One must always watch out for the Left’s next move in trying to control the language. Get this one...
California has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, including a ban on the type of rifle that a shooter used to kill three and wound 15 at the garlic food festival in Gilroy on Sunday.
But the gunman had legally purchased the “assault-type rifle”, in the style of an AK-47, from the neighboring state Nevada on 9 July before carrying it illegally over state lines into California, highlighting what some gun control advocates say is a loophole in the way laws operate, state by state.
[…]
Several lawmakers have pointed at Sunday’s shooting to once again call for a federal law that would close this cross-state loophole.
So now the fact that states pass different laws according to the will of their own citizens is a “cross-state loophole.” No, it’s not a loophole. It’s federalism, and it’s a fundamental part of our system of government. It’s not a bug. It’s a feature.
Employees inside the Los Angeles-area gun shop had their hands full chatting with customers who were looking to replenish their ammo supply before July 1, with some customers spending hundreds of dollars in the process.
Why the hurry? That’s the day a new state law will require almost all buyers to go through background checks before being able to buy bullets, potentially increasing the amount of time and money it takes to make purchases.
“We’re probably up by 400% from where we were last year for this past month, and this month, in total sales,” says Daniel Kash, the store’s president.
Wha!?!? You can buy a machine gun online without any regulations? Where? Perhaps if Obama knew our nation’s actual gun laws he wouldn’t be so hellbent on passing more.
Former president Barack Obama has claimed US gun laws ‘don’t make sense’.
[…]
He added: ‘We know that in some states we have gun laws that do not make sense. It’s even possible to buy even machine guns online without any regulation.’
Obama’s comments come just months after Brazil passed laws making it easier for people to buy and carry guns.
The Texas Senate on Sunday approved a bill that would allow any Texan who can legally own a firearm to be able to carry it either open or concealed for seven days after the state declares a natural disaster, The Dallas Morning News reported.
[…]
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dade Phelan, a Republican, said earlier that he doesn’t “want someone to feel like they have to leave their firearms back in an unsecured home for a week or longer, and we all know how looting occurs in storms. Entire neighborhoods are empty and these people can just go shopping, and one of the things they’re looking for is firearms.”
Texas’ carry laws are actually a bit more restrictive than Wisconsin’s and a bit nonsensical, at times. Generally, open carry is not legal in Texas like it is in Wisconsin. Many years ago when Texas passed concealed carry, it was actually a big deal that a CHL holder would get in big trouble for “brandishing” if anyone saw their weapon. It was a goofy restriction that Texas lifted 2016. So now a Texan CHL holder can carry openly or concealed.
What this law would do is say that anyone who can legally own a gun – no felons, etc. – to transport that weapon, concealed or open, for a week after a natural disaster. The rationale is that it would enable people to protect their property and to legally transport their weapons away so that they don’t get stolen. The downside is that police won’t be able to easily tell who can legally carry a weapon or not, but they can’t do that today. The police would have to do what they do anyway… react to behavior instead of just randomly checking people.
MADISON – Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul could revoke a small number of concealed weapons licenses because of a recent state Supreme Court decision regarding those who have had their criminal records expunged.
The Department of Justice that Kaul oversees has been issuing concealed weapons licenses for years to people who have had their records expunged of felony and misdemeanor convictions.
But the Supreme Court in an unrelated case in December ruled that expunging a record “does not invalidate the conviction.” In light of that, Kaul has determined he cannot issue weapons licenses to those who have expunged records.
He alerted lawmakers to the issue in March and sent a follow-up letter Friday asking them to take up legislation to address it. If they do not, he wrote that he would have to review individual licenses to determine which ones should be revoked.
“Without legislative action, concealed carry licenses must be revoked from individuals with an expunged felony conviction,” he wrote in Friday’s letter.
As the law goes, I think that Kaul is right. By the letter of the law, those licenses would need to be revoked. But then, what does “expunge” really mean? Is the conviction gone or not? Then again, why do we even have a process of expungement? The crime happened… you can’t erase reality, in which case, do we ever want people who commit felonies from getting a concealed carry license? Or should this right be treated like other rights? In Wisconsin, felons can vote after they complete their punishment. Should their right to carry concealed be restored? Tricky questions.
Perhaps we should get rid of expungement and go to Constitutional Carry and let reality prevail.
When it comes to gun ownership in America, presidential aspirant Kamala Harris has shot herself in the foot.
At a time when Democrats are toughening their positions on gun control and seeking to make it a core issue in the 2020 campaign, the California senator has conceded that her personal relationship with guns is unique among the major Democratic presidential contenders. She owns a handgun, a campaign aide told CNN.
This under-publicized revelation comes as Harris is getting a lot of ink for being tough about guns. Her words are fine, but for a progressive like me, they are undermined by that handgun. And I can’t be the only one who is disturbed.
This is clearly unconstitutional. Irrespective of your opinion about bump stocks, the 5th Amendment specifically prohibits the government from seizing private property without due process of law and just compensation. This isn’t about the 2nd Amendment. It’s about the 5th.
The bump stock — the attachment used by the killer during the 2017 Las Vegas massacre to make his weapons fire rapidly like machine guns — will become illegal on Tuesday in the only major gun restriction imposed by the federal government in the past few years, a period that has seen massacres in places like Las Vegas; Thousand Oaks, California; Sutherland Springs, Texas; and Orlando and Parkland, Florida.
Unlike with the decade-long assault weapons ban, the government isn’t allowing existing owners to keep their bump stocks. They must be destroyed or turned over to authorities. And the government isn’t offering any compensation for the devices, which can cost hundreds of dollars. Violators can face up to 10 years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up its first gun rights case in nine years, a challenge to New York City’s prohibition on carrying a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside the city limits.
[…]
Joining in support of gun rights, 17 states said the court should break its years-long silence and use the case to define the scope of gun rights under the Constitution and the level of scrutiny, or skepticism, judges should apply to gun laws.
New York’s ordinance allows people licensed to have handguns to carry them outside the home to gun ranges in the city. The guns must be locked and unloaded.
The city residents who filed suit want to practice shooting at target ranges outside the city or take their guns to second homes elsewhere in New York state.
The 25-year-old victim was standing at a bus stop in the Fernwood neighborhood about 5:44 a.m. when she was confronted by the would-be robber, police said.
“The victim was standing at the corner when the offender approached the victim, displayed a weapon and announced a robbery,” Chicago police officials said in a statement. “The victim, a concealed carry license holder, brandished a weapon and fired one shot at the offender, striking him in the neck.”
The incident was captured on surveillance video from a drug store in the area and showed the victim, whose name has not been released, getting pushed to the ground at the bus stop before pulling a gun and firing it.
The suspected attempted robber, wearing white, ran from the scene while the victim ran in the opposite direction, the video shows.
Police said the suspected robber collapsed about a block from the bus stop, where officers found him. He was taken to Christ Hospital in Chicago, where he was pronounced dead.
Good for them. Now they need to vote the fascists who passed this ordinance out of office.
BOULDER, Colorado — Boulder’s newly enacted “assault weapons” ban is meeting with stiff resistance from its “gun-toting hippies,” staunch liberals who also happen to be devoted firearms owners.
Only 342 “assault weapons,” or semiautomatic rifles, were certified by Boulder police before the Dec. 31 deadline, meaning there could be thousands of residents in the scenic university town of 107,000 in violation of the sweeping gun-control ordinance.
“I would say the majority of people I’ve talked to just aren’t complying because most people see this as a registry,” said Lesley Hollywood, executive director of the Colorado Second Amendment group Rally for Our Rights. “Boulder actually has a very strong firearms community.”
The ordinance, approved by the city council unanimously, banned the possession and sale of “assault weapons,” defined as semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip, folding stock, or ability to accept a detachable magazine. Semiautomatic pistols and shotguns are also included.
Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.
The American Civil Liberties Union came to the First Amendment defense of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Illinois. This is worth celebrating, especially today. Lawyers, many Jewish, fought for the rights of repugnant people, many of whom would like to see all Jews dead. Offended supporters of the ACLU left in droves. But the ACLU adhered to principle because … the end doesn’t justify the means.
Progressives have not just rejected that proud tradition, they have remade it into the ugly opposite — the end justifies all: Coercing speech with speech codes and forcing cake bakers to create statements against their core religious beliefs; social justice warfare and identity politics; the nanny state banning everything from plastic straws to tobacco products; and forcing private health insurance products at gun-point.
Progressives wield intolerance like the weapon it is. But are they kidding us or themselves when they smugly assert their tolerance? Do they believe their “Celebrate Diversity” bumper stickers, blind to the hypocrisy?
I find myself thinking about this as I am only days away from becoming a criminal in my tolerant hometown of Boulder. Boulder, which did so much to promote the civil rights of the LGBT community in decades past, when alternative lifestyles were misunderstood and feared, is now leading the charge against people like me whose lifestyle is misunderstood and feared.
I remember a time when, for public safety of course, some conservatives wanted AIDS patients to self-identify, to present themselves to the governmental authority, and be counted. There was an epidemic erupting after all, and “something had to be done.”
In Boulder, if your core beliefs include dressing as the opposite gender or following the teachings of the Koran our city government will bend over backwards to protect you from those who wish to separate you from your community. You’d never be forced to self-identify to government authorities, to submit to inspection, to be registered and made to pay fees to keep your core beliefs.
My strong belief in my Second Amendment rights is core to who I am. I know that is not understood by many today, however I am not asking to be understood. I’m asking to be left alone.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration Tuesday banned bump stocks, the firearm attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns and were used during the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
The regulation gives gun owners until late March to turn in or destroy the devices. After that, it will be illegal to possess them under the same federal laws that prohibit machine guns.
I also believe that implementing the law in this fashion would be a violation of the 5th Amendment: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The panel investigating the Florida high school massacre recommended Wednesday that teachers who volunteer and undergo extensive background checks and training be allowed to carry concealed guns on campus to stop future shootings.
The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission voted 13-1 to recommend the Legislature allow the arming of teachers, saying it’s not enough to have one or two police officers or armed guards on campus. Florida law adopted after the Feb. 14 shooting that left 17 dead allows districts to arm non-teaching staff members such as principals, librarians and custodians — and 13 of the 67 districts do, mostly in rural parts of the state.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, the commission’s chairman, pushed the measure at the Tallahassee meeting. He said most deaths in school shootings happen within the first few minutes, before officers on and off campus can respond. He said suspect Nikolas Cruz stopped to reload his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle five times, all of which would have been opportunities for an armed teacher to shoot him.
“We have to give people a fighting chance, we have to give them an opportunity to protect themselves,” Gualtieri said. He said there aren’t enough officers or money to hire one for every school, but even then, officers need backup. “One good guy with a gun on campus is not enough.”
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday his administration is just a few weeks away from finalizing a regulation that would ban so-called bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns.
“We’re knocking out bump stocks,” Trump said at a White House news conference. “We’re in the final two or three weeks, and I’ll be able to write out bump stocks.”
[…]
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in March the Justice Department was proposing a rule that would effectively ban the devices. In February, Trump had signed a memorandum directing the department to make the regulatory change.
You lefties may like this, but I don’t. I agree that banning bump stocks may fall within the realm of a reasonable restriction of the 2nd Amendment, but there is a high standard for when we decide to restrict Constitutionally-protected rights. In this case, bump stocks might have contributed to a greater death toll in one mass shooting. Might. That doesn’t meet the standard for me.
And no, it’s not about whether or not bump stocks are necessary, useful, or important. The burden is on the government to prove that there is a compelling public interest to infringe on our rights. If this involved any other right, we would expect no less.
Furthermore, if we are going to impose an additional restriction on the 2nd Amendment, it should, at the very least, go through the legislative process so that the duly-elected representatives of the people can have a say. An arbitrary infringement of the 2nd Amendment by Executive fiat is unacceptable.
CHICAGO (AP) — With frustration mounting over lawmakers’ inaction on gun control, the American Medical Association on Tuesday pressed for a ban on assault weapons and came out against arming teachers as a way to fight what it calls a public health crisis.
At its annual policymaking meeting, the nation’s largest physicians group bowed to unprecedented demands from doctor-members to take a stronger stand on gun violence — a problem the organizations says is as menacing as a lethal infectious disease.
The action comes against a backdrop of recurrent school shootings, everyday street violence in the nation’s inner cities, and rising U.S. suicide rates.
Remember little stories like this when your neighborhood anti-2nd Amendment zealot says stupid stuff like, “we don’t want to take your guns” or “we just want sensible gun control.” Yes they do, and no they don’t.
The ordinance enacted April 2 by the Deerfield Village Board gives residents until June 13 to turn in any guns that fit the village’s definition of assault weapons, remove them from the village or modify the guns so they’re no longer considered assault weapons. The ordinance empowers the town’s police chief to confiscate the assault weapons of anyone charged under the ordinance.
Owners found in violation can be fined up to $1,000 a day, according to the ordinance.
[…]
In the ordinance, the definition of an assault weapon includes, among others, semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder; and semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines and possess one of a list of other features. Among the dozens of specific models cited are the AR-15, AK-47 and Uzi, according to the ordinance.
Dick’s Sporting Goods has reportedly retained several lobbyists to urge lawmakers to take action on gun control, months after restricting gun sales in its stores.
The sporting-goods chain is working with three lobbyists from the Glover Park Group to take on the topic, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing a disclosure form filed late last month.
The move comes after Dick’s announced in the wake of the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school in February that it would stop selling assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Matthew Schoenecker likes guns and T-shirts showing guns. But when the freshman wears the latter to Markesan High School, he is told to change, cover them, or spend the day in an isolated cubicle.
So he’s exercising some other rights to defend what he calls his First Amendment right to support the Second Amendment — he sued the principal in federal court.
The suit, filed Monday in Milwaukee, names principal John Koopman as the sole defendant. It claims Koopman violated Schoenecker’s freedom of expression by restricting him from wearing shirts that depict guns and other weapons in “a non-violent, non-threatening manner.”
The suit also contends that Koopman’s personal, case-by-case determination of which shirts are “inappropriate” violates Schoenecker’s rights to due process.
Two particular shirts crossed the line for Koopman. One reads “Celebrate Diversity,” and depicts a variety of firearms. Another says LOVE, but the letters are formed by a handgun, a grenade, two knives and an assault-style rifle.
When survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting returned to classes after spring break on Monday, they were met with a slew of new security measures, including a widely resented policy: mandatory clear backpacks for everyone.
Students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 people were killed in a mass shooting in February, were quick to express their disdain for their new accessory.
[…]
“I hate the backpacks, and I think they solve nothing,” Alyssa Goldfarb, a 16-year-old sophomore, told Vice News. “It’s more of a way of the county saying, ‘Hey, we’re doing something.’”
Indeed. Kind of like banning bump stocks or large magazines.
