Friday, June 11, 2021
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In May, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that the Department of Justice’s civil rights work was “critical to protecting the American dream.” Since then DOJ has made clear that Garland’s selective definition of “civil rights” has no room for the Second Amendment or even basic due process under the law. Moreover, contrary to recent messaging, Garland and the DOJ appears to support an increase in civilian-police confrontations – so long as the civilian involved is not actually suspected of having committed any crime.
On June 7, the DOJ released model state gun confiscation order legislation – sometimes referred to as “extreme risk protection order,” “gun violence restraining order,” or “red flag” legislation. Regardless of the marketing, such laws empower the government to extinguish a person’s Second Amendment rights and confiscate their firearms without due process. Those subject to these orders are stripped of their rights without being convicted of any crime. By releasing this model language, the Biden administration has endorsed these unconstitutional measures.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms; in the Fourteenth Amendment context, a liberty. A respondent’s firearms are, of course, their property
Click the link to read the whole article: Biden Gun Confiscation Order
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- It’s widely established that law-abiding Americans are buying firearms at record levels. No one disputes it. Gun control groups decry the trend. Supporters of the Second Amendment celebrate it. But during the past 18 months, the fact is a historic number of Americans have taken ownership of their self-defense and that includes millions of first-time buyers who bought a gun.
Leave it to staunch gun control advocate and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s agitprop bullhorn The Trace to “report” on a new “survey” severely downplaying what’s happening.
Missing By a Mile
Antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg funds 70 percent of The Trace’s operations through his gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. Now in typical fashion, The Trace received a pre-release summary of new survey data from Northeastern and Harvard University researchers, both bastions of gun control groupthink, that claim to speak with authority about the volume of first-time firearm owners that arose since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. The Joyce Foundation, a “gun violence prevention” private foundation hosted, an exclusive data call “to journalists and advocates.” The CliffsNotes summary is astounding: the two universities found there’s been no surge in the number of first-time gun buyers in America.
“3.8 million Americans became first-time gun owners in 2020, according to preliminary findings from a new survey of 19,000 people. That group accounted for 23 percent of all gun buyers last year, up slightly from 17 percent in 2019,” the article purports.
NSSF’s data shows around 20 percent of gun buyers are first-timers in a normal year. In 2020, it was double that. But with the Joyce Foundation’s “research,” the saying goes: You get what you pay for.
Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me
This isn’t the first time The Joyce Foundation has used the same antigun playbook to run the “exclusive survey results” teaser play. They previously partnered with the same Northwestern and Harvard University players as well. The group organized a similar press call in 2016, this time with The Guardian and The Trace, to push another fallacy, suggesting that only three percent of American gun owners hold 50 percent of the firearms.
Click the link to read the whole article: Antigun Group Tries to Rewrite History
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On June 7th, ATF published a new notice of proposed rulemaking on its website entitled Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”. The proposed rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, and interested parties will have 90 days to comment on the proposed rule once it is published.
The rule seems aimed at making nearly all configurations of firearms equipped with stabilizing braces subject to the taxation and registration requirements of the National Firearms Act.
Since 2012, ATF has recognized that stabilizing braces serve a legitimate function and the inclusion of a stabilizing brace on pistol or other firearm does not automatically subject that firearm to the provisions of the NFA. That’s because stabilizing braces were first designed and intended to help disabled veterans fire large format pistols.
In the intervening years, ATF has repeatedly confirmed that the inclusion of a stabilizing brace on a firearm does not make that firearm subject to the NFA. While there was a limited time between 2015 and 2017 where ATF claimed that using a stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock could “redesign” the firearm and create an NFA firearm, ATF has never taken the position that the mere inclusion of a stabilizing brace on a firearm makes it an NFA firearm.
Click the link to read the whole article: ATF Targets Pistol Stabilizing Braces
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white” people have a particular susceptibility,” the abstract for “On Having Whiteness” in The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association asserts. “Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples.
“There is not yet a permanent cure,” we are told.
Possibly there is if one is to heed the prescription offered by Dr. Aruna Khilanani, a Manhattan psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who offered her “final solution” to medical students and faculty at Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center. While lecturing on the “Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” she “told the audience that she had fantasized about ‘unloading a revolver into the head of any white person’ who got in her way,” the Daily Mail reported.
These aren’t just isolated nutjobs. These are voices that influence their professions. Their opinions, in turn, are used to shape public opinion and craft laws, including citizen disarmament edicts enacted under the pretext of “mental health.”
There’s a reason why they call us “gun nuts.”
That’s why “helpful” Republicans who enjoy a reputation of being “pro-gun” are not doing the people who elected them any favors by advancing “bipartisan” legislation.
Backers of such bills tell us “due process” protections will be ensured by seeing individuals get their day in court. It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?
What objective protections will exist to offset politically connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask because APA included in its advocacy platform such diktats as registration-enabling background checks, “smart” guns, storage mandates, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, and tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.
Of special interest – or it should be: How will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health prescription to deny them (assuming that’s even obtainable)?
What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators, and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure from all considerations be to “err on the side of caution”?
The simple truth of the matter is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, and that must require full due process before being imposed. Leaving someone who has been adjudicated a danger to himself or others with uncontrolled access to people and things will only produce disaster. As the quote (popularly but incorrectly attributed to Einstein) goes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
Racist shrinks who view human beings they hate as malignant parasites who deserve to be shot in the head are more than crazy, they’re evil. Trusting anti-gun associations that promote such monstrous ideas with a say in anyone’s rights is beyond nuts, it’s suicidal.