Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 734, August 18, 2013

Not a single American alive today was ever a slave—
except, of course, of the military and the RS. Not a
single American alive today has ever kept slaves—
except, of course, for the politicians and bureaucrats.


Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 21
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Well, he never had a chance for a vote from ME anyway! Link. I mean, let's face it -- Chris Christie handed Obama a second term. He sucked Obama off on national TV after Sandy, and it FINALLY managed to make Obama look presidential. Had he just followed the example of Bloomberg and Cuomo (bet you never expected to hear ME say that!) and told him "Thanks for the financial help and anything else you can save, but we don't have the manpower to spare to protect you right now. So please stay in DC for a few weeks, and we'll bring you by in a few weeks." we'd probably have president Romney right now.... never mind. I guess it didn't matter much anyway.

Starbucks in the sights of the anti-gunners again, due to their refusal to ban a legal activity (open carry of firearms where legal permitted in their stores). Link. Of course MSN manages to make it seem that the pro gun people are doing something wrong by exercising their Constitutional rights at Starbucks. They do, I must confess, give a small poke to the Victim Disarmament crew as well.

Gun-control activists take the bait. In their eagerness to condemn gun ownership broadly -- as opposed to the social ills that flow from misuse of firearms -- gun-control activists reveal their condescension toward a part of American culture that is here to stay.
In a press release condemning the coffee chain, the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence wrote: "It is not up to public officials to provide for the safety of Starbucks' customers and employees. That is [the company's] responsibility as a private business and theirs alone."
Huh? It is not up to the local police to protect people as they come and go from Starbucks? That makes no sense whatsoever. Starbucks, the coalition adds, is "tainting their brand and exposing their customers and employees to unnecessary risks." If Starbucks' policy bothers you, fine -- go to Peet's or another coffee shop that does ban openly carried firearms. But there's absolutely no evidence that law-abiding citizens bearing arms at Starbucks has led to crime or injury.

Who'da thunk MSN could actually acknowledge that open carry does NOT lead to violence at Starbucks (or by extension, anywhere else)? I've been thinking about taking up coffee drinking, and this clinches it! (Apologies to Ma Kelly, from Johnny Dangerously.)

This is from The Libertarian Enterprise ( www.1776.org) Leave it to one of the most viciously aggressive violators of gun rights, the LAPD, to "interpret" gun laws as strictly as possible for everyone else, but do everything in their power to avoid being strict on their brother officers. Link. It seems that LAPD SWAT team officers are buying up several collectible Kimber 1911A1 handguns made especially for the SWAT team, and re-selling them to non-SWAT cops. Now, let me be clear on this. Constitutionally speaking, the SWAT cops did nothing wrong. Since the entire FFL system, regulations on what constitutes a "Licensed Firearms Dealer", and ALL regulations on the owning and carrying of weapons are not Constitutional, the cops acted within their rights. HOWEVER, being that the LAPD, and it's SWAT teams, are notorious for confiscating legally owned firearms via legally questionable interpretations of state, local, and federal laws, and imprisoning people for being "unlicensed firearms dealers" it is truly funny to see their superiors begging the BATFE to "interpret" the laws to make these cops innocent of the charges against them.

...article in the Los Angeles Times that the LAPD now says it needs help from the federal government's lawyers to determine whether LAPD SWAT officers violated federal firearm laws by purchasing and reselling special edition Kimber brand pistols. These special edition Kimber handguns were made specifically for LAPD SWAT officers. But those officers apparently then resold the firearms for profit to other LAPD officers and to civilians. The problem? If the officers who originally ordered the guns intended to resell them from the start, they likely violated federal law by lying on the federal 4473 firearm purchase form. And if they did it more than once for profit, they likely violated the law by failing to have the required federal firearm dealers license needed to resell firearms.

Does the term "Hoist by their own petards" mean anything to the LAPD??

It is becoming a trend. Firearms related industries leaving the gun-unfriendly states of the liberal northeast (including the western bastion of the liberal northeast, Colorado) for business friendly climes. Link. As I have noted before, these gun-unfriendly anti-Constitution states are losing gun related businesses left and right. And not just big manufacturing businesses. Gander Mountain dropped plans to replace their Binghamton store destroyed in a flood a couple years ago after passage of the NY SAFE Act. And small gun shops all over are moving across the border to PA to avoid NY's asinine and unConstitutional gun laws took that final step. Two of my favorite places have announced a closing date because "This fucking state hates us, and to be blunt, I'm starting to hate it back!" as my friend said at one departing local gun shop. One has gone so far as to stop buying used guns or accepting consignments to minimize paperwork (and moving truck space) associated with the move. All John is waiting for is the final transfer of the business address on his FFL before he moves. As Josh Fiorini, PTR's chief executive, said:

"Were we all sort of pissed off about the legislation? Yes," he said. "Were we pissed off enough to spend millions of dollars to move? No."
Mr. Fiorini said his chief worry was that the new state law would ultimately make it impossible to legally make assault rifles in Connecticut, even if the legislation specifically restricted the sale, not the manufacture, of the guns.
For example, he said, the law permits assault rifles to be transported in Connecticut for the purposes of sale elsewhere. But what if they are being transported as part of the manufacturing process itself, like for painting or testing at the rifle range?
"It's a conservative reading of the law," Mr. Fiorini conceded. "State officials will tell you that my fears are overblown. But why do I need to do business in a place where I have fears, overblown or otherwise? We'd rather be in a place with no gray areas."

Damn straight. Why subsidize anyone, business or government, who is actively trying to destroy YOUR business (or your Constitutional rights)? Link provided by NV member Reality Check.

Ahhhhh, Kaleeforneeya! If you can't violate the Constitution one way, violate it another! Link. Since the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit infringing on our right to keep and bear ammunition, the cocksuckers are trying this new backdoor method of Victim Disarmament. Tell me again why I won't ever even visit that useless state.

Well, it's Friday at midnight. If I wish this to get to my favorite site (NO, NewsVine, that ain't you) on time, I need to say "Goodnight Gracie!" Goodnight Gracie!!!!


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


TLE AFFILIATE

Big Head Press