So there was this former University of Missouri journalism prof who opined that the NRA is as bad as ISIS. I thought to myself, this could be fun. But alas, there isn’t enough in the article for even a bit of silly mockery, let alone a good Fisking. The old duffer’s argument seems to be that both organizations are known by acronyms. One wonders what he thinks of the National Restaurant Association.
The anti-gun, liberal, wingnut butthurt continues. This time it’s this lament from Slate editor Jeremy Stahl that Merrick Garland wasn’t able to attend the inauguration as a Supreme Court Justice. Worse yet, “Now Trump will get to nominate whomever he wants to fill this seat.” The horror!
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…
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.
I guess that they have a reputation to uphold…
The assembled clowns of the aptly named 9th Circus have had one last temper tantrum before President Trump takes office. A court panel has overturned a lower court ruling that the California 10-day waiting period for current gun owners to purchase another firearm is unconstitutional. The panel’s ruling, based on “intermediate scrutiny” rather than “strict scrutiny”, holds that the superfluous waiting period is “reasonable safety precaution”.
Anti-gun screwballs argue that current gun owners may have snapped between their last purchase and a new purchase and thus the “cooling off period” is necessary. They ignore the laws that they cried for in this State that create a mechanism to confiscate weapons from those who become “prohibited persons”. For those wanting an example of “doublethink”, this is a fine one; they simultaneously support and forget a law that they wanted.
So here’s a thought: What if the new Congress and the new President passed a Federal law prohibiting waiting periods? That could prove interesting.
Surprised by Hillary’s October surprise? Surprised that The Donald “went there“? Many things have been surprising this election season. The least surprising is that the Republicans are desperately attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
GOP pearl clutching notwithstanding, the Party’s elites have been itching for an opportunity to openly support their candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton, for a long time now. They’re not outraged by Trump’s stupid remarks about women; it’s all an act. Were they truly concerned about the mistreatment of women, they’d be outraged at Hillary Clinton’s treatment of Bill’s accusers. In point of fact, they’ve been praying for Trump to be defeated. It’s their best shot at regaining ownership of their decrepit party. Even if the GOP never wins another National election, they’ll be in charge and that’s all that matters. So not a peep about how Hillary Clinton actually treats women; just feigned indignation about how Trump once talked about them.
Why does this matter to gun owners? You do, in fact, have a dog in this fight. The GOP is willing to see Hillary Clinton appoint a liberal majority to the US Supreme Court if that’s what it takes to wrest control of the Party away from the rabble that nominated Donald Trump. (And that almost nominated Ted Cruz!) They’re willing to see your right to own and use firearms erased to regain their petty political power.
If you cherish the right to keep and bear arms, you have one and only one choice in this election: Donald Trump. If you’re thinking that the Court can remain split 4-4 until the next President after Hillary is sworn in, then you’re higher than Gary Johnson. If you think that Gary Johnson is a viable alternative who can defeat Hillary, you’re both high and stupid! Your one priority is the Supreme Court and who gets to fill its next 3-4 vacancies.
Don’t let Paul Ryan and the GOPe trick you into sacrificing your liberties for their political gain!
…she doesn’t hold a candle to Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.
In their continuing effort to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, Johnson and Weld are trying to trick gun owners into forgetting that Weld is an ardent, anti-gun wingnut. I guess that we’re supposed to forget that Weld sign anti-gun legislation in Massachusetts after running as a pro-gun candidate. Or that he’s since referred to modern sporting rifles as “weapons of mass destruction“.
Sorry Gary, but none of us smoke enough weed to buy that one.
Stephen Frank writes at California Political Review:
Seriously, if you are in your garage, manufacturing a gun, would you tell government? If you were in your computer room using a 3-D printer to create a gun, why would you tell government? The reason you are doing it yourself is that you do not trust government. For instance, if you are in a messy divorce and your spouse claims abuse, government can take your weapons without any proof of a crime. None. We no longer live in a constitutionally protected nation—think about the illegal aliens allowed to break the law, with the protection of government.
We’ve mentioned this before. If you hate guns, but love the rule of law, then you should hate gun laws. They do not actually control guns or gun ownership. Instead, they encourage lawlessness and make the legal system contemptible. If your desire is a peaceful society with less violence, then the very last thing you ought to be doing is causing the People themselves to hate and despise the laws that are supposed to govern them. This is what gun laws like AB 857 do. They make criminals out of the law abiding and do nothing to stop actual criminals.
There are some things in life that are truly mysterious. Who first realized that grinding up the extremely bitter seeds of a particular tree and brewing the grounds in hot water would produce something like coffee? Why do Prius owners all seem to be such horrible drivers? How is a law enforcement officer supposed to recognize a legit serial number on a home-built firearm?
It’s that last one that we’ll talk about here. California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 857 this week that requires anyone building a firearm to first obtain a serial number from the State. So what I’m wondering, and I’m probably not alone here, is how law enforcement is supposed to recognize a legitimately serialized firearm versus one with a few random characters stamped into it?
Imagine the following situation: You’re a member of the CA-DOJ gun detail. You’re at a shooting range. You look at three people at the bench and they’re all shooting AR-style rifles. One was purchased from a gun store as a complete rifle. One was purchased as separate upper and lower receivers and then assembled into a complete rifle. The third was home built from an “80%” lower receiver and then assembled to a purchased upper receiver. So riddle me this, Batman, how can you tell at a glance which is which?
Now let’s say that, somehow, you can tell at a glance which is which. You’ve magically identified the 80% lower. You look at it and it’s serialized. Unless the number is “12345”, how do you know that it’s actually a Callee-for-nai-aye issued number?
Of course, the answer is that you can’t; anymore than you could actually tell, at a glance, that this rifle was store-bought and that one was homemade. You could check the State’s database, but what’s your probable cause for doing so?
So the real mystery is: What’s the point of this law?
They’ve never seen the inside of a Mickey-D’s?! That seems to be the case, given their father’s latest claim that “It’s easier to get a gun than a Happy Meal in California“.
…or their father is just an idiot.