Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Gun industry sees banks as new threat to 2nd Amendment
1 / 4
GAINESVILLE, Ga. (AP) — With Gary Ramey’s fledgling gun-making business taking off in retail stores, he decided to start offering one of his handguns for sale on his website.
That didn’t sit well with the company he used to process payments, and they informed him they were dropping his account. Another credit card processing firm told him the same thing: They wouldn’t do business with him.
The reason? His business of making firearms violates their policies.
In the wake of high-profile mass shootings, corporate America has been taking a stand against the firearms industry amid a lack of action by lawmakers on gun control. Payment processing firms are limiting transactions, Bank of America stopped providing financing to companies that make AR-style guns, and retailers like Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods imposed age restrictions on gun purchases.
The moves are lauded by gun-safety advocates but criticized by the gun industry that views them as a backhanded way of undermining the Second Amendment. Gun industry leaders see the backlash as a real threat to their industry and are coming to the conclusion that they need additional protections in Congress to prevent financial retaliation from banks.
“If a few banks say ‘No, we’re not going to give loans to gun dealers or gun manufacturers’, all of a sudden the industry is threatened and the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much if there are no guns around,” said Michael Hammond, legal counsel for Gun Owners of America. “If you can’t make guns, if you can’t sell guns, the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much.”
The issue has already gotten the attention of the Republican who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho sent letters criticizing Bank of America and Citigroup, which decided to restrict sales of firearms by its business customers, over their new gun rules in the wake of the Florida high school shooting in February.
“We should all be concerned if banks like yours seek to replace legislators and policy makers and attempt to manage social policy by limiting access to credit,” Crapo wrote to Citigroup’s chief executive.
Honor Defense is a small operation with a handful of employees that include Ramey’s son and his wife who work out of a non-descript building in a Georgia office park north of Atlanta. In 2016, its first year, it sold 7,500 firearms. Its products — handcrafted 9mm handguns that come in a variety of colors — can now be found in more than 1,000 stores.
When Ramey noticed that neither Stripe nor Intuit would process payments through his site, he submitted a complaint with Georgia’s attorney general’s office, counting on help from a state law that prohibits discrimination by financial service firms against the gun industry. But the state rejected it, saying that credit card processing is not considered a financial service under state law.
He views the credit card issue as companies “infusing politics into business.”
“We’re just a small company trying to survive here,” Ramey said. “It’s hard enough competing with Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Sig Sauer.”
The financial industry actions came amid a broader pushback by corporate America in the aftermath of the Florida shooting. Delta and United Airlines stopped offering discounted fares to NRA members, as did the Hertz, Alamo and National rental car companies. First National Bank of Omaha, one of the nation’s largest privately held banks, decided not to renew a co-branded Visa credit card with the NRA.
Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods both decided they would no longer sell “assault weapons” or firearms to people under age 21. REI, an outdoor-gear shop that doesn’t sell firearms, joined in and decided it would stop selling such items as ski goggles, water bottles and bike helmets made by companies whose parent firm, Vista Outdoor, manufactures ammunition and AR-style long guns.
There’s been election-year response from some lawmakers, notably in Georgia where Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who is running for governor, led a move in the Legislature to kill a tax break on jet fuel to punish Atlanta-based Delta over its NRA actions. The move cost the airline an estimated $40 million.
Gun-control advocates have applauded the efforts, saying it demonstrates responsible leadership at a time of paralysis in government. Experts say it’s a sign that the business world views wading into the gun debate as not at all risky — and, in fact, potentially beneficial to their brand.
“Companies by and large avoid these issues like the plague and they only get involved — whether they’re credit card companies or airlines — when they feel like doing nothing is as bad as doing something and they feel completely stuck,” said Timothy D. Lytton, professor at Georgia State University’s College of Law and author of “Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts.”
The gun industry acknowledges that there’s nothing requiring companies from doing business with gun manufacturers or dealers. Monthly reports from the federal government show background checks to purchase a firearm are up over last year so far, so the early actions apparently have not put a dent in sales.
Still, the industry believes it needs stronger laws against financial retaliation in the future.
“We may have to seek legislation to make sure it can’t be done and that you can’t discriminate against individuals from lawful exercise of a constitutional right,” said Larry Keane, senior vice president and legal counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gunmakers. “Imagine if banks were to say you can’t purchase books or certain books aren’t acceptable. That would be problematic and I don’t think anyone would stand for that kind of activity by the banking industry.”
California Authorities Seize 500 Firearms From Convicted Felon
When you talk about states with the most strict gun control laws in the country, only a fool would exclude California from that conversation. The state prides itself on its gun control, and firearms are difficult for even the law-abiding citizen to obtain. There’s no way a felon could amass a pile of guns, right?
Right?
Oh, wait, that’s right. Criminals don’t follow any law they don’t want to obey. That includes gun laws, which is probably why this happened.
Authorities in California acting on a tip swept into a rural home and seized more than 500 guns from a convicted felon, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said.
The tip indicated Manuel Fernandez, 60, was “in possession of a large arsenal of firearms,” the department said in a statement. On Thursday, a team of state and local officers raided the house in Agua Dulce, about 45 miles north of Los Angeles. Authorities immediately seized 432 guns, the department said.
…
The next day, another 91 guns were found hidden at the Fernandez’s home, authorities said. Detectives also seized computers, cellphones and hard drives believed to be involved in the illegal purchase of firearms, the department said.
Another 30 guns were found at the home of a female associate of Fernandez.
Needless to say, Fernandez was arrested. He’ll probably spend a whole lot of time behind bars.
While authorities believe Fernandez was involved in the illegal gun trade, it’s important to remember something. This one individual was able to get his hands on more than 500 firearms despite his status as a felon. This despite the numerous laws designed to prevent him from doing so.
In fact, it’s almost like the laws did precisely nothing to keep guns out of Fernandez’s hands.
Nothing at all.
This individual was able to amass a massive arsenal for whatever purpose in spite of the countless laws explicitly meant to prevent just that. But criminals, by their very nature, don’t obey laws. Fernandez went around the law in some way, shape, or form to obtain all those weapons. This should illustrate the fallacy of gun laws keeping firearms out of criminal hands.
However, anti-gunners are experts at ignoring the truth.
They’ll look at this as evidence that more laws are needed. They’ll see this and be absolutely convinced that at least one more law is required. One more measure to pass and all of this could have been prevented.
The thing is, even if we learn precisely how Fernandez got these weapons, there’s little that will stop a determined criminal from getting guns. As noted yesterday, there’s a gun in this country for every man, woman, child, and infant. We have more than enough guns already in circulation that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a fool’s errand.
Yes, we should enforce the laws on the books. We should enforce them vigorously. But we should also make sure the law-abiding have the means to defend themselves from predators.
California sucks on that count.
Meanwhile, they can’t stop a felon from amassing a real arsenal of guns regardless of what the law says. Funny that.
Anti-gun protester David Hogg — protected by armed guards?
JUNE 22, 2018
David Hogg is a VIP now.
The 18-year-old attended the Parkland, Florida school where a student murdered 17 people in February, then made himself famous with relentless calls for gun control in the wake of the tragedy.
Now he’s got a book deal, and publicists — and armed guards.
Sean Di Somma snapped some pictures of Hogg strolling the streets of New York City recently with his new entourage in tow.
Sean Di Somma@SeanDiSommaHere’s @davidhogg111 in NYC today with armed guards and bunch of publicists. #neveragain #Hypocrites
“Here’s @davidhogg111 in NYC today with armed guards and a bunch of publicists. #neveragain #Hypocrites,” Di Somma posted to Twitter.
Check out the photo:
The posted prompted a tit-for-tat with Hogg and his supporters.
Sean Di Somma@SeanDiSommaHere’s @davidhogg111 in NYC today with armed guards and bunch of publicists. #neveragain #Hypocrites pic.twitter.com/NsT9NiN5cv
David Hogg✔@davidhogg111
Love you too
“Love you too,” Hogg wrote in response to Di Somma’s tweet.
Sean Di Somma@SeanDiSomma
“Get dat money,” Di Somma shot back, along with a goofy meme.
Jeff Walsh, a Hogg defender, chimed in.
Jeff Walsh@haterobicsThe book proceeds are going to gun reform charities, not to David or his sister, so yeah, the more he promotes the book, the more it supports his cause (albeit not his wallet).
“The book proceeds are going to gun reform charities, not to David or his sister, so yeah, the more he promotes the book, the more it supports his cause (albeit not his wallet),” Walsh wrote.
Jeff Walsh@haterobicsThe book proceeds are going to gun reform charities, not to David or his sister, so yeah, the more he promotes the book, the more it supports his cause (albeit not his wallet).
David Hogg✔@davidhogg111
This ^^^^, you know @SeanDiSomma you should really read the book if you did you would know we’re pro second amendment.
“This ^^^^,” Hogg added, “you know @SeanDiSomma you should really read the book if you did you would know we’re pro second amendment.”
David Hogg✔@davidhogg111
This ^^^^, you know @SeanDiSomma you should really read the book if you did you would know we’re pro second amendment.
Sean Di Somma@SeanDiSommaI’m going to take a pass. I’m not really into books pushing shallow agendas not written by the listed author. Good luck to you though; if this sells well, surely there’s a nice advance for the next one. #capitalism
“I’m going to take a pass,” Di Somma replied. “I’m not really into books pushing shadow agendas not written by the listed author. Good luck to you though; if this sells well, surely there’s a nice advance for the next one. #capitalism”
Other folks on the thread simply pointed out the obvious.
Sean Di Somma@SeanDiSommaHere’s @davidhogg111 in NYC today with armed guards and bunch of publicists. #neveragain #Hypocrites pic.twitter.com/NsT9NiN5cv
Jim_Gerber@jgerber816Perfect Hypocrite Hogg. Speaking out every day about taking other peoples guns but oh so willing to have people with guns protecting him.
“Perfect Hypocrite Hogg. Speaking out every day about taking other people’s guns but oh so willing to have people with guns protecting him,” Jim Gerber wrote.
Sean Di Somma@SeanDiSommaHere’s @davidhogg111 in NYC today with armed guards and bunch of publicists. #neveragain #Hypocrites pic.twitter.com/NsT9NiN5cv
bigh ♤@gighurlBut why does he need armed guards? I understand its because of death threats but…he is in new york, guns are banned there correct????
“But why does he need armed guards? I understand its because of death threats but … he is in New York, guns are banned there correct?” bigh added.
Sean Di Somma@SeanDiSommaHere’s @davidhogg111 in NYC today with armed guards and bunch of publicists. #neveragain #Hypocrites pic.twitter.com/NsT9NiN5cv
GA Patriot@GA_Patriot912But @davidhogg111 I thought armed guards were not an answer to security? Who is Paying for him? @Everytown ? @georgesoros ? What makes you Special or better that anyone else in NYC?
Law-abiding Californians’ right to buy and sell AR-15s and other popular semi-automatic rifles shrank this week after a judge upheld state rules targeting “assault weapons.”
The National Rifle Association’s state affiliate had challenged rules, set to take effect on July 1, that expand the existing definition of “assault weapon” to include centerfire rifles with “bullet buttons,” plus a slew of handguns and shotguns. Those rules, the group’s lawsuit argued, extend far beyond what a 2016 state law authorized.
“The legislature has found and declared that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of the citizenry of California,” Superior Court Judge Mark Snauffer, a Democratic appointee in Fresno, wrote in an little-noticed opinion published Wednesday. “The challenged regulations appear to carry out the intention of the legislature.”
Snauffer’s decision underscores how hostile to gun owners the California judiciary has become. Just as the state is trying to nullify federal marijuana and immigration laws, it’s also trying to effectively nullify the federal Second Amendment. And unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, California’s anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats might get away with it.
“We’re disappointed but not surprised,” says Sean Brady, an attorney at Michel & Associates who represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association in the case, known as Villanueva v. Becerra. “These complex technical cases are usually challenging, particularly when you’re up against the state.”
The technical question arises from a fairly straightforward law. In 2016, the California legislature expanded the definition of so-called assault weapons to sweep in ones outfitted with a bullet button. A bullet button is a quick release system that allows magazines to be swapped in and out by using a bullet tip as a tool. The goal of the law was to restrict removable magazines.
But the state Department of Justice seems to be targeting more firearms—and requiring their registration by July 1 upon pain of criminal penalties—than the law actually authorizes. The plaintiffs argue, convincingly, that the department “has promulgated and is currently enforcing a whole host of regulations that go far beyond the registration process without adhering to the [Administrative Procedure Act’s] requirements.”
For instance, the regulations reclassify certain shotguns as assault weapons (assault shotguns?), move up the deadline for obtaining a serial number for 3D-printed or homemade firearms, and limit the definition of “family member” for joint registrations of affected firearms.
Under California law, probably the most Draconian in the country, so-called assault weapons are heavily restricted. They cannot be rented at gun ranges. They cannot be inherited. They cannot be sold to another California resident. They cannot be imported. And owning one is a crime unless it’s registered with the government. Officials appear to hope that the number of Californians with fully functional AR-15s or equivalents will keep shrinking and eventually, with time, drop to zero.
In addition to this administrative challenge to the 2016 Assault Weapons Control Act, the California Rifle and Pistol Association filed a constitutional challenge invoking the Second Amendment. It had no more success. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, an Obama appointee, sided with the state a few weeks ago, saying: “Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right.”
A third lawsuit challenging the Assault Weapons Control Act on both constitutional and administrative grounds has been on hold since it was filed in November. Plaintiffs in this case, Holt v. Becerra, include the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
“We’re very disappointed in what I think is a very wrong ruling by the court in Fresno,” says Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “We’re reviewing it and reviewing options. We’ll do the best we can to give gun owners a fighting chance.”
Given the political leanings of much of the California judiciary, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. Instead, this week’s decision will embolden government officials working diligently to turn the Golden State into a Second Amendment–free zone.
“We’re disappointed but not surprised,” says Sean Brady, an attorney at Michel & Associates who represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association in the case, known as Villanueva v. Becerra. “These complex technical cases are usually challenging, particularly when you’re up against the state.”
The technical question arises from a fairly straightforward law. In 2016, the California legislature expanded the definition of so-called assault weapons to sweep in ones outfitted with a bullet button. A bullet button is a quick release system that allows magazines to be swapped in and out by using a bullet tip as a tool. The goal of the law was to restrict removable magazines.
But the state Department of Justice seems to be targeting more firearms—and requiring their registration by July 1 upon pain of criminal penalties—than the law actually authorizes. The plaintiffs argue, convincingly, that the department “has promulgated and is currently enforcing a whole host of regulations that go far beyond the registration process without adhering to the [Administrative Procedure Act’s] requirements.”
For instance, the regulations reclassify certain shotguns as assault weapons (assault shotguns?), move up the deadline for obtaining a serial number for 3D-printed or homemade firearms, and limit the definition of “family member” for joint registrations of affected firearms.
Under California law, probably the most Draconian in the country, so-called assault weapons are heavily restricted. They cannot be rented at gun ranges. They cannot be inherited. They cannot be sold to another California resident. They cannot be imported. And owning one is a crime unless it’s registered with the government. Officials appear to hope that the number of Californians with fully functional AR-15s or equivalents will keep shrinking and eventually, with time, drop to zero.
In addition to this administrative challenge to the 2016 Assault Weapons Control Act, the California Rifle and Pistol Association filed a constitutional challenge invoking the Second Amendment. It had no more success. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, an Obama appointee, sided with the state a few weeks ago, saying: “Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right.”
A third lawsuit challenging the Assault Weapons Control Act on both constitutional and administrative grounds has been on hold since it was filed in November. Plaintiffs in this case, Holt v. Becerra, include the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
“We’re very disappointed in what I think is a very wrong ruling by the court in Fresno,” says Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “We’re reviewing it and reviewing options. We’ll do the best we can to give gun owners a fighting chance.”
Given the political leanings of much of the California judiciary, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. Instead, this week’s decision will embolden government officials working diligently to turn the Golden State into a Second Amendment–free zone.
Photo Credit: Ultraone/Dreamstime.com
The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny
Introductory Proviso: The following essay on possible gun confiscation is a purely conjectural gedankenexperiment about the future that extrapolates from recent history and current trends. Nothing herein is seditious (per 18 U.S. Code § 2384), nor a call to arms, nor a threat to our government or to any individual, agency, or group.
THE COLLECTIVIST DREAM
The current mass media-driven “debate” on firearms (actually more like paternalistic lecturing or chiding) seems to be leading toward greater restrictions by Congress. The collectivist gun grabbers have the dream of ignoring the Second Amendment and somehow magically removing all detachable magazine semi-auto rifles from civilian hands. But it is just that: a dream. If they think that they can disarm us, then they are thoroughly deluded. I’ll explain why, with some simple mathematics.
The United States has the world’s first or second most heavily-armed populace, per capita. (It’s possibly second only to Yemen.) The number of FBI firearms background checks for transfers by Federally-licensed dealers from November 1998 to April 30, 2018 totaled 287,807,015. That isn’t all new guns. It of course includes many second-hand sales that cycled back through FFL holders. But it is still a staggering number. And it does not include any private party (“not through a dealer”) sales of used guns. That is thankfully legal in most states. Nor does it include guns that are legally made at home. (Typically made with 80% complete receivers.) Those home “builds” are becoming quite popular. Their ownership is mostly opaque to any would-be tyrants who might covet seizing them.
There are somewhere between 370 million and 420 million privately-owned firearms in the United States. Let’s just call it 400 million for a nice round figure. Most of those guns are not registered to particular owners. That is why there are only rough estimates. It makes me feel good to know that Big Brother has no idea where those guns are, and who owns them. When I last checked, the total U.S. population is 327,708,500. So that is about 1.2 guns per person. The adult population is around 249,500,000. And according to Wikipedia, the “Fit for service” Military Age Male population (men, ages 16-49) of the U.S. is just 59,764,677. That equates to 6.6 guns per Military Age Male in the United States.
Of the 400 million American guns, roughly 20% are single-shot or double-barreled, 60% are manually-operated repeaters (e.g., bolt action, lever action, pump action, or revolvers), and 20% are semi-automatic. There are only about 175,000 transferable Federally-registered full autos. That number would have been much larger by now but production was sharply curtailed by a hefty $200 tax (starting in 1934) and then there numbers were effectively frozen in 1986. It is noteworthy that if it were not for the National Firearms Act of 1934, selective fire guns would by now be in what the Heller decision calls “common use“. After all, it costs only a few dollars more to manufacture a selective-fire M16 than a semiautomatic-only AR-15.
With every passing year, the predominance of semi-autos is gaining for both rifles and handguns. (In sheer numbers produced, revolvers are becoming almost passé.) The biggest-selling handgun in the country is the Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm, followed closely by the Glock Model 19 9mm. Gaining rapidly is the highly modular SIG P320, which was recently adopted by the U.S. Army. All three of these are semi-automatic. Standard magazine sizes for autopistols range from 13 to 20 rounds. And the most popular rifles of the decade are AR-15s and their clones. Their standard capacity magazines hold 30 cartridges. (That isn’t “high capacity”.)
THE MATH ON AR CLONES
AR-15 and AR-10 variants are truly generic and have been sold under more than 120 brand names. The number of ARs (AR-15s, M4s, AR-10s, and variants) sold from 2000 to 2014 was approximately 5,672,900. Since then, AR-15 clones have become even more popular and ubiquitous with approximately 1.2 million more produced in 2015, 1.6 million in 2016, and 1.5 million in 2017. At least 1.2 million will be produced in 2018. It can be assumed that 99% of the ARs produced since the year 2000 are still functional. There were more than 2.3 million other ARs produced for the civilian market between 1962 and 1999. It is safe to assume that at least 95% of those of that vintage are still functional. So the total number of functional ARs in private hands in the U.S. is somewhere around 11 to 12 million. (As of May, 2018.)
SOME MATH ON OTHER SEMI-AUTOS
Next we come to the more fuzzy math on the wide variety of other models of semi-auto centerfire rifles in private hands. They include detachable magazine, en bloc clip, and stripper clip-fed designs. Here are some rough estimates. (Some of these estimates are based on my own observations of the ratios of different models I’ve seen offered for sale):
- Various semi-auto hunting rifles (Remington 740/7400 series, AK Hunter, Browning BAR, Winchester 100, Valmet Hunter, Saiga Hunter, HK SL7/SL8, HK 630/770, et cetera): 2 million+
- Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30: 1.2 million
- M1 Garand: 800,000+ (With many more being imported, soon.)
- AK Variants (imported and domestically made, from all makers including Valmet and Galil): 2 to 3 million
- M1 Carbine: 1.5 to 2 million
- AR-180 and AR-180B: 35,000
- M1A and other semi-auto M14 variants: 360,000
- SIG 550 series: 80,000+
- Thompson Semi-Autos (West Hurley and Kahr Arms): 75,000
- HK variants: CETME, HK91/93/94 series, PTR91, etc.: 600,000 to 700,000
- FAL variants: FN-FAL, FNC, and L1A1: 425,000
- SKS variants: 1 million
- Steyr AUG: 110,000
- IWI Tavor & X95: 70,000
- Various semi-autos assembled from military surplus full auto parts sets (M1919, BAR, Sten, M2 Browning, M3, Etc.): 75,000+
- Assorted Other Models (These include: Kel-Tec, Barrett, Leader, FAMAS, Uzi carbines, Wilkinson, Feather, Calico, Hi-Point, SIG AMT, SIG PE57, SIG MCX, SIG MPX, Johnson, BM59, HK USC, TNW, Demro Tac-1, Calico Carbine, ACR, SCAR, Chiappa Carbine, SWD (MAC), Robinson, Hakim, Ljungman, Beretta AR-70, Beretta CX4, CZ Scorpion, Kriss Carbine, FN-49, SVT-40, SVD, PSL, Gewehr 41 & 43, Daewoo, FS 2000, Ruger PCR, Marlin Camp Carbine, et cetera): 2+ million.
THE AGGREGATE GUN MATH
Totaling the list above and adding it to the preceding estimate on ARs, there are 20 million semi-auto centerfire rifles that are in civilian hands here in the States. And that number is increasing by nearly 2 million per year. (More than half of which are AR-15 or AR-10 clones.) Again looking at the Military Age Male population (men, ages 16-49) of 59,764,677, that equates to roughly one semi-auto rifle for every three Military Age Males.
If a production and importation ban requiring registration were enacted, there would surely be massive noncompliance. For example, the registration schemes enacted in the past two decades in Australia, Canada, The Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and the States of California and New York have been well-documented failures. They have been met with noncompliance rates ranging from 50% to 90%.
Even with an optimistic 50% registration compliance rate, that would mean only 10 million of the nation’s 20 million semi-auto rifles would have a current name and address attached, to allow eventual gun confiscation.
Let us surmise that following several years of a registration scheme there were an outright “turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America” ban. I predict that even if $1,000 per gun were offered, no more than 11 million would be turned in, by compliant and history-ignorant Sheeple. (An aside: They’ll probably call this a “Buy Back”, but that will be a lie. They can’t “buy back” something that they’ve never owned.)
But that would still leave at least 9 million in circulation, as contraband.
THE SWAT AND ATF MANPOWER MATH
So let’s suppose that a full Federal semi-auto rifle ban were enacted with a gun confiscation order issued.
This is where the math gets very interesting: There are only 902,000 sworn police officers in the United States. At most, about 80,000 of them have had SWAT training. There are only 5,113 BATFE employees–and many of those are mere paper shufflers. As of 2017, there were just 2,623 ATF Special Agents. The FBI’s notorious Hostage Rescue Team (HRT or “Hurt Team”) has a cadre strength that is classified but presumably less than 200 agents. Together, they comprise the pool of “Door Kickers” that might be available to execute unconstitutional search warrants.
If they were to start going door-to-door executing warrants for unconstitutional gun confiscation, what would the casualty rates be for the ATF, HRT, and the assorted local SWAT teams? It bears mention that the military would be mostly out of the picture, since they are banned from domestic law enforcement roles, under the Posse Comitatus Act.
This is where the math gets very interesting: There are only 902,000 sworn police officers in the United States. At most, about 80,000 of them have had SWAT training. There are only 5,113 BATFE employees–and many of those are mere paper shufflers. As of 2017, there were just 2,623 ATF Special Agents. The FBI’s notorious Hostage Rescue Team (HRT or “Hurt Team”) has a cadre strength that is classified but presumably less than 200 agents. Together, they comprise the pool of “Door Kickers” that might be available to execute unconstitutional search warrants.
If they were to start going door-to-door executing warrants for unconstitutional gun confiscation, what would the casualty rates be for the ATF, HRT, and the assorted local SWAT teams? It bears mention that the military would be mostly out of the picture, since they are banned from domestic law enforcement roles, under the Posse Comitatus Act.
THE DIVISION EQUATIONS
Next, let’s do some addition and then divide:
80,000 SWAT-trained police
+ 2,623 ATF Special Agents
+ 200 FBI HRT Members
= 82,863 Potentially Available Door Kickers
… presumably working in teams of 8, attempting to seize 9,000,000 newly-contraband semi-auto rifles.
Before we finish the math, I’ll state some “for the sake of argument” assumptions:
- That every SWAT-trained officer in the country is pressed into service.
- That there would be no “false positives”–meaning that 100% of the tips leading to raids were accurate. (Unlikely)
- That no local police departments would opt out of serving unconstitutional Federal gun warrants. (Unlikely)
- That all raids would be successful. (Unlikely)
- That each successful raid would net an average of three contraband semi-auto rifles. (Possible)
- That every Door Kicker would get an equal share in the work. (Very unlikely)
- That every Door Kicker would be alive and well through the entire campaign of terror–with no incapacitating injuries or deaths of SWAT officers, no refusals, no resignations, and no early retirements. (Very unlikely)
A lot of those are not safe assumptions. But for the sake of completing a gedankenexperiment, let’s pen this out on the back of a napkin, as a “best case” for an unconstitutional gun confiscation campaign. Here are the division equations:
9,000,000 ÷ 82,863 = 108 (x 8 officers per team) = 864 raids, per officer
Let that sink in: Every officer would have to survive 864 gun-grabbing raids.
Those of course are fanciful numbers. There will be a lot of false tips, and there will be many owners who keep their guns very well-hidden. Each of those raids would have nearly the same high level of risk but yet many of them would net zero guns. And it is likely that many police departments will wisely decline involvement. Therefore the “best case” figure of 864 raids per officer is quite low. The real number would be much higher.
How long would it be until mounting law enforcement casualties triggered a revolt or “sick-out” among the rank and file Door Kickers? For some historical context: Just four ATF agents were killed and 16 wounded in the Waco raid, and that was considered quite “devastating” and “traumatizing” to the 5,000-member agency.
Here is some sobering ground truth: America’s gun owners are just as well trained–and often better trained–than the police. There are 20.4 million American military veterans, and the majority of veterans own guns.
RESISTANCE STRATEGY AND TACTICS
Rather than meeting the police one-at-a-time on their doorsteps, I predict that resisting gun owners will employ guerilla warfare strategy and tactics to foil the plans of the gun grabbers:
1.) They will successfully hide the majority of their banned guns. This is just what many Europeans did, following World War II. There are perhaps a million guns in Europe that were never registered or turned in, after the war. Particularly in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Spain, and Greece, there is still massive noncompliance. It has now been 73 years since the end of WWII. So the gun registration noncompliance in Europe is now multi-generational.
2.) They will form small, fully independent “phantom” resistance cells. This is commonly called leaderless resistance. Such cells are very difficult to detect or penetrate. These resistance cells will carefully choose the time and location of their attacks, to their advantage.
3.) They will individually target the legislators who voted for unconstitutional gun ban legislation. This will make it almost suicidal for these legislators to return to their home districts.
4.) They will individually target any outspokenly anti-gun police chiefs.
5.) They will target all BATF agents and FBI HRT agents–first with intimidation, and then with targeted killings.
6.) They will pillage or burn down the facilities where confiscated guns are being stored and destroyed.
7.) They will anonymously phone in false police reports about gun control advocates. (This is commonly called “SWATing.”)
8.) They will use time-delayed explosives, time-delayed incendiaries, time-delayed bursting toxin containers, cell phone-triggered IEDs, computer program worms and viruses, and long-range standoff weapons to minimize the risk of being detected, apprehended, or killed. Likely targets will be Federal buildings, courthouses, SWAT training facilities, police training ranges, and especially the private residences of anyone deemed to be a gun-grabber.
9.) They will use anonymous re-mailers and VPN to encourage others to resist by forming their own leaderless resistance cells.
10.) They will begin a War of Attrition on the Door Kickers, with tactics such as these:
A.) Ambushing SWAT vehicles while in transit, rather than waiting for the SWAT teams to set up raids.
B.) Ambushing individual SWAT team members at unexpected times and places–most likely at their homes.
C.) Sabotaging SWAT vehicles, most likely with time-delayed incendiaries.
D.) Targeting SWAT teams or individual team members while they are at home, in training, or when attending conventions.
E.) Harassing and intimidating individual SWAT team members and their families. The systematic burning of their privately-owned vehicles and their unoccupied homes and vacation cabins will be unmistakable threats.
11.) They will individually target “gun control” advocates, organizers, and group leaders.
12.) They will individually target the judges that issue gun seizure warrants.
13.) They will individually target journalists who have vocally advocated civilian disarmament.
14.) Some owners of M1 Carbines, AR-15s and HKs in the resistance movement will convert them to selective fire. (They will assume: “Well, if it is now a felony to possess a semi-auto, then what is the harm in making it a full auto?”)
15.) They will be willing to wage an ongoing guerilla warfare campaign using both passive and active resistance until the collectivists relent. This would be something like “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, but on a larger scale, with greater ferocity, and with far more weapons readily available. Unlike the IRA, which had to import arms, all of the the firearms, magazines, and ammunition needed for any American resistance movement are already in situ. It is noteworthy that the agreed “Decommissioning” the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was delayed for more than five years because of their remaining caches of arms, which by then included only around 1,000 battle rifles!)
THE GUN CONFISCATION END GAME
I believe that once it was started, the whole affray would be settled within just a few weeks or months.American gun owners clearly have the numbers on their side. Once the shooting starts, the gun-hating politicians will quickly feel isolated, vastly outnumbered, and incredibly vulnerable. And when they realize they’ve lost their Door Kicker shock troops, they will capitulate. After some horrendous casualties in a brief but fierce civil war, the politicians would be forced to:
- Declare a cease fire and stand-down for all gun confiscation raiders.
- Repeal all Federal gun laws.
- Order the destruction of all Federal import, purchase, transfer, and registration records
- Issue unconditional pardons for all convicted Federal gun law violators.
- Declare a general amnesty for all involved in the resistance, and drop all pending charges.
- Disband the BATFE.
Without all six of those, the hostilities would continue.
BUT THERE’S MORE
The foregoing math on the roughly 20 million semi-auto rifles is not the full extent of the problem for the gun grabbers. Additionally, there are at least 50 million centerfire handguns that would be suitable for resistance warfare. (And another 3 million being made or imported each year.) There are also perhaps 40 million scoped centerfire deer rifles in private hands. The vast majority of those have no traceable paper trail. Fully capable of 500+ yard engagement, these rifles could be employed to out-range the tyrants and their minions.
Then there are the estimated 1.5 million unregistered machineguns now in the country. Except for a 30-day amnesty in 1968 that generated only about 65,000 registrations, they have been contraband since 1934. Their number is particularly difficult to accurately estimate, since some semi-autos such as the M1 Carbine, HK91/93/94 series, and AR-15 are fairly easy to convert to selective fire. Similarly, nearly all “open bolt” semi-auto designs are easy to convert to full auto. Large numbers of conversion parts sets have been sold, with little recordkeeping. Some guns can be converted simply by removing sear springs or filing their sears. Just a trickle of unregistered full autos are seized or surrendered each year. This begs the question: If Federal officials have been unable to round up un-papered machineguns after 84 years, then how do they expect to ever confiscate semi-autos, which are 15 times more commonplace?
As evidenced by the 1990s wars in the Balkans, when times get inimical, contraband guns get pulled out of walls and put into use. We can expect to see the same, here.
Now, to get back to the simple mathematics, here are some ratios to ponder:
- NRA members (5.2 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 63-to-1 ratio
- Military veterans (20.4 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 249-to-1 ratio
- Unregistered machineguns (1.5 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 18-to-1 ratio
- Privately owned semi-auto rifles (40 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 485-to-1 ratio
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
The mathematics that I’ve cited don’t bode well for the gun-grabbing collectivists. If they ever foolishly attempt to confiscate semi-auto rifles, then it will be “Game On” for Civil War 2. I can foresee that they would run out of willing Door Kickers, very quickly.
I’ll conclude with a word of caution: Leftist American politicians should be careful about what they wish for. Those who hate the 2nd Amendment and scheme to disarm us have no clue about the unintended consequences of their plans. If they proceed, then I can foresee that it will end very badly for them. – JWR
End Notes:
Again, the preceding is a purely conjectural gedankenexperiment about the future that extrapolates from recent history and current trends. None of the foregoing is seditious (per 18 U.S. Code § 2384), nor a call to arms, nor a threat to our government or to any individual, agency, or group.
Permission to reprint, re-post or forward this article in full is granted, but only if credit is given to James Wesley, Rawles and first publication in SurvivalBlog (with a link.) It must not be edited or excerpted, and all included links must be left intact.