Tag: AW ban

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

From NRA News:


TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2016

 

The AR-15 Is The Musket Of Its Era

As the standard firearm of its day, the AR-15 does not represent some bizarre over-extension of the right to keep and bear arms. It is the very core of that right.

In the middle of June, a self-described radical Islamist ruthlessly gunned down a room full of Americans in the worst terrorist attack on United States soil since 9/11. In response, the Obama administration joined the usual suspects within the media and inveighed relentlessly against the perpetrator of the crime. It was time, the president said, to get serious in fighting terrorism, and that meant “making it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on assault weapons.” Once again, the AR-15 was under the microscope.

If it seemed a touch peculiar that the president would reserve his most vehement words of condemnation for a firearm, rest assured that it was. But, alas, it was also par for the course. In the eyes of America’s ever-zealous gun-controllers, the AR-15 represents all that is wrong with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, indeed, with the country’s culture at large.

In consequence, banning it is imperative not only in the fight against “gun violence,” but as a means by which individualism itself can be checked. Time and time again, those who own AR-15s—or similar—are cast as reactionaries, or bitter clingers, or, worst of all, as full-on terrorists. “Why,” the critics invariably inquire, “are we allowing this supergun and its unbalanced owners to destroy the public peace?”

It makes no logical or constitutional sense for the people’s employees (our politicians) to be permitted to disarm their employers (the voters).

In pushing back against this rather ignorant way of thinking, I could marshal an almost endless supply of inconvenient facts. I could point out, for example, that despite all of the propaganda to the contrary, the AR-15 is not a “supergun,” a “machine gun,” an “automatic weapon” or an “assault rifle”; that it does not “spray bullets” indiscriminately, as one sees in the movies; that it is owned by a fascinating cross-section of American citizens; that it is not especially powerful, especially when compared to rifles that are primarily used for hunting; and that it is used so infrequently in crimes that the FBI doesn’t even bother to keep statistics.

Moreover, I could explain that there are a host of reasons why the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. Among them, that its ergonomic design makes it universally easy to use; that its modular structure renders it simple to repair or to customize; and that its pinpoint accuracy makes it the ideal choice for those who are weaker or lacking in training. But I won’t. For now, at least, I shall leave those arguments to those who are more technically qualified than am I, and focus instead on the principle that is at stake in the debate over the AR-15.

That principle? That Americans are in charge of their representatives, and not the other way around.

In most countries, the regnant political presumption is that the government enjoys unchecked power unless otherwise stated. In America, mercifully, the opposite doctrine applies. To review the debates that raged both before and after the revolution of 1776 is to learn not only that our forebears thought of government as a means primarily of protecting liberty, but that they did not believe they were obliged to surrender their pre-existing rights when they entered into the compact. It is for this reason that the federal government was given only certain, carefully delineated powers. It is for this reason that the framers of the Constitution were so keen to impose hard checks on authority. And it is for this reason that, even today, civil society takes on a much greater role in the United States than it does elsewhere.

All told, there are few better illustrations of this than the Second Amendment—the meaning of which is not at all confusing if one understands the era in which it was written. As the English system of juries was born from a sensible unwillingness to hand full judicial control over to a clique of professional judges, so the right to bear arms came from a general reluctance to put unalloyed trust in the power of the state. Grudgingly, Americans consented to be guarded by a standing army. But, as a check upon the ambitions of their government and its staff, there would be the militia, which, per George Mason, would be composed of “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

This arrangement was intended to achieve two crucial ends. The first, Tench Coxe wrote in 1791, was to ensure that there would be a means by which the people could resist should “the military forces which must be occasionally raised” seek to “pervert their power.” The second, as John Locke had confirmed in his Two Treatises, was to affirm that self-defense was an unalienable individual right that “could not be denied the community,” and that to delegate it entirely to Leviathan was a foolish idea indeed. To the founding generation it did not matter whether the question at hand was the protection of the home or the best insurance against would-be tyrants, the answer was invariably the same. “Who will defend me if things go wrong?” came the inquiry. “You will,” came the answer.

This idea has been cherished throughout American history. In Europe, ostensibly free people are routinely denied the opportunity to take charge of their own defenses on the grounds that the police and the security services can do a better job. In America, by contrast, these organizations have been seen as an addition to—rather than a replacement of—the status quo. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently confirmed that the police have “no specific legal duty” to protect individuals from threats. Now, as in the 18th century, the prevailing assumption is clear: At all levels, Americans are responsible for their own security—and if the government can help, that’s a bonus.

It is for this reason that the framers of the Constitution were so keen to impose hard checks on authority.

All of which, ultimately, brings us back to the AR-15. In my view, there is nothing that better symbolizes the proper relationship between the citizen and the state than a robust right to keep and bear arms. When one stops to think about it, it makes no logical or constitutional sense for the people’s employees (our politicians) to be permitted to disarm their employers (the voters).

And yet Americans fight constantly to prevent their representatives from doing just that. During heated debates, owners of common rifles such as the AR-15 are asked by those in positions of power, “Why do you need one of those?”—to which the appropriate response, in a voice dripping with suspicion, is first, “Why don’t you want me to have one?” And second, “If the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs need $20 million worth of firearms; and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service needs shotguns, propane cannons and drones; I think I’m on solid ground with my AR, thank you very much.”

Bluntly put, it is impossible to separate out the structure of the American settlement from the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. If, as many desire, the federal government were to rid the people of the United States of their most commonly owned rifle, it would be ushering in not just a change in the legal status quo, but a profound shift in the balance of power. Crises, as Edmund Burke observed, are perilous for the free.

Those who wish to avoid such a change must thus ensure that their rifles are cast in the correct light. Day in and day out, the gun control movement attempts to represent the AR-15 as being in some way extravagant or outré—as the unlovely corruption of a worthwhile principle. “Sure,” one hears it said, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but that gun just takes it too far.”

Bluntly put, it is impossible to separate out the structure of the American settlement from the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.

This, of course, is nonsense. In truth, the AR-15 is the contemporary equivalent of the musket—an everyday gun for everyday citizens. Fundamentally, the AR-15 is democratic. It is the yeoman’s gun; the people’s gun; the Brown Bess
of our era. It is what William Blackstone was referring to when he praised private arms; what George Orwell had in mind when he sought to keep the “rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage;” what Ida B. Wells imagined when she recommended that endangered blacks give a rifle “a place of honor” in their homes. As the standard firearm of its day, the AR-15 does not represent some bizarre over-extension of the right to keep and bear arms. It is the very core of that right.

This being so, it is unsurprising that the AR-15 has played a valuable role in ensuring that the Second Amendment can be enjoyed by everybody. The old line that “God created men, Sam Colt made them equal” hit on a key truth: Namely, that the right to self-defense remains largely theoretical absent the widespread availability of easy-to-use methods to provide for that self-defense, like firearms. On paper, both a diminutive woman and a 230-pound criminal have precisely the same opportunities to defend themselves. But unless she can find a way of overcoming the natural disparities in strength, that fight will not be a fair one. The AR-15 provides that way.

Speak to any gun store owner and he will tell you that the AR-15 is so wildly popular in large part because it is so versatile. Thanks to its smart design, it can be handled without trouble by men and by women, by children and by the elderly, by the able-bodied and by those with disabilities. Moreover, it can be easily and inexpensively customized to fit any body shape or size, and because its parts are interchangeable, they can be found by the inexpert and fitted without the need for costly tools. Because the media is proudly ignorant on all matters related to the Second Amendment, many members of the general public have come to believe that the AR-15 is unusually “high powered” or that its shooting system functions differently than other commonly used firearms. That, though, is wholly false. The AR-15 is unusual only insofar as it is usefully protean. Want a gun, but have special needs? There’s an app for that.

Which is to say that our present political contretemps is the product less of the fallout from a specific event, and more of a deep-seated and longstanding philosophical disagreement as to how modern Americans should relate to their government and to each other. In our cynical, distracted age it can be tempting to perceive the icons of the past as untouchable heroes, or to regard their grand deeds as one might a tall tale in a fading book of fables. But to elevate those who have stepped into the breach is often to do ourselves a disservice—indeed, if indulged too readily, it is to separate us cleanly from our history.

The United States has always been home to people who filled those roles that the government could not, and who proudly took responsibility for themselves and their security. To deprive them of the most effective, most democratic, most popular tool with which they choose to play that role would be a dangerous departure indeed.

Charles C. W. Cooke is the editor of National Review Online.

News