Bump Stocks Commentary

"What we've here ... is FAILURE ... to COMMUNICATE."

SayUncle: A year after Vegas shooting, ATF emails reveal blame, alarm over bump stocks. ATF stated they were suddenly thrown into the political by NRA, who pointed out they were ATF approved. 

What began as a "National Tragedy" has evolved into finger-pointing and a search for someone to blame for the insanity of one man.

Did I say "someone"?

Anyone! 

(Anyone except for the demented mass murderer who used a loophole in the law to arm himself for what is for all intents and purposes a "loophole" in the law.)

The hammer is going to fall on the ATF, and maybe that's legitimate; but maybe it's not.

Speaking of hammers, I'm pretty sure I'll get hammered for what I'm about to say:

Because of the Las Vegas Massacre, the ATF will eventually be mandated to severely regulate every accessory and replacement part to your firearms   (starting with firing pins, which will be required to "stamp" a serial number on the primer or base of your ammunition)  ... new rules, regulations and laws. 

Your access to replacement parts will be subject to federal oversight; including a firing pin (needs a serial number!), a trigger shoe, or adjustment to effect a lighter trigger pull. 

A "Normal Capacity Magazine" will be legally restricted by the Federal Government.

Your 12-gauge shotgun could be registered as a "hand cannon" because it is capable of shooting slugs (which are the only gun currently legal for deer hunting in some states) and may be designated a "Hand Cannon".   (Okay, I'm making that up. )

I'm not even going to try to address the possibility that you can't replace or modify the stock on your rifle with a "custom made" stock; that, too, will be serialized.

Why? Because the national hysteria about guns makes your deer gun a sniper rifle; your 12 gauge Quail Gun is an instrument of Mass Murder, and your WWI 1911 pistol will be illegal because it can accept a magazine of more then (5, 6, 8, or ten round) capacity.

This will result in arcane rules which make no sense to the Common Man, make it more expensive to own a firearm, and the government will become even more intrusive in your day-to-day life as a firearms owner.

Count on it.   Today, Government is not here to help you, but to turn you into a nameless plebe with even more limited rights.

California Prop 65

More California Scheming?

Due to California laws, products sold in that state need to meet "product safety regulations" ... even if those laws don't logically apply to that product.

Bond Arms Firearms Cause CANCER... According to California Prop 65 - The Firearm Blog:

 After August 30th, Bond Arms products will NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE (including guns, barrels, holsters, accessories, apparel, etc.) in the state of California due to Prop 65, which makes all manufacturers label products that could have a chemical that could cause cancer or birth defects, even though it won’t.

(link added)

As a blogger, I'm beginning to LOVE California!   Their laws and regulations are quite as nonsensical and inane as are those of New Jersey!

Oh ... and "Bizarre", too!

    Comparing California and New Jersey;

California has the most lawyers of any state in the union; New Jersey has the most toxic landfills.    Why?

 New Jersey won the coin toss.

The problem with "Gun Control"

Well, "Gun Control" isn't working for the UK.

Why Is London Imposing ‘Knife Control’? Because Gun Control Hasn’t Worked:  April 13, 2018

The United Kingdom has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world, so the increased murder rate in the British capital is largely a result of a sharp rise in knife-related crime. The surge in violence prompted London Mayor Sadiq Khan to announce a massive “knife control” campaign eerily reminiscent of those sometimes proffered in the United States in response to firearms-related violence. The knife control measures will include the deployment of 300 additional London police officers to conduct “stop and frisk” searches of individuals suspected of knife-carrying, a policing tactic once roundly condemned by Khan.

So they decided to impose "Knife Control"  How's that working for you, after four months??

Friday 17 Aug 2018 6:31 am

https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/17/four-children-stabbed-south-london-one-boy-disembowelled-7850208/

A boy is fighting for his life after he was allegedly disembowelled when he was stabbed on a south London housing estate. He was one of four children who were taken to hospitals in south London following the incident at Landor House, Camberwell yesterday. All the boys are aged between 15 and 16 years old and six attackers of the same age have been taken into custody.

No information is immediately available about the 'six attackers of the same age".

In theory, the 1689 English Bill of Rights protects the right of individual British subjects to possess arms for purposes of self-defense. In reality, modern Britons have had this right completely stripped from them, to the point where they may be reprimanded for using kitchen knives against home intruders.

The Brits have the same myopic vision as do the politicians in America.

Their politicians continue to convince themselves of the same imaginary solutions as do politicians here in America.  They think they can control "violence" by controlling the instruments of violence.

They know they can't stop shootings and stabbings by passing laws, but that's all they have ... apart from completely disrupting the root causes of violence;which is a societal problem, not a legal one.

There are no laws which the Brits ... or the Americans ... can pass which will definitively 'solve' the problem of gun/knife violence.    They and we will have to completely reform our societies, and as long as we continue to embrace the acceptance of immigrants from 'other societies', nothing will change.

But the cat is out of the cradle, the monster is out of the closet, and no amount of legislation will ever put them back into the box.

Unless you put them all into a cell and keep them there forever; or initiate even more draconian solutions, such as public executions.   Which I would not watch, nor anyone in a "civilized" society.

To paraphrase "The Sound of Music":   How do you solve a problem like Sharia?
.

When the guns come out

Worth the read.   American Shooting Journal dot com

Gunfights that Changed LE Tactics: The following are compilation of Police Mag interviews with LEO trainers, firearms experts, and tactical instructors to assess the lasting impacts of these events on patrol officers. As noted by Massad Ayoob, former director of Lethal Force Institute, in addition to horrific circumstances, these incidents contain plenty of bravery by law enforcement officers. “One thing you take from all of these is the tremendous courage of cops fighting against the odds, for their brothers and for the public they serve,” Ayoob says. “It’s inspiring.”

Michigan State student steals identities to buy weapons parts,...

I'm not sure about the question of "full-automatic weapons", but I'm certain that identity theft is not the best way to support your political agenda:

Michigan State student steals identities to buy weapons parts,...: EAST LANSING, Mich. - A Michigan State engineering student is heading to prison after officials said he became an identity thief to buy weapons parts and create illegal machine guns.

However, we are assured of his devotion to the truth when he vows to go straignt:

Elliott said he will never touch a gun or steal from anyone ever again.

Right.

California DOJ BLINKS!

This is our "Once a Year Day"!

California yields to the simple logic that what they require is incapable of enforcement.

California DOJ Withdraws Regulation Requiring Registration of ‘Assault Weapons’ | The Daily Caller: The California Department of Justice withdrew a regulation Wednesday evening requiring California firearm owners to register so-called “assault weapons” following a lawsuit filed by a group of gun rights advocacy organizations

California politicians have established a "need" for an exceedingly complicated and expensive legal path toward compliance.   Except they have not the laws to enforce the law.   Which makes the entire exercise merely an amateurish attempt to frighten legal gun-owners by the imposition of penalties which do not exist in law.

As usual, the Liberal Gun-Grabbers had not the foresight to do their homework. 

(As teenagers, did their mothers make them do their homework before watching television?   Apparently, not!   That's once more difference between the Common People and The Anointed.)

FedEx v NRA Pricing Program Inclusion

FedEx has released a statement in reference to  doing business with the NRA.   *See below for text*

(Note: Hogg Grunts not addressed here.)

While FedEx "distances" itself from the NRA it continues to offer discounts for "american small businesses and consumers".

Apparently, the NRA falls within their business aperture.

It's impossible to criticize their determination to "...  protect schools and students from incidents such as the horrific tragedy in Florida on February 14th".   

In fact, nobody could ask more, or expect less, from a concerned business in America.

So while Fed-Ex isn't about to offer direct support to the goals and activities of the NRA (firearms safety training, safe gun handling, protection of the Second Amendment),  it is encouraging that FedEx hasn't been intimidated by anti-gun fanatics who would undermine our constitutional rights ... and paint law-abiding, safe firearms owners with the same brush of felons, fanatics and murderers.

Speaking as an individual safe firearm owner who has been hunting, plinking, competing for 60 years (as well as serving as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant in Viet Nam during 1969-1970), I applaud Fed-Ex not only for their rational, measured response, but also for not joining the clan of corporations which would tarnish my service by conflating me with illegal, irresponsible firearms users.

I have a couple of Competition Pistols which I have been planning to send to the manufacturer for Level 3 Maintenance and Repair; I believe I'll send them via Fed-Ex rather than "those other guys", and request return vie Fed-Ex as well.

Perhaps others of my friends and co-competitors will Take A Clue and be more particular about specifying Fed-Ex for their shipping needs, as well.

Firearms Owners need to support those agencies who support our sport.   It's not about the money; it's about the support.

Gun control activist David Hogg hints at Memphis protest versus FedEx:

* FedEx released a statement late Wednesday that didn't mention Hogg and repeated several points the company had made earlier this year during an earlier dispute over its discount program for NRA members. "The pricing program mentioned in some reports is not for the NRA itself – it is for American small businesses and consumers that are members of the association," the company said. The company also repeated earlier statements distancing itself from the NRA's positions: "FedEx opposes assault rifles being in the hands of civilians . . .-Most important, FedEx believes urgent action is required at the local, state, and Federal level to protect schools and students from incidents such as the horrific tragedy in Florida on February 14th." *

And yes, even those firearms which you consider to be "Assault Rifles" need maintenance.  My firearms are used for self-defense, competition and for putting meat on my table, not for hurting people.

.380 Pistol Banned in Ohio: Mouse Gun Is an "Assault Weapon"

Ohio Politicians are as ignorant as Oregon Politicians (and that's saying something), when it comes to "Gun Control Laws".
 
Under the bill, an “assault weapon” is an automatic firearm or semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges and a semi-automatic firearm with a fixed magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges. 

This is why firearms owners hold politicians in such scorn disdain;
Elected officials feel the need to "do something" about the gun control problem, and anything they propose is either illogical, impossible, or inane.

Take  Kel-Tec .380 semi-automatic pistol.  It is "magazine fed", and so by the bill proposed in Ohio it is would be legally defined an "Assault Weapon"!

I don't believe that anyone currently offers for sale a 10-round magazine for the P3AT, but the standard 6-round magazine may be replaced by a 7-round magazine ... which IS currently available.   And who cares?  It's a freaking Belly Gun, inadequate even for self-defense at distances over, say ... six inches?

And it doesn't matter whether a 10-round magazine is available for the Kel-Tec.   Under the proposed Ohio bill, the gun is capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges 

  Which means that if the bill is enacted, the Mouse Gun is now an Assault Weapon.

NRA Blunder?

Bloomberg was all over last weekend's anti-gun march, featuring a plethora of teenagers who were mad as heck and are just not going to take it any more.    And for lack of any other organization devoted to protecting our Constitutional Rights, they (both the marchers and Bloomberg) dumped a smelly load all over the NRA.

NRA Created the March for Our Lives That Now Threatens It - Bloomberg:

... The marches against gun violence would not have been as big without the undercurrent of rage that liberals, Democrats, good-government activists, racial minorities, ethical conservatives and others carry through daily life under President Donald Trump’s regime. And they wouldn’t have been as big without the cathartic breakthroughs of #MeToo and the Women’s March that preceded them.

(At a guess, an "ethical conservative" is a RINO.)

I was rather impressed with the determination of these young people to take on the 500 pound gorilla  (the National Rifle Association) in the room.   And even more impressed by the liberal adults who used them like a rented mule to further the Liberal Agenda.






It would have been more impressive if the marchers actually knew what an "assault weapon" was :   (H/T: MasterClass)


The reporter embarrassed a lot of teens when he asked them what an "Assault Weapon" is.

He should have asked them to define "Roofie".

They know what that is.

So tell me something I DON'T know!

NJ assemblyman wants to limit ammunition capacity: TRENTON  (January 31, 2018)-

A New Jersey assemblyman says that he wants to limit the amount of ammunition a firearm can hold in the state. Democratic Assemblyman Lou Greenwald reintroduced legislation would limit the amount of ammunition a magazine could hold from 15 rounds to 10. The bill also designates a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds as a prohibited assault firearm. Greenwald says that his plan will save lives.

I think that there exists in the word processors of New Jersey reporters a form which they can fill out to announce this same message ... every week.

All they have to do us fill in the blanks:

A New Jersey[enter position here] says that he/she wants to limit the amount of ammunition a firearm can hold in the state. Democratic [enter position here] [enter last name here] reintroduced legislation would limit the amount of ammunition a magazine could hold from 15 rounds to 10. The bill also designates a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds as a prohibited assault firearm. [enter last name here] says that his plan will save lives.
<30>

You know you've read the same press release at least once a month for the past ten years.

Democrats; they are true to their creed, they will do anything to get their name in the newspapers, and they haven't had an original thought since the Kennedy era.

The National Rifle Association influences politicians by spending $14 MILLIONS in political contributions!

NRA’s influence comes from $14 million in spending — not just campaign contributions : Sunlight Foundation:
The National Rifle Association ("NRA") is 'accused' of contributing (according to "Open Secrets") a LOT of money to "Private Interests".

QUOTE:

All of this money, of course, is invested by the contributions and membership dues of the NRA. When people talk about money in politics, they often point to the money that a candidate receives from a special interest (regardless of the amount of that contribution) as evidence of undue influence. Nowhere is this more true than with the National Rifle Association. .... The NRA, according to OpenSecrets.org, has contributed about $593,000 in 2016, almost entirely to Republicans. And while contributions certainly tell part of the story, it is the NRA’s big campaign spending that makes up most of its influence: The group’s two political arms, the NRA Institute for Legal Action and the NRA Political Victory Fund, have spent $14.5 million opposing and supporting federal candidates, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Sunlight Foundation.

(emphasis added)

Hmmm ... so people who support the Second Amendment of the United States Contribution are willing to contribute (in membership fees, and voluntary contributions), to defend your constitutional rights?   And this is "A Bad Thing"?

Don't Americans have the right to give money to institutions which support their Constitution?
If so ... why should they be publically castigated. when more frivolous issues are supported with no comment at all?

Here is just a short list of charities which enjoy an annual contribution of $13,000,000 and up (and not all of these fundings are from private contributions):

You can get an "overview" here; note that most of the major participants are labor and educations unions.   But there are some "outliers", such as ....

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES

$46,114,330

WETA: "Washington's source for compelling television and inspiring classical music"
Net Assets:                                                                                                                          $136,239,734

The Washingtone

Founded in 1961, WETA (The Greater Washington Educational Telecommunications Association) is the leading public broadcasting station in the nation's capital, serving Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia with educational, cultural, news and public affairs programs and services. WETA's mission is to produce and broadcast programs of intellectual integrity and cultural merit that recognize viewers' and listeners' intelligence, curiosity and interest in the world around them.

So we are willing to accept the societal expenditure of $46M to save puppies, and $136M  for "compelling television and inspiring classical music", but we are unwilling to accept the societal expenditure of $14M to protect our constitutional rights?

Oh ... and that fourteen million dollars contributed to the NRA is privately donated ... voluntarily, by the participants.

But the puppy-fund and the television funds are ... you guessed it ... supported by your tax dollars.   You don't get to choose; it's federal!

Don't you sometimes wish that you had the option of deciding which cause your tax dollars went to?

Wouldn't you rather contribute to the Society for Maintenance of Ethnic Russian/Siberian Huskies (SMERSH) than the Preservation of Urasian French Female Siberians (PUFFS)?

I'm telling you ... this society is going to the dogs!

NY Assemblyman: " Limit gun owners to one gun, one bullet"

"That does not repeal the Second Amendment!    It just makes it work for everyone."

[Video] NY Assemblyman Thomas J Abinanti: Ban guns with military origins, register all guns. - The Gun Feed: [Video] 

Um ... no.
That doesn't work to reduce gun violence; it only serves to impose arbitrary restrictions on the law-abiding ... who aren't part of the problem, but are part of the solution.

"Whether it's guns on the street, or people with mental problems ... " does a good job of defining the two most likely sources of gun violence; but doesn't address the question of how he plans to make these progenitors of gun violence abide by gun-control laws.

I challenge you to put more money into mental health facilities, rather than cutting the services which are out there today.

Um ... yes.   

Nobody doesn't think this is important, but even this doesn't shield us from people who are just evil, or politically motivated.    Or are just all "I'm Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This any More!"   Against these classes, there is no defense except retaining our right to defend ourselves, our families, and our communities.

As for the mentally ill, Psychologists and other mental-health practitioners will be the first to state categorically that it's impossible to predict when someone will reach his tipping point and rampage.

Which rather obviates his original thesis, which is that gun control can limit rampage.  It can't.

The criminals, the crazies, they will find a way.

And then you're all on your own, cursing the New York Assemblyman who has a plethora of ways to keep firearms out of the hands of the innocents, but knows better than to suggest a way to keep firearms out of the hands of murderers.

OH!  And about that ... if he REALLY want's to minimize firearms violence, he should be campaigning to impose the maximum sentence against those who commit violent crimes while in possession of a firearm.

Crooks understand "added time in prison".

"Military Style Weapons" to be banned?

Three days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, 22 Democratic senators on Wednesday proposed a national ban on military-style weapons of the sort the Texas shooter deployed to massacre 26 people in a church on Sunday.Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.“Connecticut’s ban was a model for us in drafting this,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

http://www.ctpost.com/business/article/Democratic-senators-propose-military-style-12342649.php

Do Democrats understand that there are very few firearms which cannot be accurately defined as "Military Style Weapons"?  This includes most hunting rifles, which are sometimes described (by Democrats and other Gun Confiscators as "Sniper Rifles".   Pistols?  Revolvers?  All issued to Military personnel.

(Well, of course they understand that!   It's in the book; you can look it up.)

Confiscation?  Not obviously on the public venue, but we can bet Registration is on the horizon, and Confiscation follows Registration as surely as Dawn follows Dusk.   And the kind of bill proposed would not be possible to enforce without registration of firearms in private hands "already legally in the hands of owners".   How else can they tell 'new guns" from "those already legally in the hands of owners"?

Oh, the Democrats are just eating this up with a Big Spoon!

Democratic senators propose military-style weapons ban - Connecticut Post:

The measure would ban the sale, manufacture and importation of affected new guns, but would not confiscate those already legally in the hands of owners. It covers broad classes of semiautomatic firearms including most versions of the AR-15, which the Texas shooter used, and which has been used in several mass shootings. The bill would also ban high-capacity magazines, which are also already banned in Connecticut. "Weapons of war have no place in our communities,” Blumenthal said in a written release. He defended Connecticut’s 1993 ban on military-style weapons in the state Supreme Court. “These killing machines have no purpose for self-defense or hunting and they must remain on the battlefield where they belong — not in our churches, schools and theaters,” he added in the release.

So, if "weapons of war have no place in our communities", why would the good folks in Connecticut (who have already raised the "WILL NOT COMPLY!" banner high) be expected to obey another new law which is impossible to enforce without compliance ... and without protest ... and without justification?

And for that matter, why would the REST of America feel comfortable with an "Assault Weapons Ban" .. which we proved decades ago would have no meaningful benefit? 

(1994 Assault Weapons Ban)

Connecticut seems an odd place to begin the confiscation of firearms.  One of the original 13 colonies, Connecticut has a proud history of resisting firearms confiscation.

In 2014, news sources reported that in Connecticut a confiscation of firearms was in the works, but this turned out to not be true.

Is it possible that this is just another example of "Fake News"?

Or have both state and National officials raised the flag of confiscation, just to test the waters?

Or have they truly, under the maniacal leadership of Democratic Senators, decided that this was "the right thing to do".

CTPOST.COM reports that this is not merely a proposed state ban, but is proposed as a FEDERAL ban on "Assault Rifles":

(Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.)Three days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, 22 Democratic senators on Wednesday proposed a national ban on military-style weapons of the sort the Texas shooter deployed to massacre 26 people in a church on Sunday. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.“Connecticut’s ban was a model for us in drafting this,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

(Did anyone notice that it was a guy with an "Assault Weapon" who drove the rascal away? 

No? 

I didn't think so.)

Oh, Crap.
It hasn't been two hours since I swore to myself that I would no longer report on the Texas Church Massacre ... but our National Leaders haven't been able to demonstrate even that miniscule modicum of restraint.   (At least nobody mentioned the word: "BumpStock".)

You know what I think?  I think we should tar and feather the rascals, and run 'em out of town on a rail.  Like they did in the old days.

Write your congress-critter.  Better yet, phone his office.  Tell him this is a threat to Americans in every state and that nobody who votes for this kind of shenanigans will ever be elected to public office again. 
Because we're MAD AS HELL and WE"RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

Lances at Dawn

The Brits can't own guns any more.  Or knives, or spears, or lances, or ...

Wait a minute!  Lances?  They can do LANCES!


Extreme jousting: Knights in armor clash on horseback in VR:

It’s knight time: go lance-to-lance on horseback in a modern jousting match. 

USA TODAY NETWORK



Damn this looks like fun!  Can we do this 'here'?

NEVER denigrate the ability of Englishmen to Find A Way to practice Extreme Sports.

Is a Lance designated as an Assault Weapon?

This is the COOLEST THING EVER!

*It makes IPSC look like a Child's Game*

The Decline and Fall of the British Empire

Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK - NaturalNews.com:

As reported by The New American, British subjects seeking advice about what are and are not permissible self-defense instruments found some recently on a police web site. It is sponsored by the British government's Police National Legal Database. Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy? The police answer: The only fully legal self defence product... is a rape alarm.

If a British subject picks up an object to defend against a violent intruder, that is a crime.  Even if they only threaten, and don't actually USE it against their aggressor.


The only LEGAL alternative to a rape alarm (what the heck is a "Rape Alarm"?) would be a squirt bottle of dye which could be used to easily identify the intruder after he has had his way with you, your family, and your home.

But if you squirt it in his eyes, that also  may be a criminal offense.

The intruder, if caught, will probably not be charged.  The resident will most likely be charged.

Pick up a knife?   You're toast, Baby!

Aren't you glad you're you?


Welcome to America ... Land of The Free and Home of the Saved!

Anatomy of a Basic Discipline Correctional Spanking (NSFW)

When you surf, sometimes you trip over a Great White Shark.

Not sure how I got here from there ...not sure WHAT I got here!  But if the Great White Shark is to be believed...   (GET OFF THE BEACH!)

... there are actual protocols for spanking


Anatomy of a Basic Discipline Correctional Spanking Absolutely NEVER Spank Above the Peek    

CONSENTING ADULTS Skin ONLY 

Liars Always Lie ... about "Assault Weapons"

John Lott's screed on "Assault Weapons Bans":

Court Upholds "Assault Weapon" Ban With Incorrect Facts | The Daily Caller:
(FEBRUARY 23, 2017)

Should “military-style rifles” be banned? On Tuesday, the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia – in a virtual party line vote – upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban.  In the 10 to 4 En Banc decision, Democrats supported the ban while Republicans opposed it.

NFA Firearms Ads

I have no idea; this is listed merely as a curiosity

NFA Firearms Ads: Listed for sale is one (1) John Benjamin, JCB M16 Autosear, commonly known as a DIAS. As you are aware these come up for sale only very rarely as they allow you to legally convert nearly any AR15 lower to include Colt LE901's into a select fire machine gun. Any SP1 spec/low shelf receiver this is installed into can be configured into any multitude of configurations imaginable. It truly is the ultimate for any shooter in today's market. John Benjamin/JCB DIAS's are considered amongst the most desirable as they are nearly indestructible being made from heat treated oil quenched tool steel. This example has had untold 10's of thousands of rounds and is still using the original trip. Truly drop-in and ready to go. References available upon request. $40,000 upfront funding gets the paperwork processing, on Form 4 in Oregon.

The Witch is Back!

Re-working an old law for a new ‘effective immediately’ gun grab - Personal Liberty:

Gun owners in Massachusetts are running into all kinds of problems as they attempt to deal with Attorney General Maura Healey’s unilateral decision to ban hundreds of previously legal firearms by reinterpreting a 1998 law. Boston Herald reported that Healey is taking a new approach to enforcing the law, which mirrors the federal assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, to keep gun makers from producing state-compliant versions of the rifles on the ban list.

Wimpy HEALEY sez:

"I would gladly ban you tomorrow for a gun that is legal today!"

What we have here is an 'ex post facto law', which means that you (gun owner) are penalized today for some act you legally performed yesterday (bought a firearm); because Healey says that you have purchased an object which, although legal when you bought it, is no longer legal. So you are liable to awful penalties.

Because ... Healey.

There are flies all over this reeking pile of doggie-doo, and only the people who might be directly affected by this the proposed law are calling "SHAME!" on it.

PERSONAL NOTE:  I once had an RTO (Radio-Telephone Operator) named Healey working for me, who proved his courage by calmly continuing to maintain contact with 'higher authorities' under direct fire as I was crying for illumination (flares from Base Camp Artillery) during a fire-fight.   He got through, directed adjustment for consecutive Artillery Flares so we could see what we were shooting at, and was entirely unruffled during the entire kerfuffle.   I hope he is not related to the Healey-creature in question, because I thought he was an exemplary individual.

Every armed person is someone just waiting to become a criminal

According to YDR.COM: "Every armed person is someone just waiting to become a criminal":

 In reality, every armed individual is someone just waiting to become a criminal. If you believe so strongly in the Second Amendment, then you should arm yourself with a musket and a flintlock pistol, because that is what the founders had in mind when they established the Constitution.

Oh.

Okay, thank you so very much for clarifying the issue of the "Embarrassing Second Amendment".

I had (foolishly, it seems) thought it had something to do with the  individual right of each (person) to protect his/her person, family and property.   You know, like the First Amendment acknowledged the right of each individual to speak their mind, regardless of how inconvenient and embarrassing those thoughts might be to someone who did not agree with them.

I certainly did not understand that, while the First Amendment still protects the right of free speech regardless of the media (such as television, radio, etc. which did not exist in the 18th century when the constitution was written), the Second Amendment does not protect semi-automatic weapons, "assault rifles", etc. because they did not exist in the 18th century.

Therefore, while everyman may carry a pencil (or an IPOD, or a cell phone, or a pocket camera), he may not carry a 1911 style pistol (for example) because eighteenth century technology RULZ!

It had .. and I'm being entirely candid here ... never occurred to me that the First Amendment Rights were predicated on the CONCEPT of thought, but Second Amendment Rights are predicated on TECHNOLOGY.

Okay, I've got that clear in my mind now.  And I cannot tell you how grateful I am to YDR.COM for clearing up that niggling little difference between the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The things you can learn from the Internet.

Oops.  Sorry ... they didn't have that Internet thingie in the 18th Century, did they?

Okay, so I guess you're just full of shit.

Never mind.