Tag Archives: ASSAULT WEAPONS AND SEMI-AUTOS

Another Florida Alert!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

State appeals “Get Out of Jail Free” ruling by Leon County Judge. READ MORE

florida state

SOURCE: NRA-ILA, Marion P. Hammer (USF Executive Director, NRA Past President)

On Monday, July 29th we reported that a Leon County Circuit Court judge had struck down the penalty provisions that punish local government officials for knowingly and willfully violating state law and had essentially given them a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

On July 30th Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a notice of appeal the ruling to the 1st District Court of Appeals. AG Moody wasted no time in making it clear that she will defend the right of the state to govern and punish (when necessary) its creations — local governments for misconduct and/or malfeasance.

Specifically, in a lawsuit brought by several anti-gun South Florida cities and counties, the court struck down the $5,000 fine and the risk of removal from office for individual public officials, local governments, and government agencies who knowingly and willfully violate the state preemption law by adopting local gun control ordinances.

Despite pleas from a group of anti-gun local officials urging The Attorney General and Governor Ron DeSantis not to appeal, the state quickly moved forward with a notice of appeal. The state cannot sit by and allow rogue local officials thumb their noses at the law.

Interestingly, Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried the Democrats highest ranking official couldn’t wait to attack the Attorney General’s decision to protect the rights of the state to punish those who violate the law.

Be aware: without penalty provisions, the only recourse against willful violations of law which infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens is for citizens or organizations to file expensive lawsuits against public officials to enforce the law. Then, law-breaking officials use tax dollars — YOUR MONEY — to defend themselves for violating the law. Local governments use the “bottomless pit” of tax dollars while citizens must spend their own money to protecting their rights.

The following article provides more information and is reprinted with permission.

STATE APPEALS RULING ON LOCAL GUN REGULATIONS

July 31, 2019

Jim Turner

Florida will appeal a circuit judge’s ruling that struck down a state law threatening tough penalties for local officials and governments that approve gun regulations.

Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a notice late Tuesday that the state will appeal the ruling by Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson, who found last week that the 2011 law threatening the penalties was unconstitutional.

Asked for a comment Wednesday, Moody’s office released a copy of the notice of appeal, which puts a hold on Dodson’s ruling. Meanwhile, Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, the only statewide elected Democrat, blasted the decision to appeal.

Fried called the threatened punishments for passing gun regulations “some of the most extreme anywhere in the nation.”

“Our state shouldn’t threaten local elected mayors and council members with fines, lawsuits, and removal from office,” Fried said in a prepared statement. “We should restore local democracy and allow communities to consider common-sense local measures that reflect their values.”

Fried, whose Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services handles concealed-weapons licensing in the state, added that the appeal “is not only a waste of taxpayer money and time, but the wrong direction for our state.”

The lawsuit was filed in April 2018, after the mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 people and injured 17 others. The school shooting led to widespread calls for gun-control measures, including calls for cities and counties to act.

Florida since 1987 has had what is known as a “preemption” law that prevents local governments from passing gun regulations that are stricter than state firearms laws. In 2011, lawmakers passed another measure that included a series of steps designed to prevent local governments and officials from violating the 1987 law, including imposing penalties of up to $5,000 against officials and potential removal from office.

The law also allowed individuals and groups that successfully challenged local governments over gun regulations to receive damages up to $100,000 and attorney fees.

During arguments last month before Dodson, Daniel Bell, an attorney for the state, said the law prevented a “potential patchwork regulatory scheme” of gun restrictions across Florida.

In his ruling issued late Friday, Dodson found that the 2011 law was unconstitutional, but he did not strike down the underlying 1987 law.

Moody’s move to appeal Dodson’s ruling to the Tallahassee-based 1st District Court of Appeal was not a surprise. But a group of local officials in recent days had urged Moody and Gov. Ron DeSantis not to appeal.

The law was challenged by more than 30 local governments, mostly South Florida cities, but also including Orlando, Gainesville and Tallahassee, and Miami-Dade, Broward and Leon counties.

Jamie Cole, the lead attorney for the local governments, said Wednesday he expects Dodson’s ruling to be upheld on appeal. “Judge Dodson’s decision was well-reasoned, well-written and supported by decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court and Florida’s district courts of appeal,” Cole said in a statement.

 

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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.

Muzzleloaders Now Targeted by “Giffords” Gun Prohibition Lobby

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

More deceit, lies, and the emergence of a very clear agenda from the anti-gunners: read how the “Giffords” seeks to disarm Americans and even take away great-grandad’s gun…

muzzleloader

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

It didn’t take long after the events in Las Vegas, Nevada for gun control advocates to resort to their usual tactic of blaming hardware for the acts of an evil man. Numerous anti-gun bills were introduced almost immediately, with arch anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) leading the charge. “This is written in clean English,” Feinstein insisted of her bill. “It does not take anyone’s gun.” Less than a month later, however, Feinstein abandoned the pretense of “not taking” guns and introduced perhaps the most sweeping gun and magazine ban in U.S. history.

Close on her heels last week was the recently-rebranded “Giffords” gun control consortium, which released a report that used the current debate over firearm legislation to, well, advocate for gun bans too. But the Giffords report went well beyond the usual gun control talking points in extending its attack all the way to muzzle-loading firearms. From the modern to the archaic, no gun is safe from the newly-emboldened prohibition lobby.

Considering these proposals, it’s hard to imagine how any firearm can thread the needle through all the justifications gun control advocates use to argue for additional bans.

Semiautomatic carbines that use detachable magazines must go, they say, because they can fire too many (relatively small) rounds too quickly.

But muzzleloaders — which fire one shot at a time and must be laboriously loaded through by hand down the barrel — can deliver what “Giffords” calls “a particularly lethal .50 caliber round” and are therefore unacceptable as well.

Bump stocks should be banned, according to the report, because they increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle held against the shoulder.

Yet dispensing with the stock entirely — as in the case of AR- or AK-style pistols — also presents a problem for the “Giffords” group because that creates guns capable of firing rifle-sized cartridges that are “concealable like handguns.”

But concealability of course isn’t the only problem for “Giffords.” Exceptionally large guns are out, too. The Giffords report goes on to fault modern .50 caliber rifles for combining “long range, accuracy, and massive firepower.”

Of course, the actual use of .50 caliber rifles to commit crime in the U.S. is vanishingly rare, thanks to their considerable weight, bulk, and price tag. A five-foot long gun that weighs nearly 33 lbs. and costs as much as many used cars is not likely to be the sort of tool most common criminals will lug from one crime scene to the next.

Where does this all lead? The Boston Globe answered that question this week with an article headlined, “Hand over your weapons.” It states: “The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — confiscation is far and away the most effective approach.” This thesis is accompanied by the usual celebration of Australia’s mass gun confiscation effort, an almost mandatory feature of any journalistic exploration of gun control these days.

And while admitting that “America is not Australia,” the Globe writer nevertheless asserts “there’s no way around” the conclusion that widespread gun ownership is to blame for violent crime in America and that the solution must involve confiscating “millions of those firearms.”

It’s telling that the “Giffords” organization — once among the more moderate of the gun control advocacy groups — now demands curbs on the sorts of muzzleloaders that it admits “fell out of favor as a firearm of choice almost a century ago, and are generally seen as primitive antiques.”

But what’s really out of favor and antiquated, in the unforgiving worldview of gun abolitionists, is your Second Amendment rights. The values of America’s Founding Fathers are just as obnoxious to them as the revolutionary-era rifles that helped win America’s freedom.

What do you think?