When A Demcrat Says He Won't Ban Your Guns, Look Closer

Phillip Price is the Democratic nominee for Congress in the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina. He will be facing incumbent Rep. Mark Meadows (D-NC-11). I would be in Meadows' district if I lived a mere 10 miles further south.

Price owns a company that deals in reclaimed lumber as well as continues to be a touring musician with his band called D. S. F. Earthcorps. He is also a self-proclaimed hunter and has been running the following ad on local TV stations saying no one is coming for his guns or your guns.




In a section on his campaign website called "Vision", he devotes a page to "Common Sense & Guns" which features a banner photo of the Demanding Moms for Illegal Mayors. As he makes clear, he has their endorsement. Here is what he says on that page:

Gun Reform

Our schools, churches, movie theaters and concert venues are becoming targets for gun violence, and it is no longer enough to offer thoughts and prayers. We need change, and it is up to our elected officials to create it.

That’s why I support sensible gun reforms. I want to close the loopholes on background checks to buy weapons and ban gun purchases for those who have a history of domestic violence, violent mental illness or animal abuse. We must restore the ban on those semiautomatic weapons that have been used in so many attacks, and get rid of the large capacity magazines and bump stocks that make it even easier to hit multiple victims so quickly.

I’m a hunter and a gun owner and I stand with most Americans who already support these commonsense changes in policy.

After reviewing the campaign’s stance, I recently received the Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate distinction, acknowledging my support for real reform.

If my vision reflects your vision, won’t you please volunteer or contribute to our campaign? Working together, our vision can become reality.

Not coming for your guns? Really? He says one thing on TV and figures he can tell the real story on his website because few people will read it.

Given his past run-ins with the law regarding marijuana possession, there are real questions as to whether he is a prohibited person or not. I don't think most voters would take kindly to a prohibited person telling them they can't have a semi-auto rifle, pistol, or carbine. Would you?

Larry Tribe Believes In Free Speech (When He Agrees With It)

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe is one of those liberal lions in academia. He's put out leading books on the Constitution, testified before Congress, advocated for free speech, and is a hypocrite.

What was that last part?

Hypocrite as in saying he is an advocate for free speech but doesn't believe that code is free speech.

I’m co-counsel with @deepakguptalaw on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety, explaining why 3-D downloadable guns aren’t “speech” under the First Amendment — despite the DOJ change of position under Trump/Sessions ⬇️https://t.co/EVqez4vG8w

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) August 10, 2018

This from a guy who argues that it would be wrong for the FCC and Congress to regulate violent TV programs as it would violate free speech. He has also has written law articles entitled "The Metatheory of Free Speech".

Tribe's argument in the Everytown amicus brief is that code is not protected because it isn't "expressive" and because its purposes are the "widespread violations of federal and state law".

Sorry but just because you are the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School doesn't mean you are right.

North Carolina Police Chiefs Against Reciprocity

It is not news that many big city police chiefs are against national reciprocity for concealed carry. Earlier in April, the International Association of Chiefs of Police sent a letter to Congress expressing their disapproval for HR 38 and S. 446.

What should be news is the hypocrisy of those chiefs from North Carolina who have signed on to the letter. It is hypocritical to argue against reciprocity for North Carolinans with valid permits visiting any other state when North Carolina law recognizes ALL permits from other states. In other words, North Carolina General Statute § 14-415.24 (a) provides for universal reciprocity for out-of-state permits.

If your police chief listed below is one of the signatories to the letter, you might want to ask him or her why they think North Carolinians should have the same rights accorded to visitors to this state.

Police Chief Bernette Morris, Morehead City Police Department, Morehead City, NC

Chief of Police and Executive Director for Community Safety Christopher C. Blue, Chapel Hill Police Department, Chapel Hill, NC

Chief of Police Monroe Wagoner, Elkin Police Department, Elkin, NC

Chief of Police Gina Hawkins, Fayetteville Police Department, Fayetteville, NC

Chief of Police Jeff Prichard, Graham Police, Graham, NC

Chief Wallace W. Layne, Holden Beach Police, Holden Beach, NC

Chief of Police Timothy R. Summers, Kernersville Police Department, Kernersville, NC

Chief of Police Joel Johnson, Kitty Hawk Police Department, Kitty Hawk, NC

Chief of Police Allen Lawrence, Marion Police Department, Marion, NC

Chief of Police Tim Ledford, Mint Hill Police Department, Mint Hill, NC

Chief of Police James Wilson, Norwood Police Department, Norwood, NC

Chief of Police Ryan James Thompson, Pine Knoll Shores Police Department, Pine Knoll Shores, NC

Chief of Police Robert Hassell, Reidsville Police Department, Reidsville, NC

Chief of Police Kenneth J. Klamar, Sunset Beach Police, Sunset Beach, NC

Chief Daniel Wilcox, Cape Fear Community College PD, Wilmington, NC

Chief of Police Timothy J. Wenzel, Aberdeen Police Department, Aberdeen, NC

Chief of Police John Letteney, Apex Police Department, Apex, NC

Chief of Police Paul D. Burdette Jr., Beaufort Police Department, Beaufort, NC

Chief of Police John Phillip Harris, Jr., City of Brevard Police Department, Brevard, NC

Chief of Police Walter Horton, Carrboro Police Department, Carrboro, NC

Chief of Police James A. Reese, Emerald Isle Police Department, Emerald Isle, NC

Chief of Police Laura Fahnestock, Fuquay-Varina Police Department, Fuquay-Varina, NC

Chief of Police Ronald L Matthews, Garland Police Department, Garland, NC

Chief of Police Brandon Zuidema, Garner PD, Garner, NC

Chief of Police Michael Andrew Winters, Long View Police Department, Long View, NC

Chief of Police Erik S. McGinnis, Misenheimer Police Dept., Misenheimer, NC

Chief of Police David Ng, WakeMed Campus Police and Public Safety, Raleigh, NC

Police Chief C.T. Hasty Jr, Roanoke Rapids Police Department, Roanoke Rapids, NC

Chief of Police/Director of Public Safety Patricia D. Norris, Winston-Salem State University Police, Winston-Salem, NC

Chief of Police John J. Ruppe, Woodland Police Department, Woodland, NC

Chief of Police Jeff Harvet, Atlantic Beach police, Atlantic Beach, NC

Chief of Police Farron Gray Jester, Boonville Police Department, Boonville, NC

Moreover, just so we are clear as to North Carolina's place in the fight for national carry reciprocity, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC-8) is the primary sponsor of HR 38.

There Is Neutral And Then There Is Delta Neutral

Back in February, Delta Airlines discontinued the airfare discount for NRA members. They did this in the face of a campaign by gun control groups to get corporations to end any and all discounts for NRA members.

Here is what they said at the time on their website in the way of explanation:

Delta’s decision reflects the airline’s neutral status in the current national debate over gun control amid recent school shootings. Out of respect for our customers and employees on both sides, Delta has taken this action to refrain from entering this debate and focus on its business. Delta continues to support the 2nd Amendment.

This is not the first time Delta has withdrawn support over a politically and emotionally charged issue. Last year, Delta withdrew its sponsorship of a theater that staged a graphic interpretation of “Julius Caesar” depicting the assassination of President Trump. Delta supports all of its customers but will not support organizations on any side of any highly charged political issue that divides our nation.

Delta CEO Ed Bastian went a bit further the next week in a memo to Delta employees as reported by the Washington Post.

Caught in a maelstrom over his company’s decision to cut ties with the National Rifle Association, Delta Air Lines chief executive Ed Bastian said Friday that his intention had been to “remain neutral” and “remove Delta from this [gun control] debate.” Delta, he said, is now planning to end discounts “for any group of a politically divisive nature.”

He went on to say:

“Our people and our customers have a wide range of views on how to increase safety in our schools and public places, and we are not taking sides,” he wrote. “Our objective in removing any implied affiliation with the NRA was to remove Delta from this debate.”

The key words you keep hearing from Delta are "neutral status", "not taking sides", and "refrain from entering this debate". That was what Ed Bastian and Delta were saying at the beginning of the month.

So what did they do in light of today's gun control march?

Delta Air Lines has donated three round-trip charter flights that allowed hundreds of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students to participate in the "March for Our Lives" protest against gun violence in Washington.

Delta said the donation is "part of our commitment to supporting the communities we serve."

 Ed Bastian and Delta Air Lines must be suffering a bout of cognitive dissonance if they think ending a discount for NRA members and then giving three round-trip charter flights to students advocating gun control is neutrality. These actions are about the furthest thing from neutrality that I could imagine.

My last flight with Delta will be in May to attend the NRA Annual Meeting. That ticket was paid for before the change in Delta policy and it is non-refundable. Over the last 20 or so years, 90% or more of my air travel has been on Delta. No more.

#MeToo Is So Yesterday In Pantheon Of Hollywood Virtue Signaling

When it comes to virtue signaling no one does it better than the Hollywood stars. Unfortunately for women who have been sexually assaulted, Hollywood has the attention span of a gnat. In other words, what was hip at the Golden Globes is now passe' and they have moved on to a new virtue signaling cause.

The new, hip virtue signal at tonight's Oscars will be an orange pin from Everytown Mommies for Illegal Mayors.

According to the Hollywood Reporter:

Michael Bloomberg's New York-based gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety has created an anti-gun-violence pin for celebrities to wear to the Oscars on Sunday, sources tell The Hollywood Reporter.

Since the Parkland, Florida, high school massacre that left 17 dead last month, thousands of young people have called upon the organization to support their efforts to advocate for more stringent gun-control laws and other public-safety issues.

According to one Hollywood stylist, the pins have been sent to The Wall Group and other key Hollywood agencies to dole out prior to the red carpet.

The pins will likely display #NeverAgain, the rallying slogan for the movement. Everytown for Gun Safety has not yet responded to THR's request for confirmation.

So while the stars continue to make movies with gratuitous violence - much of it with firearms - they will continue to virtue signal that they are against "gun violence" (sic).

It should also be noted, as Variety reports, that they will be protected by over 500 armed LAPD officers. As usual, Hollywood is not self-aware enough to recognize the hypocrisy in all of this.

UPDATE: My friend Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Coalition sent me a couple of links regarding the hypocrisy of Hollywood and California politicians.

https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary/commentary-one-bill-captures-two-unseemly-capitol-traits/ (Dan refers in the article to our FPCSADC v. AG Harris lawsuit)

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/is_it_time_to_close_the_hollywood_gun_show_loophole

"The Powerful Understand the Need to Be Protected"

Dan Bongino is a former Secret Service agent who served Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. NRA TV just released a very interesting short video with him talking about protecting these men and other high and mighties.

As he says:

"What's fascinating about Chicago is, when you get these dignitaries, these VIPs, these Hollywood types, these mayors, senators, congressmen, local alderman, city council folks, they all have armed guards. They're good. Don't you worry. Those tools of protection are there for them. But the citizens? They all get thrown to the wolves."

Yep. You are responsible for protecting yourself.

Which is more dangerous?

There is a movement among some politicians to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16. Some municipalities have actually done this. I even read an editorial from a University of Kentucky law professor stating that students from Parkland High School show why this is a good idea. It doesn't matter that this students are being scripted, used as props, and are coached what to say.

In a free society, I think having immature, easily swayed young minds pull the voting lever is a recipe for disaster. As Michael Bane said the other day, think Lord of the Flies.

Yet these same politicians and pundits want to raise the age at which one can purchase any long arm to 21 years old.

You tell me which is more dangerous.

I know what I think.

These Two Democrat Attorney Generals Are Hypocrites

At the instigation of NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D-NY), a number of attorneys general, all Democrats, have signed on to a letter opposing national carry reciprocity. They specifically oppose HR 38 sponsored by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and S. 446 introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).

Schneiderman is joined in the letter by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina and the District of Columbia.

The full letter can be found here.

Here are some pertinent excerpts from the letter:

Each of our States allows concealed carry—as do all 50 states—but with carefully considered and long-standing substantive and procedural protections designed to address public safety concerns in our localities. Under the legislation, our residents would lose the protections that their legislators and law enforcement agencies have deemed appropriate, in favor of rules made by States legislating for very different local conditions. Rather than creating a new national standard for who may carry concealed firearms, these bills would elevate the lowest state standard over higher ones and force some States to allow concealed carry by people who do not qualify under their laws. This forced acceptance of the most permissive standards would also affect determinations about the proper level of safety training necessary to justify concealed carry and the criteria governing whether a person is too dangerous to carry a gun in a crowded place.

 It goes on to misconstrue the limitations that would be put in place by HR 38:

The result of the proposed legislation would be a proliferation of potentially dangerous or irresponsible non-residents with concealed weapons in the States, cities, and towns across America that have made local judgments that certain regulations on the carrying of such weapons are necessary to protect public safety. Furthermore, the House bill would override some state laws that prohibit carrying concealed weapons in bars, schools, shopping malls, movie theatres, subways, or parks. States would not be able to enforce those restrictions; nor would local law enforcement officers reacting to specific risks to the public in such locations, which have tragically been the site of mass shootings in recent years.

 The text of HR 38 specifically says that state laws governing carry and posting of private property as well as the posting of state or local government properties including parks will not be superseded by this bill. In other words, these attorneys general have stated a bald face lie.

Now to the hypocritical part. Both the commonwealth of Virginia and the state of North Carolina recognize permits from all other states. The law in Virginia was changed when Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) joined with Republicans in passing HB 1163/SB 610. This was considered a rebuke of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D-VA) who unilaterally revoked reciprocity agreements with 25 states. Herring was the beneficiary of almost $1.3 million from Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC.

Likewise, the state of North Carolina's law were changed effective December 1, 2011 to recognize unilaterally all permits issued by any state. North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein (D-NC) ought to be aware of this because his own Department of Justice has a webpage devoted to this. While to the best of my knowledge, Josh Stein didn't receive money directly from Michael Bloomberg, the North Carolina Democratic Party did received $250,000 from him in 2016.

Mark Herring and Josh Stein are out and out hypocrites. They want to deny a right to the rest of America that the visitors to their own states enjoy. Citizens of Virginia have a chance to get rid of Herring this fall but we in the Tar Heel State have to wait another three years before we are rid of anti-gun Josh Stein.

Wasn't Brad Pitt Supposed To Be "Good" On Guns?

There is a myth going around that Brad Pitt is "good" on guns. He and Angelina Jolie own guns for self-protection.

Pitt tells British magazine Live, “I absolutely don’t believe you can put sanctions or shackles on what is made. Nor do I want to pretend the world is different than what we witnessed that night…

“America is a country founded on guns. It’s in our DNA. It’s very strange but I feel better having a gun. I really do. I don’t feel safe, I don’t feel the house is completely safe, if I don’t have one hidden somewhere. That’s my thinking, right or wrong.

Given this, I was a bit surprised and disgusted when I received an email from the Brady Campaign announcing that Brad Pitt and some guy I've heard of were inviting me to the 2016 Brady Bear Awards Gala to be held in Los Angeles.

Dear (fill in the blank),

Co-Chairs Adam McKay and Brad Pitt invite you to join us in saying #ENOUGH to gun violence. If you are near Los Angeles, join us for the 2016 Los Angeles Brady Bear Awards Gala on May 4th. We will gather with supporters, advocates and celebrities for an inspiring evening honoring co-president of Plan B Productions, Dede Gardner, and philanthropist and technology entrepreneur David Bohnett. Limited tickets and tables are available for purchase today.

If you can’t be with us in person, join all of us in saying #ENOUGH with your special donation or by placing a tribute ad honoring an advocate, community leader, or victim of gun violence in our digital journal that will be displayed at the event.

Ticket prices for this gala start at $500.

Brad Pitt - just another Hollywood hypocrite on guns.

Tone Deaf Politicians

If there is one thing that this political season has shown is that people are sick and tired of business as usual. How else do you explain the rise of a reality-TV star and billionaire businessman on the Republican side and an obscure, not even elected as a Democrat, self-avowed socialist on the Democratic side of the ticket. Both Trump and Sanders would be long gone in years gone by.

In the midst of all of this comes a proposal from New Jersey State Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen, Passaic) that would allow legislators and municipal and superior court judges to obtain carry permits to protect themselves. Nevermind that it takes an Act of God and then some for ordinary New Jerseyans to get carry permits or even a pistol purchase permit. Witness the death of Carol Bowne who was still waiting for her permit when her stalker killed her.

From the Bergen Dispatch:

Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen, Passaic) introduced a bill that would allow legislators, as well as judges at the superior and municipal court levels, to obtain permits to carry handguns provided they complete at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

“Judges and legislators face a greater risk of falling victim to violent attacks, simply because of their easily identifiable position in public life,” Senator Cardinale said. “This measure will ensure that public servants have the means to protect themselves from those who might violently disagree with their viewpoints or decisions. A judge should feel safe returning home each night no matter how they ruled or what they ruled on that day.”

The bill (S-1982) was inspired by attacks, such as the 2011 shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Giffords was shot in an assassination attempt during a meeting with constituents at an Arizona supermarket. More recently, a Texas judge was wounded in a shooting outside of her home in Austin.

Judges and legislators would be exempt from New Jersey's requirement to show "justifiable need". They would merely have to show that they took an 8-hour class.

Alexander Roubian of the NJ Second Amendment Society is correct when he calls Cardinale's proposal completely hypocritical.

Judges and politicians are generally well-guarded by security and they have easy access to police, Roubian noted. And, he argued, they’re already more likely than average citizens to pass the “justifiable need” test because they’re friends with the judges who issue the permits.

“Basically, this is a clear-cut example of how New Jersey operates as a fiefdom. The politicians’ and the judges’ lives, they truly believe, are more valuable than those of average citizens like you and I,” Roubian said.

I would add that Sen. Cardinale, in this of all years, just doesn't get it. Given that he has been in one house or the other of the New Jersey legislature since 1980, maybe it is time for the 82-year old dentist to go home.

That's Senator Insurrectionist Thug To You!

I find some things the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) post on their Facebook page amusing given how absurd they are or maybe it's just this codeine cough syrup I'm taking for the crud. Either way, they unloaded on Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) with both barrels.

Ooops. I shouldn't have put it that way. That would have been a little too microaggressive. Or is it macro?

Senator Rand Paul tells The Daily Caller that Republican Presidential front runner Donald J. Trump "deserves both barrels" before having himself photographed today firing an AR-15 at a shooting range. This man isn't a politician. He's an insurrectionist thug who will never attract anything other than fringe support.

They illustrated their little macroaggression with this microaggressive picture.

If you ask me, Sen. Paul looks like he's about to indulge in a bit of 3-gunning. His AR-15 has a full rail, a 1-4x scope, 18" barrel, and a  Miculek compensator.

I find it amusing that they characterize Sen. Rand Paul, MD Duke, as an "insurrectionist thug". CSGV feels free to indulge in character assassination and name calling at will. However, if someone who supported gun rights referred to CSGV leaders and supporters by an appropriate epithet, they would be screaming "microaggression!", try to get the person's kids taken by DSS, and possibly even "swatting" them.

There is a name for people like that:  hypocrites.

Her Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Shannon Watts is an out and out hypocrite. She posted the tweet below yesterday. It links to a story arguing against concealed carry by legal concealed carry holders on college and university campuses. It is obviously her position and that of her organization.

You think your drunk college-age daughters are bad with their iPhones? Imagine them with guns. http://t.co/q0hKI6A1VW @MomsDemand #gunsense
— Shannon (@shannonrwatts) February 26, 2015

I don't believe in visiting the sins of the parents upon the child. I won't name Mrs. Watts older daughter nor will I say which university she attends. However, I will say that the university at which Mrs. Watts' daughter attends has legal concealed carry on campus and has had it for a number of years. This is information that I gleaned from social media postings by the daughter. I believe it to be both accurate and relevant.

Thus, while Mrs. Watts' daughter attends a university where young women that are age 21 or older and have a concealed carry license are able to protect themselves from thugs, criminals, and rapists, she does not want your daughters (or for that matter, your sons) to have that same privilege.

That is the height of hypocrisy.

UPDATE: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus have called Shannon Watts out on this as well. Since one of the state's she bemoans a push for carry on campus is Colorado, they ask whether she is dishonest or oblivious given the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that public universities cannot ban carry on campus.

Priceless!

This tweet from State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) is absolutely priceless given his arrest yesterday on charges of conspiracy to deal in firearms without a license and to illegally import full automatic firearms  from Russia and/or Muslim extremists in the Philippines.

A year after Sandy Hook, let us recommit ourselves to working towards a safer society for all of us.

— Leland Yee (@LelandYee) December 14, 2013

California Attorney General's Statement Regarding Peruta Appeal

California Attorney General Kamala Harris released this statement yesterday explaining why she was appealing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Peruta v. San Diego.

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on behalf of the State of California, urging the court to review and reverse its decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego.

In its February 13, 2014 Peruta decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled that San Diego County violates the Second Amendment by requiring individuals to show “good cause,” beyond a mere desire to carry a gun, when applying for a concealed-carry weapons permit.

“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon," Attorney General Harris said. "I will do everything possible to restore law enforcement's authority to protect public safety, and so today am calling on the court to review and reverse its decision."

California state law currently requires individuals to show "good cause" to carry a concealed weapon, but gives local law enforcement control over the permit process. If the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to take effect, officials throughout the State could be required to issue concealed-carry permits to individuals based on nothing more than the applicant’s assertion that they wish to carry a gun for self-defense.

In San Diego County, concealed-carry permit applicants have, until now, been required to show “good cause” by demonstrating “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.”

On February 21, 2014 San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore announced he would not seek further review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

As I read Harris' statement I was struck by two things which I have highlighted. First, she wants "Only Ones" to be able to say yea or nay to who may have a carry permit. This is the same situation we had until recently in the Jim Crow-era South. In North Carolina, pistol purchase permits are still in the hands of local sheriffs but they now have less discretion to deny a permit. When the law was passed by the NC General Assembly in 1919, the intent was that local sheriff would grant pistol purchase permits to upstanding white men and women while denying that same right to blacks. It was racist then and its racist now.

The second thing in Harris' statement that struck me was the horror expressed that California officials would be required to issue carry permits "based on nothing more than the applicant's assertion that they wish to carry a gun for self-defense." Can you imagine the nerve of those ordinary people wanting the same privilege reserved for the high and mighty and/or large donors to sheriffs' election funds? Does not the ordinary citizen have the same right to self-defense of him or herself?

California prides itself on being a trendsetter. In this case, it is lagging the nation including states like Illinois where, until late last year, carry was reserved for cops and Chicago aldermen.

CalGuns Does A Little Digging Into Sunnyvale And Finds A Treasure Trove Of Hypocrisy

After the City of Sunnyvale (California) passed Measure C which included among other things magazine bans, the CalGuns Foundation decided to do a little digging using California's California Public Records Act. What they found out was quite interesting and just show hypocritical the city's own policies and practices are when it comes to firearms and magazines. For example, residents of Sunnyvale aren't allowed to possess magazines with greater than a 10 round capacity. However, police officers are required to have loaded 20 round magazines in their issue AR-15 along with two spares stored in the trunk of their police cruiser.

Another example is that the City of Sunnyvale's Public Safety Department, Traffic Safety Unit has not one but two Heckler & Koch MP7 Personal Defense Weapons. You and I couldn't own one of these even if we paid the $200 NFA tax stamp because of the Hughes Amendment. However, Sunnyvale considers these essentials weapons for a unit whose mission is "to ensure the safe and orderly flow of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic." Could someone in Sunnyvale please explain to me why a motorcycle cop needs a full auto sub-machine gun to stop jay walkers and to make sure bicyclists stay in the bike lanes?

Read CalGuns release below and make sure to scan through the documents that they obtained from the City of Sunnyvale. They make for interesting reading.

ROSEVILLE, CA — In response to the City of Sunnyvale’s recently-passed (and now infamous) Measure C – sweeping new and unconstitutional gun control laws that directly [negatively] affect law-abiding people — The Calguns Foundation (CGF) sought out public records to better understand the City’s own policies and practices as they relate to firearm/magazine acquisition and possession for its employees and contractors.

Measure C passed on November 5, 2013, in a low-turnout election and took effect Dec. 6, giving gun owners until March 6 to comply with the new regulations, including an outright ban on the possession of “large-capacity” magazines holding more than 10 rounds — even those ‘grandfathered’ under state law. A number of firearms organizations have subsequently announced legal actions against the City to block the law from being enforced and, in at least one case, have it judicially declared as unconstitutional.

On October 29, 2013, CGF executive director Brandon Combs sent this request for information under the California Public Records Act. Our request consisted of the following 6 classifications of public records:

1. Public notices, bid documents (including specifications), contracts, purchase orders, payments, and other such records reflecting expenditures by the City for the acquisition of firearms, including makes, models, and quantities;

2. Public notices, bid documents (including specifications), contracts, purchase orders, payments, and other such records reflecting expenditures by the City for the acquisition of firearm accessories and firearm parts, including makes, models, and quantities;

3. Public notices, bid documents (including specifications), contracts, purchase orders, payments, and other such records reflecting expenditures by the City for firearm repair and/or modification, including records going to the type of repair(s)/modification(s) and its/their cause(s);

4. Policies, manuals, guides, and other such governing documents addressing the City’s requirements/standards/rules for firearms, firearms accessories, and firearms parts used for City business, including but not limited to law enforcement, whether owned by the City or not;

5. Policies, manuals, guides, and other such governing documents addressing the City’s rules for personal acquisition of firearms, firearm accessories, and/or firearm parts by its employees and contractors; and

6. City authorizations or records addressing personal acquisition of firearms, firearm accessories, and/or firearm parts by City employees or contractors.

On November 20, 2013, the City replied to our request and sent these responsive documents, some 97 pages of policies and purchase orders. In its own records, the Sunnyvale acknowledged several key arguments relating to effective self-defense and implicitly concedes that we are correct about common semi-automatic firearms and their necessary components, like magazines. For example:

• Unloaded firearms are useless and not tactically-appropriate for self-defense;
• Modern semi-automatic firearms provide significant upside to those who are forced to use them for self-defense; and
• Magazines having a capacity greater than ten (10) rounds — “large-capacity” in government elitist-speak — offer such material benefit that they are specified for City employees and provided to them at taxpayer expense.

The City records we acquired as part of our audit will continue to be scrutinized by us, by you, and, hopefully, the news media.

Best Comment On The NFL's Denial Of Daniel Defense's Super Bowl Ad

David E.  Petzal, rifle editor of Field and Stream, writing in The Gun Nut blog on F&S's website had what I consider the best comment on the controversy over the NFL's denial of the Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad.

It's possible that this is nothing more than hypocrisy. But the real reason, I think, is that the NFL is trying to protect its investments. The oversized guy who crashes his $150,000 custom SUV into a house and breaks down the door with his fists to strangle the family inside may be someone's number one draft pick, and all those millions his team spent on him would go right down the drain if some terrified homeowner shot him in self-defense.

And we can't have that now, can we? It's…un-American.

That is truly snarky....and I love it!

Marty Daniels - "Maybe I Should Throw The Challenge Flag"

Marty Daniels of Daniels Defense talked with Cam Edwards yesterday about the NFL's rejection of the Daniels Defense Superbowl ad.

Daniels discussed how they approached the Fox affiliate in Atlanta about running their ad during the Superbowl and how the NFL responded with an unequivocal no even after Daniels offered to remove the company's log. He noted that the local NBC affiliate in Georgia ran their ad during last year's Superbowl with some hesitancy but they ran it.

Daniels says he is a bit amazed at the response the NFL's rejection of his company's ad has generated. He has heard from a number of people who are outraged at the sheer hypocrisy of the NFL and wonder what happened to their country.

He concludes with a bit of humor saying maybe he ought to throw the challenge flag and ask the NFL to review the "ruling on the field".





Lest it be forgotten, the NFL allowed ads from Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors during the 2012 and 2013 Superbowls.

About That Arms Trade Treaty

Controlling your and my rifle is important but brake pads for those grounded Iranian F-14 Tomahawks are not. If a story published in the Philadelphia Inquirer by the lefty journalism group Propublica is correct, then that is the intent of the Obama Administration.

Starting yesterday, a number of items that previously had been controlled by the State Department through its arms control regulations will be transferred to the control of the Commerce Department which has weaker controls on exports of these items.

In the current system, every manufacturer and exporter of military equipment has to register with the State Department and get a license for each planned export. U.S. officials scrutinize each proposed deal to make sure the receiving country isn’t violating human rights and to determine the risk of the shipment winding up with terrorists or another questionable group.

Under the new system, whole categories of equipment encompassing tens of thousands of items will move to the Commerce Department, where they will be under more “flexible” controls. Final rules have been issued for six of 19 categories of equipment and more will roll out in the coming months. Some military equipment, such as fighter jets, drones, and other systems and parts, will stay under the State Department’s tighter oversight.

Commerce will do interagency human rights reviews before allowing exports, but only as a matter of policy, whereas in the State Department it is required by law.

While spare parts that will now be regulated by the Commerce Department may not be exported directly to such rogue nations as Iran and Syria, the controls on re-exports of these spare parts will have much less regulation. Spare parts are the key to keeping aging fleets of jet fighters in the air and not the ground.

The story does note that the one area in which the Obama Administration refused to switch to the Commerce Department was, you guessed it, firearms and ammunition.

In one area, the administration does appear to have temporarily backed off – firearms and ammunition. Any decision to loosen exports for firearms could have conflicted with the president’s call for enhanced domestic gun control.

According to a memo obtained by the Wall Street Journal last spring, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security both opposed draft versions of revisions to the firearms category. (The Justice Department press office is out of operation due to the government shutdown, and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.) Shifting firearms was also likely to be a lightning rod for arms control groups. As the New York Times’ C.J. Chivers has documented, small arms trafficking has been the scourge of conflicts around the world.

Draft rules for firearms and ammunitions were ready in mid-2012, according to Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for gun manufacturers. The Commerce Department even sent representatives to an industry export conference to preview manufacturers on the new system they might fall under.

But since the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., last December, no proposed rule has been published.

Keane thinks the connection is irrelevant. “This has nothing to do with domestic gun control legislation. We’re talking about exports,” he said. “Our products have not moved forward, and we’re disappointed by that.”

Read the whole article to see the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration.

In related news to the Arms Trade Treaty, a number of Senators and Congressmen have come out in opposition to the ratification of the ATT. The treaty needs 67 votes in favor for it to be ratified. So far 50 Senators have come out in opposition to it.

From the NRA on the letter from 50 Senators and 181 Congressmen to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry opposing the ATT:

Fairfax, Va. – Today, a bipartisan group of 50 members of the U.S. Senate and 181 members of the U.S. House sent a clear message to President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and the United Nations that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will not be ratified. Earlier this year, the U.N. adopted and President Obama directed Secretary Kerry to sign this treaty, which does not exclude civilian arms from its scope and therefore directly threatens the Second Amendment.

“The Obama administration has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of our 5 million members, the NRA would like to thank those who signed these letters for their principled stand in defending the Second Amendment freedoms of all law-abiding Americans.”

The Senate effort in opposition to the ATT was led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Their letter, signed by 50 senators, states clearly that “as members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the U.S. as bound to uphold its object and purpose.”

A bipartisan group of 181 members of the U.S. House sent a separate letter of opposition. That effort was led by Reps. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Collin Peterson (D-MN).

“The NRA will continue to fight against ratification of the U.N. ATT, which undermines the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” concluded Cox. “With 67 votes in the U.S. Senate being necessary for ratification, these letters send a clear message to President Obama and Secretary Kerry that this attempt to undermine our Right to Keep and Bear Arms will be met with strong opposition.”

North Carolina Democrats Seek To Use Passage Of Omnibus Gun Bill For Fundraising

The North Carolina House Democratic Caucus is trying to use passage of HB 937 which amended a number of North Carolina's firearms law as a fundraising tool. Not surprisingly, they misstate much of what was in their amendments.

Those "common sense gun safety" amendments included background checks for all private sales - not just at gun shows. That amendment also used terminology straight out of Mayor Bloomberg's playbook especially in how they defined transfers. The other amendments that they offered would have restricted magazines to 10 rounds, mandated a safe storage law,  banned the storage of firearms in locked cars on university and community college campuses, and increased the penalty for consuming alcohol while carrying concealed. It is already against the law to consume alcohol while carrying. The intent of this last amendment was clearly to give the Democrats a campaign tool.

I find it amusing that Rep. Darren Jackson (D-Wake) would say that the Republicans voted in lockstep on each and every amendment. There were 12 amendments proposed to HB 937. 11 of these amendments had a recorded vote. Examining the votes on each amendment, I see only two - Amendment 6 and Amendment 11 - where even one Democrat voted in the affirmative to the tabling motion. By contrast, on every amendment, you have one or more Republicans voting against tabling the amendment. Indeed, on Amendment 6, you have 11 Republicans voting the same way as the Democrats. Let me put it bluntly - Rep. Jackson is a hypocrite.

If Rep. Jackson wants to hold the Republicans responsible for their votes, I say fine but it works both ways. If you are a North Carolinian and you have a Democrat who says he or she is pro-gun as your state representative, call them out on it. Pro-gun representatives don't vote for draconian magazine bans like each and every Democrat in the NC House did on Monday and Tuesday. A pro-gun representative would not have voted to criminalize private sales and transfers of firearms unless they had a NICS background check. A pro-gun representative would not have used the language provided by Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors.

It is not enough to just vote against these hypocrites come 2014. They must be called out now in letters to the editors, posts on forums, and with calls and letters to their offices. Put them on notice that we have seen how they treat gun rights.

 

 

Dear Friend,

 

Do you want a person sitting next to you and your family in a restaurant to be drinking and handling a firearm?

 

I believe most people would agree the common sense answer to that question is ‘no,’ but common sense was the last thing on House Republicans’ minds last night when they pushed through House Bill 937.  This bill will allow guns in bars and concealed weapons on university and community college campuses.  Republicans loosened our gun laws and endangered public safety.  Stand with the House Democrats on gun legislation today by contributing $50, $25, $10 $5 or whatever you can afford.

 

While Republicans tout the Second Amendment as justification for this bill, we know it is not a Second Amendment bill but rather a policy issue.  I am not anti-gun and I am not anti-Second Amendment.  I grew up with firearms and I own firearms, but I know that alcohol and firearms don’t mix just as alcohol and driving don’t mix.  

 

House Democrats tried to speak up for the majority of our state and offer common sense gun safety legislation.  We offered five amendments to the bill that would require background checks for firearms at gun shows, disallow firearms on our college campuses and strengthen the penalties for carrying a firearm while consuming alcohol.  

 

Republicans voted in lockstep five different times to have our common sense amendments lie upon the table, cutting them off without debate.  This was nothing more than a cheap, procedural trick on the part of House Republicans, but tricks will not save their members from taking a position on these issues.  Their votes last night made their positions clear and put them on the record.  House Democrats will hold them responsible for those votes.  Help us show the House Republicans that voters are smart enough to see through procedural tricks by contributing $50, $25, $10, $5 or whatever you can afford today. 

 

As my colleague Rep. Deborah Ross pointed out last night, “This is not something that makes our state a better place.”   While our efforts were foiled yesterday, we will continue to hold Republicans accountable for their actions and stand up for legislation that best represents the hard-working citizens of this state.

 

Sincerely,

Representative Darren Jackson

A Load Of Bovine Excrement

I just read Mayor Bloomberg's response to the defeat of Manchin-Toomey. If you need some organic fertilizer for your garden, there is a lot of it here.

"Today's vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby. Democrats - who are so quick to blame Republicans for our broken gun laws - could not stand united. And Republicans - who are so quick to blame Democrats for not being tough enough on crime - handed criminals a huge victory, by preserving their ability to buy guns illegally at gun shows and online and keeping the illegal trafficking market well-fed. Senators Manchin and Toomey - as well as Majority Leader Reid and Senators Schumer, Kirk, Collins, McCain and others - deserve real credit for coming together around a compromise bill that struck a fair balance, and President Obama and Vice-President Biden deserve credit for their leadership since the Sandy Hook massacre. But even with some bi-partisan support, a common-sense public safety reform died in the U.S. Senate at the hands of those who are more interested in attempting to protect their own political careers - or some false sense of ideological purity - than protecting the lives of innocent Americans. The only silver lining is that we now know who refuses to stand with the 90 percent of Americans - and in 2014, our ever-expanding coalition of supporters will work to make sure that voters don't forget."

At least he blames both Democrats and Republicans alike for the failure of the bill. I'll give him that.

What I find interesting is his ideological blindness bordering on hypocrisy. If you rewrote the first two sentences and substituted Colorado for Washington and US, you'd have exactly what just happened in Colorado. To say that most Coloradans were in favor of those gun control bills would be a lie. Moreover, the Democrats in the Colorado House and Senate were told by their leaders (and Bloomberg's lobbyists) to ignore what their constituents were saying. If that isn't turning their back on Coloradans, what is?