Tag Archives: GUN CONFISCATION

AR-15, Gun Rights, Law

Despite Confiscation, New Zealand Sees Most Gun Crime in a Decade

2 Comments

Gun Control scheme backfires, targets law-abiding citizens. READ MORE

nz

NRA-ILA

On April 5, 2019, three days after New Zealand’s Arms Amendment Act 2019 advanced from its first reading in parliament, NRA-ILA noted that “[g]iven the abundant research on Australia’s similar gun confiscation efforts, New Zealand officials can expect that their gun control measures will do little more than trample the natural rights of gun owners…” This week the first evidence vindicating this position came in when Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published figures it had obtained from the government showing that for last year crime involving firearms was the highest it had been since 2009.

According to an RNZ article titled, “Rates of gun crimes and killings using guns at highest levels in a decade in 2019,” last year “there were 3540 occasions where an offender was found with a gun.” The report went on to note that “in both of the last two years, the rate of deadly incidents involving a firearm was the highest it had been since 2009” and that “[t]he number of guns seized by police is also on the rise, up almost 50 percent on five years earlier at 1263 last year.” Making clear that the figures cited in the article were not skewed by the horrific shooting in Christchurch, the report noted that “[t]he 15 March terror attacks were listed as two separate firearms-related incidents.”

On March 21, 2019, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern targeted New Zealand’s law-abiding gun owners by unilaterally halting the sale of semi-automatic centerfire firearms that utilize detachable magazines to normal gun owners. The Arms Amendment Act 2019 was passed into law on April 10 and received royal assent the following day. The key provision of the legislation outlawed possession of all semi-automatic centerfire rifles and their magazines.

In order to enforce the ban, the legislation provided for a firearm confiscation scheme. As with Australia’s 1996 national firearms “buyback” program,” law-abiding New Zealand gun owners were forced to turn their lawfully-acquired property over to the government for a set amount of compensation. The program ran from June 20-December 20, 2019. Compliant gun owners were treated to poor compensation and a breach of their personal data.

At the end of the confiscation program the government had collected roughly 56,000 firearms. A June 2019 report from consulting firm KPMG had estimated that there were as many as 173,000 newly-prohibited firearms in the country. New Zealand gun rights group, the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners estimated that 170,000 prohibited firearms were still in the hands of Kiwis after the confiscation program.

It should come as no surprise that New Zealand’s new gun control laws haven’t appeared to effect gun crime. After all, gang members told the government as much.

At the outset of the gun control push, the Waikato branch president of the Mongrel Mob street gang, Sonny Fatu, made clear to the press that his gang and others have no intention of obeying further gun laws. The gang leader stated, “Will gangs get rid of their weapons? No. Because of who we are, we can’t guarantee our own safety.”

Moreover, as noted in the April 5, 2019 NRA-ILA article, the research on Australia’s confiscation program is clear. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice reviewed the available research on Australia’s firearm confiscation program and issued a memorandum that concluded that the effort had no effect on crime generally. In coming to this determination, the memorandum cited work from University of Maryland Professor Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, aptly titled, “Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns.”The NIJ memo made clear that the researchers “found no effect on crime.”

With this new data it is tempting to call the New Zealand’s gun control efforts a failure. However, to do so one must assume that Ardern and her government’s goal was to reduce crime perpetrated with firearms rather than to attack the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Concerning the latter, Ardern’s gun control has proven an undeniable success.

Gun Rights, Law, Politics

Joe Biden Wants to Ban 9mm Pistols

Leave a comment

Democratic presidential candidate foreshadows tyrranical policies. READ MORE

biden

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

A week after he told voters that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect “a magazine with a hundred clips in it,” 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden offered supporters more of his singular brand of anti-gun nonsense. While attending a private campaign event in Seattle, the former vice president reportedly called for a ban on 9mm pistols.

According to an article from the Seattle Times, Biden was in town to attend two private fundraisers, one of which was at the home of “a top Amazon executive.” The posh soiree set attendees back a princely $2,800 per-person. The other fundraiser was held at the home of a local philanthropist. That staider event offered donors a relative bargain with a $500 minimum price tag.

While speaking to attendees of the latter event, Biden claimed that he supports the Second Amendment. The 77-year-old then went on to ask “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?” Biden also shared his tired and inaccurate claim that because there is a shot-shell restriction for migratory bird hunting, “We protect geese from Canada more than we do people.”

In targeting 9mm pistols, Biden has called for a ban on one of the most popular firearms in America. According to ATF’s Firearms Commerce in the United States FY 2019, there were over 3.6 million pistols manufactured in the U.S. in 2017. This was more than 1 million more guns than the next most popular category of firearms, rifles. Further, over 3.2 million handguns (including revolvers) were imported in to the U.S. in 2017.

In its annual report on the U.S. firearms industry, Shooting Industry reported that 9mm caliber pistols are the most commonly produced pistol and have been for many years. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1.7 million 9mm pistols produced in the U.S. Cumulatively there are tens of millions of 9mm pistols in the hands of law-abiding Americans.

The 9mm pistol is the choice of the nation’s leading civilian law enforcement agency, the FBI. Moreover, 9mm pistols are used by countless other federal, state, and local civilian law enforcement agencies. Biden alluded to the 9mm handgun’s military applications, but these agencies are not tasked with waging war on the public, but rather defending the public. This defensive application is the same reason that millions of Americans have chosen a 9mm pistol as their self-defense firearm.

The landmark Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller concerned a complete prohibition on the ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. The opinion made clear that the Second Amendment at a minimum protects the right to acquire and possess firearms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes such as self-defense.

It is impossible to square Biden’s statement with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. Many types of firearms, such as the AR-15, are “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense and therefore protected under the Second Amendment. The 9mm pistol is not just “in common use” for self-defense. As the production statistics indicate, it may be the most common firearm in use for self-defense. Therefore, it is not permissible under the Second Amendment for a jurisdiction to prohibit 9mm pistols. The law-abiding 9mm pistol-owning residents of the D.C., Chicago, and a handful of Chicago suburbs are a testament to this fact.

Biden’s political career is an ongoing spectacle of anti-gun incompetence. However, his high-profile gaffes can serve an instructive purpose. Biden is emblematic of a political class that cannot be bothered to learn the most rudimentary information concerning firearms and the right to keep and bear arms. Despite nearly four decades in the U.S. Senate and eight years as vice president, he is still a complete ignoramus on the subject. Biden and his cohort don’t want to know anything about guns, gun rights, or gun owners. Rather, they prefer to mindlessly indulge their anti-gun prejudice at every opportunity.

 

AR-15, Gun Rights, NRA, Politics

Confiscation or “Mandatory Buyback”?

14 Comments

If it looks like a duck… READ MORE

gun confiscation

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

It is interesting to watch certain Democrats struggle when trying to convince law-abiding gun owners how “reasonable” it is for the government to take away your firearms. Do the anti-gun groups and candidates pushing confiscation honestly believe you’ll be fooled?

The Democrat plan to confiscate your firearms isn’t in question. In fact, the plan was laid bare by Robert Francis O’Rourke when, during the third Democrat Presidential Debates, he proclaimed, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….” Prior to this broadcast, most Democrats were more subtle, promoting what they euphemistically called a “mandatory buy-back” program for most semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns (so-called “assault weapons”). In the hope of capturing voters, they opted to soothe instead of share, and continually shied away from admitting the true goal: confiscation.

But as the saying goes, if it looks like a duck…

Leading up to the fourth Democrat debate, the effort to disguise confiscation as something else continued. Pete Buttigieg, the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, complained in an interview with Snapchat’s Good Luck America about the Democrats’ “fight over confiscation,” which was distracting from other, more palatable infringements on your Second Amendment rights. Buttigieg’s comment seemed to be a continuation of his spat with O’Rourke earlier this month in Las Vegas.

After the Good Luck America interview was released, another Democrat presidential “hopeful,” New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, decided he needed to chastise Buttigieg for simply telling the truth. Booker tweeted, “Calling buyback programs ‘confiscation’ is doing the NRA’s work for them, @PeteButtigieg — and they don’t need our help.” Interestingly, Booker didn’t challenge the idea that “mandatory buyback” schemes, which he proudly supports, and confiscation are really the same thing. His complaint was over the accepted terminology for confiscation, not the confiscation itself.

Of course, part of NRA’s “work” is exposing the lies of the anti-gun movement, and bringing the truth to light. We welcome any “help” in that arena, even if it comes from hyperbolic Democrats who fundamentally misunderstand firearms. Buttigieg may be wrong about promoting other anti-gun policies, but at least he is honest about another Democrat’s desire for confiscation.

To be clear, though, he hasn’t said that he is entirely opposed to confiscation. He’s merely said he is opposed to talking about it right now.

And that kind of makes sense, politically. The four Democrat candidates that are leading in the polls–Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Buttigieg–have all referred to supporting a “voluntary buyback” scheme, rather than confiscation. Booker, O’Rourke, and California Senator Kamala Harris have all called for confiscation, and are all struggling in the low- to mid-single digits.

This week, during the fourth debate, banning AR-15s and other “assault weapons” was again brought up. And the sparks flew between Bittigieg and O’Rourke.

Moderator Anderson Cooper asked O’Rourke how his “mandatory buyback” would work if, as O’Rourke has claimed, police would not be going door-to-door to confiscate firearms. After insulting every single lawful owner of an AR-15 by claiming their firearm is a “potential instrument of terror,” “Beto” then stated he expects everyone to simply follow the law.

And that may very well be the case, for those who wish to remain law-abiding. But those who have malice in mind will not. Those who have acquired the tools of their criminal trade illegally will not. And while NRA strongly encourages gun owners to obey gun laws and work to change those with which they disagree, there are many otherwise law-abiding citizens who, when faced with a law they feel is unjust or unconstitutional, will simply not comply.

Cooper pressed O’Rourke to explain how he intends to treat those who currently own AR-15s and similar firearms, and do not turn them in, if his ban were to become law. The candidate said, “If someone does not turn in an AR-15…then that weapon will be taken from them.”

…if it swims like a duck…

O’Rourke went beyond mere confiscation, though, and offered a chilling, Swalwell-like statement about “other consequences from law enforcement.”

Mayor Buttigieg was given an opportunity to speak on the subject, where he made clear that the confiscation plan is not off the table for him. He suggested that if O’Rourke could come up with a more developed scheme, “I think we can have a debate about it.” Harkening back to the anti-gun rally in Las Vegas earlier this month, when O’Rourke all but called Buttigieg a coward for not currently supporting confiscation, the South Bend Mayor slapped down the failed Texas Senate candidate when he stated, “I don’t need lessons from you on courage.”

Before the back-and-forth between Buttigieg and O’Rourke devolved into a full-blown slap-fight, Cooper allowed some of the other candidates on the stage to weigh in on banning semi-automatic firearms.

Senator Booker pretended to be concerned about how the candidates “talk to each other and about each other,” then began talking about his gun licensing scheme without talking about the confiscation plan he has already stated he supports.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar talked about a number of anti-gun proposals, did not say that she specifically opposes confiscation, but has stated in the past that she supports “voluntary buybacks,” rather than confiscation.

Senator Warren talked about treating semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s the same as fully-automatic firearms, invoking the registration and taxation scheme under the National Firearms Act (NFA). She also called for an end to the filibuster in the Senate to help ram through gun control legislation.

Senator Harris then grossly underestimated the number of so-called “assault weapons,” saying there are only five million, when most estimates put the number at over 15 million for just AR-15s. Perhaps she is trying to minimize the impact her anti-gun efforts will have on law-abiding Americans by lying about how many will be affected. She also repeated her audacious plan of using her executive authority as President to do what has already been done. While she didn’t actually say she supports confiscation on the debate stage this week, she has stated support for it in the past.

Former Vice President Biden stumbled through his statement next. He talked about the failed Clinton gun ban of 1994-2004 — trying to take sole credit for its passage — brought up registering AR-15s under the NFA–presumably to show he doesn’t support confiscation–and spoke of repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The last candidate given an opportunity to speak about confiscation was former HUD Secretary Julián Castro. He stated he is opposed to confiscation because he does not want to see police going door-to-door to implement the policy, as he expressed concerns over “police violence.”

So, while some candidates sparred over what to call the confiscation scheme, others made clear their opposition to it…for now.

…and if it quacks like a duck…

While the Democrat debate ended Tuesday night, the debate over what to call gun confiscation continues. In fact, on MSNBC the following day, O’Rourke spoke to Joe Scarborough to make sure everyone understood his position; and his preferred terminology. While Scarborough correctly referred to the plan as confiscation, O’Rourke claimed it was not, and continually referred to a “buyback.”

Scarborough labored to get the candidate to admit confiscation is his goal, suggesting a hypothetical Texas rancher who simply does not feel a ban on AR-15s is just or constitutional. In response, O’Rourke said that, as with any law, “there have to be consequences,” and in Scarborough’s hypothetical scenario, “there would be a visit by law enforcement.”

Look, if you have to send law enforcement to someone’s house to remove their lawfully acquired property under threat of penalty, you can try to say that’s NOT confiscation…

…but it is probably a duck.

 

Uncategorized

Marching Toward Gun Confiscation: Prohibition Advocates Released Unhinged Gun Control Plan

10 Comments

Boasting the Orwellian title of “A Peace Plan for a Safer America,” the March for Our Lives agenda is actually a disarmament plan against law-abiding gun owners. READ MORE

antigun

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Last week, March for Our Lives — the gun control group that arose in the wake of the criminal mass attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. — released a lengthy plan outlining its vision for firearm regulation in America. Reduced to its essence, the plan is to discourage gun ownership through numerous layers of red tape, fees, and government mandates.

Perhaps to their credit, March for Our Lives are more forthcoming in their proposals than disingenuous anti-gun groups who falsely profess commitment to the Second Amendment. No one can come away from reading the entire March for Our lives ”plan” with anything but the impression that the group wants to end gun ownership as America currently knows it. Even the anti-gun mass media has had to admit it is “sweeping,” “ambitious,” and “far-reaching.”

The centerpiece of the plan is the ever-trendy concept of a massive ban on semi-automatic firearms, coupled with a program to force formerly law-abiding owners of those guns to surrender them to the government or face punishment.

The plan doesn’t get into the specifics of which guns would be banned, how much compensation would be offered for their surrender, or what would happen to those who did not comply with this “full mandatory” scheme, but the goal would be “a reduction of our domestic firearm stock by 30%.”

Needless to say, however, any plan that by its own terms aims to have the U.S. government collect and destroy nearly 1 in every 3 guns in America must contemplate harsh treatment for anyone who doesn’t comply. Americans are not known for just casually surrendering their lawfully-acquired property and essential freedoms.

Even those who weren’t forcibly required to surrender their guns would still be subject under the plan to programs to “encourage” the “voluntary” civilian relinquishment of “handguns and other firearms.”

The plan also targets those still stubborn enough to want to legally acquire or keep a gun or ammunition. That would require a “multi-step approval process, overseen by a law enforcement agency, that requires background checks, in-person interviews, personal references, rigorous gun safety training, and a waiting period of 10 days for each gun purchase.”

Some version of this process, moreover, would have to be repeated each year that the person wanted to keep the gun.

And, of course, licensees would have to pay substantial “annual licensing fees” to atone for the high cost of “gun violence” they themselves are not committing.

Besides the licensing process, which would apparently allow licensing officials some discretion to deny even otherwise qualified applicants, mandatory disqualifiers for gun ownership would also be greatly expanded.

Young adults (ironically, the same demographic being used to market the “Peace Plan”) would be automatically prohibited. Anyone who was considered to have a “propensity for violence” would also be ineligible, a category that could be established by court records, misdemeanor convictions, and apparently even intemperate speech that did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense.

Those who passed this rigorous licensing process, however, would still not be out of the woods. The plan would provide ongoing mechanisms of disarmament, either by license revocation or through a “federal policy” of “extreme risk protection orders” filed by family members or others who objected to the person having a firearm.

As if this weren’t enough, the plan would create a new National Director of Gun Violence Prevention, answerable only to the U.S. President, to marshal the vast resources of the federal government in support of the plan’s gun control agenda. Among other things, this official would be responsible for “educating” the pubic to reject the idea that “guns are safe products” and ensuring Americans understand that “the presence of a firearm in your home dramatically increases your chance of death.”

Characterizing “officer-involved shootings” as a “leading cause of death for young American men,” the plan even takes aim at police use of firearms and deadly force. The aforementioned director would also be tasked with promoting “stricter policies on the use of force” and directing the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct civil rights investigations of local police departments to exact “consent decrees” that subject the departments to federal oversight.

Ironically, at the same time the plan calls for additional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners and the police, it also insists on more lenient treatment of convicted criminals through criminal justice, pretrial, and sentencing reforms. The goal, in contrast to the increased surveillance and management of gun owners and police officers, would be to “lower the footprint of the criminal justice system” in everybody else’s lives.

And it just goes on an on. Most of the worst (and often discredited) thinking in gun control over the last 40 years is included in some form or fashion. For example, the plan calls for:

Rationing the purchase of firearms;
Banning “high capacity” magazines;
Banning online advertising of guns;
Banning online sales of ammunition and firearm parts;
Holding gun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable for crimes committed with firearms;
Creating a searchable national registry of firearms and firearm owners;
Creating national “safe storage” requirements; and
Granting the Consumer Products Safety Commission authority to regulate firearms.

How would any of this be consistent with the Second Amendment?

The plan has thought of that, too. The very concept of an individual right to keep and bear arms, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, would undergo a “serious rethinking.”

The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, would be required to reexamine its own conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and work toward repudiating the foundations of the Heller decision.

A “different interpretation of the Second Amendment” would also become a litmus test for the “next generation of federal judges.” The president would choose judicial prospects in concert with March for Our Lives to “develop a slate of gun violence prevention champions for federal judicial nominations …”

Even the U.S. Supreme Court itself would face “reform” under the plan, the better to ensure that “structural limitations” did not stand in the way of the court eventually reversing the “excoriated” and “controversial” Heller decision.

But the plan doesn’t stop there. It even envisions a federally-funded “Safety Corps,” modeled on the Peace Corps, to pay legions of young activists to promote the principles and objectives of the “Peace Plan.”

The “Peace Plan” concludes by calling “on every Presidential candidate for the 2020 election” to endorse it.

So far, none of the candidates seem to have taken the bait.

But if any of them do, March for our Lives will have done the entire American electorate a favor by showing just how far some politicians are willing to go to eradicate America’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

Uncategorized

Video: Arrogant Illinois State Senator Proposes Confiscating Guns

13 Comments

An Illinois State Rifle Association member asked a simple question and got a threatening answer… READ MORE

julie morrison

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

SEE THE VIDEO HERE

Anti-gun lawmakers, including some of those vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, are becoming increasingly open about their desire to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens and jail those who don’t comply. Perhaps taking a cue from their strident federal allies, this trend has trickled down to state politicians.

On June 11, anti-gun Illinois state lawmakers Sen. Julie Morrison and Rep. Bob Morgan held a “townhall” meeting in Deerfield, Ill. The NRA state affiliate, the Illinois State Rifle Association, encouraged members to attend the meeting and ask Morrison about her sponsorship of SB107.

The bill would have branded many modern semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic handguns, and shotguns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens as “assault weapons” and banned them along with spare parts and accessories. The legislation permitted current owners to continue to possess these firearms if the owner registered the firearm with the state and paid a $25 fee for each gun.

At the “townhall,” a constituent confronted Morrison about her bill, asking why it was acceptable for the lawmaker to push legislation that would take firearms away from law-abiding citizens unless they registered their guns and paid a fine. The exchange was captured on video by an ISRA supporter.

After pointing out the punitive nature of the legislation, the gun rights supporter asked Morrison, “If I get to keep it if I pay a fine and register it, how dangerous is it in the first place and why do you need to ban it at all? Why do you need to try to ban my semi-automatic firearms?

With a repellant smugness that can only be appreciated by watching the video, Morrison offered her constituents a flippant response. Literally looking down her nose at those gathered, the state senator replied, “Well you’ve just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all. Maybe it’ll just be confiscation and we won’t have to worry about paying a fine.”

Astute gun rights supporters have long-understood that the ultimate goal of anti-gun politicians is to confiscate firearms from law-abiding gun owners. What sets Morrison’s conduct apart is that it is an almost perfect encapsulation of the contempt gun control supporters have for their fellow citizens. Gun rights supporters and all those who value personal freedom should share this video in order to show others the arrogant indifference with which these lawmakers treat their constituents’ constitutional rights.

 

Politics

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) Pushes May-Issue Federal Firearm Owner Licensing and Gun Confiscation

4 Comments

He’s just all over the news… Here’s his “plan.” READ MORE

cory booker

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On Monday, in an obvious and desperate attempt to garner attention in an overcrowded 2020 Democratic presidential field, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) threw long-cultivated anti-gun strategy and messaging to the wind and further exposed the gun control endgame when he released his “Plan To End the Gun Violence Epidemic.” The document is a slapdash gun control advocate wish list, at the core of which is a plan to create a may-issue federal gun owner licensing scheme and confiscate millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

As intended, Booker’s senseless gun control declaration garnered the serial grandstander modest media attention. Elaborating on his anti-gun agenda during an interview with CNN, Booker made clear his intent to imprison those who do not comply with his confiscation plan. Anchor Poppy Harlow asked the senator,

Your competitor in the 2020 race… has also, like you, proposed an assault weapons ban, but he’s proposing a buyback program. Where Americans that currently have those guns could sell them essentially to the government. But if they don’t within a certain period of time they would be prosecuted, so subject to be thrown in jail perhaps. Are you supportive of the same measure?

At first Booker equivocated, but Harlow continued to press the candidate, reiterating, “Would you prosecute people? Do you support the government buying them back, and if not, potentially people could go to jail if they don’t want to sell them back; yes or no?” While failing to directly acknowledge the logical penal consequences of his proposal, Booker responded to Harlow’s question by stating, “We should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons.”

Booker’s proposal does not provide a definition of “assault weapon,” so it is unclear the exact firearms that would be implicated under his plan. However, given that Booker is a cosponsor of S.66, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019,” it can be deduced that the senator from New Jersey seeks to prohibit an even larger category of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms than Bill Clinton’s 1994 ban.

For a candidate that has made criminal justice reform a focal point of his campaign, Booker’s indifference to the incarceration of nonviolent and otherwise law-abiding gun owners makes clear that his compassion does not extend to those who defy his political sensibilities. And there is ample evidence that many would defy Booker’s preferred policies.

Enacted in 2013, the New York SAFE Act required owners of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to register their guns with the state. An estimated 1-1.2 million firearms were implicated under the measure. Data released in 2015 revealed that 23,847 people had registered a total of 44,485 guns.

A 2013 Connecticut measure required gun owners to register certain configurations of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and individual magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. According to a 2011 report, there were an estimated 2.4 million such magazines in the state. Gun owners had registered 38,290 magazines at the registration deadline.

Booker need only to look at his home state of New Jersey to understand the folly of his proposal. An April 17, 1992 New York Times article, “Owners of Assault Guns Slow to Obey Law,” noted, “In New Jersey, which enacted an assault weapon ban in 1990, 2,000 weapons have been surrendered, made inoperable or registered as collectors’ items, according to the State Police. The state Attorney General’s office estimates that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 assault weapons in New Jersey.”

Aside from the impracticality and hypocrisy of Booker’s proposal, it would also be ineffective and unconstitutional. A congressionally-mandated study of the 1994 semi-automatic ban determined that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” in part because, “[assault weapons] and [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban.” In joining Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissent from a denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, which concerned a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatics, Justice Antonin Scalia made clear that existing Supreme Court precedent (which he authored in District of Columbia v. Heller) precluded bans on such firearms. In the dissent, Justice Thomas explained that “several Courts of Appeals… have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes,” which he noted was “noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents.”

The other core aspect of Booker’s gun control agenda is federal firearm owner licensing, which he likens to a driver’s license, complete with a firearms version of the DMV. Such a license would be required to merely own a firearm.

Americans should not be required to obtain a license that serves as a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutional right. That aside, this lazy analogy is flawed.

Constitutional scholar and UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh has pointed out on multiple occasions what treating firearm ownership like car ownership would mean in practice. In a 2014 piece for WashingtonPost.com, Volokh explained,

Cars are basically regulated as follows (I rely below on California law, but to my knowledge the rules are similar throughout the country):

(1) No federal licensing or registration of car owners.

(2) Any person may use a car on his own private property without any license or registration. See, e.g., California Vehicle Code §§ 360, 12500 (driver’s license required for driving on “highways,” defined as places that are “publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel”); California Vehicle Code § 4000 (same as to registration).

(3) Any adult –and in most states, 16- and 17-year-olds, as well –may get a license to use a car in public places by passing a fairly simple test that virtually everyone can pass.

(4) You can lose your license for proved misuse of the car, but not for most other misconduct; and even if you lose your driver’s license, you can usually regain it some time later.

(5) Your license from one state is good throughout the country.

Now I suspect that many gun control advocates would in reality prefer a much more onerous system of regulations for guns than for cars.

Booker’s proposal proves Volokh’s suspicion correct.

Like all of his gun control proposals, Booker’s description of the licensing scheme is short on details. However, The New York Times reported that under Booker’s proposal, the application process would include “sitting for an interview.” The only reason to subject an applicant to an interview is to inject subjective criteria into the licensing process. Under such a scheme, a person’s ability to exercise their constitutional right would be at the discretion of federal government functionary and whatever prejudices they may hold.

Perhaps unbeknownst to Booker, over the last three decades the vast majority of states have removed subjective criteria and government discretion from their concealed carry licensing procedures. In some jurisdictions, such discretion had been, and still is, used to deny residents’ right to bear arms outside the home wholesale. In other jurisdictions that discretion has fostered corruption and been abused to limit the Right-to-Carry to the rich or well-connected.

All current polling and prediction market data suggest that that Booker is not a serious candidate for president. However, unlike even more vacuous candidates, Booker does possess significant political power as the junior senator from New Jersey.

While his flagrant hostility to gun owners may be intemperate and imprudent, Booker’s proposal does serve to show the radical confiscatory aims of the gun control movement. Moreover, it should be a warning to gun owners that these fringe ideas have well-positioned backers within the corridors of power.

 

Gun Rights, Law, NRA, Politics

Anti-Gun Democrat Congressman Invokes Nuclear Option Against Resistors of Firearm Confiscation

20 Comments

Whoa… If he didn’t mean it he shouldn’t have said it. Read about Swalwell’s “Armageddon Confiscation” threat HERE

swalwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Well, it’s just before Thanksgiving, and nothing gets you into the holiday spirit like a U.S. Congressman who raises the specter of unleashing a nuclear attack against fellow Americans to demonstrate just how darned committed he is to mass firearm confiscation.

For those who were looking for yet another reason to purchase modern semiautomatic firearms and extra magazines for yourselves and your loved ones this holiday sales season, we give you the comments of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA).

Swalwell, you may recall, gained some headlines for himself earlier this year when he proposed banning various semiautomatic firearms, forcing current owners to surrender them to the government, and “go[ing] after” resisters.

Last week, he made it clear in a Twitter exchange that he meant what he said.

Responding to another Twitter user who commented that an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and ban and seize guns would provoke a war, Swallwell stated: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.” He added, “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

When confronted with the obvious import of his words — that he was suggesting nuclear weapons could be used on American soil against resisters of firearm confiscation — Swalwell backpedaled and tried to reframe his comments.

“Don’t be so dramatic,” he tweeted. “No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want.”

Later, as backlash continued to mount, Swalwell changed his story again and claimed his reference to America’s nuclear arsenal was merely a “joke” and “sarcasm.”

So which Swalwell story are we supposed to believe?

If it’s the first one, there’s apparently no option that he would consider off the table for enforcing firearm confiscation. This includes destroying entire communities, killing untold numbers of innocent bystanders, rendering large areas of land uninhabitable, all to annihilate (and presumably make an example of) anyone who stood in the way of his plans.

If it’s the second one, he’s pointing out that the idea of resisting a federal firearm confiscation order is “ludicrous” because the 18th Century’s relative parity between the unorganized militia and the then-recognized government no longer exists, even if the nuclear option is off the table. Yet this also implies that he could foresee using sophisticated military technology other than nuclear weapons against resistors.

If we’re to believe the third story, we’re all just too stuffy and serious to recognize the obvious comedic intent the U.S. Congressman had when he referenced nuclear weapons in describing the futility of anyone resisting the government’s attempt to violate their fundamental constitutional rights. The historical basis of the Second Amendment, in other words, is but a joke to Eric Swalwell.

Whichever option you choose, it is incredible even by the low standards of modern political rhetoric that Swalwell would be the one accusing others of being “dramatic” and “inflam[ing] the gun debate. We just don’t see anything funny about politicians and reporters whose idea of a joke is threatening to bomb fellow Americans or slandering law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

And even if he didn’t mean what he actually said (always a possibility with anti-gun politicians), we can still give thanks that Eric Swalwell is not and almost certainly never will be trusted with the launch codes for America’s nuclear arsenal.

But it’s perhaps not surprising that he could be so cavalier about subjects many gun-owning Americans take very seriously. Despite the political left’s mantras of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, many are proudly ignorant of and indifferent to the types of lives led by millions of ordinary Americans who happen not to inhabit America’s largest coastal cities.

Also weighing into Swalwell’s Twitter debacle this week was Nina Burleigh, Newsweek’s national politics correspondent and, according to her official Newsweek bio, “an award-winning journalist and the author of five books.”

With such impressive journalistic credentials covering U.S. politics, you would think that Ms. Burleigh would have at least caught on that AR-15s and similar guns are common and popular firearms in America, even if she didn’t know that they are in fact America’s most popular class of rifles.

But to think so would be overestimating Nina Burleigh.

As Swalwell attempted to reframe his initial tweet, Burleigh leapt to his defense with a tweet of her own aimed at the NRA’s Dana Loesch: “Almost every single person I’ve ever heard of with an AR-15 has been a mass murderer. Based on Twitter sample the rest of them are scarily paranoid. Get on the right side of history.”

And even if it’s possible that Burleigh herself doesn’t personally know a single one of the many, many millions of Americans who own and lawfully use AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles, you might think she would have at least read about some of them, again considering she works in the media.

For example, she might have read about Stephen Willeford, who used his AR-15 to end a mass shooting in a Texas church and to prevent the perpetrator from escaping.

There’s also Sarah Merkle, who as a 15-year-old testified against the then-pending ban in Maryland on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. She explained that the AR-15 was the type of rifle she used as a member of the Maryland State Rifle Team and that her competitive accomplishments provided her with college scholarship opportunities she otherwise would not have had. She also explained that rifles of any type are used in only a very small percentage of firearm-related homicides in the U.S.

Also making the news as an AR-15 owner was U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who during the debate over the Democrats’ proposed “assault weapons” ban in 2013 noted that “I own an AR-15 and I have done nothing wrong by owning the gun.”

Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Burleigh was also joking and that we just aren’t sophisticated to understand her rapier-like wit.

Call us party poopers, but we just don’t see anything funny about politicians and reporters whose idea of a joke is threatening to bomb fellow Americans or slandering law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

mushroom cloud

 

Gun Rights, Law, NRA, Politics

Anti-Gun Democrat Proposes Banning Semi-Autos and Going After “Resisters”

33 Comments

Don’t believe the smoke screen: the anti-gun agenda won’t rest until they’ve got your gun… READ MORE

swallwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The May 11, 2018 headline of the USA Today op-ed said it all. Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) last week advocated for legislation to ban an as-yet undetermined class of semi-automatic firearms and to “go after resisters” who refuse to relinquish their lawfully-acquired firearms. Lest anyone mistake his intentions, Swalwell followed up with a lengthy NBC News interview this week in which he made clear that his own proposal is a departure from prior gun bans that allowed those who obtained the firearms when they were lawful to keep them. Swalwell said that after thinking “about the different ways to address it … I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities.”

According to the NBC piece, Swalwell is modeling his own proposal on laws passed during the 1990s in Australia. The article then inaccurately states, “But while Australia comes up often in gun debates, almost no prominent figures have proposed national laws that would demand that gun owners turn in existing weapons en masse.”

The truth is that anyone who suggests the United States should adopt Australian-style gun control — a club that includes such infamous gun ban advocates as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — is by definition advocating for the forcible disarming of “resisters.” That, in fact, was the signature feature of the Australian approach.

The widespread disarming of Australian citizens occurred through a comprehensive scheme that proceeded as follows. What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned.

First, the various political subdivisions within Australia unanimously agreed to a uniform ban on large categories of popular firearms. The ban was both retroactive and prospective.

Second, the government instituted “amnesty” periods, which allowed those who had previously acquired the newly-banned firearms lawfully to surrender them to the government for a fixed and nonnegotiable rate of compensation.

Third, and most importantly, anyone who refused to relinquish their formerly lawful property was to be treated as an armed criminal, with all the physical jeopardy and legal consequences that entails.

The Australian government also uses a “may-issue” licensing scheme for firearm acquisition, which among other things requires an applicant to show a “genuine reason” for needing the gun. Self-defense — which the U.S. Supreme Court considers the “central component” of America’s right to keep and bear arms – is not recognized under Australian law as a permissible reason for the acquisition, ownership, or use of a firearm.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, is completely foreign to and incompatible with America’s history, tradition, and rights of firearm ownership. Simply put, there is no reconciling Australian-style gun control with America’s Second Amendment, a fact which even some gun control advocates in their more candid moments are willing to admit.

If Swalwell has distinguished himself at all from other American advocates of the Australian approach, it’s because he is willing to be more forthcoming about the fact that it would turn millions of formerly law-abiding Americans into armed “criminals” with the stroke of a pen.

In his NBC interview, however, he tried to have it both ways.

First, he insisted:

I’m not proposing a roundup or confiscation. It would be like anything else that’s banned: If you’re caught with it there would be a steep penalty. Any fear of ATF agents going door to door to collect assault weapons is unfounded and not what is proposed here. They don’t go collecting drugs that are banned or any other substance or weapon that’s banned and I’m not proposing that here.

That, of course, is a lie. Law enforcement agents with enough probable cause that someone possesses drugs or other contraband to get a warrant absolutely do go after the contraband. Some might even say they are duty-bound to do so. A quick Internet search will show you what that looks like in the real world.

Anybody who illegally possesses a contraband firearm potentially risks the same treatment. Swalwell, who touts his credentials as a former prosecutor, surely knows that.

But when asked to elaborate about the “stiff penalties” that would supposedly ensure compliance with his scheme, Swalwell seemingly contradicted his no-confiscation stance, stating, “I’d want to first get the gun.”

To their credit, NBC asked Swalwell directly whether he was “prepared for some of the confrontations that might erupt from this,” adding, “You’re surely familiar with the slogan, ‘I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.’” Swalwell brushed aside the question, indicating that Parkland survivors who have been advocating for gun control have given him “courage” for resolute action.

The actions he is calling for, however, carry inherent risks of further unnecessary loss of innocent life.

But that is what the gun “debate” has come to in America, with at least one gun control advocate so emboldened that he’s openly willing to put violent confrontations on the table to advance the agenda.

Whether Rep. Swalwell is serious or whether he is just hoping to move the Overton Window on what is considered legitimate rhetoric in the realm of gun control policy is perhaps debatable.

What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned.