The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Seriously guys, even from an objective viewpoint, this is just bad:
How the mighty have fallen. Must be hard to stand out with all that Bloomberg money driving the movement, but this is pretty bad stuff for an organization that used to be a lot smarter than this.
According to ComputerWorld, the company is planning to introduce the iP9, a 9mm pistol. This company couldn’t even make a reliable .22 pistol.
The iP9 is expected to retail for about the same suggested retail price as the iP1 — $1,365, which is more than twice the price of many conventional 9mm semi-automatic pistols. While smart gun technology will always bring with it a price premium, Tweraser said that’s to be expected, and he compared it to a Tesla electric car.
You could get a decent defensive pistol and a quality quick-open safe with that kind of money, and that would be a far better option. As long as politicians are interested in smart-gun mandates, there’s no way they are going to get any retailers to sell this thing, because we’ll ruin any retailer that cooperates with Armatix and thus cooperates with the politicians looking to pick smart guns as the winner out of the gate.
I have no issue with smart gun technology per se, if it were allowed to succeed or fail in the open marketplace, but politicians who hate guns are never going to allow that to happen. If this ends up on the market, it will be mandated, as is already the case in New Jersey. So screw Armatix: if they think you’re getting back into the US market without a fight, they’re dreaming.
Passed by a 30-19 vote. Unfortunately, that’s not a veto-proof majority. It takes 33 votes to override a veto, and it’s hard to see which votes there could be switched. NRA is asking folks to reach out to their State Reps to try to get this passed in the House. It’s worth at least sending to Wolf and making him take a position on it, which unlike Republicans in Congress, PA GOP lawmakers have shown a willingness to do.
NRA is Fact Checking the Fact Checkers over Hillary’s endorsement of the Australian Model of gun control. The problem with a lot of these Fact Check sites is that they are fact checking opinion. I’ve seen this in a more contexts than guns. It is a fact that Hillary Clinton endorsed the Australian Model. This is not disputable. But it’s the opinion of the fact checkers that she didn’t really mean it, because her campaign tried to walk it back. Fact checkers should judge facts. They shouldn’t be in the business of discerning whether a politician is lying or spinning for the general public. It’s fine to mention Hillary’s campaign tried to walk back the statement. It’s fine to mention when asked directly about supporting confiscation, she dodges. It’s the ultimate judgement that the claim is false because she’s of course telling the truth that she didn’t really mean it that I have issue with. That should be for the public to decide.
Based on how I see these fact check sites used on social media, their sole purpose is as a mean to allow Democrats to smugly shut down lines of arguments that are potentially damaging to their candidates: “Politifact said it was false, so shut up with your paranoid wing nut NRA talking points.”
This is old news by now, but I wanted to report on it anyway because it’s big news: the lawsuit against Remington has been dismissed under the PLCAA. I was perhaps too quick to pass judgement on Judge Barbara Bellis when this story originally came to light. I corrected later that day after reading the opinion more thoroughly. Now it appears that Judge Bellis has done the right thing under the law:
Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law. A plaintiff under CUTPA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor or other commercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.
Remember that their theory was that selling AR-15s to civilians at all constituted negligent entrustment. If this novel theory of that concept had been allowed to proceed, it would have rendered the PLCAA effectively meaningless. It’s a good thing for us the Judge in this case wasn’t buying it.
Or apparently lamenting that a crisis doesn’t quite fit the preferred narrative. We’ve always wondered if they sit around waiting for the right kind of atrocity, and now we have an answer. Without context we don’t really know whether the lament was that a terrorist act wouldn’t drive the gun control train in the same manner as they wished, but it sure seems apparent that something didn’t fit Podesta’s preferred narrative.
Visiting Bitter’s grandmother, who turns 90 this year. When grandma invites you out to Hawaii, and offers you a condo to stay in, and a guest membership at her country club, you go! I’m still jet lagged, so things won’t return to normal until Monday. I hadn’t had a real vacation since, well, we went to Hawaii to visit her grandmother in 2010.
Been quite busy grabbing life by the ……
Shortly we will return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Because protections built into the law mean nothing to the Pennsylvania State Police. They apparently have illegally linked the LTCF information to our Drivers’ Licenses so that when you’re pulled over at a traffic stop the officer can see all your information related to the LTCF. It may not just be cops either:
Furthermore, even if there was, it is illegal to disclose this information to individuals other than a law enforcement officer acting in the scope of his/her duties. As I understand the new system, it is being relayed to emergency responders, which may even include tow truck drivers that are part of the system.
I’m very uncomfortable with this state of affairs. This essentially makes Pennsylvania a duty-to-inform state. How long before they link this to the plate readers the cops use these days? Bullshit. This information was supposed to be private and increasingly we’re seeing state officials violate the law when they feel like it. What’s worse? Most of the time they get away with it.
You can see here. It’s pretty much what I expected. Pat Toomey gets his grade reduced from an A to a C and loses his endorsement. In my local congressional race, it looks like Brian Fitzpatrick turned in a B questionnaire and is not going to carry an NRA endorsement. However, Fitzpatrick is running against Steve Santarsiero, whose F grade is really an understatement. Recall that Steve Santarsiero called for door-to-door confiscation of semi-automatic firearms. In other suburban Philadelphia races, Republican Pat Meehan is down to a B- with a D rated Mary Ellen Balchunis running against him. A race to watch is the sixth district, held by A rated and endorsed Ryan Costello, up against a D rated Mike Parrish. Costello is the only suburban district not running in mad fear of Bloomberg’s money. I cannot stress how damaging Bloomberg has been to gun rights in the Philadelphia suburbs, and that’s almost entirely because he brings more cash to the table than we can, and our local gun owners are not active enough in the issue politically to counter his money. It is not for lack of gun owners that we are losing ground, it is for lack of gun owners who give a shit enough to do something.
John C. Rafferty has drawn an endorsement with an A- grade in the  race for Attorney General. His Democratic opponent Josh Shapiro is D rated, and on his web site says that he plans to “Expand background checks to cover private sales of long guns.” I’m not sure how the AG has the power to do that, but there you go. We’d also continue to worry about our reciprocity agreements with other states with Shapiro in the AG seat. Also consider that the AG seat is a springboard for Governor.
