THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
Translate
Monday, January 7, 2019
RINO MARCO RUBIO'S NATIONAL RED FLAG LAW TRASHES SECOND AMENDMENT; BETRAYS GUN OWNERS~BRIBING THE STATES WITH FEDERAL GRANTS
BRIBING THE STATES WITH FEDERAL GRANTS
RINO RUBIO'S NATIONAL RED FLAG LAW TRASHES SECOND AMENDMENT
Rep. MikeThompson gets the ball rolling on imposing California-style
citizen disarmament on the rest of the Republic as Gabby Giffords,
Shannon Watts and Nancy Pelosi look on approvingly. (Congressman Mike Thompson/Facebook photo)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The
introduction of the bipartisan background checks bill in the House
today marks a critical first step toward strengthening America’s gun
laws and making our country a better place to live, work, study, worship
and play,” Gabby Giffords claimed in a Tuesday press release. That brief statement holds two lies and a true threat that exposes another lie.
The first lie is that this latest assault on “shall not be infringed”
is any kind of “first step.” NFA ’34, GCA ’68, FOPA ’86. The Brady Act,
the Clinton gun ban, the Bush import ban, and thousands of state and
municipal diktats later, and the gun-grabbers are still parroting old
talking points like this one from 45 years ago:
“We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the
first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be
very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen
that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and
again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but
with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the
United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to
slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this
country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final
problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun
ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards,
licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…
And that effectiveness would only apply to the “law-abiding,” of course.
Gabby then makes a true threat that exposes another lie: Yes, the
gun-grabbers will never be satisfied until they control all guns,
something Nancy Pelosi admitted when she inadvertently contradicted
another old lie by advocating for a “slippery slope.” That’s something the antis had previously ridiculed as “gun lobby” paranoia.
So it’s hardly a surprise that the bill itself, starting with its purpose, is a lie:
The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current
background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals
prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.
That’s an impossibility and they know it, as evidenced by Baltimore,
Chicago, etc. The very people causing most of the problems won’t be
affected. How can a party running interference to allow (ensure)
millions of illegal aliens to disperse throughout the country even
pretend to be able to shut down a black market that will only grow more
lethal under “progressive” rule?
Besides which, many of the acts of violence the “commonsense gun
safety advocates” (another lie) exploit happened in spite of “background
checks,” sometimes because signals had been ignored and others because
information already obtained was withheld, first from the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System, and then from a Freedom of
information Act request that required a lawsuit to obtain compliance.
Then there’s the title of the bill, another lie, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, When used in this sense, “bipartisan” means:
specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties
A handful of rogue political opportunists does not a party make. In this case, Republicans who betrayed their oaths of office,
Peter King, Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Brian J. Mast, Fred Upton and
Christopher H. Smith, need to not only be known, but retired. The GOP
needs to understand that it will need to provide better choices to gun
owners if it expects to win a district. It won’t take too many losses
for them to get the message and by not turning out the turncoats, there
is no incentive to change. Doing otherwise is what has led us to this
mess.
For now, the bill has been referred to the House Committee on the
Judiciary. Expect to see great media fanfare as it advances through the
stages to a floor vote, and then hold the Republican-controlled Senate’s
feet to the fire.
And in the meantime, consider the greatest lie of all—that this is about “background checks.”
It’s not. It’s about ending private sales so government can identify
gun owners and what they have. It's about setting the stage to take
advantage of new edicts, like that idiot Marco Rubio’s proposed “red flag” bill,
to enable and abet future confiscations.
Ditto for if they ever get
that other “first step” passed, another “assault weapon” ban, they won’t
need to guess who’s not complying, like they’ll currently have to with “bump stocks.”
Here’s how you can prove that’s the goal for yourself—if all Pelosi
& Co. wanted was to make sure transfers were cleared and “prohibited
persons” weren’t getting guns (through the system), they’d be proposing
a system like BIDS, the Blind Identification Database System,
which would green light a “good” transfer but then leave no record of
who bought what. That proposal has been around for years, but the rice
bowl gun groups appear to be vested in the status quo.
True, BIDS would still be a form of prior restraint “gun control,” so
I would still oppose it. But inarguably, it would serve the same
purpose as “universal” NICS without the danger of creating records that
could later be compiled into a registration tool (and you know the
Democrats will be going after that prohibition in the next round of
budget negotiations).
As with all such schemes, the criminals and the terrorists won’t be
slowed down one bit. And since we're talking about chronic and habitual
liars, I find a memorable scene from the classic Witness for the Prosecution strangely appropriate. 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 regular featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
_____________________________________________________________
Thompson Introduces Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)-Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) responded to announcements of
several pieces of federal gun control legislation that would further
infringe on the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and
other constitutional rights: FPC has always opposed so-called “red flag” laws, sometimes
characterized as “Extreme Risk Protection Order” or “Gun Violence
Restraining Order” laws, on practical, policy, and constitutional
grounds. These “red flag” laws stand for the proposition that people are
guilty, and can be disarmed, unless they can prove their way out of an
accusation. In fact, in some jurisdictions, a court may consider
evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or weapons as
evidence to support the issuance of a “red flag” disarmament order. In
other words, if someone recently exercised their Second Amendment
rights, that constitutionally-protected conduct could be used to support
their being prohibited from possessing firearms, and even lead to a
warrant for the seizure of their property. As we know all too well, the
only real recourse in these cases is for the accused to hire an
attorney, at the cost of thousands of dollars, and hope that the court
gives them a fair hearing. Worse, in an ex parte situation, the subject
of a “red flag” order might not even know about the hearing or the order
until armed law enforcement officers show up at their home to seize
property, or them. “Red flag” laws are unconstitutional and dangerous,
as FPC’s own research and countless reports have shown. If the
government does not have enough evidence to investigate or charge a
person with a crime, or even to hold them for a mental health
evaluation, then the government has not met its burden for taking
someone’s rights and property by force and violence. FPC also strongly opposes so-called “universal background checks,”
one of three core elements of the modern gun control agenda.Put simply,
politicians and billionaire-backed special interests wish to
constructively repeal the Second Amendment through transactional
records, algorithms, and ever-expanding laws banning people and
property. They refuse to acknowledge the true agenda of their “universal
background check” legislation, which is to create a statutory framework
from which they can bootstrap the other elements of their disarmament
aims, including Minority Report-style “pre-crime” laws,
government-sanctioned confiscation, and incremental, attrition-based
bans on weapons, parts, ammunition, and more. As we know from our direct
experience in hostile, anti-rights states like California, the modern
gun control schema relies on background check-based transactional data
as a framework to bootstrap the forced registration of people and
property, later expanding or creating new categories of prohibited
persons and items—including through “predictive model” gun control
statutes, like “red flag” laws, that rely on speculation rather than
real due process and proper adjudication of crimes or mental health
conditions—overreaching law enforcement programs, like California’s
“Armed and Prohibited Person System” and others like it, where the
government sends armed police officers to seize persons and property
that were forced into government databases.
FPC is also strongly opposed to using taxpayer dollars for
unrestricted advocacy of gun control, whether through the Center for
Disease Control, or elsewhere. No American taxpayer should be funding
policy advocacy cloaked in the guise of “research”.
As we have said before, history shows that gun control is a one-way
ratchet, with so-called “compromises” resulting only in more laws that
affect law-abiding people and fewer ways to exercise Second Amendment
rights. And there is no textual, circumstantial, or emotional exception
to the Constitution’s guarantee that “the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those who seek to implement more
and stronger restrictions on Second Amendment freedoms have offered gun
owners nothing in return for these false and malicious “compromises.”
It should be no surprise, then, that gun owners have been and remain
unwilling to participate in a “compromise” that isn’t. Indeed, there
cannot be any compromise on our Constitution and the rights it protects.
Even if others’ lack of principles or conflicting political
priorities may have allowed, or even encouraged, such legislative
atrocities to be enacted as the National Firearms Act, the Federal
Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Undetectable Firearms Act, the
Hughes Amendment, and many other gun control statutes, FPC stands firm
in its commitment to the Constitution, the People, and individual
liberty.
FPC calls on every member of Congress to not only oppose and vote
against these and other gun control bills, but to immediately introduce
and pass important legislation to protect and advance the Second
Amendment rights without further delay. FPC also encourages President
Trump to demand pro-Second Amendment legislation with the same fervor
that he does other, far less important issues. That is the job they were
elected to do, and that is the basis upon which we and American voters
will measure them.
Individuals who wish to combat federal gun control can tell the House
and Senate leadership, as well as their representatives, to oppose
these gun control bills using FPC’s grassroots Action Tools at
www.firearmspolicy.org/act and www.FightRedFlagLaws.com. About the Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4
grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the
fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
FPC advocates on a wide variety of important constitutional, legal,
policy, and social issues, including free speech, due process,
separation of powers, limitations on government action, and others. FPC
works to advance individual liberty through programs including strategic
litigation, legal action, direct and grassroots advocacy, research,
education, and outreach.
______________________________________________________________
Here we go again, the left and their continued attack on law-abiding
citizens ownership of typical firearms in this country. This is a
never-ending battle we must be strong. We must stick together.
Senate Democrats Introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
Washington D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Senators
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard
Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have introduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019.”
“Last year we saw tens of thousands of students
nationwide take to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings
and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our
youngest generation has grown up with active-shooter drills, hiding
under their desks—and now they’re saying enough is enough,” said Senator
Dianne Feinstein. “Americans across the nation are asking Congress to
reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and
high-capacity magazines. If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings
and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our
streets.”
The ban would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer or importation
of 205 rifle models by name. The Senators refer to these firearms as
“military-style assault weapons.” The bill does have a grandfather
clause. Current owners of these guns would be able to keep them.
According to Senator Feinstein's twitter, this legislation considers
any rifle that uses a detachable magazine and has a pistol grip, a
forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or
telescoping stock as an “assault weapon.”
Feinstein clarifies her Assault Weapons Ban
The bill would also ban any magazine that is capable of holding more
than ten rounds. The law states that the magazine ban is due to the
given ability to increase the rate at which a person can continue to
fire their rifle/pistol. Like the now would-be banned firearms, owners
would be able to keep the magazines that they currently own.
“Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are deadly
and dangerous weapons of war that belong on battlefields—not our
streets. They have no purpose for self-defense or hunting, and no
business being in our schools, churches and malls,” said Senator Richard
Blumenthal. “By passing this legislation, Congress can honor the memory
of the beautiful lives cut short by military-style assault weapons in
Newtown, Parkland, Las Vegas, San Bernardino and far too many other
American cities. This is the year for my colleagues to turn our rhetoric
into reality and finally end America’s gun violence epidemic.”
Part of the bill would be universal background checks on all
transfers of grandfathered guns. The requirement would also apply to
firearms that are gifted to family members. It would be a felony to
transfer a gun without a background check, even if it is to an immediate
family member.
However, magazines that hold more than ten rounds would not be
transferable after the law would go into effect. This prohibition on the
transferring of the magazines would even include giving the magazines
to immediate family members. Only the current owner of the magazines at
the time that the ban goes into effect would be able to own them.
Owners of these guns would have to keep the now-banned firearms in a
secure storage container or install a trigger lock. This requirement
would apply to everyone, even those who live alone and have no reason to
lock their firearms.
The Senators also want to ban foldable and telescoping stocks. They
believe that an adjustable stock's purpose is to make it easier to
conceal the firearm. This point is incorrect. Shooters use adjustable
stocks to find the most comfortable position to fire their guns.
Pistols are not immune from this bill. It would ban any pistol that
weighs over 50 ounces unloaded. This measurement is a little over 3
pounds and would ban almost all pistol ARs and AKs. Other guns like the
CZ Scorpion would also be prohibited.
The legislation would also ban stabilizing braces such as the ones
sold be SB Tactical. The Senators think that by adding a brace to a
pistol it turns the pistol into an “assault rifle.”
“She needs to appeal to her base, but the reality of it
is that she doesn't even know what a stabilizing brace is,” Alex Bosco,
The CEO of SB Tactical, told AmmoLand. “I would be interested to
understand why prohibiting a product that allows individuals who are
disabled and have limited mobility to fire a weapon more accurately
should be outlawed.”
Thordsen's featureless stocks are also not immune from this bill. Gun
owners have used these stocks to be in compliance with state laws that
currently ban pistol grips on rifles such as California, New York, and
Maryland.
Gun rights advocates point out that the “assault weapons” ban of 1994
that was in effect until 2004 was infective at stopping gun violence.
The Clinton era Justice Department found that the ban had little to no
impact on crime or gun deaths. Other studies have found similar results
since the law expired.
In a statement released by Michael Hammond, legal counsel for Gun Owners of America reads:
“Dianne Feinstein's new unconstitutional gun ban
follows in the “Feinstein tradition” of blindly attacking guns for no
particular rational purpose. The 1994-2004 less-repressive predecessor to the Feinstein bill
was found by the Department of Justice to have been totally ineffectual.
As a result, in 2013, only 39 other senators voted to support her
semi-automatic ban — in a Senate controlled by Democrats. And, finally,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just declared, as
unconstitutional, California's magazine ban, which is similar to the one
contained in Feinstein's bill. So Feinstein's insistence of “doubling down on failure” may make
her — and the loony Left — feel good. But no sane legislature is
actually going to vote for her bill.”
Hammond points out that the magazine ban in the bill almost mirrors
the prohibition that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared
unconstitutional. The court case was from Feinstein's home state of
California.
The odds that the bill will make it to the floor of the Senate are
long. Republicans control the Senate, and just like Feinstein's previous
bills, The Senate leadership will probably table the bill and not let
it come to the floor for debate.
Even if this bill makes it to the floor for a vote, it would need 60
votes to prevent a filibuster. That would mean that 13 Republican would
have to cross party lines which seems unlikely.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the
former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot
News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews.
John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers,
Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John
has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and
on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and
sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.
______________________________________________________________ SEE ALSO:
Feinstein Ban on Semiautos Deliberately Undermines ‘Security of a Free State’
EXCERPT: "Feinstein and her co-conspirators know this, of course, and they know
that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure “the security of a
free State.” They also know that stands in the way of their goal of
attaining unchallengeable power, what German political economist Max
Weber endorsed as a “monopoly of violence.”"
