Tag Archives: gun control

After the Bundy debacle, will government use murder to reassert its dictatorial authority?

by Doug Book,  editor

What steps will our federal and state governments take to reassert their dictatorial authority over a people who have become far too confident in an ability to defy their superiors? Will Barack Obama quietly authorize assault and battery, even the murder of a few unimportant Americans in order to intimidate an annoying, freedom seeking public back into line? 
                                                                 
According to the terms of New York’s Safe Act, April 15th was the final day by which “Assault Weapons” were to be registered with the state. But of an estimated 1-2 million rifles which have made paper felons of Empire State owners, it is believed that just 3,000-5,000 had been registered by the deadline; about one quarter of 1%. And New York gun owners are not just refusing to obey Governor Cuomo’s unconstitutional firearm statute, they are openly DEFYING it, burning their registration forms for all to see.

Some 85% of gun owners in Connecticut have also refused to arrange for the eventual confiscation of their AR 15′s. Of an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 “assault weapons” believed to be in the Constitution State, just 50,000 have been registered in accordance with that state’s new gun law.

Last week, the worth, purpose and importance of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms were at last placed on full display before the American people. Neither Barack Obama or any future president can erase the image of armed cowboys, ranchers and Militia members forcing federal mercenaries to back down and end the forcible theft of land and cattle from an American citizen. What an unmitigated disaster for those long dependent upon intimidation to manipulate a people and enable state and federal thieves to confiscate the property, money and liberty of the powerless.

From the beginning of the year culminating in last week’s rout of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) enforcers, the cause of gun confiscationists and the arrogant pride of government officials have been dealt a series of very public and damaging blows, not only by a determined band of patriots in the desert, but also by the millions of gun owners who have chosen to defy the authority of legislators and law enforcement.

Neither the federal or state governments can afford another embarrassing display of weakness when confronted by a public which challenges their power and authority, whether by refusing to register firearms or threatening to use them. It is imperative that the next confrontation end with state or federal officers enjoying at least the same margin of gratification by which BLM forces were humiliated at the Bundy ranch. The question is, to what lengths government goons will be permitted to go to win the next match by the mandatory K.O.?

The BLM had only 30-40 well-armed individuals at Bunkerville. Expecting the American public to express little or no interest in the fight, why send more? But as hundreds poured into the area, there were soon 1000+ patriots of which 80% or more were armed. The BLM was caught flat-footed in a fight it was too late to win.

The next target of government greed or contempt will be immediately greeted by a massive show of force. Should it again be the Bundy ranch, hundreds of federal mercenaries will arrive, suddenly and without warning. They will be supplied with every amenity, from assault vehicles to helicopter gun ships. It will be an overwhelming display of power designed for just one purpose–the intimidation of the American people; especially any who might one day be tempted to interfere with the course of “justice.”  Cattle will be killed or left to their own devices, the family will be manhandled and frog-walked to waiting federal transportation and anyone accidentally on or near enough the property to record events will have their video equipment/telephones confiscated. The operation will be quick, painful and recorded only by the most trusted of media allies.

And yes, commanders will be given the authority to authorize firing at any target deemed a danger or hindrance to the mission. Playtime is over for the Obama Regime and its legions of corrupt bureaucracies. The American public must learn to respect their betters and surrender to their demands.

However, after a few innocent bodies have fallen, the Obama Administration will be taught the resolve and tenacity of the American people. It will be a costly education.

Sources:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/04/threeper-report-from-bunkerville-nv.html

http://bearingarms.com/cowboys-and-communists/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/13/federal-agency-pulls-back-in-nevada-ranch-standoff-but-legal-fight-remains/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/mass_defiance_in_connecticut_against_assault_weapon_registration_law.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/up-to-one-million-new-yorkers-fail-to-register-assault-weapons-by-todays-deadline/

Smart Gun Technology: The new way to confiscate firearms from the law abiding

by Doug Book, editor

According to the terms of a New Jersey law passed in 2002, smart gun technology “…will be required in all new handguns sold three years after the state attorney general determines a smart gun prototype is safe and commercially available.” Safe and commercially available. Notice that lawmakers have said nothing about effective, reliable or affordable. Add the fact that “weapons used by law enforcement officers would be exempt” and New Jersey’s politicos have revealed the extent of their contempt for the safety and the 2nd Amendment rights of the state’s gun owners.  (1)

And when Garden State politicians eventually pass a law requiring that “smart” technology be included in rifles and shotguns they will have implemented a far more effective method of gun control than lifelong gun grabbers Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer could ever have imagined. For as every weapon sold (and no doubt, permitted) in the state will feature a microchip of some sort, law enforcement will have the ability to disarm any NJ resident by simply “turning off” the chip which makes the weapon function.

Writing for Newsmax, Lowell Ponte makes the sobering point: “If you will soon be permitted to own or carry only firearms with a computer chip that turns them on, understand that those weapons can potentially be rendered inoperative at a distance in a variety of ways, such as degaussing cannons, compact electromagnetic pulse generators and other electronics-neutralizing devices.” (2)

Irish smart gun manufacturer TriggerSmart “…has [developed] technology that would render guns inoperative if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.” (2) The Limerick-based company has also developed a mechanism which can block the function of a trigger on an “assault weapon” “…by a command sent from an aircraft, satellite, mobile-network tower or radio station.” Won’t it be comforting to find that your trigger has been blocked by your favorite radio station just as you’ve leveled your AR 15 at a pair who have broken into your home! (3)

Though gun owners are rightly skeptical of the reliability of smart guns, their greatest fear must be the misuse by a tyrant of mechanisms designed to render their weapons inoperable. Only some 15% of Connecticut “assault weapon” owners have been foolish enough to register their rifles with the state in accordance with the new gun law. If mistrust of government has reached such a level with owners of standard firearms, how can gun control zealots expect the American public to purchase weapons which government officials can “turn off” as they see fit?
                       
Clearly a market must be created, or rather forced upon those who are unwilling to appreciate what lawmakers consider to be in the public’s best interest. In this case that will be a “safer” gun.  Odd, isn’t it, that it will also result in safer tyrants!

Sources:

(1)  http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/12/23/new-jersey-smart-gun-legislation-enacted/

(2) http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/Smart-Guns-Second-Amendment/2014/02/24/id/554357/

(3) http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590764-arms-control-new-technologies-make-it-easier-track-small-arms-and-stop-them

Additional reading:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/23/technology/smart-guns/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/19/Smart-gun-technology-has-promise-but-needs-to-be-reliable-police-say/5001395178358/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/smart_guns_a_dumb_choice.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/robert-farago/nj-smart-guns-sale-2017/

 

Will Connecticut choose to ignore or make war against 300,000 gun registration scofflaws?

Doug Book,  editor

To date, a reported 50,016 people have guaranteed the eventual confiscation of their firearms by obeying the “Assault Weapons” registration requirements of Connecticut’s new gun law.

But according to a 2011 study commissioned by the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research it is estimated that more than 300,000 additional weapons have NOT been registered, their owners refusing to relinquish either their semi-auto rifles OR their liberty to Connecticut lawgivers. (Given recent record sales years that 300,000 could today be 400,000 or more.)

So in spite of the threats of Connecticut’s left-wing politicos to imprison those with the courage to defy unconstitutional legislation, the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the Constitution State have effectively told their elected officials to shove it. 

And it’s this wholesale repudiation of unjust legislation that spells disaster for lawmakers in Connecticut as it will for like-minded  legislators throughout the nation. For it has always been the case that compliance with enacted legislation is essentially voluntary. Police are capable of dealing with the small minority who refuse to obey statutes against murder or robbery. But law enforcement does not have the resources to handle millions or even the 300,000 plus who have refused to register their guns according to the demands of a dangerous state government.

And dangerous is the word, for governments dedicated to the enforcement of legislation believed by the people to be unfair and illegitimate “…will be stuck in a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy.” It is governance by intimidation, dispensed by arrogant, unthinking politicians who have effectively declared war on the people they were elected to serve.

From Governor Dannel Malloy to Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Mike Lawlor, Connecticut officials have put themselves in a Jackpot. With bluster and threat they expected American gun owners to behave like sheep and willingly surrender their rights and eventually their guns. Only liberals could fail to know that such expectations were doomed from the start; that intimidation would never, ever succeed.

And now they have to choose between enforcing a detested law on a resolved populace, outright repeal or just looking the other way as though their kneejerk statute never really existed. The smart choice would be repeal. But the left are incapable of retreating on such an important agenda item as gun confiscation. After all, it’s not as though THEY will be looking down a barrel one day. That’s left to police and goodness knows politicians consider them as expendable as any other commoner.

To liberals, the important thing is that the law is on the books. Eventually some lunatic will pick out another gun free zone and murder a few dozen defenseless people. With any luck, maybe a Day Care center! And then the left can begin their assault against the law abiding with fresh ammunition!

Of course, by that time another 150,000 AR 15s will have found their way to Connecticut residents.

Makes you wonder why liberals don’t work on separating guns from criminals rather than from the rest of us.

Sources:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/mass_defiance_in_connecticut_against_assault_weapon_registration_law.html

http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-gun-group-issues-ultimatum-to-government-molon-labe-or-repeal/

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/ct-cop-who-wants-to-kick-in-doors-confiscate-guns-suspended-not-before-spilling-the-beans-on-what-gun-registration-is-all-about_032014

http://benswann.com/connecticut-sends-letter-to-unregistered-gun-owners-to-surrender-firearms/  

http://www.publiusforum.com/2014/01/28/millions-high-capacity-magazines-disappear-connecticut/

http://www.infowars.com/surrender-your-firearms-connecticut-tells-unregistered-gun-owners/

http://www.infowars.com/connecticut-gun-owners-revolt-refuse-to-register-firearms-magazines/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/tens-of-thousands-of-connecticut-gun-owners-may-be-staging-a-massive-act-of-civil-disobedience/

NFL decides off-duty police a danger at games; on-duty not so much

by Doug Book,  editor

It’s been just over a year since 26, Gun Free Zone-inspired murders were committed in Newtown, Connecticut. And just over a year since gun control zealots demonstrated the consequences of preventing the law-abiding from defending the defenseless.

And now the National Football League has decided that the left’s scheme of disarming the good guys worked SO well at Sandy Hook, the League will ban off-duty police carrying arms at NFL games. Only official stadium security personnel and ON-duty police officers will be armed during the games. 

“We trust these law-enforcement officers when they are on-duty, but somehow we can’t trust them as soon as they are off-duty,” observed John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Resource Center and author of More Guns, Less Crime.

Though Lott has written extensively on the subjects of gun rights and gun control, it’s possible he doesn’t understand that to the leftist mind, success is determined only by the perpetual implementation of the “cause.” Practicality, common sense, positive results, even the saving of a life make no difference. It was for this reason that, unable to implement new anti-gun legislation months after Newtown, America’s gun control crowd ended by mourning the loss of an opportunity rather than the loss of life.

“The likelihood that there’s a need for the use of force by an off-duty officer is extremely remote,” said NFL Head of Security Jeff Miller. Now that’s a statement to be expected from a representative of the increasing liberal National Football League. Of course, the chances a psychopath would gun down 20 children were also remote; at least until anti-gun forces provided lunatics a safe haven for committing murder by turning the nation’s schools into gun free zones.

The Minnesota Police and Peace Officer’s Association has sued the NFL, claiming its decision, “violates state law, and could put the public and officers in danger.” The NYPD is considering doing the same.

Sources:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/03/11/NFL-Gun-Ban-on-Cops-Called-Crazy

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/02/18/Minneapolis-Police-Association-Sue-NFL-For-Disarming-Off-Duty-Officers

Gun store owner pays price for betrayal of pro-gun public

by Doug Book,  editor

When Oak Tree Gun Club owner James Mitchell decided to be the first U.S. seller of the Armatix iP1 smart gun, he opened the flood gates to such widespread animosity from gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters that it would threaten the continued existence of his store.

In October of 2013, the National Shooting Sports Foundation polled 1200 Americans on smart guns and smart gun technology. Seventy four percent said the guns were not reliable, 81% said they would NOT buy a smart gun and 70% said the government should not mandate use of the technology. 

But the story of Mitchell’s enthusiastic support for the iP1, a pistol which features “smart gun technology,”–that is, a gun designed to fire only for its officially recognized owner–had already gone viral. Mitchell had long before leased office space in his store to Armatix; he had built a special display area for the .22 caliber, LR product and dedicated a portion of his pistol range to the exclusive demonstration and test-firing of the pistol.

In February, the Washington Post reported smart gun technology to at last be available to gun buyers. “Electronic chips inside the gun communicate with a watch that can be purchased with the gun, making it impossible to fire without the watch. Gun control advocates, who believe smart guns could reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings, marked the moment as a milestone.”

The Post also reported that, according to the “extremely pro-gun Mitchell,” the iP1 could “…revolutionize the gun industry.”

But unfortunately, in addition to revolutionizing the gun industry, the anti-gun left was equally determined to revolutionize the rules of gun ownership.

For on February 20th, Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey introduced a bill entitled the Handgun Trigger Safety Act (S-2068). According to the Act, smart gun technology must be included on ALL handguns within 2 years of the law’s passage. And within 3 years, “…all pre-smart” handguns will become illegal to sell … until they are retrofitted with the technology.” It is already existing statute in New Jersey that within 3 years of the very first smart gun sale anywhere in the nation, “…only those handguns with the new “feature” will be legal to buy in the state (except by “Only Ones” [police] and other government hired muscle).”

How much will smart gun retrofitting cost America’s gun owners? Not a thing as Sen. Markey’s bill also mandates all existing handguns be made into smart guns FREE OF CHARGE by the nation’s gun manufacturers. Rather a clever way to bankrupt every company which makes pistols in the United States, isn’t it!

So not only will the nation’s anti-gun politicians have a field day dismantling both the 2nd Amendment and the country’s gun makers, it will all be accomplished in the name of a firearm manufacturer, Armatix, which proudly guarantees their product will determine “…with 90 percent accuracy, whether a gun was being held by a person wearing a watch meant to pair with the firearm.”

Huh? Does that mean one shot in every 10 round magazine might be fired by someone not meant to be able to use the weapon? Or is Armatix saying that the gun might misfire 10% of the time?

Either way, the Examiner reports Oak Tree owner Mitchell “…is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.” And make no mistake–James Mitchell was DEPENDING upon the state and/or federal governments to mandate the purchase of smart guns in order that he might cash in. For even in California, who in their right mind would pay the Armatix asking price of $1,399 dollars for the pistol, plus another $399 for the companion watch when the manufacturer guarantees their pistol to function properly only 90% of the time?

In 2010, my Glock 23–a  .40 caliber pistol which fires EVERY time–was $525.

“These people are anti-gunners,” said a customer on the Oak Tree Facebook page. “If you care about the ability to exercise your [Second Amendment] rights, I would suggest that you do not continue to frequent this place,” added another.

So distressed is James Mitchell by the nationwide animosity resulting from his having gone “all in” with Armatix that he is RUNNING, not walking back the story of his relationship with the company.  In fact, the Oak Tree owner now effectively claims to have never even HEARD of the smart gun manufacturer! What leased space, what exclusive right to sell the gun, what remodeling of his store and pistol range? According to Mr. Mitchell, “our facility does NOT carry the Armatix pistol, never has, and the comment (that Oak Tree was) ‘the only outlet in the country selling the [Armatix] iP1′ was taken out of context in an interview conducted by the Washington Post.” This from the gun store whose address Armatix  “… lists on its importation FFL as its premises.”

Like so many before him,  self described, “pro-gun conservative” James Mitchell found discretion to be the better part of valor and cancelled plans to make a bundle by embracing the smart gun agenda of the gun-grabbing left.

No one should wish that bad things happen to a businessman for wanting to make a profit. In Mr. Mitchell’s case one might make an exception.

Sources:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2014/03/07/smart-gun-failure/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/california-smart-gun-store-prompts-furious-backlash/2014/03/06/43432058-a544-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/we-need-the-iphone-of-guns-will-smart-guns-transform-the-gun-industry/2014/02/17/6ebe76da-8f58-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

https://www.gunowners.org/a032100.htm

http://bearingarms.com/new-jersey-assemblyman-rips-smart-gun-that-fails-every-single-magazine/

http://www.examiner.com/article/backlash-against-gun-shop-shows-gun-owners-smarter-than-smart-gun-pushers

http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-announces-new-legislation-efforts-to-combat-gun-violence     Feb 14. 2014

http://www.guns.com/2014/03/08/oak-tree-gun-club-denies-anything-smart-gun-maker-armatix/

http://nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=111213_americans-skeptical-of-wont-buy-smart-guns.cfm&path=2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/03/06/the-smart-gun-controversy-at-oak-tree-gun-club/