My 2nd Amendment Today

Tuesday, January 3, 2023

Totally Unsurprisingly, Brazil Begins Gun Bans Ahead of Lula Inauguration

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Brazil’s Supreme Court on Wednesday banned registered gun-owners from carrying firearms in the federal district until after the inauguration of President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in reaction to recent episodes of political violence,” Reuters reported Wednesday. “Justice Alexandre de Moraes temporarily suspended licenses that permit hunters, marksmen and collectors to carry guns, firearms and ammunition in the region where the capital city of Brasilia is located.”

“Temporarily”? It supposedly “will be in place from Wednesday evening to Jan. 2, the day after Lula’s inauguration.”

With the justification of criminal political violence being used to direct the ban against Brazil’s “law-abiding” gun owners, don’t be surprised if further developments result in an indefinite extension and for the number of “sensitive locations” to be expanded. And note a key admission is being left purposely unstated: that the only thing about prior restraints and permissions that really work is telling the government who has what.

Because the people this is directed at have submitted to all the required licensing hurdles, including establishing a “genuine reason” like “hunting, target shooting, security,” that they are of “minimum age” (25), have undergone a background check and “firearm safety training,” reapplied/requalified every three years, and registered their guns.

The people this won’t affect are the non-“law-abiding.” “Unregistered and unlawfully held guns cannot be counted, but in Brazil there are estimated to be 2022: 1,500,000.”

As for the election, in many ways, it mimics what happened in the United States’ last election. Two strongly ideologically opposed factions, extremely close results, and valid questions of legitimacy right down to challenging the reliability of electronic voting machines:

“Party leader Valdemar Costa and an auditor hired by the party told reporters in Brasilia that their evaluation found all machines dating from before 2020 — nearly 280,000 of them, or about 59 percent of the total used in the Oct. 30 runoff — lacked individual identification numbers in internal logs.”

Nothing to see here! Just as in the U.S., concerns are dismissed by “experts” as “baseless,” and the courts are siding with that view. It hardly seems out of line to note that the judge who ruled incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro’s allies must pay “US$4M” for challenging voter fraud also sits on Brazil’s Supreme Court, which issued the disarmament ruling and earlier ruled against Bolsonaro’s attempted relaxation of gun laws.

And while the Reuters report limits incidents of political violence to Bolsonaro supporters (while describing him as “far right” for effect), what we see is the “mainstream media” (what I call the DSM or Duranty/Streicher Media) is taking a page from the same playbook that it used to tie all Americans who question the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s election in with the low-hanging fruit handful that allowed themselves to be suckered into the Capitol.

They cite one incident:

“On Saturday, a man was arrested for attempting to set off a bomb in protest of the election results and said Bolsonaro’s call to arms inspired him to build up an arsenal.”

Was he wearing a buffalo horn hat?

The bottom line is we don’t know who the provocateurs may be, and very few in the media seem inclined to investigate, particularly since one other significant factor is well known to all the “journalists” covering developments:

“Brazil’s Communist Party leader Luciana Santos called on the left to ‘occupy the streets’ to guarantee a Lula victory in the second round of presidential elections…”

Note Reuters didn’t call Lula “far left”…?

That’s what he is, and a bribe-taking criminal to boot, turned loose by the same Supreme Court opposed to Bolsonaro not because Lula was innocent but on a “legal technicality.”

And no surprise because we know Lula’s demand for wider citizen disarmament is a keystone issue in the communist platform (so much for egalitarian power-sharing!); the report notes the request for the disarmament zone came from the Lula camp. And, again, no surprise, we see the obligatory “Only Ones” exemption:

“The prohibition does not affect members of security forces and employees of private security firms.”

So as Brazilians prepare to repeat the past with a “monopoly of violence,” don’t be surprised to see a return to “the good old days”:

“Brazil’s police ‘execute thousands’” the BBC headline declares. “You couldn’t really investigate complaints because you knew there was this curtain of silence that was always present,” former police ombudsman Professor Julita Lemgruber claimed, adding, “that she had personally dealt with cases in which summary executions had happened.” “A lot of these killings are quasi-executions, with shots to the head and the heart,” a representative of the human rights group Global Justice told The Houston Chronicle, which reported “police in Rio and its suburbs … have taken the lives of more than 4,000 people in the past five years … In the worst massacre in Rio’s history, police officers gunned down 29 men, women and children on the night of March 31.”

In the meantime, returning to the leftist playbook, look for Brazilians who question the election and defy tyrannical disarmament to be attacked and marginalized as extremists, criminals, racists, and “deplorables,” just like here. And just like here, they’re picking a fight to the finish with people who are proud of their heritage, vested in freedom, and not likely to grovelingly surrender their birthrights to their moral inferiors.

“Gun stores and shooting tournaments are popping up all over Brazil,” NPR reported in August. “They include the massive Schützenfest, held in southern Brazil where many people are of German descent, and is a combination of beer-drenched Oktoberfest and shooting guns. An average of one new shooting range per day has opened during Bolsonaro’s nearly four years in office, Brazil’s UOL website reported.”

Combine that with the following:

“‘Every city’ in Brazil filled with protesters claiming election fraud Possibly largest demonstration in history ‘and the global media is crickets’.”

This isn’t over. And we in the Land of the Second Amendment may learn a thing or two before it is.

Epilog:

In an editorial comment-laced “news” story rife with loaded terms and leftist-sympathizing sentiment, The Washington Post tells us Jair Bolsonaro has flown to Florida. Don’t be surprised if that’s not enough for the Lula regime.

Also see:

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

from https://ift.tt/unHVNvU
via IFTTT

Virginia Delegate’s Bill Would Restore Preemption Authority

State preemption laws have been adopted in more than 40 states (with Washington leading the way almost 40 years ago). Pre-filed legislation in Virginia seeks to restore legislative control over firearm regulation in the Old Dominion. (Dave Workman)

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A Republican delegate in the Virginia legislature has pre-filed a bill that would “remove a locality’s authority to prohibit the possession or carrying firearms in public parks and community centers owned by the locality, as well as public streets, alleys and sidewalks,” as noted by the Washington Examiner.

House Bill 1427 is sponsored by Delegate Dave LaRock, who is joined by fellow Republican Del. Phillip A. Scott and Republican Sen. Amanda F. Chase.

Speaking to Ammoland News, LaRock said ceding authority for regulating firearms to local governments “ignores the benefits (of) continuity of laws throughout the states.”

As reported by TheGunMag.com, state preemption is likely to be targeted in Washington State—one of the original preemption states—because if their model law can be taken down, anti-gunners will likely try challenging the laws in some 40 other states, many of them modeled after the Evergreen State’s 1985 statute.

The bill’s text is straightforward:

“No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution, or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage, or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

“Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. However, no locality shall adopt any workplace rule, other than for the purposes of a community services board or behavioral health authority as defined in § 37.2-100, that prevents an employee of that locality from storing at that locality’s workplace a lawfully possessed firearm and ammunition in a locked private motor vehicle. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, from acting within the scope of his duties.

“The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail, juvenile detention facility, or state-governed entity, department, or agency.

“B. Any local ordinance, resolution, or motion adopted prior to July 1, 2004, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.”

The concept of state preemption has always been clear, and always more than a mere annoyance to the gun control lobby. By prohibiting local governments from enacting their own gun control ordinances—which may be confusing or contradictory—it prevents the creation of a “checkerboard” effect across a state. This opens gun owners to vulnerability as they travel through various jurisdictions which could put them in violation of a local gun law. This discourages other gun owners from exercising their right to bear arms, according to preemption law supporters.

According to the Washington Examiner, LaRock’s bill has not yet received a committee assignment.

LaRock confirmed in his telephone conversation the General Assembly remains divided, with GOP control of the House of Delegates and Democrat control in the Senate. Gov. Glenn Youngkin is also a Republican, so if the legislation passes, he could sign it.

LaRock noted that eliminating preemption laws can give anti-gunners in state legislatures “a little cover” if local municipalities adopt restrictions, allowing state lawmakers to tell their angry constituents “that decision was made locally.”

He suggested proponents of local gun control typically believe more control is better.

But the argument in favor of rolling back the gun control laws adopted during the final year of the previous administration, headed by former Gov. Ralph Northam, is simple. LaRock said the question that must be asked is “Did the measures you passed work?” His analysis is that they didn’t.

Virginia’s 2023 session begins Jan. 11 in Richmond. Since this will also be an election year in the legislature, what happens with gun legislation could have an impact on how some of those races turn out in November.

Youngkin’s term, however, continues to January 2026.

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

from https://ift.tt/EQjN5CO
via IFTTT

Tow Truck Driver in Detroit Stops Armed Attacker

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A towing company got a call about a junk car that someone wanted to be removed. It was about 9:30 Monday morning, the day after Christmas. That is when the driver of the flatbed wrecker pulled up to the address about seven-and-a-half miles northeast of downtown Detroit. The driver got out of his truck and looked for the vehicle owner. The temperature was below freezing, in the mid-teens, and with light winds.

A stranger waved at the tow truck driver and walked up to him. The driver asked if the stranger had a car for sale. The stranger nodded and reached into his pocket. Instead of pulling out a set of keys, the stranger took a handgun out of his pocket. The attacker pointed his gun at the driver and told him to empty his pockets.

The driver faced several problems. One was the attacker, who had a gun already pointed at him. The other problems are the concealed pistol license in his wallet and the handgun in his holster.

Nobody wants to hand another loaded weapon to an armed robber.

The news reports aren’t clear how the driver was able to reach under his coat and present his firearm. Witnesses report that the driver shot between six and eight times. Police reports do not indicate that the attacker was able to fire his gun at all.

Firearms instructor Rick Ector teaches and carries in Detroit. A heavy coat slows down your presentation. It also masks your presentation. Quoting Ector, “Heavy coats are common. Sometimes I carry in my jacket pocket. I assume I’ll have to shoot through the coat. I don’t buy expensive coats.”

The driver stepped back and called 911. So did neighbors in the area who heard the gunfire. It appears that the driver stayed at the scene. The driver spoke to the police when they arrived. He also showed them his identification and his concealed pistol license.

Since there was a report of shots fired, the 911 dispatcher also rolled Emergency Medical Services to the scene. EMS transported the attacker to the hospital in critical condition. The attacker died a few hours later.

News reporters interviewed the neighbors. They recognized the attacker and said he lived in the area. They did not blame the driver for defending himself. To quote one neighbor, “You have to get these crooks off the street one way or another.” The neighbors refused to let the news reporters publish their names.

Several tow truck companies said that some had rules against their drivers going armed. The companies feared being named in a civil suit if the driver had to defend himself. They were more worried about a lawsuit than their equipment being stolen or their drivers being injured.

All of the towing companies that were interviewed said that their drivers have a dangerous job since they went to all parts of the city at all hours of the day and night.

The police did not arrest the driver, and did not include his name in their published reports. The news media did not name the driver either.

This story is one of many that goes underreported by the mainstream media because it shows a positive image of a law-abiding gun owner using that tool to defend their life and family. It is our responsibility at AmmoLand to report these stories to you the reader. While we will continue to report these stories, groups like the Crime Prevention Research Center, led by Dr. John Lott, are fastidious in studying the use of firearms for self-defense. Stay up to date with all news on self-defense by following CPRC and Ammoland.

Original News Sources-

About Rob Morse

Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, at Second Call Defense, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

from https://ift.tt/CMK7reG
via IFTTT

Open Carry of Firearms is Strong, Protected, Political, Symbolic Speech

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– The open carry of firearms is strong, protected, symbolic, and political speech. It sends a clear, specific political message:

The power of government is limited by the Constitution.

The government is not allowed to disarm free people who are peaceable.

Symbolic political speech is protected by the First Amendment. From mtsu.edu:

Symbolic speech consists of nonverbal, nonwritten forms of communication, such as flag burning, wearing arm bands, and burning of draft cards. It is generally protected by the First Amendment unless it causes a specific, direct threat to another individual or public order.

The simple wearing or carrying of firearms is not a direct threat to any individual or to public order. If it were, the open carry of firearms by police would directly threaten individuals or public order.

Pointing firearms at individuals or even in their general direction could be a direct threat. Holstered sidearms and slung rifles are not a direct threat. They are an expression of political power and limited governmental power.

The Supreme Court has ruled symbolic political speech can be limited if very specific qualifications are met. The case was United States v. O’Brien. The qualifications are:

Any limitation has to be allowed by the Constitution.
The limitation must be necessary for an important government interest
The governmental interest is not related to the suppression of free speech
The restriction is limited to the minimum necessary to meet the important government interest.

Open carry of firearms has been the most protected part of the right to bear arms. It isn’t easy to see an important government interest served by banning open carry, especially as part of demonstrations.

There are only four states which ban the open carry of firearms. They are California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida. This strongly implies there is no compelling government interest in banning the open carry of firearms.

California specifically banned the open carry of unloaded firearms, as well as loaded firearms. This strongly implies the California ban’s purpose was to suppress strong, symbolic, political, free speech.

There is no right in the United States to be free from being offended or to be free from irrational fear. In an opinion piece in the Daily Montanan, there was what appears to be a case of projection. From opinion in the Daily Montanan:

Second Amendment supporters say they believe in the Constitution enough to exercise their rights by carrying a gun, but what happens when I believe in those same laws enough to trust law enforcement or believe in the peace of the country enough to be certain that there are few instances where I need a weapon?

A gun isn’t a sign of solidarity for the Second Amendment, instead it’s more of an affirmation of fear.

Who is showing they are afraid, the person who is open carrying or the person who is afraid of people who open carry?

It reminds me of the joke where a state trooper stops an older woman and asks her if she has any weapons in her car.

She says, “I have a 9mm pistol on my person.”

The trooper asks: “Do you have any other weapons?”

She replies, “I have a .38 revolver in the glove box, a 12 gauge shotgun, and an AR15 in the trunk of the car.”

The trooper asks: what are you afraid of?

She says, absolutely nothing.

In Maryland, the editorial board of The Daily Record attempts to make the case that open carry of firearms terrorizes the population. They claim the ability to ban open carry comes from old English common law, which they mischaracterize. The crux of the argument is: people fear the open carry of firearms, so open carry can be banned.

From the dailyrecord.com:

Public safety and breach of the peace are not the same as physical harm and injury. Public safety as well as preventing physical harm must also be a goal of modern gun regulation. Such a goal helps protect the constitutional order and provides a feeling of security to citizens within their communities.

Imagine speaking ill of certain politicians at rallies attended by their heavily armed supporters. The government’s interest in regulating the ability to carry any weapon, in any manner and for any purpose is strong, and it is needed to protect against intimidation in addition to physical harm.

The editorial board does not see the irony of politicians, surrounded by armed government agents, as possibly intimidating when those government agents have far more legal power and protections than armed citizens who open carry.

People who are terrorized by the open carry of firearms are a tiny minority. If it were otherwise, police would be required to conceal their duty weapons. The fear expressed is not for openly carried weapons. It is a fear of ordinary citizens having political power.

The open carry of firearms is strong, protected, political, and symbolic speech. It is protected by the First Amendment as much as by the Second Amendment.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

from https://ift.tt/ZweIF3R
via IFTTT

Knife Rights: Repeal of Alabama Knife Restrictions Takes Effect Now

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Alabama’s Constitutional Carry is now in effect, including the repeal of restrictions on the carrying of a Bowie knife or a concealed knife.

WARNING: Local jurisdictions may still restrict or ban knives. Knife Rights looks forward to working to enact its signature Knife Law Preemption going forward in Alabama. This would void those restrictions and bans and prevent any from being put in place in the future. To find local knife restrictions go to: kniferights.org/how-to-find-local-knife-laws or download Knife Rights’ LegalBlade App.
WARNING: Remaining in Alabama statutes is this prohibition: Any person who sells, gives or lends to any minor any pistol or bowie [sic] knife, or other knife of like kind or description, shall, on conviction, be fined not less than $50.00 nor more than $500.00.

Knife Rights deeply appreciates sponsor Representative Shane Singer’s including these knife ban repeals in this bill. Knife Rights supports Constitutional Carry and particularly bills such as this that rid the state of knife bans.

Altogether, Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 40 bills repealing knife bans signed into law in 26 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.

About Knife Rights

Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; Rewriting Knife Law in America and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 32 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 22 states and over one hundred cities and towns since 2010, as well as numerous litigation victories.

from https://ift.tt/kYKCOHj
via IFTTT

Monday, January 2, 2023

Knife Rights’ Pennsylvania Switchblade Ban Repeal Takes Effect

Pennsylvania Switchblade Ban Repeal Signed

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Knife Rights’ Repeal of Pennsylvania’s ban on possession and carry of Switchblade Knives takes effect today January 2nd, 2023. The manufacture and sale of automatic knives in the state is also now legal.

WARNING: Without knife law preemption in Pennsylvania, cities, and towns can still prohibit automatic (and other) knives, and many do. To find local knife restrictions go to:kniferights.org/how-to-find-local-knife-laws or download Knife Rights’ LegalBlade App.
WARNING: Concealed carry of an automatic knife “…with the intent therewith unlawfully and maliciously to do injury to any other person…” remains illegal in Pennsylvania. This is a very subjective standard and subject to abuse. Other than the repeal of the ban on switchblades, no other changes in Pennsylvania knife laws are enacted. To review Pennsylvania knife laws, download Knife Rights’ LegalBlade App.

Knife Rights has led the effort to repeal switchblade bans or restrictions in 20 states, starting with New Hampshire in 2010. Repeals have since been enacted in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and now, Pennsylvania.<

Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 40 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 26 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.

About Knife Rights

from https://ift.tt/5WFhvNu
via IFTTT

Polar Bear Attack on Russians Stopped with Handgun and Rifles

Polar Bear Attack Stopped with Revolvers in Norway iStock-1364796505

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– On 28 August 1990, three Russians were in the Svalbard Archipelago at Agardh, doing research for about a month. Agardh is about 80 miles northeast of Longyearbyen. There had been many visits by polar bears, and bears had stolen food from the food tents. Because the bear problem was so bad, they were allowed to use the cabin “Nye Agardh”.

The incident was found in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by AmmoLand. The names of the people involved were redacted. The text appears to be a translation. Because of spelling and grammatical errors and awkward wording, the account has been edited for readability. Fictitious names have been substituted for the redactions. The incident is number 148 on the FOIA release.

The incident is a rare documentation of the use of a 7.62 mm (.30) caliber handgun in defense against a polar bear. 7.62 mm rifles were also used. Unfortunately, the cartridge designations are not included in the FOIA release, only the caliber.

The two most common 7.62 caliber pistols in use in Russia are the 7.62x38R Nagant revolver cartridge and the 7.62×25 Tokarev pistol cartridge. It is possible a different 7.62 caliber pistol was used. Similarly, the most common 7.62 rifle cartridges in use in Russia are the 7.62x54R and the 7.62×39. Both are common military calibers in Russian service, but a different 7.62 cartridge could have been used. The incident involved a single boar polar bear.

Here is the incident, lightly edited:

Around 1PM Alek and Boris woke up from banging on the door. Alek got up and went to the door and discovered there was a polar bear outside. He had a signal flare in his hand. When he was about to open the door, he heard the bear snorting and thought that the bear’s head was at the same height as his. He didn’t dare to open the door. He didn’t set off the signal flare. When the bear continued to hit the door, the two others got up. Alek accessed a 7.62 mm handgun, and Boris and Igor each took a 7.62 mm rifle.

They had sausages, butter, and other groceries in the hallway. The bear was probably smelling this and trying to reach the food. The people thought if the bear broke through the door and into the cabin, the situation would become life-threatening. There would be very little time to aim and fire. The cabin was already crowded.

Considering the situation, Alek fired one shot through the door with the pistol. He fired upwards so the shot would go through the door at approximately head height and angled upward. The bear continued to hit the door, and Alek now fired a shot with the rifle. He was scared and shaken. He was convinced the bear was standing on two legs and that its head would be at the height of the middle of the door. He thus fired through the door at that height to hit the bear in the head/ neck region. He was scared for his life, and so were the others, this is why he tried to kill the bear.

Boris then opened the window on the other side of the cabin, stood in the window and looked over the roof. He then saw the bear was lying on the ground about 10m from the cabin. The bears eyes were open, and the bear was not dead. He could not see if the bear was injured. Alek then opened the door and fired one shot in the ground besides the bear. It then got up and started walking away. He could see that it was injured, there was blood on the left shoulder. The bear walked towards “Myklagard” and disappeared behind the hill. Alek, Boris and Igor went up on the hill and could then see the bear lying on the ground about 100m from “Myklagard”.

Opinion:

As an official research expedition, it is likely the pistol was a 7.62 Tokarev and the rifle was a 7.62 x 54R Nagant. The Nagant bolt action rifles are common in Russia. They are similar in power to the .30-06 (7.62×63) or the .308 (7.62×51) cartridges and rifles. All three rifle calibers meet the energy requirements imposed by the Svalbard governor for protection against polar bears. The 7.62×25 Tokarev pistol cartridge does not meet the Svalbard energy requirements for pistols, but it is a powerful pistol cartridge known for penetration and breaking bones. The military loading develops about 400 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. The 7.62x38R revolver cartridge is fairly common in Russia but is far less powerful. The military loading is said to develop about 250 foot pounds at the muzzle.

A polar bear attempting to break into your dwelling is a deadly threat.