In 2014, Cliven Bundy called for support against the BLM and people from all over the country arrived armed and ready for conflict. This wasn't about Bundy's predicament per se, but many people came and supported him out of a root cause of disdain for the federal government and the Obama Administration. History does not care about the facts underlying the spark that leads to revolution.
The first shots in the gun control war will probably be an incident like this weekend's that gets out of hand. Patriots will begin engaging police and if there are sufficient numbers of patriots, it may escalate into an infantry engagement. It will get ugly. We'd all like resistance to tyranny to start over a "righteous" cause, but the casus belli is more often a symbol more than a hero.
Write Winger: The boogaloo that wasn’t: controlling the narrative
You have to be willing to accept your narrative or the popular narrative might be wrong, but not very many are willing or able to do that. -Write Winger
Read the whole thing from blogger Write Winger.
Instagrammer (Alex) Whiskey_warrior_556 is allegedly in a standoff with police in Putnam County, New York, regarding a "red flag" gun confiscation order supposedly over 30 round magazines. As of this writing, it has been reported that the situation has ended, but that is unconfirmed.
What we (think we) know is:
We don't know if:
Based on the online response, many supporters are calling for a response similar to the Bundy Ranch. That is, should police make an aggressive apprehension, the crowd is there to deter that action because of the threat of violence. Many are asking if this is the "bugaloo" or the start of armed resistance to gun control.
What is becoming clear is that as "red flag" confiscations increase, for right or wrong reasons, certain individuals may publicize their actions in order to gain support. This support may include asking for an armed response by patriots or even attacking police. We came very close to just such a situation involving the Bundy family in 2014.
I believe in the future "red flag" raids will begin to be resisted by force and supporters will start to attack police. This would be an insurrection and be met with heavy resistance by police, federal agents, and possibly even the military. As America continues to fracture and our rights trampled upon, injudicious law enforcement and patriotic support will eventually lead to open violence between citizens and the government.
I see more Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents happening, only with the involvement of outside forces. Because we do not know the true circumstances or facts surrounding Whiskey_warrior_556, we can't know if showing up to essentially intimidate the police is a morally justifiable action. Engaging in this kind of civil disobedience has not just legal consequences like Nevada is familiar with, but could lead to kinetic consequences.
Therefore, I would caution anyone drawn to support a person in this situation to act as circumspectly as possible and with as much restraint as they can. Finally, as Thomas Jefferson said, the conditions when violent resistance to tyranny is appropriate is as follows:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Be damn sure that you know what you're getting into before you start marching on Lexington Common.
Update: Sources on Twitter are reporting that the situation has ended with no arrests, no charges for Whiskey_warrior_445
Douglas Haig, who sold ammunition to the Mandalay Bay shooter, pled guilty today to selling and manufacturing ammunition without a license. None of Haig’s ammunition was used in the shooting, but it was found at the crime scene and a receipt linked him to the killer Steven Paddock. Haig faces up to five years in prison at his sentencing on Feb. 19.
At every turn, the federal government railroaded Haig. Not only was he the only person prosecuted in connection with the crime, though he had no part or knowledge of it, the federal judge James Mahan denied request after request to ensure Haig got a fair trial. He was denied a bench trial (to the liabilities of avoid an emotional Las Vegas jury deeply affected by the incident). He was denied a change of venue to Arizona and another to Reno. The judge even refused to ban mention of the mass shooting in court.
The government wanted a scapegoat and it wanted a guilty plea, so they backed Haig into a corner where he could go on trial and probably lose and get sentenced to something terrible, or he could plead. At least they let him plead guilty.
Selling and manufacturing ammunition without a license is a federal crime akin to distilling and selling liquor without ATF approval and paying the appropriate taxes. This law is not about crime control, it’s about tax revenue and government control. One can only imagine what would be if the government required a license to print and sell books.
The most disgusting aspect of this is the prosecutorial zeal for a scapegoat and the complicity of the judge in allowing the government to run roughshod over this man. Douglas Haig didn’t kill anyone, but the government, unable to find a motive or punish anyone else, must have someone’s hide for Paddock’s crime. Treating a white-collar crime in such a callous manner and refusing at every opportunity to provide for a fair trial is tyranny.
One hopes that Haig has the ability to appeal his plea on the grounds it was compelled due to the utter contempt of the government for him to receive a fair trial.
What's the difference?
Open carry is not a stunt. Sometimes it's about politics and protests require donning arms to get the point across. Yet the license (so to speak) to openly carry is not one to be a tone-deaf idiot. People don't want to see long guns in restaurants.
After the first few incidents in Texas were misinterpreted, Open Carry Texas backed off this practice. Here in Nevada, we always openly carried handguns into restaurants for our meet-ups. We minded our own business, were friendly, and weren't threatening. It was kind of like being in a celebrity in a lot of places. As we normalized open carry again in Nevada, the novelty kinda wore off and now an openly carried handgun is unremarkable (save certain corporate practices that force or encourage employees to make a big deal out of it).
Open carry isn't about showing off. It's a practical means of defensive carry. Pistols are ordinary, effective enough, and do not frighten the average citizen or rational politician. Rifles do. A protest or rally with rifles and American flags doesn't send the same signal that some unknown dude walking into a business does with a slung rifle.
For instance, it may be legal for women to be topless in New York and Utah, but if you walk into a church half-naked, people are gonna freak, you're gonna get trespassed, and you will win no one to your side.
Now you don't have to be Mr. Clean Cut White Shirt Guy while openly carrying, but not toting an AR-15 that half of America thinks is capable of killing on its own into TGI Friday's is a good thing. Pistols are normal and people support or ignore that. Rifles in the wrong context freak them out.
By now, we know that the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case Remington over the Sandy Hook massacre. The court should have dismissed the suit as being preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was intended to keep gun manufacturers from being sued by a criminal’s act using the firearm.
Allowing a victim to sue a manufacturer would be like allowing Ford to be sued because a drunk driver injured someone while behind the wheel of an F-150. Using the car analogy, it’s ridiculous to think Ford bares liability for someone’s criminal use of their vehicle. But because we have so stigmatized firearms somehow “it’s okay” to sue them.
The actual Connecticut Supreme Court ruling allow the suit to proceed forward because Remington’s advertising “might” violate state fair trade laws. What the US Supreme Court’s decision does is allow the actual trial to go forward.
One of the ads in question was “Consider your man card re-issued,” (imply the purchase of an AR-15 did that). Of course, the plaintiff would have to prove that Lanza saw the ad and was somehow influenced by it. It’s a difficult bar to reach because he is dead and took pains to destroy and information regarding motive. Also, the weapon was never purchased by Lanza. Instead, he murdered her and stole her firearms.
Even the Connecticut Supreme Court found that proving a violation might be problematic. The plaintiffs will likely lose at trial against Remington. That’s the one upside to all of this; the suit is obviously ludicrous. An appeal going forward would probably be supported not on the PLCAA, but free speech grounds. Nevertheless, it’s all about precedence and forcing gun makers to spend money defending this crap.
The problem for firearm manufacturers and the PLCAA is that the US Supreme Court not squashing this case summarily provides encouragement to anti-gunners to file lawsuits to try and exploit and crack they can. The incrementalism strategy of gun control is very dangerous in this regard, especially if the US Supreme Court waffles on future appeals. The plaintiffs should have been slammed down hard because this case was an affront to federal statutes.
The court should have shut this down on principle because at the heart of the challenge is this kind of find-a-weakness attack on the PLCAA. Our system of judicial review is being used against us and the court is too morally weak to think strategically. Oddly, courts wrap themselves narrowly in precedence and narrow reading but also exercise their own feelings and politics when it comes to decisions. On one day, they are too conservative with the law and the next they decide purely based on emotion and politics.
The idea of judicial review puts the ultimate power of everything in the hands of the Supreme Court making the nine robed “sages” our masters instead of a proper separation of powers. We cannot rely on courts to “save” our rights. Our rights are God-give and inherent. A court ruling is only a means to an end. We are also at the decline of American constitutional government and jurisprudence. No matter what favorable ruling we might get, it’s only a means to an end. We all know that one day we will have no other recourse than the ammo box.
Many people have been asking if licensed concealed carriers will be exempt from private background checks. No. Concealed firearm permittees:
No, you don't get to meet in a parking lot, flash a CCW, and call it a day (legally). Whether you have a CCW or not, the fee and the call to Carson applies to you. The Dept. of Public Safety recently put out a bulletin confirming this fact. The dealer also gets to charge whatever he wants, in addition to the state’s $25, for having to do the Form 4473 and make the phone call.
Concealed firearm permittees are granted an exemption from the federal Brady Background Check requirement when purchasing or transferring from a dealer pursuant to federal requirements. If you buy a gun new or used from a dealer’s inventory or buy one online and have it shipped to a dealer, you do not have to pay the background check fee and have the background check called into Carson City.
Again, this is a federal law that about half the states qualify for. State laws may be different. California, for example, doesn’t allow it unless you are in the Hollywood firearm industry. Some states’ permits don’t qualify (usually because fingerprints are not run through the FBI at issuance/renewal). Nevada’s law didn’t carry over the exemption for permittees.
Why did the legislators and the Bloomberg bill authors do this? Because fuck you, that’s why. They hate you and don’t think you should even own guns, so they aren’t going to save you the $25. They want to eventually register guns via transfer records so they want the transfers to be called in. Unlike the ATF, simply saving the Form 4473s are not enough. Californians will recall that the Golden State’s registry is based almost entirely off the sale/transfer DROS submissions by dealers.
Support Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research, links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc. Please email regarding one-time donations.