Arizona Legislature Has Good Ideas
What do you legislate when your state pretty much has a lot of good gun laws? We'll let's take a look!
To strengthen state preemption of local laws, the legislature wants to stop problems before they start with penalties. Florida is a great example of this. Contributor John pointed out (in context of Nevada's issues) "You don't hear about this s--t in Florida." No, you don't. Governments can and will waste taxpayers money, but politicians and bureaucrats are not putting their own butts or pocketbooks on the line. Guns.com has the story. Gov. Ducey signed this bill into law.
The latest idea to stop the encroachment of Michael Bloomberg's money to ban private gun sales, aka the non-offensive universal background check plan is for Arizona to enter into an interstate compact with another state. A bill is in the state House of Representatives now (HR 2524). Such a compact compact would basically be an agreement to maintain "reliably uniform firearm transfer laws."
In theory, this would be essentially a treaty with another state, regulated at a constitutional level, instead of a mere statute level. In order to 'untie' the knot, Bloomberg would have to find a way to change all compact states' laws to something similar at each 10 year window or fight a court battle to invalidate the compact on the basis that voters' will overrules a legislative compact. Sadly, this bill was vetoed.
The insidious nature of most ballot initiative laws is that the legislature can't override them for a few years. Good if you are regulating the government itself, but bad if it affects a fundamental freedom. Arizona has enough moxy in its legislature to probably get rid of any Bloomberg ballot crap, but 'Zoners would be stuck with that garbage for a few years.
Unfortunately, this bill doesn't stand much chance of going forward, thanks to the Republican sell-outs and totally corrupted Democratic party. Oh well, a good idea.
Malheur Refuge Standoff Supporter Steals Ma Deuce .50 Cal
A supporter of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation that featured Nevadan Ammon Bundy was found with a stolen .50 caliber M2 heavy machine gun. Michael Emry called himself "The Voice of Grant County" and posted online and in social media about the occupation that ended this winter. Federal agents arrested Emry, who apparently stole the firearm from his former employer who was also a gun dealer. One of Emry's defenders posted a ridiculous and juvenile 'article' trying to argue that the weapon wasn't even a machine gun, demonstrating a total lack of knowledge about guns (NFA items in particular) that it's the receiver that makes the gun, not the sum total of its parts.
The federal complaint alleges that the serial number was removed from the weapon; not the action of someone who is going to try to sell or pass off a firearm as his own (assuming the NFA Branch wouldn't catch him). Emry was also apparently involved in buying a suppressor from a gun show (probable NFA violation) and built a bomb, according to this case.
The 'Ma Deuce' was designed 98 years ago by the legendary John Moses Browning and designed to defeat the armor and aircraft of WWI. Today, the M2 is used to defeat light armor and attack fortified fighting positions. The .50BMG cartridge is an ideal anti-materiel rifle cartridge. Based on Emry's views, his past behavior, the nature of the firearm in question, and the events at the wildlife refuge, one could probably safely assume that Emry planned to employ the weapon if an open firefight broke out with federal agents.
Original Story from KUOW
Once again, the concealed carry supremacists are pointing out another open carry robbery. Here is the exact text of the original article:
Silent Witness is looking to the public for help identifying a man who stole a gun from a man in line at a Phoenix McDonalds, officials said.
Guns.com has good video footage of the incident, where the suspect, while talking on a cell phone, brazenly walks up to the victim and easily lifts the pistol from the victim’s back pocket before leisurely jogging from the store. From the video, the victim can be seen wearing a baggy shirt, and one could make the argument that this was an example of poor concealed carry rather than open carry. There is no middle ground between the two methods except Dumbass Carry (see below).
This incident spurred Bob Owens of Bearingarms.com to rail on open carry once again.
As a general rule, criminals are not intimidated by handgun open carriers in the slightest. They see the $300-$800 gun on your hip the same as they would a fat wallet, ripe for taking.
Uh, no Bob, they don’t. If this assertion was true, then carry gun robberies would be regular thing. Instead, they are very rare. Criminals see a gun and are deterred. It is far more the demeanor of the carrier rather than open carry itself that allows emboldened thugs to attempt and succeed at this kind of thing.
Do you ever notice that there is a dearth of stories with headlines like “Man Attempts Robbery of Open Carrier—Suspect Shot and Killed”? There is one recent story in Louisiana
I’d like to coin this half-assed not openly carried, but poorly concealed and unsecured method of carry ‘Dumbass Carry.’ Why dumbass carry? Because people who carry with a gun exposed in a pocket, improperly concealed, or without a holster are dumbasses. Wasn’t he worried about it potentially falling out? Quite frankly, if you take no steps to properly secure your gun and rely on half assed concealment, you probably deserve to get robbed.
Retention holders are unofficially mandatory for open carry. At the very minimum, a friction holster should be used, if not one with a thumb or finger activated latch locking the firearm in place. Citizens are at less risk for having their weapon snatched than police officers so a full Level 3 retention system with a locking hood is probably overkill.
Once again, this proves that the open carry myths of gun snatchings are the exceptions to the rule and have everything to do with the individual carrying, not the method used.
NV Assemblywoman: Okay to Point Guns at Cops
Assemblywoman Michele Fiore stuck her foot in her mouth by saying that she would point at gun at a police officer and intimated she would shoot if an officer aimed a gun at her.
would never ever point my firearm at anyone including an officer of the law unless they pointed their firearm at me. Once you point your firearm at me, I’m sorry, then it becomes self-defense. So whether you’re a stranger, a bad guy, or an officer and you’re gonna point your gun at me and shoot me and I have to decide whether it’s my life or your life, well, I choose my life.
Sometimes police have to aim a gun at someone. The law abiding are right to be concerned and worried at the thought of being drawn down on, but should not fear being shot by police. It is asinine for someone to suggest that police point guns at citizens with the same intentions and propensity to fire that criminals and gang members do. A cop with his gun out does not merit returning fire and trying, justified or otherwise, will probably get you killed.
I’m not talking about segments of society that are frequently getting in trouble with the police. The vast majority of people shot by the police had it coming by being armed, trying to kill the officer, charging the officer, or reaching for a gun, real or intimated. Sorry Black Lives Matter; you don’t get a vote here. If you comply with the officer’s orders and don’t do something stupid, like stick your hands in your jacket, you’re probably not going to be shot.
The concept of a modern police force requires that police officers acting in good faith be given the benefit of the doubt. An innocent party driving a car similar to a murder suspect should not bail out and open fire on police simply because of a felony traffic stop. Police are human and innocent mistakes are made. The deliberate abuses and acts of negligence should be punished in court, not left to be decided in the heat of the moment down the barrel of a gun.
I cannot support these statements and I cannot support the assemblywoman. It is one thing to articulate that using force to overcome an illegal arrest should be an affirmative defense, but it is not okay to essentially condone shooting law enforcement officers. Granted, Fiore probably meant a situation more like an FBI setup for her support of the Bundy Ranch and Oregon folks, but the context was lost. There are already too many incorrect assumptions about gun owners being enemies of police that this was not needed.
There is a real discussion to be had about the growing surveillance state, militarized police forces, and the Dept. of Justice’s ruthless pursuit to crush and punish the Bundy Ranch and Oregon Standoff participants. Fomenting insurrection to protest a competent, but unjust, court ruling is reckless. The growing distrust of government and disgust for various federal policies needs to be channelized in a productive way. Brash statements are no substitute for fixing the broken legislative and bureaucratic systems that brought us to where we are now.
I understand that some Nevadans are wary of especially federal law enforcement in the wake of the events at the Bundy Ranch and the highly disturbing shooting of Lavoy Finicum, yet that is no excuse for how/why Fiore said what she did. This does not engender anyone to her except those who already share her politics. If Fiore wished to express that she feels she has the right to resist an illegal arrest or illegal attempt on her life under the color of law, she should have found a better way to express it.
Fiore has an excellent record of voting rights on the Second Amendment, however that is not enough alone to gain an endorsement. She has made too many faux paus, misinterpreted or otherwise, that indicate she is letting her own personal animus get the best of her. Her hyperbolic comments give the wrong impression that gun owners and conservatives and libertarians are paranoid and anti-government/police. Rhetoric like this can get police officers killed. Statements like this are not welcome.
Assemblywoman Fiore clarified to KNTV ABC 13 that she was speaking about “BLM rogue agents”, not Metro officers or other local police. She does not define what a rogue agent is.
If a rogue unofficial BLM agent who literally wants to be a cop, a wannbe police officer, points a gun at me there is going to be a problem.
Fiore disputes that the BLM Rangers are federal law enforcement officers—something that is based in her own personal vitriol rather than in fact. She is so upset with the BLM that she denies the very fact, that by legislation and oath, the Rangers are US Special Agents. Sorry, you don’t get to pick and choose who ‘real’ cops are. You can disagree all you like, but pretending that someone with a badge has no authority when they really do is asinine and a ridiculous denial of reality.
Metro officers are “real law enforcement” and that she would not point a firearm at local law enforcement. She clarified that an ordinary felony traffic stop, say if her car matched the description of a murder suspect, she would not shoot the officer. Unfortunately, that is not what she initially. What if Metro runs afoul of her?
Basically, what she is saying, it that is permissible for her to point guns at and potentially shoot cops whose mission she disagrees with. This is the same logic and attitude that the Black Lives Matter crowd uses to delegitimize police in their quest against law and order. An incident of misbehavior or perceived injustice is used as a basis to level allegations of widespread oppression where none exists. Police making arrests in a crime ridden minority neighborhood are responding to a problem, not targeting a minority. A heavy federal law enforcement presence was needed after Bundy called for the militia to help him resist in the wake of losing his court battle.
Fiore is disrespectful to law enforcement by diminishing the actual authority that BLM rangers have. She may disagree with their mission and how they are employed by their agency, but using her own opinion and interpretation to remove their law enforcement status in her own mind, she is deluding herself. It’s a common tactic for someone who hates police—or a variation thereof—to dehumanize the officer’s mission and denigrate them. I saw it all the time writing tickets, but that didn’t make the ticket any less real.
In a humorous example of this kind of thing, a woman once told one of my partners (a motorcycle cop) that she did not need to pull over for the deputy “because it’s not like he’s an ambulance or something.” Just because you don’t want to believe someone has legitimate authority doesn’t mean they don’t have any.
Does Fiore have a point about how the BLM administration screwed up the round-up? She sure does. Is she right to be suspicious of federal law enforcement and the federal government? Yep. Is she justified in painting all federal agents or BLM Rangers as ‘wannbe cops’? No, that’s a rash insult.
Fiore has some good points as a conservative politicians. Not all solid conservatives share her utter hatred for federal law enforcement just as a lot of gun owners don’t like being lumped in with her ilk. As a representative of the people and a popularly proclaimed lead figure in the gun rights movement, Fiore needs to carefully choose her words, which she clearly seems incapable of doing.
I have taken lots of flak from friends and strangers alike these past few days. Apparently, it is a serious crime to criticize other Second Amendment supporters pet politician. I cannot and will not support someone who goes off on ludicrous, uneducated rants like these. These comments are an utter disgrace and drags down those who are rightfully concerned about tyranny, government abuse, and heavy-handed federal law enforcement tactics to the same level of the rioting leftists we despise. There are far more respected commentators out there in the ‘militia’ or ‘patriot’ movement who make their points far more adeptly than this, but if I’ve learned anything with this blog, strumpets garner more attention than an articulate person ever will.
Brady Campaign Actually Does Something Positive, Sorta
Handgun Control Inc. AKA The Brady Campaign, a long-time stalwart in the fight to make guns illegal (you can thank them for the Brady background check) has actually done something fairly decent. Their 'Zero Minutes of Fame' browser extension is designed to remove the names of mass shooters from your web pages, thus denying those sickos the infamy that they desired. Of course, it doesn't scrub them from existence in all but court records and the dreariest of historical research and you have to go out of your way to install it, but hey, at least it's better than pushing for more gun control. Unsurprisingly, they still couldn't even get their PR campaign right.
Part of the motivation of mass killers, it is speculated, that the losers feel they will achieve some sort of everlasting notoriety from their evil deeds. I guess the fact that all of humanity despises them and reviles their names doesn't matter. Following their logic, one would think that Benedict Arnold should be proud that even the densest of Americans know his name as a synonym for traitor.
FWIW, The Brady Campaign is named after former Reagan press secretary James Baker, shot by the whackjob who shot also Reagan. Brady himself was a gun owner. Many believe that his wife, Sarah Brady, used her severely mentally incapacitated husband basically as a mascot for her own personal anti-gun crusade that her husband would not have supported had he been in full control of his own faculties.
Don't Sleep Through The Revolution: A Graduation Message For A Dark Age
Worse, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we neglected to maintain our freedoms or provide our young people with the tools necessary to survive, let alone succeed, in the impersonal jungle that is modern civilization.
Examiner.com: More than 25K new CPLs added in Washington state so far in 2016
Video of the Week: Las Vegas Sheriff
CBS 8 News Now of Las Vegas hosts Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo to answers public questions every Wednesday morning. What began in local online gun forums to see if 8 News Now would ask the sheriff about guns actually paid off with your editor's question being answered.
We actually got to the bottom of the delay with CCWs (the process is cumbersome), but the sheriff gave a weak answer about his officers respecting open carriers rights. Through Nevada Carry we're working to get better answers on what kind of training LVMPD officers actually get vis a vis the Second Amendment, open carry, and Nevada's preemption laws.