Author: <span class="vcard">Staff</span>

What is it with Democrats and their inability to accept the outcomes of elections?

First it was the election of 1860, now it’s the election of 2016. The Democrats lost both elections and chose violence over democracy. (One would think that they’d recognize that word, but apparently not!) Instead, its radicalized wing is, just as it did in 1860, pushing the rest of the Party toward succession and open conflict. They chose badly last time around; this time would actually be worse.

Much worse

The Democrat stronghold in 1860 was the South. The region was largely rural and well armed. They lacked numbers, but arguably had a formidable military capability. Ultimately, quantity counted more than quality. The Democrats went down to defeat, they lost their slaves, and they wouldn’t regain power for 7 decades.

Now they want a rematch.

This time, their stronghold isn’t one region; it’s a handful of urban centers. They’re separated from one another by “flyover country” and have virtually no military capacity. (Snowflakes in black do not an army make.) Their one potential advantage is that they still have a few fingertips that are able to reach the levers of power over which they formerly had a firm grasp. They hold lots of court appointments and they hold the nation’s media corporations. They can issue court rulings that ignore the Constitution and have a compliant media report how this is actually OK.

The problem comes when push truly comes to shove. That sort of heavy handed, anti-democratic behavior can only go so far before the People decide that they’ve had enough. The results of the last election ought to serve as notice that they’ve reached that point. What comes next is up to the Democrat Party. This can end in blood and fire, like it did last time, or they can choose to live up to their name. This time, they would do well to remember that the rabble are heavily armed. We own somewhere between 300,000,000 and 500,000,000 firearms. We own billions of rounds of ammunition. The military that you may have been counting on to be your muscle is made up of our sons and daughters. Who do you really think they’ll be aiming at if it comes to that?

You’ve been wondering for years why we “rednecks” keep buying more and more guns and ammo. It’s not so that we can over throw the government; it’s so we can keep people like you from overthrowing the government. We like our Republic and our Constitution and we intend to keep them. If you’re intent upon changing either, there are legal mechanisms for doing so. Convince us that you’re right and we’ll go along with you. But before you Democrats start whistling Dixie (again) and go marching off to war armed with sticks, black bandannas, and clever hashtags, you may want to rethink those plans for a glorious revolution. It will not go well for you.

News Politics

Happy New Year ya anti-gun freakazoids!


NRA Backs Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill in U.S. House

Bill Would Eliminate Confusing Patchwork of State Laws

Fairfax, Va. – On behalf of its five-million members, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded the introduction of H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, authored by Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-8). This legislation would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state carry laws by allowing individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

“The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA. “Congressman Hudson’s legislation provides a much needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners.”

This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected. If under federal law a person is prohibited from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under this bill.

“Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines,” continued Cox. “This is an extremely important issue to our members and we thank Congressman Hudson for leading the fight to protect our rights,” concluded Cox.

Federal H.R.38 Legislation News Pro-gun Self-defense

Unlike the screeching, hysterical New York Daily News, Mother Jones offers a more sober assessment of what Donald Trump’strump-rifle2000 victory means for gun rights in America. (And I’ll apologize right now: You’re gonna have the Georgia Satellites playing in your head for the rest of the day!)

Say what you will about Mother Jones, but their reporting on gun rights has been pretty fair. Rather than join in with the rest of the media fanning fears of “mass shootings” happening every other day, they looked at what’s really happening. They found, of course, that the Obama administration and their accomplices in the media have been lying: Mass shootings are not on the rise. Are they a pro-RKBA organization? Of course not. They’re a news organization; which is far more than can be said of companies like CNN, NBC, or the New York Daily News.

The piece cited above offers a realistic look at what gun owners (and the anti-gun Left) can expect from a Trump administration. First and foremost will be a flurry of executive orders overturning Obama’s less-than-legal EOs.

Most immediately, President Barack Obama’s executive orders on guns will be gone. (Obama has signed orders requiring more gun sellers to conduct background checks, requiring dealers to report lost or stolen guns, establishing an investigation center to track online gun trafficking, and launching research into gun safety technology.) “They’re going to overturn almost everything that Obama did,” [UCLA professor Adam] Winkler says.

President-elect Trump has promised that Obama’s EOs are going out the window on day one. Next up will be the Supreme Court. This is without a doubt the single most important issue of this past election for gun owners. Congresses and presidents come and go, but a Court ruling can last multiple lifetimes.

When the NRA magazine America’s 1st Freedom asked Trump whether the Second Amendment will be a consideration of his in nominating the next Supreme Court justice, he replied, “100 percent. I will appoint judges who will preserve our Second Amendment rights.”

Of the 21 names of possible justices Trump has released, the NRA considers none of them “non-starters,” an NRA spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal. But the gun lobby has some favorites, including Judge Bill Prior of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who once called victims of violence and local and state governments that sued gun manufacturers “leftist bounty hunters.”

Finally, there’s pro-gun legislation on the table. National CCW reciprocity, which had the NY Daily News in such a tizzy, is likely the first piece of legislation that will cross President Trump’s desk.

“Gun owners are looking at an opportunity to go on the offense at the federal level. There a number of different bills that we could be pursuing,” [DC lobbyist Todd] Rathner says. Most prominently among those bills is national reciprocity, which would guarantee that people with concealed-carry permits in one state could carry their guns in any other state. “A concealed carry permit would be treated like a driver’s license. When you drive across state lines, you don’t worry that your license won’t be honored. We need that for concealed weapons permits,” Rathner says.

Winkler, however, notes some potential problems with this. Reciprocity, depending on how the bill is finalized, could require a state like California to recognize a concealed carry permit issued in a state like Utah. “In Utah, you don’t have to be a resident to get a concealed carry permit,” says Winkler. “So someone who is in Los Angeles and who cannot get a concealed carry permit can go get one in Utah, and then under national reciprocity, depending on how the bill gets shaped, California would have to recognize that.”

The anti-gun Left has long tried to use Federal law to dictate gun policy to the States. Now it looks like they’re getting their wish! (For my neighbors wanting more info on Utah non-resident CCW, you can look here. 🙂 )

Throughout the campaign, these pages have been advising gun owners that they had a binary choice in this election. We weren’t kidding. We had a choice between the most ardently anti-gun candidate in Democratic Party history and the most pro-gun GOP candidate since Ronald Reagan. (Can you imagine candidates like Mitt Romney or John McCain posting pro-RKBA position papers on their websites? How about any Bush?) And now even the Left sees that we weren’t kidding.

And even if gun advocates get everything they want in the next couple of years, there’s also a good chance that Trump will get to appoint more than one Supreme Court justice. If that happens? “Well then, everything changes,” says Winkler. For years, the gun lobby’s favorite myth was that the government was coming for everyone’s guns. With the election of Trump, the inverse may be coming true. The guns are coming for the government.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I gotta go find my shades. 😎

Uncategorized

Coders are quite familiar with the concept of choices. These take the general form:

if (condition1) {
     action(1);
}
elseif (condition2) {
     action(2);
}
elseif (condition3) {
     action(3);
}
         .
         .
         .
else {
     action(n);
}

The program runs through each condition checking to see if it’s true. Once it finds a matching condition, it executes the appropriate code.  Something similar happens with gun laws. In this case, let’s look at how law abiding citizens are reacting to the “bullet button” ban, SB 880.

The options are:

  1. Ignore the law and do nothing.
  2. Rush out and buy a new modern sporting rifle with a bullet button release.

Californians aren’t picking option 1. These rifles are flying off the shelves at gun stores around the State. If the intent of SB 880 was to reduce the number of modern sporting rifles in California, it’s already failed miserably.

This leads us to a variation on our pseudocode: The nested if/elseif statement. The general form is:

if (condition1) {
     if (condition1A) {
         action(1A);
       }
     elseif (condition1B) {
         action(1B);
       }
          .
          .
          .
     else {
         action(1n);
       }
}
elseif (condition2) {
     if (condition2A) {
         action(2A);
       }
     elseif (condition2B) {
         action(2B);
       }
         . 
         . 
         .

And you can see how these can go on and on; nest after nest after nest or nest within nest within nest. In this case, we’ve already entered the next layer. Since “Do nothing” has been rejected, that leads to more choices:

  1. Register your bullet button guns as “assault weapons”.
  2. Modify them to make them “featureless”.
  3. Ignore the law.

Some people will take option 1. Most will likely reject it since history teaches that registration leads to confiscation. To make a modern sporting rifle “featureless”, new magazine releases like “BB Reloaded” will likely suffice. There are also wraps for the pistol grip that may be legal too. (These prevent the thumb from reaching around the grip.) Other designers propose stocks that look more like a classic Monte Carlo stock. We’re awaiting legal guidance on all of these. By making the affected arms “featureless”, these modifications avoid the law’s mechanism to require registration.

That leads us to option 3. This isn’t legal advice, but there’s no way to tell just by looking at a rifle sitting on a shooting bench whether it’s been properly registered or not. “Papered” guns look just like outlawed guns.

So what were the geniuses in Sacramento thinking of when they passed Sb 880? They only imagined “option 1”. They expected all California gun owners to line up like sheep at an abattoir and register their rifles for convenient confiscation at a later date. Since the bullet button was an engineering response to a prior law, some might have guessed that the same engineers could come up with an “option 2”. But, none of them envisioned “option 3” as a choice. It never occurred to them that we might just ignore them, despite history to the contrary.

Now there’s yet another nested if/elseif layer and this is a choice for our betters in Sacramento to make: So whacha gonna do about it?

Or put another way: Μολών λαβέ.

Anti-gun Legislation News SB 880 State

We’ve discussed this before. There are two and only two choices facing gun owners this Fall: You either help Hillary Clinton win the presidency or you help to stop her. To do the latter, you have only one choice: Donald Trump. Jill Stein is not an option to stop Hillary. Neither is Gary “Spliff” Johnson.

The issue isn’t whether or not Donald Trump will be a stellar president. The issue is that you already know how evil Hillary Clinton is. You already know how she hates armed Americans. You already know she will do whatever it takes to erase the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. Even of Trump turns out to be a horrid president, he’ll still be better for our country than Hillary Clinton. 

The “Never Trumpers” claim they’re standing on principle. They’re liars. They’re pouting because their guy lost in the primaries. They’re putting their hurt feelings ahead of the interests of their country. Gun owners need to ignore these selfish idiots and vote to protect Liberty. 

News Politics

From America’s 1st Freedom magazine…


by Corinne Mosher – Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Hillary’s Enemies List: Corinne Mosher

Photo credit: @JoshIshmaelPhotography

In response to a Democratic presidential debate question on Oct. 13, 2015, Hillary Clinton put the 5 million members of the NRA at the top of the list of enemies she is most proud of.

This is unprecedented: On national television, a candidate for president of the United States named peaceable, law-abiding gun owners, who are simply trying to protect the Second Amendment, as her biggest enemies. She even listed NRA members ahead of Iran—the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. Drug cartels, Vladimir Putin, North Korea and ISIS terrorists didn’t even get a mention.

Clinton’s declaration made us wonder how NRA members feel about being recklessly declared her enemy. So we decided to ask them: How does it feel to be named Public Enemy Number 1 by Hillary Clinton? Yet you have to be careful of who it is that is inspiring you to hate, and why.

Today we hear from Corinne Mosher, Kansas State Rifle Association training committee member, professional competitive shooter, wife of a police officer and member of the D.C. Project.

It is a politically rewarding strategy to demonize one group of people in order to unite another group against a “common enemy.” The more unlike yourself you can make your enemy seem, the bigger the lies you can tell about them.

When a presidential candidate publicly denounces five million American citizens as the people she is most proud to call her enemies, she is shamefully putting politics above patriotism, and pandering to constituents rather than embracing her responsibility to uphold the Constitution.

Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once said, “Love, friendship and respect do not unite people as much as a common hatred for something.” Yet you have to be careful of who it is that is inspiring you to hate, and why. For the same knife that in the hands of a surgeon is used to save lives, can, in the wrong hands, be a destructive tool, severing vital connections and leading to permanent ruin.

The question to ask ourselves is not if the irresponsible rhetoric by Hillary Clinton is being used as an attempt to divide us, but why she is attempting to do so. The most obvious answer seems to be that she realizes once we are divided, we are susceptible to attacks from without and within. … once we are divided, we are susceptible to attacks from without and within.

“We the People” of the United States do have enemies, but the voices, faces and stories that make up the NRA are certainly not among them.

NRA’s membership represents a rich collection of different stories, races, religions, gender and sexuality preferences, socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, family structures, and political parties. We have differing levels of participation in the shooting sports and in politics in general, but we all believe in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We uphold, honor and sustain the law, especially laws that are intended to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to promote safe firearm storage and handling.

Placing all members of the NRA in one category, as Clinton did, is like trying to complete a paint-by-numbers kit using a paint roller.

If you aren’t a member of the NRA, that doesn’t make you my enemy. If you disagree with my views, political and otherwise, that doesn’t make you my enemy. To truly be my enemy, you have to be attempting to take away any of the basic human rights endowed by my Creator—my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Therefore, my short list of enemies is as follows: terrorists, rapists, murderers and tyrants.

So, if you have proudly declared yourself to be my enemy, then I ask, “Which of these are you?”

News Politics

Are you also reminded of the underpants gnomes when you listen to the anti-gun types? They both have equally nebulous business plans. For the anti-gun left, the plan is…

  • Phase 1: Pass laws.
  • Phase 2:         ?
  • Phase 3: No more guns!

The 2nd phase of the underpants gnomes’ plan is a complete mystery. There is no conceivable Phase 2 that could actually link “Collect underpants” to “Profit”. No one, not even Cartman, could tell us what Phase 2 could possibly be.

The 2nd phase of the anti-gun plan, however, is actually quite obvious: Gun owners cooperate and surrender their arms. What’s not clear is whether or not the average anti-gun leftist is aware that our cooperation is a necessary ingredient for the plan’s success. As we’ve mentioned before, Americans are remarkably uncooperative when it comes to obeying gun laws. Thus a plan that requires the active participation of its victims is not one with a promising future.

The “senior partners” in the movement are likely aware of the missing and unobtainable component of their plan. They probably know that the goal they claim to support cannot be achieved. In short, they’re lying to their followers about ridding the US of its guns. While they know that the movement is seeking the impossible, there’s real profit to be made. For them, that is. They raise money by tricking the rubes into thinking that there’s really a way to disarm the American people. Better still for them, their “investors” are people who reward intentions rather than results.

This November, Gavin Newsom is banking on that habit of rewarding intentions over results. His “Safety for All” initiative doesn’t actually have to win in November. Nor does it actually have to work if it does win. What matters to California Democrats is that “his heart’s in the right place” and that “he means well”. So when it comes to his 2018 gubernatorial bid, “Safety for All” is already paying dividends. Even if Prop 63 turns into an election day disaster, (i.e. turning out millions of screaming mad gun owners who flip the State for Donald Trump!) Gavin Newsom will still reap a tidy profit from his investment. So while his business plan isn’t anything close to the anti-gun business plan, Newsom does have a plausible Phase 2: “Trick them again”.

News

The California Legislature, showing their utter disdain for the Constitution and their undying hatred of California gun owners, has sent a laundry list of anti-gun bills to the Governor’s desk. Gov. Brown has already vetoed similar bills in the past. It is being reported that Brown will act on these bills as early as 11am Friday before he heads to Europe.

NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT!

You can email the Governor here. This link will take you to the contact form on his website. You can call the Governor’s office at (916) 445-2841.

These bad bills are…

  • Assembly Bill 857 would require an individual to request a serial number from DOJ for home-built firearms.  Anti-gun advocates are under the impression that criminals who are already ignoring the law will apply for a serial number issued from DOJ prior to use.  This bill would do nothing but entrap law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights.  Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2014.
  • Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 would make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.”  This legislation effectively outlaws magazine locking devices, more commonly known as “bullet buttons”. These areconstitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime.  These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and without public notice.  Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013.
  • Assembly Bill 1511 would effectively end the long-standing practice of temporarily loaning a firearm for lawful purposes. Under this legislation the ability to loan a firearm to anyone other than a family member would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer, absent very narrow and limited exceptions. A simple loan to a trusted friend for a few days would take almost a month to complete from loan to return, requiring two background checks, two 10 day waiting periods, two fees and multiple trips to a gun dealer. The result of the misguided legislation would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for borrowing or storing a firearm with a friend.
  • Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that are “clearly identifiable as being used exclusively as part of a functional weapon”. Depending on how this vague terminology is interpreted, AB 1673 could essentially treat pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms. 
  • Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the existing one handgun a month law to include ALL guns, including those acquired through a private party transfer. AB 1674 will have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms. Criminals will continue to ignore this law purchasing firearms illegally, ignoring this burdensome and ineffective restriction.
  • Assembly Bill 1695 would create a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm. The NRA does not oppose making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false lost or stolen report to law enforcement. Our reason for opposition is related to the restriction of a constitutional right for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense.
  • Assembly Bill 2607 would expand the class of individuals who could seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO).”  The NRA opposes the current GVRO procedures because they provide a mechanism for an individual to lose the right to keep and bear arms with no due process of law. AB 2607 would compound these problems by significantly expanding the classes of individuals who could seek a GVRO. This expansion would now include employers, coworkers, mental health workers and employees of secondary and postsecondary schools.  
  • Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours.  Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation stating, “I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.”
  • Senate Bill 1235  would place unjustified and burdensome restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases.  This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to be conducted through a licensed vendor.  First and foremost, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried — and failed — at the federal level.  Throughout the 1980s, Congress considered repeal of a federal ammunition regulation package that required, among other things, reporting of ammunition sales.  In 1986, the director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported eliminating the reporting requirement, stating: “The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current record keeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value.”  As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions, with little opposition to the removal of that requirement.  SB 1235 will similarly fail to reduce violent crime, as a law requiring the registration of ammunition purchases by honest citizens will not deter criminals. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.
  • Senate Bill 1446 would ban the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.  The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness.  Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.

Not one of these will make a single Californian any safer. All will make us less free.

It should be noted that the ACLU has come out against AB 2607.  From the LA Times

But the bill drew objections from the American Civil Liberties Union, which said in a letter to lawmakers that the bill “creates significant potential for civil rights violations.” Co-workers with an irrational fear may target a fellow employee without cause, and the bill lacks sufficient due process protections, the ACLU warned.

“An ex-parte order means the person subjected to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to appear to contest the allegations,” the group said in a statement.

We will not be made any safer by banning unregistered bricks of aluminum or by regulating individual gun parts. We will not be made safer by banning firearms that were designed to comport with State law. We won’t be made any safer by allowing vengeful, gun hating extremists to “SWAT” coworkers they disagree with. We won’t be made safer by treating ammo buyers like criminals. We won’t be made safer by treating gun theft victims like criminals. Rationing guns will not make us safer. Making Californians “transfer” a firearm through a dealer to a friend at the range, before letting him or her try it out, will not make us safer. These laws are nothing more than a showcase of irrationality. The last thing we need are the phobias of extremists written into State law!

AB 1135 AB 1511 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2607 AB 857 Anti-gun Legislation News SB 1235 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State

This week, 49 Americans were murdered by an Islamofascist terrorist. There have been two responses from politicians. President Obama and Hillary Clinton have called for sanctions against…

Other Americans.

Donald Trump has called for restricting access to the US by non-American Muslims.

You might not like The Donald, but right now, he’s the adult in the room. Calling for more gun control laws on law abiding Americans is not adult behavior.  It’s petty politics. Worse, it’s something that will just get people killed. (Do toy really think that American gun owners will peacefully and quietly surrender their property?)

Gun owners have a clear and uncomplicated choice this November. Only Trump has stated unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual liberty. Hillary insists that the Supreme Court was wrong on that count.

News Politics

News