Antigun

Kavanaugh Is Wrong, IMO

This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS the Fifth circuit struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration– making eliminating a provision of the law that prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.

There are those who oppose that ruling and are claiming that there will be domestic abusers lining up to kill their former partners over this. I don’t think that there will be any big changes. Those who want to kill their partners just aren’t deterred by a piece of paper saying that killing someone is illegal, even if signed by a judge. The left always assumes that criminals are simply honest people who gave in to a moment’s impulse, and each of us is equally likely to give into an impulse to kill others. An interesting insight into the leftist mind, eh?

My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.

David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.

 Here are the disturbing statistics:

The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, arguing that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.

That’s where he is wrong.

The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “… unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. Deciding whether or not a law is a good idea is the job of Congress. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.

There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.

The left, well, they don’t see the Constitution as anything more than a piece of paper containing words that can be worked around, as long as the words are pretty enough.

Fuck them. Not one more inch. This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead. The war continues.

By Divemedic, ago

Blood in the Streets

My news aggregator turned up this little gem: A convicted felon flouted gun laws and was arrested at gunpoint. When he was arrested, he had three different handguns, as well as a supply of drugs, on his person.

What really struck me about this, is that this story came to me while the liberals of Florida are in the midst of a meltdown over Republicans (and especially Ron DeSantis) pushing Constitutional Carry in this state. The biggest arguments that I see are:

  • that, without a law making permits necessary for legal concealed carry, criminals will carry guns
  • Police can’t tell the difference without permits telling them who the good guys are

What is so disingenuous about this, is that it wasn’t that long ago that they were saying that people with concealed weapons permits are nothing more than criminals who haven’t been caught yet, who will snap at the slightest provocation and turn every contested parking space into a full scale firefight.

As I said in response to the above linked article: There are already 25 states that have passed Constitutional Carry. Crime and shootings in those states haven’t gone up any more than anywhere else. Every time a gun rights bill comes up, the anti gun people drag out the same old, tired arguments about how every car accident will result in a gun battle and it never happens. They did made that argument in 1989 when Florida passed concealed carry. None of it happened then, and none of it will happen now.

What we know for sure is that criminals are called criminals because they don’t obey the law. This is evidenced by the number of convicted criminals who are caught not only possessing weapons, but doing so without a permit. Therefore, we must assume that this law only works to prevent people who AREN’T criminals from carrying weapons. Who would be opposed to a person who isn’t committing crimes carrying a weapon? The answer is obviously one of the following:

  • people who are planning to commit a violent act against that armed person
  • people with so little self control that they themselves know that they cannot be trusted to carry a firearm, and are projecting that lack of violent impulse control upon others

So my question to those people who are opposed to law abiding citizens carrying weapons is: Which of those are you?

By Divemedic, ago

Thousands of Rounds?

ATF should be called Agents That Fib. They are on the record as claiming someone with a Glock switch is capable of firing ‘thousands of rounds per minute’ from a Glock handgun. Anyone with gun knowledge knows that they are talking about cyclic rate when they say that a gun is firing 1,200 rounds per minute. That would require a weapon to have an unlimited supply of ammunition. It’s an attempt at dishonest manipulation of soccer moms.

“It turns a semi-automatic firearm into, essentially, a machine gun,” explained [ATF Agent] Estevan. “So, instead of one round being discharged from a firearm with the single pull of the trigger, when the switch is installed onto a firearm, you’re looking at 1,200 rounds with the single pull of the trigger within a minute.”

If you have to lie in order to make your point, perhaps your point isn’t worth making.

By Divemedic, ago

Preemption

Florida has had a preemption law for damned near 35 years. The only entity that can pass laws restricting guns is the state legislature. The left didn’t like that, and frequently ignored the law. They would pass gun restrictions and would hassle lawful gun owners, safe in the knowledge that they would never pay the price for violating people’s rights.

Until the state managed to get a law passed in 2011 that allows public officials to be held personally accountable for violating people’s rights with regard to guns. The left absolutely hates this law. Several cities, aided by that antigun commie bitch Nikki Fried, tried to sue the state to get the law overturned, which would have allowed every political entity in the state to pass its own gun laws. Concealed weapons permits would have become useless, as each city and county passed its own restrictions on carry.

That case died last week as the Florida Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving the preemption law in place.

By Divemedic, ago

Gamer Fags

This guy who spends all of his time online complaining about people who cheat at a first person shooter is also saying things like this:

I don’t think he is expecting the military to do it because he hates them too:
He spends the rest of his time spouting and retweeting communist shit like this:
How about instead I tell you this: Bring it, pussy. Who’s gonna stack at the door? You? Real life isn’t a video game, ass.
By Divemedic, ago

Criminals Aren’t to Blame

Wirecutter posted a link to a story about Clemmie Greenlee’s campaign to punish gunowners whose guns are stolen by criminals. For those who don’t know, Clemmie Greenlee is the founder and CEO of Nashville Peacemakers, an antigun advocacy group. She founded it after her son was murdered in “gang violence” in 2003.

She and her organization don’t want prison or death penalties for those who commit murder using guns, however. What she wants is to have guns made illegal and for the government to put more money into neighborhoods where murders and other crimes are being committed. In other words, black neighborhoods. To make that happen, she wants victims of criminals to be punished for daring to become victims. In other words, she wants white people to be put in prison because they were the victims of crimes committed by black people.

How about some background?

Her son, who she likes to make sound like an innocent victim? He had more than 2 dozen arrests between his 18th birthday and his death 11 years later. Those resulted in more than one felony conviction. Things like dealing drugs, stealing cars, and criminal trespass (likely burglary). So he was a confirmed criminal and likely a gang member.

According to police, Rodriguez had walked down the street wearing a blue scarf in a red-scarf area. He was wearing the wrong gang colors and was murdered for it.

At 29 years old, a criminal, and a drug dealer, he knew what areas were controlled by which gangs. He was almost certainly a gang member.

She herself was a prostitute for over 30 years who “snapped” and stabbed a man 5 times and was sentenced to prison for it. In other words, a criminal. Sure, she claims that she wasn’t a criminal, but a victim. She was using weed and LSD before she became a prostitute. Yet this is the same democrat party that is currently grooming kids for more of the same.

It’s not their fault. Nope.

By Divemedic, ago

Illinois Makes All Semiauto Rifles Illegal

How did they do that? Because of the overly broad wording of their new assault weapons ban (edited to clean up the text to make it more readable, but not change the wording):

(3) "Assault weapon" means:

(snip of irrelevant sections A and B)

(C) A semiautomatic rifle that can accept or can be modified to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
(i) A folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock.
(ii) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of
which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in
addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing.

emphasis added

Now picture any semiauto rifle you can think of. Now tell me which one, if any, sees the pinkie finger of the trigger hand not being below the action of the rifle.

Thus, all semiauto rifles in Illinois are now legally defined as assault weapons and are thus illegal to possess, transfer, or own.

By Divemedic, ago

Not the USA

AWA over at GunfreeZone worries that the anti-gun folks will start using the gun laws of the old west to bolster their attacks on Bruen. The theory that some towns in the old West prohibited residents from having guns to attack the 2A is not a new claim. Gun controllers were using that same stupid argument during the gun control arguments of the 1990’s. That is a large part of New York’s line of argument in the Bruen case.

SCOTUS already addressed this issue:

Finally, respondents point to the slight uptick in gun regulation during the late-19th century. As the Court suggested in Heller, however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into
the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence. In addition, the vast majority of the statutes that respondents invoke come from the Western Territories. The bare existence of these localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 614. Moreover, these territorial laws were rarely subject to judicial scrutiny, and absent any evidence explaining why these unprecedented prohibitions on all public carry were understood to comport with the Second Amendment, they do little to inform “the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment.” Ibid.; see
also The Federalist No. 37, p. 229. Finally, these territorial restrictions deserve little weight because they were, consistent with the transitory nature of territorial government, short lived. Some were held unconstitutional shortly after passage, and others did not survive a Territory’s admission to the Union as a State. Pp. 58–62.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022)

By Divemedic, ago

On the ATF 80% handgun ban

The ATF recently released a statement that polymer 80% frames for handguns are all “readily convertible” into functional firearms, and thus have to be treated like firearms.

That isn’t exactly true. 80 percent arms is reporting that their 80% handgun frames are unaffected by the letter because a Texas judge has placed an injunction on the ATF enforcing any bans on their products. If you want an 80% handgun frame, you can still get them here.

By Divemedic, ago