“The Powerful Understand the Need to Be Protected”

Dan Bongino is a former Secret Service agent who served Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. NRA TV just released a very interesting short video with him talking about protecting these men and other high and mighties.

As he says:

“What’s fascinating about Chicago is, when you get these dignitaries, these VIPs, these Hollywood types, these mayors, senators, congressmen, local alderman, city council folks, they all have armed guards. They’re good. Don’t you worry. Those tools of protection are there for them. But the citizens? They all get thrown to the wolves.”

Yep. You are responsible for protecting yourself.

Which is more dangerous?

There is a movement among some politicians to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16. Some municipalities have actually done this. I even read an editorial from a University of Kentucky law professor stating that students from Parkland High School show why this is a good idea. It doesn’t matter that this students are being scripted, used as props, and are coached what to say.

In a free society, I think having immature, easily swayed young minds pull the voting lever is a recipe for disaster. As Michael Bane said the other day, think Lord of the Flies.

Yet these same politicians and pundits want to raise the age at which one can purchase any long arm to 21 years old.

You tell me which is more dangerous.

I know what I think.

These Two Democrat Attorney Generals Are Hypocrites

At the instigation of NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D-NY), a number of attorneys general, all Democrats, have signed on to a letter opposing national carry reciprocity. They specifically oppose HR 38 sponsored by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and S. 446 introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).

Schneiderman is joined in the letter by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina and the District of Columbia.

The full letter can be found here.

Here are some pertinent excerpts from the letter:

Each of our States allows concealed carry—as do all 50 states—but with
carefully considered and long-standing substantive and procedural protections
designed to address public safety concerns in our localities. Under the legislation,
our residents would lose the protections that their legislators and law enforcement
agencies have deemed appropriate, in favor of rules made by States legislating for
very different local conditions. Rather than creating a new national standard for who
may carry concealed firearms, these bills would elevate the lowest state standard
over higher ones and force some States to allow concealed carry by people who do not
qualify under their laws.
This forced acceptance of the most permissive standards
would also affect determinations about the proper level of safety training necessary
to justify concealed carry and the criteria governing whether a person is too
dangerous to carry a gun in a crowded place.

 It goes on to misconstrue the limitations that would be put in place by HR 38:

The result of the proposed legislation would be a proliferation of potentially
dangerous or irresponsible non-residents with concealed weapons in the States, cities,
and towns across America that have made local judgments that certain regulations
on the carrying of such weapons are necessary to protect public safety. Furthermore,
the House bill would override some state laws that prohibit carrying concealed
weapons in bars, schools, shopping malls, movie theatres, subways, or parks.
States
would not be able to enforce those restrictions; nor would local law enforcement
officers reacting to specific risks to the public in such locations, which have tragically
been the site of mass shootings in recent years.

 The text of HR 38 specifically says that state laws governing carry and posting of private property as well as the posting of state or local government properties including parks will not be superseded by this bill. In other words, these attorneys general have stated a bald face lie.

Now to the hypocritical part. Both the commonwealth of Virginia and the state of North Carolina recognize permits from all other states. The law in Virginia was changed when Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) joined with Republicans in passing HB 1163/SB 610. This was considered a rebuke of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D-VA) who unilaterally revoked reciprocity agreements with 25 states. Herring was the beneficiary of almost $1.3 million from Bloomberg’s Independence USA PAC.

Likewise, the state of North Carolina’s law were changed effective December 1, 2011 to recognize unilaterally all permits issued by any state. North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein (D-NC) ought to be aware of this because his own Department of Justice has a webpage devoted to this. While to the best of my knowledge, Josh Stein didn’t receive money directly from Michael Bloomberg, the North Carolina Democratic Party did received $250,000 from him in 2016.

Mark Herring and Josh Stein are out and out hypocrites. They want to deny a right to the rest of America that the visitors to their own states enjoy. Citizens of Virginia have a chance to get rid of Herring this fall but we in the Tar Heel State have to wait another three years before we are rid of anti-gun Josh Stein.

Wasn’t Brad Pitt Supposed To Be “Good” On Guns?

There is a myth going around that Brad Pitt is “good” on guns. He and Angelina Jolie own guns for self-protection.

Pitt tells British magazine Live, “I absolutely don’t believe you can put sanctions or shackles on what is made. Nor do I want to pretend the world is different than what we witnessed that night…

“America is a country founded on guns. It’s in our DNA. It’s very strange but I feel better having a gun. I really do. I don’t feel safe, I don’t feel the house is completely safe, if I don’t have one hidden somewhere. That’s my thinking, right or wrong.

Given this, I was a bit surprised and disgusted when I received an email from the Brady Campaign announcing that Brad Pitt and some guy I’ve heard of were inviting me to the 2016 Brady Bear Awards Gala to be held in Los Angeles.

Dear (fill in the blank),

Co-Chairs Adam McKay and Brad Pitt invite you to join us in saying #ENOUGH to gun violence. If you are near Los Angeles, join us for the 2016 Los Angeles Brady Bear Awards Gala on May 4th. We will gather with supporters, advocates and celebrities for an inspiring evening honoring co-president of Plan B Productions, Dede Gardner, and philanthropist and technology entrepreneur David Bohnett. Limited tickets and tables are available for purchase today.

If you can’t be with us in person, join all of us in saying #ENOUGH with your special donation or by placing a tribute ad honoring an advocate, community leader, or victim of gun violence in our digital journal that will be displayed at the event.

Ticket prices for this gala start at $500.

Brad Pitt – just another Hollywood hypocrite on guns.

Tone Deaf Politicians

If there is one thing that this political season has shown is that people are sick and tired of business as usual. How else do you explain the rise of a reality-TV star and billionaire businessman on the Republican side and an obscure, not even elected as a Democrat, self-avowed socialist on the Democratic side of the ticket. Both Trump and Sanders would be long gone in years gone by.

In the midst of all of this comes a proposal from New Jersey State Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen, Passaic) that would allow legislators and municipal and superior court judges to obtain carry permits to protect themselves. Nevermind that it takes an Act of God and then some for ordinary New Jerseyans to get carry permits or even a pistol purchase permit. Witness the death of Carol Bowne who was still waiting for her permit when her stalker killed her.

From the Bergen Dispatch:

Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen, Passaic) introduced a bill that would allow legislators, as well as judges at the superior and municipal court levels, to obtain permits to carry handguns provided they complete at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

“Judges and legislators face a greater risk of falling victim to violent attacks, simply because of their easily identifiable position in public life,” Senator Cardinale said. “This measure will ensure that public servants have the means to protect themselves from those who might violently disagree with their viewpoints or decisions. A judge should feel safe returning home each night no matter how they ruled or what they ruled on that day.”

The bill (S-1982) was inspired by attacks, such as the 2011 shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Giffords was shot in an assassination attempt during a meeting with constituents at an Arizona supermarket. More recently, a Texas judge was wounded in a shooting outside of her home in Austin.

Judges and legislators would be exempt from New Jersey’s requirement to show “justifiable need”. They would merely have to show that they took an 8-hour class.

Alexander Roubian of the NJ Second Amendment Society is correct when he calls Cardinale’s proposal completely hypocritical.

Judges and politicians are generally well-guarded by security and they have easy access to police, Roubian noted. And, he argued, they’re already more likely than average citizens to pass the “justifiable need” test because they’re friends with the judges who issue the permits.


“Basically, this is a clear-cut example of how New Jersey operates as a fiefdom. The politicians’ and the judges’ lives, they truly believe, are more valuable than those of average citizens like you and I,” Roubian said.

I would add that Sen. Cardinale, in this of all years, just doesn’t get it. Given that he has been in one house or the other of the New Jersey legislature since 1980, maybe it is time for the 82-year old dentist to go home.

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.