Tag Archives: Gun Ban

Cruz Criticizes PolitiFact for Claiming O’Rourke Doesn’t Plan to ‘Take Our Guns’

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke are not pals, and Ted calls it how he sees it. Check out the links in this post and see what Beto says, and what Beto means, for yourself. READ MORE

beto shirt

SOURCE: National Review, by Mairead McArdle

Texas senator Ted Cruz took aim at fact-checking website PolitiFact last Friday, criticizing the site for having previously claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke does not plan to “take our guns” after O’Rourke explicitly suggested otherwise at last Thursday night’s Democratic debate.

“When we see that being used against children . . . hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said from the debate stage when asked if he was proposing that the government confiscate legally owned assault-style weapons. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

See VIDEO HERE

@BetoORourke
Hell yeah, we’re going to take your AR-15. If it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on the battlefield, we’re going to buy it back.

@tedcruz
Just a reminder, when I said it, PolitiFact (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC) rated “Beto wants to take our guns” as FALSE. Maybe they should buy one of his new t-shirts..

In March, PolitiFact fact-checked a line from a Cruz campaign song that accused O’Rourke of wanting to “open borders and . . . take our guns,” awarding it a “false” rating.

“We saw no language authorizing or directing officials to take existing guns,” PolitiFact said of a failed House measure backed by O’Rourke, which would ban the future sale of AR-15s.

“My intent is for AR-15s not to be sold to the public,” O’Rourke told the fact-checking outlet.

See what PolitiFact has to say and judge for yourself.

 

BREAKING: US Banned VEPR Due To Sanctions? Looks Like It!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

US Department of Treasury just added the manufacturer of the VEPR AK-variant to its sanction list. Keep reading…Source: TFB

VEPR banned

(TheFirearmsBlog.com) report by Patrick R., and others

Back in 2015 the Obama administration banned US companies from doing business with the Russian company Kalashnikov Concern, one of the popular manufacturers of Russian-made AK-type rifles. That’s why Kalashnikov USA exists now — they’re building rifles here in the US to circumvent the sanctions and continue selling to the American civilian firearms market.

The US Department Of Treasury released an update to the sanction list in connection to the Russian-Ukranian conflict, and it now that the Trump administration is expanding those sanctions to include another company, MOLOT-ORUZHIE, which means their VEPR line of firearms will be affected.

So why has MOLOT-ORUZHIE been placed on the sanctions list? The Department of Treasury cites the reason as due to a connection to Kalashnikov Concern. Some speculate that Kalashnikov Concern is poised to purchase the now-bankrupt MOLOT.

The text from the US Department of Treasury is posted below:

MOLOT-ORUZHIE, OOO (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU ‘MOLOT-ORUZHIE’; f.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU PROIZVODSTVENNO INSTRUMENT KACHESTVO), 135 ul. Lenina, Vyatskie Polyany, Kirov Obl. 612960, Russia; Registration ID 1094307000633 (Russia); Tax ID No. 4307012765 (Russia); Government Gazette Number 60615883 (Russia) [UKRAINE-EO13661] (Linked To: KALASHNIKOV CONCERN).

What does this mean for US gun owners?

For those who already own a VEPR firearm there’s no problem at all — your gun is 100% legal and will remain so. You can do with it what you want, whether that means selling it or keeping it.

Gun stores with VEPR firearms currently on the shelves should also be okay. Again, as long as no further money flows to MOLOT-ORUZHIE there’s no issue. Guns already in the country will be exempt from any sanctions.

Importers and distributors, however, may have a problem. Firearms “in transit” which have been bought and paid for will probably be okay, but they represent the end of the pipeline; no more new guns would be able to be purchased from MOLOT and imported into the country.

The end result is that we’ll soon see the flow of MOLOT-made VEPRs slow to a trickle and then stop completely. Prices will likely climb as supplies dwindle, but since there are other US-made AK-pattern options on the market, including those from the new Kalashnikov USA, there’s unlikely to be any real shortage of this style firearm. Those who have been eyeing that VEPR might be advised to grab one before supplies dry up, and move fast!

Czech Gov’t: Placing Weapons in the Hands of Citizens is Best Defense Against Terror

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A new proposal in Czech Republic seeks to liberate restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to deter terrorism. Read more…


Source: CNSNews.com, CTK


Skorpion Evo 3The Czech Republic has resisted calls by the European Union’s Executive Commission to tighten gun controls in response to terror attacks, forcing the E.C. to alter its proposals to allow for the private ownership of semi-automatic firearms.

According to the Czech news agency CTK, the Czech interior ministry wants to loosen its gun laws another step by proposing a constitutional amendment on Monday that would allow its citizens to bear legally-held firearms against the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, such as those in Nice, France or Berlin, Germany.

The government says that putting weapons into the hands of citizens is the best defense against terror.

The move comes despite the European Commission’s ongoing advocacy for stricter gun control laws in Europe.

The Czech parliament blocked the E.C.’s earlier attempt to introduce tighter European gun laws, after the attack in Nice.

While the E.U. Firearms Directive and Czech laws already prohibited private ownership of fully-automatic weapons, the commission’s initial campaign aimed to further narrow E.U. regulations to ban semi-automatic weapons and limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Semi-autos currently make up about half the firearm ownership in Czech Republic.

The Czech parliament rejected the E.U. proposal, arguing that such tougher gun laws would not be the solution as terror attackers only use illegally-held weapons. The government denounced the E.C.’s plans as “legally ambiguous and in some cases excessive.”

Only last month the E.C. was finally able to reach agreement by all member states, including Czech Republic, after conceding exceptions for hunters and gun collectors and only banning a select few semi-automatics.

“Mass shootings and terrorist attacks in Europe have highlighted the dangers posed by certain firearms circulating across the E.U.,” it said in a statement, but also expressed regret at the concessions it had to make, such as not banning all semi-automatic weapons or limiting magazines to 10 rounds.

In a statement last Monday, Czech Republic Interior Minister Milan Chovanec said that amending the constitution would reduce the chances of attacks by enabling “active and rapid defense.” Citizens should be given the right to use firearms to defend their “life, health, and property” and contribute to “ensuring the internal order, security, and territorial integrity” of the country, he said. As December’s truck attack in Berlin demonstrated, security forces have not been able to prevent attacks.

Gun ownership is currently legal in the Czech Republic. As per E.U. regulations, firearms are required to be registered, and Czech law also requires a license and a “genuine reason” to possess a firearm, such as for hunting or personal protection.

The proposal is scheduled to be considered in March. To pass, it must be agreed upon by at least three-fifths of all deputies and three-fifths of all senators present. The exact details of the interior ministry’s proposal are still to be worked out, and for now simply indicates that it is subject to “terms and details prescribed by law.” However, it appears likely to expand the range of “genuine reasons” for possession of a firearm to include those of “national security,” and thus, in theory, allow anyone to own a gun.

Gun holders are also required to pass a background check which considers factors such as mental health and criminal history.

Unlike gun ownership, there are no laws explicitly covering civilian use of a firearm in self-defense, nor in regards to terror attacks specifically. Such an incident would fall under general criminal provisions regarding self-defense, which may allow the use of a gun, but only in cases of absolute necessity (including the threat of “imminent” attack). Self-defense case law in the Czech Republic has applied only to violent assaults such as rape and robberies, and not to terrorism. It is not clear yet how the constitutional amendment would, if at all, build on or deviate from this established law.

According to data collated by Gunpolicy.org, a firearm injury prevention NGO, an estimated 7.6 percent of Czech’s 10 million residents legally hold weapons, with 810,046 registered privately-owned firearms in the country.


Folks, we’re not alone in this wide world.

Gun retailers report a run on firearms ahead of new California restrictions

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Trump’s victory might have slowed guns sales overall, but in California people are scrambling to get into gun stores before January first, here’s why…


Source: Los Angeles Times


Governor Jerry Brown’s approval of sweeping gun control legislation in July has triggered a run on firearms in California, with some stores reporting that sales have doubled since that law passed.

Under this new law signed by the governor, starting January 1, the general public in California can no longer buy a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a “bullet-button” that allows for the quick removal and replacement of ammunition magazines. [Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135]

 

Guns purchased before January 1 can be kept as long as the owner registers the gun with the state as an assault weapon. As a result, sales have at least doubled at many California gun stores, store owners report.

“When Governor Brown signed that bill, the first 30 days in July were just insane,” said Joshua Deaser, owner of Just Guns in Sacramento. “It died down for a while but now we are back with everyone trying to get what they can before the end of the year.”

Terry McGuire, owner of the Get Loaded gun store in the city of Grand Terrace in San Bernardino County, said people are clamoring to buy semi-automatic rifles before midmonth, given that the state background check process takes about 10 days. McGuire: “We have people lined up out the door and around the block.”

State officials confirm there has been a surge in gun sales. The number of semi-automatic rifles registered this year with the state has more than doubled over last year, according to the California state Department of Justice. In the less than six months since the July 1 signing of the legislation, 257,895 semi-automatic rifles have been purchased, eclipsing the 153,931 rifle purchases reported to the state in all of 2015, the state agency said.

Purchases of all firearms, including handguns, have jumped 40-percent over last year, to nearly 1 million in 2016 year, according to the state agency.

“We expected this,” said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. “Any time the government comes up with a ban on guns, the public rushes to buy them to make sure they have at least one.”

 

Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), a coauthor of the bill, said military-style weapons “enable shooters to take the most lives in the least amount of time” and there is no place for them on California’s streets.

“All of us should be able to go to work and send our kids to school free from the fear of becoming a mass shooting victim,” Ting said. “The bullet-button loophole undermined California’s assault weapons ban and the shocking loss of life in San Bernardino last year revealed the subsequent threat to public safety.”

Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael), another coauthor of the bill, said the new law is important. “We raise our children in communities, not war zones,” he said. Levine downplayed the increase in gun sales currently being experienced by California stores. “Gun sales have trended up for a while now,” he said. “Anxiety and strife are being sowed throughout American society. The Legislature acted to limit bloodshed in our communities.”

In addition to the rifle ban, gun owners are anxious about a law by Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) that will require ammunition purchasers to undergo background checks in 2019, and the recently approved initiative by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom that included gun control measures such as a ban on possessing magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

“It’s like Gavin Newsom, Kevin de León, and Jerry Brown are the biggest marketing and sales guys for AR-15 and AK-47-style rifles in the state of California,” Gun Owners of California’s Paredes said. “Because of their actions, people are buying them any way they can.”

Brown, Newsom, and De León did not respond to requests for comment on the run on guns.

 

Customers who are buying the guns are as upset as store owners, according to Pete Brown, the retail sales manager at American Gun Works in Glendale, where he said sales are “way up.” “People are angry,” Brown said. “They are angry with the Legislature because [the law] doesn’t address crime. Nothing in the law addresses criminals. It’s another way of cutting back on what’s available to law-abiding citizens, and that’s why they are angry.”

Alex Lopez, the owner of Western Firearms in Bell, confirmed that gun buyers don’t like the direction the new laws are taking the state. “They can’t figure out how this is going to affect criminals from getting access to firearms,” Lopez said.

In addition to the rifle ban, gun owners are anxious about a law by Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) that will require ammunition purchasers to undergo background checks in 2019, and the recently approved initiative by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom that included gun control measures such as a ban on possessing magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Background: A “bullet-button” is a device used to remove a magazine in a semi-automatic rifle, replacing the standard magazine release with a block which forces the user to remove the magazine by using a tool to depress a small plunger, as opposed to his or her finger. This allows rifles to comply with California’s firearms law. The name came about due to a 1999 California State law which said that a “bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.” The bullet button was invented and named by Darin Prince of California in January 2007. The 2012 court case Haynie v Pleasanton validated that a bullet-button is legal and rifles that have one installed are not considered assault weapons.


Folks, don’t rest easy… There’s an old and true saying: All politics is local… Laws exist at all levels of government, not just the Federal, and these laws most decidedly can have at least the same impact, and more, on American citizens as anything done across-the-board nationally.


bullet-button
Background: A “bullet-button” is a device used to remove a magazine in a semi-automatic rifle, replacing the standard magazine release with a block which forces the user to remove the magazine by using a tool to depress a small plunger, as opposed to his or her finger. This allows rifles to comply with California’s firearms law. The name came about due to a 1999 California State law which said that a “bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.” The bullet button was invented and named by Darin Prince of California in January 2007. The 2012 court case Haynie v Pleasanton validated that a bullet-button is legal and rifles that have one installed are not considered assault weapons.

Judge Rules Against D.C.’s ‘Good Reason’ Licensing Standard

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A federal judge in Grace and the Pink Pistols v. District of Columbia lawsuit has instructed D.C. officials to stop enforcing provisions of the city’s code that barred most D.C. residents from carrying firearms for self-protection.PinkPistolsLOGO

In the ruling, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the district’s law is likely unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs who are challenging it in court would be severely harmed if the district were allowed to continue to enforce its ban while the lawsuit went forward. The judge held that the district’s “overly zealous…desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens” unconstitutionally flouted the Second Amendment.

The lawsuit was filed last year by Matthew Grace, the owner of four legally registered handguns, and Pink Pistols, a shooting group to which he belongs. In the suit, Grace said that he had no special reason for needing to carry a gun on the street, beyond the usual worries about street violence, but that the gun law violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense. The Pink Pistols calls itself “the world’s largest GLBT self-defense organization,” with the motto “Pick On Someone Your Own Caliber.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a D.C. law banning most citizens from possessing handguns at all, reasoning that such a ban was inconsistent with the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The district continued to enforce its ban on carrying firearms in public even after that ruling, however, and a federal district court struck that separate ban down in 2014.

The district responded by enacting a new “licensing” scheme that only allowed its residents to carry firearms in public if they could show a specific, documented need for self-defense—for example, by proving that they had been attacked or were receiving death threats. The city issued a minuscule number of licenses, and the scheme had the practical effect of a full ban.

The ruling prohibits law enforcement from enforcing the concealed carry ban temporarily while the constitutionality of the ban continues to be argued in court.

“This is a victory for Second Amendment rights and has real implications for the safety of law-abiding citizens,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects the core right of self-defense in the home, but as the District Court reaffirmed, that right is just as important to ordinary citizens commuting to work or shopping for groceries in an unsafe neighborhood.”

Have thoughts on this case? Tell us what you’re thinking in the comments section!