Thursday, February 22, 2018

Quote Of The Day - Editorial Version


Jim Shepherd of The Outdoor Wire had an interesting editorial today discussing the latest earnings report from Ruger along with some recent pronouncements from President Trump. After discussing the earnings report, he noted that much of the good news and bad news for the firearms industry seem to tied to President Trump.

He continues:
That’s because his announcement earlier this week that he wants a ban on bump fire stocks and other devices that increase the rate-of-fire of AR-style rifles is viewed as a politician, once again, throwing gun right supporters under the bus after wooing their support to get elected.

Indeed, candidate Trump and later President Trump could be characterized, at least until Tuesday’s announcement, as having a simple message for gun owners: “we will never, never, never infringe on our Second Amendment Rights.”

Now it may seem that our definitions on what Second Amendment protections really mean may differ significantly. For most Second Amendment supporters, any additional regulations on guns are beyond the pale. In fact, many gun rights groups have already begun to spread the word they will seek legal remedies should Attorney General Sessions make a move to place restrictions on either bump stocks or binary style triggers.

Seems a fight with the man gun owners helped put in the White House is brewing over gun rights. If that happens, Mr. Trump may learn that formerly ardent supports make the most fierce opponents.

Like Trump, gun owners don’t easily forgive- or forget- a betrayal.


We’ll keep you posted.
 Jim's absolutely correct. Instead of kow-towing to a bunch of people that never supported him and never will support him, Mr. Trump needs to remember just who put him over the top in the battleground states. It sure as hell wasn't members of Moms Demand Action.

The Establishment Has Spoken


The Wall Street Journal ran an unsigned editorial yesterday regarding background checks for firearms purchases. They noted the Florida school murderer was a known threat. He had been reported to the FBI, the local sheriff's department had been called multiple times, and the school had a warning out asking to be notified if he showed up with a backpack.

The editorial then advocates for the passage of Sen. John Cornyn's Fix NICS Act of 2017. They say this could be done quickly if only, in my words, those ideologues in the House would decouple national concealed carry reciprocity from their version of Fix NICS. While they are at they could throw in a Trojan Horse ban on bump fire stocks.

From the editorial:
The bill would tighten an imperfect background-check system and is supported by the National Rifle Association, police associations and the White House. The House passed the legislation last year, but it also added a provision requiring reciprocity for owners of concealed firearm permits across state lines. Democrats oppose the reciprocity provision, which can’t pass the Senate.

Republicans would be wise to let that reciprocity provision die and send a clean Fix-NICS bill to the Senate. The House can throw in a ban on so-called bump stocks, which let an AR-15 rifle fire more rapidly. That also has bipartisan support, and President Trump on Tuesday directed the Justice Department to propose a regulation banning bump stocks.

These ideas might not have stopped (killer's name redacted), but then neither would the oft-proposed ban on AR-15s. He could as easily have bought handguns, which is how (killer's name redacted) killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. But one consequence of Parkland should be a debate on how American society can deny the dangerous mentally ill access to guns of any kind. That will require a rethinking of privacy laws and state mental-health statutes.

Democrats keep saying they merely want “common sense” gun laws, not a ban, and the Cornyn bill is a test of their sincerity.
So let me get this straight so I can understand the thinking of the Establishment. If the Democrats "compromise" and support a bill that gives them virtually everything they want short of a ban on semi-automatic rifles and universal background checks, it is a "test of their sincerity". However, this also implies that if the Republicans insist on fulfilling their promise to the American voters on national reciprocity they will be considered obstructionists.

What a masterful example of Establishment doublespeak!

The proper response by us gun rights demanding proles is not only no but hell no. Passing Fix NICS with a bump fire ban but no carry reciprocity is no compromise. It should be rightfully seen for what it is:  a willful surrender by spineless Republicans who only give a shit about gun rights when it comes to getting our votes at election time.

The Meme


At the suggestion of Sean Sorrentino I made yesterday's quote of the day into a meme using one of those meme generators.






I posted the meme to Twitter yesterday and it seems to have taken off a bit.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Quote Of The Day


Given the gun prohibitionists are hoping for a new Children's Crusade to achieve their aim of universal disarmament (except for the government run by them), I thought this quote from Facebook was appropriate.

Just last week, Congress was calling on Tide to change the design of the Pods so teenagers would stop eating them. This week, teenagers should determine gun policy.

 With some saying that adolescence now goes into the mid-20s, I find it incomprehensible to think that we should defer to the unformed minds spouting nonsense that is merely a repetition of what they've been taught in the classroom and what the media wants them to say.

What Is Wrong With This Statement?


I read a story this morning from the local NBC station in San Francisco. It detailed how the prohibitive gun laws in California and especially San Francisco made trafficking in stolen and/or illegal guns a very lucrative business. That comes as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog or has any knowledge of the Prohibition Era.

The story contained this gem. Let's dissect it to see what's wrong with it.
Roger contacted NBC Bay Area following a joint investigation with the non-profit journalism organization The Trace, which found more than 20,000 guns across the country that were previously reported stolen were later recovered by police in connection to crimes.
Stolen guns used in crime? That makes sense as guns are stolen to be sold or traded to other criminals who are probably already prohibited persons. Guns are a tool of the trade for armed robbers and home invaders and they will do what is necessary to obtain them.

Roger? Nope that was just the fake name used by the criminal for the story. He's now in a witness protection program.

The non-profit journalism organization The Trace? Ah, there's the problem with the statement. While its tax status is irrelevant, calling The Trace a "journalism organization" is one hell of a whopper.  It is the Bloomberg-funded media propaganda arm that masquerades as journalism. Funding for it also came from the Joyce Foundation and Seattle anti-gun billionaire Nick Hanauer. Following the money always will lead you to the truth.


Tuesday, February 20, 2018

The Supreme Court Continues To Be A Doormat


In the usual course of events, when the Supreme Court issues definitive rulings on an area of constitutional law, it fully expects lower courts to abide by their ruling. If these lower courts don't, they get slapped down for their impertinence. However, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court in the post-McDonald era has allowed lower courts to treat it like a doormat. Their submissive posture in the face of decisions coming out of especially the 4th and 9th Circuits that ignore Heller and McDonald is, to be blunt, nauseating. The only justice that seems to have a spine and recognizes the danger to the powers of the court is Justice Clarence Thomas.

I write this as a prelude to the announcement today that the Supreme Court decided to deny certiorari in Silvester et al v. Becerra et al. It was on appeal from the 9th Circuit which found the 10-day waiting period for those with a California CCW, a California Certificate of Eligibility, or already had firearms registered to them had a valid government purpose. While supposedly deciding it on intermediate scrutiny, it was in fact decided on a rational basis. The problem with that is that rational basis cannot be used when it comes to an enumerated right. This case was originally a win in the District Court but reversed by 9th Circuit.

Justice Thomas noted in his 14 page dissent that:
This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational- basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the re- spect due an enumerated constitutional right.

If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court. Because I do not believe we should be in the business of choosing which constitutional rights are “really worth insisting upon,”
Heller, supra, at 634, I would have granted certiorari in this case.
He concluded his dissent by saying:
Nearly eight years ago, this Court declared that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). By refusing to review decisions like the one below, we undermine that declaration. Because I still believe that the Second Amendment cannot be “singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment,” id., at 778–779 (majority opinion), I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.
I don't know if any other justices voted to grant certiori but I do know that there weren't the required four votes. Decisions like that go to illustrate just how much we miss the late Justice Scalia and his leadership.

The Calguns Foundation which supported this lawsuit along with the Second Amendment Foundation issued the following statement:
WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 20, 2017)­­­­­­ — The Calguns Foundation has issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to not review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for existing gun owners who pass a background check:

We are disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that the Court has once again decided against taking up a Second Amendment challenge to plainly unconstitutional laws.

In his important 14-page dissent from the Court’s denial of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas detailed why the Ninth Circuit applied an improper “deferential analysis” that was “indistinguishable from rational-basis review,” showing “the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”

We agree with Justice Thomas that the Ninth Circuit’s “double standard is apparent from other cases,” like one where it invalidated an Arizona law partly because it “delayed” women seeking an abortion, and another where it struck down a Washington county’s 5-day waiting period for adult dancing licenses because it “unreasonably prevent[ed] a dancer from exercising first amendment rights while an application [was] pending.”

As Justice Thomas explained, the “Ninth Circuit would not have done this for any other constitutional right, and it could not have done this unless it was applying rational-basis review.” He is, of course, correct—just as we have maintained throughout the course of this appeal and in our briefing to the Supreme Court. But in the Ninth Circuit, it appears, “rights that have no basis in the Constitution receive greater protection than the Second Amendment, which is enumerated in the text.”

From the bottom of our hearts, we wish to thank every single supporter who generously helped us litigate this long-running case through trial and up to the Supreme Court. We also want to thank amici Cato Institute, Crime Prevention Research Center, Firearms Policy Coalition, Madison Society Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and Firearms Policy Foundation for their excellent briefs in support of our case and the cause of individual liberty.

The Calguns Foundation will continue to challenge unconstitutional gun control laws until the Second Amendment takes its place as a peer among fundamental rights, like those in the First Amendment, rather than the “constitutional orphan” and “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees” that it is in the Ninth Circuit today.

Sorry Donald But This Is Bovine Excrement


President Donald Trump released a Presidential Memorandum today directing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to complete the review of bump fire stocks and to promulgate a rule banning them. The problem with this Presidential Memorandum is that bump fire stocks as exemplified by the SlideFire Stock do not meet the definition of machine guns under the National Firearms Act and applicable BATFE rulings. That was why Rich Vasquez when he was charged with analyzing the SlideFire Stock found that it was not a machine gun nor did it convert a semi-automatic firearm into one. I made this very point in my own comment under the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

If President Trump wishes to change the definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act or if he wishes to pass a bill banning bump fire stocks, then he should ask Congress to pass such a bill. Directing the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to make such a change to the existing rules governing bump fire stocks ignores the rule of law despite what he might say in this Presidential Memorandum.

You can read the full Presidential Memorandum below:
After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.

Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machineguns.

Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of “machinegun” under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.

Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.

Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP
If Donald Trump has any desire to have a second term, pissing off the gun rights community which provided his margin of victory in battleground states is a damn poor way to go about it.

“Calling for gun control while Hitler is in the White House makes you sound suicidal”


Comedian Lou Perez has produced a YouTube video entitled, "7 Things You Should Know Before Talking About Guns". It is something everyone who is advocating for gun control should watch before opening their mouths.





Or maybe not. I kinda prefer the enemies of my rights to sound like the blithering idiots that they are.

One correction - "assault rifle" is more than a description of how a gun looks. He confuses that - like most in the media - with "assault weapon" which is a made-up term by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. An assault rifle is a select-fire rifle of intermediate caliber with a detachable magazine. A very early version would be something like the Sturmgewehr 44 which fired the 7.92x33 Kurz round.


H/T Legal Insurrection