Good and Hard

The Supreme Court Should Not Let Bureaucrats Invent Crimes by Rewriting the Law

The Supreme Court has twice now told the EPA that they don't make law they enforce law and law id what the legislature says it is not the ATF. It's way past time the ATF and other Federal Agencies got that message good and hard.

Just Saying...

At the age of eighteen you are considered an adult with all the responsibilities that go with it but not the privileges. You can't buy alcohol. You can't purchase a handgun. You can buy cigarettes but soon you won't be able to buy vaping products. You can serve your country in the military. Here's an idea. If you aren't old enough to make decisions that any adult over the age of twenty-one can make: drinking, vaping, owning a gun. Then why should you be able vote and make decisions that effect the nation as a whole?

Trump proposes raising minimum vaping age to 21

You want to do it for the children? They're not goddamn children and the people who want to treat them as such need to get the hell out of public life and run a daycare.

Oh, and President Trump, this is not what we elected you to do.

Why Does This Not Surprise Me

The Problem With the FBI's 'Active Shooter' Data

Agendas

I'll Not Hold My Breath [Bumped]

Bovard cites plenty of evidence of FBI/DOJ wrongdoing over the years. Senior Administrators/Staff knew about it and have done nothing. Maybe Trump will, but Sessions came out of that culture. These prosecutions take place because the victims dared to resist the government and an example must be made. I hope to be surprised. I doubt I will be.

Cliven Bundy-FBI debacle: Another example of why the feds need to be leashed

[UPDATE: 1/8/2018]

Charges against rancher Cliven Bundy, three others are dismissed

This is fine, but until prosecutors and agents get hosed for this kind of conduct, it will continue.

What does it say that the Bundys case was not only dismissed, but dismissed with prejudice, which means the government can’t reopen it. What does it say that it was an Obama appointed judge who did it? How bad was the government’s misconduct in the case, and if it was that bad, maybe the protesters had some justification for shaking their guns in the tyrant’s face? - Sebastian

ATF Proses New Rule on Bump Stocks

Another House aide agreed that ATF's presentation made it clear that the agency is unlikely to push for a new regulation. This aide said the feeling at the agency is that current law is clear enough, and that it would be difficult to impose a new regulation limiting access to bump stocks in a way that's consistent with U.S. law.

Apparently, being consistent with U. S. law is no longer a problem.

Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices

A Proposed Rule by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on 12/26/2017

ATF: the Agency of making [shit] up as they go.

So Much for Rule of Law

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

What's good for the goose...

You Owe Them Nothing - Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience

F**k 'em.

Obama’s Gun Speech Gag Order Is Retaliation Against Group That Sued The Gov’t Last Month

The Obama administration’s latest anti-gun salvo isn’t about reducing gun violence or stopping the export of dangerous weapons, it’s about pure retaliation against a non-profit that sued the government in federal court last month.

Enough.

The TSA can't find ordinary guns so...

Congressional Democrats are proposing to ban plastic guns following reports of major security lapses at the nation’s airports

'Cuz when a government employee can't do his/her job let's ban guns. Knee-jerk Democrat/Progressive/Lefty response.

H/T to Glenn.

Stop Obama's Planned Gag Order on Firearm-Related Speech

The Left will say this is just NRA scaremongering. I don't think so. Obama has a confirmed history of at least floating regulations of this sort just to see if they get a strong reaction. Remember the attempted M855 ammunition ban? This is a direct attack on gun owners and our ability to communicate with each other via the internet about firearms. It is a clear violation of our First Amendment rights. It will no doubt be struck down by the courts but at what cost and damage to innocent gun owners.

Here is the NRA post in its entirety.

It's happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration's "Unified Agenda" of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

To understand the proposal and why it's so serious, some background information is necessary.

For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called "defense articles" and "defense services" in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part "U.S. Munitions List," which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.

Also regulated under ITAR are so-called "technical data" about defense articles. These include, among other things, "detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information" about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the "public domain." Essentially, this means data "which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public" through a variety of specified means. These include "at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents." Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been "exported," as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be "clarifying" the rules concerning "technical data" posted online or otherwise "released" into the "public domain." To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the "authorization" of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized "export," including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation? Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.''

Finally, please contact your U.S. Senators and Member of Congress. Urge them to oppose the State Department's attempt to censor online speech concerning the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition. Use the "Write Your Lawmakers" feature on our website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.

I REPEAT. This is an attack by the Obama Administration on gun owners. Respond accordingly. Call your representatives in Congress. NOW.

Persistant, Ain't They?

Administration preps new gun regulations

So how many of your shooters had concealed carry permits?

Milwaukee Mayor, Police Chief Blame Rise in City's Gun Violence on Concealed Carry Law

A man is shot dead after accidentally crushing a toddler with his van; in the gunfire, the toddler's teenage brother suffers fatal injuries. A 17-year-old girl is slain by an errant bullet after two other girls in an argument call their boyfriends for backup. A 4-year-old girl is wounded after 13 bullets rip through her home.

So how many of these shooters had concealed carry permits? This is just bureaucrats trying to shift the blame from their own failure.

More Please

Two federal judges have ruled that widely used sting operations designed to ensnare suspects with the promise of a huge payday for robbing an imaginary drug stash house are so "outrageous" that they are also unconstitutional. One judge said the charges were so unfair that he threw them out after three suspects already pleaded guilty.

The Judical Branch is part of that constitutional "checks and balance" thingy. The Federal Bench hasn't been doing it's job for a while now in regard to Federal Law Enforcement. The Feds would rather create the opportunities for the bad guys to commit crimes than find the ones doing it on their own. It's easier. Nice to see some push back. More please.

On Cliven Bundy vs. the BLM

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor. - Dana Loesch

GRNC Alert

GRNC Alert 03-26-14: ATF proposes redefined mental health rules to infringe on gun rights

Bypassing the Constitution

Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution

The matter in question involved a woman charged by the DOJ with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act when she used toxic chemicals to harass a woman who had an affair with her husband. Who is to say whether Holder's DOJ won't do the same with the U. N. Small Arms Treaty to bypass the Second Amendment?

Via Bearing Arms.

The problem with enforcing the gun laws "already...

...on the books" is that the Federal bureaucrats reinterpret them at will, and what was once legal is now illegal and you are now a criminal.

ATF's latest confiscation program

Yep

"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

State Department Demands Takedown Of 3D-Printable Gun Files For Possible Export Control Violations

The signal has already been beamed, people. Already been beamed. - Claire Wolfe

"snort"

In West Virginia, no less...

8th grade student suspended, arrested over gun t-shirt

He was wearing an NRA t-shirt with an image of a rifle on it. I wonder if it was the image of the rifle or the NRA logo that pissed the teacher off more. The school dress code doesn't prohibit images of firearms on clothing. That's a bureaucrat for you. Make it up as you go along.

As to whether school administrators violated his First Amendment rights, depends.

H/T to Uncle.