Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

The Western Journal.

An incident in New Jersey is testing just how far red flag laws can be pushed, and the results aren’t pretty.

The gun seizure comes as part of a heated court case between Alfred Conti and his former physician, Dr. Matthew Kaufman. The defamation lawsuit revolves around negative reviews left by Conti.

Months after the suit was opened, police stripped Conti of firearms and ammunition on Sept. 25.

The firearm seizure was put into action thanks to a red flag complaint made by Kaufman and his lawyer, the Asbury Park Press reported.

Before his guns were taken, it seems Conti was just intent on receiving treatment. Hurting from an apparent failed surgery, Conti was first kicked out of the clinic where Kaufman practiced, allegedly due to his aggressive behavior with staff.

Shortly after, Conti would write the negative reviews that sparked the entire lawsuit.

A month later, Conti called Kaufman’s lawyer several times, asking for the doctor to see him again in an attempt to end his pain. In one call played to the court, the injured man used vulgar language and threatened to bring the authorities into the matter.

Conti’s error appears to be in mentioning he knew where both Kaufman and the doctor’s lawyer lived in one of the calls.

However, both sides agreed that it doesn’t appear any threat was made.

Despite this, police acted on the red flag complaint and seized multiple pistols, a rifle and ammunition from Conti. According to police, the injured man cooperated peacefully as authorities disarmed him.

As red flag laws go on the books in more locations, cases like this that sit squarely in a gray area are virtually guaranteed to keep happening.

Although there needs to be an instrument of law to disarm people threatening violence, the real question is where the line should be drawn.

I go back to David Codrea’s dictum.  Any man who can’t be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a custodian.  And frankly, I don’t believe in imprisonment anyway because it’s unbiblical.  The Scriptures favor retribution and restitution, and thus I believe in slavery when the crime of theft has been committed, and execution when murder, rape or kidnapping has been committed.  There is no such thing as a crime against the state, there are only crimes against individuals.  The best way to repay damages for theft is that the thief becomes a slave until the debt is paid.  So let me say it again.  I believe in slavery.  So does the bible.

But back to the point.  Guns are the least of the problems if the man is really intent on doing harm.  He could just go down to his local Lowe’s and buy fertilizer, or easier, a few cans of gasoline.

I prefer to sentence people for crimes when crimes are actually committed rather than relying on witchcraft to determine the future.  I don’t gamble, I don’t buy lottery tickets, and I don’t believe in witchcraft.

This came from reddit/firearms.  But the sources are mine.

Before.

Bolivia has enacted its first firearms legislation, which may be unlikely to have a dramatic impact on the country’s already low murder rate, but will at least provide the state with the tools to tackle arms trafficking.

Laying out strict limitations on who can own a weapon, the Firearms, Munitions, Explosives and Other Materials Control Law was passed on September 18 — four years after it was first proposed in 2009 — reported El Diario.

The legislation sets a six month period for current gun owners to register or turn in weapons before becoming subject to a maximum six year sentence for ownership or five year sentence for carrying an illegal weapon, with longer sentences for military-grade weapons, reported Los Tiempos. It also establishes a maximum 30 year sentence for any member of the security forces caught trafficking arms.

As well as regulating arms, the law allows for the production of “any kind” of weapon at the request of the armed forces or police, pending approval from the interior and defense ministries, reported La Razon.

After.

I am writing from Bolivia just days after witnessing the November 19 military massacre at the Senkata gas plant in the indigenous city of El Alto, and the tear-gassing of a peaceful funeral procession on November 21 to commemorate the dead. These are examples, unfortunately, of the modus operandi of the de facto government that seized control in the coup that forced the recently re-elected president Evo Morales out of power.

The coup has spawned massive protests, with blockades set up around the country as part of a national strike calling for the resignation of this new government. One well-organized blockade is in El Alto, where residents set up barriers surrounding the Senkata gas plant, stopping tankers from leaving the plant and cutting off La Paz’s main source of gasoline.

Determined to break the blockade, the government sent in helicopters, tanks, and heavily armed soldiers in the evening of November 18. The next day, mayhem broke out when the soldiers began tear-gassing residents, then shooting into the crowd.

I arrived just after the shooting. The furious residents took me to local clinics where the wounded were taken. I saw the doctors and nurses desperately trying to save lives, carrying out emergency surgeries in difficult conditions with a shortage of medical equipment. I saw five dead bodies and dozens of people with bullet wounds. Some had just been walking to work when they were struck by bullets.

A grieving mother whose son was shot cried out between sobs: “They’re killing us like dogs.” In the end, there were 8 confirmed dead.

The next day, a local church became an improvised morgue, with the dead bodies — some still dripping blood — lined up in pews and doctors performing autopsies.

You hate to see more examples of what history has already taught us, but those who refuse to learn the lessons of history suffer for their refusal.

News from Baltimore.

BALTIMORE (WBFF) – Baltimore City Solicitor Andre Davis said the city will consider suing gun manufacturers if lawsuits related to the Sandy Hook shooting are successful.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled Sandy Hook families can pursue legal action against Remington Arms.

Councilman Zeke Cohen brought up the matter at Tuesday’s city council hearing asking Davis what the city is doing to hold gun manufacturers accountable now.

Solicitor Davis told Cohen every city in America is monitoring what’s happening with the Sandy Hook lawsuits.

Davis said if they are able to succeed in their cases, Baltimore will then considering holding gun manufacturers responsible.

“America would be tremendously served if the courts could find a way to say to the gun manufacturers, ‘You do have some responsibility here,’ so we are very definitely monitoring it,” he said.

Former Baltimore City Police Commissioner Ed Norris says it’s civil remedy to a criminal problem that won’t solve anything.

“So you sue a gun company, and you win hypothetically, what has that done for the city of Baltimore? How have we improved? Are fewer people going to die? No. What is the point of this exercise? I just don’t get it,” he said.

Forget for a moment what a travesty of justice something like this is.  The point is that the Supreme Court refusal to shut down the Sandy Hook lawsuits may open the flood gate to lawsuits against every manufacturer in America, leading eventually to their bankruptcy.

Their goal, of course, is to do exactly that, with a few notables surviving for supply to law enforcement.  They shouldn’t be indemnified for their malfeasance, but this doctrine is so ensconced in the American “justice” system that the firearms manufacturers will be protected when cops shoot innocent people, just not when anyone else does it.

When the government kills someone, it’s called war.  If you do it, it’s called murder.  If a cop shoots an innocent person, it’s called the “thin blue line,” “serving and protecting,” and other claptrap.  If you do it you go to prison.

David Codrea.

“The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments in February to decide whether a law prohibiting gun owners from carrying firearms while intoxicated should be applied inside a gun owner’s home,” the Associated Press reported Saturday. Seeing an opportunity for a new and intrusive way to catch more gun owners in the disarmament net, the gun-grabbers are arguing that upholding an arrest is necessary for “the safety of Ohio residents and responding police officers.”

That dovetails nicely (for them) with an overall strategy to disarm citizens convicted of driving under the influence. And it moves things from the public setting right into the home, which is where the long game goal has always been.

My former professor, Dr. C. Gregg Singer, used to point out that the temperance movement was a manifestation of the social gospel, which itself was social Darwinism, or further back, followed Hegel (German synthesis/antithesis and evolutionary philosophy).  Guns are the new alcohol.  Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for the sake of his infirmities.  But “wine is a mocker.”  It depends on the person.  Guns protect the lives of the innocent, but kill the innocent, depending upon their use.  It’s the person behind the trigger, just as it is the person holding the glass.

It’s the same thing with Pete’s abject failure at understanding anything to do with Christian theology when he connects the Christian faith to a “world without weapons.”  In Pete’s world, no one really needs God, they just need themselves with good leaders, good as defined by Pete and his ilk.  The world isn’t really fallen, we just all need the Bohemian, peacenik, flowerchild Jesus as our example and the world will be a better place.  And little children love puppies, fluffy blankets and unicorns flying over rainbows.

There is nothing new under the sun.  Mankind tried this at the tower of Babel.  God knocked it down.  End of story.  Man cannot work his way to perfection, he has to believe in his heart and confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and that he can’t do nothing to save himself.  That’s the scandal of the gospel, and the reason so many men oppose it.

Opposition to the gospel is never an epistemological and philosophical problem.  It always has ethical roots.  Pete’s chosen lifestyle is evidence of his high-handed sin against the Almighty.

Gun control is just another tower of Babel, but I do find it ironic that this latest manifestation includes alcohol.  How appropriate.

News from South Carolina.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – State lawmakers are considering a new open carry bill that, if approved, would allow guns to be carried inside grocery stores, on the beaches and at public events.

You would also see them in businesses across the state.

Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds and the group ‘Arm in Arm’ are working to stop what they call a “dangerous bill.”

“Open carry of handguns where we live, worship and shop is irresponsible and a threat to the safety of our children and families,” said Peter Zalaka with Arm in Arm SC.

The open carry bill is not expected to be up for discussion until lawmakers return in January 2020.

The only danger here is a cop who has no respect for his oath to the constitution.  Peter Zalaka – Arm in Arm with controllers.

Hey Peter, give me a single instance of a state that is in more danger now because they adopted constitutional carry?  Just one.  I can put you in touch with LEOs from Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma if you want.

Hey Peter, one more thing.  I know why you’re really opposed to the bill.  All of those businessmen in Charleston don’t want those awful poor people carrying sidearms openly, do they?  It might affect their hospitality industry income stream.  That would make your reasons disingenuous, and you a liar.

From a reader, news from the viper’s pit.

A new gun control bill calls for banks and credit card companies to track and provide transaction data to the feds on some firearm purchases as a way of tracking people who the government suspects might be planning mass shootings.

Rep. Jennifer Wexton’s (D–Va.) “Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act” would require the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to “request information from financial institutions for the purpose of developing an advisory about the identification and reporting of suspicious activity.” The bill’s aim is to identify a consistent purchasing pattern among people who buy firearms and firearm accessories in order to conduct “lone wolf acts of terror” and expose how the firearms market in the United States is exploited by would-be mass shooters.

“Banks, credit card companies, and retailers have unique insight into the behavior and purchasing patterns that can help identify and prevent mass shootings,” Wexton explained in a statement. “The red flags are there—someone just needs to be paying attention.”

George Orwell’s future is here.  Make a perfectly legal, sensible purchase, get a visit by the FedGov.  This is exactly what they intend.  Folding peaceable men into the dragnet doesn’t worry them, and isn’t a bug.  It’s a feature of the system.

Of course, you can always save cash, or withdraw cash from your checking account.  But you do feel the net getting tighter, yes?

Make your plans for purchases now.  Trump may be hungry enough for the soccer mom vote that he’ll sign anything, including this Orwellian abomination.

Via David Codrea, yes, you read the title line correctly.  Nanny state now wants to intrude into your home.

The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments in February to decide whether a law prohibiting gun owners from carrying firearms while intoxicated should be applied inside a gun owner’s home.

Lawyers for a Clermont County man arrested in 2018 after he acknowledged having an unloaded shotgun while drunk say the law is unconstitutional when applied to homeowners.

They say a person’s sobriety or intoxication level should have nothing to do with possessing a weapon “in the hearth and home.”

Gun control advocates argue the safety of Ohio residents and responding police officers would be jeopardized if the court overturned the arrest.

A man’s home, where cops shouldn’t be anyway.  Now they want to control your actions inside your own home if you happen to have a gun.

It never stops.  Note.  The controllers never stop.  Compromise has always been a one-way street, because the pathological drive of the controllers is always to seek more control over your lives.

Via reader Fred, this comes from ZeroHedge.

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) filed Senate Bill 1081 (SB1081) for introduction in the 2020 legislative session. Under the proposed law, the Oklahoma legislature would “occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way federal or state extreme risk protection orders against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. “ In effect, only the Oklahoma legislature could pass any type of so-called red-flag law effective in the Sooner State.

The legislation also would declare that any federal red-flag law “which would infringe upon a citizen’s Constitutionally-protected rights including, but not limited to the right to due process, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to free speech, shall be null, void, unenforceable and of no effect in the state of Oklahoma.”

These declarations would have very little effect in practice, but SB1081 includes provisions that would make federal red-flag laws nearly impossible to enforce in Oklahoma. The proposed law would prohibit any  Oklahoma agency or any political subdivision from accepting any federal grants to implement any federal statute, rule or executive order, federal or state judicial order or judicial findings that would have the effect of forcing an extreme risk protection order against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma.

It would also make it a felony offense for any individual, including a law enforcement officer, to enforce a federal red flag law. In effect, this would bar state and local police from enforcing a federal red-flag law.

I applaud the effort.  But more is needed.  Hopefully this will be a model law for other states to follow, at least in the beginning.

The next steps will be a state law which prohibits any agents of the FedGov from enforcing said laws in Oklahoma, punishable by imprisonment.  The legislature must use its powers to prevent the state courts from reviewing constitutionality of the law by state courts (a tool the Congress has against tyrannical power by the supreme court, but has never used).  The law must further stipulate that federal court reviews of this law will not be honored in the state of Oklahoma.

I cannot locate this video anywhere else, and certainly not on YouTube (censors would doubtless remove it).

Reddit/firearms has it.  View the video as long as it’s up.  I recall a sign from a protester saying they needed a second amendment.

Yea, now more than ever.  Sadly, this is likely the last time these people will ever be seen.

Remember this scene.  Train stations.  It’s what totalitarian governments do to troublemakers.

CBS.

Dozens of Colorado sheriffs are ready to defy the law, including Steve Reams of Weld County, which is now a “Second Amendment sanctuary.” He says his first responsibility is to the U.S. Constitution. “There are portions of the law I just flat out can’t and won’t do,” he told Pelley.  “I’ll support the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the state of Colorado and then, I’ll enforce the laws of the state of Colorado. When those things are in conflict you know you have to decide which one you are going to adhere to,” Reams said.

“When those things are in conflict.”  It sounds as if he understands the true nature of this, his mind is made up, and he’s a patriot.  Let’s see.

Reams acknowledges he could go to jail for defying the law, but if it comes to that he says he would file a lawsuit, “We’ll determine at that point if this Red Flag law is constitutional.”

Not so much, eh?  That’s the trouble with sanctuary cities or counties, state preemption of federal laws, or LEOs who say they won’t enforce unconstitutional laws.  Fulfilling that commitment is a test of character.

State preemption of the FedGov means arresting FedGov agents who attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws, not just refusing to enforce them yourself.  Sanctuary cites and counties must see this as more than a badge, statement protest.

This Sheriff wants to do the right thing, only as long as a black-robed tyrant tells him it’s okay.  His character is only good so far, and then he has to feed his family and stay out of prison.

And thus unconstitutional edicts win.  The way they always have, with tyrants who bully lieutenant tyrants into doing their will.