David Codrea

Los Angeles Federal ‘Strike Force’ Evokes Definition of Insanity

July 26, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Los Angeles Federal ‘Strike Force’ Evokes Definition of Insanity, iStock-1061172526
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “A new federal strike force launched by the U.S. Justice Department on Thursday will focus on disrupting the illegal flow of weapons into Los Angeles from neighboring states while also going after makers of local ‘ghost guns,’ according to local and federal authorities,” The Los Angeles Times parroted Thursday. “Both sources of weapons are a major driver of violence within L.A., and local officials hope their disruption will help stem the city’s increasing levels of shootings and homicides.”

Evidently, the Giffords Law Center’s “A” rating for California does not produce results commensurate with the grade. All those infringements that promised such solutions and things are still out of control…

“LAPD Chief Michel Moore speaks at South L.A. rally to end gun violence” – But it doesn’t seem like what he’s trying works. (Luke Harold/Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication)
Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore, a politically dependent career “Only One,” doesn’t have a clue on how to stop the signal, but did come up with an excuse that allowed him to point fingers and blame states that haven’t yet enacted California’s “strongest gun laws in the United States.” Arizona, Nevada, and Utah are to blame, the chief blathers:

“Suspects go to those locations,” Moore said, “buy those weapons because of lax or permissive gun laws and then traffic those weapons here and sell them to the market of people who are not lawfully able to own or possess or purchase a weapon.”
For some reason, Chief Moore and The Times neglect to mention that all that is already against the “lax and permissive” law. At least the chief admits the FFLs aren’t the problem:
“It will be less likely to focus on federal firearm licensees known to be selling weapons in the L.A. area, Moore said, because ‘there’s a finite number of them in this region, they’re well policed, they’re well managed, [and] they’re well supervised by ATF and frankly by our gun detail.’”
So he and the feds are going after “underground providers.”
Good luck with that. Especially since criminal cartels take full advantage of California “sanctuary” policies, something you’d think The Times would be able to connect dots on.
Who thinks things will get more or less dangerous? Has anyone factored in the expansion of ruthless criminal enterprises under Prohibition and the War on Drugs, along with the growth of “official” corruption and corresponding abuses of civil liberties in the name of fighting crime?
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, for his part, has taken a (short) break from blaming societal dangers on “white supremacists” to warn against “guns found at crime scenes [that] come from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. We are redoubling our efforts as ATF works with law enforcement to track the movement of illegal firearms used in violent crimes.”
Perhaps if he’d review ATF’s data, he’d be able to explain why California’s 11.10-year time-to-crime average (defined by ATF as “the period of time … between the first retail sale of a firearm and a law enforcement recovery of that firearm during a use, or suspected use, in a crime”) warrants front-and-center priority. Then again, he doesn’t have to because no one in the DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media) cares, assuming they’re even aware.
For that matter, who has figures on homicides solved because police were able to trace a gun found at a crime scene to its original lawful purchaser?
That’s not to say everything being proposed is old stuff that’s already been tried and proven ineffective. There’s a new factor to blame thanks to Chicom wet markets and/or lab leaks:
“Shootings and homicides have surged nationally since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic last year and the associated social and economic shutdowns. L.A. has been no exception. As of Tuesday, homicides were up nearly 30% over last year, and shootings were up 43%. The city ended 2020 with 350 homicides, the most in a decade.”
Funny thing, though. If the critical factor here was guns, why haven’t there been headlines about shooting surges by any of the 5-million members of the NRA, arguably the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet? Weren’t they subject to the same “pandemic” restrictions and economic losses as everyone else? Could it mean it’s not about the guns at all, and pretending that it is for political reasons is either insanity and/or scripted fraud for something everybody involved knows will do nothing but pour money down a hole?

Here’s a clue:
“Moore said the initiative wouldn’t ‘change the entire course of the world,’ as the LAPD and other agencies already work with the ATF on such investigations, but would add strength to those efforts.”
So, like always, he knows this latest round of posturing won’t work and is but another in an endless cycle of boondoggles designed to make it look like government has a handle on things, when in fact, government policies are at the heart of why things are so screwed up.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the familiar definition of insanity. The violence monopolists are seizing on this to outlaw home builds on guns, to press for universal registration, and to expand the number of due process-denying disqualifiers subject to gun confiscation. Not that those slow the predators down. The shooting/homicide “surge” will continue, and don’t be surprised to see it increase in turf wars over a lucrative black market that will only expand under policies that meet that definition.

About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

‘Who Was Karl Marx’ an Essential Primer for Understanding ‘American Left’

July 16, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

This isn’t just an opinion. Simpson backs up his claims with proof, and with extensive endnotes.
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom” is a truism too many ostensible “gun rights leaders” deliberately ignore when they wear blinders around the so-called “single issue.” Ignoring social and political impacts to the right to keep and bear arms that might not take the form of direct threats will nonetheless help shape the environment in which infringements prevail.

That’s short-sighted, foolish, and ultimately subversive. It’s not enough that someone owns guns. If their political priorities mean they support politicians imposing citizen disarmament, they are abetting those who, every time they’ve historically achieved unchallengeable political dominance, have enslaved their fellow man.

Who Was Karl Marx? The Men, the Motives and the Menace behind Today’s Rampaging American Left, by James Simpson, shows how such political dominance is achieved through subversion, fraud, and ultimately, ruthless brutality. No wonder communists universally demand a “monopoly of violence.”

You can’t be a totalitarian unless your control is total.
By way of disclosure, I consider Simpson a friend and colleague. My interest in demonstrating that the political manipulation of demographics via “immigration” represents the greatest threat to gun owner rights led me to seek further education from his “The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.”
That monograph, published by the Center for Security Policy, warns how the intentional “fundamental transformation of America” with Third World immigrants and refugees – many of whom are “resettled” unvetted and later proven to harbor terrorist intentions — is a form of assisted national suicide—one that is being enabled by supposedly “humanitarian” and church organizations, and that we the people are forced by our “leaders” to pay for. It’s a short read, easily doable within a couple of hours, but one nonetheless packed with loads of information, more than could be covered in a mere review.
The same can be said for Who Was Karl Marx? The brief synopsis is:
“The Left is rampaging across our nation today. Portland, Oregon is burning and many other cities face continuous looting, rioting and destruction. And while the Antifa/Black Lives Matter mob is wreaking havoc, destroying businesses and neighborhoods, leaders in those communities have taken an inexplicable hands-off attitude, even to the point of restraining a police response. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party, Big Tech, the media and institutional Left have turbocharged censorship and vilification of their political enemies. How did we come to this, who caused it, what are their motivations and how do we stop it?”
That’s the surface reading. The contents then dive deep, introducing us to characters some of us have heard of, but for whom most will be obscure.
Simpson profiles Marx himself, “a greedy, parasitic slob,” and reveals “the most important radical no one’s heard of” (You want to know who and why? Read the book). He explores “strategic corruption and cultural terrorism.” He explains the Frankfurt School, tying that in with critical race theory (“teaching children to hate America”) and other subversions. He shows us how this is all “an orchestrated strategy,” explaining tactics and objectives, and how they tie in with Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the wholly-engineered border crisis, and with “COVID-19 and the Great Reset.”
Then, of course, there are the Chinese. And the Russians.
“This is an asymmetric strategy of military conquest,” Simpson cautions, explaining “fundamental concepts” readers need to understand. “Stop thinking of our political controversies as simply differences of opinion between right and left. We are actually witnessing a Communist overthrow of the United States in real time. This sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it is not. Communists base their strategies on Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Sun Tzu says ‘all war is deception,’ and the ultimate victory is to win without firing a shot. Instead of attacking the U.S. at its strength, i.e. with conventional arms, they attack us through our vulnerabilities: our freedom, our open society, our generous natures and willingness to ‘play fair.’ Ironically, those same concepts that gave us the freest, most generous, wealthiest nation in history, have left us vulnerable to attack by unscrupulous people willing to exploit them for their evil purposes.”
“Red scare” stuff? Disagree at your peril. This isn’t just an opinion. Simpson backs up his claims with proof, and with extensive endnotes. Read this book in the context of political and media gaslighting that Americans are being deliberately subjected to, and suddenly a greater picture pulls into focus. That alone makes this an invaluable read.
With such perspective comes hope – if you can define an existential threat, which is what this is, you can work toward overcoming it, and Simpson outlines what will need to happen. “Back from the Brink: A Comprehensive Plan to Save America,” identifies short, medium, and long-term goals, tactics, and strategies to do just that.
If there’s one drawback, it’s not with the book. It’s with Americans who know they’re being manipulated, marginalized, and “canceled” in a society that they and their forebears built, but for whatever reason never seem to do anything about it that requires effort and involvement. It’s a phenomenon I call “Profiles in Apathy.” I don’t have a solution for that, but finding where we can best fit in and apply our unique backgrounds and interests won’t happen without taking first steps.

I recommend reading Who Was Karl Marx as one of those steps. Just being able to see how all the deliberate chaos makes sense when seen as part of a larger, ongoing plan is itself ironically liberating and inspiring.
But don’t take my word for it. You can read reviews from Wayne Allyn Root, Lt. Col. Allen B. West, and this one, from author and filmmaker Trevor Loudon, who says:
“This is the best book I have read on revolution and counterrevolution in recent memory. Mr. Simpson lays out in simple but dramatic terms the history of communism from Marx to the present — and then tells us how to combat it. Well written, timely and brutally honest, Who Was Karl Marx? is the most important book for patriots in many years. Bravo, Mr. Simpson!”
Then pick up a copy and review it for yourself.

Prosecutor’s Treatment of Self-Defender Recalls Soviet Maxim about Showing the Crime

July 15, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Soros DA Garza doesn’t even want you to have a gun let alone use one to defend yourself. (District Attorney José Garza/Facebook video)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)-

“A Travis County grand jury … indicted Army Sgt. Daniel Perry on charges of murder, aggravated assault and deadly conduct after he shot and killed Garrett Foster, an armed protester in downtown Austin last year,” The Texas Tribune reports. “…Perry stopped his car and honked at people protesting police brutality while they walked through the street, blocks from the state Capitol. Seconds later, he drove his car into the crowd, police said.”
And then he killed one of them? That doesn’t sound good.
But there’s more to the story than is being reported here, although the beginning of how it is unraveling is touched on:

“[Perry’s attorney Clinton] Broden said the prosecutors in the Travis County District Attorney’s office refused to allow Perry’s attorney to present written evidence to the jury. This refusal is unusual in Texas and begs the question of why the District Attorney’s Office would not allow this,’ Broden said. ‘We understand the political motivations of the District Attorney, however, when this case is presented to a jury at trial and the jury gets to hear all the evidence instead of a one-sided presentation, we have every confidence that Sgt. Perry will be acquitted.’”
So what’s going on with the prosecutor? And why shouldn’t our default be to side with “two witnesses of the shooting [who] told the Texas Tribune they believed Perry’s behavior was threatening and intentional?” For that matter, aren’t his tweets about “protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters, or lowlifes” damning and indicative of a predisposition to wanting to do them harm?

In answer to that last one, most of the comment posters here, myself included, had better never find ourselves in a defensive gun use situation against anyone who is a member of a group we oppose because the Internet is forever (unless you’re David Chipman), and any sentiments expressed could come back to haunt us.
As for the other questions, first, let’s hear Perry’s side of the story, and to do that. Some friends of his have set up a gofundme page to help with his legal defense.
The reason he was in the area is he was also an Uber driver “to make ends meet.”
“Sgt. Perry had dropped his client on or close to West 6th Street at approximately 9:15 p.m. Sgt. Perry made a right onto Congress Avenue from Fourth Street, and it was there that he first encountered a throng of people in the street. It was not immediately apparent to Sgt. Perry what group was demonstrating and, prior to turning onto Congress Avenue, Sgt. Perry had been unaware that a demonstration was taking place. After Sgt. Perry turned onto Congress Avenue, several people started beating on his vehicle. Pictures showing the damage to Sgt. Perry’s car are in the possession of the police. The pictures included pictures of damage done by protestors hitting the car with brick, trying to pull the door of the frame and from bullets.”
He shot Foster, who was masked, in self-defense, Perry says, “after the man raised an AK-47 toward him.”
OK, so what’s the beef with the prosecution?
The gofundme page links to a Dropbox file, a “Request for Evidentiary Hearing in Support of a Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based Upon Prosecutorial Misconduct.” Part of what is alleged there includes:
“[T]he lead detective in this case, David Fugitt, was specifically instructed not to tell grand jurors that the State was in possession of evidence that would indicate that witnesses who claimed that the deceased, Garrett Foster, did not begin to raise his AK-47 assault rifle toward Sgt. Perry were not in a position to see Foster at the time of the incident and that any testimony they might provide would be false and perjurious. The detective was likewise instructed to amend demonstrative evidence that was to be presented to the grand jury (cutting the presentation by more than sixty percent) to remove exculpatory evidence after the demonstrative aid was presented to prosecutors for review.”
A prosecutor with all those resources at his disposal playing that way against a lone defendant who has to rely on crowdsourcing to raise money for his legal bills? Does it sound like mere citizens have a chance in such a system that demands crucial evidence to be withheld?
Manipulating the legal system so blatantly and arrogantly is reminiscent of a chilling sentiment from Joseph Stalin’s secret police go-to guy, Lavrentiy Beria, who boasted “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
And there’s more.
“The Austin Police Association was made aware of possible allegations of misconduct by Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza and members of his office,” a July 8 press release by the association and posted as an update on Sgt. Perry’s fundraising page announces. “The conduct and allegations included in both cases are extremely concerning and should be properly investigated immediately.
“The alleged conduct is beyond disturbing and further complicates two very serious cases; one involving a child victim of an aggravated sexual assault and the other a homicide,” the update continues. “Unfortunately, the Austin Police Association anticipates there are more cases or instances of inappropriate conduct by members of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office since Jose Garza took office in January 2021.”
Is it starting to sound like the wrong person is on trial here?
Not knowing anything about Garza, I figured I’d check him out and see what makes him tick, and it didn’t take long. We’re basically talking about a soft-on-criminals/open borders leftist, which explains why George Soros backed him.

And naturally, Garza’s a gun-grabber, implementing a policy of forcing accused citizens who have not been convicted of any crime to surrender their firearms for a variety of “reasons,” including the most telling one from the end of his long list:
“Any case, even if not within the above scenarios, where an ADA believes that a firearm surrender is necessary for public safety.”
Just because he says so? It’s not hard to picture him in a gold hat saying:
“Scenarios? We ain’t got no scenarios. We don’t need no scenarios. I don’t have to show you any stinking scenarios!”
“I entered office with a clear mandate from the community: to transform Travis County’s criminal justice system so it keeps everyone safe,” Garza told Austin Monthly. “We’ve made real progress since then, and we have a long path ahead.”
Does anybody who believes in the right of self-defense, or in anything traditionally American, for that matter, feel safer under the heel of such “progress”?

New York Democrats Relying on Deception to Attack Gun Industry

July 14, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

That this is harassment of the “law-abiding” is being presented as a measure against “gun violence” is the first huge lie. (Governor Andrew Cuomo/Facebook)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today signed legislation … holding gun manufacturers liable for the harm their products cause,” a July 6 press release from the New York governor’s website announced. “The only industry in the United States of America immune from lawsuits are the gun manufacturers, but we will not stand for that any longer.”

That, of course, is a lie. Gun manufacturers have the same legal liabilities as other industries for things like defective products and deceptive trade practices and knowing violations of the law. Were this not so, we would not see personal injury attorneys vying for clients over deep pocket claims. Were this not so, we would not see FFLs losing their licenses and facing civil and criminal charges for negligent or deliberate violations and there would be no market for retainers with legal firms that can help them establish compliant policies and procedures.

In truth, all other industries are immune from the types of lawsuits New York Democrats demand be imposed on the firearms industry. Think of, say, a Chevy stolen years ago in another state being driven by a drunken criminal who then runs someone over — and holding GM accountable. That’s what’s being set up here for gun makers, as another of the bill’s deceptive claims shows anyone who cares to look a bit deeper into them:

“[A]ccording to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives statistics, 74% of firearms used in crimes in New York are purchased outside of New York.”
So what’s the deception?
The way that’s presented out of context, and the false correlation/causation equivalency to make it look like selling guns in other states with fewer prior restraint infringements is part of an unrestricted “iron pipeline” flow that’s flooding the Empire State, and that it somehow proves the legal and moral liability of those lawfully conducting business by observing state and federal laws.
Let’s explore where the “crime guns” number came from, ATF’s Firearms Tracing System report. First, it’s important to note an up-front disclaimer:
“Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any reason… Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.”
Next, let’s look at “time-to-crime rates for firearms with a New York recovery” (defined by ATF as “the period of time … between the first retail sale of a firearm and a law enforcement recovery of that firearm during a use, or suspected use, in a crime”):
“1/1/2019-12/31/2019 New York Average Time-to Crime: 11.75 Years
1/1/2019-12/31/2019 National Average Time-to Crime: 8.29 Years”
That means many of the guns were initially legally sold longer than 11.75 years ago. Gun manufacturers should be held liable for that?
There does seem to be an oversight, though, and it’s unclear if it’s intentional: Suppose “New York’s finest” again mistake a suspect’s identity and shoot another unarmed black man, like they did Amadou Diallo. Should the gun manufacturer be sued?
For that matter, what about the broom manufacturer in the Abner Louima “incident”?
And, of course, the violence monopolists are not done trying to hobble and control an industry they want even more exclusive arrangements with. Using terms like “reasonable” and “responsible” to define which practices will not be criminalized leaves the definitions in the hands of those who will rule them to mean exactly what they want them to mean. If they control the language, the law means what they say it does.
There’s one other danger in the new “law” that we overlook at our peril:
“Additionally, many New Yorkers, including many 20 children, are gravely injured or killed unintentionally due to the 21 firearm industry’s failure to implement reasonable safety measures and 22 the legislature finds that this failure also warrants liability.”
That absolutely opens the door to a future requirement for so-called “smart guns,” and the outlawing of “dumb” ones, like we’ve seen New Jersey try to mandate.

It’s clear the object here is to fragment the firearms industry, destroying some companies while hobbling others through lawfare. Companies that don’t kiss the ring and embrace every demand will be made uninsurable and inoperable unless they dutifully wear the yoke of those who demand total control. “Allowable” products will be priced out of reach of those of modest means. That’s why the apparatchiks at Michael Bloomberg’s subversive vanity project, Everytown are leading the cheer by calling objections to it “meritless claims.”
What’s meritless is the lie that this “doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.” Of course, it does, despite tyrannical “precedents” from robed establishment elites ruling that restraints, restrictions, and bans against “the people” aren’t really “infringements.” As such, this bill is treasonous, as are its supporters.
Unfortunately, I’m not expecting to see gun manufacturers taking the lead in denying their products and services to New York State, which is what ought to happen. It’s a corporations/stockholders thing, and many in the industry fear pushback will result in a ramping up of actions against them, particularly from a state boastful about its in-their-face aggression.
Still, there is one segment of the industry that could withhold sales and not miss a beat: Ammunition suppliers. Steve Hornady showed us the way several years ago when Cuomo tried to pressure banks and insurance companies to “blackball” the industry. With the current crunch, any supply not picked up by New York (and California, and New Jersey, and…) would be snapped up in a minute by eager gun owners, particularly for “common use” law enforcement calibers. Consumer prices could even go down.
Take note of who takes the lead in this, if anyone does. Because “rope-selling capitalists” who just want to hide their heads in the sand and hope no one notices them will eventually lose those heads. And in the meantime, they are giving preferential treatment to those tasked with obeying tyrants like Cuomo and enforcing all of their citizen disarmament edicts against the rest of us.

Activist Judge Sets Course to ‘Terminate’ Semiautomatic Firearms

July 13, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

How to “easily” modify your rifle into a “weapon of war”… (The Lawyer’s Second Amendment Society/GunTruths.com)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “A judge says victims of the 2019 synagogue shooting in San Diego County that killed one worshiper and wounded three can sue the manufacturer of the semiautomatic rifle and the gun shop that sold it to a teenager,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday. “[V]ictims and families in the Poway synagogue shooting have adequately alleged that Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest gun manufacturer, knew its AR15-style rifle could be easily modified into a machine-gun-like or an assault weapon in violation of California law, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel said Wednesday.”

Naturally, the gun-grabbers are crowing:
“The ruling is a victory for ‘all Americans who believe that the gun industry is not above the law,’ said Jon Lowy, chief counsel for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which sued on behalf of the victims.
Note the argument isn’t that the gun “had been” modified, but that “could be.” As none suffered any harm from modifications that never happened, how any can show standing to make that reach, and how it can even be allowed to be introduced is a puzzlement. But it becomes clear reading the Minute Order that what’s happening here isn’t being done to pursue Constitutional justice but to shred it.

It’s also clear that neither plaintiffs, their lawyers, or Judge Medel have demonstrated the qualifications and capabilities to be able to legally pronounce the ease with which such modifications could be made if that were even an issue here — which it’s not.

But if the undisguised goal of reclassifying semiautos as machineguns is sustained, it’s game over for “law-abiding” gun owners to stay that way and be true to “shall not be infringed” principles. They’ll have a decision to make that can no longer be put off, and that will test the seriousness of those who boldly (and mostly anonymously) declare “Molon Labe!” and “I will not comply,” particularly when some inevitably get caught and need our help to mount a legal defense.
No empirical evidence or data has proven that Smith & Wesson is out there brainwashing adolescents with social media and video game-style advertisement, aside from unfounded speculation built on gun-grabber talking points and personal biases. Nothing shows Smith & Wesson executives plotting to put their rifle “in the hands of persons in a demographic particularly likely to cause extreme harm — and indeed harm is the epitome (sic) of ‘cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others.”
Likewise, allegations that Smith & Wesson ignored “promises of safety measures” made by it and other rope-selling industry capitalists at a Bill Clinton/industry mutual suck-fest in 1997. Judge Medel’s order, along with what Andrew Cuomo is pulling in New York to eviscerate the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, perfectly illustrates how you can “compromise” and throw the circling jackals a scrap of flesh and they’ll only circle in closer, demanding more until there’s nothing left but you — which was what they were after in the first place.
At most, the FFL involved in the gun transfer is up to its neck over alleged infractions of California’s stupid (and in a rational world, unconstitutional) edicts aimed at disarming young adults of militia age from owning rifles. That’s a pity, a shame, and an outrage, and it illustrates a prime reason why I have long advocated that those subject to complex regulatory compliance requirements obtain expert help to keep just such oversights from happening.
In the case of Smith & Wesson, though, it’s clear this is a case of lawfare at its most subversive and filthiest, and even if the company is eventually “vindicated,” it will still have to go through great nuisance expense (which ultimately is passed on to customers, or else works to financially cripple if price increases in a competitive market are unfeasible). And even if the gunmaker wins this time, with what’s going on in New York, expect the violence monopoly lobby to continue to act out The Terminator’s tag line:
“I’ll be back.”
In this case, the analogy is wholly appropriate if one looks at this Medel character and asks who set him up in a position to terminate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It’s not clear at first, because he presides over a superior court bench to which he has not been “elected-elected” (to paraphrase from Whoopi Goldberg), so it’s not like “We the People” have any say in his authority over us.
How’s that again?
“Medel won re-election for judge of the Superior Court of San Diego County in California outright in the primary on June 5, 2018, after the primary and general election were canceled,” Ballotpedia documents.
Doesn’t that contradict what I just asserted? Not really, because he’ll be on the bench until 2025, and “Medel ran for re-election to the superior court in 2012. As an unopposed incumbent, his name did not appear on the ballot. After the primary election, Medel was automatically re-elected.” Then, in 2018, “The primary election was canceled. Kenneth J. Medel (Nonpartisan) won the election without appearing on the ballot.”

The position is ostensibly nonpartisan, but Medel’s a Democrat and, based on results, committed to advancing the Democrat agenda from the bench. And how did he get on it in the first place?
“He was appointed to the bench by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger…”
Thanks, Arnold! Just like your breakout movie character, count on you to screw up the future from the past.
And thanks again, major gun groups! How big were those “good size chunks” of money again?
How many more years and how many more times must it be proven that “compromise” is the path to eventual extermination?

Chipman’s Deleted Tweets Tell Us All We Need to Know about His Character

July 12, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Let’s hope this is the face Chipman makes when he learns the final Senate vote on his confirmation as head of ATF. (Screen snip, YouTube, Sen. Mike Lee)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “President Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is in hot water as the White House has yet to say if the administration is confident he will be confirmed,” Fox News reported Thursday. “David Chipman, Biden’s pick to lead the ATF, has been in the hot seat throughout his Senate confirmation process as a slew of lawmakers and organizations have come out in opposition to his nomination.”

That’s putting it mildly. “Gun rights” organization have warned their members of what a Chipman confirmation will mean, with many leading campaigns asking members to contact their senators and urge a “No” vote (not that that does much good if your senator is Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein). The National Shooting Sports Foundation even bought TV spots in West Virginia and Main, presumably to convince Joe Manchin that his “No” vote is needed and to pressure “Republican” Susan Collins that now is not the time to (once again) side with the Democrats.

Reports have surfaced about ATF agents opposed to Chipman, and those are bolstered by a public denouncement from former ATF honcho Michael Sullivan. Charges that he is a “bully,” or has made racist comments, or is covering up a lost gun have not been explored. Ditto for the influence of Chipman’s anti-gun and anti-Republican wife, herself an ATF employee and citizen disarmament activist. Much of that is due to very valuable and groundbreaking work by our friends at Mom-at-Arms.

Also instrumental in uncovering disqualifying details is the American Accountability Foundation, which sent its July 1 report on Chipman’s “record of toxic, problematic, and discriminatory behavior at the ATF” to the United States Senate, not that doctrinaire Democrats will bother to read it. But in fairness, don’t forget doctrinaire Republicans who have thus far ignored exploring allegations posted on CleanUp ATF (the website from which Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking” information was first shared) that Chipman’s manipulation of the “best qualified” contractors list amounted to “fraud.”
Proving the man is unfit and untrustworthy for power, however, is a lot easier than that. The fact that he deleted “tweets” from a Twitter account he made private while the people he would exercise authority over, and their representatives, were assessing his suitability for the job. It is the act of someone with something to hide, and it’s a good indicator of how he would have ATF conduct business under his administration.
It’s cowardly and deceptive. And “disappearing” history is a time-tested totalitarian tactic.
No wonder the gun grab groups, which universally rely on those traits to swindle their countrymen out of their birthrights, are all crazy about the guy.
“Anyone know if the Wayback Machine captures tweets?” a comment poster on my The War on Guns blog asked. “Or if not, is there an equivalent that does?”
That had not occurred to me before. I’d assumed that was not the kind of stuff the web crawler was set to pick up on, and that deletions from social media sites stayed deleted.
I assumed wrong, at least partially. While 2021 posts appear “protected,” we can still access some of the stuff Chipman posted in 2015 and 2016. I’m going to highlight a few and encourage readers to explore and find things for themselves.
For instance, this one from May 2015 indicates a desire for a real expansion of federal powers and appetite for total control:

What he chooses to retweet is also instructive. Here, he thinks ridiculing Alabama Republicans is appropriate for someone who now wants to head a supposedly non-partisan agency:

“Is it just me or does every Alabama Donald Trump supporter look eerily similar?”
This comes on the heels of:

Then there’s a retweet from October 2016 I find interesting for two reasons, the first being he is spreading this sentiment:

The other reason I find that telling is the original tweet came from Dan Gross, a career gun-grabber that some who presume to lead us are partnering with.
Imagine what we’d find if Chipman hadn’t decided to cover his tracks and run from his past because he knows if he didn’t even some Democrats would have to distance themselves from him.
Leading ATF is not the only thing this character is unfit for. The NSSF commercial follows:
[embedded content]

Rise of the Moors Turns DHS’s ‘Perfect Storm’ into Summer Squall

July 9, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Political elites blaming “white supremacy” for supposed “systemic racism” have made the rise of resentful extremists with bizarre beliefs inevitable — and that’s catching us all up in a rising tide of oppression/denial of fundamental rights. (Nineteenth-Century Khartoum slave market/PD)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Federal authorities are deeply concerned about the possibility of domestic terror and violence, including mass shootings, as the Fourth of July holiday approaches and the summer season gets fully underway,” ABC News reported. “A new Homeland Security bulletin obtained exclusively by ABC News warns that ‘violent extremists might seek to exploit easing COVID-19 restrictions, increased access to mass gatherings, and possible changes in levels of violence during the summer months to conduct attacks against a range of potential targets with little or no warning.’”

That, along with an accompanying video of Attorney General Merrick Garland announcing the new “national strategy” tying that in with the unrest at the Capitol on January 6. As Garland had earlier pronounced “those who advocate for the superiority of the white race” as “the top domestic violent extremist threat we face,” it was fair to wonder if provocateurs were shaking up some low-hanging fruit to allow for a “heroic” and headline-trumpeted save, as so often seems to be the case, with the added bonus of conflating the suckers with average Trump supporters.

So, when headlines started to come in about Interstate 95 near Wakefield, MA being shut down as police responded to a group of “heavily armed men” claiming to “not recognize our laws,” my first thought was these could have been the droids we’re looking for. It wasn’t until later reports came out about arrests that ID’d the group Rise of the Moors that it became clear this was yet another failure of the prevailing government and media narrative; there wasn’t a white supremacist, Trump voter, or NRA member among them.

Who they are and what they want is perhaps best explained by a graphic on their home page promising “the truth about the black man in the judicial system” and featuring a graphic of a Knight Templar, a police officer beating a black man, and a Moor:
“Law and history must be taught together; What we call ‘racism’ today, is in fact the continuation of genocidal acts initiated by the Inquisition and Crusades. The modern-day police and their terrorism is a direct reflection on the Knights Templars and their actions authorized by the Popes of Rome.”
Forget that it was the Muslims who conquered North Africa forcing conversion on the natives. Forget that the Muslims conquered the Levant (including modern-day Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, and much of Turkey). Then forget that the Muslim Moors conquered most of Spain. Now disregard that Arab slave-trading continued after the British and United States abolished it and that Africans were the sellers.
Good thing we live in a country where the law established by its Founders from their heritage pretty much leaves citizens free to believe whatever they want — even if it’s kooky or worse — as long as they don’t force it on anyone else – at least it’s supposed to. With the rise of “cancel culture” and the conflation and smears being flung at anyone who doesn’t reject traditional beliefs and embrace all-encompassing cultural terraforming, the future of that is no longer something to take for granted – especially with Merrick Garland joining the chorus and pointing the finger.
One takeaway gun owners should have from this is to understand how and why the Moors got stopped in the first place – supposedly they were going from Rhode Island to a “training camp” in Maine, state troopers saw them refueling their cars “in a breakaway lane,” stopped to see if they could help and had their curiosity piqued by the way the occupants were dressed and visibly armed. Details of the “standoff” are not completely clear, but reportedly, some refused to put weapons down and some fled into the woods. It’s hard to imagine people doing any more to attract unwanted attention to themselves — or reacting to a stop that their decisions made inevitable — in a more self-defeating way.
Still, we owe it to ourselves to ask what should be illegal about being armed or being dressed in tactical gear, or about training, no matter who you are — as long as you are not unlawfully threatening or endangering others. If all they did was have guns and “forbidden” magazines on their persons in “violation” of Massachusetts’ infringements on their rights, you don’t have to agree with or like them to understand that many of us, particularly those who embrace “I will not comply,” would also be put away if caught defying the same tyrannical edicts.
A government powerful enough to deny unapproved groups or individuals their rights is powerful enough to deny them to all who aren’t in the “big club.” What they can do to Rise of the Moors they can do to you and yours. And with the way things have turned with Democrats believing they’re “in charge,” traditional Americans, who mostly just want to be left alone, are being pushed as the ones who pose the bigger threat.
If the violence monopolists don’t stop squeezing that may become both an unintended consequence and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Canadian Hate Speech Proposal Evokes Past and Proposed U.S. Gun Bans

July 1, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

In other words, disarm everyone the violence monopolists hate… (Everytown for Gun Safety/Facebook)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Canada Moves to Ban ‘Hate Speech’ Online, Punishable by a $40,000 Fine,” PJ Media reports.

“The law, Bill C-36, would enable citizens to bring legal claims against people who engage in ‘hate speech’ online, and if a member or panel of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal finds the accused guilty, the tribunal can … order the accused to pay compensation of up to $20,000 ‘to any victim’ … or order the accused to ‘pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General’…”
And naturally, the leftist “leaders” of our neighbors to the north can’t pass up an opportunity to disarm their subjects. From the act’s first reading:

“Conditions — firearms (7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.”
There’s not much we can do about how much abuse Canadians are willing to put up with, but it did get me to thinking: What if a U.S. citizen were over there, got caught up in that net, and decided to say the hell with that, come home and flip them off from across the border? Would he be extraditable? And would his right to keep and bear arms here be infringed by our government?

That, in turn, reminded me of the case of Thomas Lamar Bean:
“As reported by the Associated Press, Bean was ‘a licensed federal firearms dealer when he was arrested in Mexico in March 1998. Before crossing the border for dinner, he had ordered his associates to remove any guns or ammunition from the vehicle, but more than 200 bullets in an armrest tray were overlooked. Bean spent 5 months in a Mexican prison before he was returned to the U.S. as part of a prisoner exchange program, then spent another month in a federal lockup.’”
Because he had a foreign felony conviction on his record, he became a “prohibited person” under U.S. law. While then-Gov. Rick Perry restored Bean’s rights under Texas law, the federal prohibition remained. Thanks to Chuck Schumer’s Democrat budget appropriations finagling, ATF is prohibited from using any funds to process applications to restore “felon” rights, and to make matters even more “Catch-22” bizarre, the U.S. Supreme Court then ruled “Inaction by ATF does not amount to a ‘denial’.” (Bean passed away in 2018 at the age of 79.)
In 2005’s Small v. United States, the Supreme Court, in three-to-five decision ruled that U.S. Code firearm prohibitions for persons “convicted in any court” of crimes for which they could have been sentenced to more than one year in prison” did not apply to foreign convictions. (Curiously, the so-called “conservatives” on the court were the ones who “argued that applying the law to foreign convictions was not irrational enough to rebut the usual meaning of the word ‘any.’”)
Not to be deterred in her lifelong quest to disarm anyone she can catch in her legislative net, Sen. Dianne Feinstein tried to pass the “No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2009.” While she promised that foreign convictions violating U.S. due process or based on conduct that is legal under U.S. law would be exempt, her side of the aisle has been trying to pass similar “hate crime” prohibitions for years. If she had her druthers, a Canadian conviction would stick, and in any case, her fellow Dems have been working it.
“Today, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) announced that he is introducing legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of those who commit criminal acts based on hate,” the Senator’s web page announced in June 2016. “The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would prohibit the purchase, possession or shipment of a firearm by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime or who received a hate crime sentence enhancement, and prohibit the sale of firearms to anyone reasonably suspected to be guilty of a misdemeanor hate crime.”
So not even guilty, just “suspected”…
He’s still at it, teaming up this time with perennial gun-grabber Rep, David Cicilline (D-naturally, RI) in a renewed effort drawing “applause” from the paid AstroTurfers at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown.
Casey also called for all the other usual gun bans for everyone else that the antis are notorious for – revealing, if nothing else, a Jekyll/Hyde personality. This is the same politician who at other times in his career has gone on record claiming: “Strong supporter of the second amendment … Opposes Increased Regulation on Firearm Ownership … Opposes restricting the Second Amendment…”
You have to wonder if people like this suffer from clinical delusional disorders or if they’re just sociopathic liars who will say anything and betray anyone if it serves their ambitions. Or both.
Speaking of politicians who share those traits: “Kamala Harris is proposing a new kind of ‘red flag’ law to take guns away from racists,” Breitbart reported in 2019. “It’s part of her plan to ‘disarm violent hate’.”

“Disarm hate” is actually a viral meme now, being pushed by the grabbers with plenty of amplification from their media cheerleaders, as a quick detour over to a Google search will prove. And guess who gets to determine what constitutes “hate,” and who qualifies as a “prohibited person.”
As with the dilemma facing our brothers and sisters in arms in Canada, it will ultimately depend on how much abuse we are willing to put up with.

Second Amendment will be Nullified if ‘Common Use’ is Restricted to ‘Popularity’

June 29, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Only proponents of a dystopian future will demand technology render an armed citizenry obsolete. Photo Courtesy of Jeremy Tremp for NRA-ILA
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons,” Judge Roger T. Benitez observed in his landmark Miller v. Bonta ruling striking down California’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. He was citing Caetano v. Massachusetts, a 2016 United States Supreme Court decision vacating a woman’s conviction for carrying a stun gun for self-defense.

“The Court has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,’” the High Court, citing the Heller case, unanimously held. “In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining ‘whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.’”
Aside from the obvious, no-nonsense assertions of Founding-era voices such as Tench Coxe (“every terrible implement of the soldier”) and James Madison (see “militia” observations in Federalist No. 46), it helps to understand another gun-grabber lie, that the Founders only had single-shot muskets and couldn’t have imagined technological advancements leading to more lethal weaponry.

Firearms technology from long before their time included Fourteenth Century multiple-barreled volley guns and a design by Leonardo DaVinci for a rotating triple-barrel breech-loading cannon. The Founding Era had already seen pepperbox revolvers, Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles, cartridges to combine shot and powder, the British breech-loading Ferguson rifle, the 11-cylinder crank-operated Puckle gun, and the Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 22 .46 caliber balls and that had actually been used by the Austrian army 11 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified. And the above is by no means an exhaustive list.

The Founders were enlightened men, schooled in classical, political, and legal history, aware of current developments (and in cases like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, innovators and inventors themselves), and visionaries with eyes toward the future, and to “secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to … Posterity.”
Oblivious to that, Constitutional and historical illiterates, like the head of the oxymoronically named “Texas Gun Sense,” are getting ink spreading astonishingly ignorant assertions like “There weren’t automatic weapons or 100-round magazine capacities in the guns 100 years ago.” And, like useful idiots, they’re making such moronic pronouncements for Chinese communist propagandists (who want Americans disarmed and live Chairman Mao’s maxim that “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun”).
That’s bad enough, but the grabbers then bring those arguments into court cases and equally corrupt judges then create “settled law.” As the Brady Center argued in a brief supporting the State of Maryland’s semiauto and magazine ban:
“Suppose, for example, that a new, unregulated and highly lethal weapon were developed before a statute was enacted. When first offered for sale, the weapon would not be protected because it would not be in common use. However, under Plaintiffs’ theory, if sales of the weapon grew explosively over the next year, prior to any legislation, then the weapon would, within that short time frame, become constitutionally protected, even though a ban would have been permissible had the legislature acted just a few months earlier. Such an approach makes little sense.”
That’s the crux—if new developments in weaponry can be denied to We the People, then it’s just a matter of time before the disparity between what the government has and what the people have will be as wide as if we were relegated to Brown Bess muskets and flintlocks against modern infantry. Unless “in common use at the time” is held to mean by soldiers in the field, with real “weapons of war,” as opposed to a sporting arms popularity contest, the Second Amendment will be nullified as a last-resort defense against foreign and domestic tyranny.
To argue otherwise is to argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter was “necessary to the security of a free State.” That’s insane.
We’re well on our way along with that, though, notably with the National Firearms Act restricting the transfer of militia-suitable arms to tribute-paying supplicants meeting overlord approval, and the illegitimate (whether a real vote was taken or not) Hughes Amendment denying post-1986 select firearms to all but government troops and enforcers. I’d argue that one of the most in-your-face tyrannical phrases ever constructed is:
“RESTRICTED FOR GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY”
“Things to Come” was my Second Amendment column in the January 2002 issue of Guns & Ammo magazine. I wrote a bit about the bans but focused on developing technology, definitely stuff the Founders would have never imagined — as if that’s supposed to make a difference. I always began those articles with a quote to set the tone, and for this one, I borrowed from H.G. Wells in The Shape of Things to Come:
“We have declared the Declaration of Independence is inoperative…”
How that could happen isn’t hard to see.
“It’s the difference between a bow and arrow and a modern rifle,” I quoted an executive describing his company’s Objective Individual Combat Weapon System, a weapon that could “hit targets completely behind barriers.”

I cited articles on supposedly “less than lethal” microwave weapons that could burn the skin or temporarily blind, or “tetanize” (paralyze skeletal muscles). If stun guns are “protected,” why wouldn’t they be?
But who needs phasers set on “stun” when the real thing is being developed to vaporize targets Star Trek-style, along with assurances that “advances will be made and power plants will be shrunk and one day it will dominate the battlefield”?
Since when have rayguns not been seen as the great future equalizer, and who thinks keeping them away from the bad guys will work any better tomorrow than what we see happening today?
“Just remember, not so long ago your pocket calculator would have filled a room, requiring programmers, technicians and keypunch operators, and cell phones, laptops, and GPS units would have been considered no more plausible than … paralyzer beams and death rays,” I wrote. Unarguably, those advances are now all “in common use.”
“It’s been said a battle isn’t won until a man with a rifle occupies and controls the field,” that article concluded. “Someone probably once said the same thing about spears.”

Secret Service Affidavit Denies Involvement in Hunter Biden Lost Gun Investigation

June 24, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Does this denial of involvement under penalty of perjury end the investigation or open the door to a much larger story? (Cropped from photo by acaben: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- The Secret Service denies having any records of a law enforcement investigation into a handgun reportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, an affidavit signed by “the Agency official responsible for responding to requests for Secret Service records” attested in an affidavit filed Tuesday.

Multiple reports claim Biden’s handgun was thrown into a supermarket trash receptacle by his widowed sister-in-law and then-lover.
Further claims indicate that both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Secret Service, had visited the gun shop to access transfer records. My interest was in determining how someone with a documented history of drug abuse could buy a gun from a Federal Firearms Licensee without answering “No” to the “unlawful user of … controlled substance[s]” on the ATF form without committing “a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law.” That and what was the Secret Service doing “inserting” itself, when Biden was not under Secret Service protection at the time of the alleged gun purchase?

“The Secret Service has conducted a reasonable search to locate records responsive to Plaintiff’s request,” Kevin L. Tyrrell, Supervisory Freedom of Information Act Officer wrote. “No responsive records were located.”

Receipt of the affidavit closes out the complaint filed in April on my behalf by attorney Stephen Stamboulieh charging the agency with improperly withholding records it is required by Freedom of Information Act laws to produce regarding its role in the case. The FOIA request, filed last November, sought:
“[C]opies of law enforcement and administrative reports, communications, correspondence, and work papers, including with internal State of Delaware DOJ, the Delaware State Police, any local law enforcement and any relevant federal agencies including ATF and the United States Secret Service. This includes any case handling instructions from overseeing administrative authorities and/or agencies that would explain why over two years later, there has still been no public report or explanation as to the way the case has been resolved and why.”
An identical FOIA request was also sent to ATF. After much back-and-forth, the Bureau’s tactic was to say – without admitting anything – that Biden’s “substantial privacy interests” preclude them from releasing any information. Their decision is currently under appeal.
Back to the Secret Service, Tyrell says he checked with “the Uniformed Division and Vice Presidential Protective Division, both within the Office of Protective Operations, and the Office of Investigations … the Office of the Chief Information Officer [and] the Wilmington Resident Office.” They all came up empty, he declared “under penalty of perjury.”
That response either ends the inquiry or potentially opens the door to something much larger. At this point, a couple of explanations are possible but only one is true.
The first is that the entire story of Hunter Biden’s gun is a fabrication. It won’t be the first time multiple media sources have been taken in by a hoax, and if this was one, it took in establishment outlets like Politico and The New York Post. But that is seemingly contradicted by a text message reportedly retrieved from Biden’s laptop where he wrote “the police the FBI [and] the secret service came on the scene.”
But if this were a hoax, the next question would be to determine by whom. This is pure speculation, but those trying to muddy investigations into all of Biden’s activities currently under scrutiny, including financial dealings with foreign entities, would have a strong incentive to muddy the waters. It’s not unheard of to see allies go after the credibility of anyone questioning them by painting challengers as participants in a partisan witch hunt.
(It’s what I have speculated may have been a motive behind the photo ostensibly showing ATF Director nominee David Chipman posing in the smoldering rubble of Waco – that picture had been making the rounds for some time, but the media-savvy Chipman waited until the Senate confirmation hearing to announce to the world it was a Photoshopped fake, tainting the perceived reliability of all other information being passed on by those who fell for it.)
There is another possibility: Someone did show up to investigate, and they were either acting “off the books” or fraudulently represented themselves as Secret Service agents. That’s the stuff of wild conspiracy theories, but the only other alternative, that a career bureaucrat would risk criminal charges on an affidavit, seems even more far-fetched.
A fake story, or fake agents, or a fake declaration—what doesn’t seem to be presenting itself is a fourth alternative likely to yield anything real, and therein lies a larger story if those with the resources to pull the loose threads do so. Unfortunately, Democrats in charge of Senate Judiciary and House Oversight, and a Democrat-sympathizing media have no incentive to see things unravel.
The Stipulation for Dismissal is followed by the Secret Service Declaration:

Stipulation for Dismissal and Secret Service Declaration on Hunter Biden’s Gun Investigation