Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. Anti-gun Representatives tried and failed on Wednesday, September 18th to override Governor Chris Sununu’s vetoes of three-anti gun bills. House Bill 109 would have effectively banned the private transfer of firearms, with exemptions too narrow to matter. As written, the bill would have imposed a definition of "commercial sales" broad enough to cover private transactions at gun shows, forcing nearly all individuals transfer through Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) dealers. Between 1) the narrowness of the bill’s supposed “exemptions” for private individuals outside of gun shows; and 2) the broad scope of the definition for "commercial sales," the “exemptions” for New Hampshire citizens were effectively useless. House Bill 514 would have hindered the Second Amendment rights of New Hampshire citizens by imposing an arbitrary three-day waiting period (excluding weekends and holidays) between citizens and the firearms they purchase. Limited “exemptions” were hitched to requirements involving prolonged safety courses and certain long gun purchases. House Bill 564 would have prohibited law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense while on school grounds (except when picking-up or dropping-off students and, even then, only if the firearm remained in the vehicle). This counterintuitive law would have impeded the very type of protection that citizens and students deserve under the Second Amendment. The bill’s wonky “exemptions” for leaving firearms in vehicles were riddled with limitations that would have forced parents to make an absurd choice between their family’s security or their child’s participation in school activities.
  2. Former New York City Mayor and billionaire gun control financier Michael Bloomberg wants you to know just how ardent a supporter of political pluralism and free speech he really is. In a piece for the magnate’s self-titled media outlet, Bloomberg took issue with the growing intolerance Americans seem to have for opposing political viewpoints. The subtitle of the item explained that “agreeing to disagree is a civic virtue.” But where was Bloomberg’s outrage on September 3rd, when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution designating NRA a “domestic terrorist organization”? According to Bloomberg, The essence of American democracy is that people who disagree, however profoundly, can set forth their views, let the democratic system under the Constitution settle matters for the moment, accept the outcome until the next election, and continue to engage with one another productively in the ordinary course of their lives. To put it simply, healthy democracy is about living with disagreement, not eliminating it. The media tycoon took particular issue with political action in the commercial sphere. Bloomberg explained, “The question is whether Americans can live and work together without being so absolutist about politics and intolerant of viewpoint diversity.” Later in the piece, the billionaire noted, An approach that demands silence on contested issues, or that extends bitter political division into commerce and every other sphere of life, will succeed only in fracturing the country even more deeply. On September 3, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution designating NRA a “domestic terrorist organization.” The resolution declared, “[t]he National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence.” The document also contended that NRA “through its advocacy has armed those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism.” Aside from the vicious smears on law-abiding gun owners, the resolution demanded that the city take action against companies that do business with NRA. The resolution stated, “[t]hat the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to assess the financial and contractual relationships our vendors and contractors have with” NRA and that “the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization.” The resolution violates the First Amendment rights of San Francisco residents and businesses and NRA has filed a federal lawsuit to rectify the matter. The resolution was sponsored by District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani. According to a biography on the Board of Supervisors’ website, Stefani “is a leader and spokesperson for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.” Moms Demand Action is a component of the Bloomberg gun control conglomerate Everytown for Gun Safety. In his commentary, Bloomberg called out colleges and universities for their illiberal treatment of their political opposition. The financier offered no such criticism of Everytown and San Francisco’s treatment of gun rights supporters. Far from seeking to contain political disagreement to a limited sphere, Bloomberg’s gun control group has explicitly sought to enlist commercial interests to attack the rights of gun owners. The website for “Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety” encourages businesses to actively advocate for gun control. Most recently, the CEO of Bloomberg LP signed onto a letter advocating for the criminalization of private firearms transfers and legislation that would empower the government to confiscate of firearms without due process. Bloomberg’s opinion piece provides a fine example of the elitist liberal’s understanding of free speech, tolerance, and pluralism: preach but don’t practice. Unfortunately, the billionaire’s virtue-signaling was just that. The San Francisco government-and its Bloomberg-fueled membership- wielded power of government to terminate an opposing viewpoint held by millions of NRA members and their fellow Americans… and the billionaire preaching free speech said nothing against it. Bloomberg is right in thinking that the nation needs a stern lecture on political intolerance. They just need it from someone credible, not Michael Bloomberg.
  3. Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on “Behavioral Health, Second Amendment Rights, and other Gun Related Issues.” Your NRA-ILA is planning to attend and represent NRA members during these open-ended hearings. Members and Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to attend as well in opposition. Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and strongly urge them to oppose the various gun control proposals before the committee. The meeting will be held at the following location: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Behavioral Health, Second Amendment Rights, and Other Gun Related Issues Tuesday, Sept. 24 – Wednesday Sept. 25 1:00pm to 4:00pm Hearing Room 1, North Office Building The committee is expected to consider proposals on multiple extreme anti-gun measures, including: Prohibitions on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their accessories Banning standard capacity magazines Legislation empowering the government to confiscate firearms without due process Criminalizing the private transfer of firearms Mandatory locked storage of firearms Not only have these measures been proven to be unenforceable, they do absolutely nothing to prevent crime, and seek to place the burden on law-abiding gun owners. Again, it is important that you please attend these hearings and show your strong opposition to these proposed measures and any attempt to further restrict the Second Amendment rights of Pennsylvanians.
  4. Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact. On September 12, a visibly deranged Beto told the viewers of an ABC News Democratic primary debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” As has become custom among the more frivolous candidates, the Beto campaign was selling a t-shirt with the intemperate statement later that evening. According to the Associated Press, on September 19 Beto stated that he is open to broadening his plan to include all semi-automatic firearms. Beto’s comments have drawn criticism from some Democrats. However, it is instructive that the Democratic criticism appeared to be more about the former congressman’s strategy than the substance of his plan; they prefer confiscation that is well-cooked instead of raw. Sad that Beto’s candor might foil his more subtle approach to identical gun control efforts, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told CNN, “I frankly think that that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying Democrats are coming for your guns,” adding, “We need to focus on what we can get done.” CNN quoted a “Democratic aide” as saying that Beto’s debate statement “only feeds into the NRA's narrative that Democrats are going to take away your guns.” In other words: Stop it Beto. You’re spoiling the ending. Beto’s bombastic delivery of their confiscation agenda even shamed the legacy media, who have long been complicit in obfuscating gun control advocates’ political aims. In response, the media was forced shine unwanted light upon the gun controllers’ confiscatory plans. As the editors of the National Review noticed, “For years, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have suspected that confiscation was the endgame but have been rebuffed as paranoiacs in the press. Such a rebuffing is no longer possible.” The National Review editors appreciated what NRA members already know: confiscation has long been apparent to those paying sufficient attention. The only surprise for Democrats was Beto’s failure to follow their long-standing script. Others seem to be slipping in kind: In May, former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) did something similar while writing an op-ed for USA Today in which he described his plan to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Making clear that he would imprison those who did not comply, Swalwell wrote, “we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.” Later that month, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) called for gun confiscation during an interview with CNN. When asked by anchor Poppy Harlow if that meant that otherwise law-abiding Americans would be imprisoned for failing to comply with his confiscation plan, Booker merely responded, “[w]e should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons.” In September, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. At an appearance on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris called confiscation “a good idea” and told the audience that “we need to do it the right way.” The gun controllers’ refrain is international. In reaction to the March 15 terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern took unilateral measures to restrict firearms and Kiwi lawmakers enacted legislation to ban possession of semi-automatic centerfire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. The country’s gun control scheme provided for the confiscation of lawfully-possessed firearms. U.S. anti-gun politicians cheered Ardern’s confiscation effort. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stated via Twitter, “This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like. We must follow New Zealand's lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, “Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market. This is what leadership looks like.” In recent years, gun control rallies have been littered with signs calling for firearms confiscation and the repeal of the Second Amendment. The great and good have written countless thought pieces calling for gun confiscation or an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. The New York Times used a frontpage editorial to call for gun confiscation. Of course, the gun confiscation agenda didn’t start with the 2020 election cycle. In 2015, failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed her support for Australia-style gun confiscation. When asked about Australia’s confiscation scheme at a town hall in Keene, N.H., Clinton noted, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” Clinton added, “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.” In 2013, President Barack Obama pointed to Australia and the UK’s confiscatory gun control regimes in calling for a “transformation” of American gun laws. In 2014, Obama again pointed to Australia as an example for America during a Tumblr Q&A session. After describing his failure to enact gun control as the “biggest frustration” of his presidency, Obama stated, “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting… And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.” Decades ago, gun control advocates were just as explicit about their confiscation goals as many of the Democratic presidential candidates are today. They refuse to accept the benefits of gun ownership, and yet they’re the ones attacking the stubbornness of the Second Amendment? In a 1995 interview with 60 Minutes, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. While discussing the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban, Feinstein stated, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.” In the 1970s, groups like National Council to Control Handguns (later named Handgun Control, Inc. then Brady) openly called for a ban on the civilian possession of handguns. NCCH Chairman Pete Shields went so far as to explain how gun control advocates would bring about confiscation. In a 1976 interview with the New Yorker, Shields stated, I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities—going to be very modest… So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time. An understanding that gun control advocates seek firearms confiscation must inform the entire gun control debate. As Shields pointed out, gun control measures build upon each other and facilitate the more extreme controls that anti-gun advocates have admitted they seek to enact. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed this out during a recent appearance on ABC’s This Week while explaining why gun rights supporters oppose so-called “universal” background check legislation. Cruz stated, As soon as you have every person private to private transaction. If you have a grandfather giving his grandson a shotgun to go bird hunting. If you have a federal government background check for that, what you will see the next step to be is the only way to enforce that is a federal gun registry, and a gun registry is the step you need for gun confiscation… you know we now have three of the ten Democratic presidential candidates actively advocating for gun confiscation. They are saying the federal government is going to come forcibly take your gun. Cruz’s analysis of the situation was spot on. Gun control legislation that requires all private firearms transfers to take place pursuant to federal government interference is a necessary component for facilitating anti-gun politicians’ confiscation plans. Gun control advocates have made themselves clear. Their efforts are not about “background checks,” or keeping guns away from “dangerous” individuals, or any other so-called “commonsense gun safety” measures. They are not operating in good faith. The gun control movement is about civilian disarmament through firearms confiscation. Beto simply let their cat out of the bag.
  5. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a gun control law for the first time in nearly 10 years. The case arose from a New York City regulation that banned city residents with “premises” handgun licenses from taking their own legally-owned firearms outside Gotham for lawful purposes. The city defended the law all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, insisting it was essential to public safety. But ever since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of that decision, city and state officials in New York have been running scared, desperately maneuvering to convince the justices to dismiss it. Now, it seems, their reckoning may be nigh, as the high court has scheduled the case for argument on Dec. 2. The lawsuit, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. City of New York, offers a revealing look into the mindset of gun control extremists, and in particular, their refusal to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s precedents that recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental, individual liberty. Indeed, over a decade after the Supreme Court made clear that handguns are a protected Second Amendment “arm” and cannot be banned, New York State still generally prohibits the mere possession of pistols and revolvers. State residents, however, may qualify for an “exception” to this ban by obtaining a license issued by the locality in which they reside. The difficulty of obtaining a license depends on where in the state a person lives. New York City, to no one’s surprise, is the most onerous place to get a handgun license. For the “average” person (that is, for someone who is not well-connected to city officialdom or rich and famous) the only feasible choice is a “premises license.” That license allows a person to keep a handgun in his or her home or place of business. Even then, the process takes many months, multiple trips to police headquarters, and hundreds of dollars in mandatory fees. Licensing officials also have broad discretion to deny licenses, even when the applicant has no criminal convictions. Until this court case arose, premises licensees could only transport their firearms outside their homes for narrowly circumscribed purposes, and only then, if the firearm were unloaded and in a locked container and separated from any ammunition. Licensees could visit a shooting range within the city itself, for example, but they could not leave the city with their own guns, even for lawful purposes like firearm training or competition or to take the gun to a second residence elsewhere in the state. City officials tried to justify these restrictions by claiming they could not keep tabs on licensees who left New York City, although they had no evidence the licensees were causing problems with their handguns beyond city limits. The thinking seemed to be that unless New York City bureaucrats somehow monitored and documented every place licensees went with a handgun and what they did with it, the licensees must be doing something bad. Courts in New York (including federal courts), do not like the Second Amendment, which emboldens the state’s anti-gun officials to pass ridiculous, overreaching, and punitive gun control laws like New York City’s travel ban. Thus, the ban survived judicial scrutiny all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms – including handguns – for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense. Nevertheless, the court has since 2010 declined to hear any Second Amendment cases challenging gun control laws. In the interim, however, President Trump has appointed two new justices to the court – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – with strong records of taking the Second Amendment seriously. And so it was in January that when the plaintiffs in the New York City case asked the court to review the Second Circuit’s decision upholding New York City’s travel ban, the court agreed. New York City initially reacted with defiance, but as the reality began to sink in that they would finally have to justify their laws against serious judicial scrutiny, they began to furiously backpedal. First, the city amended its regulations to allow the plaintiffs to take their handguns to ranges and residences outside city limits. Then state officials got into the act, passing a law to underscore that handgun licensees could transport their licensed handguns for certain permissible purposes. The city then asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming they had given the plaintiffs everything they wanted. The plaintiffs, however, urged the court to go forward, noting that the recent laws could always be changed and that New York City handgun licensees still remained subject to the anti-gun whims of city officials. Only a clear Second Amendment ruling could protect their rights in the long term. The court responded by scheduling a hearing in October on the question of whether the case should go forward. In the meantime, however, five anti-gun U.S. senators stuck their noses into the matter by submitting a “friend of the court” brief in August authored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). More an unhinged political rant than a legal argument, the brief essentially accused the court of unprofessional political bias, insisted that it not hear the case, and warned that the court might need to be “restructured” to be more favorable to Democrats. Perhaps it is a merely a coincidence that it took the court just over a month since that brief was filed to schedule a case that had been pending since January. Nevertheless, it is not a forgone conclusion that the court will even hear the case in December, much less that it will issue a sweeping ruling on the right to keep and bear arms that will finally bring Second Amendment deniers like New York City to heel. The case could still end at the October procedural hearing without being decided on the merits. Will the Supreme Court hear the case in December en route to a sweeping ruling on arms? It remains unclear. What is clear is the need for a lawful ruling the finally brings Second Amendment deniers like New York City to heel.
  6. Democrats advanced a new measure this week to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws. These so-called extreme risk protection orders authorize removing guns and ammunition from individuals deemed as dangerous by some anonymous, unaccountable person, but it would not include the ready-made lists of gang members. Republicans tried to add an amendment including known gang members, but the Democrats will not permit the inclusion of gang databases. It’s odd since gangs are the ones causing most of the so-called gun violence. They would agree to include the names of white supremacists, but not other terror groups. The House Judiciary rejected any effort by Republicans to include gang databases since they are worried about people mistakenly taken for a gang member. They brought up the ‘no-fly, no-buy’ list which was filled with inaccuracies, but Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican, who hoped to amend the measure to include gang databases, reminded the Democrats the restrictions for placing someone on a gang database are much tougher than the no-fly list. “This is a situation where the police officers are trained, and there are very identifiable signs, and it isn’t just one sign,” Buck told Chair Jerrold Nadler. Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, of California, offered to support the amendment if Buck agreed to include those listed “individuals affiliated with white nationalism.” Buck agreed, but said the language should include “any type of supremacy.” “Let’s add Costa Nostra to this,” Buck added. Democrats were uninterested and the amendment ultimately failed. Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia called out Democrats for their hypocrisy, reminding the committee of a ‘sit-in’ on the House floor during which the GOP majority in 2016 could not conduct business until they passed, ‘no-fly, no-buy” to prevent people on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. “It’s amazing to me,” Collins said. “We had a large blow-up on the floor of this House just a couple years ago about the No-Fly, No-Buy list, which was shown to have issues, but at that point, nobody from the other side brought this as a concern, and now we are bringing it as a concern,” Collins said. “If we can’t bring this list up, even with the due process put in, then don’t ever bring the No-Fly, No-Buy list up again.” “Don’t ever bring it up again because there is no due process on that list.” IT’S MORE THAN HYPOCRITICAL, IT’S A VIOLATION OF OUR CIVIL RIGHTS It’s more than hypocrisy, it’s the furtherance of a two-tiered justice system with only one party getting what they want. The real irony here is that they won’t put gang members in the database but these same people aren’t the least bit concerned about reports by anyone about anyone. Joe Blow reports his neighbor, no problem, put him in the database. There is no problem with putting the mentally handicapped in the database as if all of them were a threat. They also don’t care about due process and have taken the first step towards abolishing it with these laws. They will put in the names of white supremacists but not other terrorists. Law-abiding citizens can have their rights violated but not gang members or terrorists.
  7. “You don’t need to worry about what’s floating around,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said. “We aren’t going to do anything that the president isn’t going to sign anyway.”
  8. How about a brief history lesson on gun bans & confiscation. "Arms in The Hands Of Jews Are a Danger to Public Safety": Nazism, Firearm Registration, and the Night of The Broken Glass is a PDF you can download or read online. It is long but a good historical read. There are a lot of similarities to events of today....history repeating itself?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.