Category Archives: gun control

David Hogg extortion: Demands Publix donate $1M and disassociate from NRA

The dictionary defines “extort” as “to get something, especially money, from someone by using force or threats”.

And that’s exactly what David Hogg, self-appointed spokesman for gun-control for not just the students of Parkland, Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, but also students across the United States.

Two days, ago, on May 23, 2018, Hogg joined the call for a National Die-in Day on June 12 in Washington, DC, to advocate gun control in honor of “the 49 victims of Pulse as well as hundreds of countless lives lost to gun violence in this country each year.”

For the 2016 Pulse “gay” night club shooting in Orlando, Florida, see:

But Hogg means to do better than the National Die-in. On the same day, he tweeted a call for disruptive “die-in” “lie down” demonstrations inside Parkland’s two Publix grocery stores:

Publix, which is based in Lakeland, Florida, is the state’s largest private employer and one of the biggest grocery chains in the Southeast, with 1,172 stores in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Roughly 800 of those locations are in Florida.

After calling for a “die-in” at Publix stores, on May 24, 2018, Hogg then tweeted this extortion at Publix, demanding $1 million in donation and a pledge of ideological fealty to the gun-control movement:

“I call on @Publix to donate double the money they gave to Putman to the Stoneman Douglas Victims fund, $1,000,000. And never support an A rated NRA politician again.”

Calling Hogg the “public face of the gun control movement,” Victor Morton of the Washington Times explains that Publix is being targeted by Hogg for its support of Adam Putnam, Florida’s agricultural commissioner and a Republican gubernatorial candidate. According to the Tampa Bay Times, Publix had given a total of $670,000 to Putnam’s campaigns in the last three years — thus, the sum of $1 million of Hogg’s extortion.

Publix spokesman Brian West explained that the grocery chain’s support of Putnam is because he’s pro-business: “As the hometown candidate, Publix has had a long-standing relationship with Commissioner Putnam. We support pro-business candidates, and believe Commissioner Putnam will make a great governor.”

Hogg’s extortion is effective.

CBS News reports that amid Friday’s “die-in” at its stores, apologizing for putting “our associates and the customers they serve in the middle of a political debate,” Publix announced it has suspended all political contributions “as we reevaluate our giving processes”.

What you can do:

  1. If you live in the southeast, go shop at a Publix grocery store!
  2. Support Adam Putnam for governor by volunteering (go here) and donating. He stands for gun rights, i.e., the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s Stovepipe

~Eowyn

Seattle mayor proposes new gun legislation that includes safe lock storage

stoopid

How will the chief of police know WHO to survey to determine if compliance is being achieved?

From MyNorthwest.com: Mayor Jenny Durkan is proposing new Seattle gun control legislation to tighten regulations around safe storage of firearms. It will also penalize gun owners who fail to report lost or stolen guns, or if their firearms are misused by an “unauthorized user.”

“The level of gun violence in our communities is not normal, and we can never think it is inevitable,” Mayor Durkan said. “We – and especially our children – should not have to live like this. With Congress in the grip of the D.C. gun lobby and too many state legislatures failing to act, our cities must lead the way – and we must all continue to demand action that saves lives.”

The proposal is being sent to the city council for consideration. It requires that guns are safely stored while not under the control of the owner or lawfully authorized user. It will also increase civil penalties for failure to report a firearm that is lost or stolen, or is improperly used. Violation of the regulations will result in a civil infraction. The proposal states:

  • Safe storage: Guns should be stored in a locked container, and rendered as unusable to any person other than the owner or authorized user.
  • Unauthorized access prevention: It will be a civil infraction if a minor, at-risk, or prohibited person obtains a firearm when the owner should have reasonably known they would have access to it.
  • Violation of the safe-storage law, or the unauthorized access regulation could result in a fine between $500 and $1,000.
  • If a prohibited or at-risk person, or a minor obtains a firearm and uses it to commit a crime, injure or kill someone (including themselves), the gun owner could be fined up to $10,000.
  • If a civil case results from a minor, at-risk, or prohibited person accessing a gun, it will be “prima facie evidence” — meaning fact unless proven otherwise — that the owner is negligent.

The new gun law will go into effect 180 days after it passes and Mayor Durkan signs it.

The chief of police will have one year to conduct a survey to determine levels of compliance. The city auditor will monitor the law’s influence on gun injuries and deaths in Seattle.

The legislation was drafted in partnership with Councilmember Lorena González.

“Simply put: If more gun owners lock up their firearms, it will reduce accidental firearm injuries and deaths, help prevent youth suicide, and reduce access to guns among youth who have no legal right to purchase firearms,” González said. “I look forward to championing this common-sense, public health approach through my public safety committee in the coming weeks.”

The mayor’s office says that it was developed after speaking with gun owners, safety advocates, and community members.

“The roots of gun violence are complex, but we know that unsecured, unsafely stored guns help fuel this crisis of violence because they are more likely to cause tragic accidents, fall into the wrong hands, or be used in suicides,” Durkan said. “Requiring that gun owners safely store their guns can help make our communities safer places to live.”

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

California moves to let schools, co-workers “red flag” dangerous gun owners

phil ting

Bill sponsor Phil Ting wearing his Planned Parenthood fighting gloves.

What could possibly go wrong?

From Yahoo: Lawmakers in the California Assembly voted Monday to advance a bill that would authorize employers, co-workers and school personnel to request the temporary confiscation of guns from individuals determined to pose a danger to themselves or others.

The legislation, AB 2888, would build on California’s existing “red flag” law, passed in 2014 following a deadly shooting spree in Isla Vista. The 22-year-old gunman in that case had reportedly exhibited a number of warning signs before killing six people, and then himself, in the rampage.

The current red flag law gives family members, roommates and law enforcement officers the power to petition the court to remove firearms from individuals who have displayed dangerous behavior. Judges then hold a hearing to determine whether to order the gun owner to surrender their firearms and stay away from all guns, typically for a year, although the restraining orders can be extended beyond that based on additional evidence.

The new bill would expand the list of people who can file for such restraining orders to include a subject’s employer and co-workers and the staff of a high school or college that the person has attended in the last six months.

“We’re grappling with this issue of gun violence as a nation,” bill sponsor Assemblyman Phil Ting (D) told HuffPost. “I’ve never said this is a panacea, but it’s just one of many solutions we have to offer.”

The state’s courts have issued around 200 restraining orders to prevent gun violence since the original law went into effect in 2016, according to Ting. He said his bill would provide additional opportunities to catch troubling behavior.

“Once you move away from home and you’re an adult, you may not spend time with your family,” said Ting. “You may not have much interaction with law enforcement, but chances are if you’re working, you see your co-workers every day for eight-plus hours a day, and you’re with them not just in the work environment but socially.”

Ting pointed to the February massacre in Parkland, Florida, as a case in which a red flag law ― and specifically this sort of broader statute ― might have been able to save lives. Although the suspect in that shooting, a 19-year-old former student at the high school, had attracted the attention of local authorities on numerous occasions before his attack, school staff had also reported concerning behavior as far back as 2016. Florida is among the nine states with a red flag law and one of the four to have ushered through legislation since the Parkland shooting.

In 2016, Ting filed a similar bill to broaden California’s red flag law, following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, which began at an office holiday party. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) ultimately vetoed the legislation, calling it “premature to enact a further expansion” even as the initial law was just going into effect.

A year later, Ting’s San Francisco area district faced its own mass shooting when a disgruntled UPS employee walked into his workplace and fatally shot three colleagues, before killing himself.

When it comes to school safety specifically, restraining orders aimed at stopping gun violence are only part of the equation, said Amanda Wilcox, legislative chair of the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. She noted a California law that holds parents criminally liable if they leave their gun where a child can access it and mentioned other resources, like the Brady campaign’s Speak Up hotline, that allow students to anonymously report violent threats made by their peers.

“Practices and law and policies that make homes safer would also keep schools safer,” she told HuffPost.

Wilcox said she supports Ting’s bill and suggested that the relatively few restraining orders issued in the past two years under the original law show that it isn’t being overused, as opponents argued it would be.

“The standards of proof are high in the law,” she said. “It probably needs to be used more, but also under the law it’s supposed to be a last resort if there’s not another way to remove the guns.”

With more time to educate Californians on how the red-flag process works, Wilcox said she’s hopeful these restraining orders will be able to keep more guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. “What I don’t want is a case where it could have been used and should have been used and wasn’t, and someone is dead because of that,” she said.

AB 2888 passed in a 48-25 vote largely along party lines. The state Senate is expected to consider the bill in the coming weeks.

DCG

Michael Bloomberg says taxing poor people is one of the ways you “influence them to do what’s in their own interest”

Bloomberg founded Everytown for Gun Safety.

It’s ALWAYS ABOUT CONTROL with demorats.

From Daily Mail: Former mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg said he supports regressive taxes, meaning taxes that end up costing poor people proportionately more money than their more well off counterparts, as a means of control.

‘Taxes are one of the ways you influence people to do what’s in their own interest, where they might not expect that,’ he said. ‘So if you want to get kids to stop smoking, raise cigarette taxes, and the more you raise them, the less they smoke.’

Bloomberg made the comments during an interview with Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that was streamed live on April 19 from the IMF’s Spring meeting in Washington, DC.

The billionaire and philanthropist admitted that sometimes taxes take a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes, especially in the case of taxes that are imposed as a means of control. 

‘Some people say, ‘”Well, taxes are regressive,”‘ he said, referring to taxes that effectively take a larger percentage out of the wallets of those who make less money. ‘In this case, yes they are. That’s the good thing about them because the problem is in people that don’t have a lot of money.’

Presumably here, he was referring to smokers, and those who drink sugary beverages, as he famously instituted a high tax in the city on the purchase of ‘Big Gulp’ size sodas during his term as mayor.

He went on: ‘And so, higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves. So, I listen to people saying, “Oh we don’t want to tax the poor.” Well, we want the poor to live longer so that they can get an education and enjoy life. And that’s why you do want to do exactly what a lot of people say you don’t want to do.

Bloomberg brought the issue up in response to a question about his ideas on global policy as a philanthropist. He started the conversation talking about how one goal of Bloomberg Philanthropy is to raise money to fight non-communicable diseases.

‘The question is do you want to pander to those people?,’ he asked, referring to individuals who say taxation of the poor is never a good thing, while also assuming it’s the poor who are making that argument.

‘Or do you want to get them to live longer? There’s just no question. If you raise taxes on full sugary drinks, for example, they will drink less and there’s just no question that full sugar drinks are one of the major contributors to obesity and obesity is one of the major contributors to heart disease and cancer and a variety of other things.’

Bloomberg then went on to make the analogy that arguing against high taxes on things he thinks are bad, like sugary beverages, is the same thing as saying we should prop up outmoded jobs in disappearing industries, just to ensure those workers don’t have to find new employment.

‘It’s like saying, “I don’t want to stop using coal because coal miners will go out of work, will lose their jobs,”‘ he said.

‘We have a lot of soldiers in the United States in the US Army, but we don’t want to go start a war just to give them something to do and that’s exactly what you’re saying when you say “Well, let’s keep coal killing people because we don’t want coal miners to lose their jobs.” The truth of the matter is that there aren’t very many coal miners left anyways and we can find other things for them to do. But the comparison is: a life or a job. Or, taxes or life? Which do you want to do? Take your poison.’

At this point, Lagarde interjected, repeating Bloomberg’s analysis of regressive taxes. ‘So it’s regressive, it is good,’ she said. ‘There are lots of tax experts in the room. And fiscal experts, and I’m very pleased that they hear you say that.’

Lagarde then quoted a well-known phrase, attributing it to the financial experts in the room.  ‘They all say that two things in life which are absolutely certain. One is death, the other one is tax,’ she said. ‘So you use one to defer the other one,’ she added, summarizing Bloomberg’s point.

‘That’s correct,’ he said. ‘That is exactly right. Well said.’

At this, those in attendance started applauding.

Bloomberg served three consecutive terms as mayor of New York City, from 2002 to 2013.

DCG

Thursday funnies!

funny1

funny2

funny3

funny4

funny5

h/t @CloydRivers

DCG

Paul Allen backing initiative to raise minimum age for firearm purchase in Washington state

paul allen

Wonder if Paul Allen read all 30 pages of the initiative he’s throwing his money at…

I’m not surprised this is happening in Washington State. If this initiative passes, it will no doubt be challenged in court.

From Seattle Times: With an assist from two deep-pocketed allies, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility on Monday announced it had raised nearly $3 million for its latest Washington state ballot measure to further regulate firearms.

Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Paul Allen and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer said they are giving $1 million each to the Alliance’s campaign to get Initiative 1639 onto the November election ballot.

The campaign hasn’t yet started gathering the signatures it needs by July because of three legal challenges against it, including one by the National Rifle Association, Alliance spokeswoman Katy Klein said.

The initiative comes after the latest string of mass killings, including the February shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school, that killed 17 people and re-energized advocates for stricter regulations of so-called assault weapons. A shooting last Friday left 10 people dead at a Texas high school.

While gun-regulation advocates this year pushed a few new laws through the state Legislature — including a ban on bump stocks, which can make  a semi-automatic rifle fire much like an automatic weapon — they could not find the votes for more sweeping regulations.

Enter I-1639, which among other things would raise the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to 21 and require enhanced background checks, training and waiting periods to obtain those firearms.

The proposal would also require gun owners to keep firearms secured at home. Gun owners could face misdemeanor or felony charges in certain circumstances if they allow someone prohibited from obtaining a weapon access to a firearm.

In a tweet Monday, Allen announced his $1 million donation to the initiative campaign, which he called “a reasonable and necessary measure that will improve the safety of our schools and our communities …”

“I hope people throughout the state will support the campaign, so that we can qualify and pass this important initiative into law,” Allen said.

Hanauer and his wife gave another $1 million, according to a tweet by Hanauer and a spokeswoman for the Alliance.

Read the rest of the story here.

The “among other things” are described in the 30-page initiative. I’ve read through the initiative and it’s a doozy. The devil is in the details:

Sec. 3 Enhanced Background Checks (starting on page 3):

(2) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchasers until:

(a) The purchaser provide proof that he or she has completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on: (continues and lists, among other things, suicide prevention, secure gun storage, safe handling, etc.)

(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.010, as provided in subsection (3) (b) of this section; or

(c) The requirements or time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been satisfied.

Sec. 4 Waiting Period (starting on page 9):

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and except for semiautomatic assault rifles under subsection (2) of this section, a licensed dealer may not deliver any firearms to a purchaser or transferee until the earlier of:

(b) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check. However, for sales and transfers of pistols if the purchaser or transferee does not have a valid permanent Washington driver’s license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days.

(2) Except as otherwise  provided in this chapter, a licensed dealer may not deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to a purchaser or transferee until ten business days have elapsed from the date of the purchase application or, in the case of a transfer, ten business days have elapsed from the date of background check is initiatied.

Sec. 5. Secure Gun Storage (starting on page 10):

(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearms:

(Goes on to list those who are prohibited possessors.)

(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored.

Sec. 6. Availability of Secure Gun Storage (starting on page 11):

(1) When selling or transferring any firearms, every dealer shall offer to sell or give the purchaser or transferee a secure gun storage device, or a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm.

(2) Every store, shop, or sales outlet where firearms are sold, that is registered as a dealer in firearms with the department of licensing, shall conspicuously post, in a prominent location so that all patrons may take notice, the following warning sign, to be provided by the department of licensing, in block letters at least one inch in height:

WARNING: YOU MAY FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IF YOU STORE OR LEAVE AN UNSECURED FIREARM WHERE A PERSON WHO IS PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS CAN AND DOES OBTAIN POSSESSION(noted twice in all caps)

Sec. 7 RCW 9.41.094(Waiver of Confidentiality) and 2018 c 201 s 6004 are each amended to read as follows (starting on page 12)

A signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant’s eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.

Sec. 8 RCW 9.41.097(Supplying information on persons purchasing pistols or applying for concealed pistol licenses)and 2018 c 201 s 6005 are each amended to read as follows (starting on page 13)

(1) The health care authority, mental health institution, and other health care facilities shall, upon request of a court, law enforcement agency, or the state, supply such relevant information as is necessary to determine the eligibility of a person to possess a firearm or to be issues a concealed pistol license under RCW 9.41.070 or to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle under RCW 9.41.090.

Definitions (starting on page 24)

(24) Secure Gun Storage means:

(a) A locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm; and (b) the act of keeping an unloaded firearm stored by such means.

(25) “Semiautomatic Assault Rifle”means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

What do you know… their definition of “semiautomatic assault rifle” seems to describe all semiauto rifles as “assault” rifles.

I told you the devil was in the details…

Read the whole initiative here.

DCG

Masked men fire AK-47s in strict gun-control France

France is a strict gun-control country with intricate laws, in accordance with the European Firearms Directive:

  1. A hunting or shooting sport license is required to purchase a weapon.
  2. Civilians are prohibited from carrying fully automatic firearms, such as AK-47s; firearms of a caliber greater than 20mm; handgun magazines with a capacity greater than 20 rounds; and rifle or shotgun magazines with a capacity greater than 31 rounds.
  3. Individuals cannot own more than 12 handguns, more than 10 magazines or more than 1,000 rounds per firearm.
  4. For handguns, there is a quota of 2,000 rounds per year with a maximum of 1,000 in stock.
  5. You need an ID or resident card and an authorization of ownership to buy ammunition.
  6. Furthermore, all registered guns and ammunition must be stored in a gun safe in a way that prevents easy access, e.g., via a lock or having the safe attached to a wall. (See “Gun laws in France“)

And yet, despite all the gun-control restrictions, yesterday a gang of masked men firing AK-47s brazenly abducted a youth from the streets of Marseilles, France.

The Guardian reports:

The local newspaper La Provence reported that the armed gang appeared to be looking for someone and threatened locals before firing several times into the air. They then grabbed a youth and drove off. …

… Amateur film footage posted on Twitter showed at least half a dozen black-clad gunmen firing, apparently at random, on the estate. Witnesses said the group brandished several semi-automatic rifles and at least one handgun.

 

How can this happen in strict gun-control France? I just don’t get it. /sarc

H/t The Daily Wire

See also:

~Eowyn