Guns

Analysis: 3D guns and the truth — Don’t get bent out of shape by newfangled weapons

Many Americans – including law enforcement officers – were expressing fear Tuesday over the thought of guns being churned out by 3D printers on demand. That’s understandable. The thought of criminals, terrorists and mentally ill people pressing a button and getting rifles and pistols popping out of printers like candy out of a vending machine is frightening. But that idea is also fundamentally mistaken. Under a settlement reached in June between the State Department and a company called Defense Distributed, it was supposed to become legal Wednesday for the company to make blueprints for hard-plastic guns available for download on the Internet. But with only hours to go, a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday blocking the settlement from taking effect at least until an Aug. 10 hearing. The order came in response to a lawsuit by eight Democratic state attorneys general, who argued that 3D-printed guns posed a risk to public safety. There’s a lot of misinformation floating around about exactly what 3D printing of guns is and what it’s not, so let’s get some facts straight about a pretty new technology. For starters, it’s important to understand the Justice Department settled the lawsuit with Defense Distributed because the government was certain to lose. Prior to the settlement, the government position was that sharing printing files known as CADs violated International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations and thus could be censored by the government. But Defense Distributed – which pioneered using 3D-printing technology to make guns at home and eventually at stores like Kinko’s – contended that sharing information about how to make guns on the Internet was no different that sharing it in a book or instruction manual. The information-sharing amounts to speech, and is therefore protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, the company argued. The First Amendment protects speech that is unpopular as well as popular. So the argument that the amendment protects information about how to build a gun is valid. Next, you need to know that 3D-printing technology is years – perhaps decades – away from being cheap, efficient and ubiquitous enough that it will be a major source of guns. Currently, it takes days and a lot of money to print 3D guns – and that’s not going to change for a long time. More importantly, we know for a fact that having more guns in circulation and the legal right to carry them hasn’t led to increases in gun crime and violence, even when counting mass shootings.

For more, click on the text above.

Liberal 9th Circuit surprises with pro-2nd Amendment decision blocking California ammo ban

Second Amendment activists were given a surprise boost this week when the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backed a lower court’s decision to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines. Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state’s ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction Tuesday. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction or by concluding that magazines fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. “The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the incorrect level of scrutiny,” the judges also found. “The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a ‘historical pedigree.'” “This is a significant win for law-abiding gun owners in California,” Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “This unconstitutional law criminalizes mere possession of many standard capacity magazines and would instantly turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals.”

Agreed!  A small, but welcome, rare pro-gun victory for the law-abiding gun owners in California.

Nearly 220 Texas School Districts Allow School Staff to be Armed

Nearly 220 Texas school districts allow school staff to be armed for defense of themselves and their students. The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports that the exact number of school districts allowing armed staff sits at 217. At the beginning of February there were just over 170 Texas districts allowing armed staff, but that number grew as district after district responded to Parkland and other school shootings by changing policies to allow staff to defend their students. The 217 school districts that allow armed staff represent 21 percent of Texas’s 1,023 independent school districts. That is 21 percent or just over one in five. Texas implemented their armed staff policy in the months after the heinous December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School attack. In that attack a man entered the school with stolen guns and spent over nine minutes shooting innocents without any armed response. The policy adopted by Texas “allows school districts to arm school employees and created an additional category of a certified peace officer known as a ‘school marshal’ who can conceal carry a handgun.” It is intended to ensure a Sandy Hook-style attacker will not find a school full of defenseless innocents if he dares to attack.

And that’s smart.  Again, we see Texas on the cutting edge of common sense.  Kudos to these over 200 school district in the great state of Texas for taking this proactive, common sense action.  We need to put a nationwide end to the failed so-called “gun free zones” enacted by anti-gun, liberal Democrats..which are basically advertisements to thugs and criminals that they can go into such schools and nobody will shoot back at them.  It’s time we put a stop to that failed, ridiculous insanity…and allow school districts and teachers to conceal carry, if they want to, so that they can protect their charges from lunatics who would should shoot up schoolrooms to get their 15 mins of fame on tv.  Gun-free zones are a failed idea.

Opinion/Analysis: Media Should Refrain from Naming Any Mass Public Shooter

Ever wonder why mass public shooters commit their horrible crimes? Prosecutors in Broward County, Fla., released on Wednesday the Parkland high-school shooter’s cell-phone videos, in which he bragged, “It will be a big event, and when you see me on the news, you will all know who I am.” What makes these mass public shooters different from most criminals is that they want glory and fame, and we need to stop giving it to them. The media coverage of these videos also fails to draw any lessons about how we can stop these attacks in the future. If anyone missed the Parkland killer’s motivation, he repeated it three more times in his video rants, which totaled two minutes and 26 seconds. He tells viewers: “From the wrath of my power they will know who I am,” “with the power of my AR you will all know who I am,” and “you will all know what my name is.” To get this attention, the killer understood that he had to kill a lot of people: “My goal is [to kill] at least 20 people.” The Parkland killer feels that he benefits from coverage of the attack even if it doesn’t mention his name. The more well-known the attack, the more people will ultimately learn who he is. Sadly, the Parkland killer is all too typical. Killers like him want to commit suicide and want to do it in a way that will bring them notoriety. This isn’t a motivation just for lone-wolf shootings; we also see it in coordinated terrorist attacks. The Sandy Hook killer spent two and a half years putting together a report on mass public shootings. Law enforcement described “a sickeningly thorough 7-foot-long, 4-foot-wide spreadsheet with names, body counts, and weapons from previous mass murders and even attempted killings.” One anonymous law-enforcement veteran remarked, “It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research.” The killer also collected information on media coverage for each killing. He observed that attacks with more deaths received greater media coverage. The Sandy Hook killer may have been mentally ill, but he clearly knew what he wanted to accomplish and how he was going to do it. CBS Evening News reported that he wanted to kill more people than did Anders Breivik, a Norwegian man who killed 77 people in July 2011. The Connecticut shooter targeted the “nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School because it was the ‘easiest target’ with the ‘largest cluster of people.’” The Batman movie-theater shooter in Aurora, Colo., was also mentally ill. But William Reid, a state-appointed psychiatrist who performed Holmes’s sanity evaluation, testified that the subject carefully planned every detail to maximize the number of possible victims and get more attention. Over and over again, these killers are highly driven to realize their goal of more publicity. They invest a lot of time and energy into planning their attacks, often starting a year or two in advance. Mass public shootings have rarely involved less than six months of planning. It is clear: If you want to stop these attacks, stop giving news coverage to the killers and their crimes.

Agreed!!  To read the rest of this outstanding op/ed by economist Dr. John R. Lott, click on the text above.  Excellent!!    🙂

CA Lawmakers Seek to Expand Gun Confiscation, Limit Number of Firearms Residents Can Buy

California lawmakers are pushing numerous gun control measures including an expansion of confiscatory orders and limits on the number of firearms residents can buy each month. Many of the lawmakers are claiming school shootings in Florida and Texas as the impetus for more gun control on law-abiding Californians. The Mercury News reports that Assemblyman Rob Bonita (D-18) is pushing controls to bar 18-20-year olds from buying firearms. A companion bill, sponsored by State Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-25), passed the Senate earlier this week. Portantino’s bill also puts a one-gun-a-month purchase limit in place for Californians. State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-9) is pushing for an expansion of the state’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders. Whereas the orders currently authorize the confiscation of firearms, Skinner would also have them authorize the confiscation of gun parts. And Assemblyman Mike Gipson (D-64) wants to close the “Ghost Gun Loophole” by regulating any parts that a prohibited person could use to build a gun at home. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is working with legislators to secure these various new controls. Brady Campaign legislative advocate Amanda Wilsox said, “Everything is certainly moving forward. Together, all these bills make a difference.” California already has an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, a requirement that residents obtain a firearm safety certificate from the state before buying a gun, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance, a ban on campus carry, a prohibition against allowing teachers to be armed to shoot back, and various ammunition controls.

And that’s just for starters…  If you want to own a firearm, ya might wanna think about NOT living in the fascist People’s Republic of California.  Unreal…

USA Today Demonizes AR-15 After Reporting Santa Fe Gunman Used Revolver, Shotgun

USA Today demonized the AR-15 on Friday after reporting that the Santa Fe High School gunman used a revolver and a shotgun in his attack. The paper referenced Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) statement that the Santa Fe High School attacker used “a shotgun and .38 caliber revolver, both of which he got from his father.” The article added, “The guns may have slowed down the gunman’s deadly rampage because they have a slower firing rate than firearms used in other recent mass shootings, such as the AR-15.” USA Today continued, “High-powered rifles such as the AR-15 can be fired more than twice as fast as most handguns. The standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds, allowing a shooter to continue firing uninterrupted for longer, making the weapon more lethal than other firearms.” A few clarifications are in order: 1. A semi-automatic handgun can be fired as fast as a semi-automatic rifle. There is no magic quality about an AR-15 that makes it easier or quicker to fire than a semi-automatic pistol. 2. The Santa Fe gunman used a revolver, which is not semi-automatic, to begin with. However, granting that it was a double-action, it, too, can be fired as quickly as an AR-15. 3. A shotgun, which the Santa Fe gunman also used, is far superior to an AR-15 in close quarters. USA Today belatedly alluded to this by adding, “Clearly the use of any gun can be deadly, especially a shotgun at close range.” Later in the article, USA Today reported, “Many of the deadliest mass shootings in recent years involved high-powered rifles, notably AR-15 styled rifles. But far fewer have featured shotguns or a revolver as the primary killing weapon.” On April 3, 2018, Breitbart News listed 25 of our nation’s most prominent mass public attacks, and AR-15s were used eight times. The predominate weapon was a handgun, used 17 times. Shotguns were used in four of the incidents. The Santa Fe attack raises the use of handguns to 18 and shotguns to five, while AR-15s remain as the weapon of choice on eight occasions.

But, those are FACTS.  And, USA Today, and the rest of the dominantly liberal mainstream media don’t care about facts if they interfere in the communication of their liberal agenda/narrative.  Nothing about the shooting in Santa Fe, TX had ANYTHING to do with an AR-15.  But, USA decided to try and figure a way to inject that into the story/narrative somehow to further their anti-gun propaganda.  Typical fake news..

Boulder passes sweeping anti-gun bill; pro-2A nonprofit vows to sue individual councilmembers

The Boulder City Council unanimously passed a sweeping gun control ordinance Tuesday night banning “assault weapons” and bump stocks, even as a pro-Second Amendment group threatened to retaliate by suing individual councilmembers. In a surprising turn, one Colorado councilwoman admitted that she disagreed with the ordinance “in many ways,” saying it would invite a flood of litigation — despite voting for it. The city defines assault weapons as “semi-automatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid spray firing for the quick and efficient killing of humans.” Included in the definition are “all semiautomatic action rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one or more rounds,” as well as “semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six rounds or both.” Those possessing assault weapons already can keep them under the law, but owning bump stocks and high-capacity magazines will be become illegal in July. Certain law enforcement and military personnel are exempted from the ordinance. During the public comment period for the legislation, the nonprofit Mountain States Legal Foundation promised to sue the city for “violations of the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” as well as the Colorado Constitution, Fox’s KDVR-TV reported. A staff attorney for the group, Cody Wisniewski, said that individual councilmembers would be named in the lawsuit, according to the network. Lawsuits generally cannot be directed personally at individual lawmakers for their official actions in legislative sessions, but naming elected officials in civil actions against the government is often acceptable as long as plaintiffs are not seeking to hold lawmakers personally liable for allegedly unconstitutional conduct. The nonprofit’s threat of legal action apparently did not come as a surprise to members of the city council, who said they anticipated complications. “We’re going to see a lot of court cases coming before us,” Councilwoman Mirabai Nagle said despite voting for the ordinance, according to Colorado Public Radio. “I think that we’re going to spend a lot of time and money. It’s not that lives aren’t worth that, but I think that there was a better way of going about this. “I don’t agree with this ordinance in many ways,” Nagle added. “It’s not perfect.” The proposed ordinance led to protests last week, with some pro-Second Amendment activists carrying long guns openly in the streets, according to local reports. The Boulder City Council tweeted Tuesday that it would soon consider additional amendments to the ordinance, such as raising the age to buy a firearm.

And this is the latest in the fascist, anti-gun People’s Republic of Boulder, Colorado…where fascist, extreme liberal, political correctness has gone crazy.  You can bet these brazenly unconstitutional measures WILL be challenged in the courts.  Unreal..