CALIFORNIA: ATTORNEY GENERAL BECERRA GRABS GUNS; GOVERNOR NEWSOM DEPLOYS "TRACE FORCE" OF 20,000

Kafkafornia Clamps Down

Attorney General Becerra grabs guns; 

Gov. Newsom deploys  “trace force” of 20,000

BY LLOYD BILLINGSLEY

SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/kafkafornia-clamps-down-lloyd-billingsley; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

“Gun violence is the last thing our communities and children should have to fear during a public health crisis. Background checks can save lives and DOJ’s firearms operations help make that happen. At the California Department of Justice, we’ll keep doing our part to keep firearms out of the hands of violent and dangerous individuals.”

That was California attorney general Xavier Becerra last week, but his announcement failed to cite any example of actual “gun violence.” The former congressman, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, was hailing raids that confiscated firearms from people who had committed no crime.

According to the Sacramento Bee, the state DOJ mounted “a dozen operations to confiscate firearms and ammunition possessed by owners who failed background checks.” This is the background check California requires for all purchases of ammunition. Failing this particular check is not the same as committing a crime.

From last July 1, when the program kicked in, until December, 2019, the state ran 345,000 background checks and rejected a full 62,000 Californians legally entitled to purchase ammunition. The 62,000 included off-duty sheriff’s deputies purchasing shotgun shells to hunt ducks. Database discrepancies meant the 62,000 had somehow “failed” a background check, implying malfeasance. The law-abiding gun owners then became “prohibited persons,” barred from purchasing ammunition and exercising their Second Amendment rights. 

Attorney Ari Freilich of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told reporters that dangerous people were “committing a serious crime trying to acquire a product designed to take human life,” and that the background check system was working as intended. The outright confiscation of firearms in April, 2020, confirms that this is the case.

Federal judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ammunition law defies common sense and burdens Second Amendment rights, but last month the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Becerra’s request to reinstate the background checks. As Becerra plans further “operations,” Gov. Gavin Newsom is mounting a surge on a different front.

The governor is tapping UCLA and UC San Francisco to train an “army” of “coronavirus detectives” to “test, trace and isolate people who may have been infected.” That includes those who have no symptoms at all, but are still capable of infecting others. By that standard, Newsom’s army could trace and isolate just about anybody, so Californians might wonder about those doing the tracing.

The governor will redeploy state employees with “the right kind of background cultural sensitivity, cultural competency, different language skills, a health mindset.” On the other hand, according to Politico, the first group of tracers, in San Francisco, included city librarians, attorneys and investigators, “many with no health care background.”

As the California Globe has learned, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will not impose penalties for violations of the HIPPA privacy rule for “public health and health oversight activities during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency.” How long the “trace force” will be deployed remains something of a mystery.

Unlike President Trump, Gavin Newsom does not take questions from reporters in real time and under emergency powers he functions like an autocrat. When thousands of embattled Californians stream to the state Capitol, they find access blocked by blackshirted CHP staatspolizei in full riot gear. Attorney general Becerra has no problem with it, and Californians might recall his record at protecting communities from violent criminals.

In recent years, the MS-13 gang has imposed a “reign of terror” in Mendota, near Fresno, with at least 14 brutal murders. Federal agents, not the state AG, took the lead in prosecuting the gang, and when federal officials made arrests, Becerra made it clear he was not concerned about the gang members’ “status.” The MS-13 reign of terror, and murders of police officers by criminal illegals, prompted no raids like the ones Becerra is now inflicting on those who fail the rigged background checks.

Meanwhile, according to Politico, Newsom’s 20,000-strong trace force “could serve as a template for the nation and create a whole new sector of public health workers.” It certainly could, as people across the country might think, especially those who have lost their jobs during the pandemic. In reality, all Newsom’s emergency measures could serve as a template for what the nation might look like under any Democrat currently in contention for the White House.

In the best Kafkaesque style, a government Stasi force could be empowered to track and isolate just about anybody, “until we have a vaccine,” or a “cure.”  Illegal aliens, even the criminals among them, would remain a protected and privileged class. As in California, this imported electorate would be supported by American taxpayers.

Law-abiding gun owners, even Sheriff’s deputies, could be blocked from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment, and the First Amendment would also stand at risk. So-called “red flag” laws could empower confiscation of firearms and ammunition from anybody the government doesn’t like.

Disarmament of the people is a prelude to repression, and the targets would be all those deplorables, stricken with various phobias and seeking to get their lives back. The election takes place on November 3. As President Trump says, we’ll have to see what happens.

DURING PANDEMIC, HOUSE DEMOCRATS INTRODUCE LEGISLATION REQUIRING FEDERAL LICENSE TO OWN GUNS

DURING PANDEMIC, HOUSE DEMOCRATS INTRODUCE LEGISLATION REQUIRING 

FEDERAL LICENSE TO OWN GUNS 

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/05/26/during-pandemic-house-dems-introduce-legislation-requiring-federal-license-to-own-guns/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

While in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the media has largely ignored a massive anti-gun bill introduced by House Democrats that would require a federal license for all gun owners and impose a 30 to 50 percent tax on all firearms and accessories.

The bill, H.R.5717 dubbed the Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020, would effectively make nearly all current gun ownership illegal and place firearm regulation out of the hands of the states and place it in the hands of the federal government.

The text of the bill reads:

Except otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any individual who is not licensed under this section to knowingly purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition.

In order to eligible for a federal license, an applicant must have “completed training in firearms safety,” completed a “written test, to demonstrate knowledge of applicable firearms laws,” completed “hands-on testing, including firing testing, to demonstrate safe use of a firearm,” and must be renewed every ten years.

The left has been trying to impose radical anti-gun laws for years. Gun-ownership is a threat to their totalitarian power in which the wish to impose an authoritarian regime on its citizens. So long as the Second Amendment to the Constitution stands in their way, it is difficult for them to disarm the citizens of the United States — the only obstacle that stands in the way of their complete and total power. For them, trying to sneak this legislation through while everyone is focused on the coronavirus is not surprising. Democrats are dirty and will do whatever they can to get legal gun ownership off the books.

BLOOMBERG'S "EVERYTOWN" RECRUITS ANTI-GUN CHURCH LEADERS IN VOTER TURNOUT

BLOOMBERG'S "EVERYTOWN" RECRUITS ANTI-GUN CHURCH LEADERS IN VOTER TURNOUT 

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/bloombergs-everytown-recruits-anti-gun-church-leaders-in-voter-turnout/#axzz6NAremuYr;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun 

Safety just got religion…sort of. The Associated Press has reported the gun prohibition 

lobbying group “has enlisted more than a dozen religious leaders to boost voter turnout this 

fall in support of candidates who support measures to prevent gun violence.”

This political move could be overshadowed by the Supreme Court’s continued inaction on at least ten Second Amendment cases now pending. Monday’s Court orders did not list any of those cases as either being accepted for review or denied, so the proverbial “can” has been once more kicked down the road. The next High Court conference on cases for the fall term is this Thursday, May 21. Orders from that conference will be released next Tuesday, May 26, according to Scotus.blog.


According to the Associated Press report, “The group’s partners include representatives from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh backgrounds, several of them well-known progressive activists.” There is also an interesting cast of characters reportedly involved in this move, including “evangelical Shane Claiborne, president of the group Red Letter Christians,” the report said, “and Rev. Traci Blackmon, a United Church of Christ executive minister and a central member of the Black Lives Matter movement.”


The AP also identified the Rev. Rob Schenck, “a former evangelical anti-abortion activist who has since shifted to support the Roe v. Wade decision and sought to redefine a ‘pro-life’ agenda as one that supports gun control.”

The “Everytown interfaith project” will reportedly focus on “educating rank-and-file faith voters” about candidates’ stances on “gun matters.” It’s not clear what that means, but it likely will not mean open discussions of incidents in which armed church members prevented mass shooting tragedies.

Last December, several armed parishioners drew their sidearms after a gunman opened fire at the West Freeway Church of Christ near Fort Worth, Texas. The killer was stopped within a few seconds by the leader of a church security team. Jack Wilson stopped Keith Thomas Kinnunen with a single shot, on live video. As they have in the wake of other such successful uses of force by armed private citizens, gun prohibition lobbying groups were uniformly silent, same as they were after Jeanne Assam shot killer Matthew John Murray in the foyer of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. in 2007. Murray took his own life after being seriously wounded.

Although he killed 26 people and wounded 20 more when he opened fire at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas in November 2017, the rampage of murderer Devin Patrick Kelley was brought to an end when church neighbor Stephen Willeford shot him with an AR-15 rifle. The gunman fled but a short distance away after driving off the highway, he killed himself.
By no small surprise, the AP story noted, “Several members of Everytown’s interfaith initiative are known as religious critics of (President Donald) Trump’s record.”

The disclosure of Everytown’s alliance with progressive church leaders underscores the importance of this fall’s elections. The Bloomberg-backed lobbying group has already announced it will be spending some $60 million via its Victory Fund to change Congress and state legislatures to gun control majorities. This would bring a halt to President Trump’s effort to balance the federal courts with pro-Second Amendment jurists.

If the High Court eventually does take one or more of the pending Second Amendment cases now waiting for action, it could mean the court is preparing to hand down a ruling that further defines the right to keep and bear arms. Five of those cases involved the Second Amendment Foundation. Earlier this month, the Court instructed the City of San Jose, Calif., to respond to a writ of certiorari from the Second Amendment Foundation in the case of Lori Rodriguez, et al. v. City of San Jose, which involves the city’s confiscation of legally-owned firearms and the city’s refusal to return them. That response is due on or before May 20—this Wednesday—which could be a signal the Court may be taking action on that, and maybe other, Second Amendment cases during this Thursday’s conference.

Meanwhile, Second Amendment attorneys and activists wait patiently for the justices to act, while looking over the horizon at the uncertain outcome of the November 2020 elections that will either take back the House, protect the Senate majority and keep Trump in the White House another four years, or flip everything to Democrat control. That would make what happened earlier this year in Virginia something of a trial run for the nation, and gun owners are all-too-aware of how that turned out.




About Dave Workman


Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.















____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/harris-tries-getting-back-in-bidens-graces-with-everytown-veepstakes/#axzz6NB0hSwy9

GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: GUN GROUP SUES TO RE-OPEN OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGES

GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: 

GUN GROUP SUES TO RE-OPEN 

OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGES

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Prepared to Go to U.S. Supreme Court
Murphy Admits 2A Shutdown is not about Coronavirus

BY SCOTT BACH

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/gun-group-sues-nj-to-reopen-outdoor-shooting-ranges/#axzz6MKCDuND3; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) filed a federal lawsuit to force the State of New Jersey to reopen outdoor ranges, which have been shut down since a March 21, 2020, executive order by Governor Murphy.

Now that Murphy has allowed the reopening of parks, golf courses, and tennis courts – outdoor facilities that are purely recreational and do not facilitate any Constitutionally protected activity – he can no longer pretend to have any legal argument for blocking the Second Amendment right of citizens to build and maintain firearms proficiency at outdoor ranges.

A copy of the complaint in the lawsuit can be viewed by clicking here.

Gov. Murphy’s March 21 executive order shut down all ranges and gun stores, supposedly due to concerns over the Coronavirus pandemic. ANJRPC thereafter immediately sued to reopen gun stores and Murphy backed down on that issue before a court could force his hand. But ranges remained shuttered, and ANJRPC exercised extreme self-restraint and waited for the right moment to bring a range case – and that moment has now arrived as Murphy has reopened non-essential outdoor activities that are not constitutionally protected.

ANJRPC also plans to sue regarding indoor ranges, but only after a similar period of disciplined waiting for the right conditions where legal odds are enhanced. Bringing an indoor range claim at the wrong time could have disastrous consequences under the current pandemic conditions.

ANJRPC is prepared to take this new case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. The Second Amendment was designed precisely for the kind of emergency America now faces, to ensure that law-abiding citizens would be able not only to own firearms but to train with them to develop and maintain proficiency to provide for their own safety if necessary. The idea that a single public official can simply turn gun rights off is absurd on its face.

What’s more, Governor Murphy’s overt hatred for the Second Amendment is laid bare in his executive order, which ironically declares that non-vital retailers like liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, and cell phone stores are “essential” and therefore can stay open, while ranges are not “essential” and must close.

Governor Murphy has even admitted that his assault on the Second Amendment was motivated by his hatred of guns, not by safety concerns about Coronavirus. When recently asked by a reporter why he didn’t deem Second Amendment facilities to be “essential,” he stated, “a safer society for my taste has fewer guns and not more guns.” He said nothing about Coronavirus, which is apparently just his pretext for shutting down the Second Amendment.

Please watch for further updates on this developing new case. If desired, you can donate here to the case.






About Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs: The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state and federal level that would infringe upon these rights. Visit: www.anjrpc.org

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT MAINSTREAM MEDIA REJOICES OVER MAJORITY DECISION IN NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE~WON'T REST UNTIL FIREARM RIGHTS ARE ERASED FROM MEMORY

ANTI-GUN FORCES WON'T REST UNTIL SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT IS ERASED FROM MEMORY 

BY ROGER KATZ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/supreme-court-majority-joins-forces-with-second-amendment-foes/#axzz6M9011MU4; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- As reported in the leftist periodical Newsweek, on March 27, 2018 – “Young activists calling for more gun control legislation should be more ambitious in their nationwide effort and focus on repealing the Second Amendment, according to retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.


“In an op-ed published Tuesday in The New York Times, Stevens praised the students and young people who rallied in Washington and around the country over the weekend as part of the March for Our Lives. The demonstration was sparked by the shooting last month at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people, including 14 students, dead.

Stevens wrote that he had ‘rarely’ seen such a wide scope of ‘civic engagement’ from young people in his lifetime and encouraged their efforts to go even further.

‘That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms,’ Stevens wrote. ‘But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.’”


ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT MAINSTREAM MEDIA REJOICES OVER MAJORITY DECISION IN NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE.

The seditious Anti-Second Amendment Press breathed a collective sigh of relief when the U.S. Supreme Court Majority voted for Respondent, New York City, against the Petitioner, NYSRPA, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020).* The New York City gun transport case was the first major Second Amendment case to be decided by the High Court since the McDonald case decision ten years earlier.

Although the legal issue, a very narrow one, only implicated the bizarre, abhorrent, draconian, multifaceted, bloated, fascistic, and constantly refined and engineered handgun licensing requirements of New York City, apropos of the City’s “premise handgun license,” the antigun, anti-Second Amendment mob exhibited marked hysteria that the high Court had dared to hear the case at all; concerned that a decision for the NYSRPA against the City would open the floodgates to renewed attacks against restrictive gun regulations across the Country.

The weblog “Bearing Arms,” said, at the time, just before oral argument: “Now, the Court is hearing arguments on the case. That’s more than enough to trigger anti-gunners to completely lose their crap.”

In its article, Bearing Arms cited an unconscionable, reprehensible story that appeared in the Radical Left weblog News One in which the weblog denounced and denigrated Associate Justice Clarence Thomas for having the audacity to exalt the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Unabashedly mocking the esteemed Associate Justice, the writer blurted out:


“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been one of the most destructive justices on the court. However, his foolishness is about to hit a new level with the Second Amendment being revisited for the first time on the court in over a decade.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court is hearing a case to expand gun rights. Yep, you read that right. The majority conservative court might make it easier to have gun [sic] in a time when the majority of Americans are asking for more gun control.

Leave it up to Clarence Thomas to be on the wrong side of history.”


“Protect people from gun violence”— by removing the most effective means, i.e., a gun,’ with which the average, rational, law-abiding person might capably protect him or herself from a vicious predator? “Wrong side of history”— (i.e., revisionist history) because Justice Thomas defends our Nation’s cherished Bill of Rights?

And Fox19 now, noted, after the New York City gun transport case decision came down:


“The anti-climactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups who thought a conservative Supreme Court majority fortified by two appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, might use the case to expand on landmark decisions from a decade ago that established a right under the Second Amendment to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision early in 2019 to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices.

Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions.

Those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case before arguments in December, and gun control advocates worried that the court might adopt the reasoning Kavanaugh used in a 2011 opinion in his former job as a Court of Appeals judge. There, he wrote, gun laws “that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.”


Anti-Second Amendment foes need not have worried. But most Americans do need to worry about the future of Americans’ natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable God-given right to keep and bear arms.

The New York City gun transport case provides Americans with a blueprint for assessing the predilections of U.S. Supreme Court Justices on matters pertaining to the Second Amendment.

First, the liberal wing of the High Court—comprising, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—abhors the Second Amendment. The liberal wing will contort the law to find Government actions constitutional that are clearly unconstitutional and that tend to weaken our fundamental, natural rights and liberties. The liberal wing will continue to demonstrate little reluctance in subordinating the U.S. Constitution and U.S. case law precedent to the dictates of international norms and standards that stand in marked conflict to our system of laws and jurisprudence.

Second, the conservative wing of the High Court—comprising, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—in the mold of the late, brilliant and esteemed Justice, Antonin Scalia, will continue to demonstrate great deference to our Constitution, and will, consistent with their Oath, always strive to preserve and strengthen our natural rights and liberties.

Third, Chief Justice Roberts cannot and should not be considered a Judicial conservative. He does not exemplify those Justices of the conservative wing of the Court. Even the expression, Judicial ‘moderate’ may not be an accurate descriptor for him. He does not exhibit the appropriate deference to the Second Amendment as now exemplified in having sided, sans a qualified concurring opinion, with the decision of the liberal—dare we say, increasingly, ‘radical’—wing of the High Court. Justice Roberts will continue to see-saw between the two wings of the Court. But do not expect the Chief Justice to treat our Bill of Rights with deep, abiding respect and reverence.

Fourth, prior to the decision in the New York gun transport case, one would have reasonably thought that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the newest member of the Court—as of the posting of this article—would exhibit the same deference to the Bill of Rights as those Justices comprising the conservative wing of the Court. Certainly, given Justice Kavanaugh’s comprehensive, well-reasoned, and well-written dissent in Heller II, one would have expected Justice Kavanaugh to express the same desire for consistency and detail in his written opinions as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice that he had exhibited as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring in the New York City gun transport case appears oddly dull, imprecise, even apologetic in tone. And the decision is not consistent with his dissent in Heller II.

Justice Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential philosophy remains at this point inscrutable and that is not a good thing. In the next several segments, we attempt to unpack Kavanaugh’s concurring, along with a review of past Second Amendment cases that the High Court denied cert, and a close look at the issue of mootness, as the majority decision in the New York City case wasn’t consistent with Supreme Court precedence; not even close.


*SCOTUSblog Holding and Judgment:

Holding: Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the court of appeals and the district court on remand.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on April 27, 2020. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in full and Justice Thomas joined except for Part IV-B.






About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.


For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/wake-up-covid-19-pandemic-not-impeding-anti-gun-activism/#axzz6MEDiiCdZ

NJ2AS VIDEO: SAYREVILLE, NEW JERSEY GESTAPO POLICE DENYING ALL GUN PERMITTING RIGHTS TO CITIZENS

NJ2AS VIDEO: SAYREVILLE, NEW JERSEY GESTAPO POLICE DENYING ALL 

GUN PERMITTING RIGHTS TO CITIZENS 

BY ALEX ROUBIAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/nj2as-video-police-denying-all-gun-permitting-rights-to-citizens/#axzz6LrAQcL1S; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Almost two months into the Covid-19 pandemic, the 

government of NJ is showing their true colors on how they really feel about the Second 

Amendment. Gun owners are seeing little relief in the abuse of their rights.

Gun stores are heavily restricted on visitation from the public. Gun safety training schools and ranges are still closed. This makes it impossible for new gun owners to learn proper safety procedures. It’s ironic that the same people calling for “gun safety” are the first to exploit Governor Murphy’s executive orders to actually make firearm use potentially more dangerous.

Recently, we’ve had several tips from our members about the Sayreville police department outright refusing to process gun permits. Their Facebook page, phone messages, and police department lobby all have messaging declaring the firearm department is closed until further notice. Watch to find out the full story.




About New Jersey Second Amendment Society:



New Jersey Second Amendment Society – The NJ2AS uses innovative and bold direct-action tactics to expose, document, and take results-oriented action to confront anti-Second Amendment policies and legislators.

By Defending, Protecting, and Preserving the Second Amendment within New Jersey, the NJ2AS works to ensure that our civil rights are restored, no longer degraded, and to prevent NJ from being used as a laboratory to destroy the Second Amendment nationwide. Visit: www.nj2as.com

SUPREME COURT DEMANDS CITY EXPLAIN CONFISCATION OF LEGAL GUNS FROM WIFE

SUPREME COURT DEMANDS CITY EXPLAIN CONFISCATION OF LEGAL GUNS FROM WIFE

The San Jose police haven’t returned the wife’s firearms after seven years

BY KIT DANIELS

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-demands-city-explain-confiscation-of-legal-guns-from-wife/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

The Supreme Court has ordered the City of San Jose, Calif., to explain why police, seven years ago, confiscated the legal firearms from the wife of a man who was hospitalized for a mental health issue.

The San Jose police haven’t returned the wife’s firearms from the incident which predated the national debate over ‘red flag’ laws by several years.

“Her firearms were seized seven years ago after her husband was taken to a hospital on a mental health issue,” the Second Amendment Foundation said. “At the time, a San Jose police officer advised Rodriguez he had authority to seize all firearms in the residence, including those belonging solely to her, which were all locked in a California-approved safe.”



“The guns were taken without a warrant, and over Rodriguez’s objection.”

The wife, Lori Rodriguez, sued the city in federal court after officials declined to return the firearms despite them being re-registered in her name alone and after the California Department of Justice cleared the release of her firearms.

One of the guns in particular was a handgun Rodriguez personally owned before her marriage, and she asserted community property ownership on the other firearms.

“Lori argued that the court had no power to interfere with her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because, even if [husband] Edward was prohibited from possessing and owning guns, she was not prohibited,” the suit read. “In support, she emphasized that she had obtained a notice of eligibility to own and possess guns from the Calif. DOJ Bureau of Firearms.”

‘Red flag’ laws are open to scrutiny due to their encroachment of due process protected by the Constitution, but this is perhaps the first time someone had her guns confiscated due to her association with someone else.

And it foreshadows how other municipalities could use ‘red flag’ laws to confiscate guns from entire households over the detainment of only one person of interest to police, which explains the Supreme Court’s interest in the case.

“Lori Rodriguez is not a criminal, nor is she prohibited by law from owning firearms. Yet she’s essentially been robbed by the city of San Jose and its police department, with the cooperation of lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb, referring to the courts that so far ruled against her.

The City of San Jose has until May 20 to respond to the Supreme Court.






Owen Shroyer covers the Mike Ramos memorial and gets attacked by protesters when they find out who he is.

BIDEN WEBSITE REVEALS ALARMING GUN CONTROL AGENDA

BIDEN WEBSITE REVEALS ALARMING 

GUN CONTROL AGENDA 

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/04/biden-website-reveals-alarming-gun-control-agenda/#axzz6KLK7zAYQ; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden has plans for American gun owners that are spelled out in a 3,100-word agenda found on his campaign website that includes a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” background checks on all gun sales and transfers, restrictions on the number of firearms someone can buy in a month, “safe storage” and enough other red tape to turn the right to keep and bear arms into a heavily-regulated privilege.

This coming Saturday, April 25, “Team Joe” is planning a “Service Outreach Unity Leadership (S.O.U.L.) of the Nation” event to recognize the efforts of “our communities’ heroes.”
A message on his website says, “When Joe launched our campaign a year ago this Saturday, he said that this election is about more than just politics – it’s about the soul of this country. That is true now more than ever before.”

The former vice president, now said to be considering a female running mate since he is virtually assured of winning the nomination—which a majority of Democrats appear to favor, according to a recent Rasmussen survey—insists he will follow “constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies.”

Here are some of the highlights found in his campaign literature:

Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. Biden believes we should work to eventually require that 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns.
End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (This could be a direct threat to such places as Midway and Brownells, Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s.–ed.)
Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons, his agenda says. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy. (Critics of this policy say it went after military veterans who had problems with finances.)


There is much more in Biden’s scheme, such as holding firearms manufacturers responsible for illegal acts committed by people using one of their firearms. Another provision will “Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs…to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.”

It’s all spelled out in detail, in 3,167 words, and there is nothing in this narrative about Biden “hoping” to do anything. At several points, the document says “Biden will.”

To accomplish this, he’s going to want a running mate who agrees with, and will adhere to, his policies. The recent Rasmussen survey, conducted April 12-13 with a margin of sampling error at +/- 3 percentage points, says 61 percent of likely Democratic voters “believe it is important for Biden’s running mate to be a woman or person of color, with 35% who say it is Very Important.”

Does that mean most Democrats are more interested in political correctness than they are in performance? Here’s an excerpt from the Rasmussen report:

“But when given a list of seven top potential vice presidential nominees, Democrats rate most about the same. The possible candidates and their levels of support are: Bernie Sanders (15%), Kamala Harris (14%), Elizabeth Warren (13%), Amy Klobuchar (12%), Stacey Abrams (11%), Michael Bloomberg (7%) and Pete Buttigieg (5%). Thirteen percent (13%) of Democrats prefer someone else, and 11% are undecided.” By no small coincidence, Klobuchar is being touted as Biden's “safe pick” in a Washington Examiner piece.

In its introduction, the Biden doctrine emphasizes that he “has taken on the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the national stage and won – twice. In 1993, he shepherded through Congress the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which established the background check system that has since kept more than 3 million firearms out of dangerous hands. In 1994, Biden – along with Senator Dianne Feinstein – secured the passage of 10-year bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. As president, Joe Biden will defeat the NRA again.”

Perhaps “victory” means different things to different people. Since 1993, the NRA reportedly raised its membership by at least 50 percent, and that era has seen the emergence of other rights organizations as powerhouse groups, specifically the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and various state-level organizations. Millions of gun owners were energized during the Clinton and Obama administrations when Biden and his Capitol Hill colleagues went after gun rights.

Indeed, it was a SAF case—McDonald v. City of Chicago—that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, providing the opportunity to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. That opened the legal floodgates allowing dozens of legal actions challenging the kinds of gun laws Biden and his contemporaries favor.

Near the top of his agenda, Biden says he will “Get weapons of war off our streets.” There are all kinds of proposals to make it more difficult for law-abiding gun owners to remain “law-abiding.”

There is little, if anything, about locking up criminals. Instead, one finds this:


“There are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities without turning to incarceration. For example, Group Violence Intervention organizes community leaders to work with individuals most likely to commit acts of gun violence, express the community’s demand that the gun violence stop, and connect individuals who may be likely perpetrators with social and economic support services that may deter violent behavior.”


On the heels of a mass shooting rampage in Canada, a nation with some of the strictest gun laws in the hemisphere—laws the gun prohibition lobby would like this country to emulate, were it not for the pesky Second Amendment—Biden’s gun control agenda is unlikely to win any converts in the firearms community, and it will give U.S. gun owners plenty to think about as November draws closer.




About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: FIRST THEY TOOK THE GUNS; THEN DENIED OUR SPEECH

GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: 

FIRST THEY TOOK THE GUNS; 

THEN DENIED OUR SPEECH 

BY ALEX ROUBIAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/04/new-jersey-first-they-took-the-guns-then-denied-our-speech-video/#axzz6KFWtUX7Z; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. The government over-reach in the last two months is quickly reading like best-selling dystopian novels foreshadowing our current times.

As New Jerseyans continue to be systematically denied access to firearms for self-protection, Governor Murphy has singularly and intentionally used his monopoly of violent force to silence the voices of millions of gun owners.

In the below video, we break down the opaque justifications from the State for silencing our freedom of the press – all while our 2nd Amendment rights continue to be shamelessly abused. The government using the threat of guns to silence speech about guns is a distressing irony only New Jerseyans get the privilege to experience.




About the New Jersey Second Amendment Society:

New Jersey Second Amendment Society – Our mission is to promote the free exercise of Second Amendment rights within the community and Legislature of New Jersey, to educate the community regarding the enjoyable, safe, and responsible use of firearms, and to engender a sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the members and their families. Visit: www.nj2as.org