#Responsibility – Odd Stuffing

Revisiting The Defund Police Movement

We’re about a year into the Defund Police Movement, so I thought it would be a good time to take a look at the progress being made in areas that pledged to eliminate their police departments. One would expect by now the new “community-led public safety” programs set to replace the police would have a well-established track record of success.

In reality, it’s been an unmitigated disaster. Just about every category of crime, especially violent crime and murder, has been skyrocketing in these Defund Police cities. But guess what, victimized business owners and residents are finally being heard and things are slowly starting to change…

Let’s not forget how this started, blaming every police officer and the entire system for the actions of a few. The kneejerk reaction was to declare the entire system of law enforcement systemically racist, tie it to the old South slave patrols and “white supremacy”, and dismantle it all.

Millions of dollars were cut from police budgets around the country, axing specialized units dedicated to street crime, gangs, sexual assault, patrol, overtime and training. Woke politician-with-badges chiefs sold out their officers by stripping them of the tools and techniques they needed to be effective and stay safe on the job.

The new system to replace it was to be based on the wonderfully woke principles of trauma-informed, gender-affirming, anti-racist praxis. A “community-led public safety” program where “an unarmed urgent responder trained in behavioral and mental health comes within 5 minutes” or in response to incidents of rising gun violence, “a trauma informed crisis intervention team works with community activists to disarm and deescalate conflicts”.

Ultra-woke cities hired “experts” to help them with police reform. Seattle hired a felon, ex-pimp (convicted of running a prostitution ring which included underage girls) as a $150,000 per year “Street Czar” to provide the city with “expertise and support services in de-escalation, community engagement, and alternatives to policing.” Ithaca and Tompkins County hired a released cop-killer for their “Reimagining Public Safety Collaborative’’ as part of New York’s mandatory police reform program.

The results were about what you would expect. Skyrocketing violence and crime. Crime that used to be committed at night or away from public eyes is now rampant in the streets in broad daylight. Criminals, gang bangers, terrorists and thugs who have no fear of the law or law enforcement have taken over the streets. Autonomous zones where police are not allowed have sprung up in some Defund cities. Theft, extortion, looting, arson, assaults, rapes and murder have all occurred within their heavily armed hard borders to the outside world.

Prosecutors have played their part as well. Aside from refusing to file charges, dropping charges or decriminalizing crimes they believe are part of the corrupt system, they have facilitated the wholescale release of criminals from jails and prisons to protect them from COVID. Sadly, no protection was offered the law-abiding citizens from those summarily released.

Now look around and see what is happening.

Atlanta is hiring 250 police officers after homicides increase 58%. One suburb of Atlanta had already contracted with a security company, staffed by off-duty Atlanta police, Fulton County Deputies and Georgia State Police, for protection. They are also looking to separate from Atlanta so they can form their own police department.

Minneapolis recently approved $6.4 million in additional funding to the Minneapolis Police Department following a “dramatic uptick in violent crime”.

Los Angeles is adding $36 million in funding to the Los Angeles Police Department, Long Beach Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Departments following a surge in violent crime including a “more than eight-fold rise in shootings, from 59 in the first two weeks of 2021 compared with just 7 at the same time last year.”

Portland is working to add $2 million in police funding to combat surging “gun violence” and homicides. “More people died of gunfire last year in Portland — 40 — than the entire tally of homicides the previous year. The number of shootings — 900 — was nearly 2 1/2 times higher than the year before.”

The progressive district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles are both facing recall efforts for their failure to uphold the law and hold criminals accountable.

Yet the ultra-left politicians still believe they need to do more to restrict and reform police. Colorado and New York City have eliminated police officer’s qualified immunity. The very same legal protection they themselves enjoy and protect them from lawsuits from residents who have lost their homes and businesses, been victims of violent crime or lost family members to the rampant violence directly caused by the politicians’ decisions to defund and eliminate police.

2020 & 2021 to date has seen record firearms and ammunition sales in this country. The purchasers have been across all races, genders, incomes, origins and political parties, with at least 40% being made by first time buyers. Are people buying firearms in record numbers because they are concerned with a supposedly “systemically racist” justice system? NO! They’re buying firearms for the safety of themselves and their families because they know the government is no longer able to answer their calls for help.

It’s time to stop living in this fantasy dreamland and recognize that evil will always exist and if you don’t have the police, that progressive model of a community love is going to be a war zone. It is WAY past time to stop experimenting with people’s lives and re-fund the police.

P.S. If you’re wondering where violent crime hasn’t been skyrocketing, take a look at the cities who have not gone the woke/defund route. Go figure.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #Re-FundThePolice, #DefendThePolice, #BackTheBlue, #NoMoreMobRule, #Responsibility, #police, #justice, #mewe, #gab, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Eliminating Law Enforcement Qualified Immunity

Recently I committed the horrible transgression of hitting “Haha” on a Facebook post relating to why law enforcement officers should not be opposed to a new law that would strip them of their qualified immunity. Personally, I thought it was amusing that the article, written by someone with a grand total of three years of reserve officer experience 20 years ago in a small municipality in Washington, was writing an article supporting this new law in my state. The credibility of the phrase “… as a former cop, take it from me… “ rang pretty hollow, but is exactly what you’d expect from a paid political activist.

Is eliminating police qualified immunity about accountability, integrity, professionalism or trust? No, it’s about finding a way to further restrict law enforcement activities to the point where no officer dares to confront any criminal. But it actually goes deeper than that. It is about eliminating local law enforcement as we know it.

Along with defunding police departments, eliminating law enforcement qualified immunity is a vogue “do something” act for progressive politicians. It shows they have bought into narrative the entire law enforcement system is broken and has always been broken – even though they actively supported and approved of it until the woke mob showed up at their door.

Quite simply, the qualified immunity doctrine protects law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations. It is important to recognize qualified immunity applies only in civil litigation and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials’ actions nor does it apply to criminal actions.

Still, this doctrine is now being blamed as the major hinderance to police accountability. Certain researchers falsely allege “qualified immunity permits law enforcement and other government officials to violate people’s constitutional rights with virtual impunity”.

Note that the very same government officials who are working to strip qualified immunity away from law enforcement officers enjoy qualified immunity themselves. None of them are working to eliminate their own qualified immunity.

For the application of the doctrine, let’s compare it to a “Stand Your Ground” law. Gun control zealots claim this is an automatic “shoot first, ask questions later” law. In reality, just because someone claims they acted under “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t mean it applies in their situation, it must be adjudicated as such. If it is not, then that particular defense does not apply. The very same concept applies with qualified immunity. If it is not adjudicated as valid, it does not apply. It is up to the courts to decide this. It is not something that simply gets claimed in every case and that’s the end of it.

Knowing this, if civil cases against individual officers are being dismissed because of qualified immunity, it’s because the courts say this is the correct action under these unique circumstances. Simply feeling wronged by an enforcement action and finding a lawyer, activist or “news” channel to take your side, doesn’t mean your case is valid.

So, what is behind the push to eliminate law enforcement qualified immunity? It’s the same logic as the defund the police. Take the illegal acts committed by a handful of officers, highly publicized by a certain segment of the news media, and project that as the standard practices of every officer in the nation.

If you’re wondering where this is all headed, it’s the elimination of the locally controlled and administered law enforcement agency. By slashing agency budgets, they are reducing the number of officers and restricting the tools and techniques available to the remaining officers. Eliminating specialized units such as proactive anti-crime patrols, domestic violence and sexual assault units, community policing and training all serve to make the agency less effective at their primary function of crime prevention and law enforcement.

The answer to the pleas from citizens victimized by thugs glorified as heroes in the woke communities will come from the state or federal level law enforcement agencies. These agencies, who have been spared the media condemnation of their municipal counterparts, will be called in to take over law enforcement in the defunded police communities. And this is a very bad thing.

Law enforcement is and always has been best served by local officers who are locally funded, directed and held accountable by their communities. Local communities can set their own priorities and be responsive to the needs of their residents.

Eliminating law enforcement qualified immunity will only serve to make police services less effective in their communities. It has absolutely nothing to do with police professionalism, accountability, trust or the effectiveness of police within the community. It is only about intimidating officers to the point where they will not act and to punish those who do by having to defend against frivolous lawsuits. Even when these lawsuits are ruled completely baseless, they will be used to attack their professional credibility.

For the author of this propaganda piece (the link to the full article is below so you can read it for yourself), I give him the same level of credibility as the former Army Lt. General who called an AR-15 a “weapon of war” and coined the ludicrous phrase, “full semi-automatic”. Someone with minimal, part-time law enforcement experience, who enjoyed the protection of qualified immunity throughout the rest of his career, is now saying “trust me” as a paid political activist.

There is no great secret for law enforcement gaining the trust of the community and being effective. It comes from honesty, communication and involvement. Call it whatever the current fashionable administrative term you want, but it’s always been good old fashioned one-on-one police work.

Law enforcement is at best a difficult career. We demand they make instantaneous life altering decisions under extraordinary circumstances most people could never imagine. And while the anti-police activists consistently minimize the dangers and wildly exaggerate the abuses, the truth of the matter is the vast, Vast, VAST majority of law enforcement officers do their jobs every day with honor and distinction, to the tune of millions and millions of public interactions per year.

I stand unapologetically behind our nation’s law enforcement officers and will continue to call out and oppose the attacks on their ability to do their jobs safely and effectively.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #QualifiedImmunity, #Responsibility, #LocalControl, #Police, #ThinBlueLine, #mewe, #medium, #gab, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/police-shouldnt-fear-new-civil-rights-bill/article_6058619c-70af-11eb-a5b8-5fdc49de19be.html

Trauma-Informed, Gender-Affirming, Anti-Racist Praxis, a.k.a. The New Police

As we conclude 2020, the Defund Police movement continues their quest to dismantle law enforcement as we know it in this country. The utopian vision planned to replace police departments includes a “community-led public safety” program where “an unarmed urgent responder trained in behavioral and mental health comes within 5 minutes” or in response to incidents of rising gun violence, “a trauma informed crisis intervention team works with community activists to disarm and deescalate conflicts”. Of course, all of this ignores the skyrocketing increases in violence and crime in these pre-utopian cities. And what’s worse is that the mayors and city councils have no idea they are enabling an authoritarian takeover of their own cities. The future is state control. Welcome to the future.

In Minneapolis, the epicenter of the movement to eliminate the police, and extremist left cities around the country, city councils are trying to outdo each other coming up with the most outlandish plans to appease the mobs now running their cities. Minneapolis still sets the bar by announcing to gain police department funding, groups must show they are “well-versed in de-escalation skills” along with “trauma-informed, gender-affirming, anti-racist praxis” according to the proposal.

Not to be outdone, Seattle hired a felon, ex-pimp (convicted of running a prostitution ring which included underage girls) as a $150,000 per year “Street Czar” to provide the city with “expertise and support services in de-escalation, community engagement, and alternatives to policing.” Equally insane and dangerous proposals around the country include sending unarmed social workers and therapists alone on emergency calls involving the mentally ill, drunk and drugged as well as a host of other historically violent situations including unarmed city workers for the enforcement of traffic laws.

Meanwhile, these pre-utopian cities are slashing police budgets to the tune of millions of dollars and restricting the tools and techniques available to the remaining officers. Gone are such things as proactive anti-crime patrols, domestic violence and sexual assault units, community policing, training, overtime and basic patrol and emergency response services. Departments are losing their most senior and experienced officers to agencies who realize the importance of strong law enforcement in public safety and actually train and support their officers.

But it’s not just the mayors and city councils, it’s the local prosecutors too. By immediately releasing the “mostly peaceful” rioters without charges or simply refusing to pursue charges against them, they’ve started their own personal social justice reform programs. In some areas, lower-level crimes are no longer prosecuted, or police have to take into consideration the suspect’s reason for looting to justify a prosecution. These same prosecutors are also pushing for the release of anyone incarcerated including those serving life sentences for murder and rape, to protect them from the social injustice of COVID-19.

What is happening in these communities is a disgrace. Violent crime, property crime, crime of all kinds is absolutely skyrocketing. In Minneapolis, what is left of the police department actually sent out letters to residents in one district warning them to “be prepared to give up your cell phone and purse or wallet.” The Minneapolis City Council was recently forced to contract with other area agencies just to cover the 911 responses in the city.

If you’re wondering where all this is leading, look at what is happening in these pre-utopian cities. Police departments are being gutted of the resources and personnel needed to provide even the most basic level of services. Residents and businesses are fleeing in droves and those who remain are begging for protection and justice. EVEN IF the mayors and city councils were to reverse course and try to restore law and order in their communities, it would take years or decades to bring back the level of experience and service they have cut of out of their police departments.

The answer, the expected savior of the cities, will come from the state level law enforcement agencies. These agencies, who have been spared the media condemnation of their municipal counterparts, will be called in to take over law enforcement in the defunded police communities. And this is a very, very bad thing.

Law enforcement is and always has been best served by local officers who are locally funded, directed and held accountable by their communities. Local communities can set their own priorities and be responsive to the needs of their residents.

Minneapolis is already marching down this road by contracting with outside agencies, including the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and Metro Transit. The State of Texas has already introduced legislation to take over the Austin Police department after the city council there defunded the department by $21 million.

So what’s the problem of having the state or another agency take over local law enforcement services? Quite simply, it’s a matter of accountability. Another agency, state or otherwise, is responsible to someone else. It takes its direction and priorities from someone else. The local community’s needs are determined by someone else. While this may not sound too bad in a (currently red) state like Texas, what kind of local law enforcement would you anticipate from a department that reports directly to the governor of California or New York?

The mayors and city councils who are now vowing to completely dismantle local law enforcement due to hundreds of years of so-called “systemic racism” and create non-police “community-based public safety programs” seem to be forgetting one thing. THEY are the same ones who have been in control of their cities and police departments all along. Only recently, with the mobs banging on their doors, did they become “woke” and decide everything they’ve always supported was always wrong. And only when their naive utopian vision fails and their citizens have suffered enough, will they realize they were just part of the plan to give control of their city to someone else.

The only ones who can stop this are the residents of these pre-utopian cities. Hopefully they will come to that realization before too many have left or they become too weak to stop it.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #ThinBlueLine, #Responsibility, #LocalControl, #Police, #Justice, #PoliceMemes, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Two MORE Weeks To Flatten The Curve

Today marks day 255 since the original “Two Weeks To Flatten The Curve”. This week my home state of New Mexico returned to restrictive lockdowns and stay-at-home orders. The same draconian quarantine restrictions from the beginning of the COVID pandemic have been reimposed just in time for Thanksgiving. Non-essential businesses have been ordered to close, no indoor or outdoor dining and of course, masks are mandatory, and you must remain home with limited exceptions. New Mexico’s order is for two weeks, at which time the state will enter a new county-by-county color coded restriction system. Of course, since the beginning of COVID, there are winners and losers to this game. Guess which category you fall into?

Here are just a few highlights from around the country:

– Mask mandated in public and in your own home with limited exceptions, violators will be fined
– Stay at home except for essential trips such as for food, water and emergency medical care
– Curfews from 10 pm to 5 am
– Closure of all non-essential businesses
– Businesses allowed to remain open must close between 10 pm and 5 am
– No in-home gatherings larger than six people from more than two households
– No in-person classes for high schools and colleges
– No organized sports EXCEPT professional sports
– Restricted religious services without singing, chanting or playing instruments.
– And… be sure to report your neighbors for violating the rules this holiday season!

Not to be outdone by anyone, California issued rules for Thanksgiving celebrations in your home. These include no more than two different households, held outside, social distancing and masks are required except briefly to eat and drink, food to be served individually on single use disposable dishes, bathroom breaks may be taken as long as the bathroom is disinfected regularly, and the entire event may last no more than two hours. The host must record the names and contact information of all attendees for contact tracing.

Various health organizations have added an emotional note to their Thanksgiving guidance by saying if you care for your elderly loved ones and want them to be around in 2021, you must celebrate Thanksgiving alone. To top it off, the self-proclaimed President Elect has applauded governors who have issued mask mandates and lockdowns, calling them patriotic.

We’ve also been told that negative COVID tests actually mean nothing. Since you may have JUST been infected before you get the test, travel plans for Thanksgiving, should include a 14-day strict quarantine, a COVID test, a properly socially distanced event, then another a 14-day strict quarantine after travel and another COVID test, to be safe. Because… science.

If you were to drive across the country you would find a dizzying array of wildly different health codes, home quarantine restrictions, testing requirements, mask mandates and even travel restrictions state-to-state, county-to-county and city-to-city. All for the same COVID and all because… science.

But then, there are the exceptions for certain businesses such as airlines. Many have been filling their middle seats (the ones they held open for social distancing at the beginning of COVID) claiming their standard air filtration systems make them safe. This even though they have dramatically cut back on the amount of disinfecting done to the airplanes. I suspect this may have something to do with the expiration of government funding covering their payroll and operating costs in September. Because… science.

BLM/Antifa “mostly peaceful” riots have always been exempt and to date, not a single case of COVID has been associated with any BLM/Antifa riot. On the other hand, according to a Stanford study (so you know it’s accurate), 18 rallies for President Trump were responsible for over 30,000 COVID cases and 700 deaths. Bear in mind this non peer-reviewed research was done ONLY by comparing counties that had rallies vs. ones that didn’t, not by actual contact tracing data available in all 50 states. It should be noted the same researcher would not be conducting a similar study of Biden post-election rallies since he said most of the people appeared to be wearing masks and they were more spontaneous in nature. Because… science.

But don’t fear, your elected representatives are right there with you suffering through the unemployment, economic losses and restrictions of liberty. Oh wait… they aren’t. Read about that in the next article; COVID-19, The Untouchables.

Who are the winners and losers? As it has been since the beginning of the pandemic, the winners have been the big box and big chain retailers who have been selected as essential and granted a monopoly by being allowed to remain open. These companies have once again posted record quarterly profits. The losers have been the small, privately own businesses forced to close, many forever, and the employees put out of work, broke, locked in their homes – if they are lucky to still have them – with no options for their very survival.

If this all seems arbitrary and pointless to you, you’re right. First we were told the only way to stop the spread was to wear masks and social distance. Now we’re told everything must be closed because masks and social distancing aren’t effective and COVID tests mean nothing. I have yet to see the science of closing businesses and implementing curfews from 10 pm to 5 am. Does COVID become bigger, more aggressive and infectious after dark?

The answer is no. The so-called “science” is to socially condition people to accept more and more government control over the way we do business, the way we interact with others, the way we live our lives and the way we think, even inside the privacy of our own homes.

Do you really think it will stop here?

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #FirstAmendment, #SecondAmendment, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Tyranny, #COVID19, #ZombieCovid, #BecauseScience, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

It’s The End Of Democracy!!! (And Other Supreme Threats)

With the sudden passing of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a whole new dimension has been added to this year’s elections. Completely dismissing any resemblance of respect for the Justice’s life or service, the vile political rhetoric began almost immediately following the news of her death. Lies, exaggerations, hypocrisy, threats of violence and political consequences are the new norm – even more so, if you can believe it, than we’ve seen so far in this election. The future of the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is being determined and the results are critical for every American.

I’m going to start off with painfully obvious elephant in the room, politics on the bench. The whole three equal and separate branches of government thing our country was built on relied on the courts being the non-political, independent arbitrator of fact, the Constitutional and rule of law. However, that seems to be a wildly outdated notion. At the local, state and federal level, the litmus test for judges is now their political party affiliation and wiliness to rule favorably on issues brought before them by the political masters who appoint them. That is absolutely wrong.

Judges should be guided by the Constitution and the law, period. Yes, there may be different interpretations of how the law should be applied but that’s the whole function of the appeals process up to United States Supreme Court. There should NEVER be situations like we have now where the Constitution and the rule of law is viewed through a political lens in order to progress a social agenda.

We are being told filling the vacant judicial seat with a nominee from the current administration will be catastrophic for the nation. We’re told it will delegitimize the court itself and cause irreparable damage. Lives and liberty will be lost. Really??

The SCOTUS is now pretty equally divided politically. The Chief Justice had been considered a conservative and swing vote, but it’s widely accepted now that he capitulated to the threats from the extreme left Senators last year that threated to restructure and stack the court if it didn’t “heal thyself”.

“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The irony of course is adding a ‘conservative’ justice now would tip the court just slightly to the right, something the left just cannot tolerate. It’s not the reduction of the influence of politics they seek, it’s the reduction of the influence of politics THEY don’t agree with. Interestingly enough, it was a Second Amendment case that had the potential to define standards for Second Amendment cases around the country the brought the threats by the Senate Democrats.

If the Senate attempts to fill the seat before the elections, we are being told there will be violence and riots like we’ve never seen before. Arson in the form of “burn Congress down” and “burn it all down”. The Democratic party has promised retaliation in the form of eliminating the filibuster in the Senate and restructuring and stacking the SCOTUS as soon as they retake the Senate, presumably to reduce the influence of politics. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has come out to say she won’t rule out impeachment of the President or the Attorney General as an option to prevent filling the seat, as well as other options. One of the more likely options is attempting to impeach Associate Justice Kavanaugh, a threat made during the “heal thyself” intimidation campaign by the Senate Democrats.

A friend recently posted a definition that bears repeating: Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Of course, hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand. The people who are demanding the seat be left vacant until after the elections are the VERY SAME ones who demanded the Senate fill a vacant seat in 2016. It seems fulfilling constitutional responsibilities is only important when it serves a certain political need.

The political focus has already shifted to the most vulnerable votes from Republican Senators in Alaska, Maine, Utah and Arizona to block a nomination. Expect the political posturing, campaign contributions and no holds barred back room bargaining to be at historic levels in these states.

Whomever is nominated by the President to fill this vacancy is sure to face excessively hostile confirmation hearings in the Senate. Much like the Kavanaugh hearings, we can expect the rudest, most obnoxious behavior from the Senate Democrats along with demands for delay after delay after delay for ‘just discovered’ surprise information. In the end, whenever a vote is called, expect grandstanding from both sides of the aisle.

If you’re wondering why filling this seat is so important, simply look at how this election is being set up to be the most litigated in history. With mandated mail in voting and the potential for widespread voter fraud, the final result will very likely be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Assuming a split along Justice’s political lines, an appeal by either campaign will fail to a four-to-four split.

Based on what has happened in the two days since Associate Justice Ginsberg passed away, what do you expect to see in the 43 days leading up to the 2020 elections?

Vote wisely.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2020Elections, #SCOTUS, #Terrorism, #PoliticalTerrorism, #Lies, #ElectionTheater, #Corruption, #VoterFraud, #HealThyself, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #VoteWisely, #RIPRBG, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

A Warning For Semi-Free Americans

California defending its unconstitutional gun control laws is nothing new. They write laws intended to strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights while simultaneously writing laws to keep criminals from being punished and releasing those who are already in jail. When these laws are challenged, activist judges put in place by extremist politicians rubber stamp them with some of the most outrageous legal rational to ever come out of a court.

After having their laws against so-called large capacity magazines (LCMs) ruled unconstitutional at the District Court and with a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, California has requested a hearing by an en banc panel. Nothing new here, it’s the state just prolonging the fight and running up the bills for the opponents. But what might have gone unnoticed is the 18 Attorneys General who sent a friend-of-the-court in support of California’s law. While some of these states already have a form of magazine restrictions in place, others do not. If you live in one of these states, what do you think this means for the future of your standard capacity magazines?

Attorneys General from Washington D.C, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington all signed onto the brief.

Of the states with magazine restrictions, most limit them to 10 rounds, a couple are 15 or mixed 10 & 15 for rifle & handgun. Others, like New Jersey, were at 15 and recently cut that to 10. A couple of these states have “grandfathered” clauses which allow those who possessed them to keep them after the law change. Of course, we all know that “grandfathered” just means deferred confiscation as California residents found out when the state changed its mind on legally possessed “grandfathered” magazines and decided they were now illegal.

The other states, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington do NOT have laws against so-called large capacity magazines. BUT… their Attorney General supports them. What do you think this means for the future of magazine capacity laws? It means sooner or later, like it or not, these states WILL restrict magazines to 10 rounds.

Why 10 rounds? There really isn’t any rhyme or reason to it. 15 was apparently too many and seven as implemented and ruled unconstitutional in New York was too few. There certainly isn’t any science or research to support it. If you read the rational from extremist gun control think tank & quasi law center, you see how careful wording is used to justify it. It explained how few self-defense shootings “needed” more than 10 rounds and how many firearms from unlawful shootings were found with “large capacity magazines”. No mention of the fact that more rounds HAVE in fact saved the lives of law-abiding citizens or the ACTUAL number of shots fired by criminals, just the capacity of their magazines. Facts matter, unless you’re trying to infringe on constitutionally protected natural rights.

California argues to the Court that the majority of citizens voted for Proposition 63 which, among other gun control measures, outlawed magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and as such should be considered valid. Of course, this has ZERO bearing on the legality of this case, and that’s a very good thing.

Despite the popular misconception, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic, or better known as a democratic republic. The distinction is critical. In a democracy, the majority rules on every issue and there are no protections for the minority opinion. If 51% of the population decides there is no right to free speech, then there is no right to free speech, period.

In a republic, there is a constitution which protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if a majority of the population votes for it. So even if 99% of the population votes there is no right to free speech, then the law is unconstitutional and invalid.

The Attorneys General friend-of-the-court brief is much the same argument. 18 party loyal extremist prosecutors who don’t believe the Second Amendment right to a standard capacity magazine exists for the average citizen believe their opinion should sway the court. Guess what, it means DIDDLY SQUAT!! But then again, this is the 9^th Circuit, so any extremist view will likely be taken into consideration.

Where do these Attorneys General opinions matter? In your home state. These are the people who will help draft the anti-standard capacity magazine legislation and give it their stamp of approval. These are people who will lobby the legislature from within to get this law on the books. These are the people who will ensure law-abiding citizens who defy them are prosecuted to the full extent of the law as an example to others. This is YOUR Attorney General.

Why am I directing this as a warning to semi-free Americans? Because if your state has already started down the gun control path, this is in your future. Gun control starts slowly with the least objectionable, easiest to pass infringements like universal background checks. After all, who could object to something that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals? It doesn’t matter that the universal background checks have been shown to be completely ineffective means of curbing crime or violence, it’s a toe in the door to more infringements.

While the Duncan v. Becerra directly relates only to California’s magazine ban, it would provide precedent for other western states to appeal their magazine bans, and indirectly those in the rest of the country. While this is important, I’m going to repeat what I’ve said time and time again.

It’s a fool’s errand to believe that once a law has been enacted, it can successfully be drawn back. Of the thousands of gun control laws passed around the country, precious few are successfully appealed and reversed. The best way – the ONLY way to stop them is to prevent them from being enacted in the first place. And the only one who can do that is you.

If you live in Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Washington, your Attorney General has already cast his vote on your Second Amendment rights. It’s time for YOU to cast your vote to stop them.

Vote wisely.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #California, #GunVote, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #GunControlFails, #VoteWisely, #Delaware, #Illinois, #Michigan, #Minnesota, #NewMexico, #Oregon, #Pennsylvania, #Virginia, #Washington, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Election Theater Act 2, The Candidates

Way WAY back on May 6^th, 2019, I wrote Election Theater Act 1, The Lightning Rods. At that time, I placed my first and second choices for the official Democratic Party candidates in an envelope, sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls’ back porch to be opened following the 2020 Democratic National Convention. The convention is over, we have nominees and direct descendants of both Funk & Wagnalls have delivered my jar. My guesses at the time were: First choice: Kamala Harris. Second Choice: Hillary Clinton. I’m claiming a “damn close” with a big honk’n asterisk for things to come.

I’ll repeat my previous warning: What follows is my opinion and my opinion alone. It is based on my observations of far too many elections and the political process as I currently see it.

That Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee for President is shocking, to say the least. With the Party focus on the vote from youth, minority, immigrants, progressives and the newly “woke”, the Democratic party has chosen an elderly white male millionaire establishment candidate with 47 years in the D.C. political swamp. A candidate who has already failed twice as a Presidential hopeful and at age 78 would be the oldest President to ever take the oath of office.

Somewhere along the line, the plan seems to have gone astray. And not for trying either. The nominee has made more gaffes than can even been listed. Things so serious any other candidate would have been tossed to the side like yesterday’s fish wrapped newspaper. These include sexual misconduct allegations that seem to have been swept away along with his involvement in his family’s misdeeds and his own history of racism and questionable cognizance.

Which brings us to his choice of running mates, Kamala Harris. A former Presidential hopeful herself who crashed and burned badly during the Democratic debates. Yet Biden’s made a promise to choose a black female candidate to fill his Vice President slot and he chose the former top law enforcement official of California during the Defund The Police movement supported by the Party.

As you can see from my predictions, I always thought Harris would be the nominee. She had all the right supporters and backers but was never able to get over her own poor showing or her highly dubious history as a prosecutor and politician.

Now here’s my big honk’n prediction asterisk. Should Biden be elected and not be able to fulfill his full term as President, Harris would become the President, a reality many now believe as a given.

But what of my second choice, Hillary Clinton? My prediction backup was the leading candidate would fall from grace so badly that a demoralized Democratic party would turn to her as their savior and, bypassing all scrutiny of the pre-election theater, nominate her as their Presidential candidate once again. It’s still not outside the range of possibilities but early voting is starting soon, time is running out fast.

Clinton has recently said she would be open to serving in a Biden administration. But what position would someone who to this day still thinks she was robbed of the presidency be willing to take? Certainly not something subordinate to the President, it would have to be something decidedly superior. The only thing I can think of would be an appointment to the United States Supreme Court. It’s not outside the realm of possibility, and extraordinarily terrifying.

So let’s take a preview of what will certainly be Election Theater Act 3, The Elections.

With COVID-19 still making it too unsafe to vote in person – even though mass riots are perfectly safe – mail in voting will be the key to making this election the most hotly contested and litigated in United States history.

Those of you who are old enough will remember the absolute CF that was the 2000 Presidential elections, how long it took to resolve and the intervention of the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court in determining the end result. 2020 is going to make that look like a walk in the park.

Imagine late ballots, non-postmarked ballots, boxes upon boxes of lost then mysteriously found ballots, defective but still certified ballots, ballots from the dead and many, many ballot recounts – in every state around the country. This election is being set up to be contested for MONTHS by armies of lawyers on both sides. Which brings up the nightmare scenario where the Electoral College is unable to declare a winner by January 20, 2021.

In that case, the election would go to the House of Representatives for a vote by state, with each state voting on their own, independent of their state’s election results. Whatever candidate (and it could be anyone) has a majority of 26 states would become president until Jan. 20, 2025.

If you think the elections have been nasty and stupid so far, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Of course, this is only MY opinion.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #2020Elections, #BaitAndSwitch, #ElectionTheater, #Corruption, #VoterFraud, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Un-Happy Labor Day

Today is Labor Day in the United States, a time we should be taking to celebrate the American worker. We should be, but this year is a very different. With the twin plagues known as COVID-19 & election politics in full bloom, millions of Americans are out of work, their “non-essential” businesses shut down or only able to open at a small fraction of their capacity. In my state, today is day 180 of the mandatory Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve of COVID-19 economic shutdown. Businesses closed, many forever, means workers idled, dependent on emergency government assistance to provide them with enough money to simply survive. Too many businesses are closed, families broken, and lives lost for not being able to endure the anguish. This is not the way to celebrate Labor Day.

I don’t believe for a moment American workers want to be dependent on the government for their existence. American workers want to work. They want to provide for their families themselves. They want to be independent and make their own choices about the safety of their families, but they are not allowed to.

A little reminder on what Labor Day is.

The modern observance of the holiday seems to have forgotten the roots that brought Labor Day into being. Following the Pullman Strike of 1894 where 30 workers died and 57 were injured at the hands of the United States Army and Marshals Service, Congress approved Labor Day as an official holiday. It was an attempt by President Grover Cleveland to gain support among the trade unions following the strike. While it is disputed who first proposed the holiday, Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners or machinist Matthew Maguire, the intent was to create a “workingmen’s holiday”.

Recently the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) revised their numbers to show the number of sick and dead from COVID-19 were never as bad as they had been reported. Also revised has been the guidance for travel indicating the mandatory 14-day quarantines are not necessary. Still further evidence shows the economic shutdowns have been overly broad and unnecessary. Yet extremist governors refuse to revise their shutdown orders and let people go back to work. Those who attempt to defy these orders have been issued shockingly excessive fines for simply opening their businesses.

The longer this pandemic shutdown goes on, the more we see it has not been a health-related emergency but a political exploitation. The purpose has been crystal clear, to cause as much economic disruption as possible to influence people to vote against an administration THEY blame for the economic turmoil and promise to rebuild the economy THEY themselves are responsible for destroying.

When the U.S. Congress comes back into session this week, we’ll see if they are willing to work towards helping those who have been shut out of their jobs or holding them hostage until they can pass a full agenda of socialist reform measures.

Better yet, how about some encouragement to the states to get them to reopen their economies. Perhaps if the politicians who have yet to go without a paycheck from the economic shutdown lost their income too it would prompt them to action. Perhaps a complete shutdown of all federal dollars to any state that hasn’t reopened would get them to take a fresh look at the economic impact vs. their political positioning under the pretext of a health emergency.

American workers deserve the opportunity to work and celebrate their Labor Day as actual workers.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #constitution, #2A, #SecondAmendment, #LaborDay, #MadeInTheUSA, #COVID, #Politics, #SmokeAndMirror, #Vote2020, #GunVote, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Not Well-Suited for Self-Defense?

As expected, the State of California filed an appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel that upheld the ruling that the State’s ban on Large Capacity Magazines (LCM) was unconstitutional in the case of Duncan v. Becerra. Nothing about the request for a rehearing by an en banc panel was a surprise, from the arguments being made to the appeal being filed on the final day. California will do anything and everything to protect one of its signature gun control measures and bleed the opposition dry while doing it. And just because you’re not from People’s Republik of Kalifornistan doesn’t mean this case shouldn’t be important to you.

All of the materials, filings and rulings on this case are available at the link below. It’s worth your time to read and understand what is going on since California likes to export its bad, expensive and unconstitutional policies to the rest of the country.

There are a few things I found particularly interesting in the State’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

First, the State sees no reason or need for any civilian to have so-called large capacity magazines. In fact, the filing indicates “The record here demonstrates that LCMs are not well-suited for self-defense.” It rationalizes that Californian’s can have as many 10 round magazines as they want, and (currently) as much ammunition as they want.

The photo that accompanies this article is from a home security system in a Fremont, CA home invasion burglary on August 28, 2016. It shows five armed men coming into the house, at least one carrying a handgun with a magazine extending below the pistol grip, a LCM. Fortunately, the residents were not home at the time. Even if the resident was armed with a California 10 round magazine, he would most certainly have been killed in this encounter. In this burglary the homeowner was able to call the police while watching the burglary on his home cameras remotely. Unfortunately, the armed home invaders left before the police arrived and were not caught.

The State has never explained why a so-called LCM is not-well suited for self-defense, but it’s the exact opposite of the training and advise of every reputable self-defense instructor I’ve ever known, including my own. It has also never offered any explanation why 10 rounds is the magic, safe enough for civilians number, but 11 is way too dangerous.

Let’s also keep in mind that in some places like New York City, firearms that simply have the capability to accept a so-called LCM are banned. So, if even one magazine is made for it with a capacity over 10 rounds, the firearm itself is banned.

The State also references the Fyock v. Sunnyvale, a local California ordinance banning magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, which was upheld by a three-judge panel, as a binding precedent.

There are several issues that come from Fyock, not the least of which is that California does not have a preemption law banning local jurisdictions from passing their own more restrictive firearm regulations. As we’ve seen in states without preemption, this results in a patchwork of laws throughout the state that are impossible for any law-abiding citizen to understand or comply with. Virginia recently removed its preemption for firearm regulations and now anti-gun cities are drafting unique and highly confusing laws regulating use and possession within its borders.

Fyock was also decided under what is known as Intermediate Scrutiny, which is what the State believes is the correct level for Second Amendment cases. Duncan’s ruling utilized Strict Scrutiny.

A quick note on Rational-Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny

Under Rational Basis the government must have a legitimate interest and the law must be “rationally related” to the interest.

Under Intermediate Scrutiny, the government must have an important interest and the law must be substantially related to the interest.

Under Strict Scrutiny, the government must have a compelling interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to the interest.

Note that the likelihood of a law being overturned increases as the level of scrutiny increases. Few government laws survive a Strict Scrutiny test since they are generally far broader than need be.

The argument for the use of Strict Scrutiny review of Second Amendment cases has been going on for years. Government agencies don’t like that because it severely restricts their regulatory powers, something most of us would argue is appropriate in a case involving the Bill of Rights.

For the next step, the 11-member en banc panel to hear this will be randomly drawn from the Nineth Circuit Court of Appeals. While there has been significant progress in helping to balance the court with justices appointed by the current Presidential administration, it still has a 16 to 13 liberal slant. Of course, that ANY judge should be considered liberal vs. conservative is absolutely asinine. The law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights should be interpreted by every judge each and every time WITHOUT regard for political party platforms, but that’s a topic for another time. For this case, the outcome will likely be decided by the draw instead of the legal arguments in the case.

Why is this case important? A successful appeal by the State reverses the initial District Court ruling and magazines with a capacity higher than 10 rounds are once again illegal in California. The only hope for a reversal comes from the United States Supreme Court which has not been willing to hear Second Amendment cases.

In the unlikely event of Duncan being upheld, the State will have to decide if it wants to risk an unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court where it has the potential to impact magazine bans around the country or find another way to restrict them in California.

However, in my opinion the most important thing this case points out is the importance of our local and state elections. Laws like this are enacted by the people we elect to office. When we elect gun control politicians, we enable them to restrict our Second Amendment protected rights and the only recourse we have is to have them overturned in the courts.

And guess what, you and I are paying for both sides of this fight. Our taxes pay for the lawyers to defend the laws that take away our rights and our dues and donations pay for the lawyers to try to get them back. The only ones who win regardless of the outcome are the lawyers.

Vote wisely this year.

Bob

Duncan v. Becerra

Gun Buys vs. Gun Votes

It’s election season and everyone is trying to predict how people will vote. Now mix in COVID-19, a near complete national shutdown of the economy, millions of people thrown out of work, business and lives destroyed and lost, violent criminals being released from prison ‘for their safety’, police departments being defunded and services cut, and the ongoing “peaceful protests” a.k.a. riots around the country. It’s no wonder we’ve seen absolutely unprecedented firearms and ammunition sales around the country, many of them by first time buyers. But does this mean more votes for or against gun control politicians as some are predicting? Sadly no, but you know what, that’s not what is important.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 spread, and the politically motivated shutdown that has lasted MONTHS beyond the initial “two weeks to flatten the curve”, there has been a run on firearms and ammunition unseen in this nation’s history. NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) inquiries, the federal background checks used to estimate firearms sales, have broken records for months with no signs of letting up.

But there’s something different about this spike vs. previous ones. Most of the time firearm purchases increase after a horrific event and there is fear of political knee-jerk reaction laws to limit access to firearms and ammo. The fears are of course well-founded as gun control extremists and their political allies realize they can cram through otherwise unobtainable laws under the mantra of “never let a crisis go to waste”, even if it means politicizing the victims while they are still bleeding and acting before the cause is actually known.

This spike has been different. With COVID-19 national shutdown of the economy, convicts being released en masse into the community, law enforcement services being curtailed, daily riots and destruction around the country and random, unchecked violence everywhere, people are genuinely and rightfully concerned for their safety and the safety of their families. In many places, the fear of not being able to get a law enforcement response for hours, if at all, to a plea for help in a crisis has many who have never before owned firearms flocking to gun stores.

I’ve seen estimates around the country of anywhere between 40% to 70% of purchasers are new to firearms. They come from all walks of life, races, ages, religions and political affiliation. Far more than the normal amount are women. Many of these new purchasers also have no idea what it really takes to purchase a firearm leading to a host of amusing, yet very sad, stories from around the country.

So, what does this mean politically? Do all of these new firearm owners mean a sweep for Republican or anti-gun control Democrat candidates? No. It means absolutely nothing. And, that’s okay.

Purchasing or owning a firearm has very little to do with political party affiliation. During my time in the firearms industry, managing a firearm retailer, gunsmithing and operating a small private shooting club and range, I’ve met firearms owners from every point on the political spectrum from off the scale left to the hardest of hard-core right. Just because you own firearms, doesn’t mean you don’t support gun control. I’ve met people you would think to be anti-gun control such as law enforcement, ex-military, a gun range operator and even the owner of a firearm manufacturer who are very pro-gun control. At the same time, one of the biggest anti-gun control advocate I know is a Democrat.

Modern political party affiliation, especially in urban areas, generally means you have bought onto the full party platform. For Democrats, that means you support gun control. For a politician, if you don’t support the party platform, you’ll very quickly find your Party support and money gone and a new Party supported Democrat running against you. In rural areas, where there is less focus on the national party platform, politicians from both the major parties are more reflective of their constituents.

The other thing to remember is very rarely does the citizenry directly vote on gun control measures. There are exceptions, but for the most part we vote for representatives, who then vote for or against gun control. As we’ve seen, many politicians run on a very strong anti-gun platform, at least during the normal campaign season. Then, in the final run up to the elections, gun control is purposefully faded to the background so as not to discourage those who may hold strong firearm rights views. Sadly, as the State of Virginia found out, once elected, gun control becomes the primary focus with politicians claiming their victory is a mandate for gun control.

What this all boils down to is firearm purchases are going to mean very little, if anything at all, to the elections. People are going to vote for the party or person they feel best represents their values. Gun rights and gun control is a part of that, but it is very unlikely to switch someone from a blue to red vote.

My take on this is that’s okay. While I wish more people would place the Second Amendment and firearm rights higher up on their priorities, it is not a requirement for firearm ownership. Second Amendment protected rights apply to EVERYONE equally, no matter their political party affiliation, just as it should be. People owning and using firearms makes them and their families safer, just as it should be.

So what do we do? We welcome new firearm owners into the community. We help them with training, places to shoot, competition, hunting, sports and self-defense information. We invite them into our clubs and associations so they can be the best and safest firearm owners they can be. If we can also help them to see how important their Second Amendment protected rights are at the same time, then maybe sometime, someday, somewhere, they’ll bump that a little higher up on their priorities. In the meantime, we simply welcome them.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #FirstAmendment, #SecondAmendment, #GunVote, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Riot, #Politics, #Police, #Justice, #AllLivesMatter, #BackTheBlue, #GunControlFails, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com