The Mayor of NYC, Eric Adams is very very unhappy. It seems that “you’re here without proper documentation” you put a strain on the great city of New York.

The gist is that NYC is struggling to find shelter for all of the illegal aliens that have shown up in NYC. Some of the southern states have taken to putting illegal aliens on buses up to DC. From there they are moving up to NYC and other cities.

While NYC has a population of over 8.4 Million people they are having a difficult time finding resources for 3000 “asylum seekers”. The southern states are “heartless” for sending these illegal aliens north and not taking care of them in the border states.

The numbers of people crossing our southern border is in the 100s of thousand per year. You can go on YouTube and find videos of people streaming across the border. They don’t care they are being filmed. They don’t care that they are breaking the law and entering our country illegally. They are here to take.

For the very few that are actually captured or that don’t end up dead in the desert, in the river or baked to death in sealed semi trailer, some are being sent north. Those few are overwhelming the big cities but the small towns of on the southern border should have no problem handling them.

It is terrifying how tone deaf these elites are.

Mayor Eric Adams: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners, both of you for this serious moment, unprecedented moment. And the goal of our team is to make sure that we meet the moment. Four families did not meet the deadline that’s required by law, not acceptable. And as the commissioner stated, they were not there for 24 hours. They immediately moved to address the issue. But I think as Commissioner Castro stated, 3,000 people needed shelter in our city. Unlike other states in their heartless manner of sending those people seeking a place to stay in our country were sent out of those bordering states and sent to other locales.

Mayor Adams: If it’s New York, if it’s Washington. The mere fact is, we are responsive and we responded. And when you look at 3,000 people hitting our shelter system, an immediate response from the infrastructure of our system to address their concerns is what we are talking about. So any comment or insinuation that we did not respond the way New Yorkers expect us to do so is just not true. And this is not a moment of saying, “Hey, we got you, we caught you.” No, this is a moment our administration is saying to them, “We’ve got you. This is who we are as New Yorkers. We got you. We’re going to provide the services you need and many complex services.”

Mayor Adams: Because when you’re here without proper documentation, you have to navigate so many of the resources that we need to find ways to address. But we don’t have people in our shelters who are not being fed, who are not spending days on the floor, sleeping with children. That is not who we are. That is not who we are going to be as a city. And we’re asking all to be a part of this initiative. Our faith-based institutions, our legal advisors are those who want to volunteer. We were just here with Norman Siegel the other day.

Mayor Adams: We are all in this together to deal with this influx of innocent people who are seeking asylum or fleeing wars, who are fleeing crises in their own country. New York is one of the few states where you have right to shelter. One of the few. We’re not like those who are sending people away during their time and needs. We are representative of what this country stands for, and we will always continue. Five families or four families that did not receive services within the timeframe that the law calls for is four families too many. But those over 3,000 individuals that we were able to provide services for, I want to say a job well done for those families that we provided services for. And we’re going to continue to provide services as a transition into normalizing their lives and not having to live within the shelter system.

Official transcript July 21, 2022 fetched July 23rd.

What happens when the violence moves north with these illegals? What happens when their culture collides with the culture of the East Coast and North East? Things could get interesting.

Update: I’m not sure that it shouldn’t be air quoted “elites” or elitists. I’ll leave it there as an “awaism” today. Thinking about it.

Clickbait to an extreme:
New assault rifle being sold to civilians is twice as powerful as the AR-15 and capable of shooting through bulletproof vests, report says

One of the wonderful things about being a geek is that I understand some of the hidden messages in URLs and such. For example, if I see an URL that ends in “image-300×144.png” I am pretty sure there is also “image.png” at the same location that is likely high resolution.

When reading articles on my phone, URLs aren’t shown to me so I just get the clickbait and look further looking for fodder for the blog.

When I read this headline my first thought was “Oh boy, some journalist figured out that there is an AR-10”.

Now I use to think that no mass murder would spend thousands of dollars on a gun they were only going to use once. Why not go with a $600 AR-15 from PSA or S&W. Then the Uvalde shoot proved me wrong buy purchasing $4000 worth of guns and ammo. Even that pales in comparison to a list prices of $7,999 for the Sig Sauer MCX-SPEAR. Not counting the ammo and the tax stamp for the can on the front.

Yep, these people are afraid of the gun owners that are willing to fork over $8k plus more for the ammo just to have the latest and greatest semi-auto only version of the next gen gun for our military.

Worse, while the link above is to Business Insider, they are pulling from The Daily Beast.

Remember, everything is an assault weapon to these people, and you shouldn’t own any firearm, second Amendment be damned.

Updated: If you check the URL for this post you will see that I misspeeled(grin) “opinions” as “options”

The LAPD has been given their marching orders by Commander Ernest Eskridge.

“Department sworn personnel shall not investigate, detain, or arrest any persons for … Possession of firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition”

Progress in the correct direction.

David was at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS when the 2018 shooting took place. He walked out of a different building on campus and went home. His level of danger was a bit more than AOC’s on Jan 6th, 2021, but not much.

He has since turned this into a free ride at Harvard and a couple of scams. He recently started a pillow company that lasted just long enough for him to rack in money and then folded before delivering product. He also was upset about how hard it was to create an LLC in MA.

Guns are in the news so David is once again shouting “Look at me! Look at me!”

He disrupted a congressional hearing on Wednesday and was escorted from the hearing room by security.

Who invited him to the hearing? What are the charges being brought against him?

David Hogg disrupts House hearing on banning assault weapons

The contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shall not be immune from legal process, shall be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be admissible as evidence, and may be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, and testimony or other evidence may be permitted based on the data, on the same basis as other information, in a civil action in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in an administrative proceeding.

This little gotcha is scary. Consider this, you went into your LGS to buy that Glock, because Glock. While there you spot a used Kimber at less than 1/4 its normal price. You buy both.

By law your 4473 can not be used to create a registry. BUT there is a “multi gun purchase” form that must be sent into the ATF if multiple pistols are purchased within a certain time period.

It would not surprise me to learn that that information is in the FTS. It is the case that anytime a trace is done that information goes into the FTS. What else goes into the FTS is an open question.

This opens the FTS for use by the states as a gun registry.

B.L.U.F. H.R.2814 has been passed out of committee and will be voted on in the house shortly. It repeals the PLCAA and has some other nasty in it.

If you have the right to keep and bear arms but nobody will make or sell you arms, does the right still exist?

There are people that want only criminals and the government to have arms. They exist and they have been working at removing guns and other arms from The People for many many years.

Every gun control law starts with “for the good of the people we have to restrict them.”

The first(?) federal attack on gun ownership was the NFA. The congress knew it was unconstitutional to limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they made it to expensive to own certain classes of firearms. They then prosecuted people for failure to pay a tax, not for owning an NFA weapon. Over time the penalties increased. An entire new class of NFA items, destructive devices, was added to the NFA.

Today you can’t own an NFA item without government permission unless you are a criminal.

The NFA was augmented with the GCA and other laws over time.

The people of these United States responded with a “hell no” and continued to buy, sell, manufacture guns. More people participate in firearm related sports than ever before. More people own guns for protection than ever before.

In response to Americans refusing to give up their rights, the gun control groups found a new method, “lawfare” Lawfair is using the courts to attack people without an intention of winning the case. “The process is the punishment.” To put it another way, they were going to sue the gun industry, from top to bottom, right out of existence.

What this meant was that gun stores, manufacturers, trainers and anybody else associated with the gun industry was suddenly subject to lawsuits.

Some animal uses a gun he bought to kill a fellow gang banger and the store he bought it from got sued. Some asshole shoots up a school and the manufacturer of the gun used gets sued.

At every point in the supply chain lawsuits were happening.

Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, responded by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA, in short, said that you can’t be sued if somebody else uses a gun to commit a crime.

Animal buys gun from FFL and then shoots up a school, he’s responsible, not the FFL. In general cases brought in violation of the PLCAA are dismissed before the prices get out of hand.

That changed after Sandy Hook. The plaintiffs looked for a way around the PLCAA and found one. The manufacturer of the firearm used in the shooting could be sued for their advertisements, not for making or selling the firearm.

The case was settled out of court when the insurance companies paid up rather than fight the case.

A number of states have started adding laws that make it easier to sue FFLs and manufacturers for doing lawful commerce.

Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee voted out H.R. 2814 which would repeal the PLCAA.

Schiff’s Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act co-sponsored by Reps. Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), Jason Crow (D-Colo.), and 70 other House members, would repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to ensure the gun industry – including manufacturers, sellers, and interest groups – is not shielded from liability when it acts with negligence and disregard for public safety. The bill would allow civil cases to go forward against irresponsible actors in state and federal courts – just as they would if they involved any other product – and give victims of gun violence and their families their day in court. The bill would also incentivize responsible business practices that would reduce gun injuries and deaths.
— Schiff Bill to Repeal Gun Industry Liability Shield Passed Out of Committee

Back in November of 2021 some asshole went on a murder spree at Oxford High School. The little shit killed four students before being taken into custody.

As part of the investigation it was found that his parents purchased the gun he used for him.

The prosecution is claiming that the parents committed involuntary manslaughter.

[Judge Cheryl] Matthews concluded the prosecution had presented enough evidence to proceed with the involuntary manslaughter charges against the [redacted], who are accused of ignoring the mental health needs of their son, buying him a gun instead of getting him help, and failing to notify the school that he had access to a gun when they were summoned to the office over a violent drawing he had made on the morning before the shooting.

The defense is arguing that the prosecution is attempting to get the courts to legislate from the bench. They are arguing that they had secured the gun and had no idea that their son was planning to go on a murder rampage.

Unfortunately we hear way to much about the backgrounds of these murdering assholes. They mostly come from fatherless families. They have unstable home lives. They are often known for being antisocial or having violent tendencies. They are almost always “known to law enforcement.”

The prosecutors want to make it a crime to not predict how a child will act. What parent would willingly have a firearm in their home if they even remotely considered that their child might use a firearm for criminal purposes?

The goal of the gun rights infringers is to make it to costly to carry, to costly to sell or manufacture firearms, to costly to own a firearm. At the same time they are actively working to paint every gun owner as a crime waiting to happen.

The Detroit Free Press does a fairly balanced article on the appeal of the assholes parents.
[Parents] ask appeals court to toss case: Our son did this, not us

Diving into the leftist cesspit of NPR is not my favorite read. Today they surprised me with a balanced article. Not fully but not tilted so far left that the deck chairs are tumbling into the sea.

You write, this court is not ideologically motivated, which, of course, is hard for some people to accept because they just produced what can easily be seen as Republican outcomes on abortion rights, gun laws and climate regulation. Granted, some rulings have gone the other way, but the big ones all went one way in rapid succession. What’s the case that those rulings are not ideological?

CURT LEVEY: Well, the case is that the court – if they wanted to decide all cases with a conservative outcome, they could have, and they didn’t. Conservatives were very unhappy with their decision about the Remain in Mexico policy. They turned down a vaccine mandate case from New York. So the court could’ve been 100% conservative outcomes. And it wasn’t. And if you look at why, it’s because it’s a textualist court. Some people like to call it originalist. I prefer the term textualist, but they’re often used in the same way. If you want to understand why they ruled one way on guns and another way on abortion, it’s because the Constitution contains an explicit Second Amendment that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, whereas the Constitution – not only does it not contain a right to abortion. It doesn’t even contain a general right to privacy.

They interview with Curt Levey, a member of the Federalist Society, isn’t gotcha, isn’t nasty, it is very matter of fact and does bring up good points.

Read the entire thing over at NPR:
Is the Supreme Court majority ruling on the law or their personal preference?