Month: December 2018

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

December 31, 2018 by

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

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

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

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

That about sums it up. 

Uncategorized

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

December 27, 2018 by 3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

Bumpstock Ban, Part III (Updated)

December 27, 2018 by 1 Comment

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

From the plaintiffs release:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full 37-page complaint is here.

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

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

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

Uncategorized

Linton V. Becerra – Another Second Amendment Lawsuit Against California

December 23, 2018 by 4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

NC Wildlife Resources Commission Warns About CWD

December 22, 2018 by 1 Comment

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

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

RALEIGH, N.C. (Dec. 17, 2018) — With the preliminary detection of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in white-tailed deer in western Tennessee, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reminds deer hunters of a new rule that prohibits the importation of whole deer carcasses and restricts the importation of specific carcass parts from anywhere outside of North Carolina.
The new rule, which was implemented for the 2018-19 deer hunting season, is an effort on the Commission’s part to prevent the spread of CWD into the state. CWD is a transmissible, always fatal, neurological disease that affects deer and other cervids such as elk, moose and reindeer/caribou.
The rule states that anyone transporting cervid carcass parts into North Carolina must follow processing and packaging regulations, which only allow the importation of:
  • Meat that has been boned out such that no pieces or fragments of bone remain;
  • Caped hides with no part of the skull or spinal column attached;
  • Antlers, antlers attached to cleaned skull plates, or cleaned skulls free from meat, or brain tissue;
  • Cleaned lower jawbone(s) with teeth or cleaned teeth; or
  • Finished taxidermy products and tanned hides.
Additionally, all carcass part(s) or container of cervid meat or carcass parts must be labeled or identified with the:
  • Name and address of individual importing carcass parts;
  • State, Canadian province, or foreign country of origin;
  • Date the cervid was killed; and
  • Hunter’s license number, permit number, or equivalent identification from the state, Canadian province, or foreign country of origin.
These new restrictions aim to prevent the infectious agent of CWD from contaminating new environments by way of disposal of carcass tissues, particularly those of the brain and spine, as CWD contaminants can persist in the soil for years.
On Friday, officials with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) announced they were enacting their Chronic Wasting Disease Response Plan, following the preliminary positive detections of CWD in white-tailed deer in Hardeman and Fayette counties, which border the Mississippi state line. TWRA biologists are testing additional deer and are trying to contact the hunters who harvested the infected deer.
Out of concern for the serious effects CWD could have on North Carolina’s deer herd, the Commission developed a Chronic Wasting Disease Response Plan in 2002, with subsequent revisions over the years to respond to the disease’s ever-growing spread. The plan identifies and guides the agency’s initial short-term (approximately one year) efforts if CWD is detected in the state’s deer herd, or if CWD is detected in deer within 30 miles of its borders. Agency biologists also conduct statewide sampling of deer every year and attempt to sample all deer that show signs of the disease or die of unknown causes.
With Tennessee’s preliminary detection of CWD within its borders, two states bordering North Carolina will have CWD in their deer herds. In Virginia, Shenandoah and Frederick counties, which border West Virginia, have confirmed cases of CWD.
About Chronic Wasting Disease
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) disease in deer, elk, moose and reindeer/caribou and is always fatal. The source of the disease is an abnormal prion (a form of protein) that collects in the animal’s brain cells. These brain cells eventually burst, leaving behind microscopic empty spaces in the brain matter that give it a “spongy” look. As this occurs, it often causes behavior changes such as decreased interactions with other animals, listlessness, lowering of the head, a blank facial expression, and walking in set patterns.
CWD has no known impacts to the health of humans or livestock. However, the Commission recommends people do NOT eat:
  • Meat from a deer that looks sick
  • Any of the following organs: brain, eyes, spinal cord, spleen, tonsils and lymph nodes*
  • Any meat from an animal that tests positive for the disease
*Normal field dressing coupled with boning out a carcass will remove most (if not all) of these body parts. Cutting away all fatty tissue will remove remaining lymph nodes.

Uncategorized

Sam Cooke Must Have Been Singing About This Guy

December 22, 2018 by

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

She’s Right You Know

December 21, 2018 by 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

This NPR Poll Shows Hope For America

December 21, 2018 by

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

You can listen to the story below:

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

Uncategorized

Yes, Thank You Moms Demand Action In NC

December 20, 2018 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

December 20, 2018 by

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

She really is a product of what colleges have become.

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