Politics Gun laws and news around the world

[HisRoyalHighness]

FBI posts big Black Friday gun check numbers; second-largest single day in program history

WASHINGTON – The FBI fielded more than 200,000 background checks on Black Friday gun purchases, continuing a steady surge this year following a series of mass shootings that have renewed calls for more restrictive gun laws.

In all, the bureau posted 202,465 checks Friday, an 11% increase from last year and falling just short of the single-day record: 203,086 in 2017.

While background checks, required for purchases at federally licensed firearm dealers, are not a measure of actual gun sales, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is a way to gauge market demand. The number of firearms sold Friday is likely higher because multiple firearms can be included in one transaction by a single buyer.

Black Friday traditionally has been one of the busiest for FBI analysts, but this year's one-day number comes amid rising monthly volumes that are approaching the one-year record of 27.5 million in 2016.

FBI posts big Black Friday gun check numbers; second-largest single day in program history

FBI posts big Black Friday gun check numbers; second-largest single day in program history

www.usatoday.com

Also USAToday and with many other news organizations and other anti-gun groups are sounding the alarm because NYC vs. NYSRA arguments are tomorrow.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[primer]

According to Nash his system approved firearm dealers to access data. He needs to go.

 

[primer]

Further Nash and Taxcinder limited the breech to one dealer. Reporter asked the data company how many. 66 had unlimited access during the weekend.

 

[Junglejim]

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/11/19...amendment-sanctuaries-in-place/#ixzz66YcsDiuO
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

19 States Now Have Counties with Second Amendment Sanctuaries in Place



Second Amendment Sanctuary Surge Continues In Virginia

Second Amendment Sanctuary Surge Continues In Virginia

The surge in support for Second Amendment Sanctuaries continues unabated in Virginia, where more th

bearingarms.com

Also, these movements are with hundreds and in some cases thousands of people.

Why? Because Virginia Democrats are trying to pass a bill that de facto bans all semi-auto rifles and turns all those people into felons.

Not only that, but they have prefiled a bill that makes self-defense training illegal AND makes it a felony if two or more people are training with firearms.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is the state that has Sic Semper Tyrannis as it’s state motto, a state that has it’s own 2A Amendment codified in its State Constitution.

Also, here’s an updated map:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ho REE SHEET... so basically any fire arms training can be grounds for you to be taken in for questioning an worse get charged by coppers.

 

[riderboy]

Hypocrisy, it's how the WaPo rolls.

That level of hypocrisy allows for tremendous moral flexibility. You know, a "living, breathing" Judiciary subject to interpretation and context. I'm constantly hearing from the Dems on Trump "No one is above the law". Except, apparently, Congressmen and illegal immigrants. And Jussie Smollett. Trump, of course, did nothing wrong.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

New Zealand Gov't Accidentally Reveals Details Of 70K Gun Owners

bearingarms.com

 

[primer]

FROM COLFO; -

Dear Sporting Shooters Association,
Since my email earlier today, you may have seen media pick up on the issue following us going public and blowing the whistle on what is a major data leak from the Police.
We can now confirm that the firearm database breach has revealed that 37,125 owners have registered 280,000 individual newly prohibited items. Information made available includes full contact details, firearm licence number and bank address details.
Since my last email, the Police originally tried to downplay the significance of the leak telling media that the system had been taken offline immediately because of a “potential privacy breach”. They told media that “Immediately upon being made aware of the issue (the data breach) the platform was closed down…”
But that’s not true. At least one of the people who called to tell us of the open accessibility, had first called Police to report it.
When COLFO tested by logging in to the insecure portal it was still open, even though the issues had been raised. We know it was long enough to make the “immediately” claim incorrect.
In response to the Police’s claims, we released screenshot images of the leak (with private information redacted) and more information as our lawyers worked to verify the reports we were receiving about the extent of the problem. We reported on the supporter who had found records of 280,000 notifications.
We did not deliberately drip-feed information. We were working carefully to verify what we said. We were not prepared to make allegations without checking.
Shortly after noon today the Police announced a stand-up media briefing for 2pm. But just before 2pm it was cancelled. It will now be at 5pm.
We think the reason is simple. We had released more facts to the media in the meantime. We suspect that they made it impossible for the Police to run the earlier line they had planned (that there was “nothing to see here”).
Our legal and political advisors in Wellington say that our update almost certainly sent the the Police back to their media bunkers. They would no longer be able to dismiss our concerns.
This quick response effort would not have been possible without people like you chipping-in to the cause. The events of today make an absolute mockery of earlier claims by the Police to the Select Committee that they could be trusted to keep a firearm registry secure.
We’ll keep you informed.

 

[colin traveller]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[primer]

Dear Sporting Shooters Association,

Yesterday we learned that sensitive information about tens of thousands of law abiding firearms owners was not kept secure by the Police. The stakes of this campaign have now been raised and I am writing to you to ask for your support.

We are concerned that information in a firearms register, such as what firearms you own, where they are, and how they are secured, could fall into the wrong hands. We’ve been in the media for months making exactly this point.

Until yesterday, the Police scoffed at us. The Police Association’s President even said we were “scaremongering” and a firearms register is no different from “registering your car, or your pets”.

But now we’ve been proved right: with the details of tens of thousands of licenced firearm owners being left online for anyone to access.

The Police Minister, Stuart Nash, and the Police spokespeople have said that only a single dealer could access the information. This is totally wrong. We have now verified that many, many more people accessed the data. And contrary to what the Police have said, it wasn't just firearms dealers.

And it wasn’t even a hack. It was incompetence by either the Police or a contractor they say is responsible.

Those affected are the decent people who in good faith handed in their firearms – and the Police didn’t even bother to make sure their personal and financial information was kept safe.

Sporting Shooters Association, the Government must now cancel the firearms register until cast-iron guarantees can be made about security (if that is even possible).

Yesterday’s events are game-changing. We need your support to fight against the bigwigs at the Police Association and within the Government who either don’t understand or don’t care about the risks of a register.

ends.

When a data base is hacked by one hacker that is a disaster. So they portrayed as one got access and not so bad. Reporter finds its 66 and they could have asked for that info. No detective work or simply disingenuous.
Here they were with the open door mat for identity theft. And its not the first time here with fiream information that has leaked out of police.
There are two others I can recall.
We lock up our guns to prevent theft, yet they flippantly think this isn't an issue for them to hand out the shopping list of what particular rifle is at a specific address.

 

[HisRoyalHighness]

Well...the Supreme Court hearing turned out to be a massive waste of time.

Roberts is likely going to join the Liberal wing in dismissing the case based on mootness because NYC panicked and changed the law when it was clear it was heading to the Supreme Court.

Pathetic as always.

That being said:

The justices will meet this week to vote on the case. Even if a majority believes that the case is moot, we may not know for some time, because a ruling on mootness would almost certainly be accompanied by an opinion (and a dissent) explaining the justices’ views. If the justices don’t reach the Second Amendment question this time around, there are several other cases waiting in the wings.

Argument analysis: Justices focus on mootness in challenge to now-repealed New York City gun rule

This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a challenge to the constitutionality of a New York City rule that barred gun owners from taking their licensed guns outside […]

www.scotusblog.com

Final thoughts after reading all of it: the case is bound to succeed on the merits. Whether or not it is moot is the only real dispute here, and Roberts will be the deciding vote on that. If the case is not mooted then it could go one of two different ways. It could be a narrow ruling that might get 6-3 or even 7-2 support. Or it could be written as a wider ruling that provides more guidance for lower courts, which would almost certainly be 5-4. And again that will depend on how wide of a ruling Roberts will sign his name to. But there is zero chance that this is a step backwards for us. Worst case scenario is moot and no progress.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

SAF ‘Cautiously Optimistic’ After New York Gun Rights Case Oral Arguments

SAF Board member and syndicated broadcaster Tom Gresham was in the audience and he noted afterwards, “This may be the case that indicates whether the court considers the Second Amendment to be a legitimate right on the same level as the First Amendment.”

Gresham suggested that if the high court decides to reject the case, it will do so shortly. However, if the Court decides to rule in the case, that decision could be as far away as June, on the final day of the current session. The case is a challenge of a now-changed city regulation that forbade handgunowners from taking their guns outside the city limits.

“It has been ten years since the Supreme Court took a Second Amendment case, and this one could have far reaching ramifications,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The last time the court ruled on the Second Amendment was in 2010 with McDonald v. City of Chicago, our landmark victory that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

SAF 'Cautiously Optimistic' After New York Gun Rights Case Oral Arguments - The Truth About Guns

By the Second Amendment Foundation The Second Amendment Foundation today expressed high hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will “step up to the plate” and expand further on the right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment in the case of the New York State Rifle and Pistol...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[JimHPTN]

Ho REE SHEET... so basically any fire arms training can be grounds for you to be taken in for questioning an worse get charged by coppers.

“A person is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he: 1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder”

“2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

These particular sections could really be abused. For instance, if someone were to train on techniques used to get out of a riot. Also, the bill doesn't say how people reading articles or books would be treated. Additionally, if someone were to go out of state for a tactical rifle class, could he be charged upon entering or re-entering the state. Lastly, what about IPSC, IDPA, or 3 gun matches?

 

[Junglejim]

Indeed, all your preppers and any body simply mentioning things like "the gubmint can get my guns from my cold dead hands" can be seen as "training intended for use in civil disorder"

The intent from what I am saying is to chip away at the second amendment argument that the 2nd amendment was not made for hunting but to ensure freedom against the government. Should this pass and spread, it will wipe out the 2nd amendements foundation and you will just be seen as recreational shooters rights.

 

[NZM305]

Well looks like maybe someone in the Tribunal might be playing games, apparently claim number was issued in october...... still haven't had any official contact from the Tribunal........?

 

[riderboy]

Indeed, all your preppers and any body simply mentioning things like "the gubmint can get my guns from my cold dead hands" can be seen as "training intended for use in civil disorder"

The intent from what I am saying is to chip away at the second amendment argument that the 2nd amendment was not made for hunting but to ensure freedom against the government. Should this pass and spread, it will wipe out the 2nd amendements foundation and you will just be seen as recreational shooters rights.

Since it's so clear that the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the security of a Free State, we will see (and are seeing) widespread Civil disobedience to any such effort to color the 2A as a recreational right. It's a rather new phenomena, this revisionist history. Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders were aided by donations that included automatic weapons and cannon from wealthy private citizens. "Weapons of war", such a useful campaign phrase for liberals, were precisely what the Founders intended for the citizen militia (read: able bodied private citizens) to own. They did not want a standing professional Army at all.

 

[Junglejim]

That is why it is the main focus of the attack is to make people forget the original intent of the 2nd amendment. If my intent was to weaken teh second amendment I would do a deeper ground work. Make the people liberal or conservative see that the government is ll you need and the rest are just lunatics/racists or troglodytes. A lot of the preppers and the militias shown on the telly are already doing this.

As people accept that "yeah most guns are just used for hunting" the second amendment gets a hit. Once the people get used to the idea that gun ownership is for hunting, just cut down the access to hunting grounds all together.

 

[primer]

They have the NRA. Both Aussie and NZ had similar but just wasn't supported. Both countries have significant firearm ownership sitting on their hands and more or less totally ununified.

 

[muck]

Indeed, all your preppers and any body simply mentioning things like "the gubmint can get my guns from my cold dead hands" can be seen as "training intended for use in civil disorder"

The intent from what I am saying is to chip away at the second amendment argument that the 2nd amendment was not made for hunting but to ensure freedom against the government. Should this pass and spread, it will wipe out the 2nd amendements foundation and you will just be seen as recreational shooters rights.

You're making a moot point. Sub-constitutional law cannot declare illegal what is declared legal by the constitution, unless in the manner described by the constitution itself (if applicable); this is an universal principle. Hence, arming and defending one's person against a tyrannical government could not be an act of civil disorder.

Obedience is not owed to a government that violates constitutional rights and allows no appeal against said violation (a principle often ignored by those "sovereign citizen" morons; a simple breach even of the constitution does not undo the constitutional state nor end a citizen's allegiance).

Vice versa this means an act of civil disorder can only be committed against a ("non-tyrannical") government enforcing the true law of the land, which in turn, obviously, means the perpetrator's intention has to be a violation of said law. Otherwise, there is no civil disorder.

In other words, training how to avoid a rioting mob or defend against the zombie apocalypse wouldn't be unlawful – as the motive itself is very much in accordance with the law.

 

[Junglejim]

You're making a moot point. Sub-constitutional law cannot declare illegal what is declared legal by the constitution, unless in the manner described by the constitution itself (if applicable); this is an universal principle. Hence, arming and defending one's person against a tyrannical government could not be an act of civil disorder.

Obedience is not owed to a government that violates constitutional rights and allows no appeal against said violation (a principle often ignored by those "sovereign citizen" morons; a simple breach even of the constitution does not undo the constitutional state nor end a citizen's allegiance).

Vice versa this means an act of civil disorder can only be committed against a ("non-tyrannical") government enforcing the true law of the land, which in turn, obviously, means the perpetrator's intention has to be a violation of said law. Otherwise, there is no civil disorder.

In other words, training how to avoid a rioting mob or defend against the zombie apocalypse wouldn't be unlawful – as the motive itself is very much in accordance with the law.

You speak in a utopia wherein the constitution will never be infringed when it is done so everytime. The constitution is only as strong as the belief in the interpretation of it by the people. If the governments intention were always what is best for the people based on the constitution then you will have no need for the NRA. The interpretation of the constitution and attempts to redefine it is always under attack or test in the US.

I dont know how many "carbine" courses you have attended, I've attended two... none were training against the zombie apocalypse or avoiding a rioting mob. Hell just look at the youtube videos of these trainings an no mention of zombies or rioting mob avoidance... in fact this is the case I am talking about, wherein due to some shows and loud idiots, the image of most defensive shooters are seen as planning for "jokes"

 

[muck]

Mate, I was talking about the argument every sort of weapons proficiency training could be regarded as a preparation on your part to engage in civil disorder. It can't. It's not the act itself that would be unlawful under the provisions previously mentioned, only the act if committed to achieve a certain end – which is a motive that would require proof if alleged.

 

[Junglejim]

I agree with that, but it will still be a loophole that can be used. which shouldnt be there at all.