Connect with us

News

Austin Gun Store Owner Stands Up to Washington’s Bureaucratic Gun Grab

Published

on

Austin, Texas, gun store owner Michael Cargill has filed a lawsuit against the ATF because of the federal government’s recent bump stock ban.

The U.S. Department of Justice issued the federal ban on bump stocks in a decision it made in December.

Bump stock owners were given 90 days to destroy or turn in their devices, but that grace period ended at midnight earlier this week.

Trending: North Carolina Police Officer Viciously Beaten as Onlookers Laugh, Film for 11 Minutes

Despite turning in his bump stocks to the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) field office on Monday, March 26, 2019, Cargill refused to sign paperwork giving the government permission to destroy these devices.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Cargill stood firmly against this measure saying “I’m going to comply. I’m going to turn it in, but I’m going to fight. I’m going to fight for everyone in the State of Texas and this country.”

The Las Vegas massacre of October 2017, where 58 people were killed, became a rallying point for gun control advocates nationwide. Authorities said some of the firearms used to carry out the massacre were equipped with bump stocks, which compelled states like Florida, Maryland, and Vermont to take action by passing bump stock bans of their own.

The federal government eventually caught up with states by issuing a bump stock ban late last year.

Ed Scruggs, the vice chair of Texas Gun Sense, defended the bump stock ban.

After Las Vegas, it was undeniable what they do and it was undeniable the destructive power they have and they had to act.

According to Jennifer Kendall of Fox 7, a “bump stock attaches to a semi-automatic rifle to allow a shooter to fire continuously by using the recoil of the firearm to hit the trigger in rapid succession.”

Scruggs continued justifying the need for a bump stock ban:

For practical use it serves no purpose, other than to kill more people, so why in this society, with the violence going on now, do we need those.

Bump stocks were originally not subject to stiff government regulation because they did not fall under the legal definition of a machine gun. In other words, guns that used bump stocks still had to have the trigger be pulled for each shot.

This is all changed in 2018 when the Department of Justice issued a new ruling declaring that bump stocks fall under the fully automatic category and were subject to the same regulations that automatic weapons faced.

Cargill made his opposition to this ruling clear:

There needs to be a clear message sent to the federal government that, as a citizen who legally purchased an item, I should be able to have that item.

Cargill teamed up with the New Civil Liberties Alliance law firm to file this lawsuit against the ATF. They contend that the Justice Department doesn’t have the authority to conduct this ban.  Instead, they argue that changes in the law should be carried out by Congress.

Scruggs countered, “Well, the power of a regulatory agency, they can change regulations all the time.”

Cargill is filing the lawsuit against the ATF, the U.S. Attorney General and the Department of Justice in order to overturn the regulation.

The seasoned gun rights activist won’t be going down without a fight. In his concluding remarks, Cargill stated, “If you step on the rights of the people who believe in the second amendment, then my job is to put my foot on your throat.”

After this grace period, any individual in possession of a bump stock can be subject to heavy fines and ten years in prison.

Campaign 2020

Thanks to Spineless, Establishment Republicans, Senate Panel Delays Vote to Subpoena Big Tech CEOs

Republicans Continue to Show Pathetic They are on the Issues that Matter Most

Published

on

America First nationalist’s hopes of having Big Tech CEOs testify before Congress about allegations of censorship directed towards the Right were temporarily dashed on October 19, 2020.

Politico reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed plans to vote on subpoenas to force the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook to go before the Senate and be questioned about their anti-Right wing censorship policies.

Some Republicans ended up having cold feet and decided to postpone the vote much to the disappointment of right wing activists who have complained about Big Tech’s anti-free speech policies.

President Donald Trump and a number of nationalist Republicans have sharply criticized Facebook and Twitter over their censorship of a controversial New York Post report that exposed Hunter Biden, Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, and his corrupt behavior.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Originally, GOP officials in the Judiciary Committee announced plans to hold a markup on October 20 to determine if they would subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to get his perspective on allegations concerning his company’s policies that muzzle conservative viewpoints. Twitter denies claims regarding Twitter’s censorship policies.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, revealed that the planned vote would also call on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify.

The panel stated on October 19 that it would determine whether they would issue subpoenas during a executive session on October 22 where it will also allegedly approve Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The committee declared in a statement that it will maintain negotiations with the companies “to allow for voluntary testimony” by the CEO. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the panel will proceed to take a vote on the subpoenas “at a date to be determined.”

The subpoenas would compel the tech big wigs to testify on the reports of “suppression and/or censorship” of New York Post stories and on “any other content moderation policies, practices, or actions that may interfere with or influence elections for federal office,” according to a committee document released on October 19.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is the chair of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution said to reporters that he’s expecting the committee to preside over testimonies from the Twitter and Facebook chiefs “shortly” regardless of whether they come to the decision on their own volition.

“One way or another, either voluntarily or pursuant to subpoena, they will testify and they will testify before the election,” Cruz stated.

In a separate hearing for the Senate Commerce Committee, Zuckerberg and Dorsey will join Google CEO Sundar Pichai on October 28 for a hearing on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields Big Tech companies from a liability.

Cruz, who is a member of both Judiciary and Commerce committees, wants each panel to carry out their own hearings with the tech chiefs before election day. “I believe we need a separate hearing in Judiciary because the issues being discussed in the two committees are different,” Cruz remarked.

Big Tech has become too powerful, especially during a time when social media has become the de facto public square. Republicans will need to get serious about making online speech receive the same treatment as general political speech.

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending