Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category

HARTFORD, Conn. (CBSNewYork) — Connecticut state lawmakers came to an agreement Monday on what they said will become some of the nation’s toughest gun control laws.

Connecticut state lawmakers came to an agreement Monday on what they said will become some of the nations toughest laws that infringe on the right of the citizen, bragging that they’ve done more to squash the puny serfs than anyone this week, all through “agreement” between one ruling group and another ruling group on what they should do to the peon citizen.

As CBS 2′s Lou Young reported, the deal included a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one that was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre in Newtown. The deal also calls for a new registry for existing high-capacity magazines, and background checks that would apply to private gun sales.

One small step for a tyrant, one giant leap for tyranny!

Another registry would be set up for dangerous weapons offenders.

Y’know, we used to not put dangerous people on a list.  We used to put them in prison until they either learned and stopped being dangerous, or until they just stopped being.

Connecticut House Speaker Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden) said he hopes the agreement sends a message to Washington, and the rest of the country.

“This is the way to get this job done; to do it in an effective, meaningful, thoughtful way, and to do it on a bipartisan basis, because our children deserve no less,” Sharkey said.

It sends a message that the Second Amendment shall be infringed, and sends a message that, on a bipartisan basis, between different stripes of tyrant, our children deserve to grow up in a society in which the state will dictate to them what they may do, and how they may do it, because the state knows best for the little people, who all need to be controlled, lorded over, supervised, and taken care of.

  • Same story, different take from the BBC:

Criminal background checks would now be required of all prospective gun purchasers. Currently, federal law exempts so-called private transactions, which can include online sales and sales at gun shows.

So-called “private transactions” between so-called “private citizens” who think they’re so-called “free men” whose lives shouldn’t be subject to “so-called” tyranny and control by government.

Where do you buy guns online?  Every online gun shop I see requires a transfer via FFL holder, as does every private seller on Gunbroker or Auction Arms.  The only exceptions are antiques.  Is there really a problem with blackpowder pistols being sold online?

In a compromise, legislators did not ban existing ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. Instead, already purchased high-capacity magazines will have to be registered.

In a compromise, citizens’ rights were only partially stripped, and rights that citizens thought they had will now have to be registered, though the state may be unsure of when they acquired these “rights”, so they may have to surrender them anyway, and they may not be able to pass these rights on to their children.  It’s a compromise in which you compromise your rights, and the state increases its power.  What a wonderful compromise!  Just the tip, baby.

Gun control advocates in Sacramento are putting a new twist on an old NRA slogan: “Guns don’t kill people — bullets kill people.”

Democratic lawmakers are pushing like never before to regulate or tax ammunition sales. They say the logic is simple: A firearm is nothing but an expensive paperweight without ammunition.

And a printing press is nothing without ink, and a computer is nothing without electricity.  Goodbye, Bill of Rights, hello tyranny!

“It’s a way to red-tape the right to bear arms to death,” said Chuck Michel, the California Rifle and Pistol Association’s attorney, promising to sue if any such bills pass. “It’s all part of a campaign of shame, the fight to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to make the choice to have a firearm for self-defense.”

As lawmakers mull how to curb gun violence in the wake of December’s massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., some note that California and federal laws also forbid those who aren’t allowed to own firearms from owning ammunition — but there’s no way to tell who’s buying it.

Skinner’s bill would require all ammo dealers to be licensed and all ammo buyers to provide identification information that would go to a state registry. The registry could then be compared with a state database of people prohibited from owning guns and ammo because of crimes, mental health issues or other reasons. It also would tip police to massive purchases.

Because a RIGHT means begging the state for a license.

Another bill, SB53 by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would require a background check and an estimated $50 fee for a one-year permit to buy ammunition.

Because a RIGHT means begging the state for a license.

10 percent tax on ammunition to fund crime prevention — might merge with another lawmaker’s proposed nickel-per-round tax to fund mental-health screening for children. Bonta, D-Oakland, said his tax is mostly about generating money to “combat the gun violence in our communities,” but could have the “secondary benefit” of stemming “rampant sales.”

These are a couple boxes of .22s, with Indiana Jones and a horse for scale:

1100 rounds

That’s 1100 rounds.  In the beforetimes, back before the panic, that would run you about $20/box, so $40 total (a few years prior, before QE and metals prices spikes and Obama, they’d be $10/box).  With a nickel tax per round, you’d be looking at a $27.50 tax per box.  So even at recent prices, the price would go from $20/box to $47.50/box.

That $40 couple of boxes there would be $95.  And that’s before local sales taxes.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

- Chief Justice John Marshall

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.  Except to the ruling class, to whom it means, “license, regulate, tax, eliminate, shut up, destroy, destroy, EXTERMINATE!”:

AB 48 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley — Would require ammunition sellers to be licensed; ammunition purchasers to show identification; ammunition sellers to report all sales to the state Justice Department, which would create a registry of ammunition purchases. First hearing: April 2.
AB 187 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland — Would impose a 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in the state, with the revenue directed to a fund for crime-prevention efforts in the state’s high-crime areas. No hearing date set.
AB 760 by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento — Would impose a 5-cent tax on each bullet sold in California, dedicating the revenue to an existing program to screen young children for mild to moderate mental illness — and intervene with strategies to address their problems. First hearing: April 15.
SB 53 by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles — Would require anyone buying ammunition to first pass a background check and receive a one-year permit, for an estimated $50 fee, from the state Justice Department. First hearing: April 16.

And in Congress, because the Second Amendment can’t be infringed enough at the state level:

S.35, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013, by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. — Would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, require licensing of ammunition dealers and reporting of bulk purchases of ammunition. A companion bill in the House, HR142, is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.
S.174, the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013, by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. — Would require an instant background check for the purchase of ammunition and would restore pre-1986 requirements that sellers track their inventory and keep records of their customers. Purchases of 1,000 rounds or more, or thefts of large amounts of ammunition, would have to be reported to law enforcement.

They really hate online ammo sales, but let’s revisit that, shall we?

In regular old economics, we’re talking about the government establishing a barrier to entry for you as a citizen in order to stop you from exercising your rights.

Last month, New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” that would impose a $10,000 penalty on any gun owner who fails to purchase mandatory liability insurance.

And Erika Johnson gets it:

The bill would require gun buyers to provide proof of insurance from a company approved by a state insurance regulatory authority for “losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” In a nutshell, you need to take out a preemptive policy for any violence you might inflict with your firearm — which doesn’t really make sense, because the people inflicting non-defensive gun violence are criminals anyway. This is just another poorly disguised legislative attempt to deter gun ownership, and man, talk about regressive! Looks like self-defense is only for people who can afford to take out an extra insurance policy.

The oh-so-esteemed bureaucrats at the United Nations have been looking to slap some regulations on the small arms trade via an international treaty for quite some time, but the United States has never really cottoned on to that idea. The Senate has to ratify all treaties by a two-thirds majority, and in one of the amendment votes to their budget just last month, the Senate voted 53-46 to specifically prevent the U.S. from signing on to the U.N.’s proposed Arms Trade Treaty.

The Obama administration don’t care. The president expressed a willingness to get behind such a thing near the start of his tenure, conspicuously backing off as last November’s election approached but then jumping right back on the progressive globalist bandwagon.

The Senate, however, has vowed to block ratification, which requires a two-thirds majority and is needed for the treaty to be legally binding on the U.S.

Good.  TX Senator Ted Cruz tweeted this:

UN Arms Treaty should be rejected outright by US Senate. It is international gun regulation, plain and simple & it must never be ratified

Allowing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets to remain in the hands of gun owners would leave a gaping loophole in the law, said Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting.

“It doesn’t prevent someone from going out of the state to purchase them and then bring them back. There’s no way to track when they were purchased, so they can say, ‘I had this before,’” Barden said. “So it’s a big loophole.”

This is where things get unpleasant.  It’s very difficult to explain to someone who’s still in the throes of grief that the rights that we as American citizens have recognized by our Constitution are in fact natural rights, and also rights that are inherently necessary to protect ourselves as individuals and as a group from tyranny small and large.  It’s very difficult to explain to someone that their son shouldn’t have been murdered because the mental health system, which has stigmatized mental health so severely, has made it so people who need help or who should simply be locked away can get help or can be secured far from normal society.

It’s very difficult to break past that wall and explain to people that the very real fears of government tyranny are very real fears – because governments invariably end up becoming tyrannical unless they’re kept in check.  It’s very difficult to penetrate that wall of grief and explain that restricting the rights of American citizens, infringing on their natural rights of self-defense, giving the state more power over their lives, and ultimately putting flawed men who are in government charge of those of us citizens will never bring his son back.

It will never bring his son back, and it will never prevent the Bath School Disaster, or the World Trade Center bombing in 93, the Oklahoma City bombing in 95 – but it will cause the Amanda Collins of the world to be raped again.  It will enable government use of force against a disarmed citizenry.  It will enable police brutality and governmental corruption.  It will lead to a nation where there are the Rulers and the Ruled.

It may not do it tomorrow, and it may not do it in idyllic Connecticut, but it will.  History is very harsh, and history is right.  History shows us what will happen, and history shows that the only place where governmental tyranny has been stymied is in nations where the people retain the individual power to resist oppression.

Sadly, it’s a very big picture and someone grieving for a lost child is unlikely to look at the big picture and wonder if they are not asking for something that not only would have not, could have not, and cannot save their lost child, but that will ultimately make the world a more dangerous, repressive, destructive place where hundreds, thousands, or millions of children might die because of his requests.

Then again, Darrell Scott, father of Columbine victim Rachel Scott, knew that there is an even bigger picture than the worldly knowledge of history, and looked to address it in a different way:

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc.

“Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.

“What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence.

“And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.

“We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

“We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored.

“We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgement that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes–He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

“I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999 , at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.

From Michael Walsh at PJ Media:

That’s New York City’s nasty little fascist mayor, the ersatz and erstwhile “Republican” who used the party to sneak into Gracie Mansion in the wake of the Giuliani administration’s successful war on street crime, and then double-crossed the GOP in his bald-faced but successful attempt to subvert term limits, lecturing David Gregory in his Boston honk that he knows what’s best for New Yorkers — and us.

Yes, it’s the Soda Jerk himself, tossing his pint-sized weight around as he attempts to remain politically viable after his reign as the successor to such corrupt and incompetent wretches as Jimmy Walker, William O’Dwyer, Abe Beame and David Dinkins mercifully comes to an end. Let’s unpack a little of what the Terror of Tinytown had to say.

We’re not banning anything.  All we’re saying is, we want to show you just how big the cup is. If you want 32 ounces, take two cups to your seat. If you want 64, carry four. But our hope is, if you only take one, you won’t go back.

If you believe that, Bloomberg has a bridge to Brooklyn to sell you. And to which the only proper response — the one that until New York turned into a city of Upper West Side conformist sheep he would have justly received — is (to quote Kurt Schlichter) “bite me.”

It’s a good post, worth reading, though he had to go back and update it to make note of Bloomberg’s new $12,000,000 anti-gun ad campaign, all for your own good.

It’s a campaign against individual autonomy and the freedom to live your life – all for your own good.

Didn’t expect to do another Obamacare post so fast, but I just found out my car insurance went up.  I’m with a very major insurance company, and in the many, many years I’ve been with them, they aren’t the type to raise rates arbitrarily.  I called up and asked why my rates went up about $50.

The answer I got was that in my state, the company has assessed the new costs of Obamacare and started raising rates to compensate for those increased costs that Obamacare is causing.  The increased health care costs as a result of Obamacare are now raising car insurance rates because those same car insurance companies also end up paying medical bills for those injured in car accidents.

So watch your statements, call and ask.

Somewhere in that red tape tower, your rates just went up.  Broken windows.

red tape tower obamacare

Obamacare started as a 2700 pages and a fat binder of rules and regulations.  It is now over 20000 pages of rules and regulations.

A couple weeks ago, Senator Mitch McConnell’s office sent a few pictures of the 7’3″ tower of red tape that that is Obamacare out onto the internet.

By contrast, the Constitution:

pocket constitution

It’s not just Beretta that sees there’s always a problem with Maryland.  Maryland’s new anti-firearm bills are pushing Beretta towards leaving, and now LWRC is looking at the door as well.

For those unaware of LWRC, they make a lot of AR15s and AR15 parts.   Maryland SB 281 is an anti-modern firearm bill.

lwrc m6a2

Today, on LWRC’s Facebook page, they address Maryland’s new attempts at banning their products in testimony in opposition to SB 281:

Facing these 20 gun bills, he (LWRC owner Richard Bernstein) is now put in a position to abandon his home, many of his MD employees and his proud legacy to move his ventures to a state that does not ask that productive member of society fall on a sword as a scapegoat for inaction by its government against the prosecution of criminals for gun crimes. There is also apparent malaise by the government to addressing serious mental health care deficits in MD and an apparent disregard of its citizen’s Constitutional rights under the second amendment.

To understand the consequences of passing this legislation, you must know what is at stake. LWRCI’s rate of job creation over the past 7 months has been approximately 10 new jobs per month. We have expanded the business through three MD counties with employees numbering 300. Then there are the employees of businesses we subcontract to, like Eastern Plating in Baltimore County. We do so much work with Eastern Plating; LWRCI has a resident employee in house.

LWRCI will bring in excess of $130 million dollars into Maryland this year.

We already work in the most highly regulated industry in America. There are more than 20,000 domestic laws relating to firearms. As a company we are diligent to follow them to the letter of the law. Yet the Maryland Legislature, whom have already passed some of most extensive state firearms regulations in the union are attempting to pass further non-sensical laws that will do nothing to improve public safety.

Instead, these laws punish law-abiding citizens, and strip them of their rights. This law will push firearms into the black market to felons and criminals on to the streets as it did in Canada, the UK and Australia. Law-abiding citizens are faced with deciding whether to comply with an unconstitutional law or be labeled felons. Once passed, citizens with no legal method of disposing of these firearms will invariably create a black market with off the books sales with no checks, balances or regulations. Maryland seems doomed to repeat mistakes of the past while ignoring the core issues.

I came here to share this information on behalf of many Marylanders. We are asking ourselves a question everyday. Is it intent of this legislation to cause a mass exodus of law abiding citizens and productive companies? These citizens and companies will be forced to leave either on moral grounds, business grounds or both. These are the same people that are the core of civic responsibility and contribution to our community and state and its economy. How can LWRCI stay in MD and produce rifles, pay taxes, create jobs, and stimulate the economy when its government intends to restrict the rights of its own citizens? Aside from the moral issue, the citizens of this country would not forgive the hypocrisy of LWRCI staying despite passage of this legislation.

The legislation as written seems to be window dressing for political gain by a few in the face of ineffective crime control. The real issues of public safety as they relate to gun violence go largely unanswered. The MD government is making it clear through its actions with this legislation that we, nor Beretta nor other firearms manufacturers are welcome in MD. It sends the message that this is not the State to expand in.

This legislation also sends a clear message to MD citizens that wish to exercise their rights under the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution; that they are no longer welcome in MD. For criminals, it will be business as usual. As such, if this unconstitutional ban passes as written, we will comply with your wishes and move our companies out of Maryland along with as many employees and their families that wish to go.

Respectfully,

Darren Mellors
Executive-Vice President
LWRC International, LLC

LWRC addressed some conflict in the RKBA circles, but doesn’t look to be expecting much from their legislature:

 Focus your anger and outrage on those that want to take your rights away under the auspices of public safety for political gain when they now they are not addressing public safety at all. Wish we (sic) luck tomorrow testifying to a den of snakes who pretend to serve the people when all they are doing is serving themselves.

Update: Maryland’s Senate just passed another anti-gun bill today.

beretta logo small

From the Washington Post:

On the production floor of Beretta USA sits a hulking new barrel-making machine ready to churn out the next object of obsession in America’s love-hate relationship with guns: a civilian version of a machine gun designed for special operations forces and popularized in the video game Call of Duty.  …

But under an assault-weapons ban that advanced late last week in the Maryland General Assembly, experts say the gun would be illegal in the state where it is produced.

Now Beretta is weighing whether the rifle line, and perhaps the company itself, should stay in a place increasingly hostile toward its products. Its iconic 9mm pistol — carried by every U.S. soldier and scores of police departments — would also be banned with its high capacity, 13-bullet magazine.

“Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?” said Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta.

Beretta is finally coming around to seeing that government contracts aren’t all there is in the business, and they can only get so many legislators to make them so many loopholes as a “state-approved” company for so long.

13 rounds isn’t high-capacity, it’s standard capacity; and the vast majority of them have 15 round magazines.  That was one of the selling points that helped it replace the 1911.

Among other restrictions, O’Malley’s bill would ban assault rifles, magazines with more than 10 bullets and any new guns with two or more “military-like” features. Gun experts said it’s a near-certainty that Beretta’s semiautomatic version of the ARX-160, now only a prototype, would be banned under O’Malley’s bill.

“I’m concerned. I think they’re going to move,” said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert). “They sell guns across the world and in every state in the union — to places a lot more friendly to the company than this state.”

Citizen sales are no small part of their production – and there are plenty of regions of the country that are friendly to both business and guns.

“We literally are part of the arsenal of democracy,” said Reh, sweeping his hand toward the production floor, where on a recent afternoon more than 1,000 of the military version of the pistol sat in various stages of assembly. “That’s why we consider this so insulting.”

They’re starting to get it.

Of course, they can feel insulted all they want.  To the left, they are ultimately evil unless totally state controlled.  That they provide pistols for thousands of law enforcement officers, hundreds of thousands of US troops, and hundreds of thousands of citizens is meaningless to people who want to destroy the gun business because guns are bad.

The assault-weapons ban isn’t the only part of the governor’s bill Beretta dislikes.

In Maryland, gun manufacturers are required to register as firearms dealers, which some say could expose the company to lawsuits for selling and shipping weapons as dealers do. The Senate Judiciary Committee, which passed the governor’s bill 7 to 4 late Thursday, spelled out an exemption for Beretta and a handful of other smaller manufacturers in the state.

O’Malley aides say the bill could have outright banned manufacturing of assault weapons in the state but did not in part because of Beretta, which has agreed to meet with the administration on Monday to discuss the bill.

“We think getting assault weapons off the streets and keeping this company can both be accomplished,” said Raquel Guillory, O’Malley’s spokeswoman.

No, they can’t.  And a $2000 modern rifle isn’t on “the streets” unless Obama’s ATF is giving it to Mexican narcoterrorist cartels.  Those $2000 modern rifles end up in the hands of sport shooters, 3-gun shooters, collectors, Second Amendment advocates, hobbyists, and the kinds of folks who don’t do anything with them but shoot paper; and won’t ever do anything with those rifles unless government targets their owners for liquidation.

beretta arx 160

Another “weapon of the future” that fires a cartridge designed in the early 1960s that is so small that many states (KS, VA, etc.) don’t let you hunt deer with it because it’s considered too weak to reliably take an animal humanely. But somehow politicians want to ban it for being superpowered.  All the black plastic must make it more dangerous.

Beretta should know that this whole thing stinks of cronyism, which isn’t something an Old World company would be unfamiliar with at all.  They may get favors now, but they won’t in the future.  As they note in the story, there are lawsuits that don’t necessarily exempt Beretta.  Long a tactic of the anti-rights forces, the left wants to be able to sue manufacturers for making products that only hurt people when misused criminally.  They want to sue for liability when criminals use guns as a method to destroy gun companies.  It’s what they do.

Beretta may get a niche carved out for it here in legislation because of the jobs it provides, but Beretta will also be looking at the fact that loophole they’re in will be tightened gradually.  They are the frog, and Maryland is going to boil them.  To the left, arms only belong in the hands of the state and leftist terrorists like Bill Ayers.  There is no place in their world for weapons.  Theirs is an impossible utopia of gun free zones where women use whistles and ball-point pens to fend off attackers because they hate guns so much they would rather women be raped than defend themselves.

Del. Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George’s), whose district encompasses the Accokeek plant, said he would do everything he could for the company.

“We want to keep those jobs,” said Vallario, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has a key role in approving the legislation.

He cares nothing for the company.  He cares about the job losses.  If he cared about the company, he’d oppose infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.  If Beretta turned to nothing but a state-owned, state-run, state-controlled entity that makes weapons solely for the jack-booted thugs of the state, he wouldn’t care.  That they are still nominally a free company with the ability to leave means he wants them to not take their jobs out of state – and decimate the supply chain that supports them when they move.

The company’s Italian patriarch, Ugo Gussalli Beretta, visited the plant shortly after O’Malley introduced his gun-control bill, and the two discussed the issue. But Reh declined to say if the two reached any decisions about what would happen if the governor’s bill passes.

“All I can tell you is, Mr. Beretta said, ‘There always seems to be a problem with Maryland.’ ”

Beretta probably isn’t moving.  Italian gun regulations have gotten worse in many ways in the last few years, and Beretta is already used to dealing with governments that are slightly more despotic than Maryland.  It would be nice to see them get sick of it and move, though.  Their company would benefit from a regulatory climate that isn’t ideologically out for their blood, they’d probably benefit from a better tax structure, and they could avoid a legal climate that’s also out for their blood.

Magpul will move.  That’s a sign in the industry that things are serious.  If Beretta moves, that’s a paradigm shift in the industry.  Their competitors won’t sit and wait for the noose to tighten or to play cronyism games with politicians who will stab them in the back, and there will be an exodus of firearms jobs out of their historical homes in the industrial northeast.

Update: HotAir has a little more on this today.

From Outdoors Native:

KATY, TX – The gun control debate may be a bit out of control in Katy.

CNN’s Piers Morgan chose Tactical Firearms, a Katy gun shop and shooting range as the backdrop for Monday’s episode of “Piers Morgan Tonight”. Included in the Monday’s debate were Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, State Senator Dan Patrick and Ted Nugent.

Tactical Firearms owner, Jeremy Alcede claims Morgan told him he wanted to use the time at the gun shop as a learning exercise.

Alcede said, “He said, well, I’d like to learn more about guns.  People criticize me, saying, how can I be against guns if I don’t know anything about guns?”

Sounds good so far.

“The points that I did make were just garbled to the point that people were asking  why was I speaking in broken sentences, and I said, look back at the video and you’ll see, in one instance I’m wearing glasses, one I’m not.  One hearing protection, one not.  They just chopped it up so bad it wasn’t even funny.”

Was it a cheap shot?

“They completely misrepresented what I wanted to get across, completely.”

First off, this wasn’t really a surprise.  Invite a propagandist into your place and you reap what you sow.

Second, this is Tactical Firearms in Katy, TX, that we’re talking about.  These are the same worthless appeasers of gun grabbers that wanted online ammo sales banned because it would be a wonderful barrier to entry so they could screw their customers by using government’s gun against their competitors.

All this as President Obama is pushing his gun control agenda. We’re guessing he won’t be welcome in Katy.

Tactical Firearms isn’t welcome in the gun world, the worthless quisling Zumbos.

Host Matt Patrick: I also love what you were saying about the Stop Online Ammuntion Sales Act which is being presented by the democrats now.  You say, look if this is going to make them happy, then let’s give them this, let’s let them have this, and go away and leave us alone, right?

Tactical Firearms Owner Jeremy Alcede: Right.  I mean, they’re never going to stop.  This is just an ongoing thing that, y’know, I don’t agree with anything – y’know, you give an inch, they’ll take a mile.  Y’know if this is going to shut them up, then give it to them.  The only good thing that can come out of this is y’know, it’s gonna not allow all these big online companies to purchase ammo from the manufacturers so the manufacturers are going to be overloaded with ammo so guess what that means?  They’re going be calling me and saying “look, I’m going to give you an extra dollar fifty off a box of ammo please buy it, please buy it, so it might actually lower the cost for you the consumer.  I know if I get it lower, I’m going to sell it lower to you.

Maybe if you’d listened to the people who would’ve been your customers instead of sending “Cowboy” out to mace them, you might’ve recovered.  But I guess not.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

A store calling itself Fearless Distributing opened early last year on an out-of-the-way street in Milwaukee’s Riverwest neighborhood, offering designer clothes, athletic shoes, jewelry and drug paraphernalia.

Those working behind the counter, however, weren’t interested in selling anything.

They were undercover agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives running a storefront sting aimed at busting criminal operations in the city by purchasing drugs and guns from felons.

But the effort to date has not snared any major dealers or taken down a gang. Instead, it resulted in a string of mistakes and failures, including an ATF military-style machine gun landing on the streets of Milwaukee and the agency having $35,000 in merchandise stolen from its store, a Journal Sentinel investigation has found.

The ATF set up a fake distributing company to sell guns and do a “sting”.  Yet somehow, all they managed to do was FUBAR everything.  This should come as no surprise.

When the 10-month operation was shut down after the burglary, agents and Milwaukee police officers who participated in the sting cleared out the store but left behind a sensitive document that listed names, vehicles and phone numbers of undercover agents.

And the agency remains locked in a battle with the building’s owner, who says he is owed about $15,000 because of utility bills, holes in the walls, broken doors and damage from an overflowing toilet.

The sting resulted in charges being filed against about 30 people, most for low-level drug sales and gun possession counts. But agents had the wrong person in at least three cases. In one, they charged a man who was in prison – as a result of an earlier ATF case – at the time agents said he was selling drugs to them.

And it gets even worse:

Residents of the area, tucked between N. Humboldt Blvd. and the Milwaukee River, are angry the ATF secretly drew drug dealers and gun-toting felons to their neighborhood, which is rallying to improve.

The ATF was out there again creating crimes and ruining neighborhoods.

In Milwaukee, agents located Fearless Distributing in a neighborhood where aggravated assaults had been declining since at least 2008, according to an analysis by the Journal Sentinel relying on Milwaukee Police Department numbers.

Aggravated assaults within a mile radius of the storefront dropped to 109 last year from 193 in 2008. Homicides in the area ranged from zero to three per year during the last five years, far fewer than other crime-laden areas in the city.

And then it gets worse from there:

In September, an agent parked his Ford Explorer at the Alterra on N. Humboldt Blvd., about a half mile away, with three ATF guns stored in a metal box in the back.

About 3 p.m. Sept. 13, an Alterra employee spotted three men breaking into the Explorer. They stole three guns: a Smith & Wesson 9mm handgun, a Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistol and an M-4 .223-caliber fully automatic rifle. They also made off with ammunition and an ATF radio, according to a police report.

Yup, the ATF put an actual assault rifle – as in select fire, fully automatic M4 – on the streets, in a neighborhood that was improving until they got there.

One of the suspects hid the machine gun under a bed and took the handguns with him. He was questioned by police and refused to talk. He was released. No one has been charged in the burglary of the ATF guns, according to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Karen Loebel. She declined to say if charges would be coming.

The ATF soon had one of its stolen guns back, however.

The very next day, according to court documents, 19-year-old Marquise Jones contacted agents at Fearless Distributing and sold the Sig Sauer – and another unrelated handgun – back to agents.

The price: $1,400.

But Jones would not be arrested for two months. And when he was, it was not for the theft. His name does not appear on the police reports related to the vehicle break-in. He was charged with having a stolen gun.

Meanwhile, the hunt for the machine gun and the other stolen handgun continues.

Yup, the ATF’s full-auto M4 is still out there, and they’re paying double price to get their own guns back.  Clearly, though, we need to crack down on US citizens rights.  Only the cops should have guns… and the criminals they give guns to.

Mike Hashimoto at the Dallas Morning News asks “Is it a good idea to give the ATF even more to do?”  Mike, you seem like a very good guy, but check your premise really quick and ask “Is it a good idea to have an ATF at all?

The ATF has always been an agency full of jack-booted thugs.  Remember the racist ATF “Good Ol’ Boys Roundup” that ran for decades?

GoodO'BoysRoundup nigger checkpoint atf

This is the same agency that on their good days ruled shoe strings are machineguns and that Chore Boy pads are NFA firearms.  They also throw parties when they get rules passed that infringe on citizens’ rights.

Why not just Boot the ATF entirely?

-

Update: Not really an update, more of a post-script, but I figured I’d be remiss if I didn’t note there are a few good ATF agents.  John Dodson, Vince Celafu, and other whistleblowers are good guys.  I’ve met an ATF agent or two who are good people, though they’re usually on the licensing side of the house rather than the legal decision/enforcement side.  The institution itself is set up to tax and control things that aren’t illegal (and two of which are specifically named in the Constitution’s amendments), and that contributes to a corporate culture that is every bit as prone to tyrannical action as a “free speech bureau” that exists to control, regulate, and deny speech would be.

An excellent article by David Kopel.

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.

Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.

Similar to the threats of ammunition taxes, restrictions, shipping bans, etc., that are going on today.  Same gun control plans, same tyrannical objectives.

The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.

At Lexington and Concord, forcible disarmament had not worked out for the British. So back in Boston, Gage set out to disarm the Bostonians a different way.

On April 23, 1775, Gage offered the Bostonians the opportunity to leave town if they surrendered their arms. The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians.

Gage thought that many Bostonians still had guns, and he refused to allow the Bostonians to leave.

Someone disarming you who doesn’t honor their word?  Naw, never happened before!

Contrast Massachusetts as a defender of liberty in the 1700s in the whole article (which I recommend reading) with anti-rights, pro-control Massachusetts of today.

To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era, the theory of some late-20th Century courts that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” and not an “individual right” might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began. The Americans used their individual arms and their collective arms to fight against the confiscation of any arms. Americans fought to provide themselves a government that would never perpetrate the abuses that had provoked the Revolution.

minuteman statue concord

A few other points are missed here.  If you buy online, you not only have to provide your credit card info that matches your mailing address, but most, if not all, online stores also require a state-issued form of ID.

This is actually more than 1000 rounds of ammo.  It’s 1100 rounds (measured by weight, so give or take), with Lego Indiana Jones, a horse, and shag carpeting for size comparison (and I have the Legos as far back from the front of the box so with camera tricks it looks as “big” as possible…until you remember how little a Lego is or look down at the carpet):

1100 rounds

And people want to make that “an arsenal”?

Why need 1100 rounds?  Buying in bulk, like the video mentioned, saves money.  If I were to buy 11 boxes of 50 rounds, I’d be paying a lot more for packaging and individual costs, retailer markup due to the retailer having to deal with 11 pieces of inventory instead of 1, and so on.  Why need 1100 rounds?  If you go plinking for a day with a .22, you can easily burn through all that ammo in an afternoon.

Why need 1100 rounds of centerfire ammo?  Same reason.

I’ve mentioned much of this before, but I’ll also address something else the video said about there being no tracking on ammo at stores.  To the leftist, this doesn’t mean “oh, online ammo is okay”, it means “store sold ammo is evil”.  They want that banned, too.

Criminals will always violate the law.  Criminals will always find people with clean records (straw purchasers) to make gun or ammo buys for them.  The ATF and FBI have even enabled illegal straw purchases of guns and ammunition in order to support Mexican narcoterrorist cartels so the ATF could blame American gun owners for Mexican crime.

Tracking gun and ammo sales, imposing high taxes, cutting off ammo supplies to rural areas by banning ammo sales – all of these are tools to deny people their rights.  Imagine that if, in order to buy a computer or a printer, your purchase was tracked, higher taxes were imposed, and buying a computer online was made illegal.  This would make buying a computer and printer and being able to exercise your First Amendment rights that much harder to do.  In regular old economics, we’re talking about the government establishing a barrier to entry for you as a citizen in order to stop you from exercising your rights.

All it really does is make it harder for the person of limited means to afford to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  It makes them more dependent on government, rather than less.  It hurts folks in rural areas a lot, as they’re cut off or subjected to gouging local monopolies.  It stymies American gun culture through regulation – which is the leftist/progressive point, all of which enables tyranny – at the individual level oppressed by criminals or madmen, and at the national level oppressed by government and madmen.