(CNSNews.com) – The Internal Revenue Service had in its weapons inventory 4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition as of late 2017, according to a report published this month by the Government Accountability Office.
Included in this arsenal, according to the GAO, were 15 “fully automatic firearms” and 56,000 rounds of ammunition for those fully automatic firearms.
The same report–“Federal Law Enforcement: Purchases and Inventory Controls of Firearms, Ammuntion, and Tactical Equipment”–says that the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services had 194 fully automatic firearms and 386,952 rounds of ammunition for those fully automatic firearms.
“The term ‘fully automatic’ used in this report,” says a footnote in the report, “encompasses a range of firearms classified as machine guns, including submachine guns, three round burst guns, and guns with a selector switch that can enable continuous fire.”
The guns in the IRS inventory also included 3,302 pistols, 623 shotguns, 543 rifles, and 4 revolvers.
The ammunition stockpiled by the IRS—in addition to the 56,000 rounds for its fully automatic firearms–included 3,156,046 pistol and revolver rounds, 368,592 shotgun rounds and 1,481,368 rifle rounds.
The IRS’s firearms and ammunition are used primarily by its Criminal Investigation (CI) unit, which is manned by 2,148 federal law enforcement officers. But some of it is also used by the IRS’s Police Officer Section, which includes only 9 federal law enforcement officers.
“IRS’ Criminal Investigation serves the American public by investigating potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code and related financial crimes in compliance with the law,” the GAO explained in the report it published this month.
“IRS’ Police Officer Section,” said the report, “provides protection for the people, property and processes of its Enterprise Computing Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia, which houses 10 of IRS’ 19 critical tax processing functions.”
Wonder who got the revolvers? The rest of this disturbing article may be viewed at: CNS News
Tip ‘o the hat to our very own Poetrooper. Thanks buddy- keep ’em coming.
Reason.com. This woman plans to buy a bigger gun with gun buy back cash.
The “gun buy back” program. Police department purchases weapons from people willing to part with their weapons for cash. In theory, criminals and law-abiding citizens alike would turn their weapons in for cash. With “less weapons on the street”, the chances of gun violence goes down.
But, how many criminals, not bashful about using a gun in the commission of a crime, would turn their guns in for cash? Would enough of them turn their weapons in, for cash, in order for the city’s investment to have an impact against crime?
How about the people gaming the system? From Reason.com:
The program reportedly cost the city $250,000, but there is little evidence that buyback programs are effective in reducing violence, or even in reducing the number of firearms in circulation–as one woman ably demonstrated.
Kathleen Cairns, a WBFF Baltimore journalist, tweeted a picture of a woman who was surrendering a 9mm. She hoped to use the money from the program to buy an even bigger gun.
There are other ways to game the system as well. For example, the city is offering $25 for every “hi-capacity” magazine turned in. Some digging from Daniel J. Mitchell of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) discovered that such a “hi-capacity” magazine can be purchased online for about $12. The $13 in profit may not seem like much money to some, but it can be the difference between paying for food, rent, a bill, or even a Christmas gift.
One woman shows us the 9MM she is turning in for the Baltimore City Gun Buy Back program. But she says she is using the cash to get a bigger weapon! Story on FOX45 at 4pm. pic.twitter.com/LlmCbezpU7
The Trump administration on Tuesday took first steps to ban the sale of bump stocks on semi-automatic weapons and has made them illegal to possess beginning in late March.
Bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like automatic firearms, have come under increasing scrutiny after they were used in October 2017 when a man opened fired from his Las Vegas hotel suite into a crowd at a country music concert below, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
“Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, ATF received correspondence from members of the United States Congress, as well as nongovernmental organizations, requesting that ATF examine its past classifications and determine whether bump-stock type devices available on the market constitute machineguns under the statutory definition,” the regulation, which was signed by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Tuesday morning, noted.
It continued: “The Department decided to move forward with the rulemaking process to clarify the meaning of these terms, which are used in the NFA’s (National Firearms Act) statutory definition of ‘machinegun.’”
The regulation will go into effect 90 days after it is formally published in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen on Friday, a Justice Department official said.
People who own bump stocks will be required to either surrender them to the ATF or destroy them by late March, the official said. The change has undergone a legal review and the Justice Department and ATF are ready to fight any legal challenge that may be brought, the official added.
Well that was quick:
Today, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at www.bumpstockcase.com.
The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation. The lawsuit, captioned as Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., is backed by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.
The NRA folded on this issue when the Las Vegas shooting happened.
The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.
Now they are trying to distance themselves from that position.
The National Rifle Association is “disappointed” with the Trump administration’s plan to outlaw bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire continuously.
First of all the NRA shoots themselves in the foot. A semi-automatic weapon that fires continuously is called an automatic weapon. What is an acceptable rate of fire? Can I be deemed illegal because of my particular skill with a weapon? Am I not obligated, as a citizen, to stand ready to defend the rights of all Americans? In particular, are we not obligated to stand ready to defend ourselves against tyranny?
… it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. – Alexander Hamilton
If my fellow Americans are shocked and outraged by events like what happened in Las Vegas, what will they do when we, as citizens, can no longer provide ourselves security from our own government? The actual facts of Waco Texas clearly show that the Government murdered 76 people. Randy Weaver and his family were marked for extermination, his unarmed wife murdered by the government while holding her baby and his 14 year old son gunned down by government agents in hiding. They gave the agents that murdered them a medal to encourage that kind of behavior. There are countless other examples.
I do not condone violence, I am horrified every time some lunatic slaughters innocent people. The sad fact of being American is that the loss of those victims is the tragic price we pay for living free from absolute tyranny. Anything printed in today’s world can be seen as “hate speech” by some branch of government. Now, I fear we enter a time when the Government may Compel Speech and Curtail Rights at their whim. The citizens of this great nation are not just divided, they have become splintered. Meanwhile, the Government grows by acting as if it is the solution.
I for one will never relinquish my right and my duty to protect myself and others by use of arms. I am unashamed and unapologetic about those convictions.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled that the schools and sheriff aren’t responsible for people traumatized at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School because the students weren’t in custody.
A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff’s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.
Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.
“The claim arises from the actions of [shooter Nikolas] Cruz, a third party, and not a state actor,” she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. “Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz.
“As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody” — for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote.
“His arbitrary and conscience-shocking actions and inactions directly and predictably caused children to die, get injured, and get traumatized,” the lawsuit claimed.
Medina knew Cruz and saw him arrive on campus, but did not confront him.
The lawsuit argued that the Sheriff’s Office and School Board “either have a policy that allows killers to walk through a school killing people without being stopped. Alternatively, they have such inadequate training that the individuals tasked with carrying out the polices … lack the basic fundamental understandings of what those policies are such that they are incapable of carrying them out.”
The entire article is at the link below. I will let you good people sort out this mess. This Peterson person is what we used to call a Coward, back in the days when you could openly express yourself.
“The Anne Arundel County police chief defended Maryland’s new “red flag” protective law Monday, just hours after a 61-year-old man was shot and killed while officers were trying to serve a court order requiring him to surrender his guns.
Chief Timothy Altomare said the fatal shooting in Ferndale was a sign that the law, which went into effect Oct. 1, is needed. There have been 19 protective orders sought in the county since then, tying Harford County for the most in Maryland, according to a report on the first month. Statewide, about half of the 114 orders sought have been granted.
“If you look at this morning’s outcome, it’s tough for us to say ‘Well, what did we prevent?’ ” he said. “Because we don’t know what we prevented or could’ve prevented. What would’ve happened if we didn’t go there at 5 a.m.?”
Altomare said the two investigating officers, who he did not identify Monday, “did the best they could with the situation they had.” One of them fatally shot Gary J. Willis at his Linwood Avenue home. – Article.
According to the article, Mr. Willis did put the gun down on the floor. If so then, why was it necessary to shoot him, and why did those cops go there at 5AM and wake him up? Per the article, Linwood became agitated and picked up the gun and a struggle ensued. So why was it necessary for either cop to pull out a gun and shoot him, instead of calling for back up and putting him on the floor? Is Anne Arundel County turning into Chicago?
And who called the cops on him, anyway? Was it family or a disgruntled neighbor? Apparently, it was a family member, but why aren’t these people responsible enough to get him to counseling if he’s agitated about something?
Regarding this incident in Marylnad, which is now a “red flag law” state, there are many questions left unanswered. I’m hoping they will be answered, because this is bizarre, from my point of view.
As you may or may not know, red flag laws allow someone to make a call to the police and say you’re some kind of threat, even if you are not. If this by itself does not smack of Stalin’s era, then what is it? Someone likened it to “Minority Report”, a “gag me with a spoon” movie with that midget actor TCruise. (N.B: if Scientology has so much influence, why isn’t he more famous and more taller?)
There are states that already have those laws in place. I think in Florida, there is also the Baker Act. Here’s the list:
In Illinois, jumping through all those hoops to comply with state legislation has been tested several times now. As you may recall, the Mayor of Deerfield, IL, was slapped by the court for violating the “unlawful search and seizure”, “due process” and all those other cautionary measures, in addition to violating the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. That sparked the Sanctuary County movement which is ongoing and becoming wider spread in the state of Illinois. (Hey, how about some Sanctuary States?)
I’d like to point out the obvious here. In the Florida Parkland school shooting, there were calls reporting the shooter and the police did absolutely nothing. He didn’t have a “collection”, which is something that is kept in order and looked after. He just had a big pile of guns. He did make threats because he didn’t fit in at school and was bullied. The school did nothing about it. The people he lived with did nothing about him. And, finally, the police did nothing about his threats, even with the backup of the Baker Act, so there was nothing that stopped him from his rampage.
We must remember, too, that nothing stops cops from being jackasses either, which has a lot to do with what happened to Mr. Linwood. The Chicago cop who shot LaQuan MacDonald shot him in the back 16 times, instead of in the leg to disable him. The Chicago cop who beat up a female bartender half his size because she wouldn’t serve him any more liquor is another example. When the police do these things, they make the rest of us doubt their sanity.
And remember: we were subjected to Piglet and His Friend Pooh in Parkland, making their grandstanding appearances during their attention-whoring day or two.
So when someone goes in to a panic attack over “red flag laws”, my response would be that he file a public complaint that a law like that does not comply with the US Constitution, does not allow due process or follow that part about ‘unreasonable search and seizure’. You have to sometimes stand up for your rights if you want to keep them.
That it is Nazism and Stalinist KGB/NKVD stuff at its worst, that it specifically follows those practices that led to concentration camps and gulags – those are all true, but has any of that come to pass? Use whatever legalities you can come up with, but keep it calm and assertive. Go through the courts and get that crap overturned. At my age, if I’m not allowed to have a gun on me when I’m on the trails with a camera, in the odd but possible event that I may or might run into a rabid coyote (they never get their shots), I want to know why.
You can file a complaint pro per or get the help of law students, and all of them need a shake-up now and then to rattle their complacency. They also need the real-world experience of dealing with something that they may not agree with, but which is still legally and constitutionally valid and/or invalid, and they are required to do some real legal work in some states. Good practice for them.
Seriously, if someone really wants to be Gestapo, shouldn’t they at least wear the armbands and the insignia so we know who they are?
Unless we take the old bullshit by the horns, the bullshit can and will bury us deep. We must always pay attention to our AO.
The Bad Guys are out there in the darkness…. And they want Your Guns. (Snerrkkkk!)
The ACLU has become so caustic with their Anti-Trump nonsense nobody pays attention to their Grand Standing even when they talk about something that does need to be fixed.
I have said that the more people we have carrying guns the more incidents we are going to have because of it. That seems like common sense to me.
It’s nearly impossible to cut out the Literary Lepracey that the Libtarded spew when writing about something. It is shameful they cannot control themselves, particularly when they try to discuss a legitimate issue.
The most common refrain from gun rights supporters in the wake of mass shootings or other gun violence is that the best response to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Yet in recent weeks, we have seen two Black men, a group already disproportionately victimized by police use of lethal force, shot and killed by police while protecting those around them with guns they were legally allowed to carry.
It turns out that not only are unarmed African-Americans more likely to be shot, but those who seek to follow the advice of the National Rifle Association and others to arm themselves may only make themselves more vulnerable. It is especially troubling that gun rights proponents have largely been silent when police kill Black people for lawfully using their guns.
For example, the NRA and President Trump — despite their embrace of the social media bullhorn — have not condemned the police for killing unarmed Black people. Moreover, they have yet to denounce police officers who kill Black people for possessing guns they’re legally entitled to carry.
The police killings of legally armed Black citizens, and the refusal of leading gun-rights proponents to sincerely defend the victims, raises the same troubling question that both Martin Luther King Jr. and the Black Panther Party also confronted when they tried to exercise their rights to bear arms: In practice, do Second Amendment rights protect only white gun owners?
The most recent example is Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford, Jr., a former Army recruit and a licensed firearm owner in Alabama, an open-carry state. The police department has yet to release the video of the incident, but we now know that Bradford was carrying his gun at a mall on Thanksgiving night when someone else began shooting — the kind of situation where gun proponents often claim that being armed will save the day.
Bradford responded by drawing his gun and “directing shoppers to safety,” reported The New York Times. But when the police arrived, witnesses say they shot him “within milliseconds.” The police department initially asserted that Bradford was the mall shooter and lauded his killer as a hero.
But it was wrong.
The department has since admitted this statement was “not totally accurate” in at least two ways. First, the officer shot the wrong man, and the mall shooter was actually still at large. Next, police admitted that Bradford had not “brandished” the gun but simply had it in his hand when officers approached. An independent autopsy has revealed that Bradford was shot three times from behind.
President Trump has had nothing to say about this tragedy. The most to come from the NRA is spokesperson Dana Loesch tweeting her surprise that the police have refused to release the bodycam footage. But even that statement took more than a week. As Black Alabamans and racial justice allies protested in the days following Bradford’s death, the organization said nothing about the reality of race in America or about how Black men are denied the right to bear arms that others enjoy.
Instead of acknowledging Bradford, a real-life good guy with a gun, it tweeted a quote from its executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre: “To preserve our values and protect our freedom, America needs the good guys to step up like never before.”
And Bradford’s death isn’t even an isolated incident.
Just two weeks prior, police officers killed Jemel Roberson, a Black security guard and registered gun owner, who responded when several men began shooting at the Illinois nightclub where he worked. When the police arrived, Roberson was doing his job: He legally had his gun out and had subdued one of the men with his knee in the man’s back.
It didn’t matter.
The officers shot and killed Roberson, even as witnesses warned them he was a security guard. Roberson has widely been lauded as a hero, and even the police department later conceded Roberson was “a brave man who was doing his best to end an active shooter situation.”
But again, gun rights proponents have been quiet.
When Philando Castile was killed in 2016 after telling the police officer who stopped his car that he had a gun and a license to carry one — the recommended procedure for announcing the presence of a gun to an officer — gun rights advocates were again silent. The NRA said nothing about Castile’s case for more than a year.When Loesch finally did offer a statement, she stopped short of criticizing the police officer, cryptically saying that “… there were a lot of things that I wish would have been done differently.” She suggested that an NRA Carry Guard card could have prevented his killing. But the officer shot Mr. Castile while he was reaching for his driver’s license and registration, so it’s not clear how having an NRA card in his wallet could have possibly helped.
This equivocation is unprincipled. Whatever one’s view of the appropriate scope of the Second Amendment, it ought to extend to all equally, without regard to race.
Americans that will pull a weapon in defense of the innocent are everywhere, law enforcement better learn to deal with it or be held accountable when they do not.
Her roommates went into her room in her absence, went through her things, saw her MAGA hat, found her guns, called the cops who verified that the guns were in compliance, and decided to vote her out of the house. Her landlord says she either moves or pays the $6000 rent for roommates because they’re threatening to move.
It’s unfortunate that the lack of understanding held by her roommates toward her concerns about running into her abuser is trampled on by their personal fears. One of them thinks the guns will jump up and start firing by themselves.
You can’t make this crap up. She’s at Harvard. She’s not stupid. Her roommates are, however, at the bottom of the barrel in brain wattage.
There’s a photo of the young lady. Look at that and think of your own children, in or nearing adulthood now, and ask what you would do.
It’s as if everyone is in a tryptophan torpor or some such today. In my search for articles to inform or amuse, I came across this. Not a true “Feel Good” story, but one worth telling. BLUF? Another case of poor victim selection skills.
A Washington mini-mart owner who has survived robberies in the past turned the tables on a would-be bandit last week.
Tan Ho, the owner of Spokane’s Hai’s Mini Mart, told KXLY he stays ready to defend himself, keeping both a handgun and a machete at close reach under the counter.
Ho, who told reporters he had previous experience scaring off an armed robber about a year ago, refused to be a victim when confronted last Tuesday at the shop when facing off with a man holding a knife and demanding money.
“I pulled out my gun — like this — and I pointed it right at him, and he ran,” said Ho. When prompted, he showed off his handgun, which looks to be an IWI Jericho 941 that he keeps in a leather thumb break holster attached to the counter.
Good trigger discipline and directional awareness. But if the thug wanted more trouble with Mr. Ho, there’s always the machete under the counter. The entire article may be viewed at Guns.com
