ap265489098050_1

springfield-crosscannon_2016-small

Trump calls for police to take guns during stop-and-frisks – “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Thursday reiterated his call for expanded use of the controversial stop-and-frisk practice from law enforcement, adding that police should also take people’s guns away in the process. ‘Basically, they will, if they see — you know, they are proactive and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person, and they will look, and they will take the gun away,’ Trump said in an interview with ‘Fox and Friends.'” Illegally carried guns? Is that what he means?

screen-shot-2016-09-23-at-1-09-04-pm

Arms race: What it takes for an officer to carry a high-powered rifle on duty – “We surveyed some local police departments, and several say that after recent high profile violent incidents – including the July 7 murders of five police officers in Dallas – demand for heavier weapons by patrol officers has jumped. “Our department has probably tripled the amount of rifle classes we’ve started putting on for our officers,” said Officer Todd Witherspoon, Grand Prairie police range master and firearms instructor. Fort Worth, Dallas, Irving and Garland also report increased interest among officers for AR-15s.” Well yes. If you were a Dallas cop, you’d be interested in carrying a rilfe, too after the July Black Lives Matter hijinks.

Thanks, Chicago: New Analysis: Overall Crime Rate Holds Steady in 2016 – “Overall crime rates in 2016 are projected to be nearly the same as last year, with crime remaining at an all-time low, according to a new Brennan Center analysis. The report — released in the Center’s ‘Election 2016 Controversies‘ series — presents data from the 30 largest cities in the United States analyzed by a team of economics and policy researchers. The findings undercut media reports referring to crime as ‘out of control,’ though they do call attention to increased violence in some cities, specifically Chicago.” Not to mention Baltimore and D.C.

1474602643

OMG! A kid! Twirling a rifle! OMG! Marching Band Member Practicing Rifle Toss Before School Mistaken for Armed Man – “At 6:06 a.m. a concerned citizen driving on their way to work called police, informing authorities that a male subject wearing blue jeans and a plaid shirt was “twirling” a rifle and playing with it. The call came in as a “Man With a Gun,” and Waukesha police responded to this call as they would in any situation — sincerely, and under oath to protect the lives of the people they serve.”

ku_gun_signs-lead_t640

Another man of God for civilian disarmament…oy: Faith-based advocacy group mounts statewide campaign against campus carry – “A faith-based group is mobilizing in hopes of overturning the Kansas law that will allow campus carry of concealed weapons beginning next summer. Lawrence-based Kansas Interfaith Action representatives are visiting state universities to increase awareness of the issue, recruit activists and raise money this semester, according to Rabbi Moti Rieber, Kansas Interfaith Action executive director. The group plans to lobby the Legislature to change the law once representatives return to session next semester.”

imrs

Another hand-wringing, conflicted lefty cri de coeur about kids’ toys: My sons like playing guns: An American confession – “Watching my two little boys open their gifts in the idyllic glow of Christmas lights, warm, safe and full of life, the answer seemed simple: get rid of all the guns. Pan out further of course, and there was chaos: shredded wrapping paper, kids fighting over toys, Santa’s dirty wine glass. The reality is that the answers to complex problems are never simple. The best I could do was to ensure my kids remained gun-less, gun-shy, and anti gun(g)-ho.”

s2

Bad news for Cody Wilson: 3D-Printed Gun Files Aren’t Fee Speech, Court Rules – “(W)e now live in a world where the files to print a gun exist, and people have indeed printed guns. Is this an activity the constitution protects? Decidedly no, according to a ruling handed down earlier this week from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State, goes back to the creation of the first 3D printing of a gun, by the activist group Defense Distributed, in May, 2013.”

Is any other segment of the gun biz hotter than suppressors?

Recommended For You

84 Responses to Springfield Armory Daily Digest: Stop and Grab, Chicago’s Fault, and the Limits of Free Speech

      • If your minding your business and the blue crew wants to fiddle with your junk…I suppose some segments of the population will give the nod, my crew working their civil liberty not so much, in fact some would drop them where they stand and the state would give them room and board.

        • Funny how stop and frisk is very rarely used to simply harass people. Most of the time, it involves reasonable suspicion.

        • pwrsurge:
          Interesting how you chose to use the words reasonable suspicion, when what you meant was probable cause. You really should learn the difference… esp if you are, as I suspect, a police ocifer…

        • Screenshots or it didn’t happen.

          Unless I see proof of such, I won’t buy that RF and the TTAG bunch are deleting posts JUST because you disagree with someone.

        • As near as I can tell we don’t have any moderators at all on this site. If they’re here they’re working with/for the trolls.

          In the past when the site has deleted one of my comments there’s usually a short line from the staff as to why. You know, no flaming the site, etc. If your comments are simply vanishing they may just be getting lost in the maze of the interwebz.

        • I’m gonna go with JR on this one or attribute it to internal website failure. I’ve had posts that failed to post and I had to retry them later to get them up.

          Also, as much trouble as he stirs up with his opinions, serge can defend his position and usually does so quite well.

          I don’t always agree with him but he is able to articulate an argument that undeniably has some merit to it. Rather than getting mad at him just roll with the YMMV theory if you don’t agree with his comments. Reserve your wrath for the resident trolls who have nothing to offer.

          Just a suggestion.

        • There goes Cali-Zim again, whining for moderators when he doesn’t get his agreement and respect. Ironically, he’s the biggest insult flame thrower on TTAG. Well, don’t let me leave out Illini-Zim. Put on your big boy britches and stop whining for your TTAG Helicopter Mommies to come bail you out.

        • I’ve got the ‘your post is awaiting moderation’ message before. Not to mention the good old ‘Flame Deleted’ thing.

        • I agree. If you don’t support all of the rights you support none. (1st, 2nd, 4th etc.) “Stop and frisk” is nothing but a modern version of the Gestapo asking for your papers.

      • That question is very easy to answer, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity high on the comment stream:

        The purpose of “Stop and frisk” is for a government operative to determine if a person is carrying a weapon, any weapon. If they find a weapon they intend to charge the person with a crime and/or confiscate the weapon if it is “illegal” or the person is a “prohibited person”.

        So, what part of “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” DOESN’T prohibit this sort of government activity?

        If you concede that the government the Second Amendment was intended to protect you from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce (by means of “stop and frisk”) a list of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name (and guns) off of that list?

        • Everyone, including Mr. Donald, should take a good, close look at Terry v. Ohio (392 US 1 1968)–the definitive ruling on ‘stop and frisk.’ They keep using that phrase; It does not mean what they think it means.
          The SCOTUS determined that an officer could ‘stop’ (hinder and detain) a person and ‘frisk’ (a pat-down of the outer clothing only, without entry into or under the clothing unless something specific that could reasonably be a weapon is felt) them for weapons without probable cause, but that such a stop (seizure and search) is acceptable only ” . . .when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”[1]
          if any of the prongs of the Terry Test (reasonable suspicion–‘reasonable’ on the part of the trained and experienced officer, mind–that there is something criminal involved, and the belief (‘reasonable,’ once again) that the person is armed AND presently dangerous–are missing, then the ‘stop’ and ‘frisk’ is unreasonable, unlawful, UnConstitutional, and violates another prime ruling, Mapp v. Ohio–the one that says unlawful search and seizure yields tainted evidence that must be excluded. Make an unlawful stop, and find an ‘illegal’ gun? Too bad–the arrest was unlawful, so the evidence gets tossed, and may even be returned to its possessor, along with perhaps a tidy sum in punitive damages as a result of the civil suit.
          No matter what the public or politicians may desire to do in the name of ‘public safety’ and a wish to get ‘weapons off the streets,’ a high number of ‘stop and frisk’ instances lack one or more of the prongs necessary–such as, assuming everyone out at night in a tough neighborhood of a certain age, color, or dress style is a criminal who has a weapon.
          If the police can abuse ‘stop and frisk’ in a tough neighborhood for the best of motives, they can then also abuse it in your nice, middle-class one. Or in any other place that ‘good’ people occupy.
          Remember the ‘slippery slope’?

        • I don’t see how it does. The authority of an officer to stop and pat down someone who they reasonably believe is involved in criminal activity is settled law. The reality is that the only reason the program was stopped was because hood rats got upset that they get mistaken for ganbangers when they dress and act the same while frequenting the same places. Rather than fix themselves they decided to kill a program which, in retrospect, was quite effective at keeping NYC crime rates down.

      • Assist or resist? Freedom is always in a state of flux, molded by the will of the people. When the Hangman comes to town you will not escape. Did you resist or assist? That is the moral question.

    • ‘I see Ted Cruz has gone over to the orange side…’

      I can only assume this means he has no intention of running in 2020 or 2024.

      • Well, as Serge put it above, Stop and Frisk is not necessarily coming for YOUR guns. It involves ‘street investigation.’

        Has it been and will it be abused? Most certainly. Do I agree with it? Not really.

        But, let’s not conflate a ‘street encounter’ with ‘coming for your guns.’ And further, let’s not draw ANY kind of moral equivalence between Trump and Clinton, as there is, quite frankly, no such moral equivalence to be found.

        Vote wisely in November. There actually is a lot at stake.

        • Thedonald is NOT a friend of civil rights. Arguing about who’s rights he abuses first is moot. The important thing now is how to bring about the impeachment proceedings regardless of who wins.

        • That’s just insane.

          First of all, Trump has never held office to violate someone’s civil rights, so you have no basis in fact to make that claim. Let me know a year after he takes office what civil rights he has violated and we’ll talk about it then.

          Secondly…are you serious You are going to advocate impeaching POTUS just for winning the election and taking office? You do realize impeachment does not mean “Waaaaah, I didn’t get to vote for someone *I* wanted?” right?

          Trump and Clinton are the two realistic choices for President. Deal with it, and choose your vote wisely. If you think they are ‘equal’ on 2A…even remotely…there simply is no hope for you to see simple reality.

          I can see now that an attempt at honest discussion with you is pointless.

        • ‘Trump has never held office to violate someone’s civil rights, so you have no basis in fact to make that claim.’

          What?!? Doesn’t trying to use eminent domain to take property for personal gain count?

          ‘You are going to advocate impeaching POTUS just for winning the election and taking office?’

          No, I’m perfectly willing to let him make good on his promises (like making ‘stop and frisk’ a national thing) before the proceedings to start.

          ‘Trump and Clinton are the two realistic choices for President.’

          Which is exactly why, short of heart disease, impeachment is our last great hope.

        • “What?!? Doesn’t trying to use eminent domain to take property for personal gain count?”

          No, it doesn’t count. While you and I may not like the court’s decision he didn’t just take someone’s property. DJT went to court and won. He then paid what the court deemed fair market value for what he got.

          Alternatively in some cases he lost.

          Sorry, there’s no deprivation of rights here.

        • Actually the one I was thinking of he lost. But that doesn’t mean jack spit to me. Trying to use the power of government for personal gain at the expense of others is wrong whether you have a (D) beside your name or an (R).

        • “Trying to use the power of government for personal gain at the expense of others is wrong…”

          Isn’t that what every lawsuit ever filed is? Is it wrong to use the power of the government to compel someone who has wronged you to pay up?

        • ‘Is it wrong to use the power of the government to compel someone who has wronged you to pay up?’

          No. This is one of the central, legitimate roles of government, to be neutral arbiters in civil disagreements. The problem is that the ‘wrong’ that was committed was the refusal to sell property. How on earth is the refusal to sell your property to another private citizen a ‘wrong’? One of the central principals that set this country apart from others is the principal of private property rights. Using the government to violate these rights is no more acceptable then selling influence to foreign entities for personal gain.

        • I mean as long as he’s not coming for MY guns and instead those darker shades of American Citizens I suppose it’s all good.

        • “how to bring about the impeachment proceedings regardless of who wins.”

          If there were any possibility of *EVER* impeaching Hillary Clinton, she would be in federal prison right now serving many years or life for treason. If you think impeachment is a good solution, you must first elect someone who has not been a consummate insider for 30 years.

          Vote Trump.

        • So vote for Trump because he’d be easier to impeach?

          Either way I think heart disease is probably our best hope.

      • But someone working to degrade you liberty in government on your tax dollars in much more dangerous than a private sector tycoon trying to take overbearing laws and regulations and twist them to his advantage.

        I think Trump as a businessman was Big or Small of government as it suited his interests. A parallel example may be the energy business…hating the nitpickers who falsely claim hydraulic fracturing causes earthquacks…but loving those bureaucrats who can sign a single lease (instead of 200) on a 40000 sq mile offshore area. Just gaming the system to try to make a buck.

        The smaller the system, the less reason to play the game tho. This is why you have to get overbearing unconstitutional power out of politics before you can get the money out of politics. Companies do not enjoy giving politicians money. They did it because they feel it is mandatory if they want to stay out of the shit. So where else to you have to give money to avoid unfair targeting? Mexico. Any corrupt country really. This is why the founders sought to keep the government small. They wanted to prevent corruption, and the only way to do that is decrease discretion and decrease # of people trying to usurp law in favor of their discretion.

        Keep in mind DJT has pledged more towards gun liberties than any republican presidential candidate since….ever. I was nervous about his politics before, but am assured by the fact he has acknowledged that guns cannot be a “freebie” that he can sell out in exchange for something he really wants. Candidates who do not recognize weapon liberties like Trump did are prone to pick that as the barter card.

        Now he might have lied and stab us all in the back later…It’s possible. Hillary
        on the other hand…

        • ‘Keep in mind DJT has pledged more towards gun liberties than any republican presidential candidate since….ever.’

          Was this before or after he proposed that we use a secret list to ban anyone they want from owning a firearm with no due process to get off the list?

          Bear in mind that while HRC was peddling influence as Secretary of State, DJT was defrauding people of their life savings (Trump University). He’s a con man.

  1. “Is that what he means?”

    He does this all of the time. Stop and Frisk worked in NYC. He knows this. Now he makes an unrealistic and unconstitutional extrapolation. Over time, someone versed in this stuff will pull him aside and explain it to him.

    Contrast this with his opponent. She thinks that Heller was wrongly decided. None of her inner circle will challenge this position. They will reinforce it.

    • Well said.

      Trump is an expert at rhetoric. And that’s why he’s winning over more and more people every day.

      It does not hurt that Clinton is the anti-rhetoric, though…I’ve got to admit.

    • “Over time, someone versed in this stuff will pull him aside…”
      So why didn’t we nominate THAT guy? He seems to at least know the constitution from a hole in the ground. Don’s been cavalier about; illegal military orders, subverting the first amendment, subverting the second amendment, subverting the fourth (again, just now), subverting the fifth amendment, eight amendment violations, and of course nine and ten as well (but so does everyone else), and generally having a very delusional understanding of the nature and purpose of our social contract with the federal government. The notion he’s a step in the right direction is absurd; he’s given literally no indication of this. All he is, is a step in a different wrong direction than Hillary.

  2. I’m gonna focus on two stories here. The cops with rifles and the guy overseas.

    Cops with rifles requiring training vs. civilians not being required makes fucking sense. Most civvies, if they carry, don’t carry a rifle. They are also not duty bound to respond to a threat. They’re allowed to run away. Police don’t get that luxury. No one one this site who’s not a LEO is bound to deal with a hostage situation. The LEO’s are.

    On top of that a cop doesn’t have the “right” to carry a duty rifle. He’s signing a contract with a department or other LEA that stipulates what he or she can and cannot do on duty. There is no infringement of the cop’s rights if the department requires training because if the cop doesn’t like it they can go to a “trainingless” agency or get out of LE and do something else where such a training requirement doesn’t exist. Forcing a civvie to complete training to buy/possess a rifle would be a clear violation of the 2A because 1) it’s government doing this and 2) they have no option that removes the requirement because they can’t quit the way the cops does. If you want to take a certain job and it requires certain things for you to carry a certain object that’s fine because you can leave. Turning the entire US population into a captive audience and then foisting these requirements on us is illegal.

    Even further, this makes no sense. Very nearly no one (yes, I know a few Lefties do) is suggesting a training requirement for buying a lever or a bolt gun. If you’re safe with those why would an AR be significantly less safe? (It’s because it’s black isn’t it you racists!?) You already know the rules and shooting someone in the chest point blank with my 24/47 Mauser will leave them just as dead as shooting them with the AR in a similar situation.

    As for the guy overseas…

    Well he’s an idiot and a quote from his piece, combined with his response to it, proves this.

    “It’s your culture. So crazy about car seats but kids take guns to school,” She was right, though I want to both condemn and defend my culture. “But I’m different. It’s more complicated. I understand sensible car seat use and believe in gun control.”

    First off guns and car seats is a bit of a non sequitur. However there is a connection. Why do you use child seats? Because the world is an unsafe place and traffic laws don’t prevent us from being involved in an accident with a careless/drunk/bad/stupid driver. The fact that running a red light and T-boning someone is illegal doesn’t change the fact that the kid is dead without the car seat. Isn’t that basically why we carry guns because laws don’t stop criminals from shooting/knifing/beating/robbing/raping us?

    Guns are no different. The fact that kids carry guns to school and do bad things with them is exactly the reason that legal guns are needed. For defense against those who carry illegally and with bad intentions! It’s a fire-breathing, freedom enhancing car seat that fits in your pocket (or holster) and protects a whole BUILDING full of people from the actions of someone doing something stupid or crazy.

    • Nicely written. The law only offers protection if everyone agrees to abide by it; criminals, by definition, don’t. I don’t see how that could be hard to understand. But then again people with a bunch of alphabet letters before and after their names that went to 4+ years of college can’t understand 27 words written almost 3 centuries ago.

  3. Enough with the 3D gun…15 bucks, a trip to the big box yields a bang stick more powerful than Codys’ creation. Internet not required…a fax gets it done.

    • So, you are cool with .gov limiting the files on your computer that harm no one (last added to stave off the ‘child porn’ idiotic equivalence claims)?

      Wilson’s case is not about the printed guns so much. Look at the wording of that ruling and ask yourself if that is consistent with 2A.

      THAT’S what this is about…that’s what this is ALWAYS about.

    • The point of the 3D printed gun files was not so that anyone could print themselves a reliable and durable gun in the comfort of their own home, they still can’t. The gun in question is unreliable after the first shot, at best.

      The point was, and was not lost on the government, that a person in the comfort of their own home could print a working firearm AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT STOP OR REGULATE THE ACTIVITY. And that is the sole reason the government is trying so hard to stop and regulate the activity, in clear violation of the Second Amendment. The fact that the government is trying so hard is clear proof that the Second Amendment was and is the most important 27 words in the Constitution of the United States of America.

    • I don’t think that ruling will stand, and I hope Defense takes it to SCOTUS. Otherwise, why couldn’t govt prohibit distribution of a file which printed out a yard sign for Trump?

  4. I guess one shouldn’t be surprised that Freedom of Speech only extends to Speech sanctioned by the ruling Junta……. Engineering manuals related to firearms, reloading manuals etc., won’t count as “speech” either, I’m sure. Thank goodness our future Jihadist saviors, haven’t fallen quite that far yet.

  5. I never stated I wasn’t voting Donnie. Just that stop & frisk is what they do in Russia, China and certain other hellholes guys. And PROVE S&F is not just a racist scheme to keep them coloreds in their place boys. How dare I criticise a corrupt billionaire…sorry I’ll do better massa’.

    • “And PROVE S&F is not just a racist scheme to keep them coloreds in their place boys.”

      Technically speaking you can’t prove a negative so this request is on par with dividing by 0.

      • Just responding to Serge’s inane unprovable comment. S&F matters if you have brown kids-no apology given. We are screwed either way…

        • If you have brown kids, and a disproportionate (to put it kindly) rate of crime is perpetrated by goons that are also brown or otherwise resemble your kids (clothing, accent, etc.), law enforcement *in general* matters –not just stop and frisk. Cops go where the crime is, it’s silly to expect them to do their job otherwise, and that fact extends to people as well as geography. So if your kids ‘fit the profile,’ they are on course to a life of needlessly heightened risk unless they learn to practice intelligent risk management and mitigation (just like everyone else does every day). Knowing how to handle a tarry or traffic stop, knowing how to comport yourself around officers, knowing how to defuse (or at least not inflame) conflict, knowing how to identify and avoid dangerous associations/behaviors (again, if you resemble the troublesome demographic, you can do yourself no favors by disguising yourself even further). I learned and was given ‘the talk’ on all this stuff as a kid, and I’m white as the driven snow, and while I don’t like the reality of having to yessir/nossir arrogant dick cops, it is, well reality. And getting in the cop’s face won’t accomplish anything positive for me (and yet a lesson so hard for so many black as well as white people to take to heart)

        • Some other person in a math class trying to pull off 17/0 doesn’t mean it’s OK for you to try to justify 16/0. It just makes you a total dipshit because you know it’s wrong yet you persist.

  6. (Christmas) “Pan out further of course, and there was chaos: shredded wrapping paper, kids fighting over toys, Santa’s dirty wine glass.”

    Growing up, most of the kids I knew left a glass of milk and cookies for Santa.

    My sisters and I left Santa a six-pack. The next morning, along with the toys and goodies, we found 6 empty beercans.

    A Christmas miracle!!! 🙂

  7. At this point in the game Trump can show up at the podium with his underwear on his head talking about alien overlords and guess what, I’d still vote for him.

    Full on alex jones bat shit crazy is still better than hillary.

  8. “The best I could do was to ensure my kids remained gun-less, gun-shy, and anti gun(g)-ho fearful and ignorant.”

    Fixed it for you.

    • Killed 5 with a rifle, still on the loose. Very first report I heard deliberately pointed out the murders were in a gun free zone.

  9. Any fucking tyrant that tries to stop and frisk me will be shoot multiple times.

    The people here that can’t understand why this is important are historicaly ignorant.

    At least half of the so called 2nd Amendment supports or Constionalists are the problem. Ignorant lemmings.

  10. “The reality is that the answers to complex problems are never simple.”

    “The solution to political and social problems is never as simple as it appeared when we sketched it out on the coffee shop napkin.” – V.I. Lenin

  11. He’s a moron. His supporters are morons and I have 3 voters in my household that won’t be associated with his trash. Hilary operatives will steal this election and every Chump supporter will whine to mommy. They’re an insecure lot just like their leader……

  12. Righties cannot be against no-fly-no-buy and support stop-and-frisk.
    Lefties cannot be against stop-and-frisk and support no-fly-no-buy.

    Yet they do. Kind of highlights how bullshit this whole politics/government thing is. Two different feet wearing the same throat crushing boot.

  13. “Illegally carried guns? Is that what he means?”

    Ahhh……….I guess RINO Trump follows Pelosi’s old saw about having to vote for something(someone) before you can find out what’s in it (or what they support).

    Are you Trumpkins still happy about the GOP primaries temper tantrum you threw that put this jackwagon on the ticket?

    Get used to this phrase, circa 2018 or so: “……but….but…..I NEVER thought *that’s* what President Trump was going to do! That’s not what I expected when I jumped on the lunatic, celebrity-worship bandwagon!”

    Because you’re going to hear it a lot. You heard it here first. You’re welcome.

  14. I am completely against stop and Frisk
    I carry my concealed weapon everywhere, even into gun free zones
    I can’t accept jackbooted government thugs taking away my right to defend myself
    I cannot believe a rabbi is against the right to carry guns on campus
    I am Jewish and the lesson I take from the holocaust is that the Jews have to have guns to defend themselves
    You can’t complain even to the Jewish police because they are helping the Nazis
    When America finally comes for its’ Jews, I am off to the Everglades with my collection of weapons
    It will be like the movie “defiance” all over again

  15. “Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security.”

    No. There’s nothing in the Constitution about the State Department limiting exports for the sake of national security. There is, however, plenty in there about the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. The judge who wrote this needs to be kicked off the bench for gross incompetence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *