Category Archives: Law

Never Enough: New Zealand Government Pushes Even More Gun Control

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In the wake of a failed ban and confiscate measure now there’s a proposed national registry to get it going again… READ MORE

new zealand gun ban

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On July 22, New Zealand’s Labour-led government announced a wide array of new gun control proposals. The move came amidst the island nation’s ongoing program to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms from law-abiding gun owners that will last through December 20. The government’s most recent attack on gun owners is likely to engender further civil disobedience to the firearm confiscation scheme.

In March, following a high-profile shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern moved to ban and confiscate several types of commonly-owned firearms. The “Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Regulations 2019” was enacted in early April and, according to a summary from the New Zealand Police, prohibits the following —

All semi-automatic firearms (including semi-automatic shotguns), but:
Excluding rimfire rifles .22 calibre or less as long as they have a magazine (whether detachable or not) that holds 10 rounds or less; and
Excluding semi-automatic shotguns that have a non-detachable, tubular magazine that holds 5 rounds or less.
Pump action shotguns that:
Are capable of being used with a detachable magazine; or
Have a non-detachable tubular magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds.

Moreover, the legislation prohibits rifle magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, shotgun magazines capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition, and a host of semi-automatic firearm parts and accessories. Those in possession of the newly prohibited firearms are required to modify them to comply with the Arms Amendment or surrender them at a “collection event” for a predetermined compensation price.

Soon after enacting the new prohibition, some in law enforcement and the gun control community expressed concerns that the government had missed a crucial step in the civilian disarmament process — firearms registration. At present, prospective gun owners must acquire a firearms license. However, only pistols and a small subset of long guns are required to be registered.

This lack of a registry has frustrated the government’s ability to ensure compliance with their firearm confiscation effort. Addressing this issue, New Zealand Police Association President Chris Cahill complained in May, “We really have no idea how many of these firearms are out there in New Zealand… Which really points to how bad our firearms legislation has been, that we have let this get out of control.” Gun Control NZ co-founder Philippa Yasbek whined to the Washington Post, “These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence… These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”

According to a July 22 press release from Ardern and Minister of Police Stuart Nash, comprehensive firearms registration is the government’s top firearms legislative priority.

Given the government’s recent course of action, one might reasonably wonder how successful such a registration plan would be. Kiwi gun owners are now on notice that their government will confiscate firearms and that a registry would facilitate this task. Gun owners who register their firearms would possess their guns at the temporary pleasure of a state that has demonstrated a willingness to dispossess them of their property at a moment’s notice.

Ardern and Stuart’s message only provided the broad outlines of the government’s legislative proposals, noting that the full legislation would be released in August. The proposed restrictions encumber every aspect of gun ownership in New Zealand. The release stated that the legislation would do the following,

Establish a register of firearms and licence holders to be rolled out over 5 years

Tighten the rules to get and keep a firearms licence

Tighten the rules for gun dealers to get and keep a licence

Require licences to be renewed every five years

Introduce a new system of warning flags so Police can intervene and seek improvement if they have concerns about a licence holder’s behaviour

Prohibit visitors to New Zealand from buying a gun
Establish a licensing system for shooting clubs and ranges for the first time

Set up a new formal group to give independent firearms advice to Police, which will include people from within and outside the gun-owning community

Provide for new controls on firearms advertising

Require a licence to buy magazines, parts and ammunition
Increase penalties and introduce new offences

Enshrine in law that owning a firearm is a privilege and comes with an obligation to demonstrate a high level of safety and responsibility

Aside from the registration requirement, the most concerning proposal is the expansion of subjective government discretion in the firearm licensing process.

A document accompanying the press release titled, “Arms Amendment Bill: Q+As,” made clear just how intrusive the new licensing requirements could be. The Q+A stated that “Police will have a wider range of powers to intervene using a range of compliance and enforcement measures.” Moreover, the legislation will deputize medical officials to infringe gun rights. The document explained, “Health practitioners will have a new responsibility to notify Police if they believe a licence holder should not use a firearm.” The paper cited “gambling addiction” as a circumstance that could disqualify an individual from licensure.

The Q+A also elaborated on the “warning flags being built in to the licensing system.” The paper noted, “Behaviour that will raise flags includes encouraging or promoting violence, hatred or extremism…” In other words, the New Zealand government would be the arbiter of acceptable speech and political opinion and permit the exercise of firearms rights dependent upon an individual’s conformance with their dictates. A prospective or current firearms licensee might also earn a “warning flag” for the nebulous offense of “showing disregard for others property or land.”

In he and Ardern’s press release, Nash is quoted as stating, “Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.” This is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and is therefore inherent to all people and not dependent upon a government for its existence. Governments may fail to recognize the right, but have no power to eliminate it.

Some American politicians share Nash’s view of gun rights and many share Ardern’s zeal to control her population through firearms restrictions. Americans should pay careful attention to the New Zealand government’s actions as it provides important insight into the goals and mindset of the Second Amendment’s domestic political adversaries.

 

Governor Abbott Signs 10 Pro-Second-Amendment Bills into Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Texas Governor puts 10 NRA-supported laws into effect. READ MORE

texas flag

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

New Laws Will Take Effect on September 1

Governor Greg Abbott has now signed all of the NRA-supported legislation which the Texas Legislature sent him during the 2019 session. Thank you to pro-Second Amendment leaders and lawmakers in the House and Senate for their work to ensure passage of these measures. Here is the list of NRA-backed bills which will become law on September 1:

House Bill 121 by Rep. Valoree Swanson (R-Spring) & Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe) provides a legal defense for License To Carry holders who unknowingly enter establishments with 30.06 or 30.07 signs, as long they promptly leave when verbally informed of the policy.

House Bill 302 by Rep. Dennis Paul (R-Houston) & Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) prohibits “no firearms” clauses in future residential lease agreements and protect tenants’ rights to possess lawfully-owned firearms and ammunition in dwelling units and on manufactured home lots, and to transport their guns directly between their personal vehicles and these locations.

House Bill 1143 by Rep. Cole Hefner (R-Mount Pleasant) & Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) prevents school districts from effectively prohibiting the possession of firearms in private motor vehicles by limiting their authority to regulate the manner in which they are stored in locked cars and trucks — including by employees.

House Bill 1177 by Rep. Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) & Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe) protects citizens from being charged with a crime for carrying a handgun without a License To Carry while evacuating from an area during a declared state or local disaster, or while returning to that area, and allows shelters which are otherwise prohibited locations to decide whether to accommodate evacuees with firearms in their possession.

House Bill 1791 by Rep. Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth) & Sen. Pat Fallon (R-Prosper) closes loopholes in the state’s “wrongful exclusion” law that cities, counties and state agencies have been using to restrict License To Carry holders in government buildings.

House Bill 2363 by Rep. Cody Harris (R-Palestine) & Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) allows foster parents to store firearms in a safe and secure manner while making them more readily accessible for personal protection purposes. ?

House Bill 3231 by Rep. Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches) & Sen. Pat Fallon (R-Prosper) improves and modernizes the state’s firearms preemption law, curbs the ability of municipalities to abuse their zoning authority and circumvent state law to restrict the sale or transfer of firearms and ammunition at the local level, and allows the State Attorney General to recover reasonable expenses incurred when obtaining injunctions against localities which violate the preemption statute.

Senate Bill 535 by Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) & Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Van) strikes “churches, synagogues, or other places of worship” from the list of prohibited locations in the Penal Code, clarifying that these places have the same right enjoyed by nearly all other controllers of private property in the state to decide whether to allow License To Carry holders on their premises.

Senate Bill 741 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) & Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R-Odessa) prohibits a property owners’ association from including or enforcing a provision in a dedicatory instrument that prohibits, restricts, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting any person who is otherwise authorized from lawfully possessing, transporting, or storing a firearm.

Senate Bill 772 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) & Rep. Drew Springer (R-Muenster) provides civil liability protection to business establishments which choose not to post 30.06/30.07 signs, making them less vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits and giving them an incentive to adopt permissive policies for the carrying of handguns by law-abiding citizens on their premises.

Lastly, there’s been a lot of coverage in the media lately about the state’s role in promoting gun safety and the following rider that was included in the state budget bill, which was also signed into law by Governor Abbott and which NRA did not oppose:

Statewide Safe Gun Storage Campaign. (Department of Public Safety) $500,000 in fiscal year 2020 and $500,000 in fiscal year 2021 in General Revenue to establish and promote a statewide safe gun storage campaign. The public awareness campaign shall begin no later than September 1, 2020. The public awareness campaign may include online materials, printed materials, public service announcements, or other advertising media. The public awareness campaign may not convey a message that it is unlawful under state law to keep or store a firearm that is loaded or that is readily accessible for self-defense.

NRA supported the award of a $1 million grant from the State of Texas to the National Shooting Sports Foundation for the distribution of Project ChildSafe firearms safety kits to Texas residents through a network of law enforcement and community partners. We appreciate Governor Abbott’s recognition of NSSF’s expertise in firearms safety and his effort to bring this proven and effective safety program, which is free of anti-gun rhetoric and bias, to Texas residents.

 

Oregon: Initiative Filed to Restrict Self-Defense

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

This highly restrictive initiative once again would make law-abiding citizens criminals unless we’re willing to jump through meaningless hoops. READ MORE

gun lock

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On July 18th, Initiative Petition 40 was filed in Oregon to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding adults by imposing a broad, one-size-fits-all method of storing firearms. This egregious attack on our freedoms uses virtually the same language as the failed Initiative Petition 44 from 2018 as well as the same provisions from Senate Bill 978 that did not pass during the 2019 legislative session. Anti-gun proponents will stop at nothing to restrict self-defense rights in Oregon, and will be using this initiative petition in an attempt to coerce legislators to pass gun control during the 2020 short session.

Please spread the word to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners to oppose these efforts to restrict self-defense rights in Oregon! Help protect Oregonians’ Second Amendment rights and decline to sign Initiative Petition 40.

Initiative Petition 40 would require all firearms to be locked with a trigger-locking device or kept in a locked container, unless carried by the possessor of a firearm, with each firearm constituting a separate violation. Anyone who has their firearms lost or stolen would be strictly liable for any injury to persons or property committed using the firearm within four years if the firearms were not stored in compliance with the law. Firearm owners would also be held liable for any injury occurring within four years that results from a firearm transferred to another individual if the firearm was not transferred in a locked container or with a locking device.

Gun safety and storage is a matter of personal responsibility and every person’s situation is different. It is unreasonable for the law to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. This poorly thought out initiative is without any consideration for personal circumstances. This intrusive initiative invades people’s homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in a self-defense situation by locking them up.

This initiative will also require firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours or face charges, with each firearm constituting a separate offense. In addition, firearm owners who do not report their firearms lost or stolen will be held liable for any injury that occurs within 5 years involving those firearms. A firearm owner should not be held liable for the crimes committed by a person who has illegally obtained their firearm. Individuals should not be further victimized after experiencing a burglary or other loss.

Proponents must first gather 1,000 signatures in order to have a ballot title drafted before they can begin gathering the 112,020 signatures required to place it on the 2020 ballot. Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated on the status of this initiative, so please stay tuned to your email inbox and www.nraila.org for further updates on this issue.

 

SKILLS: Verbal Skills During An Armed Encounter

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Managing an armed encounter successfully takes more than shooting skills. Put yourself in a better defensive position with these essential verbal skills. READ MORE

INTRUDER

SOURCE: Springfield-Armory Armory Life

Verbal Strategy
Verbal skills tend to come in handy during an armed encounter. As a police officer, I’ve used the “gift of gab” to great effect on a number of occasions, but verbal skills aren’t just for cops. Saying the right thing at the right time — and with the right delivery — can prompt a would-be assailant to back down. Since voluntary compliance is always preferred to bloodshed, it’s important to give careful consideration to how you can communicate effectively in crisis.

The problem with many well-intended firearms instructors is they offer to their students little more than a few canned phrases such as “Don’t move!” “Drop the weapon!” or “I have a gun! If you come through the door, you will be shot!” While any of these directives could prompt a criminal to reconsider his plan, they could also backfire.

Rather than rely on these phrases, students of the gun must be trained to think before they speak. Let’s say you turn away from the ATM and are confronted by a thug who sticks a gun in your face. Clearly, you’re in no position to issue verbal commands, but the right words and tone could still be of tremendous benefit.

Saying something like this might work well. “Hey, buddy. Calm down. I’ll do whatever you say. Take my wallet, just please don’t hurt me.” This type of submissive verbal response is an excellent segue to you either cooperating or feinting cooperation until it’s more advantageous to counterattack.

Another good strategy when an assailant has the drop on you is to ask questions. While pretending to beg (or actually begging) for your life, ask what the assailant wants you to do. When you ask a question, the assailant will likely consider what you’re asking, and this will likely make him just a bit hesitant.

If you’re planning to counterattack, the time to make your move is when the assailant starts to answer. That’s because it’s hard to talk and shoot at the same time — which is a good thing to keep in mind when you are armed and giving verbal commands.

Body Language
Make sure your body language matches your spoken language. Your tucked chin and raised open hands appear to match your submissive speech, but this posturing actually prepares you to act, if that’s what you choose to do. Your chin down minimizes the likelihood of being knocked out if you are struck in the head, and your hands being up enables you to more efficiently fend or redirect and control the weapon.

So should you give verbal commands if you’re in a position to do so? There’s no right answer. If you catch a burglar attempting to pry open a window screen on your house with a knife, bellowing out clear, unconditional directives like those previously mentioned would make sense — especially if those orders were issued from behind cover. They would likely cause most criminals to either comply or flee.

Now, imagine walking around the corner of a building and seeing an assailant holding someone hostage with a weapon. Should you issue a forceful verbal command? If you’re thinking, you realize that by verbally challenging the assailant in this scenario, you may make an already highly volatile situation even worse.

At the very least, you will have forfeited the element of surprise and put the ball in the assailant’s court. Will he run away? Attack the person he was threatening? Attack you? If you’ve just barked orders at him, you’re about to find out.

Warning Obligations
As the good guy, are you obligated to give an assailant warning prior to using deadly force? Not necessarily. While such a warning may be required in some states, many statues are written so that a warning should be given prior to the use of deadly force “when feasible.”

Laws differ from state to state but typically deadly force is authorized to prevent the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or someone else. When an assailant is pointing a gun at someone’s head, that criteria has certainly been met.

What about when someone shatters a window and you and your family move to your “safe room” where you barricade behind the locked door, arm yourself and call 911. Shouldn’t you shout verbal commands from inside the room to advise the intruder that you’re armed and that the police have been called? Not necessarily.

Giving a verbal command alerts the intruder to your location. Then, assuming he enters the room, he has an idea where you are. Heck, he may even shoot through the wall toward the sound of your voice.

Perhaps a more tactically sound plan would be to turn off the lights, get behind cover and watch the door. Should it fly open, you will have a clear view of the intruder because he must come through the doorway to get into the room.

In personal and home-defense situations, verbal skills can be important. But don’t assume yelling forceful commands is always the answer. Sometimes it’s better to speak softly or not at all. It’s up to you to gauge the situation and respond appropriately. You’ve got to think before you speak.

Originally appeared in Handguns Magazine.

SEE THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE

 

Washington: New Lead Regulations Would Target Shooting Ranges

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Stricter regulations could mean great expense for shooting ranges and retailers. We’ll keep up with this one, but here’s where it starts… READ MORE

lead on ranges

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The Washington Department of Labor and Industries Division of Occupational Safety & Health (DOSH) has released an updated draft of the lead rules they originally released last year following stakeholder meetings. These proposed regulations will impose complicated and expensive burdens on shooting ranges and retailers, potentially making it difficult for some to continue operations. DOSH will be holding additional stakeholder meetings to discuss these proposed regulations. Shooting ranges are vital to the safe practice and exercise of our constitutionally protected Second Amendment right to self-defense, and maintaining access to shooting ranges is a top priority for NRA.

Existing federal and state law already provides extensive regulation of lead in the workplace. In addition to the federal requirements under the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Washington also has regulations in place regarding workplace lead exposure and has enforced these regulations through inspections and citations. This draft regulation proposes new and much more demanding requirements that significantly exceed compliance under existing law without providing any clarification on their need. Furthermore, there have been no economic impact studies on the effect these regulations will have on small businesses.

Your NRA will continue to actively participate as a stakeholder in the development of these new rules in meetings with the Department of Labor and Industries. We will provide ongoing input on the impact the proposal will have on gun ranges, retailers, and our shooting community.

 

New Jersey: Legislature Passes Smart Gun Legislation

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Even though they don’t yet (really) exist, New Jersey seeks to force you to own one! READ MORE

new jersey

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Last Thursday, both chambers of the New Jersey Legislature passed “smart gun” legislation despite this technology being more science fiction than reality. Undaunted by the facts stacked up against yet another horrible gun control idea, anti-gun lawmakers in Trenton couldn’t resist another opportunity to advance their gun ban agenda in New Jersey.

A.1016 /S.101 would force market acceptance of smart guns by requiring gun dealers to offer them for sale. Typically, when you have to force businesses to sell a product, that’s a very strong indicator that there is not a market for the product. However, anti-gun extremists in the Garden State aren’t concerned with facts or evidence.

Only a couple of states, Maryland and California, have passed smart gun legislation. Since there is not currently a viable smart gun on the market, these laws have not been implemented. New Jersey passed a smart gun law in 2002 which stated that once smart guns were certified as viable, only handguns incorporating this technology could be sold in New Jersey. This of course amounts to nothing more than a ban on traditional handguns. Nearly two decades later, there have been no meaningful improvements leading to the certification of smart guns. As a result, anti-gunners grew weary of the wait and have now taken the next step of forcing market acceptance of an inferior product. Gun shops may be forced to put a smart gun on their shelves, but the anti-gun zealots are more likely to see dust collecting rather than actual sales. In the end, this is just another sad chapter in the ongoing war against gun owners in New Jersey.

This bill now goes to the Governor’s desk. It will have zero impact on public safety and represents nothing more than another swipe at the state’s law-abiding citizens. Make your voice heard and register your opposition. Please contact Gov. Phil Murphy immediately and request that he veto this legislation.

smart gun
Amatrix iP1 gun and accessory watch
Smart-Gun Only Fires if User is Wearing Special Watch
A James Bond-style smart gun that only fires if the user is wearing a special watch has gone on sale.
The Armatix Smart System consists of the iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, and a radio-controlled wrist-worn digital timepiece.
The PIN code-activated watch will only allow the gun to be fired if it is within a set range.
Once a signal is sent to unlock the gun a light on the back of the weapon turns green, otherwise, the firearm stays locked and the light remains red.
As soon as the gun loses radio contact with the watch – e.g. if it is knocked out of the shooter’s hand or in case of loss, theft, etc. – it automatically deactivates itself.
The German-manufactured weapon – dubbed the iGun – has now gone on sale in California and has been described as the country’s first smart gun.
The Smart System means the gun’s movement and actions can be tracked and restricted. An optional Target Control module can also mean the weapon will only function if the gun’s sights are on the “permitted” target.
A company statement says the system will monitor “which shooter is authorised for what sort of actions, how many shots have been fired in what timeframe, when was the last time the weapon has been secured and released, is a shot permitted in the direction of a target the gun sights currently are?”
The pistol is on sale for $1,399 and the watch is sold separately at $399.
For more information visit http://www.rexfeatures.com/stacklink/KSDQLQKAM (Rex Features via AP Images)

Elderly NY Man Kills Repeat Burglars, Is Charged For Using Inherited Gun, Loses His Home

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New York gun laws are beyond ridiculous! Folks this really happened, and really still is happening as you read this. SEE IT ALL

Ronald Stolarczyk

SOURCE: Bizpacreview.com by Vivek Saxena

Imagine being arrested and losing your home after two repeat burglars break into your house again and rush toward you with the possible intention of murdering you. This exact scenario played out in New York late last month thanks to the far-left state’s draconian gun control laws.

A 64-year-old Deerfield homeowner was charged with illegal firearm possession and arrested after he used a gun he’d inherited from his deceased father to kill two repeat burglars. Then upon his release from a jail a couple of days later, he found himself homeless because his house had been condemned.

Around 3:00 pm or so on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 28, Deerfield resident Ronald Stolarczyk reportedly returned home, only to find a burglary in progress.

“He told me that when they were coming up the stairs, that as they approached him, that he was scared to death and he thought they were going to kill him,” his attorney, Mark Wolber, said to local station WKTV, describing what’d occurred that day.

“One of the troopers said, ‘Did you see anything in their hands?’ He said, ‘I didn’t look at their hands, I just saw them coming at me and I thought to myself, at that point, that it’s either them or me,’ and he just started firing.”

Burglar Patricia Anne Talerico reportedly died at the scene, while burglar Nicholas Talerico ran to a neighbor for help, was driven by the neighbor to a nearby hospital and subsequently died there.

Case closed, right? Not in New York …

Because Stolarczyk had never registered his deceased father’s gun, he was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a firearm. The good news is that Oneida County District Attorney Scott McNamara doesn’t intend to also charge him with homicide, even if the Talericos had been unarmed.

“At this point in time, we have no reason to believe they were armed, but under the law, Mr. Stolarczyk, the law doesn’t require them to be armed for Mr. Stolarczyk to defend himself against a burglar,” McNamara said to WKTV.

Phew …

Update: According to police, it appeared that the suspects had burglarized Ronald Stolarczyk’s home previously and were returning to burglarize it again, adding that they found items belonging to Stolarczyk in one of the suspects’ home.

The bad news is that Stolarczyk faces up to four years in prison on the firearm charge alone. Moreover, after McNamara allowed him to be released without paying bail last week, he discovered that he’s now homeless thanks to the meddling authorities.

Speaking with The Post-Standard, McNamara explained why —
“Stolarczyk appears to be a hoarder, McNamara said, and among the items he collected were Commodore and Atari computers,” the Syracuse-based outlet reported. “The home has no electricity and no running water, the DA said. The home has been condemned due to its condition, he said.”

As a result, the poor guy’s now homeless.

“After this incident, Stolarczyk’s house was condemned, and he’s not able to go back,” WKTV reported after his release from jail. “Wolber says Stolarczyk is being provided with temporary shelter and benefits through Social Services.”

And he still has to deal with the pending charge: “He’s due back in court August 5. His attorney is asking for a dismissal of the charges in the interest of justice.”

There is a GoFundMe page.

“Ronald Stolarczyk defended his home from two intruders intent on burglarizing his home and now he is sitting in jail facing a felony charge because he used his deceased fathers revolver,” the page reads.

“This is Un-American and Un-Constitutional! People have a right to keep and bear arms and defend their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! And government shouldn’t be violating or infringing on those rights. Those rights that men and woman died for!”

The page is run by Aaron Dorn of New Hartford, a local gun rights advocate.

“This is [about] more then what happened in Ronald’s home,” the page continues. “[T]his is about standing up to tyranny, a tyrannical government that does not respect the constitution or the people. This is about sending a message to the DA and the pansies in Albany and Washington that want to take away our rights to posses a firearm, any firearm, without having to jump through hopes and pay them fees on something we already have a right to.”

The issue isn’t necessarily so much that gun owners in New York are required to register their weapons, though some believe that too is tyrannical and unconstitutional.

The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and almost killed.

If local officials had a heart, they’d cut Stolarczyk a break and just say something like, “Hey, we won’t charge you or anything because of what you’ve been through, but please do us a favor and go ahead and register your father’s gun. Thanks, pal.”

But it gets worse …

The Post-Standard reported that there was a third person involved in the burglary — a driver.

And because she’s been “cooperating,” McNamara’s office has chosen to not charge her …

FYI, Stolarczyk has also been cooperating: “Stolarczyk has cooperated fully, and told authorities he shot the two in the front area of their bodies as they came at him, the DA said.”

And what has he received for this cooperation? Homelessness and a potential prison sentence.

Nice …

SEE THE FULL ARTICLE PLUS VIDEOS HERE 

 

New Jersey: Assembly Judiciary Committee Begins Next Wave of Gun Control

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Nobody ever accused New Jersey of lacking gun laws, and yet, lawmakers in Trenton can’t seem to accomplish anything except pass gun bills. READ MORE

new jersey capital

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Despite passing a magazine ban and several other bills last year, New Jersey gun banners are back at it again. On Thursday, June 13, the Assembly Judiciary Committee is holding a 10 a.m. hearing with several gun bills on the agenda.

The following bills are included on Thursday’s agenda:

A.1016 by Assemblyman Gordon Johnson requires gun shops to sell smart guns. They are simply trying to force market acceptance of a technologically unviable product. New Jersey’s current statute requires that once smart guns are certified, then only smart guns can be sold. This would ban the future sale of traditional handguns. This is nothing more than a gun ban disguised as a “firearm safety” issue. ?

A.3696 by Assemblywoman Joann Downey requires mandatory storage of firearms. New Jersey already has a storage requirement. This bill does nothing more than continue to tip the scales in favor of criminals in self-defense situations.

A.5452 by Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson would require Firearms Identification Cards to be renewed every four years and would require training to obtain an FID card. The bill also makes it tougher to will firearms as part of an estate.

A.5453 by Assemblywoman Yvonne Lopez and A.5454 by Assemblyman Louis Greenwald criminalizes the purchase, transfer and possession of firearms and ammunition to disqualified individuals. This legislation is completely unnecessary given that current federal and state law already prohibits straw purchases.

A.5455 by Assemblyman Louis Greenwald regulates the sale of handgun ammunition and develops a system for electronic reporting of firearm information.

New Jersey already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Once again, this package of bills does nothing more than target law-abiding gun owners. It does absolutely nothing to improve public safety. Please contact members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and respectfully ask them to oppose this package of bills.

 

Does a Suppressed Pistol Sound like a Nail Gun?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Not exactly! Not even remotely. But it’s another example of the gun control groups ignorance afoot and afloat out there. READ MORE

suppressor

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In response to reports that the Virginia Beach shooter used a firearm suppressor in carrying out his terrible crime, David Chipman, Senior Policy Advisor for the Giffords gun control group, claimed that a suppressed pistol is especially dangerous because the noise associated with the firearm is difficult to distinguish from a nail gun. As per usual for claims Chipman and his employer make about firearm suppressors, this is false.

In an article appearing in the Virginian-Pilot, Chipman claims, “The gun does not sound gun-like. It takes the edge out of the tone . . . This is how I would describe it: It makes a gun sort of sound like a nail gun.”

But, a suppressed .45 caliber pistol, like the one that is reported to have been used in Virginia Beach, is many times louder than a nail gun:

A suppressed .45 caliber pistol produces about 130-135 dBA.
A nail gun produces about 100 dBA.

Decibels (dBA) are a logarithmic scale, so sound levels increase in a non-linear fashion. A 3 dBA increase doubles the sound pressure level. (Although most people perceive a 6 to 10 dBA increase as double the noise level.)

The 30-35 dBA difference between a nail gun and a suppressed pistol will be perceived as at least eight times louder to the human ear.

As an interesting comparison, an unsuppressed pistol produces about 165 dBA. So the difference between an unsuppressed and suppressed pistol is about the same difference in sound pressure level between a suppressed pistol and a nail gun.

suppressor sound

Chipman can’t have it both ways, if, as he claims, suppressed gunfire can’t be easily identified as gunfire, then suppressed gunfire doesn’t sound anything like a nail gun.

This isn’t Chipman’s first attempt to mislead the public on firearm suppressors. In 2017, he made a false claim about the design intent of suppressors. And, his employer received three “Pinocchios” from the Washington Post fact checker for misleading claims they made about suppressors.

Unfortunately, the Virginian-Pilot article created further confusion about suppressors by producing audio files that purport to show the difference in sound level between nail guns, suppressed pistols, and unsuppressed pistols. Listening to recorded audio through speakers or headphones cannot accurately depict these sound differences. Due to microphone and speaker specifications, most sounds in audio recordings are reproduced at a similar sound level. This is why normal conversations and gunfire can both be reproduced in the same audio recording despite the fact that one of the sounds is over 100 dBA louder than the other.

The only way to accurately perceive the differences in sound levels is to hear them in person (with appropriate hearing protection). Short of that, if the Virginian-Pilot wanted to accurately convey differences in sound level, using commonly occurring sounds can be helpful.

For example, a suppressed pistol at over 130 dBA is louder than the maximum sound level of a jackhammer. Not exactly quiet and nothing like a nail gun.

 

Democrats Now Opposed to Safe Neighborhoods?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Supporters of the Second Amendment have always known that gun control laws have a fatal flaw– criminals don’t obey the law! READ MORE

pelosi

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Ever since taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats have been waging an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), the caucus has been an entity in virtual lock-step promoting a laundry list of today’s most popular anti-gun proposals. Whether it is banning semi-automatic firearms and placing limitations on magazine capacities, pushing “universal” background checks, imposing potentially endless waiting periods, or trying to use financial institutions to drive their political agenda, anti-gun Democrats are looking to exploit every opportunity they can to promote their attacks on our freedoms.

At every step, Pelosi and her minions push anti-gun legislation with the lie that each proposal will be the death knell to violent crime committed with firearms. Of course, we’ve all heard this mantra for decades. And for decades we’ve seen every anti-gun law that has passed fail to put a dent in crime, only to be followed by a new proposal that the gun-ban extremists insist will get the job done…this time.

Supporters of the Second Amendment have always known that gun control laws have a fatal flaw — criminals don’t obey the law. They ignore or circumvent the new laws just as readily as they ignore or circumvent the old ones. If they are willing to commit robbery, why would they not also be willing to commit armed robbery? If they are willing to commit assault, why would they not be willing to commit assault with a deadly weapon? And if they are willing to commit homicide, again, why would they not be willing to commit homicide using a firearm? One more law will not stop a violent criminal from being a violent criminal.

The people actually impacted by gun control laws are, of course, law-abiding gun owners, who were never part of the problem to begin with. They may not agree with anti-gun laws, but they tend to obey them while working to change them.

This doesn’t mean that there are no options for addressing violent crime. The secret, which isn’t really a secret, is to go after the actual offenders. One good example is Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN).

Started in 2001 under President George W. Bush, PSN is a collaborative effort, utilizing the resources of federal, state, and local law enforcement, prosecutors, and community leaders to target violent crime at the local level. Specific priorities are identified based on the local environment, and solutions are developed, with the primary objective of going after the most violent offenders and putting them in prison.

It should come as no surprise that the simple concept of getting violent criminals off the streets to keep them from committing violent crimes has proven to be a very effective tool for law enforcement. While violent crime in the US has been in a state of general decline since its peak in 1991, PSN programs have shown to accelerate declines. According to the United States Department of Justice, from 2000 to 2006, PSN program areas saw overall reductions in violent crime from 4%-20%, and specifically-targeted violent crimes were reduced by up to 42%. By comparison, locations where PSN was not implemented saw reductions, but of only 0.9%.

There is, of course, little evidence to indicate that gun control reduces violent crime, and plenty of evidence that indicates fewer restrictions on law-abiding gun owners leads to such reductions. But even if Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats cannot be convinced of this, one would at least think they would support a proven law-enforcement program like PSN, which has clearly been shown to reduce the violent crime they claim to want to see reduced.

Then again, maybe not.

Last week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies recommending de-funding PSN. Chaired by U.S. Representative José Serrano (D-N.Y.), the subcommittee’s recommendation seems to indicate a continuing trend by House Democrats to oppose President Donald Trump whenever possible.

The program, as previously stated, started under President George W. Bush and continued under President Barack Obama, even when Democrats controlled the House and Senate during Obama’s first term. So why is there an issue now?

It may simply be that Democrats are reflexively opposed to anything Trump supports, and the current administration has promoted the program. It would be a shocking abuse of power if Democrats actually chose to end a program that has been so successful at reducing violent crime simply out of spite for a president the party clearly loathes.

Fortunately, there are still many steps left in the process for approving the U.S. Department of Justice budget, through which PSN is funded, so we can only hope that cooler heads within the Democrat leadership will intercede and ensure PSN remains fully funded.

That is, if there are any cooler heads left.