That’s Senator Insurrectionist Thug To You!

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

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

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

They illustrated their little macroaggression with this microaggressive picture.

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

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

There is a name for people like that:  hypocrites.

Her Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

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

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

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

That is the height of hypocrisy.

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

Priceless!

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

California Attorney General’s Statement Regarding Peruta Appeal

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Unloaded firearms are useless and not tactically-appropriate for self-defense;


  • Modern semi-automatic firearms provide significant upside to those who are forced to use them for self-defense; and

  • Magazines having a capacity greater than ten (10) rounds — “large-capacity” in government elitist-speak — offer such material benefit that they are specified for City employees and provided to them at taxpayer expense.

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

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

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

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

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

That is truly snarky….and I love it!

Marty Daniels – “Maybe I Should Throw The Challenge Flag”

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

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

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

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

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

About That Arms Trade Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
 
Dear Friend,
 
Do you want a person sitting next to you and your family in a restaurant to be drinking and handling a firearm?
 
I believe most people would agree the
common sense answer to that question is ‘no,’ but common sense was the
last thing on House Republicans’ minds last night when they pushed
through House Bill 937.  This bill will allow guns in bars and concealed
weapons on university and community college campuses.  Republicans
loosened our gun laws and endangered public safety.  Stand with the
House Democrats on gun legislation today by contributing $50, $25, $10
$5 or whatever you can afford.
 
While Republicans tout the Second
Amendment as justification for this bill, we know it is not a Second
Amendment bill but rather a policy issue.  I am not anti-gun and I am
not anti-Second Amendment.  I grew up with firearms and I own firearms,
but I know that alcohol and firearms don’t mix just as alcohol and
driving don’t mix.  
 
House Democrats tried to speak up for the
majority of our state and offer common sense gun safety legislation.
 We offered five amendments to the bill that would require background
checks for firearms at gun shows, disallow firearms on our college
campuses and strengthen the penalties for carrying a firearm while
consuming alcohol.  
 
Republicans voted in lockstep five
different times to have our common sense amendments lie upon the table,
cutting them off without debate.  This was nothing more than a cheap,
procedural trick on the part of House Republicans, but tricks will not
save their members from taking a position on these issues.  Their votes
last night made their positions clear and put them on the record.  House
Democrats will hold them responsible for those votes.  Help us show the
House Republicans that voters are smart enough to see through
procedural tricks by contributing $50, $25, $10, $5 or whatever you can
afford today. 
 
As my colleague Rep. Deborah Ross pointed
out last night, “This is not something that makes our state a better
place.”   While our efforts were foiled yesterday, we will continue to
hold Republicans accountable for their actions and stand up for
legislation that best represents the hard-working citizens of this
state.
 
Sincerely,
Representative Darren Jackson

A Load Of Bovine Excrement

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

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

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

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