions that run them, not so much. I really do hope Duncan’s boycott catches on. It will give us a chance to shut down the failing public schools and replace them with competing organizations that actually get the job done.

4 comments

Boulder bans assault weapons, gun owners sue

1:09 pm

Fascists: The city council in Boulder, Colorado, this week passed a local law banning “assault weapons” and other gun accessories.

Its city council unanimously passed an ordinance on Tuesday to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines — becoming one of a handful of cities nationwide that has taken action to change its gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, shooting massacre.

…The new law requires people who own bump stock devices and magazines that hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition to dispose of or sell the firearm accessories by July 15, according to Colorado Public Radio.

A lawsuit against the law was immediately filed.

I think however that this quote by the city councilwoman who proposed the law illustrates best its stupidity.

“It felt like a no-brainer to propose this.”

That’s right, it is very clear that the council and this councilwoman used no brains at all in writing and approving the law. It not only is vague, unenforceable, and oppressive, it puts the blame for past murders on innocent law-abiding citizens.

The problem however is that this might very well be constitutional. As long as this local ordinance does not violate Colorado state law, it would be permissible under the Constitution, as the second amendment was designed to limit federal authority, not state or local authorities. As such, it illustrates the growing rise of fascism in some communities within the U.S., places where the majority sees nothing wrong with oppressing a minority, merely because they disagree about public policy. Expect more of this in the coming years. Expect also that these fascist localities to become havens of poverty, crime, oppression, and economic collapse.

8 comments

Democrat demands prison for those who don’t cooperate with proposed gun buyback

11:24 am

And people wonder why I call them fascists: A California Democratic Congressman has proposed a new federal gun buyback program that would also prosecute anyone who decides they don’t want to participate.

[Congressman Eric Swalwell]suggests the government should institute a buy-back program, which would take existing assault weapons out of possession. The congressman also advocates the prosecution of any individual who decides to keep their firearm. “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed,” Swalwell writes. “This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

“Instead,” he continues, “we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.” Swalwell notes that law enforcement officials and shooting clubs would be exempt.

Throughout his op-ed, Swalwell never defines what he considers a “military-style semiautomatic assault weapon.” Instead, he classifies an assault weapon as a firearm that is capable of “spraying a crowd” with “lethal fire in seconds.”

I am also not surprised this guy is from fascist California, where increasingly it is becoming downright dangerous to dissent from the leftist Democratic Party agenda.

120 comments

New York to jail man for possessing a legal gun

10:45 am

Fascist New York: A Hawaiian man is going to jail for two years, simply because he mistakenly brought a legally purchased gun into New York City, locked safely in his car.

Officers interviewed Camp’s girlfriend who told them, out of spite, he says, about a weapon he had in his car. In a small compartment behind the seat of his ’85 Chevrolet El Camino, Camp stored a Hi-point .45 pistol he bought legally in Ohio for $140 and that he kept locked away in a safe. When the officers found the weapon, Camp was arrested and charged with a Class C Felony.

His girlfriend had a far-left stance on guns. She said it frightened her to have one in their apartment and so Camp kept it locked safely away in the car to appease her, he explained.

Even his former girlfriend didn’t realize the draconian nature of New York’s gun laws. “I’ve never used it to menace or threaten anyone, especially not her,” Camp said. “She even later told me she regretted turning me in to the police, saying she believed I would ‘just pay a big fine.’”

No matter. New York City does not recognize the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. You do not have the right to bear arms there, even though the threat of gun violence from criminals is far higher than most of the rest of the country.

Note the absurdity of this. New York’s draconian gun control laws were supposedly passed to prevent criminals from getting guns. Instead, they are being used to jail innocent citizens whose only reason for owning a gun is to protect themselves from those illegally armed criminals.

8 comments

School shooter in Maryland stopped by armed officer

9:08 am

A school shooter today in Maryland was stopped by armed officer before the shooter had killed anyone.

St. Mary Co. Sheriff Tim Cameron on shooting at Great Mills HS: shooting happened in hallway; shooter, a student, fired at a female student, another was student hit. Armed school resource ofc, a deputy, exchanged shots w/ shooter; shooter & female student in critical condition

The shooter has since died.

It is unclear if the shooter here was aiming to kill as many as possible, or was involved in personal conflict. Either way, the incident illustrates the wisdom of having armed protection available, either by teachers or police officers.

9 comments

New Jersey school threatened with lawsuit for punishing students for visiting gun range

12:15 pm

A New Jersey high school is now threatened with a lawsuit from local gun clubs for punishing several students for daring to visit a gun range and do target practice, on their own time.

Two students at Lacey Township High-school, NJ were suspended for posting a picture of themselves shooting guns at a private gun range with the caption “fun day at the range“. The school’s zero tolerance policy says that students cannot be in possession of weapons at any time, whether on or off campus.

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs today demanded in a lawyer letter that the Lacey Township School District immediately rescind disciplinary actions taken against several students for posting social media photos of themselves near firearms at a target range.

The student handbook in that district provides that students are subject to suspension if they are “reported to be in possession of a weapon of any type for any reason or purpose WHETHER ON OR OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS during the academic year.”

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs attorney Dan Schmutter penned the lawyer letter, which also demands that the school district rescind its unconstitutional policy, clear the records of the students disciplined, and apologize to the students and their families.

Forget about the second amendment. A school has absolutely no authority to forbid any student from doing anything when they are not at the school. This is so over the top it is almost unbelievable. I hope the school fights, because they are going to lose big if they do.

7 comments

Another age discrimination lawsuit against Dick’s

3:58 pm

Pushback: An 18-year-old Michigan man has filed an age discrimination lawsuit against Dick’s for refusing to sell him a firearm.

This is on top of the other lawsuit in Oregon earlier this week.

Personally, I usually support the freedom of stores to choose whom they will sell their products to, even though I know that this approach has generally not been the law of the land since the 1960s. However, what we have here is pushback by the right, using the same tactics that the left has been using to go after Christian bakeries, wedding dress companies, and wedding photographers. At this point in the culture wars, I think it is time to use these tactics against leftist intolerance, and use them hard and often. If it it somehow okay for leftists to destroy a Christian baker, photographer, or dressmaker simply because they do not wish to do something against their conscience, then maybe it is time to make some corporations feel some pain for joining sides with this intolerant left.

8 comments

Twenty-year-old sues Dick’s for refusing to sell him gun

9:59 am

Pushback: A twenty-year-old in Oregon has sued Dick’s Sporting Goods for refusing to sell him a rifle, based on his age.

The plaintiff, Tyler Watson, claims he faced “Unlawful Age Discrimination.” Watson attempted to buy the rifle “on or about February 24” at a Medford, Oregon, Field and Stream store. (Field and Stream is subsidiary of Dick’s.) Watson’s suit, filed in the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Jackson, says a store employee refused the purchase and indicated, “He would not sell [Watson] any firearm, including rifles and shotguns, or ammunition for a firearm, because [Watson] is under 21 years old.”

The employee referenced Dick’s recent policy shift, disallowing firearm sales to anyone under 21, and cited the policy as the reason for denying the sale.

Watson’s suit alleges that Dick’s policy violates Oregon law against age-based discrimination for people 18 years and older in places of public accommodations. State law includes prohibitions against discrimination in stores that are open to the general public.

Watson has also sued Walmart, for the same reasons.

The irony here is that Oregon, a decidedly liberal state, was very quick to pass age discrimination laws in the past, a traditional tactic of the left to create groups of victims it can utilize politically in order to maintain its power. Watson here is now using those laws against them.

18 comments

Bi-partisan group of senators back bill to deny citizens their second, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendment rights

7:11 pm

Fascists: A bi-partisan group of senators — Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), Angus King (I-Maine), Bill Nelson (D-Florida), and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) — have introduced a bill that would deny any citizen the right to buy a gun if they happen to be put on the no-fly list by some Washington bureaucrat, thus denying them their second, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendment rights.

As noted at this link,

Watch lists are inexact tools for law enforcement, after all, not a way to adjudicate rights. Most of the names on the watch lists, and the reason those names appear on those lists, are known only to government officials. If you’re one of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people unlucky enough to be capriciously tagged by law enforcement, you can only extricate yourself after an expensive and byzantine process that is often beyond the reach of an average a law-abiding citizen. Which is almost surely the point. As far as we can tell, nearly 300,000 names aren’t even vaguely associated with potential terrorist organizations. Yet, in this proposed legislation, sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), senators demand that Americans ask for permission before practicing their constitutional rights.

Then there is the question of how we define a potential terrorist in the future? The listmakers won’t say. How about Democrats? As others have noted, liberals regularly accuse the National Rifle Association (and thus gun owners) of being complicit in terrorism. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy has argued that Republican who fail to support bypassing due process “have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” Kathleen Rice, who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, contends that Dana Loesch and “the NRA are domestic security threat” for practicing their First Amendment rights. Excuse me if I don’t trust these people to dictate whose rights should be protected. [emphasis mine]

More important, if the people on these watch lists are so dangerous, according to these senators, why are we simply denying them the right to buy a gun, without due process? Shouldn’t we round them up immediately and put them in concentration camps, just make sure they can’t do anyone any harm?

Heitkamp, Manchin, and Nelson, all face stiff challenges in the 2018 elections. I would not be surprised if they find themselves all out the door. Flake, who ran for the Senate based on his a budget-cutting record in the House, is nothing but a corrupt backstabber, and has thankfully said he is not running for re-election. That’s four out of these nine. I wonder what can be done about the other five.

I want everyone to read the highlighted text above very carefully. It documents how the left and Democrats are becoming very nonchalant about demanding the nullification of the Constitutional rights of anyone who disagrees with them. This is not to be taken lightly. They mean it. Give them a victory in an election and they will begin to do it.

One comment

Utah concealed-carry class for teachers largest ever

10:44 am

A Utah concealed-carry class, organized for teachers and college students, had the largest sign-up ever, about 1,000 people total, with many coming in direct response to the Parkland shooting.

About 1,000 people signed up, which organizers said likely made it the largest concealed carry course ever taught in the state. Concealed firearms may be carried with a permit inside all Utah public schools and universities. “It’s been a very positive reaction,” said Sam Robinson, co-owner of Utah Gun Exchange, which organized the event in the wake of the Florida massacre. “There are a lot of people who want to learn more, who want to become more engaged and take a more active role in the defense of our schools — so they at least have the opportunity to be the last line of defense.”

On the four-hour class agenda: firearm safety, handling, transportation, storage and laws, plus basic tactical skills that instructors said might come in handy during a school shooting. Media were not allowed inside, to “protect the privacy of people who are here,” Robinson said, adding organizers wanted to ensure attendees were not “shamed” for their beliefs about gun rights. [emphasis mine]

The two highlighted quotes are important. First, if safety is a big concern for your kids, Utah is clearly where you should send them. Ordinary citizens, properly trained, are allowed the tools to defend themselves and others.

Second, it is entirely understandable for the organizers to restrict the media’s access to the classes. It would not be there to report, but to continue the hatefest against ordinary Americans who wish to exercise their second amendment rights, in a responsible manner.

I have taken Arizona’s concealed carry class, as well as attended gun training classes in Maryland. Attendance ranged from 15 to 50. A turnout of 1000 people for a single class is astonishing. It is a strong indication that the winds favor the idea of properly allowing teachers and college students the ability to defend themselves. It also suggests that, should politicians decided to eliminate gun-free zones, they would score political points, even as the media and the left were certain to go insane over it.

7 comments

Trump: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

6:08 pm

Link here. Trump, who’s roots remain that of a liberal Democrat, suddenly sees nothing wrong with abandoning the fifth amendment to the Bill of Rights if it will get him brownie points with the leftist mainstream media.

Yet, burning the Constitution to avoid the massacre in Florida was never necessary. All that had to happen was for Florida simply enforce the law properly.

School and law enforcement officials knew Cruz was a ticking time bomb. They did nothing because of a deliberate, willful, bragged-about policy to end the “school-to-prison pipeline.” This is the feature part of the story, not the bug part.

If Cruz had taken out full-page ads in the local newspapers, he could not have demonstrated more clearly that he was a dangerous psychotic. He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other “red flags.” Over and over again, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School reported Cruz’s terrifying behavior to school administrators, including Kelvin Greenleaf, “security specialist,” and Peter Mahmood, head of JROTC. At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., “I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,” “Im going to watch ypu bleed,” “iam going to shoot you dead” — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.

All the school had to do was risk Cruz not going to college, and depriving Yale University of a Latino class member, by reporting a few of his felonies — and there would have been no mass shooting.

But Cruz was never arrested. He wasn’t referred to law enforcement. He wasn’t even expelled. Instead, Cruz was just moved around from school to school — six transfers in three years. But he was always sent back to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in order to mainstream him, so that he could get a good job someday! [emphasis in original]

The root causes for this mess have nothing to do with guns. Instead, the madness of Cruz was aided and abetted by insane liberal polices (created and pushed by the Obama administration) and instituted incompetently by liberal politicians, all of whom are named in the second link.

Right now, however, the liberal press and their Democratic allies are going to make a big push for gun control and burning the Bill of Rights as a major campaign stand for the 2018 elections. I am amazed by this, because I guarantee it will result in exactly the opposite of what they expect.

89 comments

Democrats in House introduce bill to ban semi-automatic weapons

5:59 pm

More than 150 Democratic members of the House today sponsored a bill that will ban all semi-automatic weapons, including pistols and rifles.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said. “Today I joined @RepCicilline and 150+ of my colleagues to introduce the assault weapons ban. It’s time for Congress to listen to the will of a majority of Americans and pass sensible legislation to get these weapons of war off our streets. #NeverAgain #MSDStrong,” Deutch tweeted.

The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Essentially, this bill would try to repeal the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. It will also require the confiscation of numerous weapons that have been available to the public for more than century, including John Browning’s classic 1911 pistol, which he invented in 1911 for the government but has been a best seller since.

The comments by Democrat Cicilline above also shows his complete hatred and ignorance of weapons. That they are now including pistols in their fake term of “assault weapons” illustrates this clearly.

Note too that the Democrats have previously introduced legislation that would have nullified the first amendment, as well as protested the protections included in the fifth amendment. That’s three out of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights that they don’t like. That’s the Bill of Rights, designed to protect ordinary citizens from tyranny and oppression and which is the fundamental hallmark of the American experiment in self-government.

Let me repeat this: The Democratic Party has now officially placed itself in opposition to one third of the Bill of Rights.

How can anyone by now doubt the fascist nature of the Democratic Party and its supporters?

34 comments

House panel approves concealed carry reciprocity for all 50 states

12:53 pm

The House Judiciary committee yesterday approved a nationwide law that would require states to recognize the legality of concealed carry licenses from other states.

The legislation allows firearm owners with a concealed carry permit issued by their home state to carry the firearm into any other state (all allow some form of concealed carry, although many are highly restrictive). The gun owners wouldn’t have to reveal they are carrying a weapon, though the bill does require they be eligible to possess a firearm under federal law (which requires a background check), carry a valid photo identification and a concealed carry permit. Gun owners from states that don’t require a concealed carry permit will need to obtain some credential from their home state to take advantage of the new law’s provisions. What form that would take isn’t specified in the House bill.

The bill still has to pass both the House and the Senate. A similar bill in the Senate already has 38 co-sponsors.

The article is typical for the modern mainstream press. It spends a lot of time getting quotes from numerous anti-gun groups and Democratic politicians, but never highlights the numerous examples in recent years where entirely innocent individuals have had their lives ruined because they entered places like New Jersey, DC, and New York with a gun that was totally legal in their home states.

20 comments

Another critical look at new Republican gun control bill

10:17 pm

The video below the fold outlines in detail, from a gun expert, why the law gun control law proposed by Republicans is “the worst piece of gun control legislation … in our lifetime,” as noted by the narrator on the second video at this link.

Basically, the law is so vague that almost anything can be defined as the newly outlawed “rate-enhancing device,” including semi-automatic guns themselves. The gun expert also explains that there are numerous ways to enhance the fire rate of a semi-automatic, some as simple as using the belt loop on your pants. Worse, the law includes no grandfather provisions, so depending on how Washington bureaucrats interpret it, it could immediately make millions of Americans felons, merely for possessing something they purchased legally.

This what we get from our Republicans in Congress. A few weeks ago they were pushing for eliminating the restrictions on suppressors (to protect the hearing of hunters) and passing nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry laws (so that innocent gun carriers would no longer become felons merely for carrying their guns accidently over state lines). Like a house of cards, as soon as the press screams at them, however, the Republican leadership folded, abandoning those proposals (when this is the time they should push them) and changed sides, instead proposing laws that will restrict our freedoms and our constitutional rights.

Watch the video below. It makes it very clear how badly conceived the law is. If you are in any of the districts of the Republicans who have co-signed this bill, get on the phone and tell them what you think.

One more thing: If the Democrats in Congress think this new push for gun control is going to help them win votes, they are out of their minds. Watch the passion of the speaker in the video below. Note his contempt for Democrats. Note also his contempt for the “turncoat” Republicans (as he calls them) for proposing this bad legislation. He is not alone. The election of Donald Trump and Roy Moore prove this. With this legislation that rage and anger is only growing, and spreading to more people.

As many have said, you want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump.
» Read more

4 comments

Language of bump stock ban could ban all semi-auto rifiles

9:06 am

We’re here to help you! The vague language of the Republican legislation to ban bump stocks actually could be interpreted by the courts as banning all semi-automatic rifles.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

I am reminded of the old saying, “Marry in haste, regret in leisure.” This rush to pass any legislation here is misguided, foolish, and against the interests of everyone. It also once again demonstrates the servile stupidity of many Republicans in Congress, who seems always willing to bow to political pressure placed on them by the leftist press.

27 comments
1 2 3 … 6