TX Atty Gen bans state travel to CA for denying LGBT gun rights

TX Atty Gen bans state travel to CA for denying LGBT gun rights

Write Winger, Firearms Unknown

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Friday that state employees will be prohibited from official travel to California based on his determination that California has enacted laws that deny the LGBT community and other minority groups their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

“California has enacted legislation that deprives individuals of their state and individuals who visit their state of their constitutionally protected rights,” Paxton said during a news conference in Dallas.

Last year, the California legislature passed and their senile communist governor Jerry Brown signed into law some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the nation, laws that disproportionately affect the LGBT community and other minority groups due to the diverse demographic makeup of California.

“There are consequences to denying the LGBT community and other minority groups their Constitutionally protected rights,” Paxton said. “Restricting state-sponsored travel is a consequence.”

H/T LA Slimes

 

 

 

And yes, this is satire… but the part about CA denying Constitutionally protected rights isn’t.

Advertisements

FOIA lawsuit reveals failure of ATF to maintain NFA records

FOIA lawsuit reveals failure of ATF to maintain NFA records

Since the passing of the National Firearms Act in 1934, the federal government has been tasked with maintaining a database of records for NFA weapons, and additionally, while performing inspections of FFLs, they must also ensure NFA compliance, a job currently overseen by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Office of the Inspector General. This database, the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records (NFRTR), contains roughly two million possession records of machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, AOWs, and explosive devices not under the control of the U.S. government.

The accuracy of the NFRTR is paramount to not just the Bureau’s ability to ensure FFL compliance with the NFA, but more importantly to the two million possessors of registered NFA weapons who rely on the accuracy of the NFRTR to keep them out of prison. Violations of the NFA (being in possession of an NFA weapon without proper paperwork) carry fines of up to $250,000 and/or a 10 year prison sentence; people can get sent to prison based on their records or lack thereof.

The Bureau has long maintained that the accuracy of the NFRTR was above reproach and unquestionable, that is until ATF agents themselves were actually questioned about them.

An internal online survey of ATF Industry Operations Investigators was performed years ago consisting of closed and open ended questions regarding the NFRTR and its impact on their duties, but the Bureau never publicly released the analysis and summary of the survey, as it was rumored that the results were damning… until now.

Newly released documents obtained by Mr. David Hardy through his attorneys Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demonstrate the total lack of confidence the ATF’s own agents have in the NFRTR as it pertains to their ability to perform compliance inspections of FFLs and NFA weapons.

Questions such as Question 7, “How often is the discrepancy due to an error in the NFRTR?” Out of 299 responses:

Always – 30
Most – 103
Sometimes – 99
232 out of 299 state NFRTR error

Or Question 12, “How do errors and discrepancies in NFRTR inventory reports affect your ability to carry out compliance inspections?”

One IOI answered, “Errors and discrepancies make ATF, as a whole, look inept. These are extremely important records and our own NFA Branch can’t even get it right. It takes extra hour(s) to rectify these problems, and sometimes we find out 1-2 years down the road on the next inspection that the corrections we forwarded to the NFA Branch aren’t even taken care of by the next inspection.”

Another answered, “Since there is no requirement for the Transferor of an NFA firearm to keep a copy of an approved transfer form once the firearm is transferred, it is very difficult to determine if the transfer took place correctly without contacting each licensee or person to whom the firearms were sold.”

And worse yet, “As ATF Investigators, we cannot determine if a FFL is missing NFA weapons or if a FFL is in possession of an unregistered NFA weapon, or if a FFL is in possession of NFA weapons registered to another FFL/individual without accurate records from the NFA Branch.”

Question 13, “How do errors and discrepancies in the NFRTR inventory reports affect the FFLs you inspect?”

Answer: “While the burden of proof is generally placed upon the FFL to demonstrate that the firearms were properly transferred, incorrect information from the NFRTR can cause an undue burden for those FFL’s who have properly transferred the firearms yet must spend days or weeks searching for documentation to prove these transfers.”

Answer: “FFL’s are upset, become very concerned, and fear any possible liability or action that might be erroneously taken against them as a result.”

Question 14: “Do you have any suggestions for improving the NFRTR inventory reports or the work of the NFA Branch?”

The best answer given: “I have none that anyone would find palatable!”

What does this all mean? It calls into question and casts reasonable doubt on every conviction of NFA violations based on the supposed unquestionable accuracy of the NFRTR. Every time they claimed there was no or incorrect records on file for an NFA weapon, and thus sent someone away to prison, there is now evidence in the ATF’s own analysis and summary that they very well were wrong.

It should also cause concern for all current possessors of registered NFA weapons that they need to be sure they can 100% prove that they are in compliance with the NFA, because the ATF cannot say that they can. If there is a discrepancy, as one IOI put it in regards to inspecting FFLs, “They feel that if their inventory was ever challenged that they would lose the fight because, in their opinion, the Branch says it is always right.”

A copy of the documents can be found at Stamboulieh Law.

Alan Beck can be reached at:
alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com

Media shoots down firearm advertisement

Media shoots down firearm advertisement

The firearm industry, including companies that provide components, accessories, and parts, has enough to worry about trying to comply with government laws and regulations. Then there’s advertising and marketing in order to do business, to reach the customer base necessary to stay in business, which also comes with its own laws, regulations, and subsequent legal challenges, like a law passed in 1923 that forbids advertising handguns outside a gun store. On top of that, businesses then need to bend to the whims of the media outlets which they depend on to advertise as to not offend any precious snowflake who may be listening and disagree.

Recently, two media companies, Entercom and iHeart Media, approved and allowed Firearms Unknown, a San Diego area company that sells parts kits and tools for customers to lawfully build personal firearms at home, to run ads on their stations ending with the slogan “Unregistered. Unserialized. Unknown.” The radio spots ran for months until the media companies received calls from a “few listeners” complaining of the ads’ content. The stations dropped FU’s ads for refusing to change their honest, lawful, and catchy slogan.

“The primary reason I am sticking to my guns on this is that the slogan seems to be the only thing customers remember about the ads,” said Dustin Bortin, owner of Firearms Unknown.

Whether a few listeners truly objected to the content of the ads or if it’s another part of an organized effort to suppress a firearms related business from advertising is debatable. Groups who are opposed to the right to keep and bear arms are known to send out alerts to their members to make “flash mob” calls pretending to be outraged customers to pressure organizations, such as media companies, to change policies regarding firearms out of fear of offending their customers. It doesn’t matter what the ads said; there likely would have been calls anyway.

And while finding liberty in the laws and conducting business in accordance with those laws (albeit not the way the government intended for their laws to be complied with) may seem atypical in a state like California or to media outlets, businesses like Firearms Unknown are supporting the few rights and liberties left to people who have been affected by these laws. It is still perfectly lawful for someone not prohibited from possessing firearms by due process to build a personal firearm that is unregistered, unserialized, and unknown to the government, and ought not be treated like the 7 words you can’t say on the radio for advertising as such. It’s truthful, honest advertising.

Why some people believe personal liberty is more dangerous than an empowered and all-knowing government remains a mystery. But you too can let these media outlets know that you support the ability of businesses like Firearms Unknown to truthfully advertise on their stations their products and services that cater to your remaining rights and liberties. If they receive more calls than “Everytown” members, maybe it’ll make a difference.

Entercom contact us
Choose “San Diego” market

iHeart Media contact us

Write Winger

How CA radicalized average gun owners

How CA radicalized average gun owners

A young man never forgets the day his father tells him to check out the new gun he keeps under his pillow at night, walking in his room, picking up the pillow, and it’s an AR15.

Growing up, guns weren’t a big part of our lives. My father bought me a BB gun when I was 8 years old, and we set up balloons, paper plates, or coke cans in the backyard to destroy. But that was pretty much it. He never owned guns, at least not to my knowledge, but he was a staunch Conservative so I knew what his views were on the subject.

Though it did come as a surprise to see what I was seeing, when I was expecting maybe a titanium hammerless revolver or something that he’d mentioned in passing. I had never known anyone with what he was already referring to as an “evil black rifle”, nor seen one in person up until this point…

Continue reading my article at Firearms Unknown.

CA Democrats deny equal rights by defeating shall issue bill

CA Democrats deny equal rights by defeating shall issue bill

On Tuesday, a bill put forward by California Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, AB 757, which sought to make California a “shall issue” state, was defeated by the Democrat majority.

“Today, the Democrat majority spat in the face of the Constitution by killing this measure,” said Melendez. “The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, yet the current system we have for issuing CCWs in California is anything but equal. Rest assured, this fight for equality isn’t over.”

This doesn’t come as much of a surprise to literally everyone. Ask even the most politically disengaged Californian if the legislature would pass “shall issue” and they’d laugh in your face.

And while it may have seemed that putting this bill forward was only for show… well yeah, it was, but it does a few things…

Continue reading my article at Firearms Unknown

There’s complying, and then there’s complying

There’s complying, and then there’s complying

California gun owners are continuously placed in the precarious position to comply with the law or be sent to jail or prison if caught exercising their rights. Some will shout “MOLON LABE” or “I WILL NOT COMPLY” to these unconstitutional infringements of their rights, which is an understandable position to take, however make no mistake – the state has the power to imprison you, and you will stand alone when they take you away. Think Eric Parker, the man on the bridge.

Nobody will ride to your rescue or stand side by side with you in armed resistance if or when you’re arrested for your crimes against state dictates. Chances are it’ll be during a traffic stop or a domestic dispute, or a nosy neighbor or somebody ratting you out, or a house fire in which your contraband is discovered by authorities. It won’t be house by house doorkicking; it’ll be non-compliers getting picked off one at a time, and that fear will keep people in compliance.

There are those who admonish others for complying with the law, and again it’s understandable.

But there’s two kinds of compliance: complying with the government’s intent of the law, and complying by finding liberty in the law. Choosing the “finding liberty” option shouldn’t invite admonishment.

Take for example the latest California “assault weapons” ban that redefined what a “fixed magazine” meant in order to ban the sale, manufacture, importation, and transfer of fixed magazine rifles equipped with a “bullet button” that required a tool in order to release the 10 round magazine, and required firearms equipped with bullet buttons currently owned to be registered as “assault weapons”.

Complying with the government’s intent of the law would be to register your firearm as an assault weapon and comply with all the restrictions and regulations that go along with that including never being able to transfer it to anyone in the state, including your own children upon your death, meaning it would force your next of kin to relinquish it to the state or a licensed gun dealer with a Dangerous Weapons Permit, or sell it out of state. To this, the sentiment “DO NOT COMPLY” is 100% applicable.

And, as a general rule, do not tell the state you own something they’ve already banned but promised you could keep, because like +10 round magazines, they already made it their intent that they want to break that promise.

But then there’s complying by finding liberty in the law, or as statists call it a “loophole”. Read the literal words of the law and find out what it DOESN’T say you can’t or must do.

2017 is seeing the rise of the “featureless” revolution. Granted, this option has been around for awhile, but more people are opting for a fixed stock, no pistol grip, no forward pistol grip, no flash hider, and… no freaking grenade launcher…, and a standard magazine release rather than the other option in which your magazine is considered legally fixed if it requires you to disassemble the action to remove the magazine.

Both of these options are complying by finding liberty in the law and will keep you out of jail without giving up your rights or your property. Don’t admonish those who comply by finding liberty in the law; they should be celebrated. Reward those people and businesses who risk capital to help California gun owners keep their firearms unregistered. Shot Show was full of new and innovative ways for Californians to give the state government a collective finger.

It’s much easier to support the cause from outside a cell than inside with charges against you. If there’s a simple way to still get or keep what you want, do it and stay out of jail. Yes, it’s stupid, everyone agrees it’s stupid, but do it anyway.

And yes, there may not be ways to find liberty in all the new laws. If you choose to not comply at all, the sentiment is understandable.

Just remember, if you’re finally fed up and you run outside screaming “LIBERTY OR DEATH”, dual wielding, wearing a chest rig, and nobody else is… it’s not time yet, and you’re on your own.

I give you The Sacramento Bee

I give you The Sacramento Bee

It’s the little things in life that can give you the most pleasure. One of those things is watching your critics twist themselves into pretzels, stating things like, “words such as ‘tyrant’ are flung all-too casually around the internet” while their headline is literally “a gun-rights blogger’s tyranny“. Another is enjoying the irony of it all, especially coming from The Sacramento Bee.

While I’m ecstatic the decision went in my favor getting a preliminary injunction against the state for violating my First Amendment rights, there was a particular line in the decision that tickled me to no end.

The state argued that the Tyrant Registry would have been taken down by WordPress because it violated the Terms of Service, but provided no evidence that’s what happened. However, my team DID provide evidence that it was the state that initiated the take down.

The line, “Publius, somehow cognizant of the Office’s demand…” is what I’m referring to.

I would have never known the state threatened WordPress with legal action if they didn’t remove the Tyrant Registry, but a writer for The Sacramento Bee inadvertently tipped me off.

State lawyer wants legislators’ addresses removed from pro-gun blog

I asked WordPress for a copy of the take down letter, and so began the lawsuit against the state for violating my First Amendment rights.

In my best Hans Gruber imitation, “You ask for a miracle, I give you The Sacramento Bee.”

Thank you, Sacramento Bee. If it weren’t for you, none of this would have happened.