About those sanctions

7 Comments

If you haven’t heard, the Treasury Department has released the latest round of sanctions against Russia for its activities in Ukraine, and some Second Amendment advocates are suspicious, to say the least.

Earlier today, the Department of Commerce announced new sanctions against Russian products and companies operating in the United States. Previous sanctions only tangentially impacted the import of cheap and reliable firearms from Russia into the United States, but now the Obama administration is specifically targeting the makers of Saiga rifles and shotguns, as well as other companies. 

There’s going to be a lot of information out there in the next few days, so let’s get a few facts out of the way.

This is not in any way, shape or form an assault on your Second Amendment rights. The sanctions impact companies, banks and entities that have been supporting Ukrainian separatists and destabilizing the region.

The U.S. moves to impose restrictions on the Russian state-controlled oil giant OAO Rosneft and other top firms are aimed at squeezing Russia’s already struggling economy and financial system. They followed weeks of U.S. threats that Russia would face repercussions unless it helped defuse the crisis in eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russia separatists have been fighting the Ukrainian government for months.

The sanctions stop well short of crimping international business ties or blocking deals with entire sectors of the Russian economy.

The U.S. and Europe say separatists in Ukraine are getting significant support from Russia, an accusation Moscow has denied. 

And yes, the U.S. government has plenty of information confirming Russian involvement, funding and support of Ukrainian separatists. These entities include the Russian firearms company Kalashnikov, as well as Almaz-Antey, Uralvagonzavod, Novatek and several banks.

Is this an attempt to limit imports of firearms in the United States? Absolutely not.

This is an attempt to cut off companies and entities that are involved in destabilizing Ukraine off from the U.S. financial system and punish them for their actions.

This means that U.S. companies and individuals can do no further business with the sanctioned entities. No. Further. Business.

That means the AKs that you love so much that are already here in the stores are perfectly legal to buy and sell – UNLESS the store still owes money to Kalashnikov for an order. You can still buy, sell, trade, whatever your AK or your Izmash-produced firearms. What you are NOT  allowed to do is start new business with these companies.

Given the number of other companies that produce inexpensive AK-like and other firearms, this really shouldn’t affect your everyday right to keep and bear arms.

Is this an indefinite ban on imports of AKs and other inexpensive firearms? The sanctions will stay in place until the illegal activities cease. Some Second Amendment advocates claim once the government implements these sanctions, they will continue, because BAN! That’s not true. OFAC has de-listed a myriad of different companies and entities once they’re deemed to no longer be involved in illegal activities, or with a successful appeal.

This is all about Russia’s activities in Eastern Europe, and it has nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms.

A list of frequently asked questions is here.

374. If I own a Kalashnikov product, is that product blocked by sanctions?  Am I able to resell a Kalashnikov product at a gun show or other secondary market? 

If a U.S. person is in possession of a Kalashnikov Concern product that was bought and fully paid for prior to the date of designation (i.e., no payment remains due to Kalashnikov Concern), then that product is not blocked and OFAC sanctions would not prohibit the U.S. person from keeping or selling the product in the secondary market, so long as Kalashnikov Concern has no interest in the transaction.  New transactions by U.S. persons with Kalashnikov Concern are prohibited, however, and any property in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest is blocked pursuant to OFAC’s designation of Kalashnikov Concern on July 16, 2014.  If a U.S. person has an inventory of Kalashnikov Concern products in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest (for example, the products are not fully paid for or are being sold on consignment), we advise that U.S. person to contact OFAC for further guidance on handling of the inventory. [7-16-2014]

There are other answers that may be of concern to gun owners as well. Please go read the release closely and understand it. Misinformation helps no one.

“Being Honest Messed Up My Life”

4 Comments

This is my latest for JPFO. When the judge and the police officer who stopped you both say you should have just kept your mouth shut about that firearm you were legally carrying in your state, but which became illegal when you mistakenly took it across a state line, and then insist on prosecuting you…

…there’s something really wrong with the system! REALLY wrong!

via “Being Honest Messed Up My Life”.

Winning!

2 Comments

The gun grabber desperation is getting palpable and smelly. I mentioned the thieving piece of shit who wants to defraud businesses that respect their patrons’ rights before.

My latest alert for JPFO expands on their desperation a bit – without all the cursing.

Although, I still think “assplunger” describes the would-be thief and his supporters perfectly.

via Winning!.

Chicago police superintendent proves he’s insane

11 Comments

Or an idiot. Or both.

Chicago’s police superintendent lashed out at what he called lax state and federal gun laws after a violent Fourth of July weekend that saw 11 deaths in dozens of shooting incidents in a city already known for frequent shootings.

He might be both, because to blame lax gun laws for what is obviously a much greater, more complex problem in the city of Chicago is beyond absurd!

Now, let’s explore what is required to purchase a firearm in Illinois, shall we?

A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.

So. You need to get a FOID card even before you purchase a firearm in Illinois. To get this little piece of statist heaven permission to exercise your rights, you must apply for one through the State Police.  Here are the requirements to possess a valid FOID:

(i) He or she is 21 years of age or over, or if he or she is under 21 years of age that he or she has the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition and that he or she has never been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent, provided, however, that such parent or legal guardian is not an individual prohibited from having a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and files an affidavit with the Department as prescribed by the Department stating that he or she is not an individual prohibited from having a Card;
(ii) He or she has not been convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction;
(iii) He or she is not addicted to narcotics;
(iv) He or she has not been a patient in a mental health facility within the past 5 years or, if he or she has been a patient in a mental health facility more than 5 years ago submit the certification required under subsection (u) of Section 8 of this Act;
(v) He or she is not intellectually disabled;
(vi) He or she is not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States under the laws of the United States;
(vii) He or she is not subject to an existing order of protection prohibiting him or her from possessing a firearm;
(viii) He or she has not been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed;
(ix) He or she has not been convicted of domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before, on or after January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-158). If the applicant knowingly and intelligently waives the right to have an offense described in this clause (ix) tried by a jury, and by guilty plea or otherwise, results in a conviction for an offense in which a domestic relationship is not a required element of the offense but in which a determination of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) is made under Section 112A-11.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, an entry by the court of a judgment of conviction for that offense shall be grounds for denying the issuance of a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card under this Section;
(x) (Blank);
(xi) He or she is not an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section 101(a) (26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))), or that he or she is an alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa if that alien is:
(1) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes;
(2) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(A) accredited to the United States Government or the Government’s mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; or
(B) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
(3) an official of a foreign government or distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State;
(4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official business; or
(5) one who has received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3);
(xii) He or she is not a minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5-520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;
(xiii) He or she is not an adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;
(xiv) He or she is a resident of the State of Illinois;
(xv) He or she has not been adjudicated as a mentally disabled person;
(xvi) He or she has not been involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility; and
(xvii) He or she is not developmentally disabled; and
(3) Upon request by the Department of State Police, sign a release on a form prescribed by the Department of State Police waiving any right to confidentiality and requesting the disclosure to the Department of State Police of limited mental health institution admission information from another state, the District of Columbia, any other territory of the United States, or a foreign nation concerning the applicant for the sole purpose of determining whether the applicant is or was a patient in a mental health institution and disqualified because of that status from receiving a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card. No mental health care or treatment records may be requested. The information received shall be destroyed within one year of receipt.

An applicant for a FOID must consent to the Department using the applicant’s digital driver’s license or Illinois ID card photograph, if available, and signature on the FOID, and must furnish the Department with his driver’s license or Illinois ID card number. The Department must approve or deny the FOID within 30 days, and is authorized to deny the FOID only if the applicant does not meet the listed qualifications. The FOID fee is $10 and it is valid for five years from the date of issuance. The Department shall forward to each FOID holder, a notice of expiration and a renewal notice application, 60 days prior to expiration.

A FOID may be revoked and seized if the holder made a false statement on the application, is no longer eligible, or whose mental condition poses a clear and present danger to self, others, or community. A written notice must be given with the grounds for denial or revocation and seizure.

A person whose FOID has been revoked or seized or whose FOID application was denied or not acted upon within 30 days may appeal the decision to the Director of the Department of State Police, unless it was based upon certain violent, drug, or weapons offenses. In that case, the aggrieved person may petition the circuit court in the county of his residence. If the Director upholds the Department’s decision, the applicant may appeal to the courts. Any judicial review generally will be limited to the question of whether the Department’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”

And those are just the state requirements, which mirror federal gun laws with a few more tyrannical bells and whistles!

So, in order to become a gun owner in Illinois, one needs to be clean, sober, in the country legally, without a criminal record, a state resident, not crazy, not mentally deficient, not violent, not a minor and not a felon. Then, once you have received permission to become a gun owner in Illinois, you must wait several days before you can take possession of your purchase.

Oh, and if you want to actually BEAR said arm…

Well, that’s another set of requirements that includes a $150 fee, fingerprinting for an additional fee in order to avoid delayed processing of one’s application, and 16 hours of training (which includes a “live fire” component), for which you will also pay.  (Eight hours of prior training may be credited   if it is “approved by the Department [of State Police] and recognized under the laws of another state or if the applicant is an active, retired, or honorably discharged member of the Armed Forces.”)

But apparently, the unhinged and quite possibly retarded Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, that’s not enough, because Chicago’s violence is through the roof.

Maybe… just maybe if you actually made it easier for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against armed assailants, the problem would be mitigated. But no…

More infringements and tyrannical kicks to the metaphorical balls of every law-abiding citizens are obviously necessary, according to this buffoon!

At this rate, what we need is to fence off Chicago a la “Escape from New York,” trapping all the savages inside, along with their corrupt mayor and fuckwitted police superintendent, with no way out, and let them kill one another. After a while, just move in, clean up the bodies and ensure some kind of common sense intelligence test is administered before another douchebag takes charge and proceeds to turn the city into yet another warzone.

Oooh! I know! Let’s violate the law in order to prevent others from lawfully exercising their legal right!

20 Comments

Yeah, that’s a great idea, you immature, irrational, panty-shitting dumbass!

The link I provided above shows the puerile mentality of a hoplophobic assplunger that claims to blog on behalf of something called the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life, whose philosophy apparently involves cowardice and theft.

Yes, theft!

See, said assplunger doesn’t like the fact that there are citizens out there who exercise their rights publicly and perfectly legally. He/she/it doesn’t like said rights, and thinks that peaceable citizens should be prevented from exercising them in public by any means possible. One of those means is outright theft. This moron proposes that anytime someone sees a citizen openly exercising their right to keep and bear arms, they should just leave.

My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.

But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.

In a real, moral world, that’s called theft, assplunger.

The owner of the restaurant spent money purchasing food and paying a cook to prepare it. They also pay servers to keep your drinks refilled and bring you said food. If you leave without paying, you are appropriating said resources – that’s STEALING for those of you whose moral compass has been eaten by zombies.

The owner of said supermarket pays employees, who work hard to keep the shelves stocked, the carts stacked, and the products in their proper places. You walk out on a cart full of groceries without paying, you’ve just appropriated those efforts.

This is what this “Institute” claims people should do – commit illegal acts in an effort to prevent others from committing legal ones.

Yeah, makes all the sense in the world!

Following this procedure has several advantages. First, it protects people. Second, it forces the businesses to really choose where their loyalties are. If the second amendment is as important as people claim, then people should be willing to pay for it. God knows, free speech is tremendously expensive. If it weren’t, I’d be reading this on ESPN during prime time, not posting this on Blogger.

This author has the reasoning ability of a rabid warthog. Forcing businesses to respect people’s legal rights by stealing from it? Great. Forcing people who legally exercise their rights to pay for the illegal acts of those who cannot or will not? Terrific. Carrying a firearm in the open without infringing on anyone’s fundamental rights? Must be stopped at all costs.

Hate to tell you this, you incoherent sack of dessicated donkey gonads. It’s not the price of the First Amendment that’s keeping you off ESPN and on Blogger, drooling your specious brain droppings to a limited audience. It’s the fact that you’re a bungling sack of fetid smegma, who is incapable of intelligent thought, and no network executive with a shred of business sense would ever pay you to actually broadcast your insipid, hysterical cretinism to a breathing audience!

Now, I have blogged before about some open carry advocates setting the gun rights movement back with their irresponsible, disrespectful behavior. I don’t agree with the way they choose to “normalize” the presence of guns in society. I think it reeks of infantile “HA HA! You can’t stop me!” behavior. That said, they are doing nothing illegal, and they have not violated anyone else’s rights with their presence.

Rudeness and inconsiderate behavior are annoying, but not illegal. And they certainly should not be punished for said rudeness by being forced to pay for hoplophobes’ outright theft merely for choosing to exercise their rights!

I would certainly hope that any cockrocket who decides to engage in such behavior and attempts to “dine and dash” as a way of proving a political point gets arrested and charged.

But my guess is, the vast majority of them will 1) shit themselves in fear 2) whip out their smartphones and proceed to voice their indignation on social media about the presence of armed individuals, and 3) slink away quietly after paying their bill as quickly as possible in the sincere and hysterical belief that any sudden move will result in their quick ventilation.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: