Good Job, Dumbasses

The law of unintended consequences bites the short-sighted (and quite frankly absurd) right in the ass.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new gun bill on Friday that is explicitly modeled after Texas’ unprecedented abortion law. The state is now the first to allow citizens to sue people who make or sell banned weapons, state officials said.

The bill, SB 1327, allows Californians to sue those making, selling, transporting or distributing illegal assault weapons or ghost guns for at least $10,000 in damages. Gun dealers who illegally sell firearms to those under the age of 21 could also be liable for the same damages.

https://abc7.com/governor-signs-gun-bill-modeled-after-abortion-law/12068039/

A Criminal Level of Congressional Ignorance

I watched a bit of the House Committee hearing on HR1808 (Federal “assault Weapons” Ban). And I’m re-watching the entirety on YouTube today.

I’m almost speechless. I’ve long said that Congress, especially where it regards gun control, is fundamentally and willfully ignorant about the lawful and Constitutionally protected item that they wish to legislate against.

The stunning display of un-education by the Democrats on the Committee not only spoke to my statement above….but underlined it, bolded it and finished with an exclamation point.

Even if you support gun control, do you support such ignorance? Either they’re stupid…..or they think you’re stupid.

My favorite debacle so far:

Rep Cicilline on stabilizing braces: “When attached here, it turns this weapon into an automatic weapon. It becomes a bump stock, and so it will allow that to essentially be fired like an automatic weapon. That’s the danger.”

Cue the (((Facepalm)))……..

But wait, the genius from Rhode Island isn’t done!

“No one has said it is a bump stock, but what we are saying is it harnesses the semiautomatic fire recoil and it operates like a bump stock because subsequent shots occur in rapid succession. That’s exactly what a bump stock does.”

And another gem: “It (AR-15) was designed to kill someone wearing a military helmet. What that does to a civilian wearing nothing — is liquify organs.”

This from a PhD who used to fly helicopters for the Marines and “her research focuses on the intersection of social integration and military effectiveness, with a focus on gender and unconventional warfare.” Uh huh.

And from Eric Swalwell, D-CA: “There is never an instance where an assault weapon can be classified as a “weapon of defense.” The only way to describe these dangerous firearms are “weapons of war.”

There is no such animal as a “defensive firearm”….or an “offensive firearm”.

Gun Control Canards

I invite any gun control proponents [as I long have] to define the following:

“Weapons of war” – Please identify a class of firearms that have NOT been used in armed conflict.

“Military Grade” – Define please.

“Military style” – Define please.

“High Capacity” – Define please. And while you’re at it, please justify an arbitrary number of a lawful item, where having that number is lawful, but having one more than that number is criminal.

“High powered” – Define please.

“Assault / offensive / defensive weapon” – Define please.

Hunting – Please define what firearms are suitable for hunting and which, in your opinion, are not.

Sure, I know that nobody is likely to try and define the above, from the gun control perspective. But my point is this, legislation that seeks to curtail, regulate or restrict a Citizens actions with regard to a Constitutional Right……it should be deliberate, thoughtful and based on definable metrics and endstates…..not emotion.

Dusting off a previous rebuttal…..

I’ve written several times over the years, about the illogical restrictions on our Constitutional and Civil Right, pushed by both major political parties; gun control being the campaign du jour of the Left.

“Universal Background Checks” are again being touted as legislation designed to curb shootings…mass or otherwise.

So, allow me to dust off a post from early 2018, that makes the same point I would makes today:

One of the proposals currently being considered, by the Right and the Left….is the notion of “Universal Background Checks” [UBC]. One of the misconceptions used in this argument, is that there is some sort of loophole in the law, often referred to by the ignorant, as a “gun show loophole”. There is nothing of the sort. People attending gun shows wishing to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, undergoes the same NICS process as they would a gun show. Those wishing to conduct a purchase from another private citizen selling at the show, does so without NICS, just as they would were they to conduct a transaction with their neighbor.

When we propose legislation, we require an enforcement mechanism. In other words, if you fail to abide in accordance with the law, there is a consequence. With UBCs however, there is no enforcement mechanism, because the State has no means to be apprised if a Citizen has violated the law.

For example, if UBC is statute law, and I sell my firearm to my neighbor without taking him/her to an FFL dealer…..how does the State know? If my neighbor proceeds to use said purchased firearm in the commission of a crime, and is apprehended……unless he/she confesses to the lawful transaction…..how does the State know that the law was violated.

The obvious answer is, that without a mandatory registration of ALL firearms, there is no enforcement mechanism for UBCs.

If you think there is righteous pushback on UBC…..wait until the gun control cabal tries to proffer registration…..

SMH……

I’m going to rhetorically lose my shit if the current Commander in Chief utters the same stale, tired and false LIES about the 2nd Amendment and firearm ownership

Seriously……does he not have anyone in his team who actually has an understanding of our Civil Rights? Or does he just trot out the same tropes for the sake of political gamesmanship?

Fact check, with regard to Biden’s not just latest, but consistent remarks………early American Citizens could actually own (and did) a cannon, thank you very much.

Trifecta of Gun Control Lies

From POTUS’s speech yesterday, on his second nominee for chief gun controller, as well as his tirade against “ghost guns”!!!!!

Three verified [and sadly predictable] lies, captured and rebutted by Spencer Brown at Town Hall.

1. “You couldn’t buy a cannon…”

2. “Gun manufacturers have more immunity…”

3. “I got it done once—ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines…”

Well, that didn’t take long….

As I opined here, here and here, it didn’t think it would take long for a SCOTUS ruling upholding Texas’ egregious* abortion law [SB8], to translate into similar efforts regrading firearms. Precedence may rear it’s legislative head.

Here comes Gavin Newsome:

If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives. We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in CA.Twitter

Is it going to work? With California, it’s hard to say….but file this under, watch what you wish for….

*I’m not commenting on the topic of abortion itself rather the means by which this law is enforceable.

Thoughts on the Virginia Elections

Though I’m an Oregon Duck [U of O] through and through, Virginia has been my adopted state since late 2008, when I retired from the Army [or the John Wayne Lifelong School for Wayward Boys].

I’ve watched several elections here with varying amounts of interest, this a bit more so than others……even though there was no Libertarian candidate in any of the races I could have cast a ballot for. Some random thoughts below:

Good on Winsome Sears for winning [though I really don’t get the business attire/firearm photo that seems to be trendy among the virtue-signalling Right]. It’s a good win for the Virginia GOP, though most Virginians are waking up this morning and researching exactly what the hell the Lt Gov even does.

More concerning to civil liberties, is the AG race, which last time I checked, is still too close to call.

Youngkin is secretly thanking McAuliffe for handing him the victory, by way of his asinine comment during the last debate. All most knew about him before then was that he liked basketball. His rhetoric of an enormous education budget is worrisome, especially if he doesn’t throw a bone to the large home-school population of this State, like all of his GOP predecessors failed to do. Since the 1977 Gubernatorial election, the party out of power in the White House, has only lost one election for Governor. In 11 out of 12 elections, only Terry McAuliffe has bucked that trend during the Obama Administration…..so this isn’t exactly a momentous occasion.

The Second Amendment Foundation [of which I’m a member] published the following:

“Old Dominion gun owners were not about to allow anti-gun Democrats enjoy another two years of power after what happened in January 2020. They knew what Terry McAuliffe’s return to Richmond would mean for their Second Amendment rights. His party’s politics of attacking gun owners, and their outrageous record of eroding gun rights brought gun owners to the polls to say enough is enough.”

“What is most gratifying, was to see savvy gun rights voters ignore the despicable last-minute ad buy by desperate Democrats to suppress the gun vote by painting Republican Glenn Youngkin as an anti-gunner, when it is their own candidate who has a deplorable record on gun rights.”

To be sure, Youngkin seemed like and empty suit [or fleece vest] up until McAuliffe’s education gaffe. He never really took a strong position, that I saw, on 2nd Amendment Rights……..even in a year where SCOTUS started hearing oral arguments [today I believe] in a landmark NY case.

So, Trump…..or overt lack of ties to Trump aside…we’ll see how a Youngkin Administration pans out for civil liberties. I have an open mind, but I’m not exactly brimming over with confidence in any Republican.

Pet Issues and Precedent, Continued

Alan Dershowitz illustrates my concern about the Texas abortion legislation being used as precedent for other issues, in Democratic monopoly states:

Consider this out-of-the-box proposal: Liberal, pro-gun-control states could apply the Texas bounty approach to gun control. New York or Illinois, for example, could declare that gun crime has gotten so serious that the private ownership of most handguns should be deterred. It would be unconstitutional for the state to authorize the criminal prosecution of those who facilitate constitutionally protected gun ownership. But the state could, instead, enact a gun-bounty civil law modeled on the Texas abortion law. It would empower any citizen to sue for $10,000 anyone who facilitates the sale or ownership of handguns.

Gun-ownership advocates would rail against such a law as circumventing Heller, just as abortion advocates are railing against the Texas law as circumventing Roe. But it would be hard for the courts to uphold the civil mechanism of the anti-abortion law without also upholding the identical mechanism in the anti-gun law.

Creating this “shoe on the other foot” challenge would bring home the dangerous implications of the Texas bounty approach which, if not stopped, could undercut the authority of the Supreme Court to enforce other constitutional rights.

Texas could, for example, next apply it to gay marriage — any private citizen could sue anyone who performed or facilitated same-sex marriages — thus circumventing Obergefell v. Hodges. New York could then apply it to Citizens United v. FCC and offer a civil bounty to sue any media outlet that ran corporate political ads. Any state could simply target any Supreme Court precedent it doesn’t like and deter its enforcement by authorizing citizens who oppose it to sue. This would empower every state to effectively overrule Supreme Court decisions, as some southern states unsuccessfully tried to do following Brown v Board of Education in 1954.

Apparently, I’m a Domestic Terrorist. Sweet!

Earlier this year, the anti-Civil Rights group “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” issued a press release in support of Terry McAuliffe’s run [again] for Governor of my adopted state of Virginia.

In this now deleted release [the internet is forever geniuses], they rail against the GOP challenger [who doesn’t really seem to stand for anything, based on his TV ads] by stating:

“His willingness to say anything for a vote is deeply troubling, as we’ve already seen him cozying up to those with deep ties to those at the forefront of the insurrectionist movement, like Senator Amanda Chase and the domestic terror organization, the Virginia Citizens Defense League.”

As a member in good standing of said Virginia Citizen’s Defense League, apparently that makes me a domestic terrorist. Knowing the source, I guess I’ll wear that label with some amount of pride.

Honestly, I’m more upset at being implicated in the same sentence as batshit crazy Amanda Chase.