Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

From Politico:

Four years after asserting executive privilege to block Congress from obtaining documents relating to a controversial federal gun trafficking investigation, President Barack Obama relented Friday, turning over to lawmakers thousands of pages of records that led to unusual House votes holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012.

In January, a federal district court judge rejected Obama’s executive privilege claim over records detailing the Justice Department and White House’s response to Operation Fast and Furious, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigation that may have allowed as many as 2,000 firearms to pass into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not turn down Obama’s privilege assertion on the merits. Instead, she said authorized public disclosures about the operation in a Justice Department inspector general report essentially mooted the administration’s drive to keep the records secret.

Telling the truth slowly.

All the things he needed to hide stayed hidden, and when they were slowly uncovered elsewhere, he can now say that he’s all about “transparency” after 4 years of hiding things.

“In light of the passage of time and other considerations, such as the Department’s interest in moving past this litigation and building upon our cooperative working relationship with the Committee and other Congressional committees, the Department has decided that it is not in the Executive Branch’s interest to continue litigating this issue at this time,” Justice Deparment legislative liaison Peter Kadzik wrote in a letter Friday to House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

That’s a lie, but I’m not sure if the translation is “we think we’ve stalled long enough to cool out the mark” or “we’ve managed to cover everything up so you’ll find nothing” or “we’ve broken the opposition and they won’t ask any more questions”.

“As we’ve long asserted, the Committee requires and is entitled to these documents,” Chaffetz said in a statement. “They are critical to the Committee’s efforts to complete meaningful oversight. The Committee has a duty to understand and shine light on what was happening inside DOJ during the time of this irresponsible operation. Yet DOJ has obstructed our investigative work for years.”

After getting word that the Justice Department was turning over records, Chaffetz updated his statement, indicating that the House plans to press its appeal to get records beyond the ones the administration is providing.

“Today, under court order, DOJ turned over some of the subpoenaed documents. The Committee, however, is entitled to the full range of documents for which it brought this lawsuit. Accordingly, we have appealed the District Court’s ruling in order to secure those additional documents,” Chaffetz said.

Well go find the rest then, Chaffetz.

The June 2012 claim in the Fast and Furious case was the only formal assertion of executive privilege by Obama to try to defeat a congressional demand for records or testimony, though the administration has raised executive privilege concerns when declining to comply with other congressional inquiries. Most of those were resolved through negotiations. The administration has also asserted executive privilege in response to a variety of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

Much of the claim was that “it was part of an ongoing investigation” which is a wonderful way to make things go away forever.  Never close the case, and never answer.  Investigate yourself, never find wrongdoing, silence whistleblowers, and keep the investigation ongoing so you never have to reveal anything.

Just put “top men” to work on it.

top men raiders

Everybody’s already read about the Oregon standoff with the Hammonds (and the Bundys), how the Hammonds were convicted of arson for burning some land clear, how they were sentenced and the judge said they didn’t deserve the mandatory minimum because it was clear they were doing a range burn with a purpose that wasn’t vandalism or destruction, and how things went to hell from there when another court said they had to serve mandatory minimums because that was the law, right or wrong.  Then the situation got worse, with federal law enforcement escalating things and with ranchers (many of whom were not originally involved) also escalating things.

Congressman Greg Walden’s speech is something that was lost in that discussion, because it was easy for people disinterested in the situation to write it off as some reactionary militia action or some ranchers whining about not getting more free land to graze on.

Its worth watching if you’d like backstory to the whole standoff, and why there are some folks who are still mad about it today.

Frankly, the congressman explaining how the administrators of federal land went back on agreements written into law is the kind of thing that should offend everyone, but it’s lost because the messengers were coopted by the Bundy clowns.

It’s a pretty powerful piece.

It’s also being decried in the comments as either a good thing because guns=bad, or by people who are Australians (or claiming to be or speaking for them) who say it’s bull.  Except it’s no fabrication.

The Australians I know who are/were into the shooting sports confirmed it for me years ago.  There are lots of restrictions, and there are restrictions based in which region you live (New South Wales vs Queensland vs Northern Australia, etc.).  There were mandatory buybacks – which are confiscation with a gift certificate.  There are laws like having to leave your firearms at a club rather then be able to take them home (no self defense), a limit on the number and or type of firearm you can own, where you can and can’t use it, and how they have to be inspected and can be revoked as per whims of the police.

A couple years ago I had some interesting conversations with an Australian who’d been a police officer and firearm afficionado (until the ban came and his guns went away) and a New Zealander.  The Kiwi delighted in giving the Aussie grief about how his rights had vanished into a revoked privilege.

Another Aussie I know who was a prolific collector finally just quit because the licensing and legal hassles pushed him out of the hobby he enjoyed.  And he was someone who through family was in a financial position to not have to worry about it.  Of the Aussies I know who were gun folks, only one bothered to keep jumping through the hoops to please a government that actively sought to legislate, regulate, and restrict his natural rights into nearly non-existent and easily revokable privileges.

Alternately titled “leftists saying what they really want, but also using it as clickbait“:

The president zoomed in on exactly the right point Tuesday: What about the rights of those killed by gun violence to live free from terror?

There is no right to freedom from fear.  It also could never be achieved.  Some people fear the dark.  Some fear light.  Some fear clowns.  Some fear bees.  Some fear the unknowable, unfeeling empty vastness of space.

As a technical point, those killed aren’t alive, so they can’t live free from anything.

President Obama said a lot about guns in his teary press conference Tuesday, but the one thing that he is not saying, despite all the howling from the right, is that he intends to take away Americans’ guns. Yet equally significant is the realization that individual citizens are unwilling to free themselves of the destructive weapons that are wreaking havoc on our society. Numerous Americans care more about their individual freedoms than our collective freedoms, and they are unable to see how these individualistic desires undermine the essential fabric of a democracy.

All freedoms are individual freedoms.  If individuals within a group have no freedom, there is no freedom.  Restricting individual rights to free speech also means restricting a “collective” right to free speech by removing voices that the government doesn’t like.

Much like the bumper sticker slogan, my guns must not be working right, because they haven’t wreaked any havoc.

This democratic fabric includes the Second Amendment that has been contorted, misinterpreted, and applied in a way that destroys its intended meaning and threatens the safety and stability of our nation.

Here comes the usual “the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says” argument.  The only people contorting it and misinterpreting it are those trying to destroy its meaning in order to disarm the populace.

And as the president pointed out on Tuesday, this grotesque emphasis on the Second Amendment impairs other Americans’ ability to freely exercise many of the other 26 amendments.

Try exercising your Third Amendment rights without any way to resist.

Come to think of it, your First is easily extinguished, as we’ve seen on college campuses where a mob can simply push a reporter out of public spaces.  Your Fourth is pretty hard to defend if you can’t protect your own home.  Your Fifth is a lot easier to have ignored if the police and prosecutors simply threaten you.

As President Obama forges a lone path toward gun regulation, we must wonder how we as a society have arrived to a point where “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” has morphed into allowing individual citizens to possess firearms for their individual protection with little to no concern about the security of a free state.

There’s not much security to a free state when only the government and its agents have guns.  In fact, that’s not a free state at all, that’s a tyranny.  That’s exactly what the founders were discussing.

And then there’s this asshole comment:

It is well documented that gun sales and gun-related deaths have increased since Obama came into office, but the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), which opened the floodgates and redefined the Second Amendment, rarely receives mention.

Murder is down.  In 2007 there were 17,128 murders.  In 2013 there were 14,196.  Numbers have been on the decline for decades.

Murders with firearms are down.  2010 saw 8,874 murders with firearms.  2014 saw 8,124.

DC v Heller didn’t change the Second Amendment functionally for most of the nation.  Many state constitutions already cover the right to keep & bear arms even more specifically as a personal right of self-defense.  There were no “floodgates” to open.  Places that have historically been anti-gun are still throwing up barricades to exercise of rights that are still being fought against in court.

The court’s decision in the case went against 70 years of legal interpretations of the Second Amendment that stated in United States v. Miller that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Brown v Board of Education went against nearly 60 years of legal interpretations justifying segregation, too.  It also corrected a historic wrong.

US v Miller was a bullshit ruling.  The arms-infringing National Firearms Act of 1934 which Miller was challenging says that a shotgun with a barrel under 18″ requires a $200 tax stamp to own, buy, or sell.  $200 in 1934 amounts to $3500 today.  It’s a financial barrier to firearms ownership and exercising of rights.  It’s a poll tax for guns.

The court magically ruled that a shotgun under 18″ barrel length isn’t suited to any kind of militia use or any other use (despite the fact that agencies from the FBI to USBP to IRS all use 14″ barreled shotguns today in manners that are entirely consistent with the uses the judges said they couldn’t be used).

Miller was a bank robber who argued against laws that would’ve sent him to jail not so much for bank robbery, but for effectively owning a piece of pipe that was less than 18″.  The court decision was made in such a way that Miller could never travel to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, and Miller was killed before the ruling came down and he could’ve effectively challenged it.

It’d be like if the Miranda decision were never made because Miranda were killed before being able to make the challenge to SCOTUS.  Mind you, Miranda was a kidnapper and rapist who was convicted both on initial trial and on retrial after SCOTUS review – it’s said good court decisions can often come from bad people.

In Heller and then in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court in a pair of 5-4 decisions determined that federal, state, and local governments could not create restrictions that could prevent an individual the right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense. The intent of the Second Amendment had shifted from allowing citizens to own firearms so that they could band together in an organized and regulated militia run by either local, state, or federal governments to allowing citizens to own guns for their own purposes so long as they fell under the individual’s definition of self-defense.

Let’s reference Blackstone, which is part of where the Second Amendment came from:

a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression

And that’s just pulling a quote from wikipedia.  The founders knew that restrictions turned into strangulation of rights, and that’s why they eliminated that part – and stuck simply to a codified recognition of protecting the tools of self-preservation.

To borrow from Tom Gresham:

A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”  Now, ask if this means that only well-educated people could keep and read books, or does it mean that everyone can have books as a means to produce a well-educated people?

Clickbaity McDailyBeast goes on:

Not surprisingly, countless Americans purchased more and more firearms to protect themselves from the “inevitable” moment when the government or “Obama” was going to forcefully take their guns away. Not surprisingly a byproduct of this new interpretation of the Second Amendment has been a rise in unregulated militias or American terrorist groups who challenge the authority of federal, state, and local governments.  Ammon Bundy and his posse of men who call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom who just this week forcefully took over a federal building in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon are just one such iteration of this emboldened unregulated militia movement in America.

Actually, this “new interpretation” is pretty much what most state constitutions have always said.

“American terrorist groups”?  I think the Bundys are basically the same kind of people the president would support if they were a union blocking a factory.  The Bundys just want to take over their agricultural means of production – which means public land they don’t feel like paying for.  No real difference from the union members who try to take over industrial means of production except that the unions try to take from private citizens they view as class enemies while the Bundys want to take over from a government they view as a class enemy.

Frankly I find both of them reprehensible, but neither are very good terrorists.  Unions haven’t been effective terrorists since the Wobblies, and ranchers haven’t made effective terrorists since the Johnson County War.

The Oath Keepers, formed in 2009, are one of the largest unregulated militia movements in the nation, and regularly you can find them injecting themselves unnecessarily into conflicts. In Ferguson, Missouri following the death of Michael Brown, Oath Keepers arrived carrying semi-automatic riffles so that they could prevent looters from destroying property, and many of them said that they saw nothing wrong with taking the life of a looter to prevent the destruction of property. They also advocated that Ferguson residents obtain firearms so that they could protect themselves from the police.

So they wanted to protect people who lived there from armed mobs that were burning their homes and businesses?  And they wanted Ferguson residents to protect themselves against police they viewed as threats to the community?

I tend to view the Oathkeepers as a bit silly, but reading it from this Daily Beast goofball, he makes them seem positively balanced.

Also, I don’t think trying to provide stability for a community, however misguided, makes them terrorists.

Instability, terror, and death are the inevitable outcomes of a heavily armed citizenry, yet in the 1846 case Nunn v. State of Georgia, an integral case that the Supreme Court used in the Heller decision, the state of Georgia—my home state—argued that arming citizens and allowing them to openly carry firearms created a safer environment. And the referencing of this decision only continues the Supreme Court’s idyllic reimagining of America’s Southern states.

Lolworthy.

Georgia in 1846 was a slave holding state where African Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person and were not allowed the right to vote.

The 3/5ths compromise was so that states that weren’t slave states wouldn’t be outnumbered in congress by slave states.  Slave states wanted black slaves counted as whole persons for purposes of distribution of representatives.

Firearms at this time were regularly used to keep blacks in line and sustain the South’s racist, oppressive society.

Dumb.  Gun control was used to keep blacks in line – The Racist Roots of Gun Control is a good read that explains it.  If only the powers that be in racist slave states had firearms, they would’ve had them to “keep blacks in line” as well – and if they needed more arms, they would’ve expanded the authority of the state.

Short version of that section is basically he thinks that guns=racism.

But far from rejecting that old logic, we’ve embraced it, and the application of the South’s antithetical principles have brought instability, danger, and a disregard for human life to rest of the United States. Armed and dangerous and unregulated militias are on the rise, in addition to the numerous lone-wolf attacks that befall schools, offices, shopping centers, and public spaces at a disturbing frequency.

Except they haven’t brought violence.  Those “lone wolf” attacks aren’t from “unregulated militias”, they’re from individual lunatics who can’t be stopped with laws and who are frequently jihadis – adherents to a terrorist ideology.

Right now the Second Amendment is being applied in a way that takes away the rights of thousands of Americans each year, and the president must address this crisis to ensure the safety and stability of not just the American citizens who are threatened by gun violence, but also the ideals and institutions that govern our society that are being threatened by the archaic notions of stability from a racist and oppressive society and the unregulated militias of today that openly advocate armed conflict against the government.

Nice try playing the race card.  Gun control was used against the black man to control the black man.  Take the guns from the free men of all colors today and you just put your faith in government, which between 2000 and 2008 I’m sure this clown would’ve opposed as Bu$Hitler would’ve been his boogeyman of the day.  Take all the guns from the free men of Georgia in 1846 and you have a slave state controlled by a government that would expand its authority until blacks (and poor whites) were controlled anyway.

Obama is not going to take away America’s guns. I would argue that he should, as countless Americans have displayed a gross misuse of the social responsibility that comes with gun ownership, except that using force to attempt to disarm people of their firearms might inevitably lead to more violence and bloodshed.

Obama is not going to take away America’s presses.  I would argue that he should, as countless Americans have displayed a gross misuse of the social responsibility that comes with the written word, except that using force to attempt to silence people might inevitably lead to… he’s gonna disarm them first, right?  Well then no problems!  On to our glorious utopian future!

Gun owners should want to regulate and reduce their gun usage for the greater good, but our society is too consumed with the myopia of employing lethal force to resolve minor disputes that it cannot imagine an environment without widespread gun usage. And countless Americans are unable to see that their gun usage actually jeopardizes the very freedoms and liberties they have chosen to fight for and defend via the barrel of a gun.

Ah, the “greater good”.  He should’ve said “for the children” instead.  Gets more feels that way.

Lethal force isn’t used for minor disputes, unless you consider human life something of minor consequence… of course being a big control freak statist… he probably does.

Widespread gun ownership, bearing arms, and possession of arms, does not necessarily mean usage.  I burn down targets at the range, but I have yet to use a firearm in to resolve any dispute inside the US.

Actually, declining gun usage and ownership, and trusting the state with arms and force is what jeopardizes freedoms and liberties, because no man can legally take another man’s rights away – but a government can, and governments do.

On to stupidity part 2 “America should regulate bullets“:

When I chaired the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, I was grateful that we had authority to regulate lead in household paint. Banning the use of lead-based paint in homes has prevented brain damage in countless children over the years.

So why wouldn’t Congress allow us authority over another dangerous consumer product often made with lead?

Specifically, why not bullets?

Although it may seem unbelieveable, at one point I was a child.  I don’t remember ever looking at walls and thinking “I should start chewing on paint chips”.  When I was at an age younger than that, my family lived in and worked in an environment that would be considered dangerous for a child today… but my parents kept me from eating screws, nails, and construction debris.  Congress wasn’t needed to protect me as a child.  Nor was it needed before 1972 when it was created.

As to why not bullets?  Because ammunition is a key component of arms.  And because you’re trying to come up with a backdoor regulation scheme to go after something you don’t personally like.

Why not have some chaste religious zealot decide that the risk of STDs that condoms don’t actually prevent means the CPSC can regulate condoms in order to cut down on sex that the zealot doesn’t like?

This idea isn’t new. In 1974, the CPSC’s first chairman made clear his belief that the agency could probably regulate ammunition, and a court agreed — whereupon a frightened Congress passed laws making it impossible even to try. Now is the time for the president to begin pushing to correct that mistake.

I can’t help but hear that last line said like Dick Jones in Robocop saying: “I had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake… now it’s time to erase that mistake.

The slavering regulatrix can’t even begin to fathom that there are people who don’t regard her totalitarian state as something desirable, nor that their representatives would seek to prevent tyranny which she demands through any means possible.

How can we do more when the National Rifle Association has persuaded Congress to put roadblocks in front of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research into gun deaths? When more than half of Americans oppose tighter gun control even after a year of such bloodshed?

Support for gun control has been falling dramatically.  People know being disarmed doesn’t make them safe, and doesn’t make anyone safe.

The NRA opposes CDC “research” because it’s “research” that will be pushed into the kind of conclusion that statists desire.  Stats will be massaged until they get the “right” answer demanding more regulation, more control, and less freedoms.

James Holmes bought more than 4,000 rounds online before his 2012 rampage in a Colorado movie theater. Twenty years ago, when purchases were offline, it would have been tough to spot someone like that. Today it would be easy.

Why should my old agency be the one to do the regulating?

No one should be doing regulating.

James Holmes is a wonderful example of how there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.  Holmes was working on neuroscience/neurosurgery before he snapped.  He was being trusted enough to become the kind of person you call when you need someone to stab around in your brain.  On paper, he looked like a fine upstanding young man.  He also spent time making IEDs and rigging his apartment to explode.  Take away ammo and he’d use something like a pressure cooker bomb and fireworks.  Or he might just kill patients for decades on the operating table.  It’s not the tool he uses to cause the harm, it’s the person doing the harm.

When someone who may be dangerous is prevented from buying ammunition, any gun he has hidden becomes like a car without gas: a useless hunk of metal.

Yeah, and he can go buy a few gallons of gasoline and he has a firebomb ready to go.  He can also start playing with chemicals and explosives like were used at the worst mass killing at a US school in history – the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

There are many ways to move ahead. We could license ammunition purchases like drivers, ban online purchases and mandate background checks for buyers. But it would be pointless for me to outline the precise steps that should be taken up front — except for the first one: ending Congress’s disgraceful attempt to chill research. Funding to study regulating ammunition should begin now.

Congress was wise enough to see through that.  It’s not “research”, it’s funded justifications for tyranny at the expense of a constitutionally recognized right.  The author of this anti-freedom screed outright says she wants more restrictions on a right, and she wants to backdoor it with a bureaucracy that’s largely unaccountable, and she already has her answers.  If the CDC came out with the same conclusions the FBI shows in crime stats (referenced above) that gun crimes are down, and that they found John Lott’s study (More Guns, Less Crime) is the case, she’d demand more research until such time as her answer is reached.

This would be like Congress funding research for the CDC to analyze the effects of unpleasant speech on the public in order to go after the First Amendment, or funding research into the the effects of lethal chemicals and execution methods to undermine the Eighth Amendment.

Times and cultures change.

Tyrants never do.

From the ATF’s facebook page (click comments on the link to open it up):

atf facebook & furious 160106

Screenshots and assorted shenanigans here, including an ATF agent telling people to “get off this page”:

atf facebook & furious 160106 get off this page

In for a penny, in for a pound:

atf facebook & furious 160106 cartels

Nice.

From Politico, a story on how the Obama administration is saying it’s going to target citizens engaged in lawful commerce and exercise of their rights:

According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.

The administration is also expected to impose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer.

They won’t go after straw purchasers, but they’ll come up with more rules and regulations for those engaged in exercising rights specifically outlined by the Constitution.

as one of the major proponents of a change, Everytown has recommended adding several factors to the definition — including selling guns in their original packaging, reselling a gun shortly after acquiring it, maintaining a certain quantity of guns for sale or selling more than 25 guns a year — as possible signals that someone needs a license.

For people who are engaged in shooting sports, that’s not really that many.  There are already laws on the books that target people who are actually in the business of dealing guns without a license.  If law enforcement wants to go after someone for selling guns without a license because it’s their undeclared business, they can – and it’s a matter for law enforcement to figure out “is this guy a dealer, or is this guy someone who’s well-to-do and buys and sells a lot or is he liquidating inherited guns or is he X Y Z that’s not criminal?”

Another victory for advocates is likely to be a requirement for all licensed dealers and manufacturers to report to federal authorities any guns that are stolen in transit to a buyer as missing from their inventory. Currently, advocates say, thieves often target packages addressed to gun retailers in the hopes of stealing unregistered guns that are harder to trace. And while buyer and seller might sort out refunds or replacements on their own, they’re not required to report the missing guns to the National Crime Information Center.

There’s already a form for that.  Buyer and seller don’t sort out refunds or replacements on their own if packages turn up missing – one or both parties will report the package missing for insurance purposes.  Plus they don’t want a gun stolen in transit to end up as their problem once the thief uses it.

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett also raised gun-control advocates’ hopes for new domestic violence provisions last month. In a post on the actress Lena Dunham’s website, Jarrett noted that guns are the most likely cause of death for women who are victims of domestic partner violence.

Somehow I’m unsurprised that Valerie Jarrett is exchanging notes on the web with Lena Dunham.  Probably won’t post much to Dunham about efforts to fight against sexual assault on children.

Gun-control activists acknowledged that changing the rules for licenses might have limited impact on what sellers actually do in the short term. But in this political environment, they’ll take whatever measures they can, no matter how incremental.

“Setting cultural norms,” said Everytown research director Ted Alcorn, “is something that laws do.”

And there’s the point.

This isn’t about doing anything that prevents crime or violence.  This is about a boot stamping on a human face forever.  These are the moral busibodies who will torment free men endlessly.

They’re going after a Constitutional right and trying to push people away from it culturally.  They’re trying to destroy the right by making it culturally nonexistent.  They’re trying to make it harder and harder to buy and sell guns.  The numbers game is just the camel’s nose.  Right now they want 25 guns a year… next it will be 15, then 10, then 5, then 2, then 1, then 0.

The same game has been played in many states with magazine restrictions.  30 is too many!  20 is too many!  15 is too many (NJ, CO)!  10 is too many (CT, CA, MA, MD)!  7 is too many (NY)!  5 is too many!  3!  2!  1!  0.  When gun control advocates are asked what the number they “need” is, they will never settle on a number to stop on.  After Newtown, the argument was “30 children will be killed” and they demanded mag restrictions… why?  If 30 children is terrible, why is 15 children okay?  Or 10 children?  Or 5?  Or one?   Because of course it’s not the number, that’s just a way to get a restriction that can then be pushed further.

Currently NY is pushing for an ammo ban that will drop allowable purchases to an absurdly low level:

If enacted, the legislation would place strict limits on the number of bullets a gun owner can purchase over a 90-day period, and ban gun dealers from selling ammunition for a firearm to anyone unauthorized to own such a weapon.

The bills are aimed at owners of high-capacity rifles, but they would also affect owners of handguns with much smaller magazines, even six-shooters.

The provision would limit the amount of bullets a gun owner can buy to no more than twice the amount of the capacity of the weapon ever 90 days, which means someone who owns a six-shooter could only buy 12 bullets every three months, the Brooklyn Eagle reported.

48 rounds a year with a typical revolver.  One box of ammo (minus two rounds) for the year.

You can’t maintain a lot of proficiency with that little ammo… of course, to the gun-banner, that’s not a bug, that’s a feature.  Restrict the ability to shoot, then say people are incompetent, then take away the guns.  It’s a win-win for the leftist statist.

It also uses laws to set cultural norms – you can’t introduce someone to shooting with 4 rounds per month.  You can’t go plinking with 1 round per week.  With a double-barrel shotgun, you’d have 4 rounds per 3 months, 16 per year, so it’d take you years just of nursing your state-approved amount to go shoot sporting clays.

It’d be amazing to see this same objective pushed for other rights.  What if they pushed against the First Amendment and you were only allowed so many words per yea

“If I have a cold, I can’t buy Sudafed without ID, but I can walk into any gun shop and walk out with enough bullets to arm a small army without showing any kind of ID,” Ms. Simon said in a joint release. “I can buy any kind of bullets regardless of what kind of gun I own. I don’t even have to own a gun to stock up on bullets. Nothing stops me from having friends buy even more bullets for me. The sky is the limit. The San Bernardino shooters had 6,000 rounds of ammunition. We need this legislation so that cannot happen here.”

Yes, you should be able to buy all the Sudafed you want as well.

There are also laws against murder and lots of gun laws in CA and that didn’t stop the San Bernadino terrorists.  There are also lots of gun laws in India and that didn’t stop the Mumbai terrorists.

“Setting cultural norms,” said Everytown research director Ted Alcorn, “is something that laws do.”

It’s to push people away from their rights by making them hard to exercise.  Push people away from their rights and then they can be taken away.

Hell, the left can make laws so inherently oppressive that people don’t even understand why or how they’re being oppressed anymore.

From Katie Pavlich:

Five years ago today, Marine and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a firefight by Mexican bandits. The firearms used by the criminals who killed him were part of the Obama Justice Department’s Operation Fast and Furious. As a reminder, ATF agents allowed more than 2500 AK-47s and other firearms to be purchased and trafficked by known Mexican cartel members through Fast and Furious. Hundreds of people have been killed as a result of the program, which was secret until ATF whistleblower John Dodson exposed it after Terry’s death in 2010.

“Five years later. We have celebrated Brian so many times that it warms my heart. This is a little something of past friends and ones we met along the way at events held to honor Brian. I thank all of you with every ounce of my being! We will keep fighting. 11:08pm tonight is when a deadly gunfight happened and took Brian. Please also pray for his team that was there when he took his last breathe and The Border Patrol family,” Terry’s sister, Kelly Terry-Willis, posted to her Facebook page late yesterday.

Today, not a single ATF agent has been fired as a result of the operation.  Terry’s killers have been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty on a variety of different charges, including first degree murder.

Holder nor Obama are in prison.  There’s a Border Patrol station named after Brian Terry.  Sharyl Atkisson left CBS.  Hundreds to thousands of Mexicans and Americans are now dead because of Obama/Holder’s ATF’s actions.  But aside from a lot of people who won’t forget the wrongs done by Obama/Holder’s DOJ and ATF, to most of the US, it’s almost like nothing ever happened.  The media succeeded in carrying the water for Obama to the point he can still make claims for the need for gun control after a terrorist attack and not get laughed out of office – despite having been responsible for arming narcoterrorist cartels.

Hell, assholes from the ATF are still called on by the media for gun control pieces as though they aren’t an agency composed of criminals and thugs that doesn’t care about either the rights or lives of Americans or our Mexican neighbors.

It’s a sad indicator of the times we’re living in.