Hillary: ‘I’m Not Here To Take Away Your Guns’ – But She Will

gun-control
Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton at her DNC speech: “I’m not here to take away your guns” …   Hillary Clinton wants you to know one thing about her position on gun control: “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.”  She elaborated further on her comments, which she made at her Democratic National Convention speech accepting the presidential nomination: “I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” –Vox

During her acceptance speech, see above, Hillary said she wasn’t going to take away guns in the US, but this is untrue.

She knows just how to do it.

First of all, she will make guns more expensive with new back ground checks.

Second, she will make guns manufacturers liable for selling guns that later are used in crimes.

But that is just the beginning.

Hillary doesn’t actually believe that people in the US should have guns.

In a Fox post HERE entitled, “Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president,” John Lott points out that in an appearance on ABC, Hillary would not say whether citizens had a constitutional right to own guns.

George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”:

“But that’s not what I asked.  I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”

Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”

Clinton like other gun opponents, believes an overabundance of guns are responsible for the shootings that take place in the US, especially in mass shootings.

But there are many questions about these mass shootings.

David Steele, second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence and former CIA clandestine services case officer, has said this HERE:

“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.”

Such FBI involvement leads one to ask whether there are forces in and behind the US government that are manufacturing violence in order to justify continued anti-gun agitation.

Authoritarian governments and those who back them don’t want people to have guns because without guns, it is much easier to force people to obey. When people are not armed, genocide becomes a more viable and convenient option.

Government killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century. The 21st century may equally bloody, especially if guns continue to be confiscated.

In the US, many citizens have fought back against gun confiscation.  But if Hillary wins the presidency, discussions about gun control will become moot.

Guns will be confiscated. Lott explains it this way:

Until 2008, Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban. It was also a felony to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun. In effect, this was a complete ban on guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws.

But the constituency of the Supreme Court is changing. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Bill Clinton appointees. Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Obama as was Elana Kagan.

“If Hillary wins in November, she will appoint [Antonin] Scalia’s successor and the Supreme Court will overturn the Heller decision.  Make no mistake about it, gun bans will return.”

Only one more appointee is needed.

Conclusion: Hillary herself will not have to “pull the trigger” on gun confiscations. She will let the Supreme Court do it for her.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Advertisements

TYRANNY REIGNS: Massachusetts Bans Sale Of Modern Sporting Rifles [AR-15s and AK-47s]

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
July 21, 2016

“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”
– Hitler

Massachusetts recently became the next state to infringe upon the people’s rights to self defense. 

History has taught us countless times that when tyrants rule, the citizens are disarmed in droves.  This, is no different.  First, California fell.  Now, Massachusetts folded.

Keep in mind, criminals do not obey laws, never have, and never will.  The ones who suffer are LAW-ABIDING citizens that follow the rule of law.

Not only that, but this type of law makes victims out of law abiding citizens that wish to defend themselves.

It’s a another very disturbing day for our Nation.  The lack of respect for our freedoms is coming home to roost, and this won’t be the end of it if people continue to focus on things that don’t matter and refuse to see the smoke on the horizon.

The video below [by a graduate of the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Center] speaks about this issue.

Media’s Fevered Rhetoric Aimed At Gun Confiscation

guncontrol2

Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 9, 2016

The Horrific, Predictable Result Of A Widely Armed Citizenry …  The killings in Dallas are one more reminder that guns are central, not accessory, to the American plague of violence … They are central now, when the increased fetishism of guns and carrying guns has made such horrors as last night’s not merely predictable but unsurprising. The one thing we can be sure of, after we have mourned the last massacre, is that there will be another. –The New Yorker

Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker is very upset about people carrying guns. He makes the standard arguments, but the post is unusual for its vituperation.

Gopnik, in fact, has authored a number of shrill, anti-gun articles over the years. But we’ve noticed, generally, that media-based anti-gun arguments are growing louder – as if rising decibel level will make up for lagging logic.

Often when a drastic legislative decision is taken, the mainstream media, or parts of it, seem alerted in advance.

It is speculative, therefore, but not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the current rhetoric is laying the groundwork for yet another legislative or executive confiscatory effort.

Yes, President Barack Obama may want at least one more dysfunctional and ruinous, broad-based executive action to punctuate his term in office.

His party is already cooperating. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has authored a bill banning gun purchases for anyone on Homeland’s no-fly list.

In June after the Orlando attack, President Obama top spokesman said Obama was not ruling out executive actions regarding gun confiscation

“The president has taken substantial executive actions using as much executive authority as he can,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. “I’m not going to rule out additional steps … he’s not going to hesitate to act.”

Obama’s initial statements regarding the Dallas shootings weren’t focused on the shooters but dealt with the weapons themselves.

In media interviews, Hillary Clinton reinforced the point:  “We did have an assault-weapons ban for 10 years,” Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “I think it should be reinstated.”

Not long ago, Vox Media writer Dylan Matthews tweeted for President Obama to “unilaterally” remove guns.

“This is not Dems‘ sales pitch but I’m totally down with letting the prez unilaterally ban people (hopefully everyone!) from buying guns,” Mr. Matthews tweeted.

Here’s some more from The New Yorker:

… Weapons empower extremes. Allowing members of any fringe of any movement to get their hands on military weapons guarantees that any normal dispute—political or, for that matter, domestic—can quickly lead to a massacre.

Our guns have outraced our restrictions, but not our imaginations. Sometime in the not-too-distant past, annihilation replaced street theatre and demonstrations as the central possibility of the enraged American imagination.

The article restates the point in several ways, and at one point indicates that those who support concealed-carry rights “guarantee that the murders will continue.”

The article finishes: “The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on? “

Apparently Gopnik has forgotten that governments killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone. Had those people access to weapons, they might have been able to defend themselves.

What’s interesting about the latest New Yorker rhetoric, is that it seems to expand the groups of people who should not be allowed guns to “members of any fringe of any movement.”

Since Homeland Security considers people who believe in the US Constitution to be operating on the “fringe,”  this statement may signal an entirely new frontier of potential gun confiscation.

Conclusion: In any event, the media agitation seems to be rising and that may indeed signal that there are more definitive executive or legislative actions on the proverbial horizon.

Read More At: DailyBell.com

Coping With California’s Six New Gun and Magazine Ban Laws

QuestionEverything2
Source: SurvivalBlog.com
James Wesley Rawles
July 4, 2016

This year’s Independence Day celebrations have been muted by news of the enactment of six tyrannical new gun, ammunition, and magazine laws in California.

California’s leftist legislature in now crowing about how they “did something” in response to the Islamic terror attack in San Bernadino last year. Six of 10 new “Gunmeggddon” laws that they passed were just signed into law by Democrat Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown.

Courtesy of the NRA-ILA, here is a summary of Governor Brown’s actions:

SIGNED BOTHAssembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 will make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons”. This legislation effectively outlaws magazine locking devices, more commonly known as “bullet buttons”. These are constitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime. These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and without public notice. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013.

SIGNED Assembly Bill 1511 effectively ends the long-standing practice of temporarily loaning a firearm for lawful purposes. Under this legislation, the ability to loan a firearm to anyone other than a family member would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer, absent very narrow and limited exceptions. A simple loan to a trusted friend for a few days would take almost a month to complete from loan to return, requiring two background checks, two 10-day waiting periods, two fees, and multiple trips to a gun dealer. The result of the misguided legislation will turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for borrowing or storing a firearm with a friend.

VETOEDAssembly Bill 1673 would have expanded the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that are “clearly identifiable as being used exclusively as part of a functional weapon”. Depending on how this vague terminology is interpreted, AB 1673 would have treated pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms.

VETOEDAssembly Bill 1674 would have expanded the existing one handgun a month law to include ALL guns, including those acquired through a private party transfer. AB 1674 will have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms. Criminals will continue to ignore this law purchasing firearms illegally, ignoring this burdensome and ineffective restriction.

SIGNEDAssembly Bill 1695 will create a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm. The NRA does not oppose making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false lost or stolen report to law enforcement. Our reason for opposition is related to the restriction of a constitutional right for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense.

VETOEDAssembly Bill 2607 would have expanded the class of individuals who could seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO).” The NRA opposes the current GVRO procedures because they provide a mechanism for an individual to lose the right to keep and bear arms with no due process of law. AB 2607 would compound these problems by significantly expanding the classes of individuals who could seek a GVRO. This expansion would now include employers, coworkers, mental health workers, and employees of secondary and post-secondary schools.

VETOEDSenate Bill 894 would have required a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation stating, “I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.

SIGNEDSenate Bill 1235 will place unjustified and burdensome restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases. This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to be conducted through a licensed vendor. First and foremost, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried – and failed – at the federal level. Throughout the 1980s, Congress considered repeal of a federal ammunition regulation package that required, among other things, reporting of ammunition sales. In 1986, the director of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported eliminating the reporting requirement, stating: “The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current record keeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value.” As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions, with little opposition to the removal of that requirement. SB 1235 will similarly fail to reduce violent crime, as a law requiring the registration of ammunition purchases by honest citizens will not deter criminals. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.

SIGNEDSenate Bill 1446 bans the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness. Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.

o o o

Hundreds of thousands of guns that were previously legal will become contraband. Magazines numbering at least in the hundreds of thousands and probably in the millions will become contraband, with hefty fines for possession. (See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1446_bill_20160701_chaptered.htm) Also, ammunition sales will be sharply curtailed, with background check requirements and registration of purchases! This is clearly collective insanity, but it is becoming the law of the land in the People’s Republic of California.

The Ammo Sales/Purchase Bans

California’s new ammunition purchase restrictions (Senate Bill 1235) are complicated, and part of the new law hinges on the outcome of a November ballot initiative. See: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1235. If it goes fully into effect, then:

Variously starting either on January 1, 2018, or January 1, 2019, (under penalty of a $1,000 fine):

  • Mail order or Internet purchases from out of state will be banned unless it is delivered by an in-state dealer, with a background check.
  • Transport of ammunition bought out of state will be banned, with an exception of just 50 rounds under some circumstances.
  • Only a licensed ammunition vendor will be be able to sell ammunition.
  • Background checks and a permanent registry record will be required for in-state ammunition purchases.

The absurdity of creating a registry for an expendable commodity was apparently lost on California’s idiotic legislators.

Note: There will be huge loopholes in the law for law enforcement, for the privileged few who hold concealed carry permits in California, and for anyone who is moving into the state. But the net effect is that the cost of buying ammunition in California will probably skyrocket (since the competitive pricing of nationwide sales choices will be gone), and sales will become tracked to the buyer.

Since the database of ammo purchases is cumulative, shooters who expend large quantities of ammunition (such as competitive target shooters) will likely become increasingly suspect, making it appear that they are stockpiling ammo that they are actually expending on the range.

The new law is silent on any restrictions on components for handloaders, but presumably anyone who “manufactures” (assembles) ammunition would fall under some sections of the law.

The Dreaded Magazine Ban: Senate Bill No. 1446

California’s new magazine ban (Senate Bill 1446) goes into effect on July 1, 2017. The law quite bluntly demands:

(c) A person who, prior to July 1, 2017, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.

(2) Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.

(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.

(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

Note: There are some exceptions for law enforcement agencies, currently-serving officers, retired officers, museums, movie prop companies, and the executors of wills or trustees settling estates. But otherwise, this is a “blanket” ban with no grandfather clause. As such, this ban will likely be challenged in the courts as a “taking” without compensation.

One oddity is that the new law is silent about belted or linked ammunition for belt-fed guns, but based on existing magazine restrictions in California, it is safe to assume that belts holding 11+ rounds could no longer be possessed. (This might have to be clarified by the courts.)

The fines start at $100 for the first offense, $250 for the 2nd offense, and $500 for the 3rd or subsequent offense. So a forgotten box of magazines in the back of a closet could potentially become a very expensive thing! Thankfully, violations of this law are considered infractions.

Your Response to the New Laws: Voting With Your Feet!

If you live in California, then I recommend that you immediately make plans to relocate your family to a more firearms-friendly state, and do so before 2017. Vote with your feet, folks! Relocating will serve two purposes: 1) It will maintain your firearms freedom, and 2) It will remove you from the California tax rolls, depriving the state of your revenue. (Starve the beast!)

If for some reason you cannot leave California before the new laws go into effect, then at least make arrangements with an out-state friend, a FFL, or a storage company to get your banned guns and magazines out of the State before the various effective dates of the new laws. But regardless, do not make the mistake of turning in your magazines in to the police “for destruction”. (Odds are, since the police are exempt from the law, some officers will simply take many of the surrendered magazines home for their own use or re-sell them out of state for a profit.)

The wording of SB 880 an AB 1135 are incredibly convoluted and require careful study. But most of their terms go into effect on January 1, 2017. That is the key date to remember and plan for.

A Limited Boycott

California’s misguided legislators need to get the message: Anti-gun owner tyranny is not unacceptable! I recommend that we institute a limited boycott of California. Those of us living in other states should NOT schedule or attend any conferences or conventions in California. Also, limit your vacation travel to California as much as possible. But please don’t boycott produce from California, since California’s rural and largely conservative fruit, vegetable, and nut growers don’t deserve to be punished for something that was not their doing! Please also continue to do business with California’s gun-related companies, but encourage them to relocate to a free state.

A Helping Hand

Sadly, California is now a legislative lost cause. The voices of its rural gun-owning minority have been drowned out by the statist/leftist urban majority. The chances of Californians salvaging their liberty is slim. Writing letters to your assemblymen in Sacramento or to the editor of your local newspaper just won’t work. You will be ignored. Firearms freedom is now just about dead in California, and the six newly-enacted gun laws were simply the last nails in the coffin lid. Face it, folks: The time has come to flee the tyranny.

Those of us living in free states should now do our best to help Californians escape the anti-gun tyrants. Please first help California’s gun law refugees store their banned guns and magazines, and then help the refugees get re-settled, to find jobs, make a fresh start, and feel welcome. That is the least we can do for them. – JWR

Read More At: SurvivalBlog.com