Tag Archives: Legislation

Co-worker Gun-Grab an Agenda-Advancing Expansion of Rights-Denying Orders

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“Concerned a Co-Worker Is Dangerous?”a KQED News headline asks. “Bill Would Let You Petition State to Take Their Guns.” Really…

coworkers

David Codrea

To make the case for adding to the state’s citizen disarmament options, a couple examples are given of California “gun violence restraining orders” being used to take guns away under petitions filed by family members or law enforcement officers. This latest push expands the list of those eligible to initiate gun seizures to employers, co-workers, high school and college staff members and mental health workers.

The expansion is the “brainchild” of Assemblyman Phil Ting, unsurprisingly a San Francisco Democrat, and this is actually his second attempt to enact it. Also unsurprisingly, both times have been in response to murders that happened in so-called “gun-free zones,” where the killers evidently didn’t get the message (or more likely, got it loud and clear).

That this doesn’t sink in with Ting’s constituents is also no surprise. His violating Assembly rules by “ghost voting” didn’t bother them enough to give him his walking papers. And the unvarnished support he received from convicted “gun criminal” (and former rabidly “anti-gun” California politician) Leland Yee hasn’t raised any eyebrows in his district either.

On the surface — to those who don’t look too deeply below it — protection orders can sound reasonable and what the gun-grabbers call “common sense” (as long as you don’t question American citizens being stripped of a fundamental right without being convicted of anything). And that has put the ACLU, of all groups, on the right side of the issue and at odds with the NRA and no shortage of supposed “conservatives.” Per their Rhode Island chapter:

“The heart of the legislation’s [Extreme Risk Protection Order] ERPO process requires speculation — on the part of both the petitioner and judges — about an individual’s risk of possible violence. But, the ACLU analysis notes: ‘Psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts will do any better. The result will likely be a significant impact on the rights of many innocent individuals in the hope of preventing a tragedy.’”

But that hasn’t stopped so-called “conservative” pundits from jumping on the protection order bandwagon. Ditto for President Donald Trump and for NRA “A”-rated Lindsey Graham, who couldn’t team up fast enough with “F”- rated Richard Blumenthal…

Unsurprisingly for those of us who follow such things, the same goes for the National Rifle Association. (Hear for yourself starting at 3:15 in their video. Saying “they should have strong due process protections” does not change the fact that such orders really don’t, and can’t by their very nature.)

“[A]s they are currently implemented, these laws come with major pitfalls and potential for serious abuse,” Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership warns. “They violate the principles of liberty and establish a dangerous ‘guilty until proven innocent’ standard. GVROs and ERPOs passed to date violate multiple Constitutional protections beyond the Second Amendment. These include the rights to equal treatment and against unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment), the rights of the accused (6th), and the right to due process (5th and 14th).”

And, of course, there’s another indisputable reality that none of the proponents of restraining orders want to even acknowledge, let alone talk about:

“Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.”

If proven violent persons are still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic “Gun Control,” equating their release from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.

If there is “clear, convincing, admissible evidence” that a supposedly “restrained” party is a danger, how is it responsible to allow such a menace access to the rest of us until such time as it can be established that he is no longer a threat? Does anyone think he couldn’t kill with something else? Or, noting routine headlines from places like Chicago and Baltimore, that he couldn’t get a gun? Why wouldn’t he be separated from society, after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course?

Concessions on these measures by the NRA, which in turn gives the green light to Republicans, is nothing short of preemptive surrender. It won’t stop the Democrats from coming back for even more, especially as they perceive they are better positioned to launch their next assault.  Meanwhile, they’ll still continue screaming how the “uncompromising and extremist” NRA is “a terrorist organization” and that Republicans are “fascists.”

We know where the “slippery slope” leads, and that the violence monopolists want it all. Giving them anything makes as much sense as tossing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and believing that will satisfy them and make them go away.

Well on its way down that slope, California is on a “gun control” binge reminiscent of an eye-rolling shark feeding frenzy. Thanks to practically unchallengeable Democrat dominance, it has the votes to do pretty much whatever it wants, so don’t be surprised if Ting’s bill passes this time, and that after it does, he and his fellow gun-grabbers, both in and outside of California, will be demanding more.

Feinstein’s “Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act” Might Make Replacement Triggers Illegal

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Almost immediately following the wake of the tragic events in Las Vegas, Diane Feinstein has already introduced a bill that could have devastating impact on the aftermarket parts industry, and on all shooters. Here’s what we know so far…

feinstein

SOURCE: TheTruthAboutGuns.com, Nick Leghorn

Just this morning [October 5, 2017] we heard that Dianne Feinstein had introduced her “Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act,” a bill which would ban bumpfire stocks like the one used in the Las Vegas shooting among other things. In an attempt to make her new law apply as broadly as possible she not only specifically wants to outlaw bumpfire stocks, but also any modification that makes a firearm fire “faster.” But what exactly does that mean?

Here’s the relevant section:
Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

The issue is in the definition of “accelerate.” Bumpfire stocks are an obvious step, and are specifically named. The same with hand cranks for triggers. But the bill wants to make anything which increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle illegal, yet it doesn’t do a good job of outlining exactly what that means.

For semi-automatic firearms the rate of fire is completely subjective. An untrained shooter and legendary speed demon Jerry Miculek will be able to achieve two very different rates of fire with the same firearm. The bill thankfully isn’t silly enough to outlaw training sessions and gym memberships — it concerns itself only with attachments and physical devices. Tools like the bumpfire stock are obvious targets, but other factors can have similar effects.

Lighter replacement triggers are a great example. A lighter trigger in a firearm can allow the shooter to fire faster than with a heavy trigger simply because their finger is less fatigued. We reviewed one such trigger years ago, the Geissele S3G trigger, which absolutely increases the rate at which a shooter can fire their weapon. For that reason, according to Feinstein’s bill the Geissele S3G trigger would be illegal to purchase or possess in the United States.

Another issue: what exactly is the baseline for the rate of fire?
The baseline rate of fire that can be achieved with a finely-tuned competition rifle and a bare bones budget rifle are two very different things. Would there be one baseline for each weapon platform against which all other examples would be compared? Would manufacturers be required to install the worst trigger possible in order to reduce the rate of fire? Or would it simply be illegal to modify the trigger from the factory installed version, making drop-in replacements like Timney and Geissele illegal?

On its face, it sounds like Dianne Feinstein’s bill, as written, would kill the aftermarket trigger industry and make it illegal to improve the trigger on your rifle. We’ll have to see whether this bill makes it out of committee, and what (if any) amendments would be added to give some clarity to the situation.

Watch this one closely!

NSSF Applauds Bipartisan Introduction of Target and Marksmanship Training Support Act of 2017

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

H.R. 788 would provide more money for public shooting range development, read more…


Source: National Shooting Sports Foundation


shooting instruction

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries, has praised the bipartisan introduction of H.R. 788, the Target and Marksmanship Training Support Act of 2017 in the U.S. House of Representatives, sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif).

“This legislation would provide state fish and game agencies more flexibility to use Pittman Robertson excise taxes dollars raised from the sale of firearms and ammunition to enhance existing public shooting ranges and to build new ones to meet the growing need for additional places for target shooters to participate in their sport,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “Public shooting ranges provide hunters a place to sight in rifles and shotguns before hunting seasons, for people to take firearm safety and hunter education courses and, for recreational target shooters to enjoy their sport.”

Joining Congressman Hunter are 23 original bipartisan cosponsors, including Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Tim Walz (D-Minn.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

Since 1937 almost $11 billion has been raised for wildlife conservation through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition. States are permitted to use some of those funds for hunter education course and for public shooting ranges under a restrictive formula that has largely discouraged state agencies from building and enhancing public shooting ranges. The legislation would provide states greater flexibility on their ability to use Pittman Robertson excise tax funds by increasing the cap of federal funds accrued for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges from 75 to 90 percent. This means states could begin work on range facilities with 10 percent matching funds, instead of the current 25 percent. It would also allow excise funds to be made available and accrue for five years for land acquisition or range construction.

In addition, the legislation would limit frivolous lawsuits that might result from the use of federal land for target practice and encourage federal agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities for maintenance of ranges on federal lands.

Target shooters are largely responsible for the funds derived through excise taxes from the sale of firearms and ammunition products. That money is directly responsible for habitat conservation, recreational shooting and wildlife management, making gun owners, hunters and manufacturers largest financial supporters of wildlife conservation throughout the United States.

Passage of H.R. 788, the Target and Marksmanship Training Support Act of 2017, would ensure that the Pittman-Robertson Act continues to maximize wildlife conservation.

The Target and Marksmanship Training Support Act was previously introduced H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act (Title II)  and the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act  in the last Congress as well as a stand-alone bill H.R. 2463  in the 113th Congress.


About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 12,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.

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.

Brooklyn Lawmakers Want to Severely Tighten Ammo Sales

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

If two New York lawmakers from Brooklyn are successful at passing new draft legislation aimed at tightly restricting the sale of ammunition in the state, will legitimate gun owners there turn to reloading Continue reading Brooklyn Lawmakers Want to Severely Tighten Ammo Sales