Atlanta Journal-Constipation Strikes Again

And this one might even be criminally and civilly actionable.

‘It’s just stupid’: Teens allegedly post photo to social media of gun they stole
Even though the guns remain missing, he said he’s seen one of them — it was posted on social media by the alleged teenage thieves.

OK. Just the usual “idiot criminals post evidence of their crimes.” The real story is… the story.

One post shows the teens holding one of the guns while also flashing what appears to be gang signs. AJC.com is not showing the teens since they have not been charged.

So they aren’t identifying the suspects. But they do publish a picture of the victim, so the crooks know who to retaliate against. (Amusingly, in the crime photo, they blurred out… the gun.)

It gets better. For the criminals.

Police told Channel 2 they haven’t assigned a detective to the case yet, which is why there hasn’t been an arrest.

Yes, the Urinal-Constipation actually tipped off the crooks before the police even started the investigation. They now have time to purge social media, and dispose of the guns.

Zachary Hansen and his editor should be charged with obstruction of justice, and as accessories after the fact.

The Urinal-Constipation has a long history of journalistic boo-boos.

Those are just a few relatively recent examples of the AJC’s brilliance. But they’ve been a mess since I first lived in Georgia (1989), and natives tell me they’ve been screwed up since forever.

FFLs for Everyone!

Senator Kamala “Kneepads” Harris has apparently decided to court the gun owner vote.

Kamala Harris promises swift executive action if Congress doesn’t pass gun control legislation
Harris’ pledge lays out four points. The first would mandate what the proposal calls “near-universal background checks by requiring anyone who sells five or more guns per year to run a background check on all gun sales.” The target is to classify that seller of more than five guns as a dealer of firearms.

Thanks, @KamalaHarris. Gun owners have been trying to get the ATF to quantify “dealer” since Bill Clinton’s ’90s purge of FFLs. They always refused, because setting a definite threshold reduces their ability to harass and arrest honest folks.

See, we used to have 286,000 FFLs, mostly small volume types & hobbyists. Billy Jeff didn’t like that and took away 142,000 FFLs from exactly the people Kneepads is trying to “force” to get licenses.

So… Thanks. Now we can get our FFLs and start interstate mail ordering our firearms again.

Like most ignorant victim disarmers, Harris didn’t think that one through.

ATF: Volitional vs. Nonvolitional Movement

As we have seen, the ATF, in ruling bump-fire stocks to be machineguns, explained that fingers are triggers, and it’s a machinegun if the finger isn’t moved volitionally. Some folks are confused, because they assumed that the volitional — and coordinated — movement of the off arm to cause the trigger firearm thingamajiggy to engage the finger trigger should count.

No prob. The PhDs in Anatomy and Physiology at the ATF have that covered: It’s only volitional when we say it is.

Thus, as explained in federal court to a science-challenged impaired… oh, hell… fucking idiot judge who bought it:

Volitional Movement

 

Not Volitional Movement

When you get down to it, it ain’t much more of a stretch than the shoestring machinegun.

Thanks, VNRA.

Semi-Auto vs. Full-Auto

Lunatics and liars — i.e.- federal attorneys and judges — matter-of-factly state that fingers are triggers, and the only difference between a machinegun and a semi-auto is whether the finger is moved volitionally.

Some people don’t quite grasp that, so allow me to illustrate.

Under the new definition, this is a semi-automatic trigger group.

finger moving volitionally

And this is a fully automatic trigger group.

finger not moving volitionally

I expect the ATF to kick in my door over that NFA finger any time now.

Thanks, VNRA.

Should you be confused why the volitional movement of the off arm doesn’t count, the ATF has that covered.

Defense Arms Cost Reduction Act*

Whereas, the cost of a select-fire assault rifle exceeds the cost of a semi-automatic variant, and

Whereas, bump-stock-type devices are also low cost, and

Whereas, bump-stock-type devices are machineguns found to be suitable for military use,

We find that the Department of Defense will see a significant cost savings in replacing all existing expensive select-fire assault rifles with semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump-stock-type devices.

The Department of Defense is directed to so replace all assault rifles with semi-automatic rifles and bump-stock-type devices as quickly as allowed by current procurement laws and regulations.

The cost of the new arms will be offset by transferring all select-fire assault rifle to the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which will permanently convert them to semi-automatic-only operation, and sell them to eligible civilians, the resulting revenues to be applied to the procurement cost of the bump-stock-type device equipped semi-automatic rifles.


* Just seemed appropriate.

VAWA 2019

I’m a little late to this game due to other topics I’ve been addressing elsewhere. I hear the House has passed the Violence Against Women Act of 2019. Since the Senate is also full of idiots, I’m not going to bet against it dying there.

I haven’t been through the whole thing, but I wanted to check on some of the stuff related to “losing” one’s 2A rights. The issue is the definition of domestic violence. The Socialists are painting this as merely applying the definition to stalkers and former “dating partners,” claiming that it currently doesn’t include anyone but spouses and live-in partners.

The definition.

(10) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
.—The term ‘domesic violence’ means a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim, by a person who—

Wait. That’s new. What’s “technological abuse”?

(40) TECHNOLOGICAL ABUSE
.—The term technological abuse’ means behavior intended to harm, threaten, intimidate, control, stalk, harass, impersonate, or monitor, except as otherwise permitted by law, another person, that occurs using the Internet, internet enabled devices, social networking sites, computers, mobile devices, cellular telephones, apps, location tracking devices, instant messages, text messages, or other forms of technology. Technological abuse may include

“Monitor.” A passive action which doesn’t require interacting with the “victim” at all. If the Socialists have their way…

Ever look up an old high school boyfriend or girlfriend on Twitter or Facebook, just out of curiosity over what they’re doing these days? Ever check that twice?

Congratulations! You just established a pattern of technological abuse, and committed an act of domestic violence. No Second Amendment for you.

But maybe that wouldn’t really count. What is a “dating partner”?

(i) a dating partner or former dating partner (as defined in section 2266);

Let’s mosey on over to 18 USC Section 2266.

(10)Dating partner.—The term “dating partner” refers to a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser.

Yep. It can be pretty much anyone you ever dated just once. Like the psycho girl you only went out with once because you realized she was psycho.

Don’t look her up on the ‘Net to find out if she’s coming for. That would be domestic violence.

About that unconstitutional California mag ban

California, as expected, has asked for a stay of Judge Benitez’ ruling pending appeal.

all four factors considered in such a stay request are satisfied. See Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez , 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A party seeking a stay must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, [3] that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and [4] that a stay is in the public interest.”

1. No way in hell Benitez will see them as likely to win.

2. Becerra suffers no harm from innocent people buying standard capacity mags.

3. Eh?

4. Benitez already made the point that the ban was not in the public interest.

This is all set up for the appeal.

until the Judgment is stayed pending appeal, individuals will be free to acquire new LCMs, and there is evidence that sales have begun already. If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs.

Yep. Just like they are incapable of confiscating once-lawfully owned firearms when they even know who has what where. Unregistered mags? Ain’t happening.