The Possum Drop: A New Year's Eve Tradition Lives On!

I have reported on the Possum Drop, a New Year's Eve tradition for 24 years, in the small western North Carolina town of Brasstown a number of times. The event stuck in the craw of PETA and they sued the state a number of times to get it stopped. It took a change in state law to allow the beloved event to continue using a live opossum as opposed to either a stuffed animal or roadkill.

The event ended in Brasstown with last year's New Years Eve when Clay Logan retired and closed his Clay's Corner store. However, it has now been taken over as an event by the nearby Town of Andrews.

As reported by the Cherokee Scout newspaper:

The festivities start at 8 p.m. with live entertainment, including Steve Phillips and the Midnight Express as well as the High Country Harmonizers.

At 10 p.m., the possum will be escorted to the stage by the Andrews High School Marching Band. The event will continue with Logan hosting the traditional Possum Drop entertainment, including the Miss Possum Contest, a tribute to Americans serving in the military and surprise performances. The evening will conclude with the possum lowered in a Plexiglas cage to mark the new year and fireworks finale.

Just in case rainfall is too much for the grass field, there is a plan B. In that scenario, a stage will be built at the front of the pool, facing the parking lot where spectators will gather. Reid said this option would feel more like the former home of the event.

(Mayor James) Reid asked the committee for the minor change in location because he was concerned that the field at Heritage Park would be too muddy on New Year’s Eve. He didn’t want people to leave the night disappointed in the venue’s condition.

While the Town of Andrews plans to make the event its own, it still has Logan’s influence and guidance behind it. It will feature the fun traditions of live music, the Miss Possum contest and, of course, the possum carefully lowered in a cage to mark the new year.

Of course, PETA has their panties in a wad over the event as usual releasing this hyperbolic statement:

Andrews, North Carolina, apparently intends to celebrate New Year's Eve by hosting a sadistic so-called "opossum drop," during which a wild-caught opossum will be imprisoned inside a Plexiglas box for hours above a rowdy crowd. At midnight—after being forced to endure a near-constant barrage of live music, including a noisy marching band leading him in, and fireworks displays with the usual explosions and smoke—the terrified animal will be slowly lowered to signify the dawning of a new year. Because this sensitive and elusive prey species naturally avoids human contact at all costs, subjecting one of them to hordes of partiers, chaos, and loud noises is inhumane and would very likely result in a potentially fatal stress-induced condition.

PETA scheduled a meeting with Mayor James Reid to describe our concerns and to encourage city officials to "drop" any one of countless nonliving articles that wouldn't suffer, but he canceled the meeting at the last minute, even declining to discuss the matter by phone—so now it's your turn!

They are asking PETAfiles everywhere to call or write Mayor Reid to express their outrage.

Animal lovers can rest assured that the 'possum will be well cared for as it will have a vet exam after capture, be monitored for stress, and be taken home after the event by a wildlife expert. As Town Administrator Bill Green notes, "It’s the best-cared-for possum."

Quote Of The Day

In the news today is the announcement that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) will be setting up her 2020 Presidential exploratory committee. This is the first step in running for the presidency.

Earlier this year she had a DNA test run to try and quell the rumors about her supposed Cherokee ancestry. Unfortunately for her, the results did not show her to be 1/32 Cherokee but rather to have some potential undefined Native American ancestor somewhere between 6 and 9 generations back. That would have made her between 1/128th and1/1024th unspecified Native American. Maybe. She received a lot of criticism from this and politically it was considered a stupid move on her part.

The quote of the day comes from Joshua S. on Facebook in response to the news that Warren plans to run for President.

I named my Jeep Elizabeth Warren. It is white and it says it is a Cherokee.

That about sums it up. 

FPC V. Whitaker - A Procedural Attack On The Bump Stock Ban

The Firearms Policy Coalition did two things yesterday. They removed themselves from Guedes v. BATFE by voluntarily dismissing all claims in that case. Concurrently, they then filed a new case, FPC v. Whitaker, which challenges the authority of Acting Attorney General Mattew Whitaker to even sign off and authorize the issuance of the Final Rule banning bump stocks. In other words, they removed themselves from the merits case and filed a new case based on procedure.

You are probably wondering why they are changing course after the first lawsuit was filed. To understand this you must first think of the goal of all of these lawsuits which is to stop the bump stock ban. Then ask yourself which will get decided quicker - a lawsuit with extensive hearings from experts testifying as to why the bump stock is not a machine gun or one that says regardless of what is being banned that Matthew Whitaker doesn't have the authority to even issue a Final Rule?

Take this a step further and look at how judges - especially liberal judges - have treated Second Amendment issues. The answer is not well and certainly not consistent with the intent of Heller and McDonald. Thus, even if you get an "Obama judge", you stand a chance of winning because they can rightfully say they are not deciding a Second Amendment issue but rather an Administrative Procedures Act issue. Actually, it would be helpful to get a Obama or Clinton appointee who has nothing but disdain for President Trump and who would see this as a way of slapping him down. They get some perverse pleasure out of it and we get an anti-gun rule stopped. Moreover, this doesn't stop Guedes or the case filed by Gun Owners of America on the merits as they will continue. This really is three-dimensional chess.

The lead attorney in the case is Tom Goldstein who is one of the premier appellate attorneys in the nation who has personally argued 42 case before the Supreme Court and is the co-founder of the SCOTUSblog. He is being assisted in the case by Daniel Woofter of Goldstein and Russell.

The suit is seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions against the enforcement of the Final Rule banning bump fire stocks and is also seeking a declaratory judgment that the rule is invalid as Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker did not and does not have the authority to sign the rule.

A preliminary injunction is necessary to prohibit the Rule from taking effect 90 days from now and to prevent Mr. Whitaker from unlawfully exercising authority as Acting Attorney General. Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General violates both the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and the applicable statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 508; 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345 et seq. Thus, he was not authorized to sign the Rule, and the Rule cannot go into effect without irreparably harming Plaintiff and its members. Accordingly, the declaratory, injunctive, and other relief requested herein is necessary to prevent the implementation or enforcement of this illegal regulation.

The request for relief asks the US District Court for the District of Columbia for five things:

(a) ENJOINS the Rule, Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66514 (Dec. 26, 2018), from going into effect, if at all, for at least 90 days after resolution of this action and all appeals;
(b) ENJOINS Matthew G. Whitaker from exercising any authority as Acting Attorney General, in this or any other matter;
(c) DECLARES that the Rule is invalid as signed by Matthew G. Whitaker;
(d) DECLARES that Matthew G. Whitaker’s designation as the Acting Attorney General violates the Appointments Clause and 28 U.S.C. § 508; and
(e) DECLARES that Matthew G. Whitaker is not the Acting Attorney General.

Regardless of which way the District Court rules on this matter, you know it will be appealed. If the government loses in District Court, they must appeal so as to try and preserve Whitaker's authority to act. If the government wins, FPC will appeal because it is their right to do so. I can see this case ending up before the Supreme Court as it is a direct challenge to President Trump and his authority to name as Acting Attorney General someone who has not been confirmed by Congress.

As I wrote earlier, this is three dimensional chess and it will be interesting to see how the courts rule on this.

UPDATE: I just checked the judge assigned to the case. It is Ketanji Brown Jackson who was appointed to the District Court by President Barack Obama and who was confirmed in March 2013. She also had clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer. This will be interesting!

Bumpstock Ban, Part III (Updated)

Attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut have filed suit today in US District Court for the District of Columbia today on behalf of Damien Guedes, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Foundation. The lawsuit seeks an injunction as well as challenges the legal authority of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to issue such a rule when he has not been confirmed by the Senate.

From the plaintiffs release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 18, 2018) — Today, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at www.bumpstockcase.com.

The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation. The lawsuit, captioned as Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., is backed by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.

“Bump-stocks” were legal under federal law and prior determinations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives until the agency issued a new final rulemaking today. Under the new rule, owners of the devices have just 90 days to surrender or destroy their property, after which they could face federal ‘machinegun’ charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. Prince and Kraut previously filed a nearly 1,000-page formal opposition to the proposed regulation, which included a video exhibit showing the actual operation of a “bump-stock” device on an AR-15 type firearm. That opposition and its 35 exhibits can be viewed at www.bit.ly/fpc-bumpstock-reg-opposition.

“The ATF has misled the public about bump-stock devices,” Prince said. “Worse, they are actively attempting to make felons out of people who relied on their legal opinions to lawfully acquire and possess devices the government unilaterally, unconstitutionally, and improperly decided to reclassify as ‘machineguns’. We are optimistic that the court will act swiftly to protect the rights and property of Americans who own these devices, and once the matter has been fully briefed and considered by the court, that the regulation will be struck down permanently.”

In a January statement, Firearms Policy Coalition said that the federal “DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns.’” Following that, in February, FPC also commented that as they “opposed the lawless manner in which President Obama often ruled by ‘pen-and-a-phone’ executive fiat,” they objected to and would fight “President Trump’s outrageous lawlessness here.”

“In its rulemaking, the Trump Administration is attempting to abuse the system, ignore the statutes passed by the Congress, and thumb its nose at the Constitution without regard to the liberty and property rights of Americans. That is unacceptable and dangerous,” explained Adam Kraut, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “It is beyond comprehension that the government would seek establish a precedent that it can arbitrarily redefine terms and subject thousands of people to serious criminal liability and the loss of property.”

Anyone who owns a “bump-stock” device and who would like to consider participating in the case should contact the FPC/FPF Legal Action Hotline at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or (855) 252-4510 (available 24/7/365) as soon as possible.

Count One of the lawsuit refers to Whitaker  as "purported Acting Attorney General" and challenges his authority to issue the final rule. They refer to 28 U.S.C. § 508(a) which states that the Deputy Attorney General shall exercise the duties of the office of Attorney General in case of a vacancy. Given this, they argue that Whitaker cannot "lawfully perform the duties and responsibilities of Attorney General, including the execution on December 18, 2018 and implementation of the Final Rule." I think even the Democrats might agree with this.

Count Two of the lawsuit alleges violations of the Adminstrative Procedures Act. Specifically, it accuses BATFE of a) failing to provide records as requested with regard to Proposed Rule; b) failure to provide a 90-day comment period as there were website issues; c) failed to consider cost impact and ignored any analysis on compensating bumpstock owners for a taking; d) failed to provide a hearing when requested; and e) issued a rule that is arbitrary and capricious which is a violation of the APA.

Count Three alleges that the final rule exceeds the legal authority of BATFE because it rewrites clear statutory terms to suit itself. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein herself has said that BATFE lacks the clear legal authority to ban bumpstocks. Now, of course, she wants Congress to do it but that would be legal.

Count Four says the final rule violates the Internal Revenue Code. Since NFA items are taxed, this is why this comes into play.

26 U.S.C. § 7805(b) provides that “no temporary, proposed, or final regulation relating to the internal revenue laws shall apply to any taxable period ending before … [¶ … ¶] [t]he date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary, proposed, or final regulation is issued to the public.”

Thus, any rule against any bump fire stock manufactured before March 29, 2018 could not be enforced on them.

Count Five goes to the fact that the Final Rule bans bump fire stocks and says no compensation need be given. This the suit alleges violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Count Six alleges an Ex Post Facto violation as bump fire stocks were previously classified by the BATFE to be legal. Changing the law after the fact would seem to violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S Constitution.

Count Seven alleges that the Final Rule violates the Contract Clause of Article 1 of the Constitution by destroying the value of investments that had been made consistent with previous BATFE rulings and classifications of bump fire stocks.

Count Eight is the final count. It accuses BATFE of violation of the Freedom of Information Act for failing to provide records that were properly requested by the Firearms Policy Foundation months ago.

The prayer for relief seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Final Rule, a declaration that Matthew Whitaker did not have the legal authority to issue the Final Rule which makes it null and void, and for declarations that the aforementioned violations are Constitutionally impermissible.

The full 37-page complaint is here.

UPDATE:  The Guedes case had some changes today. First, the Firearms Policy Coalition dropped out of the lawsuit in order to file a separate lawsuit on procedural grounds. More on that lawsuit in a separate post but the intent is to have one lawsuit argued on the merits of the case - Guedes - and a second lawsuit challenging the Final Rule on the grounds it was issued by someone who didn't have the authority to do so.

Second, in their amended complaint, the plaintiffs added Missouri St. Representative Shane Roden (R-Franklin County) and Florida Carry. Moreover, it dropped Count One (see above) which challenges the authority of the purported Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to issue the rule. That will now be moved to a separate case involving only the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The goal in separating the issues is to have one case that will move quickly on procedural issues - FPC v. Whitaker - and a second case that move at the speed that it moves on the merits of the case. The challenge on procedural issues is an effort to stay the case in the short term.

Linton V. Becerra - Another Second Amendment Lawsuit Against California

Chad Linton and Paul McKinley Stewart had screwed up in their younger days, paid their debt to society, and went on to lead lives in California as good, productive citizens. More importantly to our discussion here, the relevant courts in both Washington State and Arizona had explicitly expunged their non-violent felony convictions and explicitly restored their rights to own, possess, and purchase firearms. They further underwent multiple background and fingerprint checks and Linton actually had purchased firearms in California in the past. However, that is not good enough for California now. When they each went to purchase firearms starting in 2015, they were turned down the California Department of Justice and its Bureau of Firearm based upon Cal. Pen. Code §§ 29800 and §§ 30305.

Messrs. Linton and Stewart along with institutional plaintiffs the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Society, the Calguns Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation filed suit in US District Court for the Northern District of California on Thursday, December 20th. The parties are represented by attorney George M. Lee of Seiler, Epstein, Ziegler & Applegate of San Francisco. They named California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Acting Chief of the Bureau of Firearms Martin Horan, and Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson as defendants.

Mr. Linton was stationed at NAS Whidbey Island when he was stopped for a DUI and trying to elude police. He pled guilty and was sentenced to time served (7 days) and probation with the promise that his felony conviction would be downgraded to a misdemeanor if he completed his probation successfully which he did. He received a certificate of discharge stating that all of his civil rights were restored. Fast forward from 1987 to 2015. Mr. Linton attempted to buy a handgun but was denied by the State of California due to the prior felony. He hired an attorney in Washington State to reopen the proceedings, withdraw his guilty plea, and enter a not-guilty plea. The Superior Court in Washington State vacated his prior conviction, set aside his guilty plea, and restored his rights.

On April 18, 2016, the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Island County, further issued, upon Plaintiff’s petition, an Order Restoring Right to Possess Firearms pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9.41.040(4). A copy of this order is attached as Exhibit B. As part of that petition, and order, the court found that Plaintiff Linton was qualified, pursuant to RCW 9.41.040(4), to have the right to possess firearms restored to him, and accordingly, ordered “that Petitioner Chad Linton’s civil rights and right to possess firearms are FULLY RESTORED pursuant to RCW 9.41.040(4).” (Id.) The court further ordered the Washington State Patrol to transmit a copy of its Order to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

When later in 2016 Linton attempted to purchase a rifle the California DOJ denied it and sent him a letter stating that he was ineligible due to being a felon. His California attorney made multiple requests to the California DOJ to clear up the matter and provided them with the Washington State court orders. Linton assumed the matter had been cleared up when he went to purchase a revolver and was again denied. Soon thereafter he was visited by agents of the California DOJ's Armed Prohibited Persons System enforcement project who seized all of his firearms including a family heirloom. Bear again in mind that he was not a prohibited person under either Washington State or Federal law. Indeed Deputy AG Robert Wilson went so far as to say that they would not honor the Washington State court's findings and that Mr. Linton try to get a presidential pardon as that is the only thing they would accept.

Mr. Stewart made similar successful efforts to get his record expunged by the State of Arizona. In 2016 the Yuma County Superior Court specifically sent aside his conviction and restored his firearm rights. The Arizona Department of Public Safety sent Stewart more documentation indicating the felony conviction had been set aside and his records had been corrected. Notwithstanding this, like Mr. Linton, he was denied when he sought to purchase a firearm.

Count One alleges the state has violated the plaintiffs' rights under the Second Amendment by denying them the right to possess firearms in their home for self-defense.

Notwithstanding the non-violent nature of those convictions, and the subsequent restoration of plaintiffs’ rights, the laws and Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs described herein, as applied to Individual Plaintiffs, amount to a total and permanent deprivation of their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and ammunition, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and are therefore an infringement upon those rights. The circumstances surrounding the Individual Plaintiffs’ convictions are therefore and should be distinguishable from those persons that have been historically excluded from the right to keep and bear arms.

Count Two states that the defendants' actions violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution. Both the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions require each state to honor the valid judgments of courts in other states. The Supreme Court said in 1998 in Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corp, that “A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land.”

The third and final count states that California is violating both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 and the 14th Amendment, Section 1. California law provides a process whereby someone convicted of a "wobbler" felony can get his or her firearms rights restored. A wobbler felony is one where the person could have been charged with either a felony or misdemeanor for the offense. If the person gets the felony downgraded to a misdemeanor under Pen. Code § 17(b), they would also be eligible to get their record expunged in its entirety under Pen. Code § 1203.4. Both would allow the person in question to have their firearms rights restored.

However, the State of California will only honor the reduction of these qualifying felony convictions utilizing the statutes and the process described above. As shown throughout this complaint, California refuses to honor the comparable process utilized by other states, including the States of Washington and Arizona, shown above, even where the courts of those jurisdictions expressly have set aside the felony convictions and have restored firearms rights to such persons who have successfully completed their terms of probation. Accordingly, Defendants’ refusal to honor the set-aside or vacation of those felony convictions, and/or restoration of firearm rights, by courts of those other states, amounts to unlawful discrimination, favoring California’s citizens, since persons convicted of felonies in other states, in essence, have no actual means to seek judicial restoration of their firearms rights here, or otherwise comparable to the process of reduction under those mechanisms (including Pen. Code § 17(b)) described above.

In essence, what you have is California saying that they will treat their restoration of rights as legitimate while that of other states as illegitimate for the purposes of firearms rights.

The plaintiffs are seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief under all counts as as applied to themselves and to others similarly situated. Of course, they are also seeking attorneys' fees.

I'm not a judge nor a lawyer but if I had to hazzard a guess this will case will be decided on the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. While it is obviously a denial of Second Amendment rights, the courts will go for the low-hanging fruit of Counts Two and Three.

NC Wildlife Resources Commission Warns About CWD

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been discovered in whitetail deer in western Tennessee. This fatal neurological disease does not affect humans or livestock but it can infect deer and other cervids such as elk, moose, and caribou. Obviously, North Carolina does not have a population of moose or caribou but it does have a lot of whitetail deer and a growing population of reintroduced elk.

Below is the advisory from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission along with the rules to for bringing in vension, deer hides, skulls, antlers, and mounts from other states. They also have a YouTube video for instructions on how to prep a carcass for importation if you are a do-it-yourself'er.

RALEIGH, N.C. (Dec. 17, 2018) — With the preliminary detection of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in white-tailed deer in western Tennessee, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reminds deer hunters of a new rule that prohibits the importation of whole deer carcasses and restricts the importation of specific carcass parts from anywhere outside of North Carolina.

The new rule, which was implemented for the 2018-19 deer hunting season, is an effort on the Commission’s part to prevent the spread of CWD into the state. CWD is a transmissible, always fatal, neurological disease that affects deer and other cervids such as elk, moose and reindeer/caribou.

The rule states that anyone transporting cervid carcass parts into North Carolina must follow processing and packaging regulations, which only allow the importation of:

• Meat that has been boned out such that no pieces or fragments of bone remain;
• Caped hides with no part of the skull or spinal column attached;
• Antlers, antlers attached to cleaned skull plates, or cleaned skulls free from meat, or brain tissue;
• Cleaned lower jawbone(s) with teeth or cleaned teeth; or
• Finished taxidermy products and tanned hides.

Additionally, all carcass part(s) or container of cervid meat or carcass parts must be labeled or identified with the:

• Name and address of individual importing carcass parts;
• State, Canadian province, or foreign country of origin;
• Date the cervid was killed; and
• Hunter’s license number, permit number, or equivalent identification from the state, Canadian province, or foreign country of origin.

These new restrictions aim to prevent the infectious agent of CWD from contaminating new environments by way of disposal of carcass tissues, particularly those of the brain and spine, as CWD contaminants can persist in the soil for years.

On Friday, officials with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) announced they were enacting their Chronic Wasting Disease Response Plan, following the preliminary positive detections of CWD in white-tailed deer in Hardeman and Fayette counties, which border the Mississippi state line. TWRA biologists are testing additional deer and are trying to contact the hunters who harvested the infected deer.

Out of concern for the serious effects CWD could have on North Carolina’s deer herd, the Commission developed a Chronic Wasting Disease Response Plan in 2002, with subsequent revisions over the years to respond to the disease’s ever-growing spread. The plan identifies and guides the agency’s initial short-term (approximately one year) efforts if CWD is detected in the state’s deer herd, or if CWD is detected in deer within 30 miles of its borders. Agency biologists also conduct statewide sampling of deer every year and attempt to sample all deer that show signs of the disease or die of unknown causes.

With Tennessee’s preliminary detection of CWD within its borders, two states bordering North Carolina will have CWD in their deer herds. In Virginia, Shenandoah and Frederick counties, which border West Virginia, have confirmed cases of CWD.

About Chronic Wasting Disease

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) disease in deer, elk, moose and reindeer/caribou and is always fatal. The source of the disease is an abnormal prion (a form of protein) that collects in the animal’s brain cells. These brain cells eventually burst, leaving behind microscopic empty spaces in the brain matter that give it a “spongy” look. As this occurs, it often causes behavior changes such as decreased interactions with other animals, listlessness, lowering of the head, a blank facial expression, and walking in set patterns.

CWD has no known impacts to the health of humans or livestock. However, the Commission recommends people do NOT eat:

• Meat from a deer that looks sick
• Any of the following organs: brain, eyes, spinal cord, spleen, tonsils and lymph nodes*
• Any meat from an animal that tests positive for the disease

*Normal field dressing coupled with boning out a carcass will remove most (if not all) of these body parts. Cutting away all fatty tissue will remove remaining lymph nodes.

Sam Cooke Must Have Been Singing About This Guy

I came across a Tweet today from a rapper named Taleb Kweli Greene.

So, you’re unaware of the fact that nazi Germany had a wall called the Berlin Wall that was torn down in 1991 in order to foster humanity and diversity? Walls didn’t work for Nazis so why build them here? Build bridges not walls Nazi lover. @thefeltyperro @jabbawa78 https://t.co/h3djzlRi4j

— Talib Kweli Greene (@TalibKweli) December 21, 2018

I'm kind of speechless over this abject ignorance of history. It made me wonder where he was edumacated.

According to his Wikipedia page, he started high school at Brooklyn Technical HS which requires an entrance exam. After being "academically dismissed", he finished at Cheshire Academy which was founded in 1794. Cheshire boasts of a 6 to 1 student-teacher ration and class sizes of 12. The 10th oldest private school in the United States, Cheshire has a robust history department for a school its size.

All I can say is that Greene is either being intentionally obtuse or really is that dumb despite the best efforts of some of the best teachers that money could buy.

She’s Right You Know

This is something that I thought that I’d ever write but Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is correct. To be more precise, she is correct on one thing. That is that any ban on bump stocks is the business of Congress and not a regulatory agency.

In an op-ed published Wednesday in the Washington Post, she wrote:

Automatic weapons produced before 1986 are highly regulated, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tracks them. Despite this, the agency has consistently stated that bump stocks could not be regulated under the current law. That was because they do not fit the legal definition of an automatic weapon under the National Firearms Act.

Automatic weapons are defined by their ability to fire a continuous number of rounds by holding down the trigger. Bump stocks and other accessories have made this definition largely obsolete, creating a loophole that circumvents Congress’s intent to bar civilians from achieving automatic rates of fire. That’s because the recoil of the stock “bumps” the finger against the trigger, allowing the weapon to achieve automatic fire. Because of this technicality, bump stocks have not run afoul of the law.

ATF initially concluded that it could not ban these devices through regulation in 2008. And after the 2012 shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., ATF further explained in a 2013 letter to Congress that it could not take unilateral action because “stocks of this type are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes.” In addition, internal ATF documents made public through Freedom of Information Act requests by Giffords Law Center and Democracy Forward show that the agency had reiterated its lack of authority to ban bump stocks unilaterally and that it had approved similar devices as recently as April 2017 — under the Trump administration.

In March 2018, the Justice Department did an about-face, claiming that bump stocks do, in fact, fall under the legal definition of a machine gun and therefore can be banned through regulations. The administration’s position hinges on a dubious analysis claiming that bumping the trigger is not the same as pulling it.

Feinstein goes on to say that banning bump stocks by executive fiat opens it to legal challenge and that the Final Rule provides a roadmap for the "gun lobby" to do just that. This is not to say that Feinstein is pro-bump stock. Far from it. She wants them banned along with "trigger cranks" but says it should be done by Congress. Part of her rationale is that if it is done by Congress a future President can't change his or her mind about bump stocks and ditch the ban. The other part of her rationale is the feeling that President Trump and the BATFE with the ban are intruding upon a Congressional prerogative.

The bump stock ban is already being challenged in District Court in Guedes et al v. BATFE et al. Gun Owners of America have also been promising a lawsuit which as of this afternoon still hasn't been filed.

This NPR Poll Shows Hope For America

52% of Americans say they are against the county becoming more politically correct. By contrast, only 1/3 want us to be more politically correct and more sensitive in what we say. This is according to a NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist poll conducted at the beginning of December.

There is a divide between those who want the country to be more politically correct and those of us that don't.

There are huge partisan, racial and gender divides on the question of sensitivity. The only groups in which majorities said they were in favor of people being more sensitive were Democrats, adults under 30, African-Americans and small city/suburban women...

Majorities of whites, Latinos, Americans over 30 and small city/suburban men, though, said the opposite. Just 1 in 7 Republicans and a third of independents said they like the country becoming more politically correct and people being sensitive in their comments.

There's also a big gender divide by place and education. Women who live in small cities or the suburbs say people need to be more sensitive, 52 percent vs. 37 percent. But just a quarter of men who live in the same place say so (27 to 57 percent), making for what have to be some very divided dinner tables.

White women with college degrees are split, but slightly more of them than not say people should be sensitive (46 to 43 percent). Nearly two-thirds of white men with college degrees, however, say the country is becoming too politically correct. (Roughly the same percentage of white men without a college degree feel the same way.)

 The story goes on to note that this poll should be a big warning to progressive Democrats because a majority of independents are against moving to be more politically correct. Given the propensity of Democrats to play to their base, this could be a big turn off in 2020.

You can listen to the story below:


So in conclusion, I'll just say Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, build the wall, and if my guns offend you, tough.

Yes, Thank You Moms Demand Action In NC

Mike Bloomberg, billionaire, former mayor of New York City, erstwhile potential Democrat candidate for President, and funder of all things gun control put out this tweet yesterday evening.

Thank you to every @MomsDemand volunteer here in North Carolina for your leadership. State by state, we’re making progress to pass laws that will save lives, and you all deserve a lot of credit for that. pic.twitter.com/Ni0GmtFK4r

— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) December 19, 2018

Yes, thank you for your continued support of a Jim Crow era law, the pistol purchase permit system, that was intended to keep African-Americans, union members, and Republicans disarmed.

Yes, thank you for your support of red flag laws that turn Due Process on its head and that will get innocent people killed.

Yes, thank you for making our schools less safe by your continued opposition to any policy that would let trained teachers and administrators carry firearms to protect the students under their care.

Yes, thank you for supporting efforts to introduce even more government interference into private affairs by demanding universal background check.

Yes, thank you for all you do to make North Carolina a less safe place for ordinary, law abiding Tar Heels and more safe for criminals who, by definition, ignore the law.

 There is plenty more for which we can thank the North Carolina contingent of Moms Demand Action but saving lives isn't one of them.

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from a comment made by Breda on The Squirrel Report podcast, Episode 312. In a discussion about the new Democrat poster girl, Congresswoman-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) aka AOC who has been particularly gaffe-prone in her TV interviews, after noting that she had a degree in Economics, Breda said:

She really is a product of what colleges have become.

I think Breda is correct and this is especially true in the liberal arts. I went to a liberal arts college and got a well-rounded liberal arts education with majors in both political science and economics. I think the difference was that my professors came from another generation and were not merely regurgitating narrow findings from their dissertation research. They had lived lives outside of academia. Many were veterans. Some were conscientious objectors as befitted their Quaker faith. Some had been involved in the early civil rights movement. Some had even served time in prison for being conscientious objectors. Most were liberal but respected opposing views and welcomed the debate.

Bumpstock Ban, Part II

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in response to the announcement by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker that the final rule banning bump fire stocks has more detail as well as "instructions" for owners of these firearms accessories. You have to wonder if the release of this final rule was delayed until after Attorney General Jeff Sessions was fired and a more compliant acting AG was in place.

First, the final 157 page rule can be found here. It will officially become final when it is published in the Federal Register. The rule goes into effect 90 days from when it is published in the Federal Register.

Second, the BATFE has published instructions on how to destroy your bump fire stock. They also have links to diagrams for a number of named bump fire stocks which are below.

• Slide Fire Solutions Bump Stock
• Bump Fire Systems AR and AK Bump Fire Stocks
• Michael Wolff Bump Stock (IQ #304609)
• Phoenix Technologies Bump Stock (IQ #76598)
• Vincent Troncoso Bump Fire Device (IQ #302683)
• Michael Smith Bump Stock (IQ #76715)
• Paul Ruble 10/22 Bump Fire Stock (IQ #303826)
• Slide Fire Solutions AR Pistol Bump Fire Device (IQ #304071)
• JT Grip Solutions Bump Fire Grips (IQ #303318)
• Saigatechusa/Ramlake, LLC AK Bump Stock Device (IQ #76600)
• FosTech Outdoors Bumpski AK Bump Stock (IQ #77918)
• Michael Foeller AK Bump Stock (IQ #72350)
• James Erskine Hailstorm Bump Stock (IQ #78025)
• David Compton Bump Fire Stock (IQ #74544)
• Mike DeWitt Chuckbuster Bump Fire Grip (IQ #303195)

Third, the other opinion is turn in your bump fire stock at your local BATFE office. They "advise" to call ahead. Also, while they don't mention it, make sure you have your dog in a safe, undisclosed location.

Fourth, and this is not mentioned by BATFE, you can support the lawsuits that have or will be filed seeking to have this overturned. I will cover some of them in the next post.

Bumpstock Ban, Part I

When I wrote a blog post yesterday entitled BOHICA I didn't think it would come first from what ostensibly is our own side. I was wrong. Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced today that the final rule declaring that bump fire stocks are "machine guns". Below is his announcement:

Today, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

Acting Attorney General Whitaker made the following statement:

“President Donald Trump is a law and order president, who has signed into law millions of dollars in funding for law enforcement officers in our schools, and under his strong leadership, the Department of Justice has prosecuted more gun criminals than ever before as we target violent criminals. We are faithfully following President Trump’s leadership by making clear that bump stocks, which turn semiautomatics into machine guns, are illegal, and we will continue to take illegal guns off of our streets.”

On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum instructing the Attorney General “to dedicate all available resources to… propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” In response to that direction the Department reviewed more than 186,000 public comments and made the decision to make clear that the term “machinegun” as used in the National Firearms Act (NFA), as amended, and Gun Control Act (GCA), as amended, includes all bump-stock-type devices that harness recoil energy to facilitate the continuous operation of a semiautomatic firearm after a single pull of the trigger.

This final rule amends the regulatory definition of “machinegun” in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11. The final rule amends the regulatory text by adding the following language: “The term ‘machine gun’ includes bump-stock devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.” Furthermore, the final rule defines “automatically” and “single function of the trigger” as those terms are used in the statutory definition of machinegun. Specifically,

• “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as a result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through the single function of the trigger;
• “single function of the trigger” means single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.

Because the final rule clarifies that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns, the devices fall within the purview of the NFA and are subject to the restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 922(o). As a result, persons in possession of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of the devices before the effective date of the final rule. A current possessor may destroy the device or abandon it at the nearest ATF office, but no compensation will be provided for the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to its intended function.

I don't own a bumpstock nor do I know anyone personally that does. However, the danger in this rule is the precedent it sets. This can and probably will be expanded in the future to include any item that accelerates or makes a semi-automatic firearm easier to shoot. Things like enhanced triggers, JP Enterprise springs, or even a trigger job. This final rule perverts the black letter law of the National Firearms Act as well as the Congressional intent.

BOHICA

I posted the gun control industry's wish list earlier this morning. If you don't think they have a serious chance of getting much of it through the House, you are living in a dreamland. Read Nancy Pelosi's statement from Friday marking the sixth anniversary of the murders in Newtown, Connecticut.

“For six years, Americans across the country have taken time to remember the 26 beautiful souls that were murdered in an act of unfathomable horror and heartbreak at Sandy Hook Elementary School. While the pain and grief of that tragic day remain, our determination to end the daily horror of gun violence continues to strengthen.

“Since that unspeakable tragedy, too many families in too many places have been impacted by the deadly epidemic of gun violence. In shattered communities across the country, the nation has had to console family members, comfort survivors and honor victims. Yet, at every opportunity Republicans refuse to lift a finger to stop the bloodshed. Enough is enough.

“Countless families, survivors and young people around the country have courageously turned their grief into action. Inspired by their strength and tireless advocacy, the new Democratic Majority will act boldly and decisively to ensure that no other family must endure the pain caused by gun violence.”

 The gun control lobby was supportive of Pelosi becoming Speaker and they are expecting their payoff. I have no doubt that she will attempt to come through. As Politico reports, she even has some Republican allies on gun control like Rep. Peter King (R-NY). Moreover, the House Judiciary Committee will be headed by known gun control advocate Jerold Nadler (D-NY) and there will be a House Gun Violence Task Force headed by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA).

What does all of this mean?

It means that we need to be on Defcon 1 for any and all gun control bills being introduced in January 2019 and those of us who have Republican senators need to be talking to them now. Take Giffords' wish list, make comments on it, and email or fax it to those senators. Explain that red flag laws aka "Extreme Violence Protection Orders" not only violate the Constitution but get innocent people killed. Given how the GOP bows and scrapes to cops emphasize that some of those killed trying to enforce such a law will be cops. I think you can go through that list and come up with more reasons that none of them need be passed.

Giffords Christmas Wish List

The cult of personality known as Giffords sent out their Christmas wish list yesterday. Robin Lloyd, their Director of Government Affairs (read lobbyist), included everything under the Sun with maybe the exception of a pony. While officially called their "policy recommendations for the 116th Congress", it is a wish list. The unfortunate thing is that most of it could pass the House. As to the Senate, that will depend upon how squishy or "reasonable" the Republicans will be. As to Mr. Trump and his veto pen, I think it depends on the day.

And here is Gabby and company's wish list presented in its entirety. I will to comment on parts of it in later blog posts.

This is your comprehensive guide to potential gun safety policy actions the next Congress could take to save lives. Save this email. But please forward it to friends as well. There is no better source for what is possible when the new Congress is sworn in next month.

During the 115th Congress alone, the United States experienced tragic shootings in Alexandria, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Parkland, Santa Fe, Pittsburgh, and Thousand Oaks, just to name a few. In recent years, the number of gun deaths and injuries has increased, with more than 121,000 people shot in 2015 and more than 155,000 people shot in 2016.

The public recognizes that these levels of gun violence are unacceptable: 7 in 10 Americans want stronger gun laws. An overwhelming majority of Americans— 97% —are in favor of universal background checks. 87% believe that gun violence is a public health issue, and 76% support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding research on gun violence.

In the states, this support has led to meaningful change. In 2018, 27 states passed 67 new gun safety laws; among those, 11 states passed legislation to keep guns away from domestic abusers, six enacted laws to improve background checks, and eight passed measures to fund urban violence reduction programs. The state laws with the greatest momentum in 2018 were extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, which allow law enforcement or family members to temporarily remove firearms from individuals in crisis. Eight governors— including five Republicans —signed these bills into law.

Still, both state legislatures and Congress must take further action in order to address our nation’s gun violence epidemic and save lives. In addition to passing the legislation outlined below, Giffords urges Congress to exercise its oversight authority over federal agencies responsible for enforcing gun laws and to be wary of efforts to roll back our nation’s gun laws. Congressional committees should proactively seek testimony and information from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about resources needed to better implement and enforce existing gun laws.

CONGRESS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY ACT ON THE FOLLOWING POLICIES:

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Universal background checks would ensure that people prohibited from purchasing firearms cannot do so through an unregulated sale from an unlicensed or online seller, at a gun show, or through a private sale between individuals. Closing this background check loophole is critical to making sure criminals and other dangerous people cannot easily access firearms. A universal background check requirement for all gun transfers — with reasonable exceptions for hunting, self-defense, and family—is the strongest policy solution to prevent prohibited individuals from getting their hands on guns. Background checks are proven to save lives: States that require a background check on every handgun sale experience 38% fewer gun homicides of women by intimate partners, 53% fewer law enforcement officers shot and killed, and 53% fewer firearm suicides.

FEDERAL GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH

Gun violence is a public health crisis and must be addressed as such. But in order to truly address a public health problem, we must first fully understand it. The solution is simple: legislators serious about protecting their constituents from gun violence should invest in federal research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Leaders have made clear that at this juncture, only a lack of funding constrains the CDC from performing this lifesaving research. Earlier this year, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar acknowledged that his agency is not legally prohibited from studying gun violence—a sentiment echoed by the FY18 omnibus bill. In October 2018, CDC Director Robert Redfield stated that the CDC has no restrictions on potential research, and should money be appropriated by Congress, the CDC will move forward with gun violence research.

ENACT EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws enable family members or law enforcement to petition a court for a temporary order prohibiting a person from purchasing or possessing firearms. These orders are sought when the individual demonstrates behaviors that indicate they may pose a danger to themselves or others. ERPO laws are designed to help people in crisis—like the shooter in Parkland, Florida, who classmates, teachers, family members, and law enforcement officers noticed was exhibiting dangerous behaviors. ERPO laws are proven to save lives: in Connecticut , for every 10–20 orders issued, one life was saved. Thirteen states have now enacted some form of an extreme risk law, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

PREVENT DOMESTIC ABUSERS FROM ACCESSING FIREARMS

Domestic violence and firearms are a deadly combination. A woman is five times more likely to die in a domestic violence situation if her abuser has access to a firearm. Current federal law prohibits abusers who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors and abusers subject to certain domestic violence protective orders from purchasing or possessing guns. However, federal laws do not apply to many abusers who victimize non-spousal partners or a family member other than a partner or child, such as a non-cohabiting boyfriend.

FUND EVIDENCE-BASED VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Gun violence disproportionately impacts communities of color. From 2012 to 2016, African American children and teens were nearly 15 times as likely to be shot to death as their white peers. In that same time frame, Hispanic children and teens and Native American children and teens were both three times as likely to be shot to death as their white peers. In many cities heavily impacted by interpersonal gun violence, such violence is driven by a very small subset of the community, and a handful of strategies have proven to be successful at breaking cycles of violence. One such strategy, community-based violence intervention programs, deploys targeted services for high-risk individuals with clear and swift consequences from law enforcement for those who continue to perpetrate violence.

PREVENT GUN TRAFFICKING

Every year, tens of thousands of guns are diverted from legal to illegal markets through unregulated gun sales, straw purchases, gun traffickers who falsely claim their guns were lost or stolen, and corrupt gun dealers who sell guns off the books to traffickers. Deadly weapons are too easily purchased in states with weak gun safety laws and trafficked to states with stronger gun laws, where they end up in the hands of people unable to pass a background check and are often ultimately used in violent crimes. While straw purchases are currently prohibited under federal law, they are often treated as a mere paperwork violation and go unchecked. Congress should pass a clear statute prohibiting the diversion of guns into the illegal market to ensure gun trafficking is treated as the serious and dangerous offense it is.

REGULATE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES

Assault weapons are designed to maximize the number of people shot in the shortest amount of time. The danger posed by these weapons is substantially increased by detachable large capacity ammunition magazines, which allow the shooter to fire a large number of rounds in a row and quickly reload. As a result, these weapons are often the weapon of choice for mass shooters. It should not be easier to purchase an assault rifle than it is to purchase a handgun. Under current federal law, an individual must be 21 to purchase a handgun from a gun dealer, but only 18 to purchase an assault weapon. The Parkland shooting showed us what’s at stake if we fail to close this loophole. Americans are demanding action on assault weapons: 78% of voters support a ban on assault weapons and 77% support raising the minimum purchase age to 21.

The expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned the future production of assault weapons but did not address the weapons already in circulation. Today, an estimated 15 million assault rifles are currently in circulation, and any legislative solutions must apply to them. Regulating semiautomatic assault weapons under the National Firearms Act (NFA)— the same way that gun silencers and machine guns are regulated—allows law-abiding gun owners to legally possess these firearms, while also addressing the public safety concerns of the public and law enforcement. Congress must also limit the future manufacture and sale of assault weapons to reduce the easy availability of such weapons.

Large capacity magazines, typically defined as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, significantly increase a shooter’s ability to injure and kill large numbers of people quickly because they enable the individual to fire repeatedly without needing to reload. The time required to reload a weapon can be critical in enabling victims to escape and law enforcement or others to intervene. Large capacity magazines have been used frequently in mass shootings. Congress should consider a ban on large capacity magazines, which would reduce the potential lethality of any firearm that can accept a magazine, including a firearm that is not an assault weapon. 70% of voters support a ban on large capacity magazines.

TREAT BUMP STOCKS LIKE MACHINE GUNS

A gun does not have to be fully automatic in order to act like an automatic firearm. In October 2017, a gunman in Las Vegas used a firearm accessory called a “bump stock” to fire more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition in 11 minutes, killing 58 people and injuring over 500. Despite calls for Congress to act and confirmation by the acting ATF director that a legislative solution would be the best route, over a year after the Las Vegas massacre, bump stocks remain unregulated and legal to purchase. Regulating bump stocks has broad support: Eight in ten Americans, including 77% of Republicans, support banning these dangerous devices, as do nearly three-fourths of voters in gun-owning households. The Department of Justice is currently considering a new rule to regulate bump stocks like machine guns; however, such regulation is likely to become tied up in litigation after being finalized. As a result, swift congressional action is critical to ensuring these dangerous items do not fall into the wrong hands.

REPEAL GUN INDUSTRY IMMUNITY

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) provides broad immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers in federal and state court. Enacted in 2005, PLCAA prevents plaintiffs from filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers in cases where these parties have been negligent and there has been “criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm or ammunition. Such immunity is unique to the gun industry and removes any incentive for manufacturers to innovate and adopt new gun safety practices. In other industries, civil liability has historically played an important role in injury prevention” lawsuits against the tobacco industry forced cigarette manufacturers to adopt new ways to market their products to prevent youth smoking, and lawsuits against car manufacturers have forced the industry to adopt better safety measures to reduce automobile deaths. Congress should pass legislation repealing PLCAA and place the firearm industry on equal ground with other American industries.

IMPLEMENT CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION LAWS

Research shows that easily accessible firearms in the home are associated with an increased risk of suicide, as well as unintentional injuries and deaths, among children and young people. More than two-thirds of students who used guns to commit “targeted violence” against their school acquired the gun or guns used in their attacks from their own home or that of a relative. Child access prevention laws hold adults liable when minors gain access to negligently stored firearms or when parents or guardians directly provide a firearm to a minor. With 4.6 million American children living in homes with loaded, unlocked guns, it is critical that Congress pass legislation to encourage states to enact child access prevention laws and discourage unsafe storage of firearms.

ENACT PERMIT-TO-PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDGUNS

Permit-to-purchase laws require an individual to obtain a license or permit from law enforcement before purchasing a gun. These laws have been enacted in ten states thus far, and are proven to make communities safer by reducing firearm homicides and keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited individuals. In states which have had effective handgun purchaser licensing laws on the books for decades, like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, the vast majority of crime guns originate in other states, indicating that gun traffickers seek guns elsewhere. After Connecticut’s implementation of a permit-to-purchase law, gun homicides decreased 40% between 1996 and 2005. Conversely, when Missouri repealed its permit-to-purchase system in 2007, gun homicides increased by 25%. The evidence is clear: Congress should encourage more states to implement this lifesaving policy.

ENSURE THE COMPLETION OF ALL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Background checks on firearms sales and transfers help keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) consists of a set of databases maintained by the FBI and used to conduct background checks on sales and transfers at federally licensed dealers.

Though most background checks are processed within minutes, occasionally a NICS examiner will need time to conduct more research if records indicate the buyer may have a possible firearms prohibition. If the firearms dealer has not been notified by the NICS examiner within three business days that the sale would violate federal or state laws, the dealer must determine if he or she will proceed with the sale. When firearms sales proceed by default because the FBI is not able to complete the background check within the three-day timeframe, ineligible people can purchase guns, like the shooter who murdered nine people in a church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015. In 2000, the FBI said the three-day window should be extended to give examiners more time to investigate; in March of 2018, FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich agreed that “it would make sense” to extend the window to ensure fewer guns are sold to prohibited purchasers. Congress should pass legislation close this “Charleston loophole” to prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm before a background check is completed.

ALERT LAW ENFORCEMENT OF ATTEMPTED PROHIBITED PURCHASES

When felons and other prohibited people lie on the form when buying a gun, not only are they violating federal gun laws, they may also be planning violent crimes. Current law does not, however, ensure that state or local law enforcement are made aware of these situations. Bipartisan legislation was introduced in both chambers in the 115th Congress to ensure state and local law enforcement are notified when prohibited individuals attempt to purchase a firearm. Prompt notification of local law enforcement can help ensure the prohibited purchaser does not attempt to access firearms in other ways, like through an unregulated private sale or over the internet.

STRENGTHEN OVERSIGHT OF FIREARMS DEALERS

Proper oversight of gun dealers is essential to reducing firearms trafficking. Gun dealers supply the majority of guns sold to the public, including guns eventually recovered in crimes, but they are subject to few federal regulations and weak enforcement of these regulations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is responsible for inspecting gun dealers, but ATF is often under-resourced and unable to provide adequate oversight. In many cases, dealers that are found to be in violation of the law often have their penalties reduced. As a consequence, corrupt gun dealers represent a major source of guns trafficked to dangerous individuals and criminals, either directly or through straw purchasers (who buy guns for individuals who are prohibited from buying them) and gun traffickers (who purchase guns to resell on the black market). Guns lost or stolen from dealers who fail to responsibly secure their inventories are also a major source of guns on the black market. Congress should pass legislation to increase ATF inspections of gun dealers and strengthen penalties for corrupt gun dealers.

SET FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES UP FOR SUCCESS

The ATF and FBI can only perform their intended functions if they have the resources to do so, but both agencies have been under-resourced over the past several years. The FBI maintains the NICS system and is responsible for meeting increasing demand for background checks. 2016 saw the highest number of background checks ever, with 2017 not far behind. ATF, the agency primarily responsible for the investigation and prevention of federal firearms offenses, consistently receives insufficient funding to carry out its duties. In 2017, nearly 135,000 federally licensed firearms dealers were operating in the United States, which ATF is responsible for regularly inspecting. But with a small workforce —ATF is smaller than the Broward County, Florida, sheriff’s office—and not enough funding, this can be an impossible task. In March 2018, Acting Director Tom Brandon described ATF as “$20 million in the hole,” but noted that with more resources, the agency “could do more.”

But even with the appropriate resources, the ability of federal law enforcement officers to do their jobs effectively will remain hindered by restrictive budget riders known collectively as the Tiahrt Amendments. These riders hamstring ATF’s ability to trace crime guns by prohibiting the use of searchable databases and banning the consolidation of gun sales records maintained by federally licensed firearm dealers, (FFLs). A prohibition on the release of crime gun trace data to the public prohibits researchers from clearly identifying trafficking patterns, while another rider forbids ATF from requiring FFLs to take a physical inventory, making it easier for dealers to avoid accountability for proper record-keeping and timely reporting of lost and stolen guns. By placing such restrictions on federal agencies, Congress significantly weakens law enforcement’s abilities to enforce gun laws, prevent gun crime, and keep communities safe. Acting Director Brandon referred to these restrictions as “not optimum, but it’s the law.” This is a law that Congress should repeal.

DEVELOP GUN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY

Gun safety technology includes personalized guns and accessories such as gun safes, trigger locks, and retrofit kits that prevent firearms from being fired by unauthorized users. These innovations have the potential to reduce gun suicides and unintentional shootings, especially among children, as well as gun thefts. Nearly 7,000 children in the United States receive medical treatment for gun-related injuries each year. Personalized guns and accessories let owners control who can access their gun. The technology that gives owners this control includes biometric security methods, like fingerprint sensors, and radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology, which uses radio waves to identify objects.

Personalized accessories, like a fingerprint trigger lock, add an extra layer of security to gun safes or locks. When used with traditional guns, they offer a similar level of security to personalized guns. Congress can encourage the development of these potentially lifesaving technologies by providing research and development tax credits and grants for gun safety technology.

No More Rights Watch Column At Guns Magazine?

Readers of Guns Magazine will soon notice a longtime feature missing or changed. The Rights Watch column written and edited by David Codrea will be gone.

From David's blog War On Guns:

I received an email this morning from the editor at GUNS Magazine informing me "we are going a different direction with Rights Watch and will no longer need your column." This isn't that much of a surprise. I have actually been expecting the hammer to drop ever since they "parted ways" with my former editor and magazine mentor Jeff John earlier this year.

I know that I write for a niche within a niche and have a feeling that was a factor. It's their right to run their magazine as they see fit and I'll be interested to see what that "different direction" turns out to be.

As a longtime reader and subscriber to Guns Magazine I think this sucks. It was always one column that I didn't miss nor do I think one should miss. Given David's leading role along with the late Mike Vanderboegh and Dave Workman in exposing Operation Fast and Furious, it doesn't make sense to me. 

Government Still Doesn't Want To Discuss Fast And Furious

There are things that the US Government doesn't want discussed in open court and Operation Fast and Furious is one of them. This is true even in a criminal trial against a cartel boss. The cartel boss is question is Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera aka El Chapo of the Sinoloa Cartel. Perhaps I should say that the government especially doesn't want to have any discussion of Operation Fast and Furious in a case involving the cartel which received the firearms.

Guzman was extradited to the United States in 2017 and is now on trial in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Judge Brian Cogan, a George W. Bush appointee, is the presiding judge in the case. Guzman's attorney is A. Eduardo Balarezo. He is a criminal defense attorney who handles Federal cases involving high profile defendants like Guzman. The prosecution team is headed by Richard Donoghue who is the US Attorney for the Eastern District.

The government has filed a motion in Limine to exclude questioning about Operation Fast and Furious. They are contending it will confuse the jury and prejudice the government's case against Guzman.

The defense strategy is transparent. Given the substantial number of articles that have been written about the Operation, many of which criticize the government’s handling of the movement of weapons from the United States into Mexico, the defense is attempting to use the well-known operation to place the government on trial. While the government will seek to introduce at trial seized weapons that had been identified by ATF agents within the scope of the Operation,1 any details about the Operation itself are completely irrelevant to the issues at trial under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and should be excluded on those grounds alone. To the extent that the details of the Operation are in any way relevant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, any minimal relevance would be greatly outweighed by the substantial risk of misleading the jury and unfair prejudice against the government.

The government respectfully seeks a ruling at this time precluding any further mention of the Operation, and in so doing, incorporates by reference its previous arguments in its Motions in Limine, Dkt. Nos. 213, 326. In light of the extensive reporting on the Operation, repeated references to the Operation in defense cross-examination questions create a substantial risk of tainting the jury, even if government objections to the questions are sustained by the Court and the witnesses are not required to answer the objectionable questions.

Judge Cogan had denied an earlier attempt to exclude this under the grounds that it was premature. From what I can tell, he has not ruled on this attempt to exclude this from being heard by the jury. Many of the orders are either restricted or under seal and cannot be seen by the general public, i.e, me and thee.

The New York Daily News is reporting on the trial including the motion by the government to exclude this information. Like most of the mainstream media, they are still referring to it as a "botched sting" operation. As Kurt Hofmann wrote over seven years ago, the only thing botched was the cover-up. It was true then and it is still true today.

Elizabeth Warren Is More Native American Than I Am

I got my results back from Ancestry.com DNA and despite what my cousin Van led me to believe I am not more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. I know that was a low threshold. My cousin had led me to believe that our great-grandfather on my paternal and his maternal grandfather's side of the family had some Cherokee blood.

According to the results shown below I am 64% Irish and Scots and 36% Welsh and English. Given I know that three out of four great-grandparents on my mom's side of the family were born in County Cavan, Ireland, this makes sense. Moreover, my Grandma Richardson's maiden name was Morgan which is a good Welsh name.

I really did want to have more Native American blood than Elizabeth Warren just to say I did. Oh, well. Our ancestors are our ancestors and there is nothing one can do to change that.

"Murphy Mags" And How To Avoid Arrest In New Jersey

As of Monday, December 10th, if you possess a standard capacity magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in the state of New Jersey, you could be found guilty of a Class 4 Felony, spend up to 18 months in prison, lose your voting rights, and be subject to a lifetime ban on firearm ownership. Your options were to destroy the magazines, turn them into police, or remove them out of state. There was no grandfathering under the law nor was there any compensation for what arguably is a taking.

Gun rights attorney Evan F. Nappen is the acknowledged authority on New Jersey gun law. He has just written a guide on what to expect from the police and prosecutors and how to protect yourself.

Here are the action steps he encourages all New Jersey gun owners to take:

Action Items:

1. Make sure that your friends and family are aware of this potential threat.
2. Make sure that your friends and family are aware of the implications of talking with the police and consenting to searches.
3. Make sure that you do not have in your possession any Murphy Mags or other prohibited items.
4. Make sure that you, your family and your friends have the mindset to stand on your rights!

 While he thinks police raids are not likely to occur and that police will use other means such as computerized databases, demand letters, and the like, there are scenarios and reasons, in his opinion, where a police raid, with or without a warrant, might take place.

1. Some highly publicized mass shooting occurs, and the knee-jerk, politically expedient reaction is to go after Murphy Mag possessors.
2. Murphy’s failure to aggressively enforce his ban, gives his political challengers the opportunity to call him out on it. There is already pressure on Murphy to explain how he intends to enforce the ban. Breitbart News also reached out to Murphy’s press secretary, Daniel Bryan, about enforcement of the ban. He confirmed that the Governor “…had not ruled out house-to-house enforcement of the ban either.”
3. New Jersey has a computerized database of registered gun owners & their registered handguns which includes make and model. Many of these handguns came with Murphy Mags. For example, 15 round magazines came standard with the Glock Model 19, Beretta Model 92 and SIG Model P226, just to name three commonly possessed handguns.
4. New Jersey has a long history of abusing gun owners, creating “gun law victims” (destroying people’s lives with arbitrary gun laws) and undermining Second Amendment rights.
5. New Jersey has a liberal news media which actively acts as the propaganda arm for the anti-gun-rights movement.
6. New Jersey law enforcement will obey orders and enforce the law, rather than lose their jobs & pensions.

I suggest reading Evan's entire guide posted to his website. Moreover, if you live in New Jersey, I suggest studying it carefully, plan your response in advance, and make your family including kids aware of the family plan. As Michael Bane said on his podcast today, the law isn't enforced until is. Don't be that guy who Murphy uses as the example to cow the rest of New Jersey gun owners into compliance.