Posts Tagged ‘firearms.gun laws’

5 Years ago,I wrote about the shit Bloomberg was pulling,starting in Oregon.

He started out getting “common sense gun control” schemes on state ballots.

I did a post about that,and the consequences here

This crap was mentioned in other posts too,no one paid any attention to what was actually going on -thought it couldn’t happen in their state.

How’d that work out in Va?

The man and his fellow victim disarmament cult members now figure it’s cheaper,faster,and more effective for them to just buy their own state senators/congresscritters.

See the Commie takeover of Virginia politics as an example.

Politics is war.

The left has been entrenched in local,state,and fed level politics for decades.

You want to overturn the bullshit in Virginia?

Stop it from happening in your state?

You have to get involved in LOCAL and county level politics.

There’s no way to win at the state and national level without solid local backing.

A whole lot of people have been saying this for years in the intardnet blogoshpere.

Very,very few have taken the advice.

Bloomberg et-al took over Virginia politics because no one was involved -no one saw it coming.

He bought and paid for victim disarmament cult supporting political hacks to push his agenda -likely including governor Coonman.

Look up justice democrats to see other ways the left is getting their Commie hacks into political office.

Bloomberg is now running an anti gun stupid bowl ad , here spending millions to convince sportsball fans that he only wants “common sense gun control”

See the Virginia gun laws that his Commie hacks introduced for examples of his idea of “common sense gun control”

Pay attention to what this guy and his minions are doing.

Fight back -before it’s too late.

These hacks use the leftist controlled media to paint all gun owners as violent extremists,”white nationalists” Nazis, “white supremacists”,etc,etc ad nauseum.

They still use the “assault weapon” = “weapon of war” bullshit and non gun owners believe this nonsense.

The victim disarmament cult has been using this crap forever.

“The weapons menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Josh Sugarman–1988

The leftist controlled media has repeatedly shown full auto weapons in videos reporting on A-R 15’s. They’ve done so for years.

It’s obvious to us that the media is lying,gaslighting the clueless – yet there is zero media pushback on this crap -because the left controls the media,and shuts down all pro gun points of view,with the exception of a very few mainstream media outlets.

The Lobby day rally has been going on for years – this year was only different due to gov Coonman and his fellow Commies promising the voters in the leftist infested cities/counties that voted them into power that they would enact “common sense gun control” ,then introducing draconian anti gun laws to make good on that promise.

Sure, there was a huge turnout for Lobby Day, exactly zero of gov Coonman/Bloomberg’s Commies paid any attention to the opposition to their agenda -nor will they as long as they are in power.

Sure ,there is a chance these draconian laws will be overturned in court – but gov Coonman WILL sign them into law.

See Herschel’s update on the Va laws here  (be sure to read the other posts on the topic )

See Aesop’s take on Virginia/Lobby day  here

Be sure to read his other posts on the subject.

The media coverage of Lobby Day was a partial win for gun rights supporters- as far as video and live reporting went.

The utter bullshit that was written afterwards, by the usual anti-gun media hacks was

the same old bullshit.

Rallys ain’t gonna do a damn thing.

Getting involved in local/county level politics will.

You have to get involved,talk to sheriffs,police chiefs,DA’s, city/town council county commissioners/councils.

Support those who deserve support.

Work to replace those who don’t.

How do you think the left got the political power they now have?

Rich fucks backed them for higher political office – but they started local.

Local pro gun lawyers have to get involved as well.

County DA’s who are anti gun need replaced.

Anti gun county sheriffs need replaced.

Local/county level politicians need to pressure state politicians to support pro gun rights legislation,and vote against ANY new gun control laws.

That is what has to be worked on as far as stopping this shit via the ballot box.

Support your state gun rights orgs before you support sellouts like the NRA.

(there are a few decent national level gun rights orgs -the NRA ain’t one of them.)

It might or might not be stoppable.

Which means everyone should be working on training,getting a group of like minded friends with varied needed skills together -locally.

Then train together.

Then connect with other local groups.

Meet in person -face to face -aka “Meatspace”.

Create a plan for just in case.

Figure out comms,food,medical care, needed supplies like ammo and spare parts,figure out storage and logistics.

You should have already taken care of all this -if not ,now is the time to start getting it figured out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AR Militia

By David Codrea

“Progressive” immigrant and academic Amitai Etzioni, who apparently thinks Americans will surrender to his demands and allow themselves to be disarmed, has actually done us a favor by leaving no doubt that he and his kind want it all.  USA –  -(Ammoland.com)-  “No one wants to take your guns” has been a common and longstanding talking point employed by the gun-grabbers to mask their true goals of total citizen disarmament through gun confiscation.
That’s usually followed by ridiculing those suggesting that’s the case with accusations of being “paranoids.” A Huffington Post article, posted on Pearl Harbor Day of all days, takes the mask off and reveals the end game, and why not one inch can be ceded to the totalitarian lobby under the deception of “compromise.”

Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’,” reads the headline by Amitai Etzioni, Professor of International Studies at George Mason University. That appointment represents typical Opposite Day “progressivism,” considering the sentiments of the man the university is named after regarding an armed citizenry capable of defeating hostile military forces, not to mention the unequivocal convictions of Mason’s contemporaries. Etzioni’s tenure there is indicative of how corruption in high places, such as academia, the media, religious institutions and government, has perverted the vision of the Founders to supplant freedom with tyranny.
‘[T]o disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” Mason observed (3 Elliot, Debates at 380). Etzioni is demanding that result. And he evidently believes it will happen without a fight.

All the “incremental” measures to get to the end game may be useful, but they just don’t go far enough, Etzioni maintains, citing just about every “gun control” measure employed and/or proposed to date, including universal background and mental health checks, magazine limits, terror watch lists, manufacturer and dealer lawsuit protections, computerized registration and the like. Those just won’t do the trick, he complains.
Perhaps now might be a good time to let Gomer get a word in. And Oliver.
“[P]rogressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament,” Etzioni demands. “[W]e may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.”
How does he intend to do that?

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written. Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

And how does he intend to enforce disarmament when some of not only defy such affronts to freedom, but actively resist it?

Read the whole thing here

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 David Codrea

The fallout from two recent Supreme Court rulings is receiving needed attention, as it’s up to activist gun owners to keep apprised of looming threats and opportunities, and to minimize damage/maximize gains of case outcomes. For one decision, Gun Owners of America has been at the forefront of warning against the anti-gun dangers hidden in Obamacare. On the flip side, some are looking at the same sex marriage ruling to prompt states to recognize concealed carry permits. But as important as those concerns are, they may ultimately become moot points if a case SCOTUS declined to hear is an indicator of things to come . . .

“The Supreme Court … refused to accept a case which sought to allow states to supplement a federal voter registration form so as to require proof of citizenship to vote,” Legal Insurrection reported Monday. “This is not just a battle of forms. It’s a battle for preventing theft of elections.”

“A new study … indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterm,” National Review reported in November. “Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic … Al Franken’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race [is] one likely tipped by non-citizen voting.”

While Obamacare is cited as a law that was passed by adding Franken’s 60th vote to the total, his hostility to gun rights and his affirmation of anti-gun nominees to administration and federal court positions were also enabled by his questionable win. A co-sponsor of the “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act,” which called for up to a 10-year prison sentence for violations, Franken is rated “F” by both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.

Still, the High Court’s deliberate indifference may have been based on recognizing that ascertaining proof of citizenship may itself soon be a moot point if establishment Democrats and Republicans have their way. That’s because the Obama administration is paving a “pathway to citizenship” for foreign nationals illegally residing in the U.S. Likely Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has pledged that as a priority. And GOP leadership and current flip-flopping frontrunner Jeb Bush are servicing their Chamber of Commerce patrons to ensure a continued source of “cheap” (meaning paid for by everyone else) labor.

Add to that an overlooked but undeniable danger identified by activist and journalist Rick Oltman in an exclusive report the media and political establishments have ignored, but that merits widespread attention: Expect a “massive naturalization of legal permanent residents [LPRs] before the 2016 election,” a move that will overwhelmingly favor Democrats.

That’s especially dangerous, because the Democrat Party includes “gun control” as a central part of its national platform:

Read the rest @ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/david-codrea/case-scotus-didnt-hear-points-to-larger-concern-for-gun-owners/

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/

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…

Far from protecting lives and property, "progressive" Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake interferes with the ability of people to protect their own while simultaneously guaranteeing the safety of violent looters, vandals, arsonists and rioters.
Far from protecting lives and property, “progressive” Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake interferes with the ability of people to protect their own while simultaneously guaranteeing the safety of violent looters, vandals, arsonists and rioters.
Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images

As Baltimore erupts in violence, and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake promises a safe haven for destroyers (thwarted only by the occasional armed citizen protecting life and property where the police fear to tread), an inescapable observation strikes. High-profile shootings of black males continue to occur in cities where “progressive” Democrats run things. Yet in spite of that, they embrace “gun control,” that is, a system where police are the “only ones” trusted to keep and bear arms.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake has been a big supporter of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. She’s also a proponent of imposing citizen disarmament edicts not just in Baltimore, but in urging Congress to make his Demanding Moms agenda the law of the land.

That being the case, it’s fair to question how such representatives continue to be elected. These are supposed to be the places where politicians who purport to care deeply about minorities and social justice call the shots and implement programs to alleviate the inequities. Of course, we saw the last such gun-grabbing Baltimore Mayor, Sheila Dixon, resign in disgrace after being convicted of helping herself to gift cards intended for the downtrodden. Hey, an anti-gun kleptocrat can’t get by on fur coats and “lavish trips” from favored developers alone.

The bottom line: Local governments over much of urban America are indistinguishable from corrupt Third World regimes. The hate runs highest in these bastions of “tolerance” with their monopolies of violence. And those in charge seemingly get there not so much by merit or success at leading people in the dream of freedom and meritorious prosperity, but for a much more shameful reason, as indicated by a makeshift plywood sign on a looted store.

“this is a black own store,” a person self-identified only as “Mike” wrote. “you shouldn’t have touch.”

Why should who owns a store make a difference? It wasn’t merchants of any color who killed anyone.

The fruits of “progressivism” are becoming increasingly more apparent and less deniable for all to see, including the way it has most betrayed those relying on its exploitive promises. But don’t expect that to be widely recognized by the people most affected.

None of us can foresee the future and predictions are always dicey things to make, but if I had to venture one, I’d say U.S. cities are in for an interesting summer. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be surprised to see members of the productive sector, who in turn will soon come to understand the “authorities” are useless at providing protection, reapplying old lessons learned from when Korean merchants refused to stand by while their livelihoods went up in flames