Posts Tagged ‘anti-gun idiocy’

Editor’s Note: TheTrace.org recently contacted Buckeye Firearms Association about the closing of the media access loophole. The resulting article, entitled “Another State Just Made It Impossible for Reporters to Access Concealed Carry Records,” is posted here.

Readers Beware.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently revealed a new tactic in his ongoing campaign to impose his anti-gun agenda on Americans with the launch of “The Trace .” The new website describes itself as a “media organization dedicated to expanding coverage of guns in the United States.” Bloomberg, of course, already owns and controls one of the largest media empires in the world in Bloomberg LP , but apparently it is not adequately biased to serve his anti-gun agenda.

According to editorial director James Burnett, “The Trace” is not an “anti-gun” organization, but hopes to “appeal to people across the spectrum on the issue.” But the content makes it clear that the organization is just another Bloomberg-funded gun control project. The site even states, “We bring an admitted bias to our beat.”

Huffington Post further illustrated this intentional bias while celebrating the launch of the new “news” organization. “We believe that the rate of gun violence is too high and we believe that there is not enough information about the issue as a whole,” editorial director James Burnett said in his interview. “As journalists, we have it as our mission to address that shortage of information.”

Like other Bloomberg backed organizations (Everytown for Gun Safety, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America), “The Trace” has already earned a lack of credibility among gun owners. Within the first few days of operation, the organization has readers outraged over one-sided reporting on issues and reckless disregard for facts.

It is clear that Bloomberg’s true goal is not to increase education and awareness on firearms and firearm safety, but to even more thoroughly color the information that reaches Americans about their Second Amendment rights. Orwellian propagandists have nothing on the sprawling Bloomberg newspeak machine.

Readers who may stumble across an article in “The Trace” — and any legitimate reporters seeking to inform themselves and the public on Second Amendment issues — should ignore the advocacy “journalists” at the “The Trace” and treat them like the Bloomberg, anti-gun staffers they are.

Click here to read the entire op-ed at NSSFBlog.com.

Via GOA

— Seek to blame all gun owners for actions of a lone Dirt Bag

“The President wants to blame an inanimate object — the gun,” [said] Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America. “But that just deflects blame away from the real culprit: gun-control policies that leave people defenseless in the face of evil perpetrators who are never effectively prevented from acquiring weapons.” — Newsmax, June 20, 2015

They’re coming for you.

Anti-gun Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey just announced they want to bring back their toxic legislation stripping Americans of their gun rights without due process of law.

And the President is ready to sign this gun ban into law.

You may recall our battle against the Manchin-Toomey language in 2013. Their legislation sought to BAN private sales of firearms, forcing all gun buyers to run to a dealer and submit to a background check before purchasing a firearm from their neighbor.

Thankfully, Senators Toomey and Manchin failed because Gun Owners of America and its members got in their way. According to the New York Times, and other liberal media outlets, GOA was able to put enough heat on the Senate to defeat this pernicious legislation.

The new Toomey-Manchin proposal will be an infringement of Second Amendment rights, and it will do nothing to stop real criminals from getting guns.

Realize that this background check expansion is just a ploy to erect more obstacles to owning guns. The more that people have to seek permission to buy a gun, the easier it becomes for gun control advocates to find reasons to deny them.

We’ve already seen this in the way veterans have been targeted and prevented from owning guns because they suffer from PTSD — symptoms related to their service for our country.

Ironically, the recent South Carolina shooting demonstrates the FAILURE of gun control. The Charleston gunman bought his gun from a dealer and passed a background check.

The result: Nine people died at the church … from gunfire … in a gun-free zone.

Clearly, more gun-free zones and more background checks are NOT the answer.

But making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed WILL make a difference. That will save lives. And that’s why your Senators should cosponsor S. 498, introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

Please note: While The Washington Post is reporting that Senators Manchin and Toomey want to resurrect a new version of their 2013 legislation, they have not introduced it yet. But Senator Manchin says he won’t bring the bill up “until he is sure he has rounded up the necessary votes.”

So that’s where you come in!

ACTION: Use the provided pre-written letter to urge your Senators to OPPOSE the new Manchin-Toomey gun grab.

Grand Rapids, Mich. – In a stunning violation of 2nd Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan ruled police have the legal authority to detain individuals that choose to exercise their constitutional right to open carry a firearm. Open Carry is also specifically allowed under Michigan law.

The ruling means that people in Michigan who choose to exercise this constitutional right are now subject to being stopped by law enforcement for engaging in a completely lawful activity.

Officers detained Johann Deffert in early 2013. He was walking down the sidewalk with a holstered FNP-45 pistol, after receiving a 9-1-1 call from a woman who spotted Deffert with the open carried, but holstered, handgun on his person.

The dispatcher initially informed the caller that Michigan is an open carry state. However, the woman subsequently explained that she found Deffert’s presence alarming, due in part to his wearing of camouflage, although she admitted that he wasn’t threatening anyone. Somehow the dispatcher made the decision that someone engaging in a completely legal activity, as earlier in the call noted by the dispatcher, should now be inspected by police, due to caller saying they found wearing camo disturbing.

The absurdity in logic; that someone wearing camo takes the situation from being a completely legal situation not to be interfered with, and raises it to a level of needing police assistance, shows the extreme arbitrary nature of the entire situation.

The incident was captured on responding officer Moe Williams’ dash cam, and lasted 14 minutes. Williams had indicated he believed that perhaps Deffert was suffering from some type of mental illness, as he seemed to be “talking to nobody” when the officer arrived on scene. Upon further investigation, Deffert was revealed to have been happily singing the song “Hakuna Matata” from the Disney movie “The Lion King” while strolling down the sidewalk.

The video shows the officer command Deffert to lay face down on the ground upon arrival on the scene. Deffert was treated as if he were a criminal that needed to prove he was not doing anything wrong, as the officer detained him while running a mental and criminal background check. Deffert was polite and respectful throughout the encounter, but strongly asserted his rights regarding open carry laws in the state of Michigan.

Remember, all of this transpired despite Deffert’s total compliance with Michigan law, in respect to open carry of a firearm. Eventually, Deffert was released, as he had violated no laws, done nothing wrong, and there was no legitimate reason to hold him. Shortly after the incident, in what seemed like a vindication for Deffert at the time, Grand Rapids Police Sgt. Steve LaBreque recommended to Moe’s commanding officer, that Moe “would benefit from some additional training in handling ‘open carry’ issues.”

Several months later Deffert filed a federal lawsuit alleging his constitutional rights were violated and that he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned. The legality of open carry in the Michigan was never in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm, according to court records.

In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”

When a call to 9-1-1 is made in regard to a completely legal activity, the police should not even be dispatched. If in fact the police needed to “determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood,” they need not impeded a citizen from going about their legitimate and legal business,” as Neff asserts, but rather could passively watch from a distance to determine if there is any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot, and if so act accordingly.

The most glaring problem with Neff’s logic, is that there is no reason for police to ever assess someones behavior who is simply engaging in constitutionally protected and lawful activity, regardless if another citizens takes issue with the activity. If the activity fails to rise to the level of criminality, then police have no business getting investigating or getting involved. The police, as public servants, aren’t paid to investigate non-crimes.

The idea that someone needs to prove their innocence for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity is contrary to everything America teaches its children to believe about liberty and freedom.

The case will most likely be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The National Rifle Association and others have offered to assist in the appeal.

It will be interesting to see what open carry advocates across the nation, and specifically those in Texas, a hotbed of open carry activism, think about this ruling; and how they would respond if this were to become the standard of law in their state.

Sound off in the comments!

Be sure to share this critical information with all your liberty loving friends!

Read the decision below.

Johann Deffert court documents

h/t MaddMedic

Last week, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, saying the suit from the Brady Campaign was “without merit.”

The law, signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in 2013, draws a line in the sand on federal gun control. It reads, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

State and local agents would be prevented from enforcing any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”  Based off this text, the state of Kansas would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.

A second part of the bill seeks to encourage more gun manufacturing in the state by declaring null and void any federal restrictions, under the commerce clause, on firearms made and sold within the state.

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

This section of the bill is backed up by criminal charges.

It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony

Any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section shall be commenced by service of complaint and summons upon such official, agent or employee. Such official, agent or employee shall not be arrested or otherwise detained prior to, or during the pendency of, any trial for a violation of this section.

Once a federal agent violates this law, they would be served with a complaint and summons, whereby criminal proceedings can begin.

BRADY CLAIMS

At the heart of the Brady Campaign’s legal argument is that the state law is ” an unconstitutional attempt to nullify federal gun control regulations.” Their concern is that state enforcement of the act “will have the effect of deterring application of federal gun laws in Kansas.”

That’s exactly what the bill is supposed to do.

Additionally, Brady complained, one of its members could have been prosecuted by the state for trying to help federal agents enforce federal gun laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson dismissed the claim on the basis of “subject matter jurisdiction,” noting that no actual prosecution had taken place.

…Brady Campaign lacks Article III standing to challenge the Second Amendment Protection Act in this lawsuit because it has not shown that enforcement of the statute inflicts an actual or imminently-threatened injury on any Brady Campaign member.

While it may seem like this was a technical victory, it is important to remember not who challenged the law, but who didn’t: the federal government. Guns.com aptly summed up their all bark and no bite stance:

While the U.S. Department of Justice panned the law, calling it unenforceable, it was only the Brady group that sought to challenge it.

This failed lawsuit by the Brady Campaign demonstrates the effectiveness of SAPA in two ways. One, it was upheld in federal court, which proves that such legislation is not merely political grandstanding that will be overturned in the courtroom.  Two, the federal government’s unwillingness to contest its constitutionality – for now – speaks greater volume than any words they may speak against it.  The boxer who takes his gloves off should not speak like one who puts them on.

Read the rest @ http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/nullification-1-brady-campaign-0-federal-judge-dismisses-suit-against-kansas-2nd-amendment-protection-act/

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights advocates are assailing Democrats for a controversial legislative proposal that they say would restrict access to handguns.

People would be required to obtain a license before purchasing some firearms under the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act, which was introduced Thursday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and a trio of Connecticut lawmakers.

The legislation also seeks to expand background checks to all handgun sales and block people under the age of 21 from purchasing those firearms.States could refuse to implement the handgun regulations, but would risk losing federal funding for doing so.

Though the legislation stands virtually no chance of passing the Republican Congress, the NRA expressed outrage at the proposal, calling it an attempt by Democrats to “delay and deny” gun purchases.

“They cannot ban guns because of the Constitution, so they want to make it so difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to self-protection,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.

“Someone should send them a copy of the Constitution — specifically, a copy of the Second Amendment,” she added.

The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act would zero in on handgun purchases, but exempt rifles and other types of firearms.

It is backed by a study from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research that found handgun licenses dramatically reduce homicide rates.

“Of the thousands of Americans murdered every single year by firearms, nearly 90 percent of those deaths occur with a handgun,” Van Hollen said. “With mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends dying every day because of guns, there is no question that gun violence is tearing at the fabric of our communities.”

In addition to Van Hollen, who is running for the Senate, three Connecticut Democrats back the handgun bill: Rep. Elizabeth Esty, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen. Chris Murphy. Connecticut was the site of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in 2012.

Their bill would provide states with an incentive to strengthen their guns laws. States that follow through with the handgun regulations would receive federal funding to carry them out, while those that refused would risk losing money.

To qualify, states would have to implement laws that require prospective gun owners to apply for a firearms license from a local police station. They would be required to pass a background check, including submitting fingerprints and photographs.

Those who pass the background check would receive a firearms license that they must provide to purchase a handgun.

The Democrats say the handgun bill would help law enforcement officials weed out criminals and other people who are not allowed to purchase guns.

But Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, called it a “blatant attempt to fingerprint every law-abiding gun owner in the country like a common criminal.”

“Since they support licensing for exercising Second Amendment freedoms, do they also support licensing of newspaper columns, political speeches and sermons?” asked Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America.

The lawmakers called it a gun safety solution.

“States require licenses to drive a car or even to fish in local rivers, so requiring a license to buy a deadly handgun is a commonsense step that could save countless lives,” Van Hollen said.

“Requiring a license to purchase a deadly weapon is at least as important as requiring one to drive a car,” Blumenthal said.

But gun rights advocates warned the proposal would effectively create a national gun registry.

“Driving a car and fishing are not constitutionally-protected rights,” Baker responded. “The Second Amendment protects our individual right to own a gun.”

“One does not need the permission of the government in order to exercise a fundamental constitutional right,” added Larry Keane, senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

The bill is just the latest attempt by gun control advocates in Congress to close a background check loophole they say makes it easier for criminals to purchase guns.

Even though most gun owners go through lengthy background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, these same requirements do not always apply when buying guns online or at gun shows.

Gun safety advocates say toughening the rules would reduce gun violence around the country.

“It shows the tremendous opportunity we have to prevent gun deaths and make all of us safer just by keeping guns out of the wrong hands through good policy like expanded background checks,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Via NRA-ILA

On Monday, NRA F-rated Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to authorize the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to give $60 million of the taxpayers’ money to anti-gun activists over the next six years, to conduct “research” promoting gun control. The two longtime anti-gun legislators say that their bill is necessary for two reasons, both of which are hokum:

First, they say, Congress in 1996 “almost halted entirely” all funding of gun control research, the operative word being “almost.” In 1996, Congress did stop the CDC from funneling millions of the taxpayers’ dollars to anti-gunners to conduct “research”–pitiful by academic standards–designed from the get-go to promote a political agenda against a constitutionally-protected right.

However, it didn’t shut off the spigot through which millions of dollars flow to the same anti-gunners from leftwing philanthropic foundations. For example, the Joyce Foundation alone has given several million dollars to a variety of anti-gun groups and individuals every year since 1996.

Second, Markey and Maloney say, anti-gun research is necessary to stop the “gun violence . . . epidemic,” which Maloney implies is increasing. Words have meaning, however. An epidemic is a sudden and severe outbreak of an infectious disease throughout a community, and “gun violence” isn’t a disease, it’s not widespread, it doesn’t affect all segments of the population equally, and it’s been decreasing, not increasing.

Only three-one-thousandths of one percent of the U.S. population are the victims of firearm-related murders annually. Victimization rates vary widely according to a person’s sex, age, race, economic status, area of residence, and criminal record. And, over the last 20 years–coinciding with a huge increase in the numbers of Right-to-Carry states, gun owners and guns owned–the firearm murder rate has been cut in half, even though virtually none of the gun control restrictions advocated by anti-gun researchers has been implemented.

Via NRA-ILA

It’s happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration’s “Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

To understand the proposal and why it’s so serious, some background information is necessary.

For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called “defense articles” and “defense services” in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part “U.S. Munitions List,” which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.

Also regulated under ITAR are so-called “technical data” about defense articles. These include, among other things, “detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information” about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the “public domain.” Essentially, this means data “which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public” through a variety of specified means. These include “at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.” Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been “exported,” as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized “export,” including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?

Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.”

Yesterday the Texas Legislature passed a bill that would allow open carry. Current law in Texas only allows concealed carry if a person has a pistol license. The new bill, which Governor Abbott already said he will sign into law will allow those with pistol licenses to openly carry firearms whereas before it only allowed them to carry concealed.

In New Hampshire, the legislature passed a bill that would allow Granite Staters who are legally able to purchase and possess firearms to have the option of a pistol license or simply carry concealed without one (also know as Constitutional Carry). Current law in New Hampshire allows open carry without a pistol license.

Two states – two different but similar issues at hand. Moms Demand of Texas is pushing to stop open carry while Moms Demand of New Hampshire wants everyone to open carry rather than carry concealed. Law enforcement officials (LEOs) of both states also seem to be schizophrenic on carrying because in Texas LEOs claim open carry is dangerous but in New Hampshire they claim concealed carry is dangerous and would prefer all Granite Staters open carry.

You can’t have it both ways. There are no two ways about the 2nd Amendment or the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is nothing more than the politics of gun control in both states. It proves they aren’t using logic for their arguments but simply fighting against the rights of Americans. It proves that the anti-2nd Amendment crowd in either state will fight against the will of the majority of citizens to continue with gun control measures.

One big difference between the states – the governors. Greg Abbott tweeted minutes after the final vote in the senate:

Open Carry just passed in both the Texas House & Senate. Next destination: My Pen.

Whereas Governor Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire sided with the out-of-state paid hacktivists of billionaire gun control extremist Michael Bloomberg and stated she will veto the bill that is overwhelmingly supported by the majority of her constituents. From her statement:

By passing Senate Bill 116, the legislature would be taking a step away from our tradition of common-sense gun laws, and I intend to veto this measure if it passes.

Hassan is aligning with Bloomberg rather than the people who actually live in her state. This is ironic since a recent poll showed that almost 90% of New Hampshire voters oppose organizations like Moms Demand spending money to change gun laws. That same poll shows that 71% of Granite Staters do not like the current pistol license law due the state-sanctioned discrimination it allows.

While each bill is different for each state, each bill had the same opponents – Moms Demand and LEOs. Each bill had the same proponents – residents of the state. Texas wants to change open carry laws while New Hampshire wants to change concealed carry laws. In either case, the schizophrenia of gun control extremists shined through. They each gave the same argument on opposite ends of spectrum.

Clearly these people can’t have the same argument under different circumstances. Moms Demand and LEOs for gun control are nothing more than schizophrenic political hacks that seek to push more hoplophobic laws and restrict freedoms of law-abiding Americans. That any governor of any state would listen to these people over her own constituency is egregious and inexcusable. Governors are supposed to represent their constituency, not out-of-state billionaires who may donate money to future campaigns.

Representatives in each state voted to pass legislation that was backed by the majority of their constituents. Score one for Texans for having a governor who understands the concept of representing the will of the people.

In a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation a week ago, the group is challenging the State Department’s claimed power to ban the dissemination of data that the regime finds dangerous. This stems from the State Department’s insistence that in releasing the CAD (Computer Aided Design) files for using 3-D printers to make operable firearms from plastic, the innovators and liberty advocates of Defense Distributed violated the International Traffic in Arms law.

That would seem something of a stretch. ITAR was intended to outlaw trafficking in sophisticated weapons–not single-shot, low-powered, inaccurate, and fragile pistols–and even that is more than Defense Distributed “trafficked,” which was, after all, merely the ones and zeros of digital data that tell the printer what to do. In other words, the lawsuit argues, this is a First Amendment issue, because the government is attempting to criminalize Defense Distributed’s (and founder Cody Wilson’s) expression of thoughts–information that alarms the government.

Read the rest @ http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/gun-bans-not-enough.htm

Via David Codrea

“Tommy Gnosis is someone named Jennifer Mascia,” Herschel Smith at The Captain’s Journal posted in March. He was describing someone who, under cover of anonymity, “visits web sites — particularly gun rights web sites — and spreads discontent and dejection.”

That’s consistent with the “elaborate subterfuge” technique for “infiltrating and disrupting alternative media online” used by those with an agenda. Per Canadian research, such “Internet trolls aren’t just mean — they’re sadists and psychopaths.”

That would also seem consistent with the control-all megalomaniac who hired her, in a company-he-keeps kind of way. Mascia is one of two paid flacks “attached prominently to the Everytown news project,” an experiment in virtual Astroturf that billionaire Michael Bloomberg will be rolling out this summer.

The guy wants to control everything else, so why not the narrative?

What drives Mascia is anybody’s guess, but chances are her father having been an underworld killer with multiple hits under his belt had an influence. That probably comes as a surprise to many gun rights advocates, unaware that Al Jazeera told its readers “America’s best hope for tracking gun deaths is a mob enforcer’s daughter,” and Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action gushed on social media that her story was “Amazing.”

That Mascia’s primary female role model — a moral weakling of a mother who knew about, but nonetheless supported and covered up for the monster she was married to and did nothing to stop him — no doubt also had an influence. It also may explain an affinity for foolish and contemptible lackeys that provide cover for those who would take all choices away.

At this point, though, good people would still feel a degree of sympathy. After all, Mascia had no control over who her parents were or what they did. Their defects and failings were not her fault.

The problem is, she’s chosen to become part of an effort to make the rest of us defenseless against sociopath predators like her father, and enablers who help them kill, like her mother. She knows full well no “law” proposed by her billionaire patron would have any effect on stopping diseased animals like John Mascia from working his sick will on more victims.

The creepiest thing is the way Mascia rationalizes the homicidal punk using “shades of gray,” allowing her to view him as two unrelated personalities, “my dad and … this separate John,” and to write a book as “my way of honoring my parents [and] still loving them.”

There is no gray in the premeditated taking of human life for gain, nor any claim to honor. It is blackest evil. It must be stopped, and anyone interfering with your ability to do that is an ally of that evil. Grieving families of victims the Mascia thug murdered could have loved their fathers, sons or brothers as well.

So while empathy for a daughter dealing with traumatic stress is understandable, when coping defects are taken out on the rest of us, we’re under no obligation to tolerate resulting toxic and irrational damage. In the case of Meadow Soprano here, her “work” for Bloomberg would best be met with an invitation to take her damn Daddy Issues out on something else, and leave our rights alone.