JPFO Alert: Few Details on Impending Obama Administration Gun Rules, But We Know They're Wrong

Today's JPFO Alert notes that although we know very little about the details of the upcoming new gun restrictions from the Obama administration, we know there's no way they're legitimate.

Still, if the administration feels so emboldened as to not need to bother with even the thin veneer of Constitutional legitimacy lent to it by Congressional approval of its infringements du jour, we as a nation have fallen into a deep pit indeed. And we come to this pass because we allowed it to happen. Shame on us.

JPFO Alert: Discretionary Concealed Carry Permit Systems Value Money Over Lives

Today's JPFO Alert notes that when protecting money is a sufficiently good reason for the government to "allow" you to carry a gun, but protecting your life is not, something is very wrong.

This reflects a sick, twisted, and depraved set of values. The gun ban zealots claim to value each and every human life above all other things, but this policy, and others like it elsewhere, show the real truth. To these people, one's value can be deduced from one's bank statement. This scrofulous outlook must be utterly rejected by all people of decency, and Judge Scullin's ruling is a good step in the right direction.

JPFO Alert: New Federal "Ban" of Combat Gear for Cops is the Kind of "Ban" Gun Owners Could Accept

Today's JPFO Alert notes that a "ban" that only means that the government isn't buying the "banned" item for you is one gun owners could get behind.

A nitpicking, irrelevant distinction? I don't think so. Look at it this way--what if proposals to ban private citizens' ownership of so-called "assault weapons" meant only that the federal government would not be subsidizing all or part of the purchase price? What if attempts to "ban" .50 caliber rifles were only attempting to clarify that it will be the responsibility of the aspiring rifle owner, and of no one else, to pay for it? What if the abandoned (for now) attempt on the part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to "ban" M855 ammunition simply meant that the federal government could not give it to us for nothing?

JPFO Alert: Gun Bans No Longer Enough; Now They Want to Ban Gun Information

Today's JPFO Alert notes that with the statists, crushing fundamental human rights is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one.

No, indeed you cannot stop the signal, and the fact that the administration is trying so strenuously to do so shows how desperate it has become.

JPFO Alert: Garland, TX and the Right that Defends All Others

Today's JPFO Alert notes that the right to free speech would not be of much use without the right to an effective means of defending it.

And so it is with all rights. The Constitution of the United States, as brilliant a document as it is, does not, cannot defend the rights it guarantees all by itself. The pen may indeed be mightier than the sword, but the sword is a great deal more effective for hacking people to death. One retains only the rights one can defend.

JPFO Alert: 7th Circuit OKs Gun Bans for the Illusion of Safety

Today's JPFO Alert notes that while disarming decent, peaceable citizens for the "safety" of the public is bad enough, disarming us for the illusion of safety is even more unforgivable.

Benjamin Franklin is widely quoted as having said some variation of "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." How much stronger his contempt would have been for those willing to give up liberty for the illusion of safety.

JPFO Alert: Netanyahu Talks a Good Game About Independence and Self-Defense, But . . .

Today's JPFO Alert notes that defining independence as the ability to defend oneself rings rather hollow when coming from someone who presides over laws that enormously hinder self-defense.

In the wake of several high-profile attacks on Jews in Europe by militant Islamic extremists this past winter, there have been some voices calling for European Jews to arm themselves--to, as Netanyahu might put it, break their dependency on the government's ability to protect them from evil. European gun laws are unlikely to change to allow that any time in the foreseeable future. Inexcusably, prospects for such a change in Israeli gun laws seem rather weak as well.

JPFO Alert: Anti-gun Congresswoman Wants Americans to Sell Their Liberty, Children's Futures

Today's JPFO Alert notes that DeLauro's "voluntary" gun turn in is to be INvoluntarily subsidized by the taxpayers, or, more likely, their children and grandchildren. And great-grandchildren. And great-great-grandchildren. And . . . you get the idea.

If DeLauro wants to buy your "assault weapon," tell her it can only be paid for in blood--and she can't afford it.

JPFO Alert: Columnist's "Modest Proposal" as Offensively Arrogant as Original, and it's Not Satire

Today's JPFO Alert notes the arrogance of yet another "modest proposal" to infringe on that which shall not be infringed.

The first use, or at least the most famous one, of the title "A Modest Proposal," was Jonathan Swift's 18th century treatise by that name. In it, Swift suggested that multiple problems could be solved with a program in which starving, impoverished Irish families would sell their children to the wealthy--as food. Thrasher, by contrast, would prefer to simply ban parents' most effective means of defending their children from those who would prey on and consume them.

Oh--and the other difference is that Swift's "Modest Proposal" was satire. Thrasher, in his modest way, seems really to want his to happen.

JPFO Alert: "Progressive" Writer Blames "Arsenal Owners" for Blocking Onerous Gun Laws

Today's JPFO Alert takes another look to where "progressives" would have us "progress."

In the end, though, it's fair to ask just how relevant the numerical breakdown is. This is a republic, after all, and not a democracy, in which 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the other 49%. Fundamental human rights cannot be legitimately held to the outcome of a popularity contest. And finally, if the supposedly growing number of people who own no guns want to disarm us, in our supposedly shrinking numbers, we shouldn't even need the large and growing numbers of guns we each ostensibly own. When defending one's rights against the unarmed. one gun should be plenty--just be sure to have a good supply of ammunition.

Did departing ATF director's latest escapade pave way to NFL?

Nevertheless, B. Todd Jones threw the yellow flag about a month ago, charging the M855 round with "unsportsmanlike conduct." He, though, intended to impose a penalty of far greater than 15 yards. Perhaps that's just what the NFL needed to see from their prospective new sheriff in town. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

JPFO Alert: Impending "Armor-Piercing" Ammo Ban Bill Undermines Argument to Ban "Green Tip" Rounds

Today's JPFO Alert notes that the ammo ban zealots (ABZs) can't even decide how to claim to justify the ban.

But a larger point is that in claiming that the current law--banning ammunition by virtue of its construction--is inadequate, because an infinitude of ammo not so constructed is equally capable of penetrating body armor, they are tacitly admitting what gun rights advocates have been saying since the attempt to ban the M855 came to light. That round has no special "armor piercing" capability. Reps. Israel and Speier must know this, but that did not stop them from railing against the decision to shelve the M855 ban proposal.

And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.

CSGV condemns 'insurrectionist imagery' of civilian standing up to Chinese tanks

It's not enough for CSGV to stand with the brutal tyranny of the Chinese government, and against those who dare defy it, despite lacking any effective means to do so--CSGV apparently wants the "insurrectionists" to have hearing damage, too--perhaps to allow the tanks to get closer before they perceive the need to escape. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

Anti-gun physician suggests gunfight strategy: fall down

He concludes with the assertion that "[n]one of these recommended points is in any way contrary to the Second Amendment," and assures us that he is in full agreement with them. He may know heart medicine, but his grasp of guns, self-defense, and the Constitution is looking far more than a little shaky. And he wants to be seen as an authority on these things. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

JPFO Alert: Abolishing ATF Might Undermine One of the Best Tools for Hobbling Federal Gun Laws

Today's JPFO Alert notes that disbanding the BATFE would be great--but not if their unconstitutional "duties" are simply transferred to a larger, more powerful group of the government's hired guns.

That description of the federal government's law enforcement resources as "stretched thin" is the key. The BATFE, as a far smaller agency than the FBI, will always be more subject to that "overstretching." It also has fewer friends in Congress who will fight for its budget. Without state and local law enforcement agencies to help them in their dirty work, a great deal of that dirty work will simply not get done, and the more their budget can be pared down, the more deeply will the BATFE feel the bite of that lack of cooperation. We can "starve the beast," especially this beast, as compared to any that would take over its role if the BATFE were to be abolished. The BATFE is an obscenity, and I want it gone, but first, I want the obscenities it exists to enforce abolished. Until that happens, let's leave those laws in the incompetent hands of the BATFE.

NBC's Sacramento affiliate dispenses fear and loathing of 'ghost guns'

"But," some may ask, "is it appropriate to be happy about new ways of producing 'crime guns?'" The answer is that in places like California, where the mere existence of guns like these (mostly so-called "assault weapons") is a "crime," indeed it is. Where the mere existence of guns not registered with the government is a "crime," indeed it is. Where the mere existence of guns in the hands of decent people who are nevertheless subject to state mandated defenselessness under California law is a "crime," indeed it is. And California is just one example (albeit one of the worst).

What KCRA "News" calls a "growing problem" is in fact a growing blessing. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

JPFO Alert: Missouri's New "Strict Scrutiny" of Gun Laws Frees Non-Violent Felon

Today's JPFO Alert notes the first liberation (for now, at least) won by Missouri's new strict scrutiny of gun laws.

Actually, I would go further, and argue that even if Robinson's victimless "felony" were a violent crime, he still could not legitimately be denied his fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, no matter whether or not any document acknowledges that right. As David Codrea has long contended, "Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian."

At the time of Robinson's arrest, he had been a free man--or should have been. Denied government recognition of his right to arm himself against threats to his life and liberty, though, he was robbed of an essential element of that freedom. If the prosecution wins its appeal, and overturns Judge Dierker's ruling, he will lose even the illusion of forcibly disarmed "freedom." That's unconscionable.

Federal judge upholds forcing gun buyers to fund gun confiscation

With this law, California proved (as if such proof were needed) that the purpose of registration is to facilitate confiscation. Now, a federal judge says its just fine and dandy to make gun buyers pick up the tab for those confiscations. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

Obama administration ammo ban proposal being sold under false pretenses

In the final analysis, to be free, we the people must have the means to present a credible threat to those who would presume to rule us--and to the enforcers of that rule--should they dare to slip the bonds of the Constitutional limits on their power. Ammunition that can penetrate government myrmidons' armor, usable in a firearm that can be easily concealed, is a part of that threat--and that's why the Obama regime wants it banned. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

JPFO Alert: Is Federal Express the Newest Enemy of Privately Manufactured Firearms?

Today's JPFO Alert wonders if Federal Express might more accurately be named "Statist Express."

And perhaps it was premature to declare that FedEx has no affiliation with the Federal Government. It's hard to know what backroom carrot-and/or-stick negotiations between the two entities might have taken place. Could there have been a kind of "Operation Choke Point"-like\ pressure applied? Or perhaps the promise of some fat government shipping contracts? It's impossible to say, but given this administration's hostility to private gun ownership--particularly as it would look like when millions of Americans could produce effective, militia-appropriate fighting rifles in total anonymity in their own homes, it's difficult to rule out some quiet federal involvement.

Whether this stance is one that Federal Express chose to take on its own, or simply allowed to be dictated to them by the federal government, they have, as Defense Distributed says, put "the 'Fed' in 'Federal Express.'" They're playing for the wrong side.