California Gun Waiting Period Laws Ruled Unconstitutional

Second AmendmentFrom the

Federal court decides 10-day waiting period laws violate Second Amendment rights

ROSEVILLE, CA, and BELLEVUE, WA / August 25, 2014 – California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.

In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”

“This is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,” said Jeff Silvester, the named individual plaintiff. “I couldn’t be happier with how this case turned out.”

Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.

“We are happy that Second Amendment rights are being acknowledged and protected by our courts,” said Donald Kilmer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “This case is one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty. I am elated that we were able to successfully vindicate the rights of our clients.”

One win.  Just one.

And on a federal level, no less.



Clinton: we can’t be tethered to that inconvenient 2nd Amendment

From the

Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority

by Paige Lavender

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about her views on gun control Tuesday, saying she was “disappointed” Congress did not pass a universal background checks bill after “the horrors” of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town hall.

Translation: we cannot let those who cling to God and guns to stand in the way of the various Leftist goals of a completely defenseless society subject to — well — being nothing more than Subjects.  Proles.  Serfs.  Groundlings.

For one thing, that’s working so well for Mexico — a country controlled by a corrupt government and drug cartels armed to the teeth and willing to set your children on fire.

It’s also working so well for the civilians in Africa.  Name a nation.  Any nation.

And the civilians in Iraq.  Working really well there.  Yes?

This is a shocking statement to me, frankly.  This is Hillary Clinton kicking the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights aside.  Which indicates to me that she has no concept whatsoever of the purpose and reasons for the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place.  This is the most disturbing point of all.

As I wrote here back in May of 2010, the issue is that of positive vs negative rights.  I said:

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

- The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures
– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.


Meaning: the conscription of bank accounts, and the redistribution of wealth.  Not just of the so-called “wealthy,” but of you and of me.

In other words, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights purposely constricts the government; it seeks not to expand the role of government.

But back to the present: Hillary Clinton cannot stand that the US Constitution is not a so-called “living document” that is subject to change but upon a whim.  And in her mind, your First and Second Amendments are nothing but fairy dust subject to the temper of the times, as dictated by Leftists.

And that is so incredibly frustrating to her and fellow LeftProgs.

Just clinging to our God and our guns. As the barbarians we are. We: who believe in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Plus this from

Obama, Media Mislead on Gun Crime Statistics in U.S., Australia

by Bob Adelmann

The Troutdale, Oregon, shooting on June 10 gave both the president and the liberal media another opportunity to rehash old arguments and repeat old lies about the need for more gun control in the United States. When Jared Padgett entered a boys’ locker room at Reynolds High School on June 10, he murdered a classmate before being confronted by armed officers. Following that confrontation, Padgett took his own life.

The fact that he stole the weapons from his family home, defeating various security measures, meant that he also defeated any background check measures that were in place to prevent such a shooting from occurring.

That simple fact escaped the attention of the president who, taking advantage of the tragedy, pushed his ongoing agenda for more gun control measures.

He (Obama) then reiterated the myth that gun confiscation measures implemented nearly 20 years ago in Australia had significantly reduced such mass shootings there and that, by implication, the United States should go and do likewise:

A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, “Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,” and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.

But here’s the rub: statistics are statistics.

Neither the president nor Washington Post referred to the latest report from Pew Research which showed that the gun homicide rate in the United States has declined by half since 1993. Said Pew:

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew.

The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm — assaults, robberies and sex crimes — was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993.

Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

This startling downward trend was taking place at the same time that the number of firearms, and their owners, have been increasing. In just one year, for example, the percentage of American households owning at least one firearm has increased by five percent from 2012 to 2013.

Neither the president nor the Post noted that according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008.” When using four deaths per incident, as a recent Congressional Research report did, there were a total of just 547 deaths from mass shootings in the United States in the 30 years from 1983 through 2012, far less than the “one per week” quoted by the president.

And yes.  When gun crime is actually down, gun crime reporting is actually up and purposely so.  For obvious reasons.

Again, more truth that no one wants to have exposed — but I shall do so now and here at Bloviating Zeppelin:

As far as Australia is concerned, the president also failed the Pinocchio test by suggesting that violent crime and gun homicides had declined there since that country confiscated long guns and bought back more than 70,000 handguns following passage of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in 1996. In August, 2008 the University of Melbourne published the results of its study of the matter (“The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths”) and concluded that “the results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” But it most certainly did have an effect on relegating its citizens to second-class status. As Australian member of parliament David Leyonhjelm wrote in an email to

The gun laws have made no difference [in] the level of homicides, up or down….

The bottom line is [that] we are suffering under draconian gun laws that treat us like criminals in waiting, with zero public benefit but substantial public cost.

If President Obama genuinely believes Australia offers a model for reducing firearm crime … he is seriously misinformed.


Seriously misinformed.

Imagine that.



FDIC’s “Operation Choke Point” and firearms sellers

Oblamich ManeuverFDIC’s new view: let’s simply choke them out.  Like a nice arm-bar or carotid choke.

From the

‘High risk’ label from feds puts gun sellers in banks’ crosshairs, hurts business

Obama plan pressures financial institutions

by Kelly Riddell

Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales.

Since 2011, regulators have increased scrutiny on banks’ customers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2011 urged banks to better manage the risks of their merchant customers who employ payment processors, such as PayPal, for credit card transactions. The FDIC listed gun retailers as “high risk” along with porn stores and drug paraphernalia shops.

And why would that be, ladies and gentlemen?  Paul Harvey said this, here, about armed vs unarmed societies.  If you are intelligent you realize who Paul Harvey was.  If you are a Millennial you are not and couldn’t care less about your freedoms as long as you can Tweet and clasp an iPad.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched Operation Choke Point, a credit card fraud probe focusing on banks and payment processors. The threat of enforcement has prompted some banks to cut ties with online gun retailers, even if those companies have valid licenses and good credit histories.

“This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent ‘reputational risk’ to do business with,” said Peter Weinstock, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams LLP. “So financial institutions are reacting to this extraordinary enforcement arsenal by being ultra-conservative in who they do business with: Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.”

This is federal GovSpeak for “let us eliminate firearms retailers, and those who are injured vicariously are simply fodder for the greater good.”

A Justice Department representative said the agency is conducting several investigations that aim to hold accountable banks “who are knowingly assisting fraudulent merchants who harm consumers.”

Translated: banks who loan to those frowned-upon by the federal government will themselves be held under more constant and critical scrutiny by said federal government.
This is, again, the federal government purposely choosing which private businesses will succeed and which private businesses will fail.  Via banks and loans and the FDIC.

How about some specific examples?

T.R. Liberti, owner and operator of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami, has felt the sting firsthand. Last month, his local bank, BankUnited N.A., dumped his online business from its service.

An explanatory email from the bank said: “This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf. But rather one of industry. Unfortunately your company’s line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with.”

-Black Rifle Armory in Henderson, Nevada, had its bank accounts frozen this month as the bank tried to determine whether any of Black Rifle’s online transactions were suspicious.

In 2012, Bank of America suddenly dropped the 12-year account of McMillan Group International, a gun manufacturer in Phoenix, even though the company had a good credit history, the owner said. Gun parts maker American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale, Arizona, received similar treatment by Bank of America, the country’s largest banking institution.

“This seems to be happening with greater frequency and to many more dealers,” said Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms. “At first, it was the bigger guys — gun parts manufacturers or high-profile retailers. Now the smaller mom-and-pop shops are being choked out, and they need their cash to buy inventory. Freezing their assets will put them out of business.”

But of course it is only business and has no foundation in the type of business involved nor is it sourced from DC.
And HERE is the paragraph that reveals all:

However, the American Banking Association, the industry’s advocacy group in Washington, said businesses deemed “risky” will be frozen out of the financial system if the Justice Department continues Operation Choke Point because the regulatory burden and risk of investigation will be too great for less-specialized banks to bear.

There you go.  A “way around” to trump all way-arounds.  And bankers respond:

“We’re being threatened with a regulatory regime that attempts to foist on us the obligation to monitor all types of transactions,” Richard Riese, a senior vice president at the American Bankers Association, said in the April 28 issue of American Banker. “All of this is predicated on a notion that the banks are a choke point for all businesses.”

To a point never addressed before, until the Obama Administration.  And that never addressed by Leftists “in the tank” for Mr Obama.
In an interview with The Times, Mr. Riese said the cost of doing business with gun retailers outweighs the benefits for some banks, given that regulators deem the industry as “risky,” state laws vary on the sale of guns and ammunition, and the Justice Department’s enforcement.

The Independent Community Bankers of America, an association for small banks, said enforcement actions from the Justice Department are too broad and overly aggressive.

Are any of you surprised that this stems from the Obama Administration — the most strident opponent of the Second Amendment in history?

And here is the point — that I apparently have to emphasize — again and again:

Commentary by Paul Harvey:

     "Are you considering backing gun control laws???"
     Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the
     rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't
     In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
     - From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million
     dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
     up and exterminated.
     In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
     - From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to
     defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
     Germany established gun control in 1938.
     - From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies,
     homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were
     unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
     China established gun control in 1935.
     - From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
     unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
     Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
     - From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to
     defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
     Uganda established gun control in 1970.
     - From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to
     defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
     Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
     - From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people,
     unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
     That places total victims who lost their lives because
     of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last
     Since we should learn from the mistakes of history,
     the next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
     find out which group of citizens they wish to have
     It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
     Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal
     firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the
     government more than $500 million dollars.
     - The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%,
     Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%.
     In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with
     firearms are up 300%.
     Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady
     decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians
     are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no
     improvement in "safety" has been observed after such
     monumental effort and expense was successfully
     expended in "ridding society of guns."
     It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of
     honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
     gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
     Take action before it's too late, write or call your
     Paul Harvey

Past history is the best predictor of future performance or the lack thereof.



Registration then confiscation: Connecticut first

Guns -- Hi Capacity MagazineFrom Ginny Simone:

Once again I say — and history has proven this time and time thereafter — persons who are unarmed are called Serfs, Proles, Groundlings.

Lt Vance It's Not Even In the Cards -- RIGHT NOW“It’s not even in the cards — right now.”  So says Lt J. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police.  Sorry sir.  I don’t believe you for an instant.  You made an equivocation.

Surrendering our freedoms.  Does this sound like America to you?  Why do our soldiers fight for our so-called “rights” if we are simply in the process of giving them away to a New World Order that disdains state and national rights for an overarching global hegemony?

The Second Amendment does not — please let me emphasize this — exist to protect so-called “hunters.”  It exists solely for the protection of the citizen from the actions of its government.  Plain and simple.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I submit the founding fathers were frighteningly prescient.

Here’s the funny thing: I don’t see in the many videos available regarding the diminishment of our Second Amendment rights, many Asians or black or Mexicans.  Because they should, en masse, have gathered around

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

One point of Libertarianism upon which I most wholeheartedly agree, and why I left the GOP and became a registered Independent:

“We’re better off when government was left small, and people were free.”
– John Stossel


Guns - Free Men

A governor who is proud to host the NRA:

Mike Pence, the Governor of Indiana.

The video:

To quote Chief Dan George, “my heart soars like an eagle” to hear a state governor speak proudly of and actively host the 2014 NRA Annual Meeting.

Think that would happen in Occupied Fornicalia via Governor Jerry Brown?

Not a chance.