Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 02, 2017, 05:11:55 PM
-
Never let a tragedy stop you from furthering a political agenda.
Facts Be Damned: Journalists Lobby for Gun Control After Shooting
By Chris Reeves | October 2, 2017
On Monday’s daily White House briefing, journalists went into overdrive, pushing for Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders to talk about gun control and what President Trump was planning on doing policy-wise after Sunday's mass shooting in Las Vegas.
As soon as Huckabee-Sanders finished with an emotional statement commenting on the shooting, reporters immediately jumped in with questions about what the President’s thoughts were on gun control:
JEFF MASON [REUTERS]: Sarah, many times when these horrible massacres occur, it leads to questions about gun control. Has this particular massacre made the president think anything more about pursuing tighter gun laws such as background checks to prevent the massacres like this from happening again?
(...)
JEFF ZELENY [CNN]: To follow on that Sarah though, do you believe that, or does the President believe that this is a moment that this is a time when this should not be a political discussion, it should be a policy discussion? Does he believe that he could bring something new to the gun debate that has been, you know, uh, I guess a locked-in typical politics for so many years?
(...)
ZELENY: But before, if I could follow up, before he was elected President, in some fifteen or sixteen years ago, he did have a different view on guns than he had during the campaign. Does he believe that this is something that he could lead a bipartisan effort on at some point? At what point would that be appropriate?
Later during the briefing, two particularly obnoxious questions came from Hallie Jackson of NBC News and Steven Portnoy of CBS News Radio that expressly pushed Democrat Party talking points from Senator Chris Murphy and Hillary Clinton:
See below for a full transcript of the list of questions from today’s briefing:
2:13 PM EST
MAJOR GARRETT [CBS]: Can you tell us a little bit about how the President first learned about it and your engagement with him, his own personal reaction to the events of today? And he also said in the Oval [Office] he might spend more than a day in Las Vegas, was he referring to a couple of days there?
(...)
GARRETT: Have you had a chance to talk to him about his own, how he dealt with this?
(...)
JEFF MASON [REUTERS]: Sarah, many times when these horrible massacres occur, it leads to questions about gun control. Has this particular massacre made the president think anything more about pursuing tighter gun laws such as background checks to prevent the massacres like this from happening again?
(...)
JEFF ZELENY [CNN]: To follow on that Sarah though, do you believe that, or does the President believe that this is a moment that this is a time when this should not be a political discussion, it should be a policy discussion? Does he believe that he could bring something new to the gun debate that has been, you know, uh, I guess a locked-in typical politics for so many years?
(...)
ZELENY: But before, if I could follow up, before he was elected President, in some fifteen or sixteen years ago, he did have a different view on guns than he had during the campaign. Does he believe that this is something that he could lead a bipartisan effort on at some point? At what point would that be appropriate?
(...)
MATTHEW NUSSBAUM [POLITICO]: Thanks, Sarah. On Puerto Rico, can you tell us a little bit about the president's aims for his visit tomorrow? And do you expect any tension given some of his comments over the weekend?
(...)
NUSSBAUM: From some of his comments over the weekend like the folks down there wanted everything done for them, do you expect that to come up in any of these conversations?
(...)
CECILIA VEGA [ABC]: Let me just pick up on that. Who exactly wants everything done? You said “they?”
(...)
VEGA: And then just back up to today’s tragedy really quickly if I may, does the president believe that what happened amounts to an act of domestic terrorism?
(...)
JOHN ROBERTS [FOX NEWS]: Over the weekend, this was pointed out, the President was very sharply critical of Carmen Yulín Cruz, who’s the mayor of San Juan. Other than her comments on Friday morning, in which she criticized Elaine Duke for saying this was a good news story in terms of DHS getting supplies out to areas that were needed, what was she was doing that prompted such criticism from the President?
(...)
ASHLEY PARKER [THE WASHINGTON POST]: Has Tom Price reimbursed the government yet for his seat on those flights and if not, is there a specific deadline when you and the President expect him to do so by?
(...)
JORDAN FABIAN [THE HILL]: Thank you Sarah. Given what the President said about Secretary of State Tillerson's outreach to North Korea over the weekend, does the President still have confidence in him as Secretary of State?
HUCKABEE-SANDERS: He does.
FABIAN: Has he spoken to him since those, since he sent out those tweets?
(...)
JON DECKER [FOX NEWS RADIO]: Thanks a lot Sarah. It's a very sad day in this country as you mentioned at the top and as the President said in his remarks. He said that when he goes out to Las Vegas, he's going to meet with first responders and in addition to that families of the victims that were impacted by this. What's the message to each of those groups when he goes out there?
(...)
JESSICA STONE [CGTN]: Sarah, thank you. And following up on the tweets about the [inaudible] over the weekend, the President tweeted: “Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done!” So is it the stated position of the White House that you're trying to get back to talks or have you given up?
(...)
STONE: The Secretary of State talked about those three [inaudible] lines of communication with Pyongyang, that’s what you’re primarily using it for? You’re not using it to try to get, measure what their plans are?
(...)
HALLIE JACKSON [NBC NEWS]: Sarah, can I follow on that? I also wanna ask you about today, but does the President believe diplomacy then is not worth pursuing in North Korea?
(...)
JACKSON: And then asking about today as well, you talked about how now is not the time to get into a gun control debate or to talk about policy. After the Orlando shooting, the President that day was out on Twitter talking about policy. He was talking about his travel ban. So, when, for example, Senator Chris Murphy says it's time for Congress to get off its ass and do something, does the President agree?
(...)
JACKSON: So what should they do in the President’s mind?
(...)
JACKSON: So related to gun control, “What would the President like to see Congress do?” is the question I wanna get out.
(...)
JACKSON: Can you explain how that’s different for Orlando though Sarah, when at that day, he was talking about the travel ban, saying he didn’t want congratulations, essentially? Why is what’s happened...
(...)
STEVEN PORTNOY [CBS NEWS RADIO]:Thanks, Sarah. I do want to ask you because before last night's massacre, a bill was advancing through the House, Republicans cleared it through the House Committee on natural resources that would, among other things, make it easier for people to buy silencers. Hillary Clinton tweeted about it this morning, she said that “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.” Does the White House have a position on this particular piece of legislation?
(...)
LOUISE RADNOFSKY [WSJ]: Sarah, are there any policy prescriptions that the President considers to be out of bounds on the policy debate that will happen in the next few weeks. Could you articulate a little bit what his position on gun control is?
(...)
FRED LUCAS [THE DAILY SIGNAL]: Just wanted to ask about the reso-, bill, the Congress McCain-Lee Act, which would give a permanent exemption to Puerto Rico from the Jones Act. Would the administration consider either a permanent repeal of the Jones Act or at least an exemption from it for Puerto Rico at some point?
(...)
LUCAS: Okay. Also, on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, there have been some attacks among Senators, some in the media, on her religious beliefs. Does the White House have some concerns about that?
(...)
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/chris-reeves/2017/10/02/facts-be-damned-journalists-lobby-gun-control-after-shooting
-
Tomi Lahren: Las Vegas Victims Were Americans, Not Democrats or Republicans
In her newest Final Thoughts commentary, Tomi Lahren reacts to the Las Vegas massacre...
Las Vegas, I have no words to describe how heartbroken I am. Las Vegas was my college town, it was my home for four years. My heart breaks for you, for the city, for what you’re going through.
The deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history with the death toll rising by the hour. It’s times like these and tragedies like this that put it all in perspective. Those innocent people at that concert weren’t Democrats or Republicans, they were Americans. It’s sick and sad some can’t see it that way. Like the now former CBS vice president and senior counsel who took to Facebook to say quote: I’m actually not even sympathetic because country music fans often are Republican gun toters."
Listen here Hayley Geftman-Gold, it’s those Republican gun-toters who would risk their lives to protect you in any active shooter situation and it’s very sad you’re too ignorant and hateful to see it that way. You make me sick but you’re not the only one.
Last year’s failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wasted zero time before she made this tragedy into an anti-gun political talking point. First of all Hillary, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Second, how dare you. You’re going to blame this senseless shooting on the NRA and law-abiding gun owners, really? For what? To advance your own agenda and political aspirations? Do some soul-searching and learn about firearms before you open your mouth.
The notion that a crazed, heartless monster willing and excited to slaughter thousands of innocent concert-goers from the 32nd floor of a hotel would somehow be stopped by more gun control is liberal logic at its most tone deaf.
And need I remind you, when shots rang out it wasn't the kneelers, it wasn't protesters, it wasn't Hollywood liberals who ran into danger to serve and protect, it was our police officers who held the line as they always do. When chaos and violence erupt, police officers and first responders don’t care what color you are, who you voted for, or even how you feel about them. They are the first ones in, the last ones out and sadly, some never return home to their loved ones. Amidst all the speculation, all the motive-seeking, all the politics, one thing is certain, our police officers and first responders are heroes among us and Las Vegas is blessed with some of the finest.
Las Vegas, we are with you. From L.A., God bless and take care.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/02/tomi-lahrens-final-thoughts-las-vegas-victims-were-americans-not-democrats-or-republicans
-
No amount of gun control will stop criminals from getting guns and making the unarmed into victims.
-
right on cue
we can never talk about gun control when a mass shooting has happened
just totally inappropriate
same goes for almost any topic
If there is a bad fire it's not the time to talk about fire codes
If a building falls down during an earthquake that is absolutely not the time to talk about building codes
If someone dies from diabetes that is definitely not the time to talk about the shitting eating habits in this country
This country is full of very sensitive snowflakes (especially on the right) and they need to be a safe space before confronting their mind with these confusing topics
There really is almost no right time. Maybe one day a month, in the dead of winter at 2am.
That might be the right time
-
right on cue
we can never talk about gun control when a mass shooting has happened
just totally inappropriate
same goes for almost any topic
If there is a bad fire it's not the time to talk about fire codes
If a building falls down during an earthquake that is absolutely not the time to talk about building codes
If someone dies from diabetes that is definitely not the time to talk about the shitting eating habits in this country
This country is full of very sensitive snowflakes (especially on the right) and they need to be a safe space before confronting their mind with these confusing topics
There really is almost no right time. Maybe one day a month, in the dead of winter at 2am.
That might be the right time
What's to talk about? Gun deaths are a miniscule amount of deaths per year in the US, there are far more deadly issues to discuss.
-
What's to talk about? Gun deaths are a miniscule amount of deaths per year in the US, there are far more deadly issues to discuss.
I'm for loosening gun laws or getting rid of all restrctions
We have millions of guns floating around this country and we'll never get rid of them
Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube on this
Everyone really needs to be armed at all times (not joking)
You never know when someone is going start shooting up a theater, shopping mall or shooting out the window from a high rise
-
I'm for loosening gun laws or getting rid of all restrctions
We have millions of guns floating around this country and we'll never get rid of them
Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube on this
Everyone really needs to be armed at all times (not joking)
You never know when someone is going start shooting up a theater, shopping mall or shooting out the window from a high rise
Damn straight
-
I'm for loosening gun laws or getting rid of all restrctions
We have millions of guns floating around this country and we'll never get rid of them
Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube on this
Everyone really needs to be armed at all times (not joking)
You never know when someone is going start shooting up a theater, shopping mall or shooting out the window from a high rise
Damn straight
-
I'm for loosening gun laws or getting rid of all restrctions
We have millions of guns floating around this country and we'll never get rid of them
Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube on this
Everyone really needs to be armed at all times (not joking)
You never know when someone is going start shooting up a theater, shopping mall or shooting out the window from a high rise
Meh.
-
Meh.
you disagree?
-
yes.. there are no mass tragedies in other countries where owning a gun is impossible....
no trucks, no knives, bombs are used to cause mass casualties......
just guns right??
-
No amount of gun control will stop criminals from getting guns and making the unarmed into victims.
Yes.
It’s a simple if uncomfortable moral calculus: Annually there are perhaps a few dozen killed and wounded in so-called mass-attack shootings (in addition to 12-15,000 gun-related homicides); but there are hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of annual instances of people using guns for defensive purposes. Instances in which people merely brandished their weapons to thwart an attack, robbery, or killing – no shots fired. These instances are not widely reported.
Like speed limits, tax laws, and restraining orders, gun laws are only as good as the citizens who obey them.
If you could wave a magic wand and confiscate all firearms, only law-abiding citizens would lose their weapons, and rape, murder, and assault rates would skyrocket.
“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them.”
-
President Trump: ‘We’ll Be Talking About Gun Laws’
breitbart ^ | AWR HAWKINS
Posted on 10/3/2017, 11:02:05 AM by davikkm
President Trump reacted to the Las Vegas attack by saying, “We’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by.” According to the Washington Times, Trump praised the police response to the attack, saying on Tuesday the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police did an “incredible job.” He added, “How quickly the police department was able to get in was really very much of a miracle. They’ve done an amazing job.”
But after praising the police, Trump made clear a discussion on gun laws is coming:
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/915202597144989697
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
No amount of gun control will stop criminals from getting guns and making the unarmed into victims.
Truth.
-
Yes.
It’s a simple if uncomfortable moral calculus: Annually there are perhaps a few dozen killed and wounded in so-called mass-attack shootings (in addition to 12-15,000 gun-related homicides); but there are hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of annual instances of people using guns for defensive purposes. Instances in which people merely brandished their weapons to thwart an attack, robbery, or killing – no shots fired. These instances are not widely reported.
Like speed limits, tax laws, and restraining orders, gun laws are only as good as the citizens who obey them.
If you could wave a magic wand and confiscate all firearms, only law-abiding citizens would lose their weapons, and rape, murder, and assault rates would skyrocket.
“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them.”
Good point. Would be interesting of someone tracked the actual numbers of lives saved because of gun ownership.
-
Incensed Sean Hannity Says Talking Gun Control After Las Vegas Is ‘Shameful’
The Fox News host said it was “despicable” to “politicize” the mass shooting with talks of gun control.
By Rebecca Shapiro
10/03/2017
Sean Hannity responded to the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history by lambasting Democrats and members of the media who are calling for tougher gun control laws.
The Fox News host accused gun control advocates of “politicizing the tragedy in an absolutely despicable display.” He said such discussions in the wake of the mass shooting, which left nearly 60 people dead and 500 injured at a country music festival in Las Vegas, were “so shameful,” “exploitative” and “pathetic.”
“Bodies weren’t even in the morgue yet,” Hannity said. “Parents were in hospitals with their kids who are hanging on to life. None of this mattered to the left in this country.”
The shooter, identified by police as 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, opened fire on 22,000 festival attendees from a 32nd-floor hotel room around 10 p.m. on Sunday night. The attack occurred during the final set of the three-day country music Route 91 Harvest Festival.
Initial reports indicate Paddock had more than 20 guns in his room at the Mandalay Bay Hotel, including AR-15-style and AK-47-style rifles. A law enforcement official quoted by the New York Times said two rifles with scopes on tripods were found positioned in front of the broken windows in Paddock’s room.
Like in many states in the U.S., Nevada’s lax gun laws allow residents to openly carry long guns, and no permit is required for such a display. It’s also legal to own a fully automatic firearm in the state.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-las-vegas-shooting-gun-control-shameful_us_59d2fd64e4b065578154f214?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
-
you disagree?
A little, yes.
-
By Leah Libresco October 3 at 3:02 PM
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
After a shooting in Las Vegas left at least 58 people dead and injured hundreds, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Oct. 2 said Congress’s failure to pass gun-control legislation amounts to an “unintentional endorsement” of mass shootings. (U.S. Senate)
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
Play Video 1:54
Was the Las Vegas shooting the worst in U.S. history? It depends.
While the attack on the Las Vegas strip is the deadliest in modern American history, attacks in the 19th and 20th centuries had higher death tolls. Here are two deadly events in American history that you may not have heard about. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.22553478328e
-
The US doesn't have a gun problem... it has a black and mexican problem...
Goverment Supplied STATS:
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/the-one-gun-violence-statistic-that-no-one-wants-to-talk-about/
(https://s1.postimg.org/3ln30asqkv/chart.jpg)
-
I own a few guns, always have probably always will. But I don't agree with the position "There's nothing we can do, so lets do nothing"
I agree automatic weapons, machine guns shouldn't be available to the average joe. But allowing dealers to sell add ons that make a semi auto an auto to me is just plain stupid.
I don't think there is a very good reason for owning AK 47's and similar rifles, nor do I like hi capacity magazines being available. Sure, its cool to drink a beer and blow through a couple hundred rounds in a minute with your buddies every once in awhile, but the potential for them to be used against humans is not worth it.
I don't know that banning them now would matter, as the horse has left the barn. But certainly there should be dialogue about not making work arounds to the machine gun ban readily available.
-
Incensed Sean Hannity Says Talking Gun Control After Las Vegas Is ‘Shameful’
Hannity makes a fair point
whenever there is a terrorist attack that it's shameful at that time to talk about preventing another attack
same goes for plane crashes...not the time to talk about plane safety
it's just shameful at that time
at some other unspecified time in the future it might be ok
no promises
-
Hannity makes a fair point
whenever there is a terrorist attack that it's shameful at that time to talk about preventing another attack
same goes for plane crashes...not the time to talk about plane safety
it's just shameful at that time
at some other unspecified time in the future it might be ok
no promises
Within minutes of anything involving a Muslim, Trump is on tweeter calling for stricter bans... hmmm I wonder if Hannity called him out?
-
Within minutes of anything involving a Muslim, Trump is on tweeter calling for stricter bans... hmmm I wonder if Hannity called him out?
pointing out that fact is just shameful
now is not the time
-
pointing out that fact is just shameful
now is not the time
My bad
-
(https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1428/11/1428118492925.gif)
-
No amount of gun control will stop criminals from getting guns and making the unarmed into victims.
liberal politicians already know this but since the ultimate goal is gun confiscation, they know their followers (such as the ones on here) are stupid and will believe anything they're told.
-
For me, it's not a question of if add ons that convert semi autos to autos that circumvents the law should be banned, its why they haven't been banned already. That makes no sense
-
Within minutes of anything involving a Muslim, Trump is on tweeter calling for stricter bans... hmmm I wonder if Hannity called him out?
Examples?
-
Damn straight
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=637353.0;attach=746040;image
That is just delightful. I give it my full endorsement.
-
Examples?
https://www.inquisitr.com/4499361/london-terror-attack-donald-trump-wants-to-ban-the-internet-to-stop-terrorism/
-
Examples?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336246-trump-tweets-renewed-push-for-travel-ban-after-london-bridge-incident
-
Examples?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/politics/trump-clinton-sanders-shooting-reaction.html
Donald Trump Seizes On Orlando Shooting And Repeats Call For Temporary Ban On Muslim Migration.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/story/donald-trump-seizes-orlando-shooting-and-repeats-call-temporary-ban-muslim-migration
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336246-trump-tweets-renewed-push-for-travel-ban-after-london-bridge-incident
https://www.inquisitr.com/4499361/london-terror-attack-donald-trump-wants-to-ban-the-internet-to-stop-terrorism/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/politics/trump-clinton-sanders-shooting-reaction.html
Donald Trump Seizes On Orlando Shooting And Repeats Call For Temporary Ban On Muslim Migration.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/story/donald-trump-seizes-orlando-shooting-and-repeats-call-temporary-ban-muslim-migration
LOL
weird that a well informed guy like Bum would have no knowledge or memory of this
-
https://www.inquisitr.com/4499361/london-terror-attack-donald-trump-wants-to-ban-the-internet-to-stop-terrorism/
You disagree with his comments:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner.The internet is their main recruitment tool which we must cut off & use better!
12:48 AM - Sep 15, 2017
27,035 27,035 Replies 21,440 21,440 Retweets 98,139 98,139 likes
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336246-trump-tweets-renewed-push-for-travel-ban-after-london-bridge-incident
You disagree with this?
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!
1:17 PM - Jun 3, 2017
55,068 55,068 Replies 53,299 53,299 Retweets 177,374 177,374 likes
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/politics/trump-clinton-sanders-shooting-reaction.html
Donald Trump Seizes On Orlando Shooting And Repeats Call For Temporary Ban On Muslim Migration.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/story/donald-trump-seizes-orlando-shooting-and-repeats-call-temporary-ban-muslim-migration
Links from June 2016. And you're posting these why?
-
Links from June 2016. And you're posting these why?
LOL - classic Bum
Now he pretends not to understand the argument
-
😂😂😂😂
https://www.facebook.com/mbest11x/videos/1143139289163070/
-
Links from June 2016. And you're posting these why?
Coach is that you?
-
Coach is that you?
::)
-
Bad news, any guns I may have own were recently lost in a boating accident. :'(
-
Bad news, any guns I may have own were recently lost in a boating accident. :'(
Some people might say that if you think it's time to hide them......it's time to use them.
-
(https://i.redditmedia.com/St6nPG6sUI77LNGYY7ty0dw3z9IZf01E5NQ5PJC74L4.jpg?w=500&s=29d504263188bcf4e66682ffa24b59c5)
-
What a pussy.
Phoenix man turns in his guns in wake of Vegas massacre
(http://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/StupidisasStupidDoes-600x400.jpg)
http://www.azfamily.com/story/36524940/phoenix-man-turns-in-his-guns-in-wake-of-vegas-massacre
This was his "machine gun" (according to him):
(http://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Image-139-600x360.jpg)
The best part is that he ended up having to hire armed security for his protection...
https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.pring.9/posts/10159432815150720
-
Holy shit, what a phaggot. he he he. Babe Ruth over here thinks he'll be able to stop a home invasion with a baseball bat. Good luck with that.
Eat shit you virtue signaling pansy. You belong in the UK.
-
Great opening, good show
-
What a pussy.
Phoenix man turns in his guns in wake of Vegas massacre
(http://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/StupidisasStupidDoes-600x400.jpg)
http://www.azfamily.com/story/36524940/phoenix-man-turns-in-his-guns-in-wake-of-vegas-massacre
This was his "machine gun" (according to him):
(http://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Image-139-600x360.jpg)
The best part is that he ended up having to hire armed security for his protection...
https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.pring.9/posts/10159432815150720
I feel safer already.
-
(http://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s320x320/sh0.08/e35/12080674_480705512107745_1582087371_n.jpg)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLe5TPbUIAA_0BD.jpg)
-
Never give them up, they are the only real power you hold. The ability to take life at the press of a trigger, to put an end to any issue in your sight picture. That is the gun and it's importance to the USA. Countries that gave them up are long lost, to the degree that they do not even know there is something wrong with their society and govt. Unsurprisingly those same countries are the ones gleefully commenting on the state of American politics with their false sense of superiority, when it is in fact the USA that enables their supposed freedom in the first place and protects them via the threat of our massive military.
-
Never give them up, they are the only real power you hold. The ability to take life at the press of a trigger, to put an end to any issue in your sight picture. That is the gun and it's importance to the USA. Countries that gave them up are long lost, to the degree that they do not even know there is something wrong with their society and govt. Unsurprisingly those same countries are the ones gleefully commenting on the state of American politics with their false sense of superiority, when it is in fact the USA that enables their supposed freedom in the first place and protects them via the threat of our massive military.
Troll
-
(https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22281732_2014971045389819_7738187412707398564_n.jpg?oh=a5b77ef789d02d85ac388853029571d1&oe=5A74CDB9)
-
(https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22281732_2014971045389819_7738187412707398564_n.jpg?oh=a5b77ef789d02d85ac388853029571d1&oe=5A74CDB9)
or be lectured about gun control by the same idiots who thought Obamacare would work. Bunch of abject morons all of them.
-
or be lectured about gun control by the same idiots who thought Obamacare would work. Bunch of abject morons all of them.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like you plan you can keep your plan" Derp!
-
This is not about gun control, it never has been. It's about controlling the population. Now why would the framers make it possible for the government to take away your right to bear arms when the main reasons for the 2nd amendment is the for the people to overthrow a tyrannical government?
-
This is not about gun control, it never has been. It's about controlling the population. Now why would the framers make it possible for the government to take away your right to bear arms when the main reasons for the 2nd amendment is the for the people to overthrow a tyrannical government?
According to Democrats the 2nd amendment is about hunting. They are either retards or liars. Probably both.
-
This is not about gun control, it never has been. It's about controlling the population. Now why would the framers make it possible for the government to take away your right to bear arms when the main reasons for the 2nd amendment is the for the people to overthrow a tyrannical government?
I'll let you in on a little secret. Promise not to tell... It is about reducing the access to long rifles that are designed mainly to kill humans, like the AR-15 and AK-47 and high capacity round magazines. It's also about making it harder for psycho's to obtain them. But you didn't hear this from me...
-
I'll let you in on a little secret. Promise not to tell... It is about reducing the access to long rifles that are designed mainly to kill humans, like the AR-15 and AK-47 and high capacity round magazines. It's also about making it harder for psycho's to obtain them. But you didn't hear this from me...
Perhaps if they weren't such psychos themselves, we'd have something there.
-
I'll let you in on a little secret. Promise not to tell... It is about reducing the access to long rifles that are designed mainly to kill humans, like the AR-15 and AK-47 and high capacity round magazines. It's also about making it harder for psycho's to obtain them. But you didn't hear this from me...
Guess what? .Gov doesn't get to make that determination, what good is it for the population to be restricted, when a standing military run by said government isn't restricted? Strange but if you actually read the constitution I believe the 2nd is the only one that specifically states "shall not be infringed". Where is the outrage over pressure cookers, or fertilizer?
-
And of course it's the potential of the gun which gives it the power to actually stop violence before it happens. That's what it's all about. But we can't use that info since nothing very exciting happens compared to blood and guts, meaning it's quickly forgotten or unknown by everyone but the guy who may have saved himself.
Who the hell am I to tell the guy he shouldn't have a gun?
-
"No amount of statistics or facts will sway either side in the gun control debate, because they are all looking for simple solutions to complex problems. The facts of those complex problems are uncomfortable and nobody really wants to come to grips with them.
"For example, we don’t really have a single America with a moderately high rate of gun deaths. Instead, we have two Americas, one of which has very high rates of gun ownership but very low murder rates, very comparable to the rest of the First World democracies such as those in western & northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, South Korea. The other America has much lower rates of gun ownership but much, much higher murder rates, akin to violent third world countries.
"The tough questions are those like, why do we have these two Americas? But that’s an uncomfortable discussion to have. So instead those on the left favor simple minded restrictions that target first world America, with its high gun ownership but very low murder rate, but don’t address the root causes of third world America’s violence at all. Meanwhile those on the right correctly feel their civil rights are constantly threatened, so they are constantly in a state of “better stock up before they finally ban it” and the guns and ammo fly off the shelves. The left’s constant gun control rhetoric is the greatest thing ever for arms manufacturers.
"Meanwhile, over the past 40 years, while the number of guns in private hands has doubled, the murder rate has dropped by half. The left are constantly prattling about “assault weapons” which are almost never used to commit murders (about 1% of gun murders; all rifles combined are around 3%). More murders are committed with baseball bats than “assault rifles”; the vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns, but it’s easier to sell restrictions that target “assault weapons”, even though such restrictions, even if 100% effective, would make no detectable change in the murder rate (especially because of substitution effects). They favor ridiculous measures such as bans on “high capacity magazines”, as if magazines weren’t cheap and easily swapped out in a fraction of a second.
"The uncomfortable fact is that roughly 80% of the US homicide rate is associated with the drug trade, and the drug trade is violent because the drug war reserves it for violent criminals. We have a system in place where the government subsidizes poverty in urban areas, imposes economic blight in those same areas through heavy taxes and regulations, renders the residents permanently unemployable via the “criminal justice” (sic) system, and creates a lucrative black market in drugs by restricting supply (not to mention increasing demand as people are desperate to escape their circumstances by getting high), meaning the only game in town is often entering the drug trade. The drug trade is violent because those in it have no access to courts to settle disputes. Powerful industries lobby to keep the drug war going; the top spenders are law enforcement unions, the prison industry, big alcohol, tobacco, and pharma.
"Guns are not the proximate cause of gun violence in the US. Childlike magical thinking and simple “fixes” to complex problems will not work. But it is comfortable, and self-righteousness feels so good. So I expect it to continue indefinitely."
http://bretigne.typepad.com/on_the_banks/2017/10/michael-owen-nails-the-gun-debate.html
-
Wish he'd chosen less divisive words than the worn-out "left" and "right" bullshit, but damn what a great article.
AND
Meanwhile, over the past 40 years, while the number of guns in private hands has doubled, the murder rate has dropped by half.
Had a gun grab occured 40 years ago, say, through some momentary lapse of reason... who'd say that halved rate would be paraded around today as "evidence" of something it really isn't?
-
I'll let you in on a little secret. Promise not to tell... It is about reducing the access to long rifles that are designed mainly to kill humans, like the AR-15 and AK-47 and high capacity round magazines. It's also about making it harder for psycho's to obtain them. But you didn't hear this from me...
Liar.
-
Liar.
swear to god
-
-
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22406146_1498687006880294_4651078425164099211_n.jpg?oh=7522ca62581e99c0282e37d048f0b5b4&oe=5A77BC92)
-
We should ban guns. That way the psychos will have to go the European route and bomb us and mow us down with large trucks.
-
We should ban guns. That way the psychos will have to go the European route and bomb us and mow is down with large trucks.
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308648_1505747942807411_65222572556927970_n.jpg?oh=58559176f9e2587e0691814f52b9a646&oe=5A79FF7D)
-
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308648_1505747942807411_65222572556927970_n.jpg?oh=58559176f9e2587e0691814f52b9a646&oe=5A79FF7D)
He said it was really, really hard, not impossible... :)
-
Why is it really, really hard? Seems to be all the rage in Europe now. And why would a care what some limey twat has to say?
-
Must not be that hard. Dude killed 87 with a truck. Las Vegas douchebag only got 58.
-
-
"Ban guns!"
"You don't need a gun!"
"Protect kids, not guns!"
Well, in this case a woman was able to protect her kids because she had a gun and used it. Good for her.
Texas mom shoots man trying to take car with her kids inside at gas station: 'I hope that woke him up'
A Texas mother said she didn’t think twice about shooting a would-be carjacker when the man jumped into her vehicle at a Dallas gas station while her two sons were in the backseat.
Michelle Booker-Hicks was at the Shell station along Interstate 35 around 10 p.m. Wednesday when Ricky Wright, 36, attempted to steal her vehicle while she was paying her gas bill, police said. Booker-Hicks told FOX4 Dallas her two sons, ages 2 and 4, were sitting in the backseat at the time.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/05/texas-mom-shoots-man-trying-to-take-car-with-her-kids-inside-at-gas-station-hope-that-woke-him-up.html
-
I would love to see some lib come onto my private property and get my guns.
ROTFLMAO! ::)
I dream about that scenario a couple of times a week.
-
Liberal 9th circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling
The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.
The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.
It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/24/liberal-9th-circuit-backs-right-to-carry-firearms-in-public-in-latest-pro-2nd-amendment-ruling.html
-
Liberal 9th circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling
The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.
The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.
It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/24/liberal-9th-circuit-backs-right-to-carry-firearms-in-public-in-latest-pro-2nd-amendment-ruling.html
:o
-
Blueprints have been online for years. This is just political bullshit. Codeisfreespeech.
-
on whose behalf?
Anti gunners.
-
I don't, but maybe you do, understand how a confusing text from MrTrump can be seen as anti gunners political bullshit
You only quoted the one part of my post which was a general reply to the political reaction to shitty, plastic printed guns that have been online for years, not a direct reply to whatever Trump tweeted.
-
(http://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Armedsecurity-757x513.jpg)
(http://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Hoggsecurity.jpg)
-
Typical liberal hypocrite.
-
Not surprising.
-
This woman is a former sheriff and Texas’ Democratic nominee for governor...
Gun Issued To Former Dallas County Sheriff Running For Governor Missing
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/08/13/pistol-former-dallas-county-sheriff-gubernatorial-candidate-missing/
Meanwhile, this is what she says about Gun Control:
I have carried a gun for most of my life - first in the military and then in law enforcement - and I strongly believe in the Second Amendment. But if someone cannot handle their disagreements with means other than violence, they should not be allowed to have a weapon. It’s just common sense - so why not put some common sense measures in place in our state?
-
I'm looking forward to when this twat is an adult and we are allowed to question him and hold him accountable for his words and actions.
-
Cold dead hands!!!!!
-
This woman is a former sheriff and Texas’ Democratic nominee for governor...
Gun Issued To Former Dallas County Sheriff Running For Governor Missing
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/08/13/pistol-former-dallas-county-sheriff-gubernatorial-candidate-missing/
Meanwhile, this is what she says about Gun Control:
I have carried a gun for most of my life - first in the military and then in law enforcement - and I strongly believe in the Second Amendment. But if someone cannot handle their disagreements with means other than violence, they should not be allowed to have a weapon. It’s just common sense - so why not put some common sense measures in place in our state?
They voted this lesbian named Lupe Valdez to be their sheriff, lol.
(https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/07/29/4014349b-b3a2-42e2-8781-870456686052/thumbnail/1200x630/a3e19289ed2f379fc29f5574ddb8cf34/cbsn0728lupevaldez1099620640x360.jpg)
-
They voted this lesbian named Lupe Valdez to be their sheriff, lol.
(https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/07/29/4014349b-b3a2-42e2-8781-870456686052/thumbnail/1200x630/a3e19289ed2f379fc29f5574ddb8cf34/cbsn0728lupevaldez1099620640x360.jpg)
what part of her quote do you find appalling?
-
what part of her quote do you find appalling?
How’s this for common sense. Someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, standing over my kid, I catch him (or her) and I rightfully blow them away no questions asked. I disagreed that they broke into my house. This women is a dolt.
-
How’s this for common sense. Someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, standing over my kid, I catch him (or her) and I rightfully blow them away no questions asked. I disagreed that they broke into my house. This women is a dolt.
"I have carried a gun for most of my life - first in the military and then in law enforcement - and I strongly believe in the Second Amendment. But if someone cannot handle their disagreements with means other than violence, they should not be allowed to have a weapon. It’s just common sense - so why not put some common sense measures in place in our state?"
And in your wisdom, you think she was talking about shooting an intruder and not the parking lot Clearwater Florida situation or a beef over being cut off in traffic? Really??
-
what part of her quote do you find appalling?
Yeah, I'm sure she's a great cop and a briliant political mind.
She looks borderline retarded. Fat, weak and stupid........as evidenced but her losing her fucking firearm.
-
Judge strikes down 'highly paternalistic' California law banning handgun ads, slams state's 'distrust' of gun buyers
A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama on Tuesday struck down a 95-year-old California law that had banned handgun ads at gun shops, calling it "unconstitutional on its face" and slamming the state for its "paternalistic" assumption that its residents can't make up their own minds about firearms.
Officials in California had claimed the advertisements would trigger people with “impulsive personality traits” to buy more handguns, leading to increased suicides and crime -- assertions that U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley in Sacramento all but mocked in his ruling.
"The Government may not restrict speech that persuades adults, who are neither criminals nor suffer from mental illness, from purchasing a legal and constitutionally protected product, merely because it distrusts their personality trait and the decisions that personality trait may lead them to make later down the road," Nunley said in the decision, which was made public Tuesday.
"Moreover, in the effort to restrict impulsive individuals from purchasing handguns, the Government has restricted speech to all adults, irrespective of whether they have this personality trait," Nunley added, saying the law was overinclusive.
The 1923 law provided that "No handgun or imitation handgun, or placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof, shall be displayed in any part of [a gun store] where it can readily be seen from the outside."
"[T]he Supreme Court has rejected this highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech, holding that the Government may not 'achieve its policy objectives through the indirect means of restraining certain speech by certain speakers,'" Nunley wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/12/judge-strikes-down-highly-paternalistic-california-law-banning-handgun-ads-slams-states-distrust-gun-buyers.html
-
Judge strikes down 'highly paternalistic' California law banning handgun ads, slams state's 'distrust' of gun buyers
A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama on Tuesday struck down a 95-year-old California law that had banned handgun ads at gun shops, calling it "unconstitutional on its face" and slamming the state for its "paternalistic" assumption that its residents can't make up their own minds about firearms.
Officials in California had claimed the advertisements would trigger people with “impulsive personality traits” to buy more handguns, leading to increased suicides and crime -- assertions that U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley in Sacramento all but mocked in his ruling.
"The Government may not restrict speech that persuades adults, who are neither criminals nor suffer from mental illness, from purchasing a legal and constitutionally protected product, merely because it distrusts their personality trait and the decisions that personality trait may lead them to make later down the road," Nunley said in the decision, which was made public Tuesday.
"Moreover, in the effort to restrict impulsive individuals from purchasing handguns, the Government has restricted speech to all adults, irrespective of whether they have this personality trait," Nunley added, saying the law was overinclusive.
The 1923 law provided that "No handgun or imitation handgun, or placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof, shall be displayed in any part of [a gun store] where it can readily be seen from the outside."
"[T]he Supreme Court has rejected this highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech, holding that the Government may not 'achieve its policy objectives through the indirect means of restraining certain speech by certain speakers,'" Nunley wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/12/judge-strikes-down-highly-paternalistic-california-law-banning-handgun-ads-slams-states-distrust-gun-buyers.html
Ban handgun ads but encourage big pharma dependence by running drugs ads every commercial break constantly. ::)
-
Lawmakers Drafting Bill That Would Allow Social Media Checks Before Gun Purchase
Two New York lawmakers are working to draft a bill that would propose a social media check before a gun purchase.
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Sen. Kevin Palmer’s proposal would allow authorities to review three years of social media history and one year of internet search history of any person seeking to purchase a firearm.
“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a fire arm,” Adams explains.
https://wcbs880.radio.com/articles/lawmakers-drafting-bill-would-allow-social-media-checks-gun-purchase
-
Tougher gun laws among new Nevada governor’s top priorities
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article222396475.html
-
Lawmakers Drafting Bill That Would Allow Social Media Checks Before Gun Purchase
Two New York lawmakers are working to draft a bill that would propose a social media check before a gun purchase.
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Sen. Kevin Palmer’s proposal would allow authorities to review three years of social media history and one year of internet search history of any person seeking to purchase a firearm.
“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a fire arm,” Adams explains.
https://wcbs880.radio.com/articles/lawmakers-drafting-bill-would-allow-social-media-checks-gun-purchase
So who would be the "decider" of whats appropriate on social media and what's not?
If someone doesn't like the meme you shared you're banned for life from owning a gun?... or do you get to re-apply in 3 years after that meme disappeared?..lol
Sick
-
Slippery slope.
-
So who would be the "decider" of whats appropriate on social media and what's not?
If someone doesn't like the meme you shared you're banned for life from owning a gun?... or do you get to re-apply in 3 years after that meme disappeared?..lol
Sick
Slippery slope.
Very. The Left (not liberals) will not stop until they ban firearms.
-
Very. The Left (not liberals) will not stop until they ban firearms.
-
I'm looking forward to when this twat is an adult and we are allowed to question him and hold him accountable for his words and actions.
Don't invest too much in this. It will never happen.
Who are we?
-
More stupid laws regarding reduced magazine capacity. However, it's quite rich that when a law restricting magazine capacity doesn't make exceptions for off duty cops, the police commissioner throws a hissy fit. Why does he want 2 standards and have the law apply only to some but not to others? Sadly this mentality is not rare with several cops, who are used to be exempt from laws that restrict "normal" people but in the rare instance that they have to comply to the same set of laws and rules as everyone else suddenly they react.
'This Is Just Crazy': Former NYPD Commissioner Blasts NJ Gov. Over 'Insane' Gun Law
Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik slammed New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over a gun law that bans off-duty officers in the state from carrying magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Kerik tweeted a leaked memo to law enforcement signed by Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, which said violating the law would result in a fourth-degree crime.
According to NJ.com, Murphy (D) signed the bill into law in June, which also states that an officer may not be convicted of a criminal offense if he or she voluntarily surrenders a weapon in question.
Kerik said Sunday on Fox & Friends that the law is not only "outrageous," it also puts officers at risk.
"You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle. ... That's insane," he said.
The law applies to New Jersey residents as well as off-duty officers, and Kerik said Murphy has essentially taken guns "away from the people" of the state.
"It's one thing if you violate a rule of a department," Kerik added. "But this is a law. A criminal law, and it makes you, then, a criminal. So, this is just crazy."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/16/new-jersey-gun-ammunition-law-bernard-kerik-former-nypd-commissioner-blasts-phil-murphy
To see just how restrictive and absurd the law is, read this:
New Jersey invites in violent criminal aliens while stripping citizens of the right to self-defense
When the clock strikes midnight Tuesday morning, anyone in New Jersey who owns a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is officially in possession of illegal contraband and is deemed a fourth-degree felon. Unlike previous magazine bans, this one retroactively bans people from even owning such magazines in their homes, even though they had been purchased legally. At the same time, the most violent criminal aliens will be actively shielded from deportation by state officials, against federal law. The inmates are running the asylum, while the law-abiding citizens and federal law enforcement are treated like criminals.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/new-jersey-invites-in-violent-criminal-aliens-while-stripping-citizens-of-the-right-to-self-defense/
-
More stupid laws regarding reduced magazine capacity. However, it's quite rich that when a law restricting magazine capacity doesn't make exceptions for off duty cops, the police commissioner throws a hissy fit. Why does he want 2 standards and have the law apply only to some but not to others? Sadly this mentality is not rare with several cops, who are used to be exempt from laws that restrict "normal" people but in the rare instance that they have to comply to the same set of laws and rules as everyone else suddenly they react.
'This Is Just Crazy': Former NYPD Commissioner Blasts NJ Gov. Over 'Insane' Gun Law
Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik slammed New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over a gun law that bans off-duty officers in the state from carrying magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Kerik tweeted a leaked memo to law enforcement signed by Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, which said violating the law would result in a fourth-degree crime.
According to NJ.com, Murphy (D) signed the bill into law in June, which also states that an officer may not be convicted of a criminal offense if he or she voluntarily surrenders a weapon in question.
Kerik said Sunday on Fox & Friends that the law is not only "outrageous," it also puts officers at risk.
"You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle. ... That's insane," he said.
The law applies to New Jersey residents as well as off-duty officers, and Kerik said Murphy has essentially taken guns "away from the people" of the state.
"It's one thing if you violate a rule of a department," Kerik added. "But this is a law. A criminal law, and it makes you, then, a criminal. So, this is just crazy."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/16/new-jersey-gun-ammunition-law-bernard-kerik-former-nypd-commissioner-blasts-phil-murphy
To see just how restrictive and absurd the law is, read this:
New Jersey invites in violent criminal aliens while stripping citizens of the right to self-defense
When the clock strikes midnight Tuesday morning, anyone in New Jersey who owns a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is officially in possession of illegal contraband and is deemed a fourth-degree felon. Unlike previous magazine bans, this one retroactively bans people from even owning such magazines in their homes, even though they had been purchased legally. At the same time, the most violent criminal aliens will be actively shielded from deportation by state officials, against federal law. The inmates are running the asylum, while the law-abiding citizens and federal law enforcement are treated like criminals.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/new-jersey-invites-in-violent-criminal-aliens-while-stripping-citizens-of-the-right-to-self-defense/
Well that's dumb.
-
More stupid laws regarding reduced magazine capacity. However, it's quite rich that when a law restricting magazine capacity doesn't make exceptions for off duty cops, the police commissioner throws a hissy fit. Why does he want 2 standards and have the law apply only to some but not to others? Sadly this mentality is not rare with several cops, who are used to be exempt from laws that restrict "normal" people but in the rare instance that they have to comply to the same set of laws and rules as everyone else suddenly they react.
'This Is Just Crazy': Former NYPD Commissioner Blasts NJ Gov. Over 'Insane' Gun Law
Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik slammed New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over a gun law that bans off-duty officers in the state from carrying magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Kerik tweeted a leaked memo to law enforcement signed by Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, which said violating the law would result in a fourth-degree crime.
According to NJ.com, Murphy (D) signed the bill into law in June, which also states that an officer may not be convicted of a criminal offense if he or she voluntarily surrenders a weapon in question.
Kerik said Sunday on Fox & Friends that the law is not only "outrageous," it also puts officers at risk.
"You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle. ... That's insane," he said.
The law applies to New Jersey residents as well as off-duty officers, and Kerik said Murphy has essentially taken guns "away from the people" of the state.
"It's one thing if you violate a rule of a department," Kerik added. "But this is a law. A criminal law, and it makes you, then, a criminal. So, this is just crazy."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/16/new-jersey-gun-ammunition-law-bernard-kerik-former-nypd-commissioner-blasts-phil-murphy
To see just how restrictive and absurd the law is, read this:
New Jersey invites in violent criminal aliens while stripping citizens of the right to self-defense
When the clock strikes midnight Tuesday morning, anyone in New Jersey who owns a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is officially in possession of illegal contraband and is deemed a fourth-degree felon. Unlike previous magazine bans, this one retroactively bans people from even owning such magazines in their homes, even though they had been purchased legally. At the same time, the most violent criminal aliens will be actively shielded from deportation by state officials, against federal law. The inmates are running the asylum, while the law-abiding citizens and federal law enforcement are treated like criminals.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/new-jersey-invites-in-violent-criminal-aliens-while-stripping-citizens-of-the-right-to-self-defense/
Unless there’s a state registry of what mags people have, the only folks facing prosecution will be
people committing crimes using guns with large mags and people lawfully defending themselves using guns with large mags.
Stupid law.
-
Unless there’s a state registry of what mags people have, the only folks facing prosecution will be
people committing crimes using guns with large mags and people lawfully defending themselves using guns with large mags.
Stupid law.
Governor hasn't ruled out door to door searches. lol
-
Governor hasn't ruled out door to door searches. lol
Step 1 ... dig hole..
Step 2 ..... what guns?... I don't have any guns officer
-
Step 1 ... dig hole..
Step 2 ..... what guns?... I don't have any guns officer
Lost my gun in a boating accident, it was terrible.
-
Governor hasn't ruled out door to door searches. lol
We have a similar law here in CA, but I don't think it applies to LEOs.
-
What they will do is just imprison the people that they catch not complying. One at a time. Throw the book at them. Turn otherwise law abiding citizens into felons.
That will be enough to intimidate the rest into turning theirs over.
-
We have a similar law here in CA, but I don't think it applies to LEOs.
I'm in CA, we're all criminals according to our liberal government.
What they will do is just imprison the people that they catch not complying. One at a time. Throw the book at them. Turn otherwise law abiding citizens into felons.
That will be enough to intimidate the rest into turning theirs over.
Almost never happens out here. Stories I've heard have always been confiscation and a slap on the wrist. Not saying it doesn't happen, just don't hear about it. Although here it's not a felony to possess, until you put it in the gun. Lol
-
I'm in CA, we're all criminals according to our liberal government.
Almost never happens out here. Stories I've heard have always been confiscation and a slap on the wrist. Not saying it doesn't happen, just don't hear about it. Although here it's not a felony to possess, until you put it in the gun. Lol
UCMJ: Article 120
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.
:D
-
-
UCMJ: Article 120
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.
:D
Just the tip, I promise.
-
He's a "Second Amendment guy"...
Citing ‘rotten, stinking politics,’ Kasich vetoes gun bill
Saying that signing a gun rights measure “would be detrimental to the safety of all of our citizens,” Gov. John Kasich vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have shifted the burden of proof in self-defense cases.
“I’m a Second Amendment guy. I also believe there are some important restrictions we need to place on the Second Amendment,” the outgoing governor told the Columbus Metropolitan Club earlier Wednesday.
https://www.dispatch.com/news/20181219/citing-rotten-stinking-politics-kasich-vetoes-gun-bill
-
Trump administration moves to ban sale of bump stocks, make possession illegal by March
The Trump administration on Tuesday took first steps to ban the sale of bump stocks on semi-automatic weapons and has made them illegal to possess beginning in late March.
Bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like automatic firearms, have come under increasing scrutiny after they were used in October 2017 when a man opened fire from his Las Vegas hotel suite into a crowd at a country music concert below, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
“Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, ATF received correspondence from members of the United States Congress, as well as nongovernmental organizations, requesting that ATF examine its past classifications and determine whether bump-stock type devices available on the market constitute machineguns under the statutory definition,” the regulation, which was signed by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Tuesday morning, noted.
It continued: “The Department decided to move forward with the rulemaking process to clarify the meaning of these terms, which are used in the NFA's (National Firearms Act) statutory definition of ‘machinegun.’”
The regulation will go into effect 90 days after it is formally published in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen on Friday, a Justice Department official said.
People who own bump stocks will be required to either surrender them to the ATF or destroy them by late March, the official said. The change has undergone a legal review and the Justice Department and ATF are ready to fight any legal challenge that may be brought, the official added.
In March, President Donald Trump said his administration would "ban" the devices, which he said "turn legal weapons into illegal machines."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-moves-to-ban-sale-bump-stocks-makes-them-illegal-to-possess-by-march
-
Trump administration moves to ban sale of bump stocks, make possession illegal by March
The Trump administration on Tuesday took first steps to ban the sale of bump stocks on semi-automatic weapons and has made them illegal to possess beginning in late March.
Bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like automatic firearms, have come under increasing scrutiny after they were used in October 2017 when a man opened fire from his Las Vegas hotel suite into a crowd at a country music concert below, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
“Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, ATF received correspondence from members of the United States Congress, as well as nongovernmental organizations, requesting that ATF examine its past classifications and determine whether bump-stock type devices available on the market constitute machineguns under the statutory definition,” the regulation, which was signed by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Tuesday morning, noted.
It continued: “The Department decided to move forward with the rulemaking process to clarify the meaning of these terms, which are used in the NFA's (National Firearms Act) statutory definition of ‘machinegun.’”
The regulation will go into effect 90 days after it is formally published in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen on Friday, a Justice Department official said.
People who own bump stocks will be required to either surrender them to the ATF or destroy them by late March, the official said. The change has undergone a legal review and the Justice Department and ATF are ready to fight any legal challenge that may be brought, the official added.
In March, President Donald Trump said his administration would "ban" the devices, which he said "turn legal weapons into illegal machines."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-moves-to-ban-sale-bump-stocks-makes-them-illegal-to-possess-by-march
Damn. Syria, bump stocks and prison reform. Pretty good week as far as I'm concerned.
-
He's a "Second Amendment guy"...
Citing ‘rotten, stinking politics,’ Kasich vetoes gun bill
Saying that signing a gun rights measure “would be detrimental to the safety of all of our citizens,” Gov. John Kasich vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have shifted the burden of proof in self-defense cases.
“I’m a Second Amendment guy. I also believe there are some important restrictions we need to place on the Second Amendment,” the outgoing governor told the Columbus Metropolitan Club earlier Wednesday.
https://www.dispatch.com/news/20181219/citing-rotten-stinking-politics-kasich-vetoes-gun-bill
Gun-owner rights bill becomes Ohio law after legislature overrode Kasich veto
A bill broadening gun-owner rights has become law in Ohio, after the Republican-led state Legislature overrode GOP Gov. John Kasich’s veto. The Senate voted 21-11 on Thursday to reject Kasich’s decision to strike down the bill. That followed a House override earlier in the day.
Kasich opposed language shifting the burden of proof in self-defense cases from defendants to prosecutors.
https://fox8.com/2018/12/27/ohio-house-overrides-gov-kasichs-veto-of-gun-owner-rights-bill/
-
A prominent supporter of gun control has been charged with attempted extortion. He’s been in that position for 50 fucking years, succeeding his father. And guess what, despite being a staunch gun control supporter, he had 23 guns in his offices, which he had to surrender as a condition of his bond. And these guns might have even been in government buildings, where signs were posted prohibiting anyone from bringing guns in the premises. But it seems he enjoyed some “special privileges” while he pushed for strict gun control for everybody else.
Feds: Burke thought he was ‘playing nice with ’em,’ then came the squeeze
According to a bombshell 37-page criminal complaint unsealed Thursday that charged the powerhouse alderman with attempted extortion. After serving on the City Council for nearly half a century, Burke faced a federal judge Thursday, accused of using his position as alderman to try to steer business toward his private firm.
Burke, 75, now faces a maximum of 20 years in prison following an investigation that involved recorded calls on Burke’s cellphone and apparent federal surveillance of the alderman.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-alderman-ed-burke-federal-court-case/
Why Ald. Ed Burke May Have Been Allowed To Have 23 Guns In Government Building
He’s been a staunch supporter of gun control measures for decades, but in a surprising twist, federal prosecutors revealed Thursday that nearly two dozen firearms were discovered in Ald. Ed Burke’s offices during their raids in November.
From outlawing cell phone cases shaped like guns to bans on concealed weapons in places that serve alcohol and broadening the gun offender registry in Chicago, Ald. Ed Burke’s aldermanic record has defined him as an ardent supporter of gun control.
That’s why many people did a double take when federal prosecutors announced that investigators had found nearly two dozen guns not in his home but in his offices.
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/01/04/ald-ed-burke-guns-govnerment-building/
-
Anything over 10 rounds would be considered "high capacity" and banned because according to them "you don't need that for any purpose". Of course they want the cops to be exempt from this ban.
Democrats propose high-capacity gun magazine ban
After a year without any significant gun legislation passed by Congress since the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting in Parkland, Florida, Democrats introduced a bill banning high-capacity gun magazines Tuesday, as the one-year anniversary of the massacre nears.
The Democratic legislation, cosponsored by Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida and Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, would ban any magazine that exceeds 10 rounds of ammunition. The legislation, which has been dubbed the "Keep Americans Safe Act," currently has no Republican cosponsors, one of many obstacles that would stand in the way of it advancing.
https://www.wptv.com/news/national/democrats-propose-high-capacity-gun-magazine-ban
-
Wow.
Los Angeles Demanding That City Contractors Disclose Ties to the NRA
The ordinance, enacted yesterday, states:
Each [contract] Awarding Authority shall require that a Person fully disclose prior to entering into a Contract, all of its and its Subsidiaries' contracts with or Sponsorships of the NRA.
The disclosure required under this section shall continue throughout the term of the Contract, thereby obligating a Person to update its disclosure each time the Person or its Subsidiary contracts with or enters into a Sponsorship with the NRA.
And it makes clear that it is motivated by the NRA's political advocacy, as you can see from the recitals at the start of the ordinance (e.g., "the NRA leadership, with the financial support of its dues paying members, continues to lobby against gun safety regulations").
But the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment generally bans (see O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake (1997)) the government from "retaliat[ing] against a contractor, or a regular provider of services, for the exercise of rights of political association"—precisely what the ordinance implicitly threatens.
And the Court has also made clear that compulsory disclosures of political association is also presumptively unconstitutional, precisely because they deter such association, see Shelton v. Tucker (1960), a case requiring such disclosures of schoolteachers:
Even if there were no disclosure to the general public, the pressure upon a teacher to avoid any ties which might displease those who control his professional destiny would be constant and heavy. Public exposure, bringing with it the possibility of public pressures upon school boards to discharge teachers who belong to unpopular or minority organizations, would simply operate to widen and aggravate the impairment of constitutional liberty.
That case involved government employees, but the logic of O'Hare, which applied government employee First Amendment precedents to government contractors, makes clear that it applies to government contractors, too.
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/13/los-angeles-demanding-that-city-contract
-
Report: California Saw Huge Increase in Gun Ownership Over Last Decade Despite Strict Gun Laws
Despite some of the nation's toughest laws, the number of gun owners in California has more than doubled over the past ten years, according to new data released Friday by the state Department of Justice. What those data show is that, as of 2019, there are more than 2.5 million gun owners in California, compared to fewer than a million in 2008. That figure translates to about 8 percent of Californian adults owning guns, compared to 3.4 percent in 2008—a more than two-fold increase, even when adjusting for population.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/report-california-saw-huge-increase-in-gun-ownership-over-last-decade-despite-strict-gun-laws
-
Report: California Saw Huge Increase in Gun Ownership Over Last Decade Despite Strict Gun Laws
Despite some of the nation's toughest laws, the number of gun owners in California has more than doubled over the past ten years, according to new data released Friday by the state Department of Justice. What those data show is that, as of 2019, there are more than 2.5 million gun owners in California, compared to fewer than a million in 2008. That figure translates to about 8 percent of Californian adults owning guns, compared to 3.4 percent in 2008—a more than two-fold increase, even when adjusting for population.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/report-california-saw-huge-increase-in-gun-ownership-over-last-decade-despite-strict-gun-laws
That's just the ones that will admit to it. I wonder who/where they polled to come up with those numbers?
Those reports are so far under reported it's not funny. Wait, actually it is. ;D
-
Report: California Saw Huge Increase in Gun Ownership Over Last Decade Despite Strict Gun Laws
Despite some of the nation's toughest laws, the number of gun owners in California has more than doubled over the past ten years, according to new data released Friday by the state Department of Justice. What those data show is that, as of 2019, there are more than 2.5 million gun owners in California, compared to fewer than a million in 2008. That figure translates to about 8 percent of Californian adults owning guns, compared to 3.4 percent in 2008—a more than two-fold increase, even when adjusting for population.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/report-california-saw-huge-increase-in-gun-ownership-over-last-decade-despite-strict-gun-laws
The headline is a great example of the Fox Butterfield effect.
-
2020 hopeful Kamala Harris says she owns gun for protection
Associated Press ^ | April 11, 2019 | Alexandra Jaffe
Posted on 4/11/2019, 11:20:41 PM by Olog-hai
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris says she owns a gun and called it a “false choice” that the only two gun control options are complete, unrestricted access or a desire to seize everyone’s guns.
The senator from California told reporters after a campaign event in Iowa that she is a gun owner.
She says, “I own a gun for probably the reason that a lot of people do: for personal safety.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
-
So now we also have corporate gun control...
Citi's gun crackdown gives ammo to 2nd Amendment foes, advocate says
Justin Danhof wants Citigroup to take billionaire investor Warren Buffett's advice and stop pushing the gun merchants among its customers to set stricter limits on which products they sell and who can buy them.
Under a policy established after a mass shooting at a Florida high school last year, the New York lender no longer does business with retail stores that sell guns to anyone under 21 or whose inventory includes bump stocks or high-capacity magazines.
"We are not threatening people, and we are certainly not threatening the Second Amendment," the Citi CEO said, noting that customers are free to buy whatever they want with their credit and debit cards, including firearms. "What our policy seeks to do is not put restrictions on gun ownership, but really try and institute a series of best practices that have, hopefully, a chance of keeping guns out of the wrong people’s hands. We've worked with a number of retailers to come up with what we think some of those best practices are."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/business/citis-tighter-gun-rules-dont-threaten-second-amendment-ceo-says
-
'Gun free zone' law disarmed Virginia Beach shooting victim, attorney says
The night before Kate Nixon and 11 others were murdered by a disgruntled co-worker, the decade-long Virginia Beach city employee talked with her husband about bringing a gun to work for self-defense -- a decision that was taken out of her hands by the city's ban on employees carrying firearms at work, a Nixon family lawyer said.
Now, Nixon's family is calling for an independent investigation into events leading up to the May 31 shooting and what could have been done differently before and during it, particularly given the explicit concerns about shooter DeWayne Craddock.
“Kate expressed to her husband concerns about this individual in particular, as well as one other person,” Nixon family attorney Kevin Martingayle told WHRV's "HearSay with Cathy Lewis" radio show Monday. “In fact, they had a discussion the night before about whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag -- and decided not to, ultimately, because there's a policy apparently against having any kind of weapons that are concealed in the building."
The city of Virginia Beach prohibits employees from carrying "any weapon" while working or on city property, unless authorized by a supervisor. The city policy notes: "The prohibition against possession of a weapon applies even if a member has a permit to carry a concealed weapon."
An employee violating the policy would not be in violation of the law -- but they would be breaking rules set by their place of employment. "Employees who violate this policy will be subject to discipline, up to and including dismissal," the city policy states.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-free-zone-law-disarmed-virginia-beach-shooting-victim-attorney-says
-
:)
'Gun free zone' law disarmed Virginia Beach shooting victim, attorney says
The night before Kate Nixon and 11 others were murdered by a disgruntled co-worker, the decade-long Virginia Beach city employee talked with her husband about bringing a gun to work for self-defense -- a decision that was taken out of her hands by the city's ban on employees carrying firearms at work, a Nixon family lawyer said.
Now, Nixon's family is calling for an independent investigation into events leading up to the May 31 shooting and what could have been done differently before and during it, particularly given the explicit concerns about shooter DeWayne Craddock.
“Kate expressed to her husband concerns about this individual in particular, as well as one other person,” Nixon family attorney Kevin Martingayle told WHRV's "HearSay with Cathy Lewis" radio show Monday. “In fact, they had a discussion the night before about whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag -- and decided not to, ultimately, because there's a policy apparently against having any kind of weapons that are concealed in the building."
The city of Virginia Beach prohibits employees from carrying "any weapon" while working or on city property, unless authorized by a supervisor. The city policy notes: "The prohibition against possession of a weapon applies even if a member has a permit to carry a concealed weapon."
An employee violating the policy would not be in violation of the law -- but they would be breaking rules set by their place of employment. "Employees who violate this policy will be subject to discipline, up to and including dismissal," the city policy states.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-free-zone-law-disarmed-virginia-beach-shooting-victim-attorney-says
Making and disarming victims.
-
Illinois State Senator: Maybe It’s Best to Just Grab All the ‘Assault Weapons’ After All
Illinois state Senator Julie Morrison is the sponsor of Senate Bill 107. The bill would ban most semi-automatic firearm and accessory sales. Current owners of the banned guns would be required to pay a fee and register their so-called assault weapons. The fee would be $25 per firearm and failure to register them would be a felony.
In a recent town hall meeting with Morrison, Mike Weisman, vice president of the Illinois State Rifle Association was in the audience. When Weisman asked Morrison why paying a “fine” to register a firearm is necessary, she allowed as how maybe it would just be simpler if the state just grabs all of the scary guns her bill would outlaw.
Constituent: You have a SB107 to take away my semi-automatic firearms.
State Senator Julie Morrison: To clarify, I’m not taking your gun away from you. You just can’t buy any new ones.
Constituent: You want me to turn it over to the state police.
Sen. Morrison: You can’t buy new ones.
Constituent: Unless I give you a fine. Unless I pay a fine for each firearm and register them, then I get to keep them. So, if I get to keep it, if I pay a fine and register it, how dangerous is it in the first place? Why do you need to pay it at all?
Sen. Morrison: Well, you’ve just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all. Maybe we’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have to worry about you paying the fine.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/illinois-state-senator-maybe-its-best-to-just-grab-all-the-assault-weapons-guns-after-all/
-
Illinois State Senator: Maybe It’s Best to Just Grab All the ‘Assault Weapons’ After All
Illinois state Senator Julie Morrison is the sponsor of Senate Bill 107. The bill would ban most semi-automatic firearm and accessory sales. Current owners of the banned guns would be required to pay a fee and register their so-called assault weapons. The fee would be $25 per firearm and failure to register them would be a felony.
In a recent town hall meeting with Morrison, Mike Weisman, vice president of the Illinois State Rifle Association was in the audience. When Weisman asked Morrison why paying a “fine” to register a firearm is necessary, she allowed as how maybe it would just be simpler if the state just grabs all of the scary guns her bill would outlaw.
Constituent: You have a SB107 to take away my semi-automatic firearms.
State Senator Julie Morrison: To clarify, I’m not taking your gun away from you. You just can’t buy any new ones.
Constituent: You want me to turn it over to the state police.
Sen. Morrison: You can’t buy new ones.
Constituent: Unless I give you a fine. Unless I pay a fine for each firearm and register them, then I get to keep them. So, if I get to keep it, if I pay a fine and register it, how dangerous is it in the first place? Why do you need to pay it at all?
Sen. Morrison: Well, you’ve just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all. Maybe we’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have to worry about you paying the fine.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/illinois-state-senator-maybe-its-best-to-just-grab-all-the-assault-weapons-guns-after-all/
She's so repulsively condescending to her constituents, talking to them like they're second graders.
"Billy, did you bring enough ammo for the WHOLE class?"
-
Biden says he's coming for assault weapons, as 2020 Dems urge new ban in wake of shootings
By Paul Steinhauser | Fox News
The horrific mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton that left 31 people dead and dozens more injured have thrust the issue of gun violence into the center of the 2020 presidential campaign -- with calls growing louder in the Democratic field for the return of an assault-weapons ban.
Many in the record-setting field of two-dozen Democratic White House hopefuls already supported the ban, but the weekend tragedies have emboldened those calls as candidates highlight and in some cases build upon their gun control platforms.
Primary front-runner Joe Biden went so far Monday as to say he's coming for those guns.
The former vice president, in a CNN interview, said that a Biden administration would push for a “national buyback program” to get such firearms “off the street.”
Asked what he’d say to gun owners worried that Biden would be coming for their guns, he quickly answered: "Bingo! You're right, if you have an assault weapon."
"The fact of the matter is [assault weapons] should be illegal. Period," Biden said. "The Second Amendment doesn't say you can't restrict the kinds of weapons people can own. You can't buy a bazooka. You can't have a flame-thrower."
Biden has long supported bans on assault weapons and firearms with high-capacity magazines, as well as universal background checks for gun purchases. As a senator from Delaware, Biden had a large role in crafting the 1994 assault-weapons ban.
The bill was quickly signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton after narrowly passing the Senate in a 52-48 vote. The law – which prohibited civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms defined as assault weapons as well as certain large-capacity ammunition magazines – expired in 2004. Attempts to reauthorize the ban over the past 15 years have been unsuccessful.
Biden’s far from the only presidential candidate to renew the push for an assault-weapons ban in the wake of the weekend massacres.
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg on Tuesday announced “an action plan to combat the threat of white nationalist terrorism, abetted by weak gun laws and the gun lobby.”
Pete Buttigieg on gun violence in America, whether presidential campaign has stalledVideo
The alleged gunman in the El Paso shooting -- a 21-year-old white supremacist -- killed at least 22 people.
As part of his wide-ranging plan, Buttigieg is calling for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Buttigieg – a Naval Reserve veteran who served in the Afghanistan war – emphasized that “weapons like the one I carried in Afghanistan have no place on our streets or in our schools.”
“The same is true for high-capacity magazines, some of which can hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition and significantly increase a shooter’s ability to injure and kill large numbers of people quickly without needing to reload,” he added.
Even before the weekend’s shootings, curbing gun violence was a central tenet in New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker's campaign -- he's calling for the federal licensing of all gun owners - and Sen. Kamala Harris of California repeatedly vowed if elected to take action on the issue in the first 100 days of her administration.
And gun violence's a centerpiece to the White House bid by former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas, who suspended his campaign to return to his hometown of El Paso.
In this summer's primary debates, the candidates have highlighted a list of proposals they’ve pledged to enact – from banning assault weapons and restrictions on magazine capacities to universal background checks and laws to prevent those with a history of domestic violence or mental illness from purchasing weapons.
But it remains unclear what measures the current Congress might be willing to consider. Some lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, have backed calls for "red-flag laws" to take firearms from those deemed a risk to public safety, after President Trump endorsed the measures on Monday.
But Trump focused largely on mental health, while saying: “Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun."
An assault-weapons ban is a far more sweeping measure that, at this stage, has little support from Republican lawmakers.
The dialogue in the 2020 race comes as amid a spate of mass shootings already this year. The escalating debate among the candidates marks the first time in almost a generation that Democratic presidential candidates are heavily emphasizing gun violence on the campaign trail.
Then-Democratic Vice President Al Gore and Republican Gov. George W. Bush battled over the issue in the 2000 election, one year after the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The two candidates clashed, among other things, over moves to prevent cities from suing gun manufacturers.
But four years later, Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts didn’t make gun control a major focus of his campaign. Neither did President Barack Obama in his 2008 election and 2012 re-election. And while Hillary Clinton supported tightening gun laws, she didn’t spotlight her stance as the Democrats 2016 presidential nominee.
But after dozens of high-profile incidents in recent years – from the Orlando, Florida nightclub mass shooting in 2016 where 49 were killed, to the Las Vegas concert massacre that left 58 dead and the Parkland mass shooting where 17 students and faculty were killed – tackling gun violence has become a top policy for Democratic congressional and presidential candidates.
Gun violence was the second most pressing issue facing the country, according to a Fox News poll conducted in May. Seventy-one percent of registered voters said gun violence is a major problem that needed attention from the government, trailing only the opioid addiction epidemic.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-assault-weapons-ban-shootings
-
Biden says he's coming for assault weapons, as 2020 Dems urge new ban in wake of shootings
By Paul Steinhauser | Fox News
The horrific mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton that left 31 people dead and dozens more injured have thrust the issue of gun violence into the center of the 2020 presidential campaign -- with calls growing louder in the Democratic field for the return of an assault-weapons ban.
Many in the record-setting field of two-dozen Democratic White House hopefuls already supported the ban, but the weekend tragedies have emboldened those calls as candidates highlight and in some cases build upon their gun control platforms.
Primary front-runner Joe Biden went so far Monday as to say he's coming for those guns.
The former vice president, in a CNN interview, said that a Biden administration would push for a “national buyback program” to get such firearms “off the street.”
Asked what he’d say to gun owners worried that Biden would be coming for their guns, he quickly answered: "Bingo! You're right, if you have an assault weapon."
"The fact of the matter is [assault weapons] should be illegal. Period," Biden said. "The Second Amendment doesn't say you can't restrict the kinds of weapons people can own. You can't buy a bazooka. You can't have a flame-thrower."
Biden has long supported bans on assault weapons and firearms with high-capacity magazines, as well as universal background checks for gun purchases. As a senator from Delaware, Biden had a large role in crafting the 1994 assault-weapons ban.
The bill was quickly signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton after narrowly passing the Senate in a 52-48 vote. The law – which prohibited civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms defined as assault weapons as well as certain large-capacity ammunition magazines – expired in 2004. Attempts to reauthorize the ban over the past 15 years have been unsuccessful.
Biden’s far from the only presidential candidate to renew the push for an assault-weapons ban in the wake of the weekend massacres.
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg on Tuesday announced “an action plan to combat the threat of white nationalist terrorism, abetted by weak gun laws and the gun lobby.”
Pete Buttigieg on gun violence in America, whether presidential campaign has stalledVideo
The alleged gunman in the El Paso shooting -- a 21-year-old white supremacist -- killed at least 22 people.
As part of his wide-ranging plan, Buttigieg is calling for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Buttigieg – a Naval Reserve veteran who served in the Afghanistan war – emphasized that “weapons like the one I carried in Afghanistan have no place on our streets or in our schools.”
“The same is true for high-capacity magazines, some of which can hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition and significantly increase a shooter’s ability to injure and kill large numbers of people quickly without needing to reload,” he added.
Even before the weekend’s shootings, curbing gun violence was a central tenet in New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker's campaign -- he's calling for the federal licensing of all gun owners - and Sen. Kamala Harris of California repeatedly vowed if elected to take action on the issue in the first 100 days of her administration.
And gun violence's a centerpiece to the White House bid by former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas, who suspended his campaign to return to his hometown of El Paso.
In this summer's primary debates, the candidates have highlighted a list of proposals they’ve pledged to enact – from banning assault weapons and restrictions on magazine capacities to universal background checks and laws to prevent those with a history of domestic violence or mental illness from purchasing weapons.
But it remains unclear what measures the current Congress might be willing to consider. Some lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, have backed calls for "red-flag laws" to take firearms from those deemed a risk to public safety, after President Trump endorsed the measures on Monday.
But Trump focused largely on mental health, while saying: “Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun."
An assault-weapons ban is a far more sweeping measure that, at this stage, has little support from Republican lawmakers.
The dialogue in the 2020 race comes as amid a spate of mass shootings already this year. The escalating debate among the candidates marks the first time in almost a generation that Democratic presidential candidates are heavily emphasizing gun violence on the campaign trail.
Then-Democratic Vice President Al Gore and Republican Gov. George W. Bush battled over the issue in the 2000 election, one year after the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The two candidates clashed, among other things, over moves to prevent cities from suing gun manufacturers.
But four years later, Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts didn’t make gun control a major focus of his campaign. Neither did President Barack Obama in his 2008 election and 2012 re-election. And while Hillary Clinton supported tightening gun laws, she didn’t spotlight her stance as the Democrats 2016 presidential nominee.
But after dozens of high-profile incidents in recent years – from the Orlando, Florida nightclub mass shooting in 2016 where 49 were killed, to the Las Vegas concert massacre that left 58 dead and the Parkland mass shooting where 17 students and faculty were killed – tackling gun violence has become a top policy for Democratic congressional and presidential candidates.
Gun violence was the second most pressing issue facing the country, according to a Fox News poll conducted in May. Seventy-one percent of registered voters said gun violence is a major problem that needed attention from the government, trailing only the opioid addiction epidemic.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-assault-weapons-ban-shootings
He keeps saying that. He might as well say, "Abrams tanks have no place in our shopping mall parking lots."
He was rifle qualified, so he used an M4 or M16, not an AR-15.
-
Guns are for pussies.
-
Adam Kinzinger: 'Serious movement' brewing to overturn entire Second Amendment
By Nick Givas | Fox News
Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger proposes raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21, banning certain high capacity magazines and universal background checks -- but warns of overshoot.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said there is a political movement brewing in the United States to try and overturn the Second Amendment in its entirety, and do away with a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
Kinzinger, who wrote a piece following the mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso supporting "red-flag" laws, said there is an inherent danger of political overshoot that could create a stream of unintended consequences, but claimed it would be better than doing nothing.
"It is unfair that you would deny somebody a right by putting a restriction in place because... I own an AR. 99.99 percent of us are responsible with these guns. But as a society, we can't predict individual behavior," he said on "The Daily Briefing," Wednesday.
Kinzinger added: "We have to make societal differences and changes... attitudes are turning so much against the Second Amendment that the thing that we risk is that there will be a serious movement to not just create restrictions but to overturn the whole amendment. Now, by the way, your freedom of religion is protected by the First [Amendment]. If we begin to start to repeal the Bill of Rights, who knows where this whole thing goes."
Kinzinger also claimed those on the left of politics have failed to see the spiritual and moralistic problems connected to mass shootings and urged all Americans to treat life with more reverence.
"The left needs to understand this really is an issue of the heart. This is a spiritual rot in this country, a moral issue where we no longer value life," he said earlier in the interview.
"People feel like the only way they can be heard is to go out and make this name for themselves, and then the media doesn't do any favors by publishing manifestos and publishing names."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/second-amendment-red-flag-laws-mass-shootings
-
Assault weapons ban picks up steam in Congress
An assault weapons ban is picking up steam in the House and on the 2020 campaign trail as Democrats search for a way to respond to two recent mass shootings while putting greater political pressure on recalcitrant Republican leaders.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary race, this week vowed to reinstate and strengthen the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines if he’s elected president, declaring in a New York Times op-ed: “We have to get these weapons of war off our streets.”
And nearly 200 House Democrats have now signed on to legislation — authored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the head of Democrats’ messaging operation — banning semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. With 198 co-sponsors, the bill is just 20 votes shy of the number needed to push it through the lower chamber.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/457323-assault-weapons-ban-picks-up-steam-in-congress
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1296/text
Look at this:
(36)The term semiautomatic assault weapon means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(A)A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(i)A pistol grip.
(ii)A forward grip.
(iii)A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
(iv)A grenade launcher.
(v)A barrel shroud.
(vi)A threaded barrel.
(B)A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
(C)Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
(D)A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(i)A threaded barrel.
(ii)A second pistol grip.
(iii)A barrel shroud.
(iv)The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(v)A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
(vi)A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded.
(vii)A stabilizing brace or similar component.
(E)A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(F)A semiautomatic shotgun that has any one of the following:
(i)A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(ii)A pistol grip.
(iii)A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
(iv)The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(v)A forward grip.
(vi)A grenade launcher.
(G)Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(H)All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
(i)All AK types, including the following:
(I)AK, AK–47, AK–47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM.
(II)IZHMASH Saiga AK.
(III)MAADI AK–47 and ARM.
(IV)Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S.
(V)Poly Technologies AK–47 and AKS.
(ii)All AR types, including the following:
(I)AR–10.
(II)AR–15.
(III)Alexander Arms Overmatch Plus 16.
(IV)Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
(V)Armalite M15–T.
(VI)Barrett REC7.
(VII)Beretta AR–70.
(VIII)Black Rain Ordnance Recon Scout.
(IX)Bushmaster ACR.
(X)Bushmaster Carbon 15.
(XI)Bushmaster MOE series.
(XII)Bushmaster XM15.
(XIII)Chiappa Firearms MFour rifles.
(XIV)Colt Match Target rifles.
(XV)CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 rifles.
(XVI)Daniel Defense M4A1 rifles.
(XVII)Devil Dog Arms 15 Series rifles.
(XVIII)Diamondback DB15 rifles.
(XIX)DoubleStar AR rifles.
(XX)DPMS Tactical rifles.
(XXI)DSA Inc. ZM–4 Carbine.
(XXII)Heckler & Koch MR556.
(XXIII)High Standard HSA–15 rifles.
(XXIV)Jesse James Nomad AR–15 rifle.
(XXV)Knight’s Armament SR–15.
(XXVI)Lancer L15 rifles.
(XXVII)MGI Hydra Series rifles.
(XXVIII)Mossberg MMR Tactical rifles.
(XXIX)Noreen Firearms BN 36 rifle.
(XXX)Olympic Arms.
(XXXI)POF USA P415.
(XXXII)Precision Firearms AR rifles.
(XXXIII)Remington R–15 rifles.
(XXXIV)Rhino Arms AR rifles.
(XXXV)Rock River Arms LAR–15.
(XXXVI)Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles and MCX rifles.
(XXXVII)SKS with a detachable magazine.
(XXXVIII)Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifles.
(XXXIX)Stag Arms AR rifles.
(XL)Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 and AR–556 rifles.
(XLI)Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 rifles.
(XLII)Windham Weaponry AR rifles.
(XLIII)WMD Guns Big Beast.
(XLIV)Yankee Hill Machine Company, Inc. YHM–15 rifles.
(iii)Barrett M107A1.
(iv)Barrett M82A1.
(v)Beretta CX4 Storm.
(vi)Calico Liberty Series.
(vii)CETME Sporter.
(viii)Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C.
(ix)Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000.
(x)Feather Industries AT–9.
(xi)Galil Model AR and Model ARM.
(xii)Hi-Point Carbine.
(xiii)HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1, and HK USC.
(xiv)IWI TAVOR, Galil ACE rifle.
(xv)Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU–16, and RFB.
(xvi)SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, Sig Sauer SG 551, and SIG MCX.
(xvii)Springfield Armory SAR–48.
(xviii)Steyr AUG.
(xix)Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF.
(xx)All Thompson rifles, including the following:
(I)Thompson M1SB.
(II)Thompson T1100D.
(III)Thompson T150D.
(IV)Thompson T1B.
(V)Thompson T1B100D.
(VI)Thompson T1B50D.
(VII)Thompson T1BSB.
(VIII)Thompson T1–C.
(IX)Thompson T1D.
(X)Thompson T1SB.
(XI)Thompson T5.
(XII)Thompson T5100D.
(XIII)Thompson TM1.
(XIV)Thompson TM1C.
(xxi)UMAREX UZI rifle.
(xxii)UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine.
(xxiii)Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78.
(xxiv)Vector Arms UZI Type.
(xxv)Weaver Arms Nighthawk.
(xxvi)Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
(I)All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
(i)All AK–47 types, including the following:
(I)Centurion 39 AK pistol.
(II)CZ Scorpion pistol.
(III)Draco AK–47 pistol.
(IV)HCR AK–47 pistol.
(V)IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol.
(VI)Krinkov pistol.
(VII)Mini Draco AK–47 pistol.
(VIII)PAP M92 pistol.
(IX)Yugo Krebs Krink pistol.
(ii)All AR–15 types, including the following:
(I)American Spirit AR–15 pistol.
(II)Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol.
(III)Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol GEN II.
(IV)CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol.
(V)Daniel Defense MK18 pistol.
(VI)DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol.
(VII)DPMS AR–15 pistol.
(VIII)Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol.
(IX)Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol.
(X)Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol.
(XI)POF USA AR pistols.
(XII)Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol.
(XIII)Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol.
(iii)Calico Liberty pistols.
(iv)DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol.
(v)Encom MP–9 and MP–45.
(vi)Heckler & Koch model SP–89 pistol.
(vii)Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9.
(viii)IWI Galil Ace pistol, UZI PRO pistol.
(ix)Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol.
(x)The following MAC types:
(I)MAC–10.
(II)MAC–11.
(III)Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol.
(IV)Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11.
(V)Velocity Arms VMAC.
(xi)Sig Sauer P556 pistol.
(xii)Sites Spectre.
(xiii)All Thompson types, including the following:
(I)Thompson TA510D.
(II)Thompson TA5.
(xiv)All UZI types, including Micro-UZI.
(J)All of the following shotguns, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
(i)DERYA Anakon MC–1980, Anakon SD12.
(ii)Doruk Lethal shotguns.
(iii)Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12.
(iv)All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following:
(I)IZHMASH Saiga 12.
(II)IZHMASH Saiga 12S.
(III)IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01.
(IV)IZHMASH Saiga 12K.
(V)IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030.
(VI)IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika.
(v)Streetsweeper.
(vi)Striker 12.
(K)All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.
(L)Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.
(M)The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).
Of course:
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
(A)the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
(C)the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon—
(i)sold or transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
(ii)that the individual purchased, or otherwise obtained, for official use before such retirement;
-
Assault weapons ban picks up steam in Congress
An assault weapons ban is picking up steam in the House and on the 2020 campaign trail as Democrats search for a way to respond to two recent mass shootings while putting greater political pressure on recalcitrant Republican leaders.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary race, this week vowed to reinstate and strengthen the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines if he’s elected president, declaring in a New York Times op-ed: “We have to get these weapons of war off our streets.”
And nearly 200 House Democrats have now signed on to legislation — authored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the head of Democrats’ messaging operation — banning semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. With 198 co-sponsors, the bill is just 20 votes shy of the number needed to push it through the lower chamber.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/457323-assault-weapons-ban-picks-up-steam-in-congress
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1296/text
Look at this:
Of course:
There are over 8 million semi-automatic rifles that look cool to some, scary to others, in circulation today.
If the Dems hold the house and gain the senate after the 2020 elections, the proposed legislation would be
create such an amazing run on rifle sales.
-
There are over 8 million semi-automatic rifles that look cool to some, scary to others, in circulation today.
If the Dems hold the house and gain the senate after the 2020 elections, the proposed legislation would be
create such an amazing run on rifle sales.
Yep, anti-gun people keep saying the Republicans are the gun industry's cronies but in practice the Democrats and anti gun loons like those Mom groups have done way more to increase gun sales. Every time they propose one of those "do something" gun control legislation, gun sales increase.
-
There are probably over 15 million Modern sporting rifles in the hands of the public. maybe even more.
-
Poll: Over 1 in 4 Democrat Voters Want to Ban NRA Memberships
(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/03/anti-NRA-sign-at-March-for-our-Lives-640x480.jpg)
anti-NRA sign at March for our Lives (Mario Tama / Getty)Mario Tama / Getty
AWR HAWKINS 10 Sep 2019
A Rasmussen poll released September 10, 2019, shows that 28 percent of Democrat voters support prohibiting Americans from joining the NRA.
According to Rasmussen, “Twenty-eight percent of Democrats say Americans should be prohibited by law from belonging to pro-gun rights organizations like the NRA.”
The same poll shows 32 percent of Democrat voters support “declaring the gun rights group a terrorist organization in the community where they live.” Only 14 percent of Republican voters supported such a declaration.
Seventy-eight percent of Republicans have a favorable view of the NRA, verses thirty-two percent of Democrats and forty-two percent of “unaffiliated voters.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/10/poll-over-1-in-4-democrat-voters-want-to-ban-nra-memberships/
-
Poll: Over 1 in 4 Democrat Voters Want to Ban NRA Memberships
(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/03/anti-NRA-sign-at-March-for-our-Lives-640x480.jpg)
anti-NRA sign at March for our Lives (Mario Tama / Getty)Mario Tama / Getty
AWR HAWKINS 10 Sep 2019
A Rasmussen poll released September 10, 2019, shows that 28 percent of Democrat voters support prohibiting Americans from joining the NRA.
According to Rasmussen, “Twenty-eight percent of Democrats say Americans should be prohibited by law from belonging to pro-gun rights organizations like the NRA.”
The same poll shows 32 percent of Democrat voters support “declaring the gun rights group a terrorist organization in the community where they live.” Only 14 percent of Republican voters supported such a declaration.
Seventy-eight percent of Republicans have a favorable view of the NRA, verses thirty-two percent of Democrats and forty-two percent of “unaffiliated voters.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/10/poll-over-1-in-4-democrat-voters-want-to-ban-nra-memberships/
That 28% of Democratic voters want to repeal or amend the 1st amendment isn't surprising, but that 14% of Republican voters do, is troubling.
-
She must be one of the dumbest clowns in Congress along with Ocrazio Cortex.
https://twitter.com/Uncle_Jimbo/status/1176132630196248578
(https://regularrightguy.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clown.png?w=547)
"My bill that I've introduced dealing with big caliber weapons, I've held an AR-15 in my hands, I wish I hadn't, it is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and the bullet that is utilized, the .50 cal, these types of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the streets."
-
She must be one of the dumbest clowns in Congress along with Ocrazio Cortex.
https://twitter.com/Uncle_Jimbo/status/1176132630196248578
(https://regularrightguy.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clown.png?w=547)
"My bill that I've introduced dealing with big caliber weapons, I've held an AR-15 in my hands, I wish I hadn't, it is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and the bullet that is utilized, the .50 cal, these types of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the streets."
“There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually,
and semantically correct than about being morally right.”
"We choose truth over facts."
"Weapons of war don’t belong in our neighborhoods during peacetime."
-
I missed this one:
Washington Redefines All Semi-Automatic Rifles As 'Assault Weapons'
I-1639, by contrast, defines a "semiautomatic assault rifle" as "any rifle which utilizes a portion
of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round,
and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge." That category includes
not just scary-looking, military-style rifles like the AR-15 but a wide range of firearms commonly
used for hunting, target shooting, and competitions. The definition excludes rifles that are "manually
operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action" but includes all the rest.
https://reason.com/2019/01/03/washington-redefines-all-semiautomatic-r/
-
Chuck Schumer Wants IRS To Investigate NRA, Consider Stripping Tax-Exempt Status
CHRIS WHITE
TECH REPORTER
October 02, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/02/butina-nra-2016-election/
-
Florida Police Using FINDER System to Create Lists of Gun Owners
Earlier this month AmmoLand brought its reader a story of an alleged illegal gun list compiled by the Charlotte County Sheriff's Department using the FINDER system in Florida.
Pawnbrokers are required to enter information on firearms transactions into the FINDER system. The system transmits the serial number of the firearm along with the make and model to the local sheriffs' department to make sure that the person pawning the gun, did not steal it. A bug in the system also transmitted the names and addresses of the transfers to local law enforcement. The Charlotte County Sheriff’s Department used the information to create a list of gun owners.
In Florida, it is a felony for law enforcement agencies to keep a list of gun owners under Florida Statute 790.335. The Charlotte County State's Attorney's Office determined that the Charlotte County Sheriff's Department did not violate any laws in compiling the list. After the results of the investigation, Florida Carry asked the Attorney General's Office of the state to carry out an independent investigation.
AmmoLand has discovered with the help of reporter Andrew Sheets that abuse of the FINDER system appears to extend past Charlotte County into surrounding jurisdictions. It isn’t clear how far the abuses extend across the state.
Emails obtained by Mr. Sheets and AmmoLand shows that the Charlotte County Sheriff's Department shared their list with other departments. One of the other law enforcement agencies that the Sheriff shared their list with is the North Port Police department.
The Sarasota Sheriff's Office has also been compiling a list using the FINDER system. More disturbing is that the Sheriff provided an unredacted list of pawn transactions via email to Mr. Sheets. The file contains not only information about the firearm, but also the names of the person pawning the gun, putting them at risk of robbery and violating their privacy rights.
AmmoLand received a tip that the FINDER system was never supposed to release the gun owner's personal information to law enforcement organizations. We spoke to a support team member off the record, and they told AmmoLand that the system has been fixed and no longer transmits anything outside the serial number and make and model of the firearm.
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/10/florida-police-using-finder-system-to-create-lists-of-gun-owners/
-
The senile crone got a "4 Pinocchios" rating from the Washington Post.
Pelosi’s bogus talking point on gun deaths of children
“In the 266 days since we sent this bill, about 25,000 people have died from gun violence in our country, 47 percent of them teenagers or children younger than that.”
For months, in speeches, news conferences, tweets and interviews, Pelosi has been using a version of an incorrect talking point to make the firearms death toll for teenagers and children appear significantly higher than reality. Fewer than 9 percent of those killed by guns are 19 or younger — not 47 percent. Seven children or teenagers are killed a day — not 47.
When we queried her staff, we were told she had simply misspoken. But that was false, too.
Gun violence is an important issue in the United States. There’s no reason to goose the numbers for political purposes. Pelosi earns Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/nancy-pelosis-bogus-talking-point-gun-deaths-children/
-
Virginia Governor Northam Increases Corrections Budget In Anticipation Of Jailing Gun Owners
NRA ILA
CONTRIBUTOR
December 24, 2019
As if Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s wholesale attack on law-abiding gun owners wasn’t enough, the disgraced public official and his Michael Bloomberg-bought allies in the General Assembly now want the state’s hard-working taxpayers to foot the bill for their unconstitutional schemes. The budget bill (HB30) includes an appropriation of a quarter million dollars to carry out a host of gun control measures that Northam and his anti-gun allies hope to enact.
The $250,000 is appropriated to the Corrections Special Reserve Fund in order to provide for the “increase in the operating cost of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment” of Northam’s gun control measures. Among the enumerated laws that this allocation is meant to fund is a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, the criminalization of private firearms transfers, and gun confiscation orders issued without due process.
Aside from the insult of forcing law-abiding Virginia taxpayers to pay for the diminution of their rights, the gun control allocation is a severe waste of resources. Northam’s Bloomberg-backed gun control measures will not make Virginia safer.
In additional to being unconstitutional, a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms will not reduce violent crime.
Long guns of any description are rarely used in violent crime. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data breaks down homicides by weapon type. In 2018, the FBI reported that there were five times as many individuals listed as killed with “knives or cutting instruments,” than with rifles of any kind. The data also showed that rifles were listed as being used in less homicides than “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” or “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).”
A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study of the 1994 federal “assault weapons” ban determined that “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.” A 2004 follow-up Department of Justice-funded study came to a similar conclusion. The study determined that “AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban,” “relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired,” and “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
So-called “universal” background checks do not stop criminals from obtaining firearms.
Background checks don’t stop criminals from stealing firearms, getting them on the black market, or getting them from straw purchasers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 75 percent of criminals in state and federal state prison who had possessed a firearm during their offense acquired the firearm through theft, “Off the street/underground market,” or “from a family member or friend, or as a gift.” Less than one percent got firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers.”
This year, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the UC Davis School of Medicine found that comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors “were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.”
Aside from enabling the unacceptable deprivation of constitutional rights without due process, an Extreme Risk Protection Order (Red Flag) law is unnecessary in Virginia because the state already has strong and effective civil commitment laws.
Under Virginia law, a law enforcement officer may take an individual into emergency custody for a mental health evaluation without prior court approval. A person detained in this manner is then evaluated to determine whether they meet the criteria for a temporary detention. A person that was subject to a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntary admission to a mental health facility is prohibited from possessing firearms until their rights are restored by a court.
Tax-paying Virginians should not have to foot the bill for Northam and Bloomberg’s radical attack on their fundamental rights.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/24/virginia-governor-northam-increases-corrections-budget-in-anticipation-of-jailing-gun-owners/
-
BOOgaloo :D
-
Biden deserves brickbats for earlier criticism of Texas gun law, says CCRKBA
Former Vice President Joe Biden deserves every brickbat being thrown in his direction in the aftermath of Sunday’s church shooting incident in Texas for declaring in September that the state’s new law allowing guns in churches is “irrational,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
But Biden should not be alone in the hot seat, said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.
“The deafening silence from Biden’s fellow Democrats still in the presidential race is equally telling,” Gottlieb observed. “Not one of them has stepped forward to offer even faint praise for the courage of Jack Wilson, who used his legally-carried pistol to stop the shotgun-wielding killer from wreaking more havoc at the West Freeway Church of Christ.
“The gun control crowd has been predictably silent,” he continued, “because the use of firearms by private citizens in defense of themselves and others—especially a large crowd of worshippers in a church—just doesn’t fit the extremist gun control narrative.”
Sunday’s tragic incident was ended in six seconds after the gunman, identified as a man with a criminal record in at least three states, fatally shot two members of the church congregation. Wilson’s quick action and accuracy prevented further carnage.
“Within seconds,” Gottlieb noted, “video of the tragic incident revealed at least seven more church members with drawn guns carefully closing in on the downed killer. Their responsible use of firearms to defend their fellow congregants is exactly why Texas enacted its new laws. At the very least, Biden should apologize for his earlier criticism.
“Biden’s trash talk in September symbolizes everything wrong with his party’s increasing hostility toward law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment,” he said. “This year, we’ve already heard proposals for mandatory buybacks, registration and licensing, gun bans and Beto O’Rourke’s outright threat of confiscation. If anyone has been irrational, it’s Biden and his fellow Democrats for their demagoguery and anti-rights hysteria.
“What happened Sunday in Texas,” Gottlieb concluded, “reminded us all of individual heroism, and that actions always speak louder than words, and that brave people act while politicians pontificate.”
https://www.ccrkba.org/biden-deserves-brickbats-for-earlier-criticism-of-texas-gun-law-says-ccrkba/
-
Since 2016 and Trump I've voted 100% democrat.
You sound TDS retarded.
However, I am at odds with the dems on gun control and demonizing the NRA.
I own an AR-15 and have been an NRA member for many years.
I applaud the brave Texas church member who shot the crazed terrorist when he wielded a shot gun in church.
This event proves that restricting certain fire arms won't prevent these attacks and he used a shot gun NOT an AR-15.
It also shows ,having a trained, armed person in the crowd, prevented more from being killed by the maniac.
This sounds logical
-
Since 2016 and Trump I've voted 100% democrat.
However, I am at odds with the dems on gun control and demonizing the NRA.
I own an AR-15 and have been an NRA member for many years.
I applaud the brave Texas church member who shot the crazed terrorist when he wielded a shot gun in church.
This event proves that restricting certain fire arms won't prevent these attacks and he used a shot gun NOT an AR-15.
It also shows ,having a trained, armed person in the crowd, prevented more from being killed by the maniac.
Yet you created a thread with this title: "Texas church shooting this weekend, proves gun control won't prevent this stuff."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=659572.0
Troll.
-
Yet you created a thread with this title: "Texas church shooting this weekend, proves gun control won't prevent this stuff."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=659572.0
Troll.
And let me guess...
The thread was either modified or deleted... AGAIN. ::)
I know I'm beating a dead horse here - or, more appropriately in howard's case, a dead JACKASS - but it has been PROVEN that coward possesses special privileges (left over from a FAILED experiment by Ron years ago) enabling him to modify threads he starts.
Several of us called him out on abuse of it, and of course, he denied everything (just as he denies ALL of the self-embarrassing shit he says on here), and, even worse, blamed "some mod" for the past actions.
coward, you are ball-less, pathetic oxygen thief. And, if you really did serve in the military, I'd hate to have shared a fox hole with your sorry ass. I'm surprised you didn't die from "friendly fire."
-
Ok.... gun control is always one of the most heated debates out there. But deleting debating remarks, and not trolling remarks, isnt cool.
There are always good points on both sides, no matter what.
Ron
-
Ok.... gun control is always one of the most heated debates out there. But deleting debating remarks, and not trolling remarks, isnt cool.
There are always good points on both sides, no matter what.
Ron
2nd Amendment nullifies gun control....."shall not be infringed" 8)
-
Can Howard explain where this thread he started went?
Quote from: Howard on December 30, 2019, 04:32:59 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church-shooting-texas-injured-active
Tragic attack by a man armed with a shot gun took place in a Texas church this weekend.
The one positive side of this is that a few armed worshipers dealt with him within a few sec.
To me, this is clear proof that being armed is the best personal defense against crazy attacks.
Plus, the attacker was armed with a SHOT GUN not an AR-15.
* On a side note some extremist gun control activists are peddling a conspiracy theory
that this was staged by the NRA to promote gun rights. WTF! Huh
Of course we always have some wackos chime in with the obligatory conspiracy theory crap.
I'm just glad that a few law abiding church goers were armed and took this guy out before he did more damage.
-
Can Howard explain where this thread he started went?
Quote from: Howard on December 30, 2019, 04:32:59 PM
Of course he can, but he won’t.
At least not honestly or directly.
-
I vote for banning mentally challenged
Howard Coward if he indeed deleted his thread again.
-
There is a slight glitch in the system where several years ago, Ron experimented with a feature that turned out to be an epic fail ie: allowing some posters to "mod control" their own threads. This is the remnant of that experiment which hopefully will be corrected soon. In the meantime, let this serve as a warning to those who are abusing the little snafu. You will be banned from posting on the board (example: Political) where you abuse the feature. If continued, you will be banned from the entire site.
https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=640290.25
Appears the feature wasn't removed back then. ^ :-\ :(
-
https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=640290.25
Appears the feature wasn't removed back then. ^ :-\ :(
Since a few want to know:
Yes, I deleted any/all posts related to my deceased mom.
I made the mistake of posting a deeply personal thought I had, related to her ,while voting.
I would hope others can understand my desire to avoid seeing/discussing that any longer. Thanks.
I've enjoyed posting on get big and reading some of the funny posts.
Many here are quite funny and like to bust balls, which is fun.
Some (like Montague) don't like me ,while most here don't really care.
That's life and you deal with it. :D
I made the mistake of getting "too involved" on this and other forums.
I'd be full of shit, if I didn't admit ,things have gotten a bit annoying for me lately.
Perhaps, I've over stayed my get big welcome? ???
I may pop back in at sometime in the future, but who knows?
Thanks and Merry Christmas '17, Howard
-
https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=640290.25
Appears the feature wasn't removed back then. ^ :-\ :(
Appears howard is in FULL DAMAGE-CONTROL MODE as we speak.
Don't wear out that delete button, howie!!
Merry Christmas '19, coward.
-
Senators introduce bill to disclose federal gun records, tracing data
A bill to allow for the preservation and disclosure of federal gun data was introduced by two U.S. senators on Capitol Hill.
Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and U.S. Representative Barbara Lee introduced the Gun Records Restoration and Preservation Act.
If approved, the Gun Records Restoration and Preservation Act would repeal the following Tiahrt provisions:
- End the prohibition on ATF from releasing firearm trace data for use by cities, states, researchers, litigants, and members of the public.
- End the requirement for the FBI to destroy all approved gun purchaser records within 24 hours of approval.
- End the provision that makes it extremely difficult for ATF to retrieve firearms from prohibited persons who mistakenly sold guns or from gun owners who become ineligible to possess guns.
- End the prohibition on ATF requiring gun dealers to submit their inventories to law enforcement.
- End the prohibition on public disclosure of data on multiple handgun sales, as well as gun sales information dealers are required to keep that may be required to be reported to the U.S. Attorney General for determining the disposition of one or more firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation.
Joining Durbin and Menendez in cosponsoring the Senate bill are Senators Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Ed Markey, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Murphy.
https://www.kfvs12.com/2020/02/14/senators-introduce-bill-disclose-federal-gun-records-tracing-data/
-
They won't stop until they are forced to. Going to get ugly.
-
Crazy. These are some of Biden's gun control measures he says he will enact if he gets elected:
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.
End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.
Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. Today, we have the technology to allow only authorized users to fire a gun. For example, existing smart gun technology requires a fingerprint match before use. Biden believes we should work to eventually require that 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns.
-
2nd Amendment nullifies gun control....."shall not be infringed" 8)
You’ll like the new shirts coming in 3-4 weeks. I’ll have the mock up later today and yes, plenty of 3x
-
You’ll like the new shirts coming in 3-4 weeks. I’ll have the mock up later today and yes, plenty of 3x
It's about time! 8)
-
You’ll like the new shirts coming in 3-4 weeks. I’ll have the mock up later today and yes, plenty of 3x4X bell bottomed
;D
-
;D
Couldn’t help but to LOL 😂
-
Tammy Bruce: If guns are so freely available everywhere else, why is Chicago such a bloodbath?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tammy-bruce-guns-freely-available-115732417.html
-
A friend of mine lives in a really nice secluded neighborhood close to a major metro. A group of joggers broke into several houses and stole a luxury car last night. Wonder how many Biden signs will stay up? Several videos on ring cams but cops don't have any leads....
-
A friend of mine lives in a really nice secluded neighborhood close to a major metro. A group of joggers broke into several houses and stole a luxury car last night. Wonder how many Biden signs will stay up? Several videos on ring cams but cops don't have any leads....
But... this happened while Trump was President?
-
But... this happened while Trump was President?
Very liberal county. More new gun owners.
-
I control all my guns
-
I control all my guns
I lost all of mine in a terrible boating accident. :(
-
Of Course Kamala Harris Supports Gun Confiscation
There’s already a concerted gaslighting effort underway to convince voters that Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nominee, would never support something as crazy as the confiscation of millions of firearms.
Take this USA Today factcheck headlined “Kamala Harris didn’t say she’d send police to take firearms via executive order.” You may notice the highly narrow specificity of this debunking. It’s a little game political media like to play — the Associated Press miraculously ran almost an identical piece on the same day — in which reporters take a hyperbolic backbencher’s comments or a misleading social-media post — in this case, a Facebook post that is “gaining traction” — and use it as a strawman to deceive voters about one of the controversial positions of their favored politician.
While USA Today is correct that Harris has never explicitly maintained that she would sign an executive order to “send police” to break down your door, she is the first person to be on a major presidential ticket in American history who openly supports gun confiscation. Whether she promised to implement those plans through legislation or via executive order is also, at best, opaque, despite factcheckers’ efforts to claim otherwise.
For one thing, USA Today insinuates that Harris, answering a question at an AFSCME forum in Las Vegas, denied she supported gun confiscation. I’m sorry, but her answer to the Washington Examiner’s Kerry Picket — “I’m actually prepared to take executive action to put in place rules that improve this situation” — isn’t by any standard a denial. In responding to the question, Harris not only failed to deny that she supported the confiscation of semi-automatic rifles, she also didn’t deny that she supported unilaterally creating a national database of gun owners. Somehow, though, USA Today and the Associated Press missed the numerous occasions on which Harris promoted her gun confiscation position. The latter, in fact, claimed that Harris merely backed a “renewal of the assault weapons ban,” which is factually inaccurate. The assault-weapons ban of 1994 only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the law’s enactment. Harris supports retroactively making guns illegal — and then taking them through a mandatory buyback program.
The California senator said so unambiguously on Jimmy Fallon’s show in September 2019. She did so again the next month at an anti–Second Amendment event hosted by March for Our Lives, where she said, “We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program. It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”
That event, it should be noted, was billed as a policy a forum on “gun safety” — the same euphemism Harris used in the primary debate where she warned that she would circumvent the legislative branch on gun policy:
"Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action."
So where did USA Today get the idea that Harris’ theoretical “gun safety” executive order would not include a ban on the most popular rifle in the United States?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/of-course-kamala-harris-supports-gun-confiscation/
-
I lost all of mine in a terrible boating accident. :(
Ban boats!!!
-
No one is confiscating anything. Gun owners won’t let it happen
-
Mandatory buyback = confiscation.
Dumb whore wants a civil war.
-
Of Course Kamala Harris Supports Gun Confiscation
There’s already a concerted gaslighting effort underway to convince voters that Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nominee, would never support something as crazy as the confiscation of millions of firearms.
Take this USA Today factcheck headlined “Kamala Harris didn’t say she’d send police to take firearms via executive order.” You may notice the highly narrow specificity of this debunking. It’s a little game political media like to play — the Associated Press miraculously ran almost an identical piece on the same day — in which reporters take a hyperbolic backbencher’s comments or a misleading social-media post — in this case, a Facebook post that is “gaining traction” — and use it as a strawman to deceive voters about one of the controversial positions of their favored politician.
While USA Today is correct that Harris has never explicitly maintained that she would sign an executive order to “send police” to break down your door, she is the first person to be on a major presidential ticket in American history who openly supports gun confiscation. Whether she promised to implement those plans through legislation or via executive order is also, at best, opaque, despite factcheckers’ efforts to claim otherwise.
For one thing, USA Today insinuates that Harris, answering a question at an AFSCME forum in Las Vegas, denied she supported gun confiscation. I’m sorry, but her answer to the Washington Examiner’s Kerry Picket — “I’m actually prepared to take executive action to put in place rules that improve this situation” — isn’t by any standard a denial. In responding to the question, Harris not only failed to deny that she supported the confiscation of semi-automatic rifles, she also didn’t deny that she supported unilaterally creating a national database of gun owners. Somehow, though, USA Today and the Associated Press missed the numerous occasions on which Harris promoted her gun confiscation position. The latter, in fact, claimed that Harris merely backed a “renewal of the assault weapons ban,” which is factually inaccurate. The assault-weapons ban of 1994 only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the law’s enactment. Harris supports retroactively making guns illegal — and then taking them through a mandatory buyback program.
The California senator said so unambiguously on Jimmy Fallon’s show in September 2019. She did so again the next month at an anti–Second Amendment event hosted by March for Our Lives, where she said, “We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program. It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”
That event, it should be noted, was billed as a policy a forum on “gun safety” — the same euphemism Harris used in the primary debate where she warned that she would circumvent the legislative branch on gun policy:
"Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action."
So where did USA Today get the idea that Harris’ theoretical “gun safety” executive order would not include a ban on the most popular rifle in the United States?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/of-course-kamala-harris-supports-gun-confiscation/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/15/fact-check-harris-didnt-say-shed-send-police-confiscate-guns/5585922002/
In case anyone wants to read the article without the cherry picking.
-
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/137623694_710644579644836_317460149959926912_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=ov5gqq-CsA4AX89gFuS&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=88f701b5f056560d1ac4275986d64510&oe=6045AE43)
-
Unfortunately Shiela Jackson Lee is my representative. The ironic part is that constituents from half her district are responsible for a lot of crime here in Houston and will be subject to a lot of additional jail time. That is if the judges in this town actually put/keep anyone in jail.
Also suppressors are an FFA item and require a tax stamp which takes months to get...why would you need an additional 7 day waiting period for something that took months to get? This is more of people who have no idea about gun ownership or gun laws making laws about guns.
-
Creepy Joe calls on Congress to enact more gun control legislation.
This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/14/statement-by-the-president-three-years-after-the-parkland-shooting/
-
Creepy Joe calls on Congress to enact more gun control legislation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/14/statement-by-the-president-three-years-after-the-parkland-shooting/
Unbelievable. Of everything going on right now. FUJB! GFY!
-
The left will start a war they can’t finish....from my cold...dead...hands
-
Creepy Joe calls on Congress to enact more gun control legislation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/14/statement-by-the-president-three-years-after-the-parkland-shooting/
I haven't seen the gun homicide numbers for 2020, but I believe that they are significantly higher than 2019's numbers.
2019: 10,28 firearm homicides, 364 of them by rifle, and some fraction of that 364 were by a semiautomatic rifles life the AR-15. 1,562 homicides by blades, 466 by blunt object, and 688 by beatings (ban knuckles!).
AR-15 homicides aren't tracked by the FBI or law enforcement, so any lawmaker claiming that banning them will reduce firearm homicides will have no data to support such a ban. Aren't the Left the party of science, you know, empirical data? ::)
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
-
Even more gun control bills...
https://maloney.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/maloney-joins-with-gun-safety-advocates-to-introduce-gun-safety
BILL SUMMARIES
The Gun Trafficking and Crime Prevention Act:
Prohibits Firearms Trafficking: The bill prohibits the purchase or transfer of a firearm if the intent is to deliver it to someone else who is prohibited by Federal or State law from possessing one.
Strengthens Penalties for Straw Purchasers: The bill strengthens penalties for “straw purchasers” who intentionally provide false or misleading material information when they purchase firearms from Federal Firearms Licensees. The bill reclassifies such acts as felonies, instead of misdemeanors, as they currently are under law.
Enhances Penalties for Kingpins and Multiple Illegal Purchases: The bill provides enhanced penalties for organizers or managers of firearms trafficking networks and recommends that the Sentencing Commission increase penalties for multiple illegal gun purchases. The bill reclassifies such acts as felonies, instead of misdemeanors, as they currently are under law.
The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act:
Subjects gun sales and transfers at gun shows to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and require that transfers are reported to the Attorney General.
Requires gun show operators to register with the Attorney General and notify the AG of the details of upcoming shows, including the identity of all firearm vendors, as well as keep a record of all vendors’ identities.
Allows the ATF to hire investigators to inspect gun shows and examine records kept by gun show operators and vendors.
The NICS Review Act:
Replaces the current 24 hour maximum with a 90 day minimum retention period to allow the FBI and ATF at least 90 days to audit the background check system to make sure the process is working effectively.
Makes it more difficult for dangerous individuals to skirt the law and the safeguards already in place.
The Firearm Risk Protection Act:
Prohibits Firearms Trafficking: The bill requires all gun purchasers to hold qualified liability insurance and restricts retail gun sales without proof of coverage.
Strengthens protections for victims of gun violence: The bill protects victims by ensuring that liability insurance covers a victim's medical expenses due to gun violence.
Ensures responsible gun ownership: The bill enacts fines towards violators of the provision up to $10,000 for not insuring firearms.
The Handgun Trigger Safety Act:
Authorizes grants to develop and improve “personalized” handgun technology to increase efficacy and decrease costs.
Mandates that within 5 years of enactment all newly manufactured handguns must be personalized, ensuring that they can only be operated by authorized users.
Mandates that within 10 years of enactment anyone selling a handgun must retrofit it with personalization technology before that sale can be completed.
Provides reimbursement to manufacturers for the costs of retrofitting handguns through the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.
-
First paragraph, on the surface, seems fine.
The insurance one is complete bullshit. It's just a cost deterrent.
-
House Passes Gun-Control Measures Backed by Democrats
The House passed a pair of gun-control bills that were blocked in the last Congress, a priority for Democratic leaders frustrated by years of little success on the issue amid broad Republican opposition.
The vote was 227 to 203 on a measure to expand background checks to nearly all gun sales. 8 Republicans supported the bill, while 1 Democrat opposed it.
The House separately voted to extend the window for background checks to 10 days from three days, giving law-enforcement authorities more time to vet individuals before they can buy guns. The vote was 219-210, also mostly along party lines, with 2 Republicans voting in favor and 2 Democrats against.
Both gun measures passed the House in 2019, after Democrats regained control of the chamber in the midterm elections, but languished in the Senate when then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) declined to schedule votes.
The legislation’s prospects in the now Democratic-controlled Senate are uncertain, but the effort could provide more momentum to the party’s effort to change the rules in the closely divided chamber to make it easier to pass bills.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-push-gun-control-measures-opposed-by-republicans-11615464001
-
But but but Biden said he isn't going to take our guns. ;D
-
House Passes Gun-Control Measures Backed by Democrats
The House passed a pair of gun-control bills that were blocked in the last Congress, a priority for Democratic leaders frustrated by years of little success on the issue amid broad Republican opposition.
The vote was 227 to 203 on a measure to expand background checks to nearly all gun sales. 8 Republicans supported the bill, while 1 Democrat opposed it.
The House separately voted to extend the window for background checks to 10 days from three days, giving law-enforcement authorities more time to vet individuals before they can buy guns. The vote was 219-210, also mostly along party lines, with 2 Republicans voting in favor and 2 Democrats against.
Both gun measures passed the House in 2019, after Democrats regained control of the chamber in the midterm elections, but languished in the Senate when then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) declined to schedule votes.
The legislation’s prospects in the now Democratic-controlled Senate are uncertain, but the effort could provide more momentum to the party’s effort to change the rules in the closely divided chamber to make it easier to pass bills.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-push-gun-control-measures-opposed-by-republicans-11615464001
I’d like to know which Republicans voted for it
-
The Firearm Risk Protection Act:
Prohibits Firearms Trafficking: The bill requires all gun purchasers to hold qualified liability insurance and restricts retail gun sales without proof of coverage.
Strengthens protections for victims of gun violence: The bill protects victims by ensuring that liability insurance covers a victim's medical expenses due to gun violence.
Ensures responsible gun ownership: The bill enacts fines towards violators of the provision up to $10,000 for not insuring firearms.
::). another way insurance companies influence laws to help them make more money?
-
::). another way insurance companies influence laws to help them make more money?
Looks like a bunch of my firearms just went missing.
Such a shame. ;D
I couldn't imagine paying for gun insurance. When you consider how many guns there are in America, then consider how rare it is for someone to get shot by a "legal" one. It's pretty silly.
-
I’d like to know which Republicans voted for it
.
-
Looks like a bunch of my firearms just went missing.
Such a shame. ;D
I couldn't imagine paying for gun insurance. When you consider how many guns there are in America, then consider how rare it is for someone to get shot by a "legal" one. It's pretty silly.
Pretty sure I’ll lose mine in a boating accident
-
First paragraph, on the surface, seems fine.
The insurance one is complete bullshit. It's just a cost deterrent.
First one is already a crime.
-
.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=637353.0;attach=1297463;image)
Vern Buchanan (FL) received an "A-" rating from the NRA in 2017 and has since been in favor of more gun control.
Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) has been endorsed by the extremists at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
In the 2016 presidential election, Gimenez (FL) had endorsed Hillary Clinton (!!!).
Salazar (FL) said that she might back an assault weapons ban.
Upton (MI) supported a bill that requires background checks for private firearm sales and has called for a bipartisan red flag law to be passed by Congress.
The others are from New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois so what did you expect, apparently even the Republicans there support gun control.
-
No Republican should have a gun.
They're prone to cult violence/ terrorism.
They are also too dumb to use them properly.
End of thread.
-
No Republican should have a gun.
They're prone to cult violence/ terrorism.
They are also too dumb to use them properly.
End of thread.
Virginia shooting: gunman was leftwing activist with record of domestic violence
James ‘Tom’ Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old white man killed during a shootout with police, was previously arrested for domestic battery
Steve Scalise in ‘critical condition’, hospital says
Oliver Laughland in Belleville and Jon Swaine
Thu 15 Jun 2017
James “Tom” Hodgkinson, the gunman who shot congressman Steve Scalise during an attack on a Republican congressional baseball practice session on Wednesday, was a leftwing political activist with a record of domestic violence.
Hodgkinson, 66, died from injuries sustained during a shootout with police. He was previously based in Belleville, Illinois, but had been living in Alexandria, Virginia, the site of Wednesday’s shooting, for the past two months.
. . .
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/14/virginia-shooting-suspect-james-t-hodgkinson-leftwing-activist
-
No Republican should have a gun.
They're prone to cult violence/ terrorism.
They are also too dumb to use them properly.
End of thread.
Ignore this gimmick. He literally hasn’t clue of what he’s talking about.
-
The undead dinosaur is at it again.
Dianne Feinstein's Latest 'Assault Weapon' Bill Is Just As Illogical As All the Previous Ones
(https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5c716d19d61754774ac5eaeb/3:2/w_1998,h_1332,c_limit/dianne-feinstein-green-new-deal.jpg)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) yesterday introduced an "updated" version of her proposed ban on "military-style assault weapons," invoking "domestic terrorism" as a justification. "We're now seeing a rise in domestic terrorism," she says, "and military-style assault weapons are increasingly becoming the guns of choice for these dangerous groups." Yet her bill, which so far has attracted 34 cosponsors in the Senate, makes no more sense as a response to terrorism than it does as a response to mass shootings.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021, like the Feinstein-sponsored 1994 ban that expired in 2004, would prohibit the manufacture and sale of numerous arbitrarily defined firearms, including some of the most popular rifles sold in the United States. It lists "205 military-style assault weapons" by name and also covers other guns with features Feinstein does not like. It would ban any semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has "a pistol grip," "a forward grip," a folding or telescoping stock, "a grenade launcher," "a barrel shroud," or "a threaded barrel."
In contrast with the 1994 definition, which required two or more "military-style" features, Feinstein's new proposal, like the bills she has been sponsoring since 2013, says one is enough to make a rifle intolerable. Feinstein also continues to fiddle with her list of prohibited features. She no longer thinks we need to worry about bayonet mounts, but she is now sounding the alarm about the ominous barrel shroud, a covering that protects the shooter's hand from the heat generated by firing a rifle. And while her 2013 list included "a rocket launcher," that has since been excised, although "grenade launcher" is still there.
https://reason.com/2021/03/12/dianne-feinsteins-latest-assault-weapon-bill-is-just-as-illogical-as-all-the-previous-ones/
-
The undead dinosaur is at it again.
Dianne Feinstein's Latest 'Assault Weapon' Bill Is Just As Illogical As All the Previous Ones
(https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5c716d19d61754774ac5eaeb/3:2/w_1998,h_1332,c_limit/dianne-feinstein-green-new-deal.jpg)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) yesterday introduced an "updated" version of her proposed ban on "military-style assault weapons," invoking "domestic terrorism" as a justification. "We're now seeing a rise in domestic terrorism," she says, "and military-style assault weapons are increasingly becoming the guns of choice for these dangerous groups." Yet her bill, which so far has attracted 34 cosponsors in the Senate, makes no more sense as a response to terrorism than it does as a response to mass shootings.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021, like the Feinstein-sponsored 1994 ban that expired in 2004, would prohibit the manufacture and sale of numerous arbitrarily defined firearms, including some of the most popular rifles sold in the United States. It lists "205 military-style assault weapons" by name and also covers other guns with features Feinstein does not like. It would ban any semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has "a pistol grip," "a forward grip," a folding or telescoping stock, "a grenade launcher," "a barrel shroud," or "a threaded barrel."
In contrast with the 1994 definition, which required two or more "military-style" features, Feinstein's new proposal, like the bills she has been sponsoring since 2013, says one is enough to make a rifle intolerable. Feinstein also continues to fiddle with her list of prohibited features. She no longer thinks we need to worry about bayonet mounts, but she is now sounding the alarm about the ominous barrel shroud, a covering that protects the shooter's hand from the heat generated by firing a rifle. And while her 2013 list included "a rocket launcher," that has since been excised, although "grenade launcher" is still there.
https://reason.com/2021/03/12/dianne-feinsteins-latest-assault-weapon-bill-is-just-as-illogical-as-all-the-previous-ones/
She had me at grenade launcher. < ::)>
Missing from her list of 205 firearms is the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle, which functions identically to the AR-15, uses the same ammo, and accommodates the same size magazines.
But it's less lethal because of its wood stock. The risk of splinters causes the shooter to fire slower. :D
(https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg)
-
Bitches need a good chankla beating.
-
What is a military style assault weapon? ;D
-
What is a military style assault weapon? ;D
Assault is an action, therefore any weapon is an assault weapon.
-
Biden considering gun control executive orders, Psaki says
President Biden is considering possible executive orders on gun control after the mass shooting that killed 10 in Boulder, Colorado, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday.
“We are considering a range of levers, including working through legislation, including executive action,” Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One during a flight to Ohio.
Psaki said “he as vice president was leading the effort on determining executive actions that could be taken on gun safety measures, it’s something that he has worked on, he’s passionate about, he feels personally connected to. But there’s an ongoing process and I think we feel we have to work on multiple channels at the same time.”
https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/biden-considering-gun-control-executive-orders-psaki-says/
-
Biden considering gun control executive orders, Psaki says
President Biden is considering possible executive orders on gun control after the mass shooting that killed 10 in Boulder, Colorado, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday.
“We are considering a range of levers, including working through legislation, including executive action,” Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One during a flight to Ohio.
Psaki said “he as vice president was leading the effort on determining executive actions that could be taken on gun safety measures, it’s something that he has worked on, he’s passionate about, he feels personally connected to. But there’s an ongoing process and I think we feel we have to work on multiple channels at the same time.”
https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/biden-considering-gun-control-executive-orders-psaki-says/
Never let a crisis go to waste. Unconstitutional executive order coming soon.
-
Never let a crisis go to waste. Unconstitutional executive order coming soon.
were there any false flag nonsense things during Trumps term? I don't remember any and we've already had to "mass shootings" in the first couple months under PEDO for POTUs
-
Biden Calls for a Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘High Capacity’ Magazines After Colorado Shooting
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/democrats-push-for-gun-control-following-colorado-shooting_3745756.html
-
Biden Calls for a Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘High Capacity’ Magazines After Colorado Shooting
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/democrats-push-for-gun-control-following-colorado-shooting_3745756.html
Bitems first gun ban didn't work either. ::)
-
Biden Calls for a Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘High Capacity’ Magazines After Colorado Shooting
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/democrats-push-for-gun-control-following-colorado-shooting_3745756.html
Turns out the Colorado shooter used a Ruger SR-556 pistol. No semiautomatic rifles were injured during the shootings.
Never allow a crisis to go to waste, real or imagined.
-
Turns out the Colorado shooter used a Ruger SR-556 pistol. No semiautomatic rifles were injured during the shootings.
Never allow a crisis to go to waste, real or imagined.
One of the things that is so intellectually dishonest about trying to ban "assault rifles" is the overwhelming majority of firearm-related murders, including mass murders, are committed with handguns. But no one on the left has the stones to say what they really want to do (ban all firearms). I think it was a retired Supreme Court Justice who wrote an editorial some years back saying he wanted to ban handguns? Other than him, these people are all dishonest.
-
Ninth Circus strikes again.
Ninth Circuit Goes Back to English Law in the Middle Ages, Says Pre-U.S. Law in Hawaii Allows State’s Open Carry Restrictions
A federal court denied a challenge to Hawaii’s prohibition on the open carry of firearms in a lengthy and scholarly opinion released Wednesday — finding that Hawaiian law and practice both predate and supersede a broad application of the Second Amendment.
“Hawai‘i law began limiting public carriage of dangerous weapons, including firearms, more than 150 years ago — nearly fifty years before it became a U.S. territory and more than a century before it became a state,” the opinion explains in language foreshadowing the method of inquiry and eventual ruling in favor of anti-gun regulation.
Sitting en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7-4 against George Young, who was twice denied an open carry permit in 2011. The massive, 215-page opinion was authored by George W. Bush-appointed Circuit Judge Jay Bybee. Two dissents were authored by a collection of judges appointed by former presidents Ronald Reagan, Bush, and Donald Trump.
The court spends nearly 50 pages discussing the time-honored regulation of weapons under the law. This section starts in Middle Age England and ends in the Post-Reconstruction United States.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ninth-circuit-goes-back-to-english-law-in-the-middle-ages-says-pre-u-s-law-in-hawaii-allows-state-s-open-carry-restrictions/ar-BB1eVqxA
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/photo-collage-reveals-commits-mass-shootings-us-today
Liberal failures not going to like this one at all.
-
Gun control turns innocent people into victims. Check your 1994-2004 stats, there's a reason Bitems "assault weapon" (wtf is that? ::) ) ban wasn't renewed.
-
This is the guy Biden is nominating as head of ATF.
A retired ATF agent, he is, among other things, a "senior policy adviser" at "Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence".
Article from 2018:
Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns
David Chipman, a retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, on Monday said AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns.
"What I support is treating them just like machine guns," Chipman, who is now a senior policy adviser at Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising."
"To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file," he continued.
"To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun. These policies just protect the criminal. Like, I don't think you should be able to anonymously purchase 20 AR-15s at one time, and the government shouldn't know," he said. "I don't think it's unreasonable at all that you have to pass a background check to own a weapon of war."
The AR-15 is not currently classified as an assault weapon, otherwise known as a machine gun.
The National Firearms Act put strict guidelines in place for machine gun manufacturers and require that owners register their weapons.
In order to purchase and own a machine gun, owners must go through background checks and allow the federal government to conduct searches.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/413619-retired-atf-agent-says-ar-15-rifles-should-be-regulated-like-machine-guns
-
This is the guy Biden is nominating as head of ATF.
A retired ATF agent, he is, among other things, a "senior policy adviser" at "Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence".
Article from 2018:
Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns
David Chipman, a retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, on Monday said AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns.
"What I support is treating them just like machine guns," Chipman, who is now a senior policy adviser at Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising."
"To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file," he continued.
"To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun. These policies just protect the criminal. Like, I don't think you should be able to anonymously purchase 20 AR-15s at one time, and the government shouldn't know," he said. "I don't think it's unreasonable at all that you have to pass a background check to own a weapon of war."
The AR-15 is not currently classified as an assault weapon, otherwise known as a machine gun.
The National Firearms Act put strict guidelines in place for machine gun manufacturers and require that owners register their weapons.
In order to purchase and own a machine gun, owners must go through background checks and allow the federal government to conduct searches.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/413619-retired-atf-agent-says-ar-15-rifles-should-be-regulated-like-machine-guns
Did this douchebag never hear of the NICS system?
-
Indiana Constitutional Carry Bill Killed Due to Police Police Orgs’ Opposition
State Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, is puzzling over the failure of his gun-rights bill in the Indiana Senate this week.
Smaltz’s “lawful carry” bill sought to allow law-abiding Hoosier adults to carry handguns without the need to obtain state permits.
It passed the Indiana House of Representatives by a 65-31 vote on Feb. 22.
Twenty-one of the 50 state senators had signed as co-sponsors of the bill, including both state senators who represent DeKalb County, Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, and Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn.
His bill almost certainly would have passed in the Senate if it had been allowed to come to a vote, Smaltz said Friday.
Instead, two Senate leaders of Smaltz’s own Republican Party blocked the bill by refusing to give it a committee hearing.
Smaltz called the outcome “very disappointing.” He added, “The support was there. … Despite what was really trying to be done for the lawful good guy, decisions were made contrary to that.”
Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray halted the bill because of opposition from the Indiana State Police superintendent, the state police chiefs association and the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, he told the Associated Press.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/indiana-constitutional-carry-killed-due-to-police-police-orgs-opposition/
-
This is the guy Biden is nominating as head of ATF.
A retired ATF agent, he is, among other things, a "senior policy adviser" at "Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence".
Article from 2018:
Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns
David Chipman, a retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, on Monday said AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns.
"What I support is treating them just like machine guns," Chipman, who is now a senior policy adviser at Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising."
"To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file," he continued.
"To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun. These policies just protect the criminal. Like, I don't think you should be able to anonymously purchase 20 AR-15s at one time, and the government shouldn't know," he said. "I don't think it's unreasonable at all that you have to pass a background check to own a weapon of war."
The AR-15 is not currently classified as an assault weapon, otherwise known as a machine gun.
The National Firearms Act put strict guidelines in place for machine gun manufacturers and require that owners register their weapons.
In order to purchase and own a machine gun, owners must go through background checks and allow the federal government to conduct searches.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/413619-retired-atf-agent-says-ar-15-rifles-should-be-regulated-like-machine-guns
Sloppy writing:
"The AR-15 is not currently classified as an assault weapon, otherwise known as a machine gun."
The weapon of war (machine gun) is the "assault rifle."
-
Where are the liberals on this...they voted for this now they don’t want to come here to defend their boys agenda?
-
Where are the liberals on this...they voted for this now they don’t want to come here to defend their boys agenda?
I'm all for it
satisfied
-
I'm all for it
satisfied
Outed
-
I'm all for it
satisfied
You don’t have to post how it feels with an Michelle Obama up your ass. Nasty.
-
Ohio bill would ‘null’ and ‘void’ gun laws, court rulings that lawmakers oppose
14 House Republicans signed onto legislation that would allow the state of Ohio to nix federal gun laws and court rulings that legislators deem to violate of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
House Bill 62 would declare any federal law, executive order, administrative action, or court ruling to be “null, void, and of no effect in this state” if it infringes upon the Second Amendment.
Legal acts that would qualify as infringements under the bill (the “Second Amendment Safe Haven Act”) include any of the following if they could “reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect.”
- Any tax on guns, gun parts, or ammunition not common to other goods and services
- Any registering or tracking of guns
- Any registering or tracking of gun owners
- Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use or transfer of guns or ammo by law-abiding citizens
- Any act ordering the confiscation of guns
The bill also prohibits law enforcement from enforcing any federal laws, court rulings, or orders that would qualify as infringements under the bill. If they do, they “shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law.”
It would prohibit a defense known as “qualified immunity,” which state employees claim as a defense for carrying out their official job duties.
https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/ohio-bill-would-null-and-void-gun-laws-court-rulings-that-lawmakers-oppose/530-b5f2690f-acba-4fad-9108-efc4e87637c8
-
Ohio bill would ‘null’ and ‘void’ gun laws, court rulings that lawmakers oppose
14 House Republicans signed onto legislation that would allow the state of Ohio to nix federal gun laws and court rulings that legislators deem to violate of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
House Bill 62 would declare any federal law, executive order, administrative action, or court ruling to be “null, void, and of no effect in this state” if it infringes upon the Second Amendment.
Legal acts that would qualify as infringements under the bill (the “Second Amendment Safe Haven Act”) include any of the following if they could “reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect.”
- Any tax on guns, gun parts, or ammunition not common to other goods and services
- Any registering or tracking of guns
- Any registering or tracking of gun owners
- Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use or transfer of guns or ammo by law-abiding citizens
- Any act ordering the confiscation of guns
The bill also prohibits law enforcement from enforcing any federal laws, court rulings, or orders that would qualify as infringements under the bill. If they do, they “shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law.”
It would prohibit a defense known as “qualified immunity,” which state employees claim as a defense for carrying out their official job duties.
https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/ohio-bill-would-null-and-void-gun-laws-court-rulings-that-lawmakers-oppose/530-b5f2690f-acba-4fad-9108-efc4e87637c8
well.... 2A does include the words "free state".... so I'd read it like states rights imo
-
Supreme Court Blocks Police From Entering Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’—Siding Against Biden, Law Enforcement
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.
The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Police entered the home under a “community caretaking” exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes.
That exception had been favored by the law enforcement in the case and also the Biden administration, whose Justice Department said in an amicus brief that police should be able to enter homes without a warrant in cases that are “objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”
The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”
“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”
The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/17/supreme-court-blocks-police-from-entering-homes-without-a-warrant-for-caretaking-siding-against-biden-law-enforcement/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
-
Supreme Court Blocks Police From Entering Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’—Siding Against Biden, Law Enforcement
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.
The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Police entered the home under a “community caretaking” exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes.
That exception had been favored by the law enforcement in the case and also the Biden administration, whose Justice Department said in an amicus brief that police should be able to enter homes without a warrant in cases that are “objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”
The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”
“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”
The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/17/supreme-court-blocks-police-from-entering-homes-without-a-warrant-for-caretaking-siding-against-biden-law-enforcement/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Now this is what I love to see: a 9-0 decision AND one that preserves individual liberty.
-
Supreme Court Blocks Police From Entering Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’—Siding Against Biden, Law Enforcement
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.
The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Police entered the home under a “community caretaking” exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes.
That exception had been favored by the law enforcement in the case and also the Biden administration, whose Justice Department said in an amicus brief that police should be able to enter homes without a warrant in cases that are “objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”
The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”
“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”
The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/17/supreme-court-blocks-police-from-entering-homes-without-a-warrant-for-caretaking-siding-against-biden-law-enforcement/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Good!
-
FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights
Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com .
In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States.
In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:
California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-assault_weapon-lawsuit-in-historic-victory-for-second_amendment-rights
-
FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights
Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com .
In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States.
In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:
California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-assault_weapon-lawsuit-in-historic-victory-for-second_amendment-rights
Good. Now I can see the 9th Circuit reversing and the U.S. Supreme Court slapping the 9th Circuit around, again.
-
I'm all for it
satisfied
And just like everything else, you have no concept of it which is why you're too fucking stupid to vote
-
Supreme Court Blocks Police From Entering Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’—Siding Against Biden, Law Enforcement
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.
The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Police entered the home under a “community caretaking” exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes.
That exception had been favored by the law enforcement in the case and also the Biden administration, whose Justice Department said in an amicus brief that police should be able to enter homes without a warrant in cases that are “objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”
The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”
“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”
The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/17/supreme-court-blocks-police-from-entering-homes-without-a-warrant-for-caretaking-siding-against-biden-law-enforcement/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-overturns-california-ban-032400825.html
Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.
LMFAO this is the issue with people who have no idea what their talking about making policies that effect everyday people
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-overturns-california-ban-032400825.html
Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.
LMFAO this is the issue with people who have no idea what their talking about making policies that effect everyday people
Assault rifles, assault shotguns and assault pistols??? What are those ???
-
Assault rifles, assault shotguns and assault pistols??? What are those ???
Assault Foot:
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp3dsbX4Mf1qdezf9o1_500.gif)
Assault ruler:
(https://media.tenor.com/images/9caaec6de722259b456114c69cf2ce77/tenor.gif)
Assault stage:
(https://i.ibb.co/qngNjZ8/ezgif-com-video-to-gif.gif)
Assault shadow:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2c/28/a2/2c28a2d8de775911ebc06f50103f6a76.gif)
-
As expected.
US appeals court blocks judge’s decision to overturn state’s assault weapons ban
A federal appeals court decided Monday to put on hold a judge’s decision to overturn California’s 30-year ban on assault weapons.
In a brief order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Judge Roger T. Benitez’s June 4th decision, in which he likened an AR-15 semiautomatic to a Swiss Army Knife and called it “good for both home and battle.”
Benitez overturned the California ban but gave the state 30 days to challenge the decision. The 9th Circuit, acting on a June 10 appeal filed by Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, put Benitez’s ruling on hold pending a full-blown decision.
“This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said said in a tweet. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-21/appeals-court-blocks-judges-decision-to-overturn-states-assault-weapons-ban
-
::)
Biden touts new crime prevention strategy focused on gun control
He rejected the argument that the right to self-defense is needed to protect against potential government tyranny
By Morgan Phillips | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-crime-prevention-strategy-gun-control
-
As expected.
US appeals court blocks judge’s decision to overturn state’s assault weapons ban
A federal appeals court decided Monday to put on hold a judge’s decision to overturn California’s 30-year ban on assault weapons.
In a brief order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Judge Roger T. Benitez’s June 4th decision, in which he likened an AR-15 semiautomatic to a Swiss Army Knife and called it “good for both home and battle.”
Benitez overturned the California ban but gave the state 30 days to challenge the decision. The 9th Circuit, acting on a June 10 appeal filed by Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, put Benitez’s ruling on hold pending a full-blown decision.
“This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said said in a tweet. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-21/appeals-court-blocks-judges-decision-to-overturn-states-assault-weapons-ban
Assault weapons.
Oh brother. ;D
-
San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance
Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.
The forthcoming fee for gun ownership in the city has not yet been determined, but officials said that anyone found to be in noncompliance will have their weapons confiscated.
The city council's aim is to try to recoup the cost of responding to gun incidents such as shootings and deaths. According to the Pacific Council on Research and Evaluation, which studied the issue and sent a representative to testify before the panel, gun-related incidents cost the city roughly $63 million every year in the way of paying for police officers, medics and other expenses, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.
San Jose-based FOX 2 reported that citizens weighed in on the proposal, with some praising the council for the measure and others condemning the move as unconstitutional.
"I strongly oppose more taxation on legal gun owners," San Jose resident Sasha Sherman told the council. "Each time a gun owner buys ammunition, they pay an 11% tax, plus a background check fee."
Another speaker argued, "It puts a financial burden on a constitutional right, which is the right to bear arms."
While the council directed staffers to draft up the law for a final September vote, the dollar amount on the new tax for gun owners has not yet been determined. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo suggested the new annual fine will likely be "a couple dozen dollars," and claimed insurers assured the city that firearms owners adding gun liability coverage to existing policies would cost the affected citizens little or nothing.
But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.
"Crooks aren’t going to follow this law," Liccardo told reporters. "When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun."
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/san-jose-tax-gun-owners-city-confiscate-firearms-noncompliance
-
I wonder if straw supports this since it's his neighborhood ???
I think it's leaving San Jose open for a beautiful lawsuit from somebody.
-
San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance
Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.
The forthcoming fee for gun ownership in the city has not yet been determined, but officials said that anyone found to be in noncompliance will have their weapons confiscated.
The city council's aim is to try to recoup the cost of responding to gun incidents such as shootings and deaths. According to the Pacific Council on Research and Evaluation, which studied the issue and sent a representative to testify before the panel, gun-related incidents cost the city roughly $63 million every year in the way of paying for police officers, medics and other expenses, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.
San Jose-based FOX 2 reported that citizens weighed in on the proposal, with some praising the council for the measure and others condemning the move as unconstitutional.
"I strongly oppose more taxation on legal gun owners," San Jose resident Sasha Sherman told the council. "Each time a gun owner buys ammunition, they pay an 11% tax, plus a background check fee."
Another speaker argued, "It puts a financial burden on a constitutional right, which is the right to bear arms."
While the council directed staffers to draft up the law for a final September vote, the dollar amount on the new tax for gun owners has not yet been determined. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo suggested the new annual fine will likely be "a couple dozen dollars," and claimed insurers assured the city that firearms owners adding gun liability coverage to existing policies would cost the affected citizens little or nothing.
But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.
"Crooks aren’t going to follow this law," Liccardo told reporters. "When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun."
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/san-jose-tax-gun-owners-city-confiscate-firearms-noncompliance
I don’t believe SJ’s proposal will pass constitutional muster. Imagine needing insurance to plead the fifth, go to church, or march with BLM.
-
Law banning handgun sales to Americans under 21 violates Second Amendment, court rules
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that prohibitions on selling handguns to Americans under 21 violates the Second Amendment, the latest legal victory for gun rights advocates in federal court.
At issue is a gun control law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 that banned the sale of handguns to people under 21 years old but permitted the sale of shotguns and rifles to those same people.
A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., said Tuesday that the law was an arbitrary restriction that relegated 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status under the Second Amendment. The decision is likely to be appealed and may eventually reach the Supreme Court.
"When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33?" wrote Judge Julius Richardson, nominated to the court by President Donald Trump in 2018. "In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age."
The suit was filed by 19-year-old Natalia Marshall, who obtained a protective order against an ex-boyfriend, according to court records. The boyfriend had been arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. Marshall was 18 when she attempted to purchase a handgun. Another plaintiff has since turned 21.
The decision comes a month after a federal judge in California invalidated California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, comparing the AR-15 assault rifle to a "Swiss Army knife." The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit extended a stay in that case last month, delaying its impact while another dispute works its way through the courts.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/13/banning-handgun-sales-those-under-21-unconstitutional-court-rules/7955496002/
-
Law banning handgun sales to Americans under 21 violates Second Amendment, court rules
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that prohibitions on selling handguns to Americans under 21 violates the Second Amendment, the latest legal victory for gun rights advocates in federal court.
At issue is a gun control law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 that banned the sale of handguns to people under 21 years old but permitted the sale of shotguns and rifles to those same people.
A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., said Tuesday that the law was an arbitrary restriction that relegated 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status under the Second Amendment. The decision is likely to be appealed and may eventually reach the Supreme Court.
"When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33?" wrote Judge Julius Richardson, nominated to the court by President Donald Trump in 2018. "In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age."
The suit was filed by 19-year-old Natalia Marshall, who obtained a protective order against an ex-boyfriend, according to court records. The boyfriend had been arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. Marshall was 18 when she attempted to purchase a handgun. Another plaintiff has since turned 21.
The decision comes a month after a federal judge in California invalidated California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, comparing the AR-15 assault rifle to a "Swiss Army knife." The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit extended a stay in that case last month, delaying its impact while another dispute works its way through the courts.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/13/banning-handgun-sales-those-under-21-unconstitutional-court-rules/7955496002/
Yeah good decision. Pretty dumb to permit an 18 year old to join the service, or get drafted and be forced to learn how to shoot a weapon, but not let them be privately purchased.
-
It would be nice for once to see the arrest and imprisonment of those who ignore court decisions and violate the laws, instead of arresting and prosecuting the law-abiding citizens.
U.S. judge: Nation's capital liable for wrongful arrests under struck-down gun ban
A federal judge found the D.C. government liable Wednesday for wrongfully arresting between 2012 and 2014 six people who were accused of violating its ban on carrying handguns in public.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth did not rule on a motion seeking class-action status, but the decision, if upheld, could clear the way for claims for damages by as many as 4,500 people similarly arrested under the law the courts overturned in 2014, according to court filings.
The decision is the latest in a long line of litigation after Washington’s strictest-in-the-nation gun regulations made the nation’s capital a key focus for gun rights activists two decades ago. The Supreme Court struck down the District’s long-standing ban on handguns in a landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found that the Second Amendment protected individuals’ right to own a gun in the home.
The District enacted new restrictions on openly carrying firearms in the city, but a federal judge in July 2014 and an appeals court in July 2017 again struck down regulations requiring residents to show “proper reason” to do so, such as a fear of injury or transporting valuables. The 2014 ruling also barred the city from enforcing carrying restrictions against people “based solely on the fact that they are nonresidents.”
The city subsequently repealed statutes criminalizing possession of firearms not registered in D.C., possession of ammunition by people without a D.C.-registered firearm and otherwise barring possession by nonresidents.
In Wednesday’s 19-page opinion, Lamberth rejected the D.C. government’s defense that it could not have violated the plaintiffs rights before a court struck down its statutes.
Instead, Lamberth ruled, laws banning carrying firearms in public and nonresidents from registering firearms, and permitting the arrest of nonresidents for carrying weapons or ammunition without a license, “go the core of the Second Amendment.” The judge said the amendment preserves the “right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to long-standing restrictions,” quoting the 2017 opinion, Wrenn v. District of Columbia.
“The District violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by arresting them, detaining them, prosecuting them, and seizing their guns based on an unconstitutional set of D.C. laws,” Lamberth wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-gun-ban-wrongful-arrests/2021/09/29/4d639960-2155-11ec-9309-b743b79abc59_story.html
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/markets/smith-wesson-headquarters-tennessee-gun-legislation.amp
-
H R 4350 has some ridiculous language in it
-
Biden Admin Has Records on Nearly One Billion Gun Sales
ATF database on firearm sales sparks fears Biden admin tracking millions of gun owners
Adam Kredo • January 31, 2022
https://freebeacon.com/guns/biden-admin-has-records-on-nearly-one-billion-gun-sales/
-
Biden Admin Has Records on Nearly One Billion Gun Sales
ATF database on firearm sales sparks fears Biden admin tracking millions of gun owners
Adam Kredo • January 31, 2022
https://freebeacon.com/guns/biden-admin-has-records-on-nearly-one-billion-gun-sales/
he beat the old record (obama) for the title 'worlds greatest gun salesman' everything they do is a fail
-
-
Showing his true colors: "The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed."
Mayor Plans to Seize Guns of Citizens Who Haven't Paid 'Fee' to Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights
A California city has approved a law forcing gun owners to have insurance and pay an annual $25 fee.
“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” Democratic San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said, according to CNN.
Gun owners are also required under the law to have insurance. The law, which received its first approval in January, will need approval on a second reading this month before it can go on the books, taking effect in August.
Gun owners who do not pay the fee will face a fine, he said, but they will not be subject to criminal charges. However, he said, they could have their gun seized and illustrated a possible scenario.
“Encountering people with guns, out on the street, in bars and nightclubs — you can imagine a host of different venues where a police officer would really like to have the ability to remove a gun from a potentially combustible situation. For example, there’s a bar brawl and they’re patting down everybody and someone’s got a gun. ‘Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?’ ‘No.’
“OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun. And then when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back. But in the meantime, you’ve taken a gun out of a bar brawl. And that’s not a bad thing,” he said.
Liccardo insisted that the fee is legal.
“The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed. Newspapers pay taxes, even though that’s an important First Amendment right,” he told Slate.
https://www.westernjournal.com/mayor-plans-seize-guns-citizens-havent-paid-fee-exercise-2nd-amendment-rights/
-
gun control
i control all 9 of mine very easily
-
Showing his true colors: "The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed."
Mayor Plans to Seize Guns of Citizens Who Haven't Paid 'Fee' to Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights
A California city has approved a law forcing gun owners to have insurance and pay an annual $25 fee.
“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” Democratic San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said, according to CNN.
Gun owners are also required under the law to have insurance. The law, which received its first approval in January, will need approval on a second reading this month before it can go on the books, taking effect in August.
Gun owners who do not pay the fee will face a fine, he said, but they will not be subject to criminal charges. However, he said, they could have their gun seized and illustrated a possible scenario.
“Encountering people with guns, out on the street, in bars and nightclubs — you can imagine a host of different venues where a police officer would really like to have the ability to remove a gun from a potentially combustible situation. For example, there’s a bar brawl and they’re patting down everybody and someone’s got a gun. ‘Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?’ ‘No.’
“OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun. And then when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back. But in the meantime, you’ve taken a gun out of a bar brawl. And that’s not a bad thing,” he said.
Liccardo insisted that the fee is legal.
“The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed. Newspapers pay taxes, even though that’s an important First Amendment right,” he told Slate.
https://www.westernjournal.com/mayor-plans-seize-guns-citizens-havent-paid-fee-exercise-2nd-amendment-rights/
Yeah, have insurance and pay an annual fee to go to church, publish your writings, plead the fifth, or confront those who claim you’ve committed a crime. ::)
-
Showing his true colors: "The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed."
Mayor Plans to Seize Guns of Citizens Who Haven't Paid 'Fee' to Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights
A California city has approved a law forcing gun owners to have insurance and pay an annual $25 fee.
“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” Democratic San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said, according to CNN.
Gun owners are also required under the law to have insurance. The law, which received its first approval in January, will need approval on a second reading this month before it can go on the books, taking effect in August.
Gun owners who do not pay the fee will face a fine, he said, but they will not be subject to criminal charges. However, he said, they could have their gun seized and illustrated a possible scenario.
“Encountering people with guns, out on the street, in bars and nightclubs — you can imagine a host of different venues where a police officer would really like to have the ability to remove a gun from a potentially combustible situation. For example, there’s a bar brawl and they’re patting down everybody and someone’s got a gun. ‘Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?’ ‘No.’
“OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun. And then when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back. But in the meantime, you’ve taken a gun out of a bar brawl. And that’s not a bad thing,” he said.
Liccardo insisted that the fee is legal.
“The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed. Newspapers pay taxes, even though that’s an important First Amendment right,” he told Slate.
https://www.westernjournal.com/mayor-plans-seize-guns-citizens-havent-paid-fee-exercise-2nd-amendment-rights/
“Does not require the tax payer to subsidize that right”. What does that mean? What does it cost the tax payer for a citizen to have a gun? ???
-
gun control
i control all 9 of mine very easily
Rookie numbers
-
1 gun you’re a mass murderer, 10 or more you’re a collector
-
BREAKING: Biden stresses need for gun control after NYPD officers murdered by career criminal
Hannah Nightingale
Washington DC
February 3, 2022
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-biden-gun-control-nypd?utm_campaign=64487
-
Good.
Nevada County Evicts Anti-Gun Judges From County Government Building
“Gun-free” zones are something of a contagion, particularly among government entities. When rigorously treated (through opposition and education), they can be contained to a reasonable size and cover only “essential” places like prisons. When ignored and allowed to flourish, they have a way of spreading and infecting areas around them. That’s exactly what’s happened in Nye County, Nevada.
When Bruce Jabbour, a pro-gun county commissioner, got into office in 2021, he found out that he wouldn’t be allowed to lawfully carry his pistol in his own office. Why? Because the county building also has district court offices located in the same government complex building, and Judge Kim Wanker (yes, her real name) had issued an order banning firearms from the building, ostensibly for security reasons.
This set the judges and the county commission on course for a turf war over control of the building.
Jabbour initially tried to settle the issue with the judges privately, asking them to revise the order and limit it to only the court’s offices, leaving the rest of the building alone. That wasn’t acceptable to those in robes, so Jabbour brought the issue up at a county commission meeting.
The commission, exercising its authority over the parts of the building not run by the court, voted to have signs banning guns removed from the main doors and moved to the doors leading to the court’s portion of the building.
In response, the judges took the issue to Las Vegas media outlets, claiming that the county commission was determined to endanger the judges and their staff. Jabbour then took the matter before the county commission last week.
That item was before the board on Tuesday, May 17, at which Jabbour said judges had disrespected the commission by ignoring its action. When he consulted the Nye County District Attorney’s Office, he was reportedly told he would be in contempt of the court order if he were to remove the “no weapons” signs himself.
The commission, with no remaining options left, decided to do what any decent landlord would do when faced with problem tenants: they evicted them.
At a meeting last week, the commission voted unanimously to kick the courts out of the building and relocate them to other county-owned buildings that are either not currently being used or will soon be vacated.
Not only does this solve the standoff, but according to Commissioner Debra Strickland, the county was in need of more room anyway. Booting the courts and judges will give the county much-needed room while also respecting the Second Amendment rights of those who work there.
Stories like this are a good reminder that we should never accept an anti-gun situation as something beyond our ability to change. While there are certainly places a reasonable governmental entity might want to prohibit firearms (especially when criminal justice matters are involved), these restrictions should be kept to the minimum and not allowed to infringe on more people than absolutely necessary.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/nevada-county-evicts-anti-gun-judges-from-county-government-building/
Some history on this "judge":
Judge Wanker receives public reprimand for actions in case
https://pvtimes.com/news/judge-wanker-receives-public-reprimand-for-actions-in-case/
-
The party that hysterically claims "our democracy is in danger" wants to make it prohibitive for Americans to purchase firearms. (Beyer's net worth is estimated at $124 million)
Notice the last sentence. What a traitorous weasel.
Beyer introduces bill to tax assault-style weapons at 1,000 percent
If Congress won’t entertain a ban on assault-style weapons, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) has a new idea: imposing a 1,000 percent tax on them.
Beyer introduced the Assault Weapons Excise Act on Tuesday with 36 Democratic cosponsors as Congress continues debating gun-safety proposals following last month’s back-to-back mass shootings. A 1,000 percent excise tax on semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s would mark a drastic increase from any existing federal excise taxes on firearms — a proposal that Beyer is hoping could bypass the Senate filibuster, which requires support of at least 10 Republicans. Insider first previewed the legislation earlier this month.
The idea, Beyer said, is to increase the price of certain semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15s, to such a degree that it significantly limits accessibility to those guns but stops short of a full ban. The tax Beyer proposed would also apply to high-capacity magazines. And the guns that would be taxed are similar to those laid out in the Assault Weapons Ban legislation, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she wants to bring to the floor but that is unlikely to go anywhere in the evenly divided Senate.
“It’s trying to hit the sweet spot, where it’s not an all-out ban, but people’s independent purchasing decisions would be much more ‘no’ than ‘yes,’ ” Beyer said in an interview Tuesday. “You want to shift the demand curve pretty significantly.”
Beyer said part of the thinking behind the 1,000 percent figure was to have a high-enough fiscal impact that the Senate parliamentarian would find it qualifies for inclusion in a reconciliation package, meaning it could pass the Senate with a simple majority.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/14/don-beyer-1000-excise-tax-guns/
-
Gun control is when you hit the target.
-
The slew of shootings starting last month is suspicious
-
The party that hysterically claims "our democracy is in danger" wants to make it prohibitive for Americans to purchase firearms. (Beyer's net worth is estimated at $124 million)
Notice the last sentence. What a traitorous weasel.
Beyer introduces bill to tax assault-style weapons at 1,000 percent
If Congress won’t entertain a ban on assault-style weapons, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) has a new idea: imposing a 1,000 percent tax on them.
Beyer introduced the Assault Weapons Excise Act on Tuesday with 36 Democratic cosponsors as Congress continues debating gun-safety proposals following last month’s back-to-back mass shootings. A 1,000 percent excise tax on semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s would mark a drastic increase from any existing federal excise taxes on firearms — a proposal that Beyer is hoping could bypass the Senate filibuster, which requires support of at least 10 Republicans. Insider first previewed the legislation earlier this month.
The idea, Beyer said, is to increase the price of certain semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15s, to such a degree that it significantly limits accessibility to those guns but stops short of a full ban. The tax Beyer proposed would also apply to high-capacity magazines. And the guns that would be taxed are similar to those laid out in the Assault Weapons Ban legislation, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she wants to bring to the floor but that is unlikely to go anywhere in the evenly divided Senate.
“It’s trying to hit the sweet spot, where it’s not an all-out ban, but people’s independent purchasing decisions would be much more ‘no’ than ‘yes,’ ” Beyer said in an interview Tuesday. “You want to shift the demand curve pretty significantly.”
Beyer said part of the thinking behind the 1,000 percent figure was to have a high-enough fiscal impact that the Senate parliamentarian would find it qualifies for inclusion in a reconciliation package, meaning it could pass the Senate with a simple majority.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/14/don-beyer-1000-excise-tax-guns/
Sounds like classism and the lower class will suffer immensely. Wonder why the government would attack the lower income families like this?
-
The slew of shootings starting last month is suspicious
To my point
https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-d-c-shooting-multiple-people-injured-including-police-officer
-
What’s In the Senate’s ‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’?
https://armedamericannews.org/whats-in-the-senates-bipartisan-safer-communities-act/
-
What’s In the Senate’s ‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’?
https://armedamericannews.org/whats-in-the-senates-bipartisan-safer-communities-act/
The red flags part of this will make it open season on gun confiscation
-
Supreme Court strikes down New York law regulating concealed handguns in public
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in a major case involving whether there's a fundamental right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home in public for self-defense.
The court struck down a century-old New York law that has restricted the concealed carry of handguns in public to only those with a "proper cause."
The 6-3 opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's most senior conservative member. The three liberal justices dissented.
Thomas wrote that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
"Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State's licensing regime violates the Constitution," Thomas wrote. "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'"
"In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," Thomas wrote.
"Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command,'" the opinion said.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-strikes-york-law-regulating-concealed-handguns/story?id=85160761
-
The red flags part of this will make it open season on gun confiscation
Yeah that's why i keep comments about guns to myself these days.
Unless it's a close friend.
These red flag laws will eventually get put into place.
And every single triggered Lib is going to use them.
-
Gun control is when you hit the target.
Good! ;D
-
Blake Masters IS RIGHT! “Black People, Frankly” DO Commit Almost All Gun Crime In U.S.
If stopping “gun crime” or “gun violence” is the Gordian Knot of contemporary criminal justice matters, then Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters might be Alexander the Great. With three words, he sliced through the problem by equating gun crime in America with “black people, frankly” [Blake Masters Blames Gun Violence on ‘Black People, Frankly’, By Roger Sollenberger, Daily Beast, June 6, 2022]. You read that correctly. Masters had the courage to say what needs to be said: Blacks with guns, not guns themselves, cause almost all the mayhem and murder in “urban” America. This VDARE.com survey of every major city proves Masters right.
Masters uttered the unutterable in an interview with podcaster Jeff Oravits on April 11.
“We do have a gun violence problem in this country, and it’s gang violence,” Masters said:
“It’s people in Chicago, St. Louis shooting each other. Very often, you know, Black people, frankly. … And the Democrats don’t want to do anything about that.”
Wow, imagine having the nuts to tell it like it is??
Im sure they made him back-track/apologize, but he's 100% right..
-
-
217-213
2 Republicans supported it
5 Democrats opposed it
House passes assault weapons ban that’s doomed in the Senate
The House passed legislation Friday that would ban assault weapons for the first time since 2004, in a sign that Democrats intend to pursue more aggressive gun violence prevention measures after a spate of mass shootings.
The bill passed in a largely party-line vote of 217-213, with 2 Republicans voting for the measure and 5 Democrats opposing it.
The level of GOP opposition indicates the bill is unlikely to advance in the evenly split Senate, where it would require the support of at least 10 Republicans to defeat a guaranteed filibuster. It’s also not clear if the measure has the support of all 50 Senate Democrats.
The legislation, authored by Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., would criminalize the knowing sale, manufacture, transfer, possession or importation of many types of semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
The 5 House Democrats who voted against the assault weapons ban were:
Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Jared Golden of Maine and Ron Kind of Wisconsin.
The 2 Republicans who crossed the aisle to support the bill were:
Reps. Chris Jacobs of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
Jacobs' district includes Buffalo, where a white gunman has been charged with killing 10 black people in a racist mass shooting at a supermarket in May.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-will-vote-ban-assault-weapons-friday-rcna40644
-
Keep taking rights away from law abiding citizens. ::) Fucking idiots ::)
-
217-213
2 Republicans supported it
5 Democrats opposed it
House passes assault weapons ban that’s doomed in the Senate
The House passed legislation Friday that would ban assault weapons for the first time since 2004, in a sign that Democrats intend to pursue more aggressive gun violence prevention measures after a spate of mass shootings.
The bill passed in a largely party-line vote of 217-213, with 2 Republicans voting for the measure and 5 Democrats opposing it.
The level of GOP opposition indicates the bill is unlikely to advance in the evenly split Senate, where it would require the support of at least 10 Republicans to defeat a guaranteed filibuster. It’s also not clear if the measure has the support of all 50 Senate Democrats.
The legislation, authored by Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., would criminalize the knowing sale, manufacture, transfer, possession or importation of many types of semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
The 5 House Democrats who voted against the assault weapons ban were:
Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Jared Golden of Maine and Ron Kind of Wisconsin.
The 2 Republicans who crossed the aisle to support the bill were:
Reps. Chris Jacobs of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
Jacobs' district includes Buffalo, where a white gunman has been charged with killing 10 black people in a racist mass shooting at a supermarket in May.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-will-vote-ban-assault-weapons-friday-rcna40644
It will be DOA in the Senate. They don’t have the votes.
-
It will be DOA in the Senate. They don’t have the votes.
I agree, but there'll be a serious run on semiauto rifles until the bill dies.
Then there'll be these: :D
-
It will be DOA in the Senate. They don’t have the votes.
It was a political bullshit stunt. Such a blurry and overreaching shit bill they are trying to pass, knowing full well it won't. It's all a show for their cuntstituents because they are afraid of losing their asses in the midterms.
-
It was a political bullshit stunt. Such a blurry and overreaching shit bill they are trying to pass, knowing full well it won't. It's all a show for their cuntstituents because they are afraid of losing their asses in the midterms.
-
Fifth Circuit Strikes Requirement that Subjects of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Forfeit Guns
AWR HAWKINS
4 Feb 2023
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2F2nd-amendment%2F2023%2F02%2F04%2Ffifth-circuit-strikes-requirement-that-subjects-domestic-violence-restraining-orders-forfeit-guns%2F
-
Fifth Circuit Strikes Requirement that Subjects of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Forfeit Guns
AWR HAWKINS
4 Feb 2023
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2F2nd-amendment%2F2023%2F02%2F04%2Ffifth-circuit-strikes-requirement-that-subjects-domestic-violence-restraining-orders-forfeit-guns%2F
Because of the Bruen decision, gun control lobbyists have been getting killed in the courts all over the country. The AG's in the blue states especially NY and California have been trying to find ways to circumvent Bruen. They can try to pass laws or even pass them because they know that even though they are all, for the most part unconstitutional, but the time it heads back to the SCOTUS, the damage will be done.
Biden and the left are still for an "Assault Weapons" claiming that when it passed in 1994 it reduced the number of gun violence, they are bold faced lying as an attempt to push it through again. They neglect to say that the 1994 decision had a "sunset clause" that basically said if there no significant reduction in the number of gun violence changes, it would automatically expire 10 years from the date....it expired and now they’re lying to you.
-
More gun control the solution?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/california-gun-control-isn-t-the-cure-for-what-ails-us-it-isn-t-even-the-cure-for-california/ar-AA17RbIp?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2f543754a2a24fd0aed09a0ee183dde5&ei=6
-
Jack Posobiec debunks Jon Stewart's claim that firearms are the leading cause of death among American children
by: Human Events Media Group 03/08/2023
Jack Posobiec debunks Jon Stewart's claim that firearms are the leading cause of death among American children
Jack Posobiec took aim at Jon Stewart on Tuesday, who had used his current platform to promote the recently adopted progressive practice of having drag queens read to children in public schools and libraries. When questioning a conservative guest who took issue with the drag story hours, Stewart pivoted to talking about the leading cause of deaths among children as a means to discredit the man.
The only problem is that Stewart was wrong, and Posobiec has the receipts to prove it.
Stewart claimed that the leading cause of death among children was firearms. "That's what it is," Stewart said with authority. "It's firearms, more than cancer more than car accidents."
But it isn't. And Posobiec, who is likely the only conservative to whom Stewart has ever apologized, pointed that out. In fact, the very things that Stewart said were not the leading cause of death—car accidents, cancer—are in the top five. As Posobiec said, abortion is the number one cause of death among children in the US. But among the born children of this nation, drowning tops the list for the age group 1-4. For ages 5-14, cancer and vehicle accidents are the leading cause of mortality.
"The number one and number two killers have children aged five to 14 is exactly what Jon Stewart said it wasn't. He said it wasn't cancer and car crashes. But in fact, that is exactly what the number one and number two causes of child death are in this country. And yet he lied," Posobiec said.
Posobiec looked into the stats cited by Stewart, which "most likely from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which last summer put out a huge headline, firearms are the leading cause of death for children in the United States," he said. That study from Kaiser showed that firearm mortality rates among children in the US are way ahead of similar countries like Canada, France, and Switzerland, among others.
"But just like anything else," Posobiec said, "when you're reading statistics from the left, you have to go a step further and question definitions. How does the Kaiser Family Foundation define a child in this study? I'll tell you how they define children, one through 19 years old."
"They're including teenagers as children in this, Posobiec said.
"Now, let me let me just play a little game with you, you know, little little question game," Posobiec said. "What do you think the leading cause of teenagers is in places like I don't know, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans? I do think that that might be a slightly different dataset than the one that he's talking about here."
Overdoses among teens are up across the country. He also noted that included in those firearms stats for teens are gun deaths by suicide. None of these were stats that Stewart brought up on his show.
"Suicides account for the majority of deaths by firearms in the United States at almost 60 percent in some studies," Posobiec said, "so of course, this is included in that. Even if I were to include homicides, and accidental deaths, which is of course what he's talking about, you still have to deal with the fact that it's teenagers involved here, not children."
https://humanevents.com/2023/03/08/jack-posobiec-debunks-jon-stewarts-claim-that-firearms-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-among-american-children
-
California Waiting Period Law Challenged Under Supreme Court Bruen Decision
Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 8, 2023 by Dean Weingarten
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/05/california-waiting-period-law-challenged-under-supreme-court-bruen-decision/#ixzz81HIgyqIN
-
California Waiting Period Law Challenged Under Supreme Court Bruen Decision
Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 8, 2023 by Dean Weingarten
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/05/california-waiting-period-law-challenged-under-supreme-court-bruen-decision/#ixzz81HIgyqIN
Dumb ass law. Should have never existed in the first place.
-
Dumb ass law. Should have never existed in the first place.
Right?
-
Right?
We tried to overturn it specifically for people that already own guns, why should I wait 10 days for another gun? But of course, the scumbag anti-Americans running CA removed it from the ballot. ::)
-
California Gov. Gavin Newsom pitches ‘28th Amendment’ to limit gun rights
California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposal Thursday to amend the US Constitution to restrict gun ownership rights, including enforcing universal background checks and raising the firearm purchase age to 21.
The Democrat said his “28th Amendment” — which he claims will leave the Second Amendment “unchanged” — calls for four new measures to help end what he called the nation’s “gun violence crisis.”
In addition to background checks and raising the legal age of purchase from 18 years, Newsom’s push involves instituting a firearm purchase waiting period and barring the civilian purchase of “assault weapons.”
Newsom, 55, insisted the “common sense” gun safety measures he is proposing respect “America’s gun-owning tradition” — and claimed his plan had already garnered widespread bipartisan support.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/08/gavin-newsom-pitches-28th-amendment-restricting-gun-rights/
-
California Gov. Gavin Newsom pitches ‘28th Amendment’ to limit gun rights
California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposal Thursday to amend the US Constitution to restrict gun ownership rights, including enforcing universal background checks and raising the firearm purchase age to 21.
The Democrat said his “28th Amendment” — which he claims will leave the Second Amendment “unchanged” — calls for four new measures to help end what he called the nation’s “gun violence crisis.”
In addition to background checks and raising the legal age of purchase from 18 years, Newsom’s push involves instituting a firearm purchase waiting period and barring the civilian purchase of “assault weapons.”
Newsom, 55, insisted the “common sense” gun safety measures he is proposing respect “America’s gun-owning tradition” — and claimed his plan had already garnered widespread bipartisan support.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/08/gavin-newsom-pitches-28th-amendment-restricting-gun-rights/
Gavin Newsom is a piece of shit.
-
California Gov. Gavin Newsom pitches ‘28th Amendment’ to limit gun rights
California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposal Thursday to amend the US Constitution to restrict gun ownership rights, including enforcing universal background checks and raising the firearm purchase age to 21.
The Democrat said his “28th Amendment” — which he claims will leave the Second Amendment “unchanged” — calls for four new measures to help end what he called the nation’s “gun violence crisis.”
In addition to background checks and raising the legal age of purchase from 18 years, Newsom’s push involves instituting a firearm purchase waiting period and barring the civilian purchase of “assault weapons.”
Newsom, 55, insisted the “common sense” gun safety measures he is proposing respect “America’s gun-owning tradition” — and claimed his plan had already garnered widespread bipartisan support.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/08/gavin-newsom-pitches-28th-amendment-restricting-gun-rights/
I’m at a loss – has any sitting governor proposed an amendment to the US Constitution?
Typical out-sized self-regard on the modern Progressive.
-
Gavin Newsom is a piece of shit.
He’s trying to make this a federal thing. It’ll never happen..besides, there’s more of us than there is them.
-
What could possibly go wrong?
SAF Sues PA Sheriff to Stop Warrantless ‘Safe Storage’ Searches of Gun Owners’ Homes
The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a challenge of Pennsylvania’s promulgated firearms regulation and its enforcement by the Pennsylvania State Police and Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, which includes warrantless searches.
SAF is joined by Shot Tec, LLC and a private citizen, Grant Schmidt. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Dillon Harris, Civil Rights Defense Firm, of Bechtelsville, Pa. Defendants are Col. Christopher Paris, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and Montgomery County Sheriff Sean Kilkenny, in their official capacities. The action was filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
The petition challenges Col. Paris and the PSP’s “interpretation, implementation and enforcement” of the firearms regulation “which is being enforced” by Kilkenny, according to the court filing. The petition alleges that Sheriff Kilkenny “has implemented a policy…which he contends, based on the PSP’s promulgation and implementation of (the regulation) permit him, in the absence of probable cause and a warrant and in violation of…the Pennsylvania Constitution, to come into those…homes or business.”
Plaintiffs further assert this inspection enables the sheriff to impose sanctions against holders of state licenses to sell firearms “for not having ‘safe storage’” in the event of an emergency when the PSP has “failed to promulgate any regulations addressing what constitute ‘safe storage’ or sufficient safeguards…when the General Assembly only delegated to the PSP the ability to establish such standards.”
“The State Assembly has never enacted a law allowing for warrantless searches of licensees, but the state police promulgated a regulation requiring licensees to submit to such searches, which are now planned by the sheriff’s department,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We believe there are grave constitutional issues involved in this scheme, particularly when an administrative agency simply waives an individual’s constitutional rights by implementing a regulation without any framework from the legislature. Equally troubling is the Sheriff’s assertion that he would revoke a license from and individual asserting their right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. We have filed this petition to ensure constitutional rights are respected.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed, “No statute should allow carte blanche regulations to be imposed by any law enforcement agency because of the inherent danger of overstepping legal authority and constitutional protections which must be protected in a free society. We’re seeking a remedy from the court to stop this, especially when warrantless searches are involved.”
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/saf-sues-pa-sheriff-to-stop-warrantless-safe-storage-searches-of-gun-owners-homes/
-
1 gun you’re a mass murderer, 10 or more you’re a collector
Question, how many guns does it take to be an accomplished, successful mass murderer? Do bombs count?
-
Question, how many guns does it take to be an accomplished, successful mass murderer? Do bombs count?
1 and it doesn’t make any difference if it’s 1 or 100, it all comes down to intent. That being said, it’s not the gun, any gun.
-
Question, how many guns does it take to be an accomplished, successful mass murderer? Do bombs count?
Do they call Timothy McVeigh a mass murderer? What about those muzzies in Boston?
-
Do they call Timothy McVeigh a mass murderer? What about those muzzies in Boston?
Swept under the rug. Remember the Vegas shooter? They never even tried to explain that one. They just memory holed it. The trans shooters? Gone already.
-
Do they call Timothy McVeigh a mass murderer? What about those muzzies in Boston?
Which they?
CNN article:
Timothy McVeigh
From decorated veteran to mass murderer
The definition of a Mass murder is the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in proximity. No matter what 'they' call them, terrorists for example, by definition, they are indeed mass murderers.
-
Which they?
CNN article:
Timothy McVeigh
From decorated veteran to mass murderer
The definition of a Mass murder is the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in proximity. No matter what 'they' call them, terrorists for example, by definition, they are indeed mass murderers.
There you go, answered your own question didn't you?
-
"But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom".
Well he can give up all of his freedoms, but since he's a cop he'll probably keep his freedoms and take them away from others.
He goes on to say several other things such as:
"Ultimately, law enforcement, we are the experts. We're the subject matter experts at protecting America."
"Anything that we do, ultimately, we give up something to have that protection."
"We are going to have to give up some things. And I think there are some things that we can give up for a safer community."
Tulsa Top Cop: I’m a Second Amendment Guy…But Giving Up Some of That Freedom Is Fine
Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy. I own guns of course. But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/tulsa-top-cop-im-a-second-amendment-guybut-giving-up-some-of-that-freedom-is-fine/
https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/local-regional/2023-06-08/tulsa-police-chief-suggests-nation-transform-response-to-gun-violence
-
Insane and nuts.
-
"But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom".
Well he can give up all of his freedoms, but since he's a cop he'll probably keep his freedoms and take them away from others.
He goes on to say several other things such as:
"Ultimately, law enforcement, we are the experts. We're the subject matter experts at protecting America."
"Anything that we do, ultimately, we give up something to have that protection."
"We are going to have to give up some things. And I think there are some things that we can give up for a safer community."
Tulsa Top Cop: I’m a Second Amendment Guy…But Giving Up Some of That Freedom Is Fine
Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy. I own guns of course. But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/tulsa-top-cop-im-a-second-amendment-guybut-giving-up-some-of-that-freedom-is-fine/
https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/local-regional/2023-06-08/tulsa-police-chief-suggests-nation-transform-response-to-gun-violence
Fortunately, police chiefs don't draft legislation.
-
Jack Posobiec debunks Jon Stewart's claim that firearms are the leading cause of death among American children
by: Human Events Media Group 03/08/2023
Jack Posobiec debunks Jon Stewart's claim that firearms are the leading cause of death among American children
Jack Posobiec took aim at Jon Stewart on Tuesday, who had used his current platform to promote the recently adopted progressive practice of having drag queens read to children in public schools and libraries. When questioning a conservative guest who took issue with the drag story hours, Stewart pivoted to talking about the leading cause of deaths among children as a means to discredit the man.
The only problem is that Stewart was wrong, and Posobiec has the receipts to prove it.
Stewart claimed that the leading cause of death among children was firearms. "That's what it is," Stewart said with authority. "It's firearms, more than cancer more than car accidents."
But it isn't. And Posobiec, who is likely the only conservative to whom Stewart has ever apologized, pointed that out. In fact, the very things that Stewart said were not the leading cause of death—car accidents, cancer—are in the top five. As Posobiec said, abortion is the number one cause of death among children in the US. But among the born children of this nation, drowning tops the list for the age group 1-4. For ages 5-14, cancer and vehicle accidents are the leading cause of mortality.
"The number one and number two killers have children aged five to 14 is exactly what Jon Stewart said it wasn't. He said it wasn't cancer and car crashes. But in fact, that is exactly what the number one and number two causes of child death are in this country. And yet he lied," Posobiec said.
Posobiec looked into the stats cited by Stewart, which "most likely from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which last summer put out a huge headline, firearms are the leading cause of death for children in the United States," he said. That study from Kaiser showed that firearm mortality rates among children in the US are way ahead of similar countries like Canada, France, and Switzerland, among others.
"But just like anything else," Posobiec said, "when you're reading statistics from the left, you have to go a step further and question definitions. How does the Kaiser Family Foundation define a child in this study? I'll tell you how they define children, one through 19 years old."
"They're including teenagers as children in this, Posobiec said.
"Now, let me let me just play a little game with you, you know, little little question game," Posobiec said. "What do you think the leading cause of teenagers is in places like I don't know, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans? I do think that that might be a slightly different dataset than the one that he's talking about here."
Overdoses among teens are up across the country. He also noted that included in those firearms stats for teens are gun deaths by suicide. None of these were stats that Stewart brought up on his show.
"Suicides account for the majority of deaths by firearms in the United States at almost 60 percent in some studies," Posobiec said, "so of course, this is included in that. Even if I were to include homicides, and accidental deaths, which is of course what he's talking about, you still have to deal with the fact that it's teenagers involved here, not children."
https://humanevents.com/2023/03/08/jack-posobiec-debunks-jon-stewarts-claim-that-firearms-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-among-american-children
There are two HUGE lies that the Biden keeps repeating, this one and the 1994 “Assault Ban” that ran for 10 years that he’s claimed was a success and reduced gun violence. Nothing could be further from the truth
-
"But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom".
Well he can give up all of his freedoms, but since he's a cop he'll probably keep his freedoms and take them away from others.
He goes on to say several other things such as:
"Ultimately, law enforcement, we are the experts. We're the subject matter experts at protecting America."
"Anything that we do, ultimately, we give up something to have that protection."
"We are going to have to give up some things. And I think there are some things that we can give up for a safer community."
Tulsa Top Cop: I’m a Second Amendment Guy…But Giving Up Some of That Freedom Is Fine
Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy. I own guns of course. But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/tulsa-top-cop-im-a-second-amendment-guybut-giving-up-some-of-that-freedom-is-fine/
https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/local-regional/2023-06-08/tulsa-police-chief-suggests-nation-transform-response-to-gun-violence
Anyone that says "I'm a Second Amendment guy...but..." is not a Second Amendment guy.
-
Officers Find Body of Alleged Intruder After Female Homeowner Opened Fire
AWR HAWKINS 24 Jun 2023
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fcrime%2F2023%2F06%2F24%2Fofficers-find-body-of-alleged-intruder-after-female-homeowner-opened-fire%2F
-
Didn't even read the article, good for her!
-
Anyone that says "I'm a Second Amendment guy...but..." is not a Second Amendment guy.
You know the Amendments to the Constitution are all "but"? Right?
-
You know the Amendments to the Constitution are all "but"? Right?
We get it, you're a bootlicker, you don't have to keep telling us. ;D
-
We get it, you're a bootlicker, you don't have to keep telling us. ;D
So you were unaware ... ok
-
You know the Amendments to the Constitution are all "but"? Right?
Which Amendments? If you’re agreeing with sleepy joe then you know less than first thought.
You realize that the gun control lobby gets their asses handed to them almost on a daily basis just on text, history and tradition alone…right. So you were unaware ….ok
-
Which Amendments? If you’re agreeing with sleepy joe then you know less than first thought.
You realize that the gun control lobby I gets get their my asses ass handed to them me almost on a daily basis just on text, history and tradition alone…right. So you were unaware ….ok
fixed
-
fixed
Yeah, voice to text. What ever. Clarify your post
-
So you were unaware ... ok
I consider them an "except" :-* Remember the Constitution is there to limit government power, it's their goal to work around the Constitution to control us, people like you are far too willing to accept their limitations with no resistance (hence the bootlicker remark, well that and your time enforcing their unconstitutional laws)
When the government can take all of the criminals guns and willingly turn theirs over as well, then I might feel comfortable giving mine up. Until then, 2A all day!!! 8)
-
I consider them an "except" :-* Remember the Constitution is there to limit government power, it's their goal to work around the Constitution to control us, people like you are far too willing to accept their limitations with no resistance (hence the bootlicker remark, well that and your time enforcing their unconstitutional laws)
When the government can take all of the criminals guns and willingly turn theirs over as well, then I might feel comfortable giving mine up. Until then, 2A all day!!! 8)
What would be examples of unconstitutional laws? Running red lights? Not in the constitution. Driving 100 mph in a 40 mph zone? Not in the constitution. Can you be more specific to the laws I enforced you have an issue with?
-
What would be examples of unconstitutional laws? Running red lights? Not in the constitution. Driving 100 mph in a 40 mph zone? Not in the constitution. Can you be more specific to the laws I enforced you have an issue with?
Before we go on with that, let’s address the Second Amendment. As an LEO what part of the Second Amendment can you violate since it’s your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, first and foremost?
I mean, talking about gun control and the Second Amendment and you’re trying to spin this in to driving laws and parking tickets.
-
Before we go on with that, let’s address the Second Amendment. As an LEO what part of the Second Amendment can you violate since it’s your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, first and foremost?
I mean, talking about gun control and the Second Amendment and you’re trying to spin this in to driving laws and parking tickets.
Follow me on this Coach.. GOOGLE.. slippery slope.
-
Follow me on this Coach.. GOOGLE.. slippery slope.
You’re skating. This should be an easy one for you.
-
You’re skating. This should be an easy one for you.
OK, this might be fun. Lets set some ground rules. Is it your position that any law, federal, state or municipal that is NOT mentioned in the original constitution is not a valid law? And what is your view on states rights?
-
OK, this might be fun. Lets set some ground rules. Is it your position that any law, federal, state or municipal that is NOT mentioned in the original constitution is not a valid law? And what is your view on states rights?
Ok, let’s go. Text, history and tradition. Yes, as long as it doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. I believe in states rights but the Second Amendment always supersedes states rights.
-
What would be examples of unconstitutional laws? Running red lights? Not in the constitution. Driving 100 mph in a 40 mph zone? Not in the constitution. Can you be more specific to the laws I enforced you have an issue with?
Religious persecution, freedom of speech.
-
Ok, let’s go. Text, history and tradition. Yes, as long as it doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. I believe in states rights but the Second Amendment always supersedes states rights.
Yup, it is right there in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. That is 1 for Coach. Good work!
-
This banter is delivering. "stay in your lane". LMFAO.
-
Yup, it is right there in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. That is 1 for Coach. Good work!
Which leave us to the next question for Agnostic. How many times did you violate the Constitution you swore to uphold? I’ll even keep this simple since we’re talking about the Second Amendment.
-
You know the Amendments to the Constitution are all "but"? Right?
Speaking your language, I would bet that you don't know the Bill of Rights doesn't actually create rights, but serve as a restraint on government's interference with inalienable rights.
-
Speaking your language, I would bet that you don't know the Bill of Rights doesn't actually create rights, but serve as a restraint on government's interference with inalienable rights.
Agnostics time in the department was spent trying abuse every right he could until a judge told him he couldn't. ;D Typical bully mentality.
-
Ok, let’s go. Text, history and tradition. Yes, as long as it doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. I believe in states rights but the Second Amendment always supersedes states rights.
not an expert on the 2nd Amendment but I know it was about states rights, so your statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
-
Which leave us to the next question for Agnostic. How many times did you violate the Constitution you swore to uphold? I’ll even keep this simple since we’re talking about the Second Amendment.
None
-
Agnostics time in the department was spent trying abuse every right he could until a judge told him he couldn't. ;D Typical bully mentality.
will you make an attempt to have an adult conversation or is this what we can expect from you going forward?
-
not an expert on the 2nd Amendment but I know it was about states rights, so your statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
Because we’re talking about the Second Amendment
-
Because we’re talking about the Second Amendment
Yes, the 2nd Amendment was created for the states. So do you have a particular question other than "how many times did you violate the constitution?"
-
Yes, the 2nd Amendment was created for the states. So do you have a particular question other than "how many times did you violate the constitution?"
Sweet Jesus
-
Agnostics time in the department was spent trying abuse every right he could until a judge told him he couldn't. ;D Typical bully mentality.
;D
-
Yes, the 2nd Amendment was created for the states. So do you have a particular question other than "how many times did you violate the constitution?"
So again, it’s your contention that states rights have precedents over the Constitution? Specifically, the Second Amendment
-
So again, it’s your contention that states rights have precedents over the Constitution? Specifically, the Second Amendment.
No not at all. I am saying that the 2nd Amendment was created to afford States the ability to protect themselves from overzealous governments.
-
No not at all. I am saying that the 2nd Amendment was created to afford States the ability to protect themselves from overzealous governments.
So you’re saying, even if when your oath states to “uphold the constitution of the United States” and you pull over a person for speeding and this person happens to have a firearm in his/her car either on their person or in the car but the gun and the person in possession of the gun is legal (no wants no warrants, etc) with the gun being legally purchased BUT doesn’t have a states ccw, you have the constitutional right to confiscate that firearm?
-
So you’re saying, even if when your oath states to “uphold the constitution of the United States” and you pull over a person for speeding and this person happens to have a firearm in his/her car either on their person or in the car but the gun and the person in possession of the gun is legal (no wants no warrants, etc) with the gun being legally purchased BUT doesn’t have a states ccw, you have the constitutional right to confiscate that firearm?
No. I can only speak for the state of Texas which affords a person to travel with a gun. So in that case, if the person was not a convicted felon, a juvenile or a known gang member fitting specific criteria they would free to continue. Now remember I retired in 2016 (not as a Detective) so the laws in Texas may have changed.
-
No. I can only speak for the state of Texas which affords a person to travel with a gun. So in that case, if the person was not a convicted felon, a juvenile or a known gang member fitting specific criteria they would free to continue. Now remember I retired in 2016 (not as a Detective) so the laws in Texas may have changed.
Laws of Texas haven’t changed much in the way of constitutional carry. We now have 28 states that are constitutional carry states, most of not all in red states. Guess which ones have “laws” that ban or attempt to ban “assault weapons” (what ever that is) and other “laws” that infringe on the Second Amendment? Which brings me right back to my original question. If you were a cop in a blue state where they basically don’t recognize the Second Amendment and try to circumvent it anyway possible…would you still uphold your constitutional duty to protect that Amendment?
-
Laws of Texas haven’t changed much in the way of constitutional carry. We now have 28 states that are constitutional carry states, most of not all in red states. Guess which ones have “laws” that ban or attempt to ban “assault weapons” (what ever that is) and other “laws” that infringe on the Second Amendment? Which brings me right back to my original question. If you were a cop in a blue state where they basically don’t recognize the Second Amendment and try to circumvent it anyway possible…would you still uphold your constitutional duty to protect that Amendment?
You are asking for speculation. As a police officer, we are governed by at least 4 authorities. Constitution, Federal laws, state laws and department policies. If someone is arguing they can carry a bazooka per the 2nd amendment, federal law would dictate that isn't true. State law would dictate that wasn't true. Some Constitutional lawyer might argue that the officer is infringing on that persons right to bear arms, but that wouldn't be for the cop to decide
-
You are asking for speculation. As a police officer, we are governed by at least 4 authorities. Constitution, Federal laws, state laws and department policies. If someone is arguing they can carry a bazooka per the 2nd amendment, federal law would dictate that isn't true. State law would dictate that wasn't true. Some Constitutional lawyer might argue that the officer is infringing on that persons right to bear arms, but that wouldn't be for the cop to decide
Firearms of common use
-
Guns arent going anywhere, libturdz can spin their wheels all they want. AR's arent "automatic weapons". ::)
14 yr old girls at the range handle them like a joke.
Libz are weak and pathetic...
-
Guns arent going anywhere, libturdz can spin their wheels all they want. AR's arent "automatic weapons". ::)
14 yr old girls at the range handle them like a joke.
Libz are weak and pathetic...
Whoopi begs to differ...
-
Whoopi begs to differ...
The gal who wants Dr. J. to become Surgeon General? :D
-
You are asking for speculation.
If he was asking you to speculate about Trump, you'd be all over it. This is the turn a blind eye hypocritical attitude that continues to disgust Americans against liberals.
You ask for a civil conversation and then skirt around answers and play the "I only know about Texas" "you're asking for speculation" "I retired in 2016 so things might have changed" bullshit.
-
If he was asking you to speculate about Trump, you'd be all over it. This is the turn a blind eye hypocritical attitude that continues to disgust Americans against liberals.
You ask for a civil conversation and then skirt around answers and play the "I only know about Texas" "you're asking for speculation" "I retired in 2016 so things might have changed" bullshit.
Thanks for your opinion. I don't happen to share it.
It's reasonable for any cop when discussing legal issues to point out the laws vary state to state on certain things. Weapon laws are certainly one of them. But I get that you might think that is skirting an issue. It's really not.
Since I retired in 2016 I KNOW Florida has changed it's concealed carry laws in the last couple years because I live here. Texas may have as well.
If you and I were discussing an issue in a bar, I may or may not raise those things. But on Getbig it is not uncommon for something to be stated.. and someone comes back with "But I know someone who got arrested for X so you're wrong!" Well, where did X live? "He lived in Illinois!" Well, in Illinois that might be illegal, in Texas it is not
So without going back and reading all the legal updates I am explaining that I'm basing my answers as they were correct in Texas as of 2016
Do you think maybe your above lashing out on my doing so might indicate you still aren't ready for a civil discussion? You just seem awfully quick to attack me on something pretty benign
-
Thanks for your opinion. I don't happen to share it.
It's reasonable for any cop when discussing legal issues to point out the laws vary state to state on certain things. Weapon laws are certainly one of them. But I get that you might think that is skirting an issue. It's really not.
Since I retired in 2016 I KNOW Florida has changed it's concealed carry laws in the last couple years because I live here. Texas may have as well.
If you and I were discussing an issue in a bar, I may or may not raise those things. But on Getbig it is not uncommon for something to be stated.. and someone comes back with "But I know someone who got arrested for X so you're wrong!" Well, where did X live? "He lived in Illinois!" Well, in Illinois that might be illegal, in Texas it is not
So without going back and reading all the legal updates I am explaining that I'm basing my answers as they were correct in Texas as of 2016
Do you think maybe your above lashing out on my doing so might indicate you still aren't ready for a civil discussion? You just seem awfully quick to attack me on something pretty benign
Agnostic, we are talking about the Second Amendment of the US constitution and laws that infringe on law abiding citizens. This pertains to literally every law enforcement department in this country.
-
Agnostic, we are talking about the Second Amendment of the US constitution and laws that infringe on law abiding citizens. This pertains to literally every law enforcement department in this country.
Ok, continue on
-
Thanks for your opinion. I don't happen to share it.
It's reasonable for any cop when discussing legal issues to point out the laws vary state to state on certain things. Weapon laws are certainly one of them. But I get that you might think that is skirting an issue. It's really not.
Since I retired in 2016 I KNOW Florida has changed it's concealed carry laws in the last couple years because I live here. Texas may have as well.
If you and I were discussing an issue in a bar, I may or may not raise those things. But on Getbig it is not uncommon for something to be stated.. and someone comes back with "But I know someone who got arrested for X so you're wrong!" Well, where did X live? "He lived in Illinois!" Well, in Illinois that might be illegal, in Texas it is not
So without going back and reading all the legal updates I am explaining that I'm basing my answers as they were correct in Texas as of 2016
Do you think maybe your above lashing out on my doing so might indicate you still aren't ready for a civil discussion? You just seem awfully quick to attack me on something pretty benign
Of course you don't share it. ::)
Are you of the opinion that states rights are above the Constitutional Amendments?
-
Ok, continue on
Are you really not understanding what I’m saying even though my questions are clear? Ok, let’s try a scenario. You see someone legally possessing a firearm in a “gun free zone”. Do you think you have the constitutional authority to confiscate, detain or arrest that person even though he or she is a law abiding citizen.
-
Are you really not understanding what I’m saying even though my questions are clear? Ok, let’s try a scenario. You see someone legally possessing a firearm in a “gun free zone”. Do you think you have the constitutional authority to confiscate, detain or arrest that person even though he or she is a law abiding citizen.
Not if they are legally possessing a firearm in a gun free zone.
-
Not if they are legally possessing a firearm in a gun free zone.
My interpretation of “legally possessing a firearm” is one that has legally purchased the firearm and passed the DOJ background check. What’s your interpretation?
-
My interpretation of “legally possessing a firearm” is one that has legally purchased the firearm and passed the DOJ background check. What’s your interpretation?
They are appropriately licensed per federal and state law to be carrying in a gun free zone.
-
My interpretation of “legally possessing a firearm” is one that has legally purchased the firearm and passed the DOJ background check. What’s your interpretation?
I'm curious as to why you are ok with the rules of purchasing a firearm and a required background check. The constitution doesn't mention those requirements
-
I'm curious as to why you are ok with the rules of purchasing a firearm and a required background check. The constitution doesn't mention those requirements
You first
-
You first
I answered your question. Your turn
-
They are appropriately licensed per federal and state law to be carrying in a gun free zone.
Sorry, I missed this.
So this is where the constitutionality of this comes in, IMO. A “license” is clearly an infringement of the Second Amendment on the right to keep and bear arms. That said, what makes not having a license illegal when the Second Amendment supersedes State laws. Seems to me forcing a person to have that license makes owning a firearm to protect yourself and your family as well as others that might need assistance before LE arrives, a privilege and not a right.
-
I'm curious as to why you are ok with the rules of purchasing a firearm and a required background check. The constitution doesn't mention those requirements
I’m not against all laws. I’m not against a background check, I am against a universal background check because it’s only purpose to create a gun registry.
As for laws of purchasing a firearm, no, the Second Amendment doesn’t mention those requirements therefore you have go outside of the text and look to the historical tradition. I’ll let you decide. Personally, I like my guns, I like buying guns so I’ll comply. I’m asking you, as a cop.
The United States Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision continues to reshape firearms law. What began as a challenge to New York City’s draconian carry laws is proving to have lasting nationwide consequences. The latest ruling comes from the United States District Court in West Texas, and it strikes at ATF Form 4473.
Specifically, Federal Judge David Counts has ruled that US Code § 922(n) is unconstitutional. Okay, so what is US Code § 922(n)? That’s the law saying that anyone under criminal indictment for which a judge could imprison them for more than a year cannot legally buy or receive a firearm.
The question on Form 4473 reads: “Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?” If you answer in the affirmative, then you cannot purchase a firearm. Judge Counts says that is unconstitutional. But why now?
United States of America vs. Jose Gomez Quiroz
Jose Gomez Quiroz was indicted for burglary in June of 2020. He skipped bail and was later indicted for that and failing to appear in court for the first charge. In late 2021, while those charges were pending, Quiroz attempted to buy a .22 caliber pistol from a gun store. He answered “no” to the question about whether he was under indictment.
NICS delayed him, and still had no response after seven days. By law, Quiroz was able to then take possession of the handgun. A few days later, NICS informed the ATF that Quiroz had lied on Form 4473, thus making his purchase illegal.
The feds charged Quiroz with making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm under § 922(a) and the illegal receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment under § 922(n). A jury convicted Quiroz on both counts.
One week after the conviction, Quiroz and his lawyers moved to set aside the conviction on the grounds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional under Bruen. He also reasoned that if § 922(n) is indeed unconstitutional, then the false statement charge under § 922(a) is immaterial.
Bruen, Heller, and the Second Amendment
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 2008 Heller Decision that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.”
Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized and expanded that idea in Bruen: “[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”
Basically, Thomas wrote that any gun regulation falling outside the Second Amendment’s plain text must adhere to the historical traditions regarding firearms restrictions in the United States. The question in this case then became, “does the United States have a historical tradition of denying firearms to persons not convicted of a crime and, if so, from where does that tradition come?”
The Bruen Historical Analysis
Bruen and Common Law
I won’t cover all of Judge Count’s historical assessment, but his methodology is important. He examined American gun laws back to the Bill of Rights’ adoption in 1791. He looked at English Common Law, from which US law and the law of 49 of the 50 states evolved. Louisiana state law derived from Roman Law, thanks to the state’s French heritage. England has a long history of denying firearms ownership to citizens deemed undesirable, whether from criminal activity or just observing the wrong Christian rite.
Judge Counts notes that the important consideration regarding the Second Amendment is not what the Framers took from Common Law, but what parts of Common Law were excluded from United States law. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Thus, the Second Amendment breaks from Common Law regarding the people’s right to keep and bear arms. This tendency even predated independence.
Pre-1938
The judge talks about the 1795 Massachusetts Surety Law, which the US Government uses to justify some restrictions. The Surety Law required any person “reasonably likely to ‘breach the peace,’ and who, standing accused, could not prove a special need for self-defense, to post a bond before publicly carrying a firearm.”
Note that the law did not bar such from possessing firearms. They posted a bond insuring good behavior while carrying in public. Justice Thomas pointed out that such laws were not punishment. In addition, history shows that the laws selectively targeted black people. Judge Counts rejects the government’s use of the Surety Laws in support of § 922(n).
Similar laws throughout the 19th century followed a like pattern. Stripping an individual of his firearm could be a death sentence to anyone not living in or close to a city, whether it be because of no protection or the inability to feed oneself.
1938 to the Present
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA) represents the first time that individuals under indictment were barred from receiving a firearm. Specifically, the FFA prohibited “individuals under indictment for, or convicted of, a crime of violence from shipping or transporting any firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce.” “Crimes of violence” was commonly understood to only mean crimes committed using a firearm. Judge Counts notes that the FFA’s primary goal was to “eliminate the guns from the crooks’ hands, while interfering as little as possible with the law-a-biding citizen.”
Congress amended the FFA in 1961 to include “all individuals under indictment, regardless of the crime they were accused of.” They also changed the “crimes of violence” language to “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) defined “indictment” to mean an indictment in any court, not just a federal court. The 1986 amendment to the GCA combined all prohibitions against indicted individuals to its current form under § 922(n).
Judge Counts ruled that government attorneys have not demonstrated a historical tradition denying receipt of a firearm to a person under indictment. Congress reached that prohibition gradually, and it did not begin until 1938, 147 years after the Second Amendment’s adoption.
The Judge’s Conclusion under Bruen
Judge Counts’ September 19th, 2022, conclusion reads:
The Second Amendment is not a “second class right.” No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right. After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden.
Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n)—which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm—aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is GRANTED. (Docs. 73 and 74). The indictment is DISMISSED.
So, what does this ruling mean?
Honestly, I’m not sure. The immediate effect, obviously, is that the judge overturned Quiroz’s federal convictions. The decision also means that the government cannot deny an individual’s right to receive or own a firearm without an actual conviction. Going forward, I’m certain the government will appeal the decision to the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals. If they lose there, it will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take it up. That process could literally take years
In the meantime, the ATF may change the 4473 or they may seek an injunction pending the outcome of the appeals process. I think the latter is more likely. The Court may or may not grant that injunction. Right now, we just don’t know.
Jose Gomez Quiroz doesn’t sound like a nice guy. He sure doesn’t sound like someone I’d want carrying a gun, even a .22. But he was not yet a convicted felon when he bought that gun. Quiroz kicked over a hornet’s nest for sure. Other challenges to 4473 restrictions may well surface under Bruen’s history and traditions requirement. It sure wouldn’t surprise me if the marijuana question was next.
We’ll just have to see. One thing is certain: the Bruen Decision has crashed the gun control party. Where it goes from here is anyone’s guess, but I expect we’ll be watching the fallout for years to come.
If you’d like to read all of Judge Counts’ analysis, you can find it at courtlistener.com. I found it fascinating, but I’m a nerd like that.
https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/bruen-strikes-again-part-of-form-4473-ruled-unconstitutional/#:~:text=The%20question%20on%20Form%204473,Counts%20says%20that%20is%20unconstitutional.
-
I’m not against all laws. I’m not against a background check, I am against a universal background check because it’s only purpose to create a gun registry.
As for laws of purchasing a firearm, no, the Second Amendment doesn’t mention those requirements therefore you have go outside of the text and look to the historical tradition. I’ll let you decide. Personally, I like my guns, I like buying guns so I’ll comply. I’m asking you, as a cop.
The United States Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision continues to reshape firearms law. What began as a challenge to New York City’s draconian carry laws is proving to have lasting nationwide consequences. The latest ruling comes from the United States District Court in West Texas, and it strikes at ATF Form 4473.
Specifically, Federal Judge David Counts has ruled that US Code § 922(n) is unconstitutional. Okay, so what is US Code § 922(n)? That’s the law saying that anyone under criminal indictment for which a judge could imprison them for more than a year cannot legally buy or receive a firearm.
The question on Form 4473 reads: “Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?” If you answer in the affirmative, then you cannot purchase a firearm. Judge Counts says that is unconstitutional. But why now?
United States of America vs. Jose Gomez Quiroz
Jose Gomez Quiroz was indicted for burglary in June of 2020. He skipped bail and was later indicted for that and failing to appear in court for the first charge. In late 2021, while those charges were pending, Quiroz attempted to buy a .22 caliber pistol from a gun store. He answered “no” to the question about whether he was under indictment.
NICS delayed him, and still had no response after seven days. By law, Quiroz was able to then take possession of the handgun. A few days later, NICS informed the ATF that Quiroz had lied on Form 4473, thus making his purchase illegal.
The feds charged Quiroz with making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm under § 922(a) and the illegal receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment under § 922(n). A jury convicted Quiroz on both counts.
One week after the conviction, Quiroz and his lawyers moved to set aside the conviction on the grounds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional under Bruen. He also reasoned that if § 922(n) is indeed unconstitutional, then the false statement charge under § 922(a) is immaterial.
Bruen, Heller, and the Second Amendment
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 2008 Heller Decision that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.”
Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized and expanded that idea in Bruen: “[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”
Basically, Thomas wrote that any gun regulation falling outside the Second Amendment’s plain text must adhere to the historical traditions regarding firearms restrictions in the United States. The question in this case then became, “does the United States have a historical tradition of denying firearms to persons not convicted of a crime and, if so, from where does that tradition come?”
The Bruen Historical Analysis
Bruen and Common Law
I won’t cover all of Judge Count’s historical assessment, but his methodology is important. He examined American gun laws back to the Bill of Rights’ adoption in 1791. He looked at English Common Law, from which US law and the law of 49 of the 50 states evolved. Louisiana state law derived from Roman Law, thanks to the state’s French heritage. England has a long history of denying firearms ownership to citizens deemed undesirable, whether from criminal activity or just observing the wrong Christian rite.
Judge Counts notes that the important consideration regarding the Second Amendment is not what the Framers took from Common Law, but what parts of Common Law were excluded from United States law. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Thus, the Second Amendment breaks from Common Law regarding the people’s right to keep and bear arms. This tendency even predated independence.
Pre-1938
The judge talks about the 1795 Massachusetts Surety Law, which the US Government uses to justify some restrictions. The Surety Law required any person “reasonably likely to ‘breach the peace,’ and who, standing accused, could not prove a special need for self-defense, to post a bond before publicly carrying a firearm.”
Note that the law did not bar such from possessing firearms. They posted a bond insuring good behavior while carrying in public. Justice Thomas pointed out that such laws were not punishment. In addition, history shows that the laws selectively targeted black people. Judge Counts rejects the government’s use of the Surety Laws in support of § 922(n).
Similar laws throughout the 19th century followed a like pattern. Stripping an individual of his firearm could be a death sentence to anyone not living in or close to a city, whether it be because of no protection or the inability to feed oneself.
1938 to the Present
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA) represents the first time that individuals under indictment were barred from receiving a firearm. Specifically, the FFA prohibited “individuals under indictment for, or convicted of, a crime of violence from shipping or transporting any firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce.” “Crimes of violence” was commonly understood to only mean crimes committed using a firearm. Judge Counts notes that the FFA’s primary goal was to “eliminate the guns from the crooks’ hands, while interfering as little as possible with the law-a-biding citizen.”
Congress amended the FFA in 1961 to include “all individuals under indictment, regardless of the crime they were accused of.” They also changed the “crimes of violence” language to “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) defined “indictment” to mean an indictment in any court, not just a federal court. The 1986 amendment to the GCA combined all prohibitions against indicted individuals to its current form under § 922(n).
Judge Counts ruled that government attorneys have not demonstrated a historical tradition denying receipt of a firearm to a person under indictment. Congress reached that prohibition gradually, and it did not begin until 1938, 147 years after the Second Amendment’s adoption.
The Judge’s Conclusion under Bruen
Judge Counts’ September 19th, 2022, conclusion reads:
The Second Amendment is not a “second class right.” No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right. After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden.
Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n)—which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm—aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is GRANTED. (Docs. 73 and 74). The indictment is DISMISSED.
So, what does this ruling mean?
Honestly, I’m not sure. The immediate effect, obviously, is that the judge overturned Quiroz’s federal convictions. The decision also means that the government cannot deny an individual’s right to receive or own a firearm without an actual conviction. Going forward, I’m certain the government will appeal the decision to the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals. If they lose there, it will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take it up. That process could literally take years
In the meantime, the ATF may change the 4473 or they may seek an injunction pending the outcome of the appeals process. I think the latter is more likely. The Court may or may not grant that injunction. Right now, we just don’t know.
Jose Gomez Quiroz doesn’t sound like a nice guy. He sure doesn’t sound like someone I’d want carrying a gun, even a .22. But he was not yet a convicted felon when he bought that gun. Quiroz kicked over a hornet’s nest for sure. Other challenges to 4473 restrictions may well surface under Bruen’s history and traditions requirement. It sure wouldn’t surprise me if the marijuana question was next.
We’ll just have to see. One thing is certain: the Bruen Decision has crashed the gun control party. Where it goes from here is anyone’s guess, but I expect we’ll be watching the fallout for years to come.
If you’d like to read all of Judge Counts’ analysis, you can find it at courtlistener.com. I found it fascinating, but I’m a nerd like that.
https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/bruen-strikes-again-part-of-form-4473-ruled-unconstitutional/#:~:text=The%20question%20on%20Form%204473,Counts%20says%20that%20is%20unconstitutional.
Thanks for sharing
-
I'm curious as to why you are ok with the rules of purchasing a firearm and a required background check. The constitution doesn't mention those requirements
You have to remember, these "laws" were put in place so the government could charge you for the right and take more of your money, nothing to do with safety. ;)
-
You have to remember, these "laws" were put in place so the government could charge you for the right and take more of your money, nothing to do with safety. ;)
I don't really "have to remember it" because it never happened. I think with all due respect you are out of your comfort zone on this subject
-
I don't really "have to remember it" because it never happened. I think with all due respect you are out of your comfort zone on this subject
With no respect at all, you're out of your fucking mind and thankfully retired so nobody else has to be a victim of your prejudices. :-*
-
With no respect at all, you're out of your fucking mind and thankfully retired so nobody else has to be a victim of your prejudices. :-*
Thanks for making my point. A word salad post with no meaning
-
Thanks for making my point. A word salad post with no meaning
Unlike your time licking boots for democrats, that post has plenty of meaning. I would call you a disgrace to the uniform, but you already know that. ;)
-
Unlike your time licking boots for democrats, that post has plenty of meaning. I would call you a disgrace to the uniform, but you already know that. ;)
If only your opinion meant something... You've evolved into Soul Crusher and the Scott all in one.. might ask yourself.. when did you jump the shark...
-
Hypocrite.
St. Louis mayor's gun control stance questioned after private texts made public
The St. Louis mayor's office is reportedly in 'damage control mode' after personal texts were publicly released
By Emma Colton | Fox News
Published July 12, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/st-louis-mayors-gun-control-stance-questioned-after-private-texts-made-public?dicbo=v2-kLJjbgM
-
If only your opinion meant something... You've evolved into Soul Crusher and the Scott all in one.. might ask yourself.. when did you jump the shark...
When that fat cunt Killary ran for President. It really started exposing the media bias and lies. It also showed me the morons that eat that bullshit up blindly and repeat it verbatim. Before that, I couldn't possibly care less about politics because they're all corrupt assholes and anyone that believes different should get their head checked.
-
When that fat cunt Killary ran for President. It really started exposing the media bias and lies. It also showed me the morons that eat that bullshit up blindly and repeat it verbatim. Before that, I couldn't possibly care less about politics because they're all corrupt assholes and anyone that believes different should get their head checked.
First, body shaming is so 90's
So it was around 2016 you realized the media couldn't be trusted?
What's your take on Coach still believing the election was stolen?
-
First, body shaming is so 90's
So it was around 2016 you realized the media couldn't be trusted?
What's your take on Coach still believing the election was stolen?
What’s your take on being a former cop and not knowing anything about the Second Amendment?
-
What’s your take on being a former cop and not knowing anything about the Second Amendment?
The question is invalid. I know quite a bit about it. I also know you believe the 2020 election was stolen which really brings your sanity into question
-
First, body shaming is so 90's
So it was around 2016 you realized the media couldn't be trusted?
What's your take on Coach still believing the election was stolen?
Body shaming never goes out of style, it's timeless.
I've always known the media and the government can't be trusted.
I absolutely think the election was rigged and manipulated. If you believe Russia interfered in 2016 but our own government stood by idly in 2020, you might want to explain your reasoning for that.
-
Body shaming never goes out of style, it's timeless.
I've always known the media and the government can't be trusted.
I absolutely think the election was rigged and manipulated. If you believe Russia interfered in 2016 but our own government stood by idly in 2020, you might want to explain your reasoning for that.
I'm pretty good at being a realist. I believe Russia attempted to interfere in the election. Putin obviouslly would prefer Donald over Hillary. Thats not debatable given the history of Trump praising Putin.
But as a realist, certain responsibilities befall me. For example, While I and many of my fellow countrymen could see through Russia's attempt to use the emails as propaganda. enough trump supporters {not the diehard republicans as they would have voted Trump regardless.} fell for it to change the outcome.
What befuddles me and likely always will, is the tenacity Trump supporters have for him with he has shown he is like the anti chist when it comes to humility and honesty
-
I'm pretty good at being a realist. I believe Russia attempted to interfere in the election. Putin obviouslly would prefer Donald over Hillary. Thats not debatable given the history of Trump praising Putin.
But as a realist, certain responsibilities befall me. For example, While I and many of my fellow countrymen could see through Russia's attempt to use the emails as propaganda. enough trump supporters {not the diehard republicans as they would have voted Trump regardless.} fell for it to change the outcome.
What befuddles me and likely always will, is the tenacity Trump supporters have for him with he has shown he is like the anti chist when it comes to humility and honesty
This is the typings of what used to be a man regurgitating the media propaganda he's been spoon-fed. No russia propaganda made anyone vote for Trump, no facebook ads, no billboard on the side of the road, that cunt killary and the idea of change, real change, not like that same old bullshit Obama brought, made people vote for Trump. Weird to me that you eat up the whole russia thing, but have no questions at all about machine manipulation or vote count abnormalities in 2020. Just blindly believing what the media tells you.
-
This is the typings of what used to be a man regurgitating the media propaganda he's been spoon-fed. No russia propaganda made anyone vote for Trump, no facebook ads, no billboard on the side of the road, that cunt killary and the idea of change, real change, not like that same old bullshit Obama brought, made people vote for Trump. Weird to me that you eat up the whole russia thing, but have no questions at all about machine manipulation or vote count abnormalities in 2020. Just blindly believing what the media tells you.
"In 2016, Russian operatives used a series of "active measures" to hack campaigns, spread disinformation and sow discord in an effort to sway the election in favor of President Donald Trump. That’s according to a bipartisan Senate report and former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation."
Now the media didn't write that report. The fact they posted the report, doesn't mean I'm believing what the media tells me. But you and I tend to get information from the media. I doubt someone mailed you a copy of the report.
You ignore science when you say people aren't swayed by those things. There is a billion dollar industry that thrives exactly because of that.
-
"In 2016, Russian operatives used a series of "active measures" to hack campaigns, spread disinformation and sow discord in an effort to sway the election in favor of President Donald Trump. That’s according to a bipartisan Senate report and former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation."
Now the media didn't write that report. The fact they posted the report, doesn't mean I'm believing what the media tells me. But you and I tend to get information from the media. I doubt someone mailed you a copy of the report.
You ignore science when you say people aren't swayed by those things. There is a billion dollar industry that thrives exactly because of that.
Are you saying our politicians don't spread disinformation, lie, manipulate, etc in their campaign ads, rallies, interviews? The idea that Russia supposedly did this is amusing to me. Both sides of our government are waving their dicks at Russia while China is making moves. Russia is a distraction to keep attention away from China and their investment in our government hacks.
How often are you swayed to vote differently by an ad or a billboard or a blurb on facebook? Are you saying that 100% of Bidens funding for his campaign is from American sources?
-
Are you saying our politicians don't spread disinformation, lie, manipulate, etc in their campaign ads, rallies, interviews? The idea that Russia supposedly did this is amusing to me. Both sides of our government are waving their dicks at Russia while China is making moves. Russia is a distraction to keep attention away from China and their investment in our government hacks.
How often are you swayed to vote differently by an ad or a billboard or a blurb on facebook? Are you saying that 100% of Bidens funding for his campaign is from American sources?
Cool non answer. I will ask directly. Are the 285 billion US dollars spent annually in the US for advertising wasted money? If so, you are challenging years of statistics and analysis. If you agree, you are in the awkward position of admitting the disinformation spread by Russia didn't have an impact.
-
Cool non answer. I will ask directly. Are the 285 billion US dollars spent annually in the US for advertising wasted money? If so, you are challenging years of statistics and analysis. If you agree, you are in the awkward position of admitting the disinformation spread by Russia didn't have an impact.
Do you know this clown?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/austin-mayor-blocks-state-police-help-for-understaffed-pd-in-move-that-caves-to-defund-activists-critics
-
"In 2016, Russian operatives used a series of "active measures" to hack campaigns, spread disinformation and sow discord in an effort to sway the election in favor of President Donald Trump. That’s according to a bipartisan Senate report and former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation."
Now the media didn't write that report. The fact they posted the report, doesn't mean I'm believing what the media tells me. But you and I tend to get information from the media. I doubt someone mailed you a copy of the report.
You ignore science when you say people aren't swayed by those things. There is a billion dollar industry that thrives exactly because of that.
Facebook: Russian-linked accounts bought $150,000 in ads during 2016 race
A quarter of the Russian-linked ads were also geographically targeted at specific Facebook audiences in the U.S. | Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN
09/06/2017
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/06/facebook-ads-russia-linked-accounts-242401#:~:text=Facebook%3A%20Russian%2Dlinked%20accounts%20bought%20%24150%2C000%20in%20ads%20during%202016%20race,-A%20quarter%20of&text=Facebook%20accounts%20with%20apparent%20Russian,by%20the%20social%20networking%20company
Aside from the fact this is a meaningless amount of money, there is ZERO evidence Russia spending $150k on ads in 2016 affected the outcome of any election in any state in the country. This is one of the dumbest talking points of the 2016 election.
-
Cool non answer. I will ask directly. Are the 285 billion US dollars spent annually in the US for advertising wasted money? If so, you are challenging years of statistics and analysis. If you agree, you are in the awkward position of admitting the disinformation spread by Russia didn't have an impact.
I've already been mocking you for this. Whatever ads Russia supposedly bought had zero impact on the election results in 2016. Meanwhile in 2020 there were undoubtedly some oddities in the voting tabulations. Is it enough to claim the election was stolen? I don't know, but I don't trust politicians, especially democrats or the alphabet agencies either for that matter.
-
Federal judge upholds Oregon gun control law described as 'nation's most extreme'
Gun rights activist are appealing the decision to the 9th circuit
By Anders Hagstrom | Fox News
Published July 17, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-upholds-oregon-gun-control-law-described-nations-most-extreme
-
Federal judge upholds Oregon gun control law described as 'nation's most extreme'
Gun rights activist are appealing the decision to the 9th circuit
By Anders Hagstrom | Fox News
Published July 17, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-upholds-oregon-gun-control-law-described-nations-most-extreme
I was literally just about to post this. This is dangerous
-
I was literally just about to post this. This is dangerous
Should be short-lived.
-
Federal judge upholds Oregon gun control law described as 'nation's most extreme'
Gun rights activist are appealing the decision to the 9th circuit
By Anders Hagstrom | Fox News
Published July 17, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-upholds-oregon-gun-control-law-described-nations-most-extreme
The judge was a registered Democraft up until 1998, and a Republican from 2003 to present. She was appointed by Trump and previously she was appointed as US Attorney by GW Bush. So much for some prominent Republicans "supporting" the 2nd Amendment.
-
Should be short-lived.
No doubt. All of these blue state gun control laws flys in the face of Bruen
-
The judge was a registered Democraft up until 1998, and a Republican from 2003 to present. She was appointed by Trump and previously she was appointed as US Attorney by GW Bush. So much for some prominent Republicans "supporting" the 2nd Amendment.
I don't trust any of them, regardless of party.
-
No doubt. All of these blue state gun control laws flys in the face of Bruen
And they do nothing to stop criminals from killing people.
-
Second Amendment: 48 Consecutive Months of One Million+ Gun Sales
AWR HAWKINS 2 Aug 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/08/02/second-amendment-48-consecutive-months-of-one-million-gun-sales/
-
So you can be forced to fight and die for your country, using a firearm, but cannot own one if you are a civilian? ::)
Colorado raises age to buy firearms to 21
The new law goes into effect Monday.
Darian Douraghy
https://thepostmillennial.com/colorado-raises-age-to-buy-firearms-21?utm_campaign=64487#google_vignette
-
So you can be forced to fight and die for your country, using a firearm, but cannot own one if you are a civilian? ::)
Colorado raises age to buy firearms to 21
The new law goes into effect Monday.
Darian Douraghy
https://thepostmillennial.com/colorado-raises-age-to-buy-firearms-21?utm_campaign=64487#google_vignette
Federal judge halts Colorado gun law, citing Supreme Court Bruen precedent
by Kaelan Deese, Supreme Court Reporter |
August 07, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/federal-judge-halts-colorado-gun-control-law-citing-bruen-precedent
-
Federal judge halts Colorado gun law, citing Supreme Court Bruen precedent
by Kaelan Deese, Supreme Court Reporter |
August 07, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/federal-judge-halts-colorado-gun-control-law-citing-bruen-precedent
Thankfully, courts are shooting down these unconstitutional laws citing Bruen.
-
Supreme Court allows continued regulation of so-called 'ghost guns'
The Biden administration may temporarily continue its crackdown on 'ghost guns'
By Shannon Bream , Bill Mears , Chris Pandolfo | Fox News
Published August 8, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-allows-continued-regulation-ghost-guns?intcmp=tw_fnc
-
Joe Biden is slammed for 'backdoor violation of the Second Amendment' after 122 gun dealers were stripped of their licenses by the ATF
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has revoked the licenses of 122 gun dealers in the fiscal year that began in October
The figure is up from 90 for all last fiscal year, and 27 in 2021: critics of the move say the Biden administration is attacking the Second Amendment
In the last decade - such records only began in 2013 - the government never revoked more than 81 licenses
By HARRIET ALEXANDER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
UPDATED: 19 August 2023
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12423119/ATF-gun-licenses-reduce-joe-biden-second-amendment.html
-
Group Sues After New Mexico Governor Suspends Right To Carry Guns In Albuquerque In Public
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order has drawn an immediate court challenge Saturday from a gun-rights group.
Scott Sonner, Gabe Stern, and Ken Ritter
Sep 9, 2023
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/albuquerque-guns-new-mexico_n_64fd382fe4b043f73bc10a3e
-
Group Sues After New Mexico Governor Suspends Right To Carry Guns In Albuquerque In Public
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order has drawn an immediate court challenge Saturday from a gun-rights group.
Scott Sonner, Gabe Stern, and Ken Ritter
Sep 9, 2023
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/albuquerque-guns-new-mexico_n_64fd382fe4b043f73bc10a3e
I was in Albuquerque earlier this year. ROUGH TOWN. They have trouble saying what the real issue is.
-
I was in Albuquerque earlier this year. ROUGH TOWN. They have trouble saying what the real issue is.
I'll go out on a limb and say people exercising their constitutional right to carry a firearm has nothing to do with whatever crime they are dealing with.
-
I'll go out on a limb and say people exercising their constitutional right to carry a firearm has nothing to do with whatever crime they are dealing with.
Cartels and drugs. Not even East LA had gates and barbed wire on every storage unit and business.
-
Cartels and drugs. Not even East LA had gates and barbed wire on every storage unit and business.
Then you didn't go to the right parts. ;D
-
Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks New Mexico Governor’s Gun Ban
Gun Shop Near Ferguson Sees Increase In Business Ahead Of Awaited Grand Jury Decision
KATELYNN RICHARDSON
CONTRIBUTOR
September 13, 2023
https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/13/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-new-mexico-governors-gun-ban/?pnespid=6Ls8WDsZa7FGwvWQ_m25AZ.StBT2VYkvL7LlnLZoqAFmF1Rq3um_RBOYwgaDTpniJcni2999Xw
-
Group Sues After New Mexico Governor Suspends Right To Carry Guns In Albuquerque In Public
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order has drawn an immediate court challenge Saturday from a gun-rights group.
Scott Sonner, Gabe Stern, and Ken Ritter
Sep 9, 2023
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/albuquerque-guns-new-mexico_n_64fd382fe4b043f73bc10a3e
Suing is not enough. She was testing the waters. Public officials, members of Congress and government employees who blatantly violate the Constitution should be imprisoned for life, no parole, no pardon.
-
Biden taps Harris to lead new federal office of gun violence prevention
Gun safety activists have called for the creation of such an office since the beginning of Biden’s term.
By MYAH WARD
09/21/2023
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/21/kamala-harris-lead-office-gun-violence-prevention-00117497
-
Biden taps Harris to lead new federal office of gun violence prevention
Gun safety activists have called for the creation of such an office since the beginning of Biden’s term.
By MYAH WARD
09/21/2023
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/21/kamala-harris-lead-office-gun-violence-prevention-00117497
Hey, it could turn out to be a full time gig for her! That would open up the VP spot for someone new. ;D
-
Biden taps Harris to lead new federal office of gun violence prevention
Gun safety activists have called for the creation of such an office since the beginning of Biden’s term.
By MYAH WARD
09/21/2023
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/21/kamala-harris-lead-office-gun-violence-prevention-00117497
Kamala is used to getting tapped. She's also used to being appointed in useless posts and doing nothing.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scotus-rules-on-ghost-gun-regulation/ar-AA1iC2Ug?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=dfa74e75f0d643d7b54be7b0fd678cf5&ei=15
-
New Mexico Gov Grisham Demands More Gun Control After Maine Shooting
By: Jason Walsh
October 27, 2023
https://www.dailyfetched.com/new-mexico-gov-grisham-demands-more-gun-control-after-maine-shooting/
-
New Mexico Gov Grisham Demands More Gun Control After Maine Shooting
By: Jason Walsh
October 27, 2023
https://www.dailyfetched.com/new-mexico-gov-grisham-demands-more-gun-control-after-maine-shooting/
<The Governor has not said which gun controls would be “appropriate” because it is yet to be revealed how the suspected shooter, Robert Card, got his firearm.>
Putting the cart before the horse. ::)
-
Yea gun control is working out real well. America's should be armed to the teeth. Actually considering purchasing some real fire power, handguns aren't enough.
-
Yea gun control is working out real well. America's should be armed to the teeth. Actually considering purchasing some real fire power, handguns aren't enough.
"Real" fire power? Everyone should own an AR or two. What's the hold up?
-
New Mexico Gov Grisham Demands More Gun Control After Maine Shooting
By: Jason Walsh
October 27, 2023
https://www.dailyfetched.com/new-mexico-gov-grisham-demands-more-gun-control-after-maine-shooting/
When you hear Democrats say "enact appropriate common-sense gun laws" it's a dog whistle for "ban all firearms".
-
When you hear Democrats say "enact appropriate common-sense gun laws" it's a dog whistle for "ban all firearms".
Also code for "only the government should have guns"
-
i=qJpRqdr6dgUkXyZT
-
Federal court strikes down California's broad restrictions on concealed carry
By Kenneth Schrupp | The Center Square
https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_10518f4c-ae74-11ee-b055-47cdc096de0d.html?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
-
ATF preparing to regulate private gun sales with background check, whistleblower group alleges
Empower Oversight says power grab would be unconstitutional, usurping powers on Congress and infringing 2nd Amendment.
By John Solomon
Published: January 31, 2024
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/atf-preparing-regulate-private-gun-sales-background-check-whistleblower?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
-
ATF preparing to regulate private gun sales with background check, whistleblower group alleges
Empower Oversight says power grab would be unconstitutional, usurping powers on Congress and infringing 2nd Amendment.
By John Solomon
Published: January 31, 2024
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/atf-preparing-regulate-private-gun-sales-background-check-whistleblower?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
ATF should be abolished
-
*facepalm*
Hawaii Court Gives Middle Finger To SCOTUS, Claims ‘Spirit Of Aloha’ Overrides Constitution
BY: JORDAN BOYD
FEBRUARY 08, 2024
https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/08/hawaii-court-gives-middle-finger-to-scotus-claims-spirit-of-aloha-overrides-constitution/
-
*facepalm*
Hawaii Court Gives Middle Finger To SCOTUS, Claims ‘Spirit Of Aloha’ Overrides Constitution
BY: JORDAN BOYD
FEBRUARY 08, 2024
https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/08/hawaii-court-gives-middle-finger-to-scotus-claims-spirit-of-aloha-overrides-constitution/
What the fuck is "The spirit of Aloha" and where is it mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
-
What the fuck is "The spirit of Aloha" and where is it mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
I got nothing. :-[
-
Grandma is a gangster. Great story.
Idaho woman, 85, fatally shot home intruder in 'heroic' act of self-defense
A county prosecutor said the woman acted in self-defense and ruled it was a case of justifiable homicide in a case review.
April 10, 2024
By Rebecca Cohen
An 85-year-old Idaho woman shot and killed an intruder in her home in what a county prosecutor called "one of the most heroic acts of self-preservation I have ever heard of."
Bingham County Prosecutor Ryan Jolley said in a case review that the woman, identified Wednesday as Christine Jenneiahn, acted in self-defense and ruled it was a case of justifiable homicide.
"That Christine survived this encounter is truly incredible," Jolley wrote. "Her grit, determination, and will to live appear to be what saved her that night."
According to the review, posted on Facebook by the Bingham County Sheriff's Office, an intruder, identified as Derek Condon, broke into Jenneiahn's home at around 2 a.m. on March 13. Jenneiahn told prosecutors she was asleep in her Bingham County home when she was awakened by an intruder who was wearing a military jacket and black ski mask and was pointing a gun and a flashlight at her.
She said her disabled son was also home.
The review says Condon most likely hit Jenneiahn in her head while she was in bed, because Jenneiahn said she'd been hit and because investigators found blood on her pillow and on her bedroom floor.
Condon then handcuffed Jenneiahn and took her to the living room at gunpoint, according to the review. There, he handcuffed her to a wooden chair and asked about her valuables. When she said she didn't have much, he put his gun to her head, the review said.
According to the review, Jenneiahn told Condon she had two safes downstairs. He left her handcuffed in the living room as he looked through several rooms of her home in search of her valuables, prosecutors said.
"At some point," the review says, "he discovered that Christine's son was also in the home and became angry at Christine for not telling him."
Condon started to make numerous threats that he wanted to kill Jenneiahn, according to the review.
While Condon was searching downstairs, she dragged the wooden chair to which she was handcuffed into her bedroom and grabbed her .357 Magnum revolver from under her pillow, the review says. Back in the living room, Jenneiahn hid the gun between the armrest and a cushion as she "waited to see what Condon did next."
"Christine's memory of exactly what occurred next remains somewhat unclear," according to the review.
Jenneiahn told prosecutors that at some point, when Condon returned to the living room after having rummaged through her home, he again threatened to kill her.
"She ultimately made the decision that it was 'now or never' and drew her concealed 357 magnum and engaged Condon striking him with both her shots," the review says.
Condon returned fire, striking Jenneiahn multiple times in her abdomen, a leg, an arm and her chest with a 9 mm pistol, according to the review. Condon went to the kitchen, where he died from the gunshot wounds.
Jenneiahn, still handcuffed, fell over and remained on the floor for about 10 hours until her son came upstairs in the late morning and gave her a phone to call 911. Deputies responded at about 12:17 p.m., the review says.
EastIdahoNews.com reported that Jenneiahn was taken to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center in Idaho Falls. She has been released and is recovering, it reported.
Subsequent investigation turned up a broken window in the back of the residence and a screwdriver near where Condon broke in, according to the review. On his body, Condon had a lock pick set, his car key, a handcuff key and a bag filled with items stolen from the home.
Condon's car was also found near the home, according to the review, and a set of footprints leading from the vehicle in the direction of the home was discovered.
Based on Idaho's self-defense law, which states, "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself," Jolley ruled the killing justifiable.
"This case presents an easy analysis of self-defense and justifiable homicide," Jolley wrote. "It also presents one of the most heroic acts of self-preservation I have ever heard of."
He added: "Absent a clear attempt by Condon to retreat from the residence or surrender, which based on the evidence clearly did not occur, Christine was justified in taking any and all means necessary to defend herself and her son that night."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/idaho-woman-85-fatally-shot-home-intruder-heroic-act-self-defense-rcna147312