Take a deep breath and watch the video of a crash that almost killed a state trooper in Utah. The wreck on a snowy highway almost caused the death of a 13 year police veteran. The accident highlights major liability and public safety concerns in Utah and beyond.
The New York Post had a video and rundown of the incident, which nearly killed Sgt. Cade Brenchley. The Utah Department of Public Safety released the video for the public. While Sgt. Brenchley assisted a car which spun off the road another vehicle hit the trooper from behind. The resulting crash launched the officer into the air, causing him four broken ribs and a broken shoulder blade. The trooper calls the incident a dream, and that it was a miracle that he survived.
Reminder of the Move Over Law
There were multiple elements to the crash. Of course, poor weather played a role. But there was much more involved. Many states enacted a number of major driving reforms due to similar incidents. California’s Move Over, Slow Down law from 2007 is similar to laws enacted in all 50 states. The law requires all drivers to move over into a lane not adjacent to emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and DOT vehicles when safe. If this is not the case, the driver is responsible to slow down. Furthermore, drivers that do not obey are on the hook for a traffic infraction.
In addition, the accident is a vital bellwether of liability in public service. Public safety agencies from police departments to fire departments each carry heavy insurance loads for events like this. It also shows the legal options of police officers to hold reckless drivers responsible. This includes criminal and traffic actions but also in civil court. Courts traditionally support law enforcement in similar cases, especially if the driver was intoxicated or operating the vehicle in an irresponsible manner.
Many free thinking injury attorneys know that peaceable, law abiding citizens can avoid serious injury or death by use of defensive arms. Gun rights activists won a major day in court in September 2017. A three judge panel on the US Court of Appeals struck down a DC provision limiting pistol ownership. The District is now a “shall issue” territory.
The case centered around a DC requirement forcing applicants to bring forth a “good” or “proper” reason to receive a concealed carry permit. Effectively, this made it very difficult for the average person to own and carry such a firearm.
It appears the issue is done and over with. WTOP reported that the District of Columbia would not challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court. For the time being, the decision is a firm notch in the win column. The District is now a “shall issue” area, instead of being more restrictive. Perhaps New York or California is next.
The National Rifle Association was thrilled with the result. They stated, “At the same time, it’s important to celebrate that law-abiding Americans are now closer than they have been in nearly half a century to being able to exercise their firearms freedom in our nation’s capital. That is real progress.” Such an amazing feat took several years and legal expertise to win. It also shows the ability of an army of Davids to win against the big government Goliath.
Where do things go from here? Additionally, does that mean DC will pass other anti-gun laws? Of course, all of these are on the table. Furthermore, many pro-gun activists are fighting for the right to bear arms in all 50 states and DC. Their rugged determination protected a basic human right from extinction. We hope that it will be a precedent for other locations and states to follow.
For more info on the Second Amendment and recent court cases, keep it dialed here. Our team is on top of the situation. Let us know if you have any thoughts.
First of all, at the outset. This is not legal advice. I am not trying to teach people how to get out of jury duty or stay on a jury. I am merely pointing out my opinions and conclusions. I for one believe that it’s kosher for a jury to ultimately determine the law and the facts. I think a court is vital in providing guidance to the arbiters of justice (the jury.)
But my opinions should in no way guide you in your decision to understand the law and mean to keep it well.
So What is Jury Nullification?
This is a great question and great place to start. Why? Because this terminology can mean many things to many people it must be more thoroughly understood. In fact, it encompasses many things as will be explained.
In a nutshell, jury nullification is defined as a juror’s right and duty to ignore, or not enforce what it considers to be an unjust law. But it also deals with a juror’s role in finding a court’s misapplication of a just law. Some have called this a juror’s “pardoning power.”
It is typically used in criminal matters. For example, jury nullification happens when a jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of a defendant in a criminal case, yet votes to acquit him or her of the charges anyways. (Recent examples may include the O.J. Simpson criminal case.)
But then again, under this procedure, the jury could try and vote to convict a person even though it’s not sure of guilt or innocence. But at least in that last example, if the evidence fails to support a conviction, judges may still direct verdict of acquittal
But if a jury returns an acquittal, then generally, it’s game over. The court nor the prosecutor is allowed to appeal a criminal acquittal. But what about personal injury matters? Can a jury nullify a civil case also? It appears that jury nullification may also occur in questions of personal injury law.
For example, when the verdict is “generally a finding of liability or lack of accountability (rather than a finding of guilty or not guilty).” (See Lars Noah, “Civil Jury Nullification”, Iowa Law Review 86 (2001): 1601.). Many examples exist of jury nullification in both civil and criminal matters.
Furthermore, the Seventh Amendment protects and recognizes the pre-existing Natural Right of the Jury.
“…the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, then according to the rules of the common law.”
It appears well settled that jury nullification is a right, and even a duty. After all, a juror must be the “conscience of the community.” (Source.)
Why Nullify in a Personal Injury Case?
First of all, it is easy to foresee why a juror would want to nullify a bad law in a civil or a criminal case. A personal injury case is unique in that a jury could hate the defendant and the plaintiff. A nullifying jury could use all manner of strategies to derail an economic recovery, and simultaneously not like the defendant either.
What are Some Major Reasons Why Nullification Can Become a Duty in a Civil or Criminal Matter?
After the passage of the German Race laws, Jews were targeted for jail and wealth confiscation. Look at the ways the German Jews had their private property confiscated in pre-World War II Germany.
Antisemitism and the persecution of Jews represented a central tenet of Nazi ideology. In their 25-point Party Program, published in 1920, Nazi party members publicly declared their intention to segregate Jews from “Aryan” society and to abrogate Jews’ political, legal, and civil rights. (Source.)
Had I been a juror I certainly would not have convicted a Jew who had failed to yield their property or civil rights over to the state. Would you have done so?
What if a criminal law was passed called the “White Privilege Law” that whites had to give up their property to pay reparations to the descendants of African slaves? Would you convict a white person for refusing to turn over their property?
Laws are often passed that discriminate against or help people, for example. Politically driven excuses are used to suppose how people gained their fortunes. Then a law is passed to tax them higher, or lower depending on party affiliation. The masses easily may erode the rights of the gifted individual. Personal injury lawyers have received favor in the tax code, for example. Hollywood has received exemptions in California’s gun law rich state. The film studios can even use and own fully automatic weapons. But common citizens may not.
And it makes sense. After all, trial lawyers are huge DC lobbyists. The studios also control the news and what is seen and heard thereon. But so is the insurance lobby and so on and so forth. So all sides seem to benefit based upon who donates to who’s re-election bid.
Is there a Fundamental Unfairness to Plaintiffs in Personal Injury Cases?
In personal injury cases, some argue that insurance companies get a pass from the courts and legislature. The jury instructions make clear that no one can mention insurance or how much coverage is at issue. So we all know that California law requires us to carry mandatory minimum liability insurance. But we are not allowed to consider whether or not there is insurance coverage in a motor vehicle accident case.
So if a defendant appears to be poor, a jury could be swayed into finding against the plaintiff or awarding the aggrieved party peanuts. How is this fair? It’s great for the insurance company and shareholders.
But it can kill the plaintiff’s case. So for example, if I was on a jury I would demand to know how much insurance coverage is at issue. Sure you don’t want to place the defendant in the poor house, but you also want to award the plaintiff for pain, suffering, particular and general damages. You want to do justice.
I for one would want to do my independent investigation if the court refused to disclose the existence or nonexistence of the insurance policy in question. So what does this have to do with nullification? Well, it doesn’t. Jury nullification does not give the juror a right to violate his oath under penalty of perjury. What does this mean to you?
First of all, you have to level with the court before being sworn in. You cannot agree to a thing that goes against your conscience, can you?
Jury Nullification May Not Be Used if a Juror Has Sworn an Oath Not to Use it?
Can I be Punished for Nullifying a Verdict?
The only example I could find that allowed a judge or prosecutor to take vengeance on a juror potentially is the Laura Kriho matter. In that case, Kriho was the sole juror refusing to convict based upon the interests of justice. It was a drug-related case called People v. Brannon. The situs was in Colorado. Juror Kriho was eventually charged with three counts of contempt of court.
A whistle-blowing fellow juror on the panel sent a secret communication to the Gilpin County District Court Trial Judge, Kenneth Barnhill. Said communication alleged that Kriho complained about the unfair potential jail time of the accused while deliberating. So the sell out juror asked the court to bring in an alternate juror. Since the court had previously dismissed the alternates, the court called for a mistrial instead.
But the trial court was not done with Kriho. Not even close. A message apparently had to be sent to the jury pool.
What Were The Contempt Charges in Kriho?
Kriho was eventually prosecuted for:
Not volunteering information never sought during voir dire (eg that Kriho silently reserved her right to nullify an unjust law),
Telling fellow jurors that her knowledge that potential punishment meant a conviction was likely unjust, and
Attempting to convince other jurors to nullify a charge that carried an unconscionable sentence as against the defendant.
Many courts apparently use this case as a tool to convince jurors they may only decide matters of fact. But an educated jurist who knows the case, would know that the second and third charges were ultimately withdrawn. In other words, the discussion about nullification was never decided by any court! There was no punishment either.
The Sole Remaining Charge Was Reversed on Appeal in Kriho.
Amazingly, Kriho was convicted for failing to volunteer info EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS NEVER ASKED to do so. (Clearly that jury followed the law as stated by the court.). In any event, that sole conviction on that sole remaining count against Kriho was reversed in 1999 on appeal! The appeals court rightly thought it absurd that a jury would have to read minds and volunteer info.
Accordingly, FIJA reported:
“You have to go back to [the trial of William Penn in] 1670 to find a case in which the judge tried to punish jurors for returning a verdict he didn’t like.”
In Asher, unlike Kriho there was a split jury. Hence, there was a mistrial as in Kriho. So the jury foreman ratted to the judge about Asher’s comments during deliberations. Also, unlike Kriho, three other jurors believed the defendant was not guilty. But only Asher alone was punished for felony perjury.
In that case, Asher was at risk for a 14 year prison term for “lying.” But Asher never made it to trial. Instead, an evidentiary hearing was held in 2006, and the entire case went away. Obviously, Asher learned the same lesson as Kriho. Standing up for your rights means legal expenses and being placed in jeopardy of prison. This is the clear message these two jurors received.
Next we have the Kleinman case. Here, the defendant was a criminally accused. Now in Kleinman, a trial court told a jury it would violate the law if it ignored the trial court’s interpretation of the law. But the left leaning 9th Circuit even agreed this went too far, stating:
“The court’s statement that the jury ‘would violate [its] oath and the law if [it] willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to [it] in this case,’ may imply punishment for nullification, because ‘violate your oath and the law,’ coming from the court in a criminal trial, could be understood as warning of a possible violation with associated sanctions. Additionally, the statement that ‘[t]here is no such thing as valid jury nullification’ could reasonably be understood as telling jurors that they do not have the power to nullify, and so it would be a useless exercise. While jurors undoubtedly should be told to follow the law, the statement that there is no valid jury nullification misstates the role of nullification because an acquittal is valid, even if it resulted from nullification.” [Emphasis.]
But this was irrelevant, harmless error to misadvise a jury as to their rights. As expected, the 9th rejected Kleinman’s argument that the erroneous jury instruction required reversal of his conviction.
See the BELOW ERRONEOUS Jury INSTRUCTION.
“It is not fundamentally unfair for a defendant to be tried by a jury that is not fully informed of the power to nullify,” the court said, “or even that is stripped of the power to nullify, because there is no right to nullification. Although a jury should not be led to believe that jury nullification will result in punishment or an invalid acquittal, the court’s misstatement by implication does not rise to the level of denial of Kleinman’s due process rights.”
Wow. Did you just see that? The courts are basically saying, yes we have a right to nullify. But a trial court can issue a false statement of law to a jury that nullification is illegal, and this will not require a reversal of a conviction. In other words,everyone is presumed to know the law. (Read more.).
What If I Want to Remain on a Jury and Exercise Right of Jury Nullification?
If you are a member of the ACLU, Libertarian Party, any number of marijuana rights organizations, etc., you may be automatically excluded. In fact, an NRA member may get tossed from a gun rights case, whether civil or criminal. And here would be an example of a wrongful death personal injury case. An anti gun jury may decide even though it was self defense, that defendant must still pay for merely owning a gun.
In any event, if you wanted to get on a jury it seems that membership in organizations that go against the grain of the state are frowned upon.
Must I Volunteer I Support Jury Nullification?
It depends. If you are an officer of the court who has written many treatises and articles in support of this right, it would make sense that you not withhold this fact from the court. You don’t want to be accused of failing to volunteer information. In the same way, a citizen who has touched on these issues online or on social sites, may also not want to withhold this information. Often, jurors are subject to investigation by all sides, and the court.
Yes, respond to the questions in a yes, no, I don’t know type of way. Less is more. The court has many people to interview. Move along.
So long as you have no religious views or philosophy that prevents you from doing justice, you should be ok to serve. So long as you agree that everyone deserves a fair trial regardless of the law, you should be ok to serve.
Also, are you capable of convicting even if you disagree with a bad law. Yes you can be capable of that. This is because each case must be judged on its own merits.
After this, it makes sense to stay quiet about your opinions on nullification.
But What About Promises Under Oath?
Making a promise under oath means you must keep it. What if a juror is forced to swear an oath to judge ONLY the facts and let the court decipher the law. if a juror says he “can” uphold a law he disagrees with he is not lying. But if he promises to only judge the facts, when he intends to be the judge of both, he could be a perjurer.
Did I Swear Not To Exercise My Right Not To Decide Issues of Law?
If you got on a Los Angeles jury, you may or may not have surrendered your right to be the conscience of the community when you swore to allow the court to be the soul decider of law. And in fact, this is how people using their right of nullifying unconscionable laws could be potentially prosecuted.
It is not because they exercised their rights per se. In fact, it is because they swore an oath to not exercise their right. Is that crazy or what?
As touched upon above, failing to exercise jury nullification was the International Court’s basis for convicting accused Nazis of war crimes after WWII. The reasoning of the Court was that civilians and soldiers alike have a duty to ignore, interpret, and in fact, fight against an unjust law. Hence, low and high-level soldiers, despite swearing an oath, could not argue they were just “following orders” when they killed innocent civilians and prisoners of war, etc. (Learn more.)
What are Some Other Examples of Why You Would Use Nullification in a Personal Injury Case?
Comparative Negligence Issues (Jurors may or may not apportion fault if the plaintiff is left with less money, for example. Or they may apportion greater fault if they think it unjust a plaintiff gets too much money.).
Reserved. In fact, there are so many times nullification could be appropriate, I invite you to comment below.
What are Some Other Examples of Just Use of Jury Nullification?
Statutory Rape Laws (An underaged female sexually assaults an adult male and he faces rape charges = unjust to apply the law (See eg State v. Morse 281 Minn. 378, 161 N.W. 2d 699 (1968).).
Gun Laws (A man in California is arrested for having a cartridge magazine in his pistol with more than 10 rounds = unjust as a magazine is a primary component of a firearm and number of rounds in a magazine directly affect a citizen’s ability to safely defend home and hearth.).
Race Laws (Fredrick Douglas and other white abolitionists were fierce supporters of jury nullification and an armed citizenry.).
Euthanasia Laws (Where a terminally ill patient wanted a mercy killing, and prosecutors have no choice but to bring charges against the doctor.)
What are Some More Famous Examples and Explanations?
In “flagrant” cases, according to the court, “the jury has always exercised the pardoning power, notwithstanding the law, which is their actual prerogative.” (Local 36 of Int’l Fishermen & Allied Workers of America v. United States, 177 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1949).) Lysander Spooner, author of Trial by Jury 1852 pointed out that “governments cannot decide the law or exercise authority over jurors (the People) for such would be absolute government, absolute despotism.”
But in conclusion, it is the duty of the jury to know the law and mean to keep it well. Rights not claimed are considered waived.
Falling into the trap of swearing to not exercise a right places a juror at risk not for exercising the right. Instead, the juror is at risk for perjury. Solutions are to avoid poisoning the other jurors. It appears that it is unwise to tip off fellow jurors as to their rights.
So the smart move is to request a sidebar, approach when directed, and instruct the court that you plan to exercise the right to decide the law and the facts as justice dictates. But what if a judge asks: “You’ll follow the law as I instruct it right?” What if you feel intimidated?
You very well will be intimidated. And that is sad. After all, you are merely informing the court that you cannot take an oath that would entail surrendering a right as you know it. A smart judge may present a hypothetical and ask you if you would follow the law under that example. I for one would say that it presents an incomplete hypothetical, and would preserve my right to decide the law and the facts as I see fit.
The bottom line, is that it remains the right of all free man and women to decide the law and the facts in both personal injury and criminal matters. Our public servants are no smarter than any of us. In fact, many of them are too smart for their own good. You, the citizen are the last line in the defense of freedom.
Each and every day, between 18 and 22 veterans commit suicide. These suicides happen for a number of reasons. However, many trace back to issues during time in the service or afterward. Certainly, poor treatment and long waiting times are not helpful. Altogether, these issues add up to a major crisis for the country. What other group faces 7,000 unnecessary deaths a year?
Recently, one of the larger trends involves suicide in VA parking lots. Military.com reported on the disturbing incidents.
These deaths happen here for many reasons. Part is due to vets not wanting family members finding them. In other cases, poor care may be a factor. One Navy vet, 76 year old Peter Kaisen, shot himself outside the Northport Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New York. He was allegedly denied access to an emergency room doctor for a mental health check. An Army and Afghanistan vet, John Toombs, hanged himself outside a TN center. He stated in a video it was due to being unable to visit the care he needed.
Of particular concern is the risk of opioid use and abuse surrounding the VA. In particular, opioids are overused to treat physical pain. This opens the real risk of addiction and worse. On top of this, since 2001 the rate of suicide among veterans increased 32%. The risk of suicide is 21% among veterans than the average adult.
What are Some Options for Families of U.S. Military Veterans?
This is a pain we know all too well. Our lead attorney, Michael Ehline, is a disabled former Marine. We feel the pain of our armed forces and their family. It is often a thankless job, but only the finest answer the call.
Families have several options. One includes an formal inquiry of the VA’s care of their beloved. Another includes negligence litigation against anyone that wasn’t doing their job. Furthermore, Ehline Law’s resources are especially open for veterans and their families. If you’re facing hard times and don’t know who to call, we are always available, 24/7.
I am attorney Michael Ehline. I am a former U.S. Marine. And I hold the distinction of being one of the few personal injury attorneys in CA who support the Second Amendment. But I support the right of a peaceable, Freeman to possess the same small arms as any public servant are derived from Natural Law and Natural Rights, not judge made law. Before I digress, so let’s get into the meat of the matter.
The purpose of this article is to educate people on California’s new gun laws and their increasing absurdity. Then we will delve into how these laws actually increase the chance of serious personal injuries.
The New 1989 Gun Laws Leading to Present Confiscation Laws of 2016.
When I was younger, I had an AKMS 47 clone, and AR15 HBar. These are center-fire, semi automatic rifles. One looks like an AK47, and the other looks like an AR15 (Armalite 15). The difference is that these civilian versions are only capable of firing one round per trigger squeeze. That is why they are classified as “semi-automatic.”
I cannot stress enough that these look like military style assault rifles, but they are not really military “assault rifles.” I will explain more as you read on. Unfortunately, the Crips and Bloods gang members started shooting bystanders in drug crimes in the mid 80’s.
In any event, the Hollywood left picked up on this, because many of the the guns used looked military. Rather than blame crime, they blamed guns. Democrats seized upon this issue. But they did not have a super-majority to outright ban semi automatics that looked scary at that time. But they later worked with Republican turncoats to pass the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.
Looking Tough Backfired on the AR15 and Any Military Looking Rifle.
Many law enforcement personnel will tell you that gangsters loved these AKMS 47 clone rifles because they looked tough. And this holds true today in the way gangsters love Pitbulls and fighting dogs. Anything threatening looking, including tattoos is hip in that sub-set.
So do gooders in the State Legislator decided that rifles that looked like “tough” military rifles needed to be illegal. So they passed a law to ban certain manufacturers from selling rifles with the “features” of a military style rifle. In contrast to the pro self defense lobby, they grabbed on to magazine capacity as the basis for banning.
The “Assault Weapons Ban” Was the First Step In Banning An Entire Class of Commonly Used Firearms Under Color of Law.
The argument was that if it is capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds, it should be illegal, IF it looks like a military rifle. Of course, the smart folks knew that was only a pre text.
In any event, during this time I became an expert with the AR15 and AKMS 47, and mastered both prior to joining the Marines. By the way, they each came with “standard capacity” magazines. This means the bullet holder that goes into the rifle can hold 30 bullets. These are also called “rounds.”
California Progressives Gave New Definitions to Pre existing Terms.
Later, the California legislature changed the names of certain rifles and components to make them sound scary to uneducated voters.
Large Capacity Magazine. There was no such definition as “large capacity” magazine until the Democrat run California State Legislature changed the name in the late 80’s. It went from standard capacity magazine, to “large capacity” magazine. Then only those gun owners who had them could keep them. This was called a “grandfather clause.” So there was no outright ban. And even though the magazine is a component of the rifle, liberal justices said from now on, free men could only own 10 round magazines. Think about King George for a second (if you even know who he was.). Once the law was passed, the most liberal court in the land, the 9th Circuit, upheld this ban as lawful.
Assault Rifle. Any rifle that was black, with a flash hider, a foldable stock and a grip and foregrip was now evil. It was now called an assault rifle. The so called “assault rifle” has zero functional difference from any other semi automatic rifle. So it was given an Orwellian name and banned.
So this brings us to the true purpose of the California democrat platform. They want an outright ban for anyone other than the government or politicians, to own or possess of a whole class of weapons. They are using the so called assault weapon as the first step. You see, now they know what we knew back in 1989.
The function, and not the “look” of the rifle is what matters. Liberals want Australian, and UK style gun laws. So they want gun laws such as those that exist in a commonwealth we fought a bloody revolution to free ourselves from. In the UK, rifles must be bolt action, single shot. In Australia, pretty much only criminals and police own guns now.
Here is what top leftist leader, President Obama said about gun laws if you think I am lying.
“Magazines” and The Grandfather Clause Farce.
At the time of the passage of these new Draconian laws, there were not enough Democrats to outright ban everything. So the Democrats chose the death of a thousand cuts. They claimed that existing gun and magazine owners could keep their standard capacity magazines and rifles. To keep their rifles they had to REGISTER them and makes them basically un-usable when being transported.
Most people knew this was a scam and warned that these were the first steps towards outright confiscation. The whole point of the right to keep and bear arms is to prevent all enemies, both foreign and domestic from taking and keeping power. Notifying the very people who could eventually do that with a gun registry flies in the face of the intent of bearing arms.
In any event, we see with the latest legislation, that our grandfathered magazines are now illegal. After all, the Democrats now have a Super-majority and they control the courts.
The New Bullet Button Ban and the “Features” Test
Although Colt AR15’s and certain brands of AKMS 47 clones were banned, unless registered, not all similar looking rifles were on the ban list. This is why the legislature came up with the silly “features” test. So if your rifle had a bayonet lug, a thumb magazine release, or a pistol grip it was banned.
In that case, to be legal the features had to be blocked or removed. Also, it could not have a removable magazine unless a tool had to be used to remove it. The idea was to make it near impossible for a shooter to be able to reload a rifle for defense or offensive reasons.
So unless they had special tool to remove the fixed magazine. Otherwise, shooters had to separate the upper and lower receiver. But this risked injury by jamming rounds into the fixed mag through the piping hot lower receiver with their fingers.
And no such tool existed for what was and is the most common rifle in the U.S., the AR15. It did not exist for any rifle. Why? because it interfered with the intended function of the rifle.
Impossible to Clear Stovepipes and Jams With California Fixed Mag Law.
The fixed magazine law also meant that shooters could no longer clear a hot, or stove-piped round. So now people faced their rifles blowing up in their faces.
Hot Round Jam. A hot round jam is one that gets stuck in the magazine or barrel. If it remains there, it can cook off other rounds and cause an internal explosion in the chamber. In the Marines, we are taught to clear this by pulling the charging handle back and releasing the magazine so it will not explode.
Stovepipe. A stove-piped round is one that hangs out of the ejection port. Sometimes pulling the charging handle won’t release it. It could be cooking off as a misfire. If it does, it can ignite the fixed magazine. It can also blow up in your face. These gun laws made it impossible to clear these jams unless someone could engineer a solution. So basically, these gun laws were irrational and placed the lives and eyes of shooters at grave risk.
Enter the Bullet Button.
But some concerned citizens once the features were removed.
Enter Featureless Rifles.
Many people build their own weapons, as any law abiding Freeman should. So there are all kinds of AR15 clones, for example. Faced with the amendments regarding “featureless rifles” someone got smart.
They realized if you wrap the pistol grip and replace the flash hider with a comp, you could continue to drop your 30 round mags. So that is what a lot of guys do now. And that is what I do too.
Here is a picture of a featureless set up on an AR15 and AKMS 47 clone. The idea is that you can still use the thumb mag release. So now you can clear jams and operate the weapon as it was intended by the maker. Get it?
Going After Ammunition To Further Hinder a Unalienable Right.
Few Americans even realize it was King George going after the colonist’s “powder houses” that led in large part to the American Revolution. But with progressives in control of “education” from k-12 in California that should come as no surprise. I have no doubt that modern day progressives would have been “fence riders” during the Revolution.
Why do I say this? Simple, a bloody revolution was sparked over a far off ruler telling us how and when we could own ammunition. Now, Millennials are begging their leaders to take away those same rights. The argument is that we need to control how much ammo a person has so people will feel safe.
So now we need to pay a fee, get a license, etc. A total sham. A great way to raise more money to pay pensions for people like Gavin Newsom right? In any event, we will discuss all these new laws, compliance and workarounds. I just wanted to lay a foundation for you to better understand.