[Updated] COVID-19 Emergency: Camden County, GA Oversteps Its Authority

Update: Commission Chairman Jimmy Starline (District 3 commissioner) called me. He said that he has referred the matter to their attorney for review.

1. He stated that the county has no desire to stop firearm sales. He didn’t address the rest.

2. He said he assumes they simply copied state law on emergency powers. I noted that their clause differs significantly from state law on the governor’s powers. He said the law probably used to be different. To that, I pointed out that state preemption passed several years ago.

3. He did not say if they would inform law enforcement that the clause is unenforceable, which is my major concern. I hope he, or the attorney, note the clause in 16-11-173 that makes the county subject to lawsuits if some jacked up cop tries to enforce it.

---

What with the COVID-19 stuff going on I had occasion to notice a little something. Camden County declared a state of emergency. I’m chagrined that I hadn’t reviewed the county emergency code before. Sometimes I get too caught up in federal and state laws and legislation.

I sent my county commissioners a little letter.

---

Good day,

While reviewing Camden County Code Chapter 22, I noticed something which I think you need to correct.

Camden County Code Sec. 22-40. Emergency powers.
(c) The chairman of the board of commissioners shall have and may exercise for such periods as the state of emergency or disaster exists or continues the following emergency powers:

(5) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives or combustibles;

The power to regulate firearms in an emergency is reserved to the governor under O.C.G.A. § 38-3-51.

(8) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles; provided, however, that any limitation on firearms under this Code section shall not include an individual firearm owned by a private citizen which was legal and owned by that citizen prior to the declaration of state of emergency or disaster or thereafter acquired in compliance with all applicable laws of this state and the United States; and

Moreover, under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173, the state preempts regulation of firearms. County and municipal governments are specifically forbidden doing so.

(b)(1) No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms; firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components.

I would appreciate a very timely correction to Chapter 22, and written notice to county and municipal law enforcement agencies that Sec. 22-40.(c)(5), as it pertains to firearms, will not be enforced pending revision.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger

---

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)

3D-Printed “Guns”: Questions for Lawyers

What with various state and federal bills intended to ban 3D-printed firearms…

Suppose someone prints up the parts for a working firearm, and is arrested.

At trial, he argues that it is not a firearm, but mere a model to make a lawful injection molded — with a stronger, Barium sulfate infused, fiber-filled polymer — firearm. And he presents as evidence the mold made with the 3D-printed parts…

…complete with metallic serial number plate and a metal insert to comply with the Undetectable Firearm Act.

Perhaps the model parts could even be assembled into a “firearm” that could get one shot off before blowing up. But they weren’t printed to be assembled other than to test for fit.

1. Is that collection of 3D-printed parts a firearm?

Now let’s take this a little further. What about the 3D printer files; the instruction set that tells the printer how to build the part. Those files got called munitions under ITAR, and Internet distribution got shut down. Then back up. Then the Trump administration moved to take them off the ITAR list altogether. The last I heard a judge in Washington state ordered an injunction against the change.

Rep. Douche [D-FL] is trying to moot the whole thing with H.R.3265 – 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019, to

“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the Internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”.

But now the file is an instruction set for a model, from which a mold can be made, which in turn is used to injection mold a federally compliant handgun.

2. Does this file dodge HR 3265?

These questions would also apply to polymer “80% frames” like plastic Glock-compatible kits.

Please discuss in comments below. Have fun.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)

An Open Letter to Professor Steven P. Grossman

TO: Steven P. Grossman (sgrossman@ubalt.edu)
CC: newstips@baltimoresun.com, OGPA@ubalt.edu
SUBJECT: An Open Letter to Professor Steven P. Grossman

Sir,

Regarding your opinion column:

The right to bear arms is not absolute
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0217-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-20200217-wjekvvhasvfntmutnyaospgrmq-story.html

You should be ashamed of yourself. Deliberate false equivalence in a professor should be grounds for a university investigation of whether your anti-rights position has colored your actions as dean.

Do you think it is permissible to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater in order to create a panic? How about whether it is legal to speak to a crowd and tell them to go out and shoot the first police officer they see, or homeless person or teacher?
[…]
While virtually everyone accepts such a common sense limitation on the First Amendment, there are those who argue that anyone who proposes limitations on the possession of guns is an opponent of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

I see what you did there. When an ignorant layman does that, I’m willing to consider the possibility that it is attributable to mere… ignorance. When a law professor equates MISUSE/ABUSE of a right to simple, lawful, and harmless exercise of right, I know it’s purely malicious.

You pretend that lying and threatening are the First Amendment equivalents of the Second Amendment right to POSSESS a tool.

Before you wrote that despicable screed did you fill out a federal form and ask permission from the government to buy the computer on which you composed the column? Did you undergo a prior restraint background to prove your innocence before even obtaining the inanimate tool you used to exercise your First Amendment right to voice that opinion? Did you use a 1980s Intel 80286 computer limited to 768K RAM, because only the military needs a high speed, high capacity Pentium with 8 GB?

Did you get a license to possess your mouth, just in case you might lie to a student — or Baltimore Sun readers? Did you undergo a background check to possess your typing fingers?

Do University of Baltimore School of Law students undergo background checks before purchasing textbooks, or writing class papers?

Yes; threats, lies, incitement to violence are abuses of free speech rights, and we punish people for that. Likewise, assault and murder using firearms are abuses of the right to keep and bear arms. As a law professor I would expect you to know that those are also unlawful and we punish those offenders.

Buying and possessing a firearm differs not from buying and possessing a computer, telephone, megaphone, pen, or pencil. The ABUSE that must be controlled is not the same thing as possessing a tool with the potential to be abused.

Reasonable laws limiting the possession and sale of certain guns are clearly not violative of the Second Amendment. Such laws include but are not limited to those banning weapons, such as the AR-15 designed for combat…

If you believe that modern AR-pattern semiautomatic rifles were designed as military weapons (despite the fact that no nation on the planet generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops), then how do you square banning them with the precedent of U.S. vs. Miller, 1939, in which the Supreme Court found that short-barrel shotguns could be regulated because they had not been shown to be a weapon used by the military? The Court specifically said that the Second Amendment does protect the possession of military arms. An honest law professor would know and admit that.

Your disdain for basic, constitutionally protected human rights disgusts me.

Sincerely,

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger

Aesop loses his shit

…because the VCDL Lobby Day rally didn’t.

In the lead up to the January rally, Aesop spilled a great deal of virtual ink on ridicule laced with gratuitous profanity all over the incipient rally attendees. He was absolutely sure the rally would devolve into mass violence due to moles, false flag operators, and Pantifa. Certain.

He even believed the news reports that The Base dipshits busted in Maryland were going to the rally to shoot people. Aesop should have read closer. What the FBI actually said is that they were concerned that the Nazi wannabes might go because they’d discussed it once. And their apparent “leader” seems to have been a CI.

Aesop should have read the warrant affidavit which made no mention whatsoever of the rally.

I had concerns about the rally myself. But I saw that it was inevitable; the rally was going to occur even if VCDL called it off and convinced Virginia members to stay home. So I made some specific suggestions for how to try to keep things under control.

Whether it was coincidence, good sense, or Van Cleave happened to read my column, what I suggested is what they did. Video showed a few people who tried to stir shit up, but the sane attendees locked it down. As of this morning, the mainstream media is sadly reporting the tragedy of exactly zero violent incidents. I saw one report of one Pantifa idiot arrested for wearing a mask.

So we got a large rally — the lowest mainstream media estimate I’ve seen was 22,000 — that went off, basically, without a hitch. Bearing in mind that it wasn’t much about actual lobbying by that point (pointless with the VA .gov thoroughly controlled by anti-rights Dems), sane people would call it a success. Media coverage showing gun owners to be a whole lot of nice people who don’t go on mass murder sprees.

Aesop, who has sacrificed any respect I once had for his opinions, disagrees. In his imaginary alternate universe, the rally was only peaceful because the attendees were Paul-Reubenesque sheep who passively allowed themselves to be caged, where they were protected by 2,000 cops who bravely protected them from themselves.

Bull fucking shit, Aesop. As I suggested, the vast majority of rallyers never entered the fenced area; based on several images, I figured 20% or less were inside the fence. The other 80% or so packed the perimeter blocks deep. Aside from one arrest of the Pantifa pisswit, every incipient incident I’ve seen was controlled by rallyers, not the police.

Dems being what they are, it’s unlikely this was a lobbying success (but I’ll wait to see if maybe some sense got scared into anyone). But…

The media, carefully watching for gratuitous violence to drive ratings and clicks, were forced to show peaceful assembly by a huge number of dedicated freedom lovers who tolerated even the leftie idiots trying to start shit. The media was tricked into showing gun owners as decent people who don’t start shit, but are ready — and equipped — to stop it.

Success.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)

Morphing VCDL’s Lobby Day for Fun and Profit

I’ve noticed a trend in “news” reporting in the past few days, and this morning it was particularly obvious. It really hit me when I read one piece. Darned if I remember where it was, so… no link. But hit any mainstream media source and you’ll see the same general thing.

It was a report about the “protest” in Virginia on Monday. All about how “The Base” would be there, the “ultra-violent” Unite the Right, militias, white supremicists, the expected levels of violence, and so on and so forth. You had to go down ten or twelve paragraphs before you got any mention that this is an annual Lobby Day sponsored by Virginia Citizens Defense League. At that, it didn’t even say a word about what VCDL is lobbying for.

The media are doing their damnedest to ensure that an event — which has been peaceful, nonviolent, even friendly petitioning of government for 18 years — is as bloodily click-worthy as they can make it this year.

The stories — can’t call it news, because it’s becoming pure speculative fiction — that bother mentioning the actual topic portray it as right-wing gun nuts threatening death and destruction in opposition to a few reasonable crime fighting bills.

Take a look at the bills filed in the Virginia Assembly, and show me a single one that addresses actual crimes committed with firearms.

Illegal trafficking? No. Not there.

Enhanced penalties for criminal use of a firearm? No.

A task force dedicated to recovering stolen firearms? No.

How about a ban on the class of firearms most used in crime? Nope, they’re trying to ban the firearms least used in crime, but more commonly used defensively.

If you bother looking, you will find bills easing bail, restoring more felon rights, and reducing penalties for crimes.

You’ll find bills making it tougher to defend themselves against the criminals the delegates, senators and governor are enabling. Bill that make it harder for poor people to get defensive tools, and force them to choose between daddy having protection going to work on midshift or mommy protecting the kids at home.

But you won’t see that at any of the mainstream fictional-BS networks. Nothing about VCDL trying to peacefully protect everyone‘s rights, rural or urban, Democrat or Republican, rich or poor. All you’ll see is “nasty evil Jew-hating crackers are coming to kill the righteous blacks and Democrats.”

I guess civil war — or more likely Hunting Season is good for ratings.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)

Henry Axe .410 explained

I’ve been puzzling over the the Henry Axe .410, which looks remarkably like a short-barrel shotgun but isn’t. I’ve been trying to figure out how it isn’t an NFA SBS or AOW.

Thanks to a very patient customer service rep for Henry Repeating Arms, I got enough data to figure it out (it would have been quicker if they simply sent me a copy of the determination letter).

Basically, they squeezed past the NFA restrictions the same way that Mossberg did with their Shockwave.

26 U.S. Code § 5845(e) Any Other Weapon:

• any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive,
• a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell

That would seem to apply to the Axe .410. But then, it would seem to apply to the Shockwave as well. As we can see from Mossberg’s determination letter, the ATF decided the concealability factor applied.

is a “firearm” subject to GCA provisions; however, it is not a “firearm” as defined by the NFA. Please note that if the subject firearm is concealed on a person, the classification with regard to the NFA may change.

That is, with an overall length just over 26 inches — note that the Axe .410 is also over 26 inches — it wasn’t concealable, therefore the NFA does not apply. But if they catch someone tucking one under a coat…

This is another example of just how arbitrary the ATF can be. In these cases, “arbitrary” worked in favor of firearm manufacturers and owners. I hope Henry includes a copy of their determination letter with every Axe.

I also hope the ATF doesn’t play the same reclassification game that they did with the Reformation. All they have to do is decide this is concealable after all, and it magically becomes an AOW.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)

The Henry Repeating Arms Axe .410: What the hell is it?

I’m officially confused. Henry Repeating Arms sells the Lever Action Axe .410, which is…

An Interesting Trend

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”

― Ian Fleming

On March 26, 2019, bump-fire stocks magically became machineguns, without any enabling legislation. And so sorry; due to the Firearm Owners “Protection” act of 1986, you can’t register a machinegun manufactured after May of ’86.

On December 16, 2019, Pennsylvania Asshole General Josh Shapiro issued a legal opinion redefining 80% frame/receiver kits (and anything else that you can turn into a firearm with $65,000 and 13 hours of work… that is, everything) to be firearms, without bothering with legislation. PA State Police (PSP) Commissioner Colonel Robert Evanchick immediately declared background checks would have to be conducted on 80% frame/receiver sales (naturally) but they don’t have a process for that yet. So no one can sell them in PA, until they get around to dreaming up a process.

On December 19, 2019, the ATF invented a new class of firearms without any basis in statutory law: the non-NFA GCA Short-Barreled Shotgun. Now no one can sell the Franklin Amory Reformation… until the ATF eventually gets around to creating the necessary forms.

For those who might have — somehow — retained some doubts about the matter, enemy action is confirmed. Expect to see a lot more of these bureaucratic shadow-bans.

Thanks, Vichy NRA.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)

New Zealand December Provisional “Buyback” Report: 46,750

Previous reports

• New Zealand “Buyback” Report: 38,192, 11/28/2019
• New Zealand “Buyback” Report: 30,503: 10/29/2019
• New Zealand “Buyback” Report: 27,632: 10/17/2019
• NZ Buyback: Preliminary October Report, 10/6/2019; est. 26,338
• NZ “Buyback” Report: 22,310, 9/26/2019
• NZ Confiscation: 19,837, 9/13/2019
• New Zealand “Buyback” Report: Preliminary August Numbers, 8/30/2019; “about 15,000”
• New Zealand Confiscation Update, 8/12/2019; 10,242
• Guess the number of NZ guns affected by the confiscation law, 7/27/2019; 3,275

---

With eight days remaining until the deadline, the vast majority of Kiwi firearm owners are thumbing their noses at the government. Over 80% are still not giving up their property to authorities who have failed to protect them.

Here are last month’s numbers in comparison to the latest NZP official numbers.

11-28-2019
Cat A Banned: 32,470
Cat E banned: 5,722
Total: 38,192
Program cost is averaging NZ$2042.73 per firearm (up)
Estimated total cost (assuming complete compliance) at NZ$490,255,200 (up)

12-12-2019
Cat A Banned: 38,049
Cat E banned: 6,506
Modified: 2,195
Total: 46,750
Total Program Cost: NZ$89,503,303

Program cost is averaging NZ$2008.82 per firearm (down)
Estimated total cost (assuming complete compliance) at NZ$482,118,566.26 (down)

Running Compliance total: 19.48% (using last .gov estimate of 240,000 firearms)

Cat E compliance: 44.87% (using estimate of 14,500 firearms). More than half of registered owners of registered Cat E firearms are not complying yet.

Projection: These are provisional numbers as of December 12. The actual deadline is the 20th. Considering the online registration issues they experienced, I expect these provisional numbers to be very close to the final totals.

Interestingly, up till now, the per firearm payout had been increasing. But now, down to the wire, the average payout dropped. I think what got turned in the past month were “burner” guns — worn or trashed — to simulate compliance, such as it is. The drop in “New/Nearly New” percentage, and increase in “Used” conditions support this theory, as well.

Up yours, NZ victim disarmers.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)

New Zealand “Buyback” Report: 38,192

Previous reports

• New Zealand “Buyback” Report: 30,503: 10/29/2019, 30,503
• New Zealand “Buyback” Report: 27,632: 10/17/2019, 27,632
• NZ Buyback: Preliminary October Report, 10/6/2019; est. 26,338
• NZ “Buyback” Report: 22,310, 9/26/2019; actual count: 22,310
• NZ Confiscation: 19,837, 9/13/2019
• New Zealand “Buyback” Report: Preliminary August Numbers, 8/30/2019; “about 15,000”
• New Zealand Confiscation Update, 8/12/2019; 10,242
• Guess the number of NZ guns affected by the confiscation law, 7/27/2019; 3,275

---

Kiwis, by and large, are still not giving up their property to authorities who have failed to protect them.

Here are last month’s numbers in comparison to the latest NZP official numbers.

10-29-2019
Cat A banned: 26,095
Cat E banned: 4,408
Total: 30,503
Program cost is averaging NZ$2037.22 per firearm (up)
Estimated total cost at NZ$488,932,983 (up)

11-28-209
Cat A Banned: 32,470
Cat E banned: 5,722
Total: 38,192
Program cost is averaging NZ$2042.73 per firearm (up)
Estimated total cost (assuming complete compliance) at NZ$490,255,200 (up)

Running Compliance total: 15.9% (using last .gov estimate of 240,000 firearms)

However, they are now reporting modified firearms, as well: 1,421; which raises compliance to 16.5%.

Cat E compliance: 39.5% (using estimate of 14,500 firearms). Over 60% of registered owners of registered Cat E firearms are not complying yet.

Projection: They are averaging 3.3% compliance per month, for 5 months. I guesstimate 19.8% final compliance if rates remain steady.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)