Tag: AW ban

Watch out 9th Circuit! The 4th is a-comin’ fer ya!

San Francisco’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has the dubious distinction of being the most overturned court in the Federal judiciary. Over 80% of 9th Circuit rulings reviewed by the Supreme Court get tossed. Not to be outdone, the 4th Circuit issued this ridiculous ruling in the Kolbe case. The court’s en banc panel held that, and I’m paraphrasing a bit here, since “assault weapons” are icky and scary looking, they’re not protected by the 2nd Amendment. The court contends that the affected semi-automatic firearms are “weapons of war” and thus not protected as per Heller.

This is, of course, an incorrect reading of Heller as well as the facts.

While the Heller ruling was narrowly confined to Washington D.C.’s handgun ban, the Court did caution against reading the ruling as only applying to handguns; that the 2nd Amendment may apply to firearms such as semi-automatic rifles. Justice Scalia writes:

   Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

While “dangerous and unusual” weapons are not protected, those “in common use” are. And “Black rifles” certainly are in common use! There’s a reason why the AR-15 is called “America’s Rifle”.

This ruling is doomed to reversal once it reaches the High Court. There it will join similarly goofy rulings from the 9th Circus. It is nothing more than a temper tantrum issued by a pack of black-robed idiots. But the fact that it will be short lived does not undo the damage that it will cause. There are law abiding citizens within the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction that are now at risk of having their rights violated while the ruling is in force.

The more long lasting damage is to the law’s reputation. We have mentioned before that laws and court rulings that make a mockery of the law erode respect for the rule of law; and this is a very dangerous situation. A civil society cannot exist in the absence of the rule of law. As upsetting as this might be to some special snowflakes, society needs rules that everyone can follow. Rulings like this one upend the rules. Instead of a Constitution that sets firm limits on the power of Government, the 4th Circuit would replace it with judicial whimsy. This reduces the rule of law to a game of Calvinball.

…which is only funny if a boy and his stuffed tiger are involved. It’s not so funny if you’ve been arrested for something that was legal last Tuesday and might be again at the next new moon.

Legal News

The California DOJ recently withdrew a proposed set of regulations to enforce the State’s new “bullet button” ban. This ban redefines an “assault weapon” to mean any detachable magazine centerfire rifle with two or more features from the naughty list; such as an adjustable stock or a pistol grip on the forearm. While the proposed regulation were an overreach of the law’s intent, they were still rules that could be followed.

The firearms manufacturing community has been introducing new products that would allow Californians to comply with the terms of the law without having to register their rifles as “assault weapons”. (Remember: Registration == Confiscation!) But, by delaying their new rules, the CA-DOJ makes it uncertain which of these new products would actually pass the department’s legal tests. Thus we cannot say with certainty that a “featureless” rifle configuration is really featureless under the law. Nor can we say that a particular magazine release system truly satisfies the requirement that the action of the gun be disassembled to remove the magazine.

One does have to wonder: Is this delay deliberate? Is its purpose to prevent manufacturers from introducing legal products for California gun owners ahead of the ban’s January 1, 2018 enforcement date? Without these products, Californians would be forced to register their legally owned firearms with the State to stay compliant. Or…

Legal News

I’m pretty sure that we warned y’all this would happen. But did you listen? Why start now, right?

Californians, faced with yet another round of unconstitutional gun laws, responded by buying a record number of firearms in 2016. Of course, this happens every time crazy, gun hating liberals roll out new gun laws. Real Americans respond with their wallets.

News

Like Ned Stark memes appearing around the winter solstice, there are some things that just aren’t surprising. They appear like clockwork; as predictable as the tides. One of these regular, cyclical events is the run on firearms that precedes a new gun law taking effect. And yet, there are some people who are shocked and amazed every time it happens again.

The last 8 years of the Obama regime have seen otherworldly increases in firearms sales. The Bamster’s every anti-gun utterance, no matter how vaguely worded, saw a fresh run on gun stores. Ultimately, the man’s term in office was an unqualified failure. Other than a few executive orders that were intended to harass law abiding gun owners, he was unable to pass a single piece of anti-gun legislation. He swung for the fences with his nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, but struck out. Now President Donald Trump will appoint the successor to Antonin Scalia.

Which brings us to Neverland-by-the-Sea.

The California Democrat Party, for reasons that I actually can’t guess, passed a wagon load of new gun regulations this year. I say that I cannot understand their reasoning because it wasn’t necessary as a political device. The extreme, anti-gun left wasn’t threatening to bolt for another party, nor was there any other reason to placate this one, small wing of their coalition. A bunch of us, myself included, expected Governor Pan to be the adult in the room and say no. But alas, he got into the pixie dust and flew off with the rest of his Party to chase pirates while Californians flew off to their local gun stores.

In light of the election of President Trump, one might think that a temper tantrum was involved, but that forgets recent history. The Lost Boys and Lost Girls in Sacramento passed their laws when it looked to everyone like Hillary Clinton would be appointing Scalia’s replacement. They quite unnecessarily blew off a very large bomb from their political arsenal. Even if they somehow knew that Hillary was toast, they’d also have to have known that President Trump will be in a position to bring California back into line with the US Constitution. Which would mean…

OK…

And with that, I’m gonna stop writing. I just realized that I’m shocked and amazed that the anti-gun left did something balmy for no apparent reason. I shoulda seen that coming.

Anti-gun Legislation News State

America’s gunnuts are actually on the Left…


From NRA-ILA:

Clinton Pushes Semi-Auto Ban as Public Rejects Gun Bans in Record Numbers

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2016

Is she trying to look like Donald Sutherland?!?

Hillary Clinton has made clear that she would make gun control a top priority of her presidency, and has pointed to a new ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms as one of her chief goals. At a June 17, 2014 CNN “town hall” event, Clinton was asked, “Do you think that reinstating the ban on assault weapons and banning high capacity magazines would do any good?” Clinton affirmed her support for a ban, and stated, “We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” Clinton’s team might want to rework this line of attack, as a Gallup poll released this week shows that a record number, and a majority, of Americans oppose a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms.

In a poll conducted October 5-9, Gallup asked 1,017 adults, “Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?” An overwhelming 61 percent of respondents answered that they were against such a ban, while a mere 36 percent support the restriction.

Gallup began asking this question in 1996, and has done so several times in the last two decades. The trend in favor of greater respect for gun rights is undeniable. Since 1996, support for a ban has dropped more than 20 points and opposition has risen 19 points.

Moreover, Gallup’s data shows that support for a ban has fallen across both major political parties and independents. Gallup points out, “Currently, 50% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans favor a ban; in 1996, 63% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans did so.” Additionally, support for a ban is well below 50 percent in both gun-owning and non-gun-owning households.

In addition to the question about semi-automatic firearms, Gallup also asked respondents, “Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?” As with commonly-owned semiautomatics, the results reveal that Americans are opposed to a handgun ban in record numbers. In the 1980s and early 1990s Gallup measured support for a handgun ban at around 40 percent. Today, only 23 percent support this restriction. 

While Clinton might like use incendiary rhetoric that labels gun rights supporters as a minority that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans, in fact it’s her support for gun bans that is extreme. We’d ask Clinton to stick to the truth, if she were familiar with the concept.


A few take-aways from this:

  1. Hillary Clinton knows what she knows and she’s not going to let the opinions of the “small folk” stand in her way. (Like that’s a surprise!)
  2. Support for an “assault weapon” ban fades away when it’s not called an “assault weapon” ban. Did you notice how Gallup phrased the question? Usually the question is “Do you favor banning deadly assault weapons that slaughter women and children?”. Whether they mean to or not, pollsters push-poll the question with wording like that. One wonders why Gallup did not do so here. Perhaps they’re tired of getting smacked for it by people like us.
  3. Gunnuts, those who obsess over firearms, are on the Left in America. Only people like Hillary get their knickers in a twist over rifles that are almost never used in violent crimes.

News Politics

Today is your last day to register to vote in California. You can register online here. You’ve been reading about how awful Prop 63 is here and elsewhere for months now. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Even if Prop 63 wins at the polls, the NRA and other groups will fight it in the courts. They will do so on solid legal footing, but there is an undeniable influence that polls have on judges. A resounding victory for Gavin Newsom’s vanity proposition could provide a weak-kneed judge the cover he or she needs to ignore the Constitution and approve the law. If it squeaks by, that’s another story. Your vote matters whatever the outcome!

Don’t let the party elites (in either party!) demoralize you and keep you away from the polls. Register today and vote on November 8.

News Politics

We already know that liberals generally get the wrong “takeaway” from 1984. For them Winston Smith is the bad guy and BB is the hero. The mainstream media certainly takes its role as Minitrue seriously. But who knew that they also view Mike Judge’s Idiocracy with the same reverence.

There are many who have voiced suspicions that the deterioration of our education system is planned rather than mere entropy. Are these people tin-foil hat wearing crazies? Perhaps. But they may be correct tin-foil hat wearing crazies…

And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

This is from a hacked email exchange between Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Bill Ivey, the former director of the National Endowment for the Arts. Ivey was appointed to that position by Bill Clinton and remains a “FOB“. It contains two interesting points. One is that Ivey, Podesta, and other liberals have indeed been conspiring “to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry”. (Proles, to use the newspeak term.) The second is that Ivey and Podest have discussed this before. This isn’t a one-off comment from Ivey; one where Podesta could claim he knows nothing of any conspiracies. The concept of furthering an “idiocracy” in America is something that neither man is unfamiliar with. But here, Ivey laments that they may not be the ones in charge once they’ve succeeded in dumbing down the population. They’re supposed to be the ones telling the rest of us that plants do not crave electrolytes and that we should stop pouring Brawndo on them.

For gun owners, this is nothing new. We’re quite used to anti-gun liberals attempting to exploit ignorance to sell their product. We’re used to Minitrue claiming that violent crime is rising (and that guns, therefore, ought to be banned) when, in fact, it hasn’t been this low since the ’70s. We’re used to being demagogued as bitter clingers, terrorists,  and racists. We’re used to these things, sure, but why do we accept them?

The more general growth of an “unaware and compliant citizenry” is a tough nut to crack. But the problem of ignorant gun muggles isn’t. There’s something we can do about it; and it’s loads of fun too!

Take your gun muggle friends shooting.

Who doesn’t want an excuse to go to the range? Here’s your chance. Between now and Election day, take a friend to the range. Let them see that guns and gun owners aren’t the monsters they’ve lead to believe they are. This is your perfect chance to then let them know why gun control in general, and Prop. 63 in particular, is a really bad idea. Let them know how pointless these laws are. Let them know that rank-and-file police oppose gun control. Let them know that law enforcement has come out against Prop. 63. You can post on Facebook or Twitter all you like, but there’s no more powerful argument than letting your friends put a few downrange.

News Politics

When even police chiefs oppose a gun control measure, there’s something wrong with it.

Police chiefs and sheriffs are, by necessity, political animals. It goes with the job if they want to keep that job. Sheriffs are elected and answer to the People. If the voters of their counties support or oppose gun control, sheriffs can be counted on to reflect the views of their constituents. Police chiefs are another matter. They’re not elected; they’re appointed by mayors and approved by city councils. In much of California, that means that they’re serving at the pleasure of Democrat politicians. And that, in turn, means that they had better develop a healthy appetite for more and more gun laws. Thus, it says something when they push their plates away as they have with Prop 63.

The chiefs are narrowly focused on how Prop 63 will affect their officers, so if you were hoping that they had somehow gained even a minimal level of respect for the 2nd Amendment, you’ll be disappointed. But, their fears as to how Prop 63 will hurt law enforcement are mirrored by how it will hurt all Californians.

News Politics

The effort to qualify ballot initiatives to overturn the “gunmageddon” bills appears to have fallen short. However, our gun-hating betters in Sacramento shouldn’t pop those corks just yet. NRA, CRPA, and other groups are moving forward with legal actions to overturn these unconstitutional laws in the courts.

Thank you to all of those who put in the sweat equity (And I mean that literally. Do you know how freakin’ hot it gets in places like Reseda?!?)  to gather signatures. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by the rest of us. Please don’t let this news dishearten you. The fight isn’t over yet and you’re still needed.

Legal News Politics

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