CALENDAR     |     CCW     |     FAQ     |      CONTACT US

Artemis Blog

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • Friday, February 17, 2017 22:15 | Sandy Lieberman (Administrator)


    There are times that warrant the specific mention of individuals for standing up for freedom.  


    This time, believe it or not…one of them is a politician.


    In this blog I would like to call your attention to Melissa Melendez R- Lake Elsinore, Chuck Michel and our good friends at the California Rifle and Pistol Association.  


    Assembly Woman Melendez has introduced AB-757.  


    Assemblywoman Melendez deserves all the acolytes she has received from the gun community for stating the obvious:  A citizen suffering an existential threat must have the ability to preserve their own life.  A government… in this case a sheriff… must acknowledge that someone who articulates a desire to carry a firearm in light of this existential threat has shown sufficient “good cause”.


    AB-757 would rationalize our States patchwork of pro and anti freedom jurisdictions and essentially instruct all sheriffs that if an individual is legally allowed to own a gun, and articulates that they would like to have a CCW under a “general interest in self defense” theory the sheriff must accommodate them.


    Essentially, this would put into codified law the original ruling under the 9th circuit three judge panel in Peruta v. San Diego.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)


    Will her bill get enough votes to pass, make it through the Senate, and get a signature from the Governor?


    Very doubtful.


    Yet, stranger things have happened.  None-the-less, Assemblywoman Melendez has done something for gun owners we rarely see in the legislature… she has gone on offense.


    Those of us that cherish freedom have watched as our guardians stood at their posts and fought back against the marshaled forces of tyranny.  Yet, the onslaught has always been too great.  We have relied on beliefs that “These laws are clearly Unconstitutional”… “Surely the courts will overturn them?”… and sadly… “well, I don’t own those types of guns… this really isn’t my fight.”


    The California Rifle and Pistol Association, and the great Civil Rights Lawyer Chuck Michel have pushed to counter-attack time and time again.  Yet, for every victory in the court room, there are more restrictive laws cooked up in Sacramento.  


    From challenging each of the egregious gun regulations promulgated by the California State Legislature, to demanding withdrawals of onerous administrative regulations attempted by the California Dept. of Justice, Chuck Michel and the brilliant attorneys at his firm have fought the battle for freedom with their keyboards, printers and intellect.


    Yet, as each of these groups and individuals stand to fight for you they cannot do so with your support both financial and emotional.  Call Assembly Member Melendez (951) 894-1232 and let her and her staff know that you support AB-757.  (While you are at it… contact your own representative and let them know you want them to give their full support to AB-757 as well.  


    Then go to the California Rifle and Pistol Association website and become a member. (www.crpa.org)  Then do something more…. get involved.  For you… and you alone are the defense against tyranny.  


    Edmund Burke articulated it perfectly:  that for evil to flourish it simply takes good men to do nothing.  


    Doing “nothing” as freedom is assaulted by the very institutions that are formulated to protect it is simply not an option.

  • Sunday, February 12, 2017 13:42 | Anonymous


    The DOJ Withdrawl


    Last year the California Legislature passed a series of laws regarding firearms.  One of those laws dealt with the classification of an “Assault Weapon”.  SB 880 states that a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine, and one or more “evil features”… (a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a collapsable stock, etc.)… are “assault rifles”.


    This definition does not alter the already established definition of an “assault rifle”.  Prior to Jan 1, 2017 many California rifle owners used a product called a “bullet button” to “fix” the magazine in place.  (Remember… the definition only becomes actionable if it is determined that the magazine is not “fixed” in place).  “Fixed in place” became a legal term of art indicating that the magazine could “only be removed with a tool.”  The makers of the ubiquitous Bullet Button developed a product that replaced a traditional magazine release.  To remove the magazine, the shooter needs to insert a punch tool into a hole in the magazine release mechanism.   The hole is big enough for a .556 round to also be used.  Hence the ability to change magazines and be legally compliant.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)


    SB 880’s big contribution to the California legal landscape is that they said that the “bullet button” is no longer recognized as a legitimate method for keeping the rifle from being designated as an “assault weapon.”  Now… according to the legislature… the only way for a magazine to be “fixed in place” is that the action of the rifle must be “cracked” or “hinged” open prior to the magazine being released.


    Ok.


    They also said that if an individual legally owns a semi-automatic rifle prior to Jan 1, 2017, they can opt to register it with the State and have it recognized as an “assault rifle”.  (They have from Jan 1- Dec. 31 2017 to do this)


    Pursuant to this new set of laws, on December 29th, the California Dept. of Justice filed a set of Administrative laws to establish the regulations necessary to implement SB 880.


    Apparently the California Justice Department did not feel that the legislators had gone far enough when it came to “assault rifles”.  They decided it was within their prerogative to essentially craft new legislation.


    One of the more interesting things they came up with was an entirely new category of “assault weapons.”


    In their regulations they sate that the only weapons that can be registered with the state of California are fully completed weapons.  (I have no idea where this one comes from.  The 9th Circuit has already stated that virtually every component of a firearm is not really a firearm and thus potentially regulated by the State.  Now the State is saying that the only thing that makes a firearm a firearm is a fully completed an assembled weapon.  It can’t be both kids.)


    They also state in their regulations, that you need to photograph the completed rifle, electronically send it to Sacramento, and then they will designate it as an “assault weapon”… 


    with a catch…


    It must keep the “bullet button” in place.


    Huh?  The only purpose of the “bullet button” was to keep it from being designated as an assault rifle.  Now the only way it can be an “assault rifle” is to have a bullet button?!?!


    So… from this we glean that DOJ unilaterally developed two types of “assault rifles.”  One is the traditional definition that the legislature articulated… the second being “bullet button assault rifles.”


    Here is the more interesting part:  The methodology for for registering the rifle requires you to photograph it.  


    Remember I said that as of Jan 1 the “bullet button” no longer would be sufficient to keep the rifle from being designated as an “assault rifle”?  Well… according to the DOJ admin regs, they wanted you to get out your rifle…with your “bullet button” installed on it… photograph it and send the photos to Sacramento.  Then they would “approve” it as an “assault rifle” and you would need to keep it in that exact configuration…


    Ok.. couple of things.


    First… where in the law does it state that a registered lower needs to be completed for a form of registration?  If registration were contemplated at different levels of construction then why not articulate that?  If the lower alone is not an “assault weapon” then why create restrictions on transference between parties?


    Second… remember that whole photograph thing?


    So let’s say you want to register your “bullet button assault rifle”.  You grab it out of the safe and go to work snapping pics on your Iphone.  What you are really doing is recording visual evidence of a crime.  You see… if that photo was taken after January 1 then by definition the gun sitting there on your kitchen table with a “bullet button” is an unregistered “assault weapon”.  The only way to become legally compliant would be to take a picture of yourself committing a crime, send that information to DOJ, and then you get your permission slip.  Forgetting a Fifth Amendment violation… why would a governmental agency demand that you commit a crime first in order to be essentially given an exemption from committing it in the future?


    Well… regardless of the idiocy, on Friday the 10th of February, DOJ withdrew their administrative policies.  


    Now, many are seeing this as a great victory… and to be fair, it may be,….but right now we just don’t know.  They may be been given some “legal advice” showing them the moronic nature of their regs, and the fact that they would clearly be challenged in court, and ultimately have them overturned.  


    Or…


    They may have something even more onerous, and difficult to challenge waiting to be filled.  We should know soon enough.


    Regardless…. as of today there is currently no methodology for registering your rifle.  The only “legal” rifles in California are featureless, Break Action (Bullet Button 2.0 or variant) or truly permanently fixed magazines.  


    We will keep you up to speed as things develop. 

  • Monday, February 06, 2017 09:09 | Anonymous



    “The Constitution does not protect aliens… it protects American Citizens wherever they are in the world.”


    I heard this missive from a federal judge on the radio while driving into work the other day.  The issue they were discussing was the President’s executive order to create “extreme vetting” of travelers and immigrants arriving from “suspect” countries.   The question to the judge was weather or not such measures were unconstitutional.  


    I don’t believe they are… but I also fundamentally disagree with the good judges analysis.


    The Constitution does not simply protect Americans… it is… it must be… far more transcendent than that.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)


    The Constitution was drafted with two goals in mind. 1) To enumerate the rights that individuals are entitled to, and 2) To set up the administrative framework necessary to form a government to secure those rights.


    So.  If the Constitution enumerates certain rights of the people, it only stands to reason that the rights of the people come from the Constitution.


    Yes?


    No.


    The rights that are recognized by the Constitution are pre-existing rights that existed far earlier then 1787 when the Constitution was drafted.  The Constitution simply “recognized” these rights and codified them.


    So….. that begs the question:  Where do rights come from?


    Well, for that answer we have to look at our other “founding document”  The Declaration of Independence.  Here Jefferson spells it out quite succinctly.  Rights are granted to us from the Creator.  (God, Gaia, The Force, Mother Nature… whatever you want to call Her… it all springs from the same Well Head.)


    Does it really make sense that when God created people He sat back and said, “Ok… so I’m going to give you guys some rights… some you can transfer to a central government… others you are stuck with… but regardless, a few thousand years from now there is going to be this chunk of land in a place called North America.  Those of you that find yourself born or naturalized there, well… those guys are going to get “special rights.”


    Nah.


    Our rights that we enjoy are transcendent of national identity.  


    Think of it this way.  The Second Amendment exists everywhere on the planet.  The Second Amendment exists in Texas, in California, in Bolivia, in Japan.  Not all governments are enlightened enough to recognize that right.  Our Founders though realized that rights must emanate from somewhere transcendent.  A government that provides rights is empowered to take rights away.  A government that is established to secure rights can be swept away by the very people that empowered it, if it loses sight of it’s obligations and seeks to increase it’s power at the expense of the governed.


    We must be consistent in our political philosophy.  


    For though we might find the expediency of authoritative policies attractive, the ramifications can lay bare our Republic.


    No… our Constitution is transcendent of any particular administration.  Our Constitution is also transcendent of any judge or legislator.


    Our Constitution is a document inspired by Divine Providence, not a mere suggestion of transient and fashionable ideas.


  • Sunday, January 29, 2017 16:27 | Anonymous


    Sacramento


    In an effort to thwart what has been perceived by the State Legislature, as a hostile Trump Administration towards California Progressive values a series of new laws has been proposed by State House Democrats to ensure that “California Values” are able to survive within the Golden State.


    These three bills, collectively knowns as the SOS Initiative by House Democrats, for “Security of the State”, and known by the small contingent of House Republicans derisively as “Save Our Skins”, is an effort to ensure that the rampant populism that swept Trump into office does not effect the established power structures in California.


    AB 201 Criminalizes Criticism of the Legislature


    Under AB 201 any criticism in print or through active protest would be considered a felony.  The amount of time that legislators spend dealing with angry constituents slows down the progress of government.  More importantly, according to the bills sponsor Representative Brown (D-Alameda) “Criticism of the government is tantamount to treason.  We are elected, specifically because we know what is better for our communities then the people who live in our communities.”  Said Brown, wearing a simple T-shirt with the words “I’m Smarter Than You” printed on the front.  


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)


    “When the people criticize there is an implicit argument that they know more than we do.”  “This is not only rude, it gets in the way of us doing the work we were elected to perform.”


    When asked if the bill would survive a Constitutional challenge Brown replied, “Yes… I think it will.  Our colleagues in other jurisdictions have already enacted laws that clearly violated the Second  Amendment.  Circuit Courts have done some pretty awesome intellectual gymnastics to ensure that those laws are not overturned.  We now live in a world where the Courts have the power to take a fundamental right like the Second Amendment, and water it down to the point that we can say that literally nothing that goes bang is covered by that loathsome amendment.  If we can do that to the Second, why not apply it to the First as well?”


    According to Brown, ensuring that people are happy means ensuring that the legislature is happy.


    “Hey.. if Mamma ain’t happy, no one is happy!… and the legislature is one big “F..ing” mamma!  The last thing that we need is criticism right now.”


    AB 217 Allows DOJ to act without administrative approval


    According to the co-sponsers of AB 217 Representative Frank Domingues (D-Marin) and Representative Martha Johnson-Snodgrass (D-Los Angeles) One of the biggest obstacles to social, racial, environmental, and economic justice is a Dept. Of Justice.  Specifically a Dept. of Justice that only can uphold laws that the Legislature enacts.


    According to Snodgrass this was seen most clearly with the Assault Weapons ban.


    “Look.  We in the legislature want to get rid of all guns.  Period.  We could not draft a law like that obviously.  We were expecting our friends in the Dept. of Justice to pick up where we left off and set up regulations that would make it impossible for anyone to have an assault rifle.  They tried, but they have been stymied by gun owners.  If the DOJ could simply do what ever they wanted without having to establish administrative policy, we could get some serious stuff done.”


    Domingues envisions a DOJ finally being able to set up administrative policies that force car owners to only own one car per family.  


    “We could never get away with that in the legislature, but if DOJ was to set up a standard, we could eliminate massive amounts of green house gasses.  It would be awesome!”


    AB 305 Demands Each Subject of California to have a Medical Marijuana Card


    Assemblyman Richard Francisco-Goldberg (D-Berkely) has sought to mandate that every resident of California be compelled to pay a $25 fee and receive a Medical Marijuana card.  


    “We don’t know what the Feds are planning, but it is not good.  We need to make sure that everyone that needs marijuana for medical as well as recreational purposes has access to the “Devils Cabbage.”  If we don’t have a robust market for weed, we won’t have the economic clout to ensure it survives.  Thousands of honest, hardworking arm chair philosophers will be stuck pontificating while sober.  This will not be pretty.”


    Francisco-Goldberg believes that through a law mandating the ownership of a Marijuana card more people are likely to participate in the “Cannabis Culture”.    


    Aids to the legislatures state that the more people that are dependent on State government for their self medicated needs, coerced into managing their lives through a Byzantine administrative process, and prohibited from criticizing their own government, will result in a greater level of self satisfaction and enhance the “California Lifestyle.”


    California Republican reaction was limited to a few words by the California Republican Central committee suggesting a desire to compromise.

  • Sunday, January 22, 2017 09:37 | Anonymous


    2017 Shotshow.


    The Shotshow is over, and I am still recovering.  


    Thousands of guns.  Really great people.  Inordinate amounts of Whiskey.  Very little sleep.  Vague memories of playing blackjack and talking about shooting to a couple from New York.


    At least I think we were talking about shooting.


    Pretty much sums up my yearly trip to Vegas.


    This year Shotshow show had a decidedly less political component attached to it.  Previous shows were oriented towards combating the Obama administrations direct action attempts to marginalize the firearms industry.  This year, the show literally ended on inauguration day.  Trump has already stated his support of the Second… and most are taking him at his word.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)


    Each year that I have been at Shot I like to look for big broad themes.


    The first year everything was “Military Style” firearms.


    The second year was “Women's guns”  (These were basically the same “Military Style” firearms cerekoted pink.)


    The third year we saw slimed down AR-15’s


    Last year everything was about suppressors….


    This year the theme could best be described as “big ass, aggressive, heavy firearms”


    There were also a couple of products that I want you all to be made aware of:


    Hudson H9


    Ok… I really really wanted to hate this.  Hudson Mfg. developed the first Striker Fire 1911.  Completely metal frame (None of that plastic nonsense)… generally looks like a Glock with an integrated rail light.   It’s actually not a rail light, it is a housing for the full recoil spring.  (There is a place to attach a light, but with the light on the damn thing it would probably hang so low it would be well below the level of the trigger guard.)  What is instantly recognizable is the trigger.  It looks similar to a standard 1911 style trigger… except that there is a slightly raised internal trigger safety.  Apparently there are, or will be, thumb safeties you can purchase if you want the “full 1911 experience”.  Chambered in 9mm (gasp) it also comes with three 15 round magazines for those of you who live in America.  For those of you that are still operating behind enemy lines in occupied California, Hudson has not yet built a diminished capacity magazine.  


    Like I said,… I felt obligated to look at this monstrosity, but I went into it figuring that it was going to be a novelty at best.  After picking it up and dry firing it, I fell in love.  This gun is friggen awesome.  Now I just have to figure out how to get my hands on it to test it under live fire conditions!


     CZ P-10

    I love CZ rifles.  I am not a huge fan of CZ pistols though.  Except for the new P-10.  Again… this is their striker fire answer to Glock.  The one major difference:  A spectacular trigger.  Smooth press, glass break, and quick crisp reset… for anyone that is considering getting a Glock you simply must look at the CZ and compare the two.  Oh yeah… unless you live in California… Since it does not have a loaded chamber indicator, a mag safety, or micro stamping the California DOJ considers it an “unsafe gun”… so though it is a major improvement over other similar models as a subject of California (as opposed to a citizen) our rulers have a better understanding of our safety needs then we do…. so no CZ P-10 for you!


    A06arms “Hog”

    I met the boys at Alpha Six Arms.  These are Colorado makers of high end long distance rifles.  They have agreed to send over their “Hog” rifle chambered in 6.5 Creedmore with a Vertex scope for me to T&E for an upcoming article I’m writing for Tactical World magazine.  


    The guys from Alpha Six are awesome… and the products they make are flat out spectacular.  Built around an AR-10 style operating system, with a streamlined stock and ambidextrous safety I am really excited to get this and take it out to the desert for some long distance shooting.  Of course the fact that it is a semi auto, with a detachable magazine creates some interesting issues for us here in California…. I am definitely not going to make this featureless, and I really don’t want to screw around with putting a Armlock on it… so I’m going to have to figure out exactly how this is going to work and be legally compliant.


    Sigh… I wonder how much time criminals spend making sure they are compliant with California’s firearm laws?

  • Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:11 | Anonymous

    Sessions and the Courts


    This week I am in Vegas at our annual SHOT show (Shooting Hunting Outdoor Trade) show.  Yes… as you would expect I am going through sensory overload right now… but do not fret readers… I will give you a full debrief next week when I get back.


    In the meantime, I do want to talk about some forward looking political prognostications:


    Jeff Sessions and the ATF


    So, last week the Senate held confirmation hearings on Jeff Sessions as our new Attorney General.  There were really no surprises here, nor was their an inordinate amount of time spent on the Second Amendment.  There was however a specific mention by Sessions that the Second protects an individual right to the keeping and bearing of arms.  


    This is an important, if not unexpected departure from the Obama administrations hostility toward firearms ownership and use.  He also stated that the the individual right that is protected by the Second is a “Fundamental Right”.   


    This is important.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)


    As a fundamental right (as articulated by Justice Scalia) the appropriate test do determine whether a statute implicates the Second Amendment (made applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment) would be what is referred to as a Strict Scrutiny Analysis.  


    Their must be a “Compelling State Interest” and their must be no “Less Restrictive Alternatives”


    As a general rule, the vast majority of statutes, be it in reference to Free Speech, Religion, Equal Protection, etc. fail a Strict Scrutiny analysis.  This is usually because there are virtually always “less restrictive alternatives.”


    The anti-gun circuit courts decided that rather than following the approach articulated by the Supremes they were going to “push back” and create their own two part test… one that has been defined as an “Intermediate level of scrutiny”.  


    In the first part they claim that they must see if the law implicates the Second Amendment in the first place (United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013))  


    Typically, anti gun courts claim that virtually nothing effects the Second Amendment except an out and out ban of all firearms.  


    Beyond that they have used tortured logic to claim that the single largest selling firearm in the United States, the AR-15… a rifle that is used specifically in competitions throughout the country… is not in “common use” and therefore not covered by the Second.


    Assuming that they are not able to twist their intellectual gymnastics to the point that they cannot legitimately claim the Second has not been implicated, they now look to see… well… I’ll let the 9th Circuit speak for itself:


    If the regulation is subject to Second Amendment protection (i.e., the regulation is neither outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment, nor presumptively lawful), the court then proceeds to the second step of the inquiry to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply. Jackson, 746 F.3d at 960. In ascertaining the proper level of scrutiny, the court must consider: (1) how close the challenged law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right, and (2) the severity of the law’s burden on that right. Id. at 960–61.


    Yeah… you read that right… they claim that it is a friggen sliding scale!!!


    Imagine if all of our rights protected by the Constitution fell to this “sliding scale” analysis.


    Sessions in his hearings essentially discounted this entire scheme.  This is an important change not only for the direction of the Attorney General, but also sets a tone that the administration is antagonistic towards jurists that are interested reducing fundamental rights to match the political objectives of any particular administration.


    On an unrelated note… potentially… the other day a bill was introduced in Congress to formally disband the ATF.  The mission of the ATF would be split up between the FBI and the FDA.  


    Things are indeed getting interesting in Washington!

  • Monday, January 09, 2017 09:43 | Anonymous

    The New First Responders


    Last Friday evil descended upon Florida.  For reasons that remain unclear an individual that had displayed multiple instances of psychosis executed five people and injured many more in the baggage claim area of Ft. Lauderdale's airport.  


    He had left Alaska and traveled to Ft. Lauderdale.. the reason for that destination remains unknown.  What is known is that he took a 9mm pistol with him.  He retrieved his luggage from baggage claim, went into the bathroom, loaded his pistol and then returned to the carousel to begin murdering people.


    When he was out of ammunition he calmly laid down.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)


    During our CCW classes we often see the “Sheepdog” student.  This is an individual that feels a morale mandate to get a CCW.  They want to protect themselves… but they are also interested in protecting society from these miscreants that seem to pop up like our Florida killer.


    There is a saying though… “if you are prepared to kill to protect someone… you also must be prepared to die.”


    Think of a professional athlete.  At any moment during any game they might suffer a career ending injury.  Yet they cannot play the game with that mindset.  They must disregard and move forward.  If they focus so much on the reality that they might loose their career they will not do what is necessary to actually win the game.


    Dealing with a violent predator is no different.


    I see people become annoyed and infuriated when we discuss the places you cannot go (legally) with a firearms permit.  There response is understandable… why should I be prohibited from carrying a gun there to protect myself?  The bad guy is not going to follow the rules!  The only people that will be unarmed are the victims!.


    They are absolutely correct…. when it comes to firearms.


    However… none of us is ever “unarmed”.


    We may lack the most efficient weapon system necessary to solve the problem.. but we all possess the single most lethal weapon that has ever been deployed:  Our minds.


    Imagine for a second a the unimaginable.  


    An active shooter enters a public space and draws his weapon at close range to a group of people.  As he raises his gun he suddenly feels his ribs break as he his slammed into the ground from behind.  An “Unarmed” samaritan has seen this guy enter the place and took action.  Yes… he risked his life, but that is beside the point.  His life was at risk by simply being there in the first place.


    In France three brave heroes (American I might add) were confronted by a terrorist with a rifle and a knife.  They brought war upon him.  Yes, they suffered injuries… but their sheer explosion of violence was enough to overwhelm him and protect the other passengers.  


    We do know that there are certain fundamentals that exist.  An active killer is going to murder at a rate of about one person every fourteen seconds.  State First Responders typically take somewhere between three to seven minutes to arrive.  


    Banning guns is not the answer.


    Arthur, from Packin fur Defense and I were talking the other day and he said something quite interesting.  “The entire western world was conquered by a group of guys with nine inch long sharpened spikes.”  What makes anyone think that evil can be conquered by regulating machined parts?


    Evil can only be held at bay through one thing and one thing only:  Extreme violence of action.  


    The passengers on Flight 93 understood this.  Their actions saved thousands.  


    Would the knowledge that any physical attack on the innocent would be met with the innocent attacking back instantly, ferociously, with extreme prejudice serve as a deterrent to the attack in the first place? 


    In many instances yes.


    In all instances… no.


    There are still going to be those that seek martyrdom.  Still those who fundamentally are not capable of rational thought.  To those that seek their own demise… we must be willing to accommodate them.  When they bring their arms to bear on us… we must bear down on them.


    We must transcend our basic premise of weapons.  The presence of a firearm is immaterial.  From shoes, to shoulders, knees to briefcases we must use the weapons that are available, and use them to their maximum value.  We must train… constantly… to be ready.  We must train… constantly… to be proficient with all of the tools that are available to us.  


    We must never, ever accept the extreme selfishness of self preservation.  We persevere, by playing on offense.  We seek peace… we avoid conflict… we love our neighbors…but when we are attacked the gates of Valhalla are opened and a thousand warriors stand beside us to rain destruction down on those that would seek to do harm. 

  • Monday, January 02, 2017 15:24 | Anonymous

    DOJ, Bullet buttons, Assault Weapons, and Extra Constitutional Law,


    On Dec 29th the California Dept. of Justice filed proposed regulations regarding assault weapons.  Nothing like waiting till the last minute.  Literally, as the laws regarding what constitute, and what prevents a weapon from being an assault weapon were set to change in a few hours on Jan 1.


    When the California Legislature under SB880 and subsequently Prop 63 amended the law regarding black scary looking rifles, there was only one certainty… the law would take effect on Jan 1 2017.


    Without getting into all of the specifics the gravamen of the legislation turns on what is required to be constituted a “fixed magazine.” 


    You see, if the magazine is permanently “fixed in place”, then by definition the weapon is not an “assault weapon”.  


    For years the “Bullet Button” a device that requires the use of a tool (or a bullet) to release the magazine was considered permanent enough to keep the weapon from being classified as an “assault weapon”.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter continue reading here:)


    Now, the non-shooters of California came to the conclusion that the bullet button should not be enough to take the rifle out of the “assault weapon” category.  Now you need to physically “crack” the action before removing the magazine.


    The law was also drafted to allow individuals that owned a “bullet button” rifle prior Jan 1. to register said rifle as an “assault weapon.”.  Now let’s think logically here for a second.  If the rifle is an “assault rifle” what would the logic be to force the placement of a device that was designed to keep it from being an “assault rifle” in the first place?


    Well… apparently DOJ sees no problem in this logical inconsistency.


    Additionally, their desire to operate in contravention of the Constitution also does not seem to bother them too much.


    In their proposed regulations designed to implement the “assault weapons registration process”  (A process that should have been completed months ago)… the DOJ has finally said, “Yeah.. you know what…. you can register that rifle you got there… but it has to stay in the same exact configuration it was in on Dec. 31 2016.


    Well… this is problematic for the following reasons:


    1. The legislature, as well as the drafters of Prop 63 could have very easily stated that firearms must be kept with the bullet button in place.  They didn’t.  They don’t even provide evidence of this intent through supposition.  They are silent on the matter.  The DOJ cannot create it’s own extra-legislative law that goes beyond the CA Penal Code, in an effort to satisfy their own political agenda.  
    2. What exactly is a rifle?  This gets a little complicated.  According to the Feds, a rifle is the serialized receiver.  If you have a barreled action, you have a rifle.  If you have just the action you have a rifle.  If you have something on the barrel that they want to regulate and you claim that that regulation violates the second amendment you will get thrown to the curb,… that is because the 9th has already stipulated that anything outside the receiver is not a firearm and thus subject to regulation without violating the Second.  So you can’t have it both ways….either the receiver stands alone as a firearm or it doesn't 
    3. Nothing in the law demands that you build out your rifle.  Let’s say that you owned a stripped lower on December 29th.  Are you now prohibited from ever building out your rifle?  Of course not.  Here is the thing.  If you build it out in March and put a bullet button on it you instantly become a felon.  Your picture of your rifle (A requirement in the proposed regs) that you send to DOJ violates your 5th amendment right against self incrimination.  


    So… where do we stand now?  


    We don’t know.


    As of this writing it is impossible to register your Assault Weapon, because even though the website has been provided via the DOJ… the mechanism to register as required by law is not functioning yet.


    (The website is https://cfars.doj.ca.gov/login.do)


    Once again DOJ has failed miserably at the most basic of tasks… and the reason behind this failure unfortunately is not incompetence… it’s to further a political agenda.

  • Monday, December 26, 2016 14:09 | Anonymous


    Day 1:  


    Today the citizens of California, Oregon, and Washington rose up against the homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-government forces that elected Trump into office and formally declared the independent state of West America.  Hence forth, West America will sever ties to the United States, accept the migrant workers from the south seeking economic freedom, ensure the freedom to marry who and what a citizen wants to marry and will mandate that all energy produced in West America be clean and sustainable.


     

    Day 5:


    We have a problem.  The Costal Commission and the AQMD have demanded jurisdiction over many of our secessionist mandates.  The Costal Commission alone is requiring a three year feasibility study and an environmental impact report!  We are working to determine if waivers can be granted to speed up the time table.  Still, as we move forward with this experiment in a peoples republic we want to ensure the process is done in the proper fashion.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)


    Day 7:


    Ok, this is getting ridiculous.  Business have begun to shut down and flee to the east.  They are completely ignoring the reporting requirements to shut down and provide proper severance to their employees.  They are just…. leaving!  Worse… their employees are leaving with them!  Several state workers are reporting that their regulatory authority is becoming jeopardized because there is no one left to regulate! 


    Day 10:  


    We need to make sure that people stay put here in West America.  We have decided that all property is now property of the State, and workers are now all government employees.  That means they all get a big fat pension!  They also get the complete benefit of free health care, and collective bargaining!  Farms that produce food must adhere to West America’s sustainable environmental laws and many State workers will be readjusted to ensure farming compliance.


    Day 14:  


    Well… the “farms gig” is not going exactly as planned.  Yes they are being regulated, but no one is doing anything!  The farms are literally laying fallow.  If this continues no one in the cities is going to have anything to eat.  Also, we have a new problem of counter revolutionary rebels beginning to mobilize against state forces.  These criminals are the same ones we saw arming themselves to the teeth while we were still connected to the US.  From this point forward firearm ownership of any sort is illegal, and state workers are being given police powers to seize any firearms found.


    Day 20:  


    Hmmm.. well, the whole “round up the guns thing” turns out to be a nightmare.  Now we have a ton of rebels on our hands that are attacking the State offices in the cities.  We also don’t have anyone to defend them.  The National Guard units have all defected to the US, and we are in real jeopardy of loosing Washington and Oregon.  We also are seeing a massive amount of inflation of the West American dollar.  Fortunately, Soros is handling our debts for the moment, but when his money runs out we are screwed!


    Day 25.


    You’ve got to be kidding me!  They are building a wall!  A friggen wall across the border!  They are literally putting a Berlin style wall up along the entire eastern border of California.  Are they really that concerned that the people of the United States are going to come to West America to join forces with us that they need to build a wall?


    ummm… I’ve just been informed by our local commander of the southern district that the wall is not to keep the Americans out… it is to keep us in!  What is this crap?!!


    Day 30.


    The people of West America are starving and dying.  We have no means of production, no one willing to work.  Crime is going nuts… we’ve got friggen cartel guys coming north and taking over whole neighborhoods.  We have to do something fast.


    Day 32.


    We are going to declare war on the United States.  We expect twenty to thirty minutes of fighting before our forces surrender.  We will then offer a complete unconditional surrender and demand that the US develop a “Marshal plan” and rebuild us.  Yeah… this worked out just great.

  • Monday, December 19, 2016 11:52 | Anonymous

    PETRUCHIO

    Come on, i' God's name; once more toward our father's.

    Good Lord, how bright and goodly shines the moon!

    KATHARINA

    The moon! the sun: it is not moonlight now.

    PETRUCHIO

    I say it is the moon that shines so bright.

    KATHARINA

    I know it is the sun that shines so bright.

    PETRUCHIO

    Now, by my mother's son, and that's myself,

    It shall be moon, or star, or what I list,

    Or ere I journey to your father's house.

    Go on, and fetch our horses back again.

    Evermore cross'd and cross'd; nothing but cross'd!

    HORTENSIO

    Say as he says, or we shall never go.


    The 9th Circuit went down right Shakespearean this last week.  Like Petruchio they demand that we refuse the obvious, and accept a fallacy.  On base level this is an annoyance. On a deeper level our mistrust of the judiciary has risen substantially.


    (If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here)


    Case background of Silvester v. Harris


    Silvester argued before Judge Ishii (A US District Judge) that the ten day waiting period was volatile of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments in as much as it restricted existing gun owners from immediate access to a new firearm.  The logic behind the ten day is two fold.  First it allows the Department of Justice time to conduct a background check to ensure that the individual purchasing the firearm is legally allowed to do so.  Secondly it allows for a “cooling off” period.  If someone is intent to engage in a malicious act with the firearm the ten days will hopefully allow that individual to “cool down” and allow for more rational decisions.


    Judge Ishii essentially said that the ten day waiting period for existing gun owners had no rational basis for it’s existence.  Most states use an instant background check system, so the technology clearly exists for rapid determination of criminal status.  


    As for a “cooling off” period it simply does not pass the smile test.  The purchaser could legitimately be wearing a firearm on their hip at the time of purchase.  What benefit would a “cooling off” period allow?  If they are intent on committing mayhem, why would they delay that criminal act by ten days for a specific weapon?


    The State appealed, and the Ninth Circuit, reversed saying that the waiting period made perfect sense.


    Their reasoning was truly mind numbing.  First they stated that historically people had to wait for delivery of products, so having to wait for a gun was a minor imposition.  


    Historically?  What the hell does that have to do with anything?


    Secondly,… the weapon that they currently own may not be “appropriate” for mass casualty crime.  Maybe they really really need an AR-15 to take down a shopping mall, and their shotgun just won’t do.


    Again… huh?


    If this were a rational argument then they could simply have existing exemptions for classes of weapons.  Your first handgun… yeah, you got to wait 10 days for that.  Once you own one, subsequent handgun purchases do not require the wait.  


    Already have a semi-auto rifle in the safe at home?  No need to wait for your second one… oh, don’t have one yet?  You only have a pistol… hmmm… well then for this rifle you will need to wait 10 days.


    That at least would have made rational sense.  Instead the 9th left us with this little gem:


    “An individual who already owns a hunting rifle, for example, may want to purchase a larger capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd. A 10-day cooling-off period would serve to discourage such conduct and would impose no serious burden on the core Second Amendment”


    WTF???


    Francis Fukuyama in his work “Trust” essentially argued that the fabric of our society… and the basic functionality of that society is essentially a construct based on trust.  We trust in the intent of all parties to a financial transaction, and if our trust was misplaced we trust in the courts to act as a fair an impartial arbiter of our disputes.


    When trust is broken the reliance turns to the law, when reliance on the law jeopardized Lord help us.  


    We place the law making portion of our government in the legislature, because legislators need to stand for election.  When they legislate through arbitrary and capricious edicts our remedy is to relieve them of their offices.  


    When the judiciary acts as the legislature they craft laws with impunity.  There is no need for the justices to stand for reelection.  When their decisions are based on a desired policy outcome, as opposed to an application of facts the quality of the law they “produce” becomes even more degraded.


    There is a breaking point.


    When that happens societies fail.  It has happened repeatedly throughout human history.  There is no reason to assume we are inoculated. 


    Silvester v. Harris is one more step in that direction.


    Petruchio was not interested in Kate “believing” that the sun was the moon.  He only wanted to assert that her reality was controlled by him.  Much as we can only assume the 9th Circuit has little interest in us “believing” in their rational.  

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 

©2012-2015, Artemis Defense Institute - 11 Spectrum Pointe Drive, Lake Forest, CA 92630 | PH: (949) 305-6586 | FX: (949) 305-6628

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software