Polls predicted that the Swiss would surrender to EU demands for strict controls on semi-automatic firearms for fear of losing membership in the Schengen agreement bloc, which allows people from 26 European nations to enter any of the countries without passport control. The EU has demanded that the Swiss comply with Brusselsâ€™ new firearm restrictions if they want to remain in the borderless zone.
What the EU wants:
Under a Revised Firearms directive, a ban on weapons capable of rapidly firing multiple rounds
Automatic and semi-automatic weapons would either be banned or heavily restricted
Each owner of such a weapon, and the weapon itself, are known to police across Europe
All essential weapon components should be clearly labelled and registered electronically
Switzerland has an estimated 2.3 million guns, with a population of 8.5 million.
That figure could be much higher, as only guns acquired since 2008 (when Switzerland first joined Schengen) have to be registered.
The EU wants to ensure that automatic and semi-automatic weapons are either banned or heavily restricted, and that each owner of such a weapon, and the weapon itself, is known to police across Europe.
For non-EU member Switzerland, the idea of Brussels interfering in hallowed Swiss gun traditions is awkward.
The Swiss government wants voters to back the EU directive, but it has also lobbied Brussels hard for exemptions which might make it more palatable. Those semi-automatic army assault rifles, for example, will still be allowed at home if Swiss militia soldiers want them.
The government argues that gun lovers won’t notice the new regulations, while at the same time Switzerland will have preserved its membership of Schengen.
Business leaders say Switzerland’s Schengen open borders have been good for the economy. Police point to data-sharing on crime in the Schengen information system.
Immigration officials warn that if Switzerland votes No and drops out of Schengen, it will lead to a spike in asylum requests from people turned away by neighbouring countries.
That is because it would no longer be covered by the rules under which asylum seekers can only apply to one EU member state for protection.
Switzerland’s political establishment is united in support of the EU’s restrictions, and latest opinion polls show voters may go along with them.
The deciding factor in this vote is likely to be Swiss women, for decades the most vocal campaigners in favour of gun control.
And, despite the absence of any Swiss mass shooting problem, and despite Switzerland having a lower crime rate than any of its European neighbors, and despite their own traditions, the Swiss voted by a 63.7% margin to surrender.
Voters have endorsed a controversial reform of Swiss gun law to bring it in line with European Union rules.
Final results show the reform winning 63.7% of the ballot on Sunday. The result was much closer in rural regions and voters in canton Ticino rejected the legal amendment.
Ownership of semi-automatic weapons will require regular training on the use of firearms and a serial numbering of major parts of some guns to help track them. …A broad alliance of gun clubs, militia army officers, hunters and collectors, supported by the political right, tried to overturn a decision by parliament last year that limits notably the use of semi-automatic firearms.
The government and most major political parties warned that a rejection of the legal amendment would deny Swiss authorities access to a Europe-wide criminal database and lead to the exclusion of the country from a joint EU security system under the single border Schengen agreement.
Opponents collected the necessary signatures to challenge the decision by parliament, saying the reform was â€œdictated by the EUâ€ and would lead to â€œdisarmingâ€ Switzerland through â€œuseless, dangerous, un-Swissâ€ measures.
They said that tougher controls on semi-automatic guns and improved traceability of firearms go too far in a country with near-universal conscription, a high rate of gun ownership, but a low crime rate.
Supporters of the amendment argued that the government secured sufficient opt-out clauses in negotiations with the EU, and that Brussels has taken into account Switzerlandâ€™s tradition of self-defence and national identity that includes a well-armed citizenry.
â€œThe legal reform respects Switzerlandâ€™s time-proven gun tradition,â€ Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter assured in the run-up to Sunday’s vote.
A majority in parliament, backed by the cantons and the business community, said failure to adopt tougher controls could have serious consequences for police as they risk being cut off from a crucial European database on criminals and suspects.
Supporters were also concerned that exclusion from Europeâ€™s single-border area could complicate cross-border traffic and hamper tourism.
People enjoying some hot wings the other day in Colorado Springs, CO got a front row seat to proof of the efficaciousness of a virtue-signaling gun-banning sign. Buffalo Wild Wings is a gun-free zone. It says so right on the sign on the front door in big, bold letters: â€œBuffalo Wild Wings, Inc Bans Guns on These Premises.â€
The sign is highly effective 99.9% of the time. Just hope that youâ€™re not there and unarmed for the 0.1% of the time when the place gets robbed, like it did the other day.
Two robbers, one with an â€œassaultâ€ rifle and one with a pistol, stormed into the restaurant and walked right past the sign that clearly bans guns.
Imagine how embarrassed they would have been if they had seen the sign! They probably would have turned right around. Maybe they couldnâ€™t read, which led to their life of crime. …
The guy with the â€œassaultâ€ rifle didnâ€™t even have to point it at anyone at Buffalo Wild Wings. He just held it and yelled at everyone to get back and stay down. To which they got back and stayed down, being civilized folks who had obeyed the sign on the front door banning guns.
The guy with the pistol was a bit more zealous with his crowd control measures, however. He pistol-whipped one person with his banned pistol, then grabbed the hostess in a choke-hold and held his banned pistol against her head until the register was emptied.
One of the civilized customers got down on the ground and crawled out the back door in a dignified manner, and then called the police. â€œThey showed up in like 10 seconds,â€ she said. However, despite the rapid police response, the thieves got clean away with the cash.
Itâ€™s a good thing that no one was hurt! Well, except for the hostess who was choked and the person who got pistol-whipped and needed to go to the hospital.
The really good news is that Buffalo Wild Wingsâ€™ sign banning guns was almost totally effective. Aside from those two bad apples that robbed the place with guns, no one else in the restaurant had a gun! Compliance!
Religious Conservatives Argue Adam And Eve Would Never Have Been Banished From Eden If Theyâ€™d Had Guns
HOUSTONâ€”In what they described as scriptural evidence of the right to bear arms, leading figures among the religious right gathered Wednesday to issue a statement arguing that Adam and Eve would never have been banished from the Garden of Eden if they had owned guns. â€œJust imagine: If Adam and Eve had carried firearms and stood their ground against God, they would have been able to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge in peace, and He could never have forced them to leave paradise,â€ said Pastor Hugh Peters of Houstonâ€™s Second Baptist Church, explaining how the entire course of human history would have been altered for the better if the first man and woman had taken the simple precaution of keeping a semiautomatic weapon at the ready for use during emergencies. â€œGod was trespassing on their property, pure and simple. He had absolutely no right to force them from their home. Had Eve been able to open-carry a handgun, maybe tying it to her hip with a vine or something, God would have known to back off. This is one of the Bibleâ€™s most important lessons.â€
God didn’t make men equal, after all. That was Samuel Colt.
HT: Stephen Frankel.
This Wednesday the Oregon City Police Department posted a tweet (now removed) thanking the Benchmade Knife Company for helping destroy firearms.
The story hit the gun boards everywhere, and not surprisingly, the company’s Field Sports-oriented customer base was not amused to learn that Benchmade was proudly participating in chopping up turned-in guns in one of the classic liberal anti-firearms symbolic gestures. On Gun Feed, a poll response of 600 readers was indicating that 89% “will never again buy any Benchmade products.”
Benchmade tried some damage control, posting on its Facebook feed:
Benchmade is aware of the recent post from our local Oregon City Police Department.
We apologize for the confusion and concern that this post created. These were firearms that the Oregon City Police Department had to destroy in alignment with their policies. Oregon City Police requested the use of specialty equipment within the Benchmade facility to follow these requirements, and as a supporting partner of our local police force, we obliged the request.
Benchmade is a proud and unwavering supporter of both law enforcement and Second Amendment rights. These are commitments that we do not take lightly and will continue to support well into the future.
When asked for clarity from Oregon City Police Department, Chief Jim Band made the following statement: â€œWhen property is to be destroyed, it is the policy of the Oregon City Police Department to destroy property, including firearms, in accordance to our procedures and ORS. The Oregon City Police Department does not sell firearms.â€
Angry gun enthusiasts looked around, and, what do you know? found Benchmade had given campaign donations to two anti-gun pols, one even out-of-state in New Mexico.
Jim Shepherd reports, that by Thursday:
[O]ther knife companies… checked in. Kershaw (â€œOur knives cut a lot of things but guns will never be one of themâ€), Zero Tolerance, Spyderco and others wasted no time getting in their licks or reaffirming their â€œunwaveringâ€ support of the Second Amendment.
And donâ€™t start me on the â€œrantâ€ videos or clips of people grinding up, breaking or otherwise destroying Benchmade knives. There are dozens of them, and more showing up almost hourly.
I own some, and I’ll never buy another Benchmade knife.
Sci Fi novelist Larry Correia takes on Congressman Eric Swalwell’s contention that the Second Amendment is obsolete as a defense against the federal government.
Last week a congressman embarrassed himself on Twitter. He got into a debate about gun control, suggested a mandatory buybackâ€”which is basically confiscation with a happy face sticker on itâ€”and when someone told him that they would resist, he said resistance was futile because the government has nukes.
And everybody was like, wait, what?
Of course the congressman is now saying that using nuclear weapons on American gun owners was an exaggeration, he just wanted to rhetorically demonstrate that the all-powerful government could crush us peasants like bugs, they hold our pathetic lives in their iron hand, and heâ€™d never ever advocate for the use of nuclear weapons on American soil (that would be bad for the environment!), and instead he merely wants to send a SWAT team to your house to shoot you in the face if you donâ€™t comply. …
First, letâ€™s talk about the basic premise that an irregular force primarily armed with rifles would be helpless against a powerful army that has things like drones and attack helicopters.
This is a deeply ironic argument to make, considering that the most technologically advanced military coalition in history has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, itâ€™s like you guys only pay attention to American casualties when thereâ€™s a republican in office and an election coming up.
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama launched over five hundred drone strikes during his eight years in office. Weâ€™ve used Apaches (thatâ€™s the scary looking helicopter in the picture for my peacenik liberal friends), smart bombs, tanks, I donâ€™t know how many thousand s of raids on houses and compounds, all the stuff that the lefty memes say theyâ€™re willing to do to crush the gun nut right, and weâ€™ve spent something like 6 trillion dollars on the global war on terror so far.
And yet theyâ€™re still fighting.
So yes, groups of irregular locals can be a real pain in the ass to a technologically superior military force. Thatâ€™s pretty obvious.
Now here is the interesting part. Best estimates are that any given time in Iraq weâ€™ve been fighting about 20,000 insurgents at most. …
Okay, so letâ€™s say Congressman Swalwell gets his wish, and the government says turn them in or else. And even though the government has become tyrannical enough to send SWAT teams door to door and threaten citizens with drones and attack helicopters, rather than half the states saying fuck you, this means Civil War 2, instead weâ€™ll stick to the rosiest of all possible outcomes, and say that most gun owners comply.
In fact, letâ€™s be super kind. Rather than a realistic number, like half or a third of those people getting really, really pissed off and hoisting the black flag, letâ€™s say that 99% of them decide to totally put all their faith into the government, and that the all-powerful entity which just threatened to kill their entire family will never ever turn tyrannical from now on, pinky swear, so what do they have to lose? And a whopping 90% of gun owners go along peacefully.
That means you are only dealing with six and a half MILLION insurgents. The entire active US military is about 1.3 million, with about 800,000 reserve. Which is also assuming that those two Venn diagrams donâ€™t overlap, which is just plain idiotic, but Iâ€™ll get to that too.
Letâ€™s be super generous. Iâ€™m talking absurdly generous, and say that a full 99% of US gun owners say wonâ€™t somebody think of the children and all hold hands and sing kumbaya, so that then you are only dealing with the angriest, listless malcontents who hate progressâ€¦ These are those crazy, knuckle dragging bastards who you will have to put in the ground.
And there are 650,000 of them.
To put that into perspective, we were fighting 22,000 insurgents in Iraq, a country which would fit comfortably inside Texas with plenty of room to spare. This would be almost 30 times as many fighters, spread across 22 times the area.
And that estimated number is pathetically, laughably low.
This Baltimore Sun story shows how liberal “protective order” laws can give the relative you argue politics with during Thanksgiving Dinner the power to remove your constitutional rights and get you killed by the police.
Two Anne Arundel County police officers serving one of Marylandâ€™s new â€œred flagâ€ protective orders to remove guns from a house killed a Ferndale man after he refused to give up his gun and a struggle ensued early Monday morning, police said.
The subject of the protective order, Gary J. Willis, 60, answered his door in the 100 block of Linwood Ave. at 5:17 a.m. with a gun in his hand, Anne Arundel County police said. He initially put the gun down next to the door, but â€œbecame irateâ€ when officers began to serve him with the order, opened the door and picked up the gun again, police said.
â€œA fight ensued over the gun,â€ said Sgt. Jacklyn Davis, a police spokeswoman.
One of the officers struggled to take the gun from Willis, and during the struggle the gun fired but did not strike anyone, police said. At that point, the other officer fatally shot Willis, police said.
Neither officer was injured, police said, and neither of their names was released.
Davis said she did not know whether anyone else was in the home at the time, and she did not know who had sought the protective order against Willis.
The â€œred flagâ€ protective orders are officially known as emergency risk protection orders, and may be sought by family members, police or others to temporarily prohibit peopleâ€™s access to firearms when they show signs that they are a danger to themselves or others. The law took effect Oct. 1.
A spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary denied a request to see any and all requests for protection orders made at the residence on Linwood Avenue, citing the law, which states that anything related to an order is confidential unless the court rules otherwise.
Police had come to the house Sunday night to speak with Willis, a longtime resident of the neighborhood, said Michele Willis, who was on the scene Monday morning and identified herself as his niece. She attributed that visit by police to â€œfamily being familyâ€ but declined to elaborate.
She said one of her aunts requested the protective order to temporarily remove Willisâ€™ guns.
Michele Willis said she had grown up in the house and had been there Sunday night to move out her son, who had been helping to care for her grandmother.
Her uncle, Gary Willis, lived in an apartment above the garage; she said other family members, including her grandmother, another uncle, two aunts and Gary Willisâ€™ girlfriend were also at the home Sunday night.
She said her uncle â€œlikes to speak his mind,â€ but she described him as harmless.
â€œIâ€™m just dumbfounded right now,â€ she said. â€œMy uncle wouldnâ€™t hurt anybody.â€