Bumpstock Ban, Part II

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

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

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

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

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

Bumpstock Ban, Part I

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

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

Acting Attorney General Whitaker made the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

What does all of this mean?

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

Giffords Christmas Wish List

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

No More Rights Watch Column At Guns Magazine?

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

From David’s blog War On Guns:

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

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

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

Government Still Doesn’t Want To Discuss Fast And Furious

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Warren Is More Native American Than I Am

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

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

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

“Murphy Mags” And How To Avoid Arrest In New Jersey

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

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

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

Action Items:

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

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

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

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

Sanctimonious Enviromentalism

I am all for conservation and the wise use of resources. I turn off the lights when I leave a room, I repair my leaky faucets, I reuse cardboard boxes or give them to small businesses who can, and I try to recycle most of the junk mail that comes into our house. That said, I don’t wear this on my sleeve as some environmental badge of honor. It is just part of my frugal nature given I was raised by parents who came of age during the Great Depression.

That is probably why the sanctimony of the owner of a Chevy Volt electric car with this license plate ticked me off.

That car is no more solar powered than my Honda Pilot. Electric cars like the Volt depend upon power generation plants that are powered primarily by fossil fuels. In our region, Duke Energy is the electric utility providing power. Other than a few hydro plants with minimal megawatt capacity (most in the single digit megawatt capacity), power is supplied by coal fired plants in Asheville and Cliffside. The Asheville plant is converting to natural gas but that still is a fossil fuel. The coal ash remnants are a sore spot for Duke Energy and have been a source of fodder for Democrat politicians.

Your car may put out no exhaust but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t pollute. The moment you hook that Chevy Volt up to an electrical outlet, you are entering a pollution creating system. I’m not going to even get into a discussion of the heavy metals in the batteries in that car nor the power that was used in its manufacture of the Volt.

UPDATE: Thanks to the comment from BAP45, I found this clip from South Park’s Smug Alert episode. It was from Season 10, Episode 2. I haven’t watched South Park in years and had forgotten how wonderfully subversive it was.