“Who” and “What” is Guiding Your Decision?

“Who” and “What” is Guiding Your Decision?


1st Manassas-Bull Run

1st Battle of Manassas/1st Bull Run. What fun……. huh?

While growing up, my Father always told me the right moral or ethical decision is usually the choice you least want to make. This has been a guide post for me for the last 40 years of life, and it has never been wrong, when examined from an objective point of view.

Generally speaking, when it comes to deciding who should be listened to, I look to a couple questions to guide my direction. First, “cui bo·no?”, or in English, “Who benefits?”. Second, “What’s their experience?”. Third, “What’s their successes?”. Fourth, “Ramifications of applying that advice?”. Fifth, “What’s their reputation?”.

Since my “A New Year, A New Fear?” post, I have been asked, by numerous individuals, specific questions about what I think they should do, concerning the Virginia, January 20th Lobby Day rally. “Should I go?”, “Should I be armed?”, “Should I take a gas mask?” and “Do you think this guy ‘Fill in the blank’ is right?” (concerning a number of “fly by night” experts on social media and You Tube), are just some of the myriad of questions I have received.

I’m writing this to give readers MY TECHNIQUE for performing analysis on courses of action and taking advice on those COA from strangers. This is obviously not the “Be all, End all” of ways to make decisions, it is just mine. Your mileage may vary, but this particular decision is one that may land you in jail, or worse yet, in the ground, so it’s high on the priority list if you’re thinking about going to VA.

I will use a few personalities that I have observed give advice (about Virginia or other issues of concern) to those they consider “subordinates” (whether implied or stated), and we’ll use the 5 steps I listed above as the litmus test to decide whether their advice should be heeded then followed.

Busted Biscuits

Character #1, we’ll just call him “Busted Biscuits” (my Wife came up with that name for him LOL). This guy apparently has a slew of what he calls “Fed Sources” and is never ending in his, “The sky is falling” diatribe. First, “cui bo·no?”, or in English, “Who benefits?”. Well he benefits of course! He makes money hand over fist with the short YT videos he puts out every three hours or so.

Second, “What’s their experience?”. He has none in the area of Intelligence gathering or Investigation. His info all comes from the “sources” he says he has in the Federal Government…or so he says…

Third, “What’s their successes?”. Other than the things he says in videos, moments after they break on “open source” news agencies, he has none.  

Fourth, “Ramifications of applying that advice?”. You tell me. He said a few weeks ago that there are 250,000 UN troops staged in Cuba waiting to land in Virginia when the VANG refuses to confiscate guns. When he mentioned that the UN was coming for your guns due to an announcement on their website for a, “Disarmament, Demobilization and Integration officer” position, I said, “What the Hell?! So I looked it up.

What he failed to mention either by purposeful omission or just not reading it to the end, was this little blurb, “Experience working on DDR related programmes in Africa is desirable. LANGUAGES English and French are the working languages of the United Nations. For this post advertised, fluency in English is required. Knowledge of French is desirable.”

He conveniently left out that part which could make his premise of the UN preparing for gun confiscation in the US, sound ridiculous. Unfortunately, I’ve seen a few other imbeciles pushing the same thing on YT. Whether they are just not following through on the research before hollering “The sky is falling!”, or whether it’s a purposeful omission is hard to tell with some. “Ramifications if you believe this?”, you tell me what you’d do if that was what you believed was happening.  

Fifth, “What’s their reputation?”. He is known for being a “Chicken Little”, and as I said earlier, his only solid info is what he gets via open source news, then immediately regurgitates it and says he got it from a “Secret Source in the FedGov”.

The Big Kahuna

Character #2, We’ll call him “Da Big Kahuna”. This cat has a following on social media and is a “mover and shaker” (usually just “shaking” out of fear of the next FBI purge or lawsuit) in the militias. All his “People” call him “Boss” or “CO” (not to mention his Damned BS rank) in their many interaction on social media. He’s telling all the militias around the country, they need to go to Va on the 20th and make their voices heard.

So here’s the questions to ask, First, “cui bo·no?”, or in English, “Who benefits?”. Well it benefits his ego of course. He never had a position of authority in anything. He walked away from it for a month or so some years back when he thought the Feds wanted to talk to him, but was back in a flash (and TAKING the position back from the guy he left “in charge”) after he thought the heat was off.

Second, “What’s their experience?”. None. He was lower enlisted during peacetime when he got out and was in a non combat role in the military. He spent a number of years after that as a druggie. This is a guy you want making inexperienced decisions for your group? Keep in mind, you can get out of the Mil as a “Private First Class” (E-3) Water Purification Specialist, and civilians will make you a “Kernal of Infantry” in a flash, due to your “Experience”.

Third, “What’s their successes?”. None. Both of the things he’s done, concerning “Patriot” endeavors of note, ended in stalemate or failure. By the way, according to him, he’s the epitome of what the “Patriot Resume holder” should be. Just ask him….

Fourth, “Ramifications of applying that advice?”. He has made numerous bad decisions which others followed, and the last one he was lucky didn’t get people killed.

Fifth, “What’s their reputation?”. Among people who know what they’re doing (you know, the ones who stay off social media with that crap), he is an abject, amateur with delusions of his own competence as a militiaman let alone, a leader. He has some theoretical knowledge but no real world application. He will regurgitate whatever he’s been told if it will get him to the desired ends he espouses. The “ends” being “combat” of course.

If he wants combat so bad, it’s strange that he never bothered reenlisting in the military in a Combat Arms unit when we were at war FOR THE LAST 19 YEARS! So I think he wants to give people the perception that he’s a bad ass “Operator” (It’s easy to put on a helmet and plate carrier in a profile pic, it’s a lot harder to live in it when it’s “Real World”), but like a few other situations he’s already been in, he with wither and grovel when challenged with legal authority, whether the “Authorities” are right or not.

Does the above sound mean spirited? If you think so, maybe you don’t understand the cold reality of what the two above examples are advocating. Reality is a rifle bullet through your “Tacticool” level 3A helmet. Reality is you sitting in a cell for months, like the bikers at Twin Peaks that Matt B has mentioned, only to get released without charges after being bankrupted.

I get that you’re frustrated. What sane person isn’t? There is a fight coming and probably in your very neighborhood, no matter the State. Following the guidance of the morons I’ve talked about above is a gross imbecility and the people who will pay, won’t be those who are pushing you guys to take action (if they’re there, they’ll be gone at the first shot, or “drone” rumor), but you, the person on the ground who has convictions and some guts.

Twin Peaks

What it will probably be……..

Keep in mind, the above characters described are the template MANY “Voices” in the community fit into. They aren’t the only ones by a long shot. As my Friend NC Scout has said concerning VA, “What is the objective?”. Is it posturing and trying to incite fear in your legislators? If so, my first question is, “If it’s “posturing”, when are you running for elected office in Virginia?” You are from Virginia, right? The second would be, “Be careful what monster you create. They might just use the authority VIRGINIANS GAVE THEM to crush what they fear.”. IT’S WHAT TYRANTS DO, and they’ve already shown they will.


“Parata Vivere”- Live Prepared.

P.S. A close friend made the suggestion that the 2nd Amendment Lobby side of the rally be done at the NRA HQ. Now wouldn’t be funny’ The dumb asses show up in Richmond, while the serious adults go to The NRA HQ.



Seeing “RED”

Seeing “RED”

MIAC Post09

Above is the aftermath of a “Red Flag” LE incident in Annapolis, Maryland on Monday, Nov 5th, 2018. Here’s a quote from the Chief of Police. ““If you look at this morning’s outcome, it’s tough for us to say ‘Well, what did we prevent?’ 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.?”.

Here’s something else that was mentioned in the article, “Police said Willis answered the door at 5:17 a.m. with a gun in his hand and initially put it down next to the door as he first spoke with the officers.” then, “Police said he ‘became irate’ when officers tried to serve him with the emergency risk protective order and picked it up again.”. Well I bet he did get irate. Tell me you’re gonna confiscate my firearms without my “Day in Court”, and I’d be “Irate” to say the least.They are called “Rights” and “Due Process”, PERIOD, END, STOP!

Here’s the deal. If you come to my door in the early morning hours, I answer it with a gun in my hand. What sane, situationally aware person wouldn’t? I know the kind of world we live in. On another note, I have been on the receiving end of a formal accusation in a situation that could have ended badly for me, at least from a livelihood perspective anyway.  Fortunately, my “Rights” and “Due Process” was intact and adhered to.

Approximately 4 years ago, while working for a State Law Enforcement agency, I got a call from an Investigations Unit Sergeant (“IU”, our Internal Affairs Dept.) sayin’ I needed to come to their office, regarding a complaint lodged with the Attorney General’s Office against me as an Officer. Upon arrival, I was read my Rights, and advised I was accused of being a “White Supremacist” and that I trained/was training Anti Government militias to overthrow the government.

My first response was to laugh. My second was to realize this could, if nothing else, get me suspended, let alone, possibly fired. Fortunately, the IU Sgt not only knew me, but had known and worked with me for well over a decade. The bottom line though was he still had an investigation to conduct. He asked who I thought would do this, and my response was that I knew of one guy who would go that way, and that he was an “Ex Felon, Federal Extortionist” that a few of my friends and I had tried to help out. Once we found out he was still up to the same old ways, we cut ties and made sure everyone, who knew of our collaboration, knew why.

MIAC Post07

The IU Sgt, said he couldn’t find anything on this “Courtland Grojean” character except the pic/website above. He said he’d look into it more, and if I found anything myself, to let him know. I went home and started digging, and found all the evidence I needed to prove the culprit was who I figured it was.

I reported it to the IU Sgt, and after it was cleared as an “Unwarranted” complaint (Three levels of complaint findings are: the worst is “Substantiated”, then “Unsubstantiated” and finally, total exoneration is listed as “Unwarranted”) , I got permission to run a story on my blog about it. The individual in question has since lost pretty much everything he was involved in except one of his blogs, and even that he doesn’t allow comments on anymore LOL. Wonder why?

My friend Kenny at “Knuckledraggin’ My Life Away” went through even more BS than I did with him, because the guy we like to refer to as “Scammy the IIITard” took him to court twice. Kenny and I pretty much “own” his other two “primary” blogs since he’s had the same post up about us for around two years now. I’d call that “ownership”. He doesn’t realize,”Nno one cares”.

I say all that to point out this. Both Kenny and I had “Rights”, “Due Process” and recourse. We both were vindicated, and except for the headache, some of out time and some money from Kenny’s pocket (Pete/CA at WRSA got a “Go Fund Me” going and had what Kenny needed for court in less than a day), we came out ahead against a guy who lived on the other side of the country from me (he did this from Idaho). We spanked him hard. He lost, and he’s been losing ever since.

This post is about the proposed TAPS (“Threat Assessment And Safety”) Act. No matter what they tell us, WE WILL NOT GET DUE PROCESSING OF OUR RIGHTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY PASS “RED FLAG” LAWS! Is this clear enough for you? Below, I go through just a few glaring issues I found in the Bill they are offering up. When I think about what Scammy the IIITard could have done if TAPS had already been law, I’ll tell you right now, that could have ended tragically for all concerned.

MIAC Post02


You know where else I recently saw “And for other purposes”?

MIAC Post03

2019 Assault Weapons Ban Bill

Are you seeing a theme here? Unless you have ill intent and want unlimited power, you do not place the term “For other purposes” in a Bill/Law that will initially violate the Rights of a Citizen.

“This Act may be cited as the ‘Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety Act of 2019’.”

It is the sense of Congress that— (All caps are my focal points. words in bold are from the Bill or MIAC report). BTW, They used “Sense” and “Congress” in the same sentence. That’s how you know it’s BS.

(1) incidents of targeted violence are impacting our Nation FREQUENTLY and INDISCRIMINATELY;

It’s not really all that frequent or indiscriminate, from a historical perspective, unless you’re talking about the gang/drug violence in places like L.A., Chicago, Baltimore, etc.. If Congress wants to address a National issue and embarrassment with Federal force, they need to start addressing that problem. Of course those places are run by Democrats, and have been for decades so….hands off, right? By the way, how many “Mass” shooters, percentage wise, were Leftist/Communist/Democrats? How many were on some type of Psychotropic medication? Askin’ for a friend…..

(2) a collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and multi-jurisdictional BEHAVIORAL THREAT ASSESSMENT and MANAGEMENT process on a Federal, State, local, and Tribal level complements the development of better methods for STRATEGICALLY PREVENTING targeted violence in communities, INCLUDING SCHOOLS;

They have had the ability to “assess, “manage” and “prevent” (report) individuals with a “history” for decades, example: Devin Patrick Kelley, AKA, the Texas Church Shooter in 2017.

“He had served in the Air Force at a base in New Mexico but was court-martialed in 2012 on charges of assaulting his wife and child. He was sentenced to 12 months’ confinement and received a ‘bad conduct’ discharge in 2014, according to Ann Stefanek, the chief of Air Force media operations.”

Conveniently, the Air Force did not report his “indiscretions” to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division which controls the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). To me that is criminal and civil negligence on the part of the Air Force personnel required to report it.

Of course no one would be held responsible because it was just an oversight, right? Tell that to the families of the 26 murdered victims and the 20 wounded survivors. A man with a rifle, that would again be banned from production (an AR-15) if the AWB2019 gets passed, is the one who stopped his rampage. He readily admitted in an interview that he would have responded quicker if he hadn’t had to LOAD HIS MAGAZINES before he left his house.

“Strategically Prevent”? They can’t PREVENT it on an “Tactical” (Police response) level and usually get there too late, just in response. They definitely can’t do it on an “Operational” (State) or “Strategic” (Federal) level.

“INCLUDING SCHOOLS”? Cuz it’s “For the children”, right? It’s always mentioned, but rarely proves to be beneficial to children. “Gun Free Zones” are a perfect example. Tell this to the 28 kids who died in Waco in April 1993.

(3) the United States has the capability to RAPIDLY DEVELOP BEHAVIORAL THREAT ASSESSMENT and management guidelines and best practices;

   (A) identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence;

Does this include violent video games? They say “Interest” but use the term “or” which means the terms, “interest”, “motive”, “intention” and “capability” are/can be mutually exclusive to the other terms mentioned. What about the military or Law Enforcement? They have an “Interest” in violence in regards to their vocation.

   (B) investigating and gathering information from multiple sources to assess whether an individual described in subparagraph (A) poses a threat, based on articulable facts; and

I’m pretty sure Facebook or other social media posts/rants with be considered “Articulatable Facts”.

   (C) the subsequent management of such a threat, if necessary.

See the above “management solution” worked out in Annapolis MD on November 5th, 2018.

The 2009 MIAC report was a threat assessment. That report gave Local, State and Federal Law Enforcement a “Behavioral Guide” to the “Who” and “Why” of…wait for it……….”RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS” and “WHITE SUPREMACISTS”.  How many of you have been accused of being a “Rightwing Extremist” or White Supremacist” in the last three years. I know President Trump has. The MIAC Report was a government sponsored ASSESSMENT of who would more than likely be domestic terrorists, and Vets were at the top of the list.

(4) the United States should encourage the sharing of such guidelines and best practices for STREAMLINED and COHESIVE use across the United States;

Think about that for a minute, then refer back to the “Texas Church Shooter” mentioned above. A military entity (The U.S. Air Force) could not properly report the conviction, sentencing and discharge of one of it’s Airmen, but we’re supposed to believe Local, State and Federal LE will be on board and efficient while dealing with yet another new bureaucracy?

(5) establishing such guidelines and best practices is an important step toward PREVENTING targeted violence;

Can you say “Minority Report”?

MIAC Post 05 Minority_Report_Poster

MIAC Post04

In our case, the “Precogs” could/would be any of the “Ex’s” in your life. The neighbor who hates your Trump MAGA hat or sign in the yard. A fellow employee wanting the promotion ahead of you (what, you think you having all your guns confiscated won’t make it to your workplace?). The FB “Enemy” who wants to get the upper hand in an online argument. Better yet, they will just “MIAC” categorize you and make you a “Bad guy”, “Cuz the Gov said so in the official ‘Threat’ report.”.

(6) such guidelines and best practices should account for DIFFERENT NEEDS of communities across the United States; and

“Different Needs”? So they’re gonna discriminate by location, but the law will be Federally, “All encompassing”? I thought “Lady Justice” was blind, and that as Citizens, we were to receive “Equal treatment under the law”? Does “Different Needs” mean things won’t be acted upon and/or officially reported after the initially report because conveniently, the individual in question is some sort of minority, whether racially, sexually or religiously?

That’s conveniently how the media and government normally play it when they find out the shooter being reported on doesn’t fit their desired paradigm (They need it to be White+Christian, Conservative, Heterosexual, Gun Owning, Trump Supporter) right? We are not allowed to address “Different Needs” throughout the country when it comes to other things like educational requirements, are we? When it comes to the Feds, it’s “One size Fits All” because they know best, right?

(7) it is in the national security interest of the United States to develop such guidelines and best practices.

“National Security interests”?  Getting control of illegal immigration and the threat posed by foreign actors from drug cartels and terrorist organizations who are infiltrating our border is “National Security”. The mentally disturbed, individual, American Citizen with a gun, bomb or vehicle, and an intent to harm specific or random people is not.

To add some context to what I said earlier on the 2009 MIAC Report. Below is their assessment from the official PDF of Vets returning from a war zone.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans 

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence.

The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization (The recently disgraced Southern Poverty Law Center [2 lies in 1], you know, the “Bastions” or was it bastards of “freedom” and “conservative thought”, who will protect you, as long as you’re a leftist/progressive/communist bent on tyranny and Rights violation)  reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement
that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
joined extremist groups.

MIAC Post01

Excerpt from above: “embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States”-MIAC Report 2009.

Remember when I showed the incremental tightening of the restrictions in this AWB Post? They are doing it now, when describing the “Domestic Threat” as well. The above description was in an official report verbiage from ten years ago, below is CNN Anchor Don Lemon saying the biggest terror threat in the U.S. now is white men a few months back. Start at 30 seconds in.

The “Don Lemons” of the world have no problem generalizing and profiling their perceived enemies, but if we point out that the threats are “Leftists”, “Communist/Socialists” and/or “Muslims”, we are beat down for being some type of “Phobic”.

MIAC Post06

So it’s a “National Strategy”, but not a “National Standard”….but it’s Law? I thought “Law” and “Standard” were supposed to be synonymous? Law is applicable to all, correct? Is someone above the “Law” Standard? Finally, below is an excerpt at the end of the Bill. I thought section “9.b” was both funny and ironic.

MIAC Post08

I said this in this post, “The time is coming when you will have to make a decision. Will you stand up and fight when attacked, or will you grovel at the “master’s” feet hoping for the scraps of “Rights” he gives you?” You have got to figure it out your response before the figurative noose is around your neck while you’re sittin’ on the back of a high strung, skittish horse.


"Parata Vivere"-Live Prepared. 


They Learned From History: The Enacted 1994 AWB And The Proposed 2019 AWB.

They Learned From History: The Enacted 1994 AWB And The Proposed 2019 AWB.


The listed purpose under the header for H.R.1296 reads as such, “To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

Read that again, “TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT UNLIMITED”. The second half of the Second Amendment says, “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Another way to define “Shall not be infringed”, is to say, “Shall not be limited”. The header purpose for AWB ’94 said, “To make unlawful the transfer or possession of assault weapons.”. Sounds like the agenda has changed. Personally, I don’t think it’s changed at all. Obviously, they have just slid the mask down.

Here are just some comparisons I’ve noted between the 1994 AWB of September 1994, and the Proposed “Feb 15, 2019 H.R.1296” Bill.

Part 1 (1994) says, “The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means:

  • (A) On this line they show a list of nine weapon types with lists of the manufacturers and the model names/numbers. Look it up under the link above.
  • (B) “A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least TWO of the following:
  •    (i) a folding or telescoping stock;                    `
  •    (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
  •    (iii) a bayonet mount;                    “
  •    (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and                    “
  •    (v) a grenade launcher”
  • (C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least TWO of;                    “
  •    (i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
  •    (ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
  •    (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
  •    (iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
  •    (v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
  • (D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least TWO of–                    “
  •    (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
  •    (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
  •    (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
  •    (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.”.

(31) The term large capacity ammunition feeding device’—

  • (A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
    device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent
    Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has
    a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted
    to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
  • (B) does not include an attached tubular device designed
    to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire


Primary Arms Blog Post11

Under the 1994 AWB this rifle with 10 round magazine was OK for sale, according to the listed criteria from that Bill. That being a rifle with detachable mag could have the threaded barrel and be “Legal”. Under this proposed 2019 AWB, this rifle would be banned for sale.

“AWB: Part Deux” (2019) says,

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any ONE of the following:

  • (i) A pistol grip.
  • (ii) A forward grip.
  • (iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
  • (iv) A grenade launcher.
  • (v) A barrel shroud.
  • (vi) A threaded barrel.

(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any ONE of the following:

  •   (i) A threaded barrel.
  •   (ii) A second pistol grip.
  •   (iii) A barrel shroud.
  •   (iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
  •   (v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
  •   (vi) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded.
  •   (vii) A stabilizing brace or similar component.

(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any ONE of the following:

  •   (i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
  •   (ii) A pistol grip.
  •   (iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
  •   (iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
  •   (v) A forward grip.
  •   (vi) A grenade launcher.
  • (G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(H) “All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:”

This section goes on to list 88 different weapon types and models by manufacturer and model name/number. Here are a few of note:

  • (XIV) Colt Match Target rifles
  • (xii) Hi-Point Carbine.
  • (xv) SU–16
Primary Arms 1x Cyclops03

Under the this proposed 2019 AWB, they list the KelTec “SU-16”, with no exception for the CA (California compliant) models. It also is not listed in the exemption list of the “APPENDIX A—FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2017” shown at the bottom of the 2019 BILL.

(I)”All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:”

This section goes on to list 42 different pistols by manufacturer and model name/number. Here are some to note:

  • (i) All AK–47 types.
  • (II) CZ Scorpion pistol.
  • (ii) All AR–15 types.

(J) “All of the following shotguns, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:”

This section goes on to list 12 shotguns by manufacturer and model name/number. Here’s one to note:

  • (iv) All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types.

(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.

(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—

  • (A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device JOINED or COUPLED with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and

      (I guess no ducktape allowed)

  • (B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


This is what the law says right now after subsection (u),

[(v), (w) Repealed. Pub. L. 103–322, title XI, § 110105(2)Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2000.]

This is what the proposed 2019 AWB would put into the law,

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019.

“(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that—

“(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

“(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

“(C) is an antique firearm, as defined in section 921 of this title.


My takeaway from this is that they are playin’ the “Incremental” game (imagine that), but are definitely closing the perceived gaps they had in AWB 1994. I wonder how long it’ll be till bolt guns with detachable magazines and threaded barrels, or pump action shotguns with more than 5 round tubular mags are on the banned list? What, you think there will be a “Sunset Clause” if this gets passed? Fat chance! Remember, they learned from ’94 and their proposed Bill for 2019 shows that.

I’m not aware of this Bill makin’ it out of Committee….yet, but in the climate we’ve seen in the last few weeks, it’s only a matter of time. Is there a chance they will pass this bill without modification when it’s proposed? Probably not. Don’t be fooled though, if they win in 2020, this or something similar, but probably more draconian, will be out before the swearing in is completed.

The reason I went to the effort here is to show what they desire and have publicly put ON PAPER to try and take your RIGHTS away. The fact that they would propose this is treason. The first one in ’94 was treasonous as well, but we as a People did not call them on it (Americans weren’t mad enough, maybe?). What are you gonna do if they do pass it? Bury your guns? You better get a handle on your options and your possible courses of action before we get there. In the moment is not the time to decide.


“Parata Vivere”- Live Prepared.