Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, any time. Without much, if any, regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns.
In the video Cuomo snarked on, Corban isn’t belligerently calling on Americans to arm themselves to prepare for civil war. She’s not even lauding limitless assault weapons or luxuriating in the gore of guns. She’s recounting how she survived being strangled and raped by a man who is currently serving life in prison, and how the Second Amendment empowers her to defend herself and her children from future threats.
Even if you’re in favor of restricting different kinds of guns or creating registry regulations, Corban is pretty much the worst target you could possibly focus your ire upon. Yet Cuomo cannot help himself.
This week, SB 61, SB 172, and SB 376 all authored by Senator Anthony J. Portantino (D–La Cañada Flintridge) passed the California State Senate. The three bills further establish Portantino’s leadership as one of California’s strongest sensible gun control advocates. His efforts over the past decade have signiﬁcantly improved California’s gun control efforts and have enhance public safety in neighborhoods and main streets across our state.
Nothing indicates its an opinion piece. It’s categorized as a news brief. No data is given or suggested that would support the claims.
And some people wonder why traditional media is going bankrupt. I don’t. And I don’t have any sympathy for them. They brought it on themselves.
This provides yet another glimpse into the mind of the anti-gun activist, though. You see, no matter what they ask for, it’s important to remember that it’s never the endgame. They’re never finished with that one bit of gun control. It’s only a start. They’ll either use it to justify the next piece of legislation or claim that it doesn’t go far enough, all despite no evidence that more is even needed.
Change our culture by “coming out of the closet” as a gun owner. Take new shooters to the range. Donate money and/or time to gun rights groups. And call out the lies of those who wish evil upon us.—Joe]
The process of banning yourself from guns in Washington state is fairly simple. It starts with a person filling out a short form and presenting it, along with identification, at any county clerk’s office. After verifying the person’s ID, the clerk mails the document to the Washington State Patrol, which has 24 hours to enter it into the federal background check system, as well as the state’s crime database. If that person were to then try to impulsively buy a gun anyway, he or she would be denied.
Residents who waive their firearm rights also have the option to un-waive them — as long as it’s been at least seven days since the waiver was filed and they are not otherwise prohibited from gun ownership. They file another short form and wait for the state police to remove them from the system, which restores their ability to purchase a gun. The clerk and State Patrol must then destroy all records of the person’s initial waiver.
The waivers are designed to be confidential, and can’t be used in legal proceedings nor as a condition of employment or mental health treatment.
This would address some of the issues supposedly addressed by the “Red Flag” laws without the severe infringements associated with those type of laws. Sounds like a win-win to me. But you know the other side is not going to be satisfied with it. They don’t gain power and control over people with something like this. Still, it’s a useful litmus test to see if people are truly interesting in addressing the claimed issue or they want the power and control of the “Red Flag” laws.
It went into effect in Washington state as of January of this year. Since then only three people have used it. None have revoked the waivers.
A senior U.S. District Court judge in California has issued a permanent injunction against the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s longstanding policy of “dissuading, discouraging, and preventing non-United States citizens from applying for a CCW license,” in a lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.
SAF, Calguns and FPC were joined by the Firearms Policy Foundation and Madison Society Foundation, and Arie Van Nieuwenhuyzen, a permanent resident alien who has lived in Riverside since 1983 and is a business owner there.
The case is known as Van Nieuwenhuyzen, et al. v. Riverside, CA Sheriff Stanley Sniff, et al.
Senior United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered the order permanently enjoining Riverside County from having a policy and practice that prevented legal U.S. residents from exercising their right to apply for a carry license.
“We’re delighted with the outcome of this case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This isn’t our first experience with such a policy, and we’re happy to have had good partners in this challenge. Mr. Van Nieuwenhuyzen has been a productive, law-abiding member of his community for decades, and there is no good reason to discourage or deny someone of his background and standing the ability to apply for a carry license.”
“This coalition victory is important,” added Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Coalition, “because it not only helps to restore access to the fundamental right to bear arms, it also sends a crystal-clear message to carry licensing authorities that the rights of the people can and will be enforced in our courts. Anyone who stands between the People and their rights is on notice.”
The policy was carried out under former Sheriff Stanley Sniff, who lost to current Sheriff Chad Bianco in the last election. Sheriff Bianco campaigned on a promise to promote access to concealed carry licenses and reform earlier policies. Under terms of the permanent injunction, the Riverside Sheriff’s Department have 30 days to finalize all changes to their CCW policy and eliminate “any and all U.S. Citizenship requirements” from the department website that describe the application process, and from CCW application forms.
“This is just one more example of winning back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time,” Gottlieb said.
I donate money from every paycheck, matched dollar for dollar by my employer, to SAF and Firearms Policy Coalition. I think this is the path by which we have the best hope to reach our desired goals.
One of the lessons of the 20th Century is that far more murders were committed by criminal governments than by individual criminals. Background checks, registration of gun possession, and restrictions on guns in the possession of governments will save more lives than any restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.
You can’t reason with these people. They have no conscience or self-awareness. Their sole focus is the sexual ecstasy they experience holding the power of death in their hands. They have all sorts of justifications for this fixation, but it boils down to their gonads.
If your candidate fascist is ideologically pro-free-market, false match. Even if he merely displays an affection for large scale corporate capitalism, that ain’t fascist. For the very direct reason that big corporations are a power center, or collection of power centers, competing with the unitary state. Fascists never tolerate that well.
Something else fascists never tolerate well is unregistered civilian firearms, or registered ones in the hands of anyone not signed up in one of the leader’s thug militias. A fascist looks at these and sees a civilian insurrection waiting to happen, and generally has a pretty keen sense of how quickly said civilian insurrection can end up with him hung up dead in the town square someplace like Giulino di Mezzegra.
…it should be concerning to ALL Illinoisans that proponents of these laws are after the shield (constitutional rights) and the spear (guns) against tyranny. We must not give up the legislative fight and must resort to the third co-equal branch when two branches have failed in their constitutional duties. Expect this all to end up in the courts if ever enacted into law in Illinois.
Andrew Chesney Illinois State Representative May 21, 2019 It’s not about your guns; it’s about your rights [Sometimes it’s easy to get discouraged by the number of politicians who demand we give up our rights. It’s sometimes easy to believe we have few, if any, political allies in government.
It’s a relief to find that even in a repressive state like Illinois there are politicians who are fighting for our rights.—Joe]
… the underlying argument that Colorado sheriffs are making against the red flag law: They have professional discretion when it comes to the enforcement of their state’s laws. Furthermore, if this precedent was applied to a future legal challenge, noncompliant law enforcement would not be held legally liable if they refused to serve a court order even if the targeted person subsequently committed a heinous crime. If death and taxes are two guarantees in life, police immunity is a safe bet for the bronze medal.
Jay Stooksberry May 23, 2019 Colorado’s Growing Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement [The Second Amendment sanctuary movement has to be causing the anti-gun people great pause. If law enforcement won’t enforce their new laws and both the intending victims of these laws and law enforcement get away with ignoring them, might they then become inclined to ignore older gun laws as well?
Also,SCOTUS doesn’t operate in a public opinion vacuum. That there is this much pushback on these stupid laws is going to be taken into account. This will make rulings lean toward a broader application of the protections guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.—Joe]
While Constitutionally protected rights do not depend upon empirical data to be retained the above points can be used to demonstrate anti-gun people have intentions other than reducing violent crime. Demand they tell you their real intentions for desiring a disarmed public.—Joe]
The long delay is over. The important aspects of the motion to dismiss have been denied. Just as important, the judge’s ruling treats the Second Amendment as any other fundamental individual right that is constitutionally protected.
Our supporters have been asking for months about the lawsuit’s progress. Now we can report that the long wait for a ruling on the motion to dismiss is over, and we won the first round. And now the state, and the initiative proponents, are on the defensive.
These things take so long that I get annoyed. It would seem to me we should get a summary judgement in our favor within a month or so, begin prosecution of the villains, and be done with it. But I recognize I have a bias. It does, however, appear we are making progress so I can’t complain all that much.—Joe]