"Sick of the NRA? Read this."

Breach/Bang/Clear: Sick of the NRA? Read this. | Duane Liptak with a reality check

...people bash the NRA a lot without understanding the reality of how the silly reindeer games get played on the hill. Try to at least understand the value that the organization provides because it is big and very real, and critically important. I want a live tank in my front yard and mail order Solothurn S-18/1000’s from Bannerman’s. But the path to get there isn’t exactly a clear one in the current legislative environment. Without the strength of the NRA helping to pack the courts, shape elections the best we can, fight off bad legislation wherever possible and pave the way to improve rights through the judiciary (we’ve confirmed 85 federal judges in addition to the 2 Supremes with 130 more to go), I fear we won’t have a path to it at all. That’s why I’m a member, and helping to make the organization as right as we can get it is why I got involved.

I get the frustration. I’m mad that we’re even in this situation. How could we, a republic, born from free men taking up arms against oppression, even be considering some of this nonsense? It baffles me. And, I used to be super frustrated with the NRA, also. Until…I was forced into being involved in politics and seeing how this whole mess works. Now I know what I have to do, and I hope everyone out there who cares about gun rights can get on board, too.

So, if you want to support GOA or FPC or FPC, or JPFO…that’s fantastic. Join your state organization, also. Be active locally. Let your elected representatives know how you feel on these issues regularly. But…be a member of the NRA, and be active. Vote. Let the board and the staff know where you stand on issues. Help to be a part of the solution. If we, as gun owners, can’t stick together and take advantage of the strengths of all of our organizations where they can do the most good, we will lose this fight. I’m not willing to lose.

 This is the last three paragraphs. Go read the whole thing.

Text of HR 5087, new Federal "Assault Weapon" Ban

Text - H.R.5087 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Institutes a 10 round magazine limit.

"Improves" upon the Clinton Ban by banning any semi-automatic rifle with one "Evil Feature". (Note: It even admits that a "barrel shroud" is a safety device, but still bans it...)

Co-Sponsored by The Usual Suspects. Including my own Representative, who was, at one time, rated B by the NRA.

Adds mandatory "safe storage" for grandfathered "assault weapons."

Includes a "by-name" list of banned rifles and shotguns...

...and an extensive "by-name" list of exempt rifles and shotguns, including not only semi-automatics, but pump, bolt, lever-action, break action, and even by-name list of "drillings and combinations."

(Nothing suspicious about that at all, right?)

But, hey, it lets retired Law Enforcement Officers keep their Large Capacity Feeding Devices upon retirement, IF they purchased them for on-duty use before retirement... 

Short read of the day: The Gresham’s Law of Law

Recently started receiving the daily digest from Law & Liberty, maintained by the Liberty Fund, same folks who do the Online Library of Liberty.

Here's an example of why:

 The Gresham's Law of Law - Law & Liberty

by Mike Rappaport

In economics, Gresham’s Law is the law that say “bad money drives out good money.” In law, there is a similar law – deviant or problematic lawmaking drives out orthodox or legitimate lawmaking. This occurs in both constitutional law and administrative law.

Let’s start with constitutional law. The law of the Constitution is supposed to be established through the constitutional enactment process and the constitutional amendment process. Yet, it is well known that the Supreme Court does not always follow this legitimate method of constitutional law making, and instead changes or updates the Constitution through judicial lawmaking.

It is sometimes thought that these two types of lawmaking can coexist, but it has become increasingly clear that this is not the case. Since the New Deal, and especially as the Court has engaged in more judicial updating, the constitutional amendment process has atrophied. The main reason is that a constitutional amendment can only pass if it is supported by a consensus of the country. And developing a consensus may take a long time and may require compromise.

And then there's administrative law. Just as Constitutional Amendments don't happen due to Supreme Court rulings, Congress leaves most rule-making up to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Go read the whole thing, like I said, it's short.

QOTD, Blast From The Past Edition

Going back through old posts and saw that, on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, Tamara won the Internetz again with this:

The problem is that the .gov acts like there was strong encryption on the Constitution and they don't have the right key to read it.

 Really, it's been her Internetz all along and she just lets us use it, too. 

Senator Cruz Speaks

The transcript of his address on the Senate floor yesterday (video in my previous post) is here: GUN WATCH: Senator Cruz Defends 2A from the Floor of the Senate, Excoriates Obama Terrorism Failures.

It would make me very happy if the GOP were to nominate Senator Cruz...

"NRA-ILA | NRA Statement on Terror Watchlists"

So Trump tweets that he'll meet with the NRA about not letting people on "a watchlist" buy a gun. 

Naturally, folks started losing their minds, because "The NRA's selling us out again!"

NRA-ILA | NRA Statement on Terror Watchlists: The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump.  The NRA's position on
this issue has not changed.  The NRA believes that terrorists should not
be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period.  Anyone on a terror
watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by
the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.  If an
investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement,
the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the
sale, and arrest the terrorist.  At the same time, due process
protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who
are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.  That has been the
position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S.
Senate.  Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play
politics with this issue.

See, the problem is with the nature of a "watchlist."

One recalls that numerous people found themselves on the "No Fly" list who did not belong there.^*

And just how does one wind up on a watchlist?

Good question.

And how does one get off a watchlist if one does not belong there?

Good question.

In Tamara's post "Who watches the watch list?" we find this article: The Problem With Banning Guns From People On The Terrorist Watch List | ThinkProgress.

Before September 11, 2001, the no-fly list, which names people who are banned from boarding flights in or out of the U.S., contained 16 people. A leak revealed that that number had grown to 47,000 as of 2013. Most of those names were added after President Obama took office. The broader terrorist watch list maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center has an even more expansive scope; the estimated number of people on the list has ranged from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million, figures which include Americans and foreigners.

One and a half million. 1,500,000.

Somewhere along the line, it developed that the douchebag Orlando murderer -- I refuse to name him -- had been on a "watchlist" while the FBI investigated him for whatever they were investigating him for, and then they dropped the investigation because they found no evidence of actual, you know, crimes having been committed, and poof!, he was off the watchlist.

The FBI pointed out that doing things like denying the douchebag from being able to buy a gun might tip him off that he was on a watchlist, which might result in compromising the investigation.

This,of course, ignores the fact that we are talking about denying people their constitutional rights because they are suspected of maybe having done something naughty.

Or  not.

I find it curious (there's a nice, neutral word!) that so many of the people who pitch a fit over the thought of having to provide ID to proof of eligibility to vote want to deny people the right to keep and bear arms over claimed statements of opinion.

So... What other Constitutional Rights should be compromised if one is on one of the mysterious watchlists? Since Facebook seems to figure so prominently in the radiclaization of J. Random Douchebag, maybe we should Internet access, and other aspects of First Amendment activity as well?

And, hey, they're accused of being terrorists, or at least terrorist sympathizers and enablers, so maybe we should throw out that pesky Fifth Amendment, as well! Which, come to think of it, that damned Fourth Amendment restricting search and seizure, etc., etc., sure gets in the way!

The Sixth is already on life support, so why bother?

So...

Frankly, I think the NRA's statement is lukewarm, at best, but it's something. 

ETA: Here is what Ted cruz has to say:


* Granted Teddy Kennedy belonged on the "no drive" list...

Damn it

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch. http://tiny.iavian.net/8ymq

GOAL Post 2016-3

The latest from Joe. More bills added. 

Note the continuing attacks on state pre-emption. I suspect that states with a pre-emption clause in their state Constitution or laws will continue to see these under attack.

A sound (libertarian) argument for pre-emption of, specifically, gun and therefore self-defense rights is that self-defense is a natural right, that is not granted by a government, but can only be guaranteed or (unjustly) denied, and that therefore any attempt to reduce the right to self-defense of a law-abiding citizen must be carefully examined and only implemented under very limited circumstances.
Edited to ad a page break; apologies if that does not show up in your RSS or news feed...

***

FROM: Joe Waldron, GOAL WA <goalwa@cox.net>

SENT: Fri 1/22/2016 6:29 AM

SUBJECT: GOAL Post 2016-3

Legislative Update from Olympia, 22 January 2016

•  NEW GUN BILLS FILED
• PUBLIC HEARING HELD
• PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED

(I’m “on the road” in Las Vegas, just wrapping up the annual Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trades (SHOT) show conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation – the trade organization that represents the U.S. gun industry.  My “information cut-off” for this issue was Thursday night,)

11  new gun-related bills were filed this week.  HB 2653, Rep. Cody (D-34) would grant a tax exemption for “smart” guns; HB 2712, Rep. Wilson (R-17) would add carjacking to the justification of the use of lethal force and add civil immunity to someone found acting in self-defense;  HB 2738, by Rep. S. Hunt (D-22) would require a person carrying a concealed handgun under the authority of a CPL to get express permission from the homeowner before being allowed to take a handgun into a home; HB 2793,by Rep. Orwall D-33 is a suicide prevention education bill drafted with the aid of the NRA and SAF; HB 2794, also by Orwall (D-33) amends existing temporary mental health law to allow law enforcement input; HB 2814,by Rep. Klippert (R-8) encourages development of recreational shooting areas in locations governed by the Growth Management Act; and HB  2836, by Rep.Farrell (D-48) requires gun owners to maintain liability insurance.  On the Senate side, only four bills:  SB 6351, by Sen. Habib (D-48) guts state preemption of uniform firearm laws; SB 6352, by Sen. Frockt (D-46) is another “extreme risk protection order” bill;  SB 6487m by Sen.Becker (R-2) expands authorized use of lethal force to include carjackings and affords civil immunity in self defense; and SB 6515, by Sen.O’Ban (R-28) would create an elective hunter ed program in high schools.

A public hearing on several gun bills was conducted in House Judiciary on Thursday.  I was not able to attend, nor have I had a chance to review the TVWashington coverage of the hearing.  I was told we slightly outnumbered the “other side” at the hearing. If you have the opportunity, you can see the whole thing at.  http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2016010214

Two public hearings on gun bills are scheduled for next week.  On Monday, 25 January, the Senate Law & Justice Committee will take public testimony on SBs 6158, 6165 and 6267.  All three are solid pro-gun bills and deserve our support.  On Tuesday, 26 January, the House Judiciary Committee will hear HBs 2794 and 2603.  As noted above, both the NRA and the SAF were involved in drafting HB 2793, and fully support this bill. Of the alleged 30,000 deaths annually due to “gun violence,” 20,000 (2/3) re suicides – hardly “gun violence.”  Involvement of the gun lobby in promoting suicide prevention shows responsibility and maturity in addressing this issue.  Both NRA and SAF will have representatives on the committee formed.  No anti-gun organizations are included.  On the other hand, HB 2603 is another attempt to blame the gun for the misuse of guns by certain individuals.

BILL STATUS:

The Emperor's Speech

So, I looked at the transcript of His Imperial Majesty, Barack Hussein Obama's speech.

For anyone else who couldn't be bothered to tune in his blather -- unless they were waiting to see if he was going to pull a Heidi on Sunday Night Football -- I herewith provide the TL;DR version:

1. We shall continue our current, highly successful strategy in the war on terror.
2. The No Fly List we all hated 10 years ago for it's secretive nature and lack of due process would be just dandy if we added "can't lawfully own a gun" to "can't take a commercial flight."
3. If Congress doesn't act to restrict the right of law-abiding Americans to own certain guns we think are icky then they're a bunch of poopy-heads.

GOAL Post 2015-4

Joe has sent out this week's GOAL Post, below. As before, I've added links to bill pages where the bills are discussed in text. Another change I made to formatting was to add the GOAL Position on bills to the line in the chart with the bill info, rather than separately This necessitates using tiny print, but shortens the overall post. Joe tried this last year and I thought it improved readability. I'll go back to the old way if anyone wants, or, especially, if Joe objects to my editing his dispatch. (Does this constitute textual modification?)

***

FROM: GOAL <goalwa@cox.net>

TO: undisclosed-recipients

SENT: Sun 2/1/2015 8:09 PM

SUBJECT: GOAL Post 2015-4

Legislative Update from Olympia 30 January 2015

(Late distribution due to the fact I was attending the annual meeting of the Florida Sport Shooting Association at the Manatee Gun Club in Myakka City, FL.  Hopefully back on schedule this coming Friday.)

• EIGHT MORE GUN BILLS FILE
• MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED
• 37 INITIATIVES FILED -- NO GUNS

 Eight new gun bills were filed this past week.  HB 1713 (Cody, D-34) would allow the courts to take guns from those determined to be at high risk, a much lower standard than currently exists.  HB 1722 (Hayes, R-10) clarifies short-barreled rifle provisions.  HB 1747 (Kagi, D-32) is attempt #11 since 1997 to pass a bill that allegedly does not mandate "lock up your guns," but criminalizes you if you don't and a child gains access.  This version is broader that previous versions which only applied to LOADED firearms; this one includes ALL firearms.  HB 1857 (Jinkins, D-27) allows family members and others to petition a court to confiscate firearms from those deemed an "extreme risk."  HB 1886 (Hunt, R-2) would repeal I-594 in its entirety IF passed by a popular referendum.

SB 5643 (O'Ban, R-28) allows seizure of firearms from those deemed at risk because of mental health issues; again, this lowers the standard for disarmament.  SB 5658 (Dansel, R-6) clarifies reporting requirements regarding commitment of individuals for mental health.  SB 5727 (Frockt, D-46) is the Senate version of HB 1857.  

28 firearm or firearm-related bills filed so far, and we're only three weeks -- 21 days -- into the session!

Public hearings were conducted this past week on HB 1131 (possession of ivory), SB 5241 (possession of ivory) and SB 5500 (retired LEO carry on school campus).  Links to the TVWashington video coverage of these bills may be found at the bottom of each bill page.  A green-boxed link at the top of each page allows readers to submit comments on a bill.

Only two public hearings are scheduled for this week:  HB 1713 in House Judiciary on 3 February and SB 5658 in Senate Law & Justice on 5 February.  Details below.  

To date, 37 initiatives have been filed with the Secretary of State, all Initiatives to the People.  At this point, NONE deal with firearms.  Most are tax-related or deal with marijuana.

BILL STATUS:

594 seems to be passing. What now?

So, at the time I type this (0150-ish, the morning of Wednesday 11/05) it would appear that Washington State Ballot Initiative 594 is passing.  There are still ballots to be counted, it's possible that it might be defeated, but it's not looking good.

So, what now?

Well, based on a variety of things, including conversations I had with people prior to election day and observations about How These Things Work, I expect that by the end of the week an injunction will be filed to prevent this pile of excrement to be implemented, pending court hearings.

Suit will be filed to get it tossed out based on, among other things, unconstitutionally vague language, lacking definitions, unfunded mandates, ad regulatory overreach. It's not like no one in this state knows a lawyer or two who have an established track record when it comes to court challenges of gun rights.

Notwithstanding, the 1%'ers behind this piece of crap will move forward with similar schemes in other states.  "I-594, coming soon to a state near you!"

It would not surprise me if the state legislature refuses to implement this; there is precedence for them to ignore the results of initiatives.

The left, led by their 1%'er Sugar Daddies will be crowing about the defeat of the NRA. Never mind that the NRA has elections in 50 states plus territories to deal with, and resources that are far from infinite. Any victory for gun control is a defeat for the NRA.

And, of course, all the whiners will come out of the woodwork blaming the NRA for this. Because the only people who are more certain of the NRA's power to influence the vote than the left-wing lunatic fringe is a bunch of gun nuts who are looking for a scapegoat. I swear sometimes if "Threepers" put half the energy into getting the vote out, or trying to influence their congresscritters that they do into masturbating to their rebellion fantasies while chanting "Shall Not Be Infringed!", we'd be debating whether sales taxes on guns and ammo are unconstitutional.

Yes, I'm disappointed that the NRA was late to the party. I certainly don't believe that NRA's strategies are bound to be 100% effective.  And I haven't heard anything from Gun Owners of America (GOA) on this, or the National Association to Raise Money from Gun Owners for Gun rights, and little from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Who, by the way, were pretty much silent when the left attacked NRA Rep Brian Judy for pointing out how Weimar and Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust.)

 I also know that Adina Hicks and Keely Hopkins, NRA WA Grassroots coordinators, were working themselves to death travelling and organizing.  Plus, there have been other issues in the past where no one knew the NRA was doing anything until after the dust settled and it became obvious that "strategery" had been in play.

So, yeah, not happy here.  But, being an INTJ, I am fully capable of the apparently contradictory cynical optimism (or optimistic cynicism, if you prefer) that is characteristic of that "type", and fully believe that we will win this.

Eventually. 

But we must stay the course, not get discouraged, and not engage in internal bickering about who did (or didn't) do what.

QOTD, 04/09/2014

John Stockley, in a thread on Tom Kratman's timeline about this story, on Facebook:

I have to keep readjusting my idea of worst case scenario with Obama. I'm down to, "he's unlikely to return Alaska to the Russian Federation without at least asking for the return Seward's original payment."

"Not Yours To GIve" -- The Video

I've posted the tesxt before, here's a video version!

Seen on Pistol-Forums.com.

Dear Guns and Ammo magazine

I have two words for you:

• Zumbo 
• Recoil

Now fix it, or piss off.

"On Profiling and Stand Your Ground"

On Profiling and Stand Your Ground | Monster Hunter Nation

In Which Larry Correia lays down the facts, and fisks the FREAKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!

Long overdue.

Awesome.

Further Militia Thoughts

Back in 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed an ordinance that is rather famous, or infamous, depending on where you stand on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Recently, another Georgia town, Nelson, is said to be contemplating a similar law; as I understand it, Nelson has one police officer who works days, and despite the fact that it is in a pretty rural area where just about everyone is armed anyway, some city officials feel that they had best grab the bull by the horns.

The Gun Rights Movement being the monolithic pawn of the National Rifle Association it is, every knuckle dragging, bitterly clinging redneck in the country is cheering them on, right?

Ha!

Would Mandatory Gun Ownership Laws Violate Citizens’ Constitutional Rights? | Video | TheBlaze.com

This tack has been taken on many internet fora, on each of which there is sure to be at least one hand-wringer bemoaning the lack of willingness to compromise away our Constitutional rights; the thing is, on this topic -- mandatory firearms ownership, that is -- the people refusing to compromise are just as likely to regard such measures to be an infringement of people's rights as the compromisers.

In response I usually point to clause (b) of the Kennesaw ordinance above, which does, after all, exempt someone who just doesn't want a gun in their house, but Professor Reynolds has also answered the question WOULD MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP violate citizens’ constitutional rights?

No, because it’s an exercise of Congress’s power to arm the militia under Article I, section 8. In fact, the Militia Act of 1792 required adult males to own guns and ammunition.

{Edited when I finally didn't have a cat trying to sit on the keyboard to correct the effects of same.}

Are the Black Helicopter guys hiring?

DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones | Politics and Law - CNET News

Homeland Security's specifications say drones must be able to detect whether a civilian is armed. Also specified: "signals interception" and "direction finding" for electronic surveillance.

So maybe there's a market for my SIGINT geek skills after all...

HR 431

I don't see this one listed in my original post of January 16th, Gun Bills in the House of Representatives of the United States

 Full Text of H.R. 431: Gun Transparency and Accountability (Gun TRAC) Act of 2013 - GovTrack.us

A BILL

To restore certain authorities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to administer the firearms laws, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Gun Transparency and Accountability (Gun TRAC) Act of 2013’.

SEC. 2. USE OF FIREARM TRACE INFORMATION IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shall not be immune from legal process, shall be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be admissible as evidence, and may be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, and testimony or other evidence may be permitted based on the data, on the same basis as other information, in a civil action in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in an administrative proceeding.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO PRESERVE INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK RECORDS FOR 90 DAYS.

    (a) In General- Section 922(t)(2)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘after the 90-day period that begins with the date the system complies with subparagraphs (A) and (B),’ before ‘destroy’.

    (b) Conforming Amendment- Section 511 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (18 U.S.C. 922 note; Public Law 112-55; 125 Stat. 632) is amended--

        (1) by striking ‘for--’ and all that follows through ‘(1)’; and

        (2) by striking the semicolon and all that follows and inserting a period.

SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON IMPOSITION OF REQUIREMENT THAT FIREARMS DEALERS TO CONDUCT PHYSICAL CHECK OF FIREARMS INVENTORY.

    The matter under the heading ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives--Salaries and Expenses’ in title I of division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (18 U.S.C. 923 note; Public Law 112-55; 125 Stat. 609-610) is amended by striking the 7th proviso.

SEC. 5. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FIREARM LICENSEE INVENTORY REPORTING ORDER.

    Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

        ‘(8) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection, a person licensed under this chapter who willfully violates an inventory reporting order issued under section 923(g)(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.’.

SEC. 6. INELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE OF PERSON WHOSE FIREARMS LICENSE HAS BEEN REVOKED.

    Section 923(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the 1st sentence the following: ‘The Attorney General may not accept such an application from a person whose license issued under this chapter has been revoked.’.

I find sections 2 and 3 to be particularly problematic. I need more details before forming an opinion on section 4, and sections 5 and 6 sound reasonable, but I find any suggestion of giving the ATFEIEIO more authority to be suspect.

If you look any of these bills up, you'll notice that they are only co-sponsored by Democrats...

Well, here it is

Feinswine's new and  improved "assault weapons" ban, straight from the fascist's mouth, er, web site.

Not introduced yet, so no bill number on .gov track, Thomas, etc.  .Pdf summary here

Grr -- Update

Both Daily Pundit and Emergency Preps seem to be off line.

I notice that the URL I get redirected to has the phrases "suspended page" and "disabled" in it.

Guessing some Bill got some libtard pissed off enough to whine; perhaps Bue Host is run by a bunch of O-Bots.

Remember:  Progressives do care about Constitutional Rights--for themselves.  Disagreeing with them is racist.

Back up now.

More on The Outage, plus some thought on same: Thank You