Month: January 2023

The Tyre Nichols beatdown. Just a bit over the top. (Update: That was fast)

I am not a defender of the criminal element and I understand that a critter that does not want to be handcuffed can be an awful handful.

But shit, this is over the top, especially when you try to kick a field goal with his head which I believe no department allows for restratining an unarmed suspect.

 

The five officers were black. I wonder how fast the narrative will bleach their skins and how many BLM honchos buy new mansions with the donations.


UPDATE: Not even 30 seconds after I published, I found this.

Update 2: [smh]

 

Friday Feedback

It has been a long week up here. Snow removal and power issues. The site keeps on trucking because it lives in a data center with all sorts of backups.

https://discourse.gunfreezone.net is back up and running. If you had some issues to begin with that is because you were attempting to do things before I had it completely restored, I think. If anybody is having any issues over there, please let me know down below in the comments.

I’ll be working on the videos shortly. That is a bit more work but we’ll get it done.

There has been a great deal of back and forth on the stabilizing brace v. SBR. Right now I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on it.

You are likely to get hit with some photography stuff in the coming weeks. I did my first “professional” photoshoot in 25 years yesterday and the results were amazing. And I can’t share it with you all.

Hagar is worried she is going to offend you all. I’ve told her “they are adults or nearly so. If you offend them, they’ll say as much. Can’t be as bad as J.Kb. calling my beloved home state full of retards. It isn’t full, it is only the seacoast that is full of leftist retards.

We do have a short update on CCIA cases, the Second Circuit court has scheduled an expedited hearing for March of 2023. This isn’t going to sit in limbo for years. Once the Second Circuit rules, the parties will appeal to the Supreme court.

Maybe…

It could be that NYS decides to just take the loss at the appellate level in order to keep the Supreme Court from hearing the case at this time.

This poll is no longer accepting votes

Would you like a photo heavy article on?
38 votes · 38 answers
×

“What To Do About The ATF’s Pistol Brace “Interpretation” by Michael Z. Williamson

So, your options are:

A: Register it as a Short Barreled Rifle, under amnesty, for free, and get an NFA stamped form. DOWNSIDE: You must file a Form 20 for permission every time you want to take it out of state. NOTE: No, sticking a rifle barrel on doesn’t make it not an NFA weapon. Once it is on the Registry, it remains an SBR, no matter what barrel you put on it, unless you ask them to remove it from the Registry, and either destroy it or make it not an SBR.
2) You can remove the brace. The brace is perfectly legal on any rifle it fits. If you own such a rifle, you now have a rifle accessory, and a pistol with no brace. You may eventually be able to put it back on, if the courts do their job and tell ATF to cut the crap. Or, you can apply for a stamp later if you wish. It will cost $200. It might be worth the wait.
c] You can leave it in illegal format. I recommend against this. I especially recommend against beating your, um, chest on social media that “I WILL NOT COMPLY!” Unless you really hate your dog and want ATF to shoot him when they come to arrest you.
IV} You can destroy the brace (if you’re an idiot) or surrender it to ATF (if you’re a bigger idiot).
E. You can destroy the weapon (if you’re a moron) or surrender it to ATF (if you’re a complete retard).

What To Do About The ATF’s Pistol Brace “Interpretation” (michaelzwilliamson.com)

Go read the whole thing.

Illinois logic of paycheck magic fairydust

Let me introduce you to Illinois HB1231.

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Armed Security Protection Act. Provides that beginning July 1, 2024, banks, pawn shops, grocery stores, and gas stations in municipalities having a population in excess of 2,000,000 inhabitants must employ and have on the premises at least one guard during the hours they conduct business with the public.

The bill requires that said guard be armed.

So…

All of these places generally prohibit concealed carry under 430 ILCS 66/65.  (I know, I used to live in Chicago.  Most stores had the no carry sticker on their entrance.)

The Democrats did everything possible to eliminate concealed carry in Chicago.

But, now as crime is spiking, the Democrats want stores to pay money for armed security.

Apparently what separates a good guy with a gun from a crazy, dangerous, ammosexual, potential murder, is a paycheck.

Like magic, a guy getting a paycheck to carry a gun in a store is good.  The guy who went through the same background check and us carrying a gun in the store but not getting paid to do so is bad.

Democrats love guns protecting them, just not in your hands.

Both infringe, what’s the difference?

The mechanism for challenging congress law vs executive branch rules/eo is the same no?

Sure the source is different but the outcome is the same, bad.
— Lenard

A very good question indeed. The different methods of the federal government getting an infringement in place are:

  • Congress passes a bill and it is signed into law by the president, or the president vetoes the bill and congress overrides the veto.
  • An agency, established by congress to implement law, puts a regulation into place.
  • The president signs an executive order

When the president signs an executive order he is not creating rules, regulation or laws. He is issuing instructions to the executive branch to do (or not do) something.

When President Trump “Banned bump stocks” his executive order did not ban bump stocks. His EO told the ATF to create regulations that would ban bump stocks.

While it might feel like the same thing in practice it is not. Obama issued orders to the executive branch to not enforce immigration law. Trump issued orders to enforce immigration law. Neither Trump nor Obama could change the law by EO, only direct the enforcement of the law.

While Obama’s “ignore EO” was in place, if a C&BP officer picked up an illegal alien, they could arrest that illegal alien and start proceedings on that illegal alien. That would have all been legal, because the immigration law that made that person an “illegal alien” was still in place. The fact that the people above that officer or the people downstream of that arrest then set the illegal alien free was because of the EO.

To attack an EO in court you go to the court and find standing. This can be difficult or easy. Living in NH it is difficult for me to have standing in Obama having issued EOs regarding illegal aliens. It might be easier for people on our southern border.

Once the court has decided you have standing, you then can ask the court to order the executive branch to follow the law. The left had many successes in finding judges that would find they had standing and then order a nationwide injunction blocking the implementation of Trump’s EOs.

The right had a much more difficult time of finding a court that would grant an injunction much less a nationwide injunction. Instead the injunctions, when given, were narrowly tailored and often held pending appeal.

At no time is the constitution directly involved in these cases. This makes it easier to bring the case.

In the second case, we have an agency making a rule or regulation with the force of law.

These are also challenged in court. They again require the plaintiffs to establish standing. The question then asked is related to procedures “Did the agency follow the law when they drafted the regulation and when they then finalized and published the regulations?” and also if the regulation actually follows the law, as written.

Congress gave the EPA extensive power over the environment. They pass regulations all the time. Those regulations have to be given a public commenting period. The EPA has to “evaluate” those comments. They then have to publish the new regulation(s) in the federal registry in order for them to become active.

The EPA could create a regulation mandating the total amount of sulfur-dioxide that a vehicle can emit per unit time or unit distance. This would be well within the framework of the law which created the EPA. It might be that they demand something that is impossible or at least prohibitively expensive, but it would be within the law.

It would be very difficult to challenge that law in court.

On the other hand, if they created a regulation that required all power lines to have a 20 ft horizontal easement extending upwards 200ft to be kept clear of all vegetation or overhangs that would be easier to challenge.

That easement regulation is outside of the boundaries of the law that created the EPA. The EPA would have to have a reason within those boundaries for the regulation. Just wanting the power to stay on isn’t enough.

The challenge would come from somebody with standing (“They intend to cut down all the trees on my property which provides any privacy!”) and then they would challenge that the regulation does not follow the law, as passed by congress.

Finally we get to laws. Laws have to be challenged by a person with standing as well. It is often times more difficult to find people with standing for challenging a law than for challenging an EO or regulation.

Consider the case of NYSR&PA v. City of New York, New York. In this case they had to find plaintiffs with standing. They found 3 or 4 people that wanted to transport their personal, registered, firearms outside of NYC. They were forbidden because the city had a rule that had the force of law forbidding transportation outside of the city.

The case was attacking a regulation, not because the regulation didn’t follow the rules when it was established, nor because the rule didn’t follow the law, but because it was a violation of the peoples second amendment rights.

The question before the court was whether the law was constitutional as applied. That law was allowed by cause of laws passed at the state level that allowed the city to make law and the police to make rules.

In the end, the police changed the policy/regulation, the city said we won’t do it again, and the state said “we aren’t going to allow the city to do that particular thing again.”

This mooted the case.

In the end, these EOs, regulations, rules, policies and laws are all infringements. They all have to be challenged in court and overturned. There are just more, and easier challenges against EOs, rules, regulation and policies than there are directly against laws.

The Wokies are going to reignite the Civil War and desicrate West Point

The Naming Commission Comes for West Point

Created by the fiscal 2021 national defense authorization act, the Naming Commission’s duties included recommending procedures for renaming Department of Defense assets “to prevent commemoration of the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily” with them. While nine U.S. Army posts named for Confederates have received the most attention, the commission’s “remit” extends much further.

The ramifications of the above remain to be seen, but already the U.S. Military Academy at West Point is undergoing a (shameful) transformation: its “Reconciliation Plaza” has begun to be dismantled and will soon be altered beyond recognition. The plaza, consisting of stone “markers” arranged on the academy’s grounds, was presented by the West Point Class of 1961 on the occasion of their fortieth reunion in 2001. Exactly a century prior to the 1961 members of the Long Gray Line, the school graduated two classes in 1861 – one in May, the other in June. Graduates served in both the Northern and Southern armies.

The precise purpose of Reconciliation Plaza was to “commemorate the reconciliation between North and South and dedicate this memorial to our classmates who died in service to our nation” [emphasis added]. The latter intent was traditional at military schools (including my alma mater, the Virginia Military Institute), and was non-controversial.

Stephen Dodson Ramseur, who had sustained multiple wounds in battle prior to the October 1864 Battle of Cedar Creek – and, at 27, was the youngest West Point graduate to be promoted to major general – had just had his second horse shot from under him when he was hit in the lungs, a mortal wounding. Learning of his condition and subsequent capture by Union forces, several of Ramseur’s friends from West Point “came to his side,” among them his close friend, George Armstrong Custer. Ramseur, whose first wedding anniversary was days away, had just learned of the birth of his daughter.

Astoundingly, the Commission found the depiction of these acts to be within its remit and unacceptable to remain in place. Indeed, at West Point’s Reconciliation Plaza. What Purity-Tested entity determines the giving of water to a wounded soldier, and the comforting of a dying soldier by his friends, to be unacceptable depictions of reconciliation – particularly among the very soldiers who fought one another honorably on the field of battle? If the actual participants themselves were able to reconcile to such a degree during or immediately after the heat of battle, who in a later generation dares to dismiss and hold in contempt such acts of kindness?

The Naming Commission Comes for West Point
By Forrest L. Marion
West Point – flickr
Created by the fiscal 2021 national defense authorization act, the Naming Commission’s duties included recommending procedures for renaming Department of Defense assets “to prevent commemoration of the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily” with them. While nine U.S. Army posts named for Confederates have received the most attention, the commission’s “remit” extends much further. In fact, a logical end point to its (Diversity-Equity-Inclusion-inspired) work is nowhere to be found:

The Commission recognizes that [defense] assets commemorating the Confederacy or an individual who voluntarily served with the Confederacy will continue to be identified after the submission of the Commission plan. The Commission recommends the base rename, remove, or modify any such assets identified in the future [emphasis added].

The ramifications of the above remain to be seen, but already the U.S. Military Academy at West Point is undergoing a (shameful) transformation: its “Reconciliation Plaza” has begun to be dismantled and will soon be altered beyond recognition. The plaza, consisting of stone “markers” arranged on the academy’s grounds, was presented by the West Point Class of 1961 on the occasion of their fortieth reunion in 2001. Exactly a century prior to the 1961 members of the Long Gray Line, the school graduated two classes in 1861 – one in May, the other in June. Graduates served in both the Northern and Southern armies.

The precise purpose of Reconciliation Plaza was to “commemorate the reconciliation between North and South and dedicate this memorial to our classmates who died in service to our nation” [emphasis added]. The latter intent was traditional at military schools (including my alma mater, the Virginia Military Institute), and was non-controversial.

Not so the former. The markers, duly noted by the Commission, depicted “acts and events between 1861 and 1913 to serve as examples of reconciliation.” But given the atmosphere in official Washington since the fruitless extremism-in-the-ranks hunt in 2021, such a purpose is suspect, especially if white men were behind it.

At least two markers or exhibits described by the Commission deserve particular attention. They depicted the following acts or events:

PROMOTED CONTENT

“Marker 4 portrays a Confederate soldier providing water to a U.S. Soldier wounded by Confederate guns”; and,

“Marker 6 commemorates Confederate [Major General] Stephen Ramseur and two U.S. Army classmates from West Point who comforted him as he lay dying after a surprise attack by Ramseur’s army failed.”

Stephen Dodson Ramseur, who had sustained multiple wounds in battle prior to the October 1864 Battle of Cedar Creek – and, at 27, was the youngest West Point graduate to be promoted to major general – had just had his second horse shot from under him when he was hit in the lungs, a mortal wounding. Learning of his condition and subsequent capture by Union forces, several of Ramseur’s friends from West Point “came to his side,” among them his close friend, George Armstrong Custer. Ramseur, whose first wedding anniversary was days away, had just learned of the birth of his daughter.

Astoundingly, the Commission found the depiction of these acts to be within its remit and unacceptable to remain in place. Indeed, at West Point’s Reconciliation Plaza. What Purity-Tested entity determines the giving of water to a wounded soldier, and the comforting of a dying soldier by his friends, to be unacceptable depictions of reconciliation – particularly among the very soldiers who fought one another honorably on the field of battle? If the actual participants themselves were able to reconcile to such a degree during or immediately after the heat of battle, who in a later generation dares to dismiss and hold in contempt such acts of kindness?

Commemorate is but the latest politically weaponized entry in the lexicon of those who “love all words that devour.” In the 2021 defense act’s four main, relevant paragraphs in Section 370, some form of the word “commemorate” appears in each – and is prohibitive of the Confederacy and Confederates. Without debating the merits, and mostly demerits, of Congress’s mandate, it is enough to return to the Commission’s own words. The primary purpose of the Class of 1961’s gift to West Point was to “commemorate the reconciliation between North and South,” which the Commission quoted [emphasis added].

The Commission may have wished otherwise, but commemorating the Confederacy or Confederates was not within the Class of 1961’s stated purpose. The Commission’s accurate quotation of the purpose in its report is at odds with – and severely undermines – its own recommendations.

The Civil War, perhaps more than anything else, is a perfect exemplar of American Exceptionalism.

We are thr only nation in history to weather a civil war and come out thr other side intact and stronger.  There were no mass executions of traitirs, no desecration of the graves of thr Confederates, no humiliation of the defeated.

Lincoln and the rest understood that bringing the former Confederates back into the fold as full Americans was the only way for America to remain whole and peaceful.  America could not exist if the Confederates were relegated to second class citizens.

He said as much in his Second Inaugural Address.

With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Vandalizing Reconciliation Plaza to discredit the Confederacy undoes more than a century and a half of Lincoln’s intent.

I am going quote from George Orwell’s 1984:

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

And

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

These wokies are doing both simultaneously.

They are rewriting history and they are doing it for the enjoyment of trampling an enemy who is helpless.

The Confederacy is long dead and no one will stand up for them, so they get to pretend they are doing a noble deed fighting the memory of slavery, when what they are really doing is picking open an old wound.

They are going to reignite the Civil War by desecrating the memory of unity and reconciliation at its end.

 

But he attacked first! — Updated

B.L.U.F.

The left is having knee-jerk reactions to Bruen because they feel that Bruen was an attack on them.


The continuous attack by Arabs on the Israel has been going on since before Israel became a country. Within days of becoming a country six different Arab nations attacked with the goal of destroying Israel.

They failed.

That hasn’t stopped them from being murderous assholes. Mass shootings that became bombings that became multiple bombings. Knife attacks, attacking with cars, shooting rockets into Israel, all with the intention of causing terror within the population of Israel.

A few years ago I was listening to talk radio on the way to work. There had just been another attack on Israel and they had brought on two people to talk about the issues.

It was a shit fest, to say the least. Israeli would say “We bombed this military target as a direct response to these bombings”. The Arab would then interject that they were only blowing up school children because the Israelis had killed some murderous leader of the terrorists.

At no time did the Arab ever realize, or more likely care, that he was justifying murder because the Israelis had responded to the last murders. His only argument was “they did it first” without seeing that there was any difference. The attacks were all justified in his mind.


For years the right to keep and bear arms has been under attack. Small incremental infringements leading to larger and larger infringements. The infringers always making progress to their goal, removing all firearms from the American populous.

In 2022, Biden signed the first federal gun infringement law in over 2 decades. In his signing statement he said it was a start. He admitted that he wanted more.

In 2008, the gun infringers were slapped down for the first time in a very long time. There were a couple of cases in the mid to late 90’s but no real progress on the right to keep and bear arms.

The infringers lost their shit. How dare the Supreme Court rule against them?

To this day you will hear them say “Until 2008 the Supreme Court had never found that that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.” Because of the Miller opinion, the infringing states and the infringing circuits were using “Militia” to hang their infringements on.

Everything was constitutional because the Militia referred to the National Guard of each state and the state was just making rules for those that were not part of the militia. No conflict with the constitution.

Heller changed that.

Chicago, opps, that would be Cook county, oops, really Illinois, responded to Heller with a big FU. They continued the no issue stance they had always had.

Here’s the thing to internalize, they were responding to the Supreme Court giving them a big FU. They only had reasonable, safety oriented laws about guns. They didn’t stop people from hunting. They were just making sure the state was as free from gun [related] violence as possible. How dare the Supreme Court let all those guns loose in the streets of Chicago. There will be blood in running down every sidewalk when all those gun tottingtoting idiots start shooting it out over parking places.

In a facebook or G+ conversation, one of the infringers was telling me about this horrible bar fight they had personally observed. They knew that both of the people brawling were armed with firearms. It was so scary and dangerous, who knew what would happen?

My reply was “We do know, the guns stayed in their holsters, because that is what we do.”

When the Supreme Court fast tracked McDonald and said that the Second Amendment applied to the states, the gun infringing states again responded by making “may issue” but with so many hoops to jump through that it became all mostalmost impossible to actually get permission from the state to exercise your rights.

Again, the left felt like they were responding to an attack on them. The Court was forcing redneck culture on them.

And we see the same thing, now, in Bruen. The Court was asked “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” by the plaintiffs, and the defendants restatement “Whether the Second Amendment prohibits New York from requiring residents who wish to carry a concealed firearm in public to have an actual and articulable need to do so.”

The above quotes are from the original application for cert. and the response.

Bruen answered the question extremely well. The Court said that states could not require “good cause” when deciding to issuing permission to exercise a right.

But Bruen went on to tell the inferior courts how they should address future second amendment cases. This was the big win for us. Not the removal of “good cause” but because that was a part of the rearticulated statement of how the inferior courts need to rule in 2A cases.

The gun infringers took this as a huge FU.

Of course they did. They had to. The Supreme Court refused to listen to reason. The Supreme court again decided that gun toting assholes could carry without being strictly vetted. To make sure they were worth of the government granting them permission to exercise their rights.

Of course they responded in kind. They don’t see this as just a return to reason, they see this as having victory yanked from their grasp. This turned everything around.

They responded with a bowl of spaghetti that they threw against the wall. They have two goals in this action, to find out which arguments stick and are allowed, and the other is to require as many suits as possible of their opponents.

It doesn’t cost the State of New York anything extra to have a dozen cases running. All the lawyers and all the paralegals they are using are either salaried or being paid for by your taxes. Everyone that is filling these cases is paying some lawyer to represent them.

O.F.F. is reported to be spending $60,000 per month on its one case. In reality, that number should be closer to $250,000 per month.

These cases eat money. The state has done everything in their power to make it expensive. If the courts strike down “churches are sensitive places” this is a win, it is still a long path until the decision sticks. Unfortunately the state doesn’t have to stop enforcing “parks are sensitive places” because that question wasn’t asked.

Our team has to find multiple people that have standing to challenge that part of the law. Each part of the list of sensitive places has to be challenged.

It is going to be a long battle and they show no signs of stopping.