The Complete Failure Of Gun Control

When our nation is looking for safety, the elitist gun banning politicians always have the same answer, gun control. The problem is it never seems to be enough. No matter how much gun control they impose, there is always ‘one more law’ that will make the difference and keep people safe.  When that one inevitably fails, there is always ‘one more law’ that will do the trick. Each flawed gun control law built on all the previous failures do nothing but oppress the law-abiding, make them more vulnerable and less safe. Gun control is a complete failure. 

Whenever gun control comes up, we’re told “smart gun laws save lives” or that “Gun Free Zones don’t attract shooters, they repel them!”  Yet every time I look at the impacts of gun control laws, I see the exact opposite. 

Take a look at the most heavily gun controlled cities and states in our country. Baltimore, New York, Chicago, St Louis, Los Angeles – or most anywhere in the states they reside. The strictest, most restrictive, most draconian gun control laws in the nation are in play here. Yet, at the same time, they have the worst violence rates in the country. 

Take a look at any week in Chicago and you’ll see what can only be described as horrific body counts from “gun violence”.  And, if you think that’s bad, consider that this is just the “gun violence” numbers. Not reported here are the rest of the homicides from knives, clubs, hands and feet. Not counted are the armed robberies, aggravated assaults, rapes, burglaries or the rest of the crime so rampant in that city. Yet Chicago has among the most restrictive gun laws in the country and ZERO gun stores.  

So how do they explain this? Simple – the guns are coming from OTHER states that have less restrictive gun laws than Chicago. The current Chicago mayor, as did her predecessors, blames other states for causing Chicago’s gun violence.  The thinking is they are only as safe as the gun laws in neighboring states.  In other words, it’s not OUR fault, it’s someone else’s. We’ll just ignore the federal and state laws (in both states) that may have been broken in the process or the act of murder committed in Chicago, not the other states. 

California’s governor is also quick to blame other states for the violence in his own. After doing photo ops with young victims of violence, he also blamed the White House, the Republican Party and of course, the NRA for the violence.  It has nothing to do with his own state’s failed policies of disarming law-abiding citizens and letting violent criminals out of jail to prey upon them. It has nothing to do with ensuring more and more gun free / victim rich environments are established in the state and that less and less criminal acts will ever be prosecuted. 

The Brady United gun control group echoed the Chicago mayor’s and California governor’s blame of other states saying “California is not an island” and “they are only as strong as their neighboring states”. Perhaps all these folks need to look at actual islands and gun control to learn the truth. 

Australia and England, both islands and both with extremely strict gun control laws. Yet somehow, both continue to have severe violence  – including “gun violence” – problems.  Both continue to have new, state-of-the-art-yet-completely-illegal firearms flooding into their countries.  Go take a look at what just the City of London seizes every month and you’ll get the picture.  How is this possible??

The answer can be found in the lack of success in stemming the flow of illegal drugs. Drugs, people, merchandise – including cars, trucks and boats – are smuggled out of and into countries around the world. Do you really think smuggling firearms is going to be that difficult? 

So let’s say the gun control craze is able to take over all the neighboring states, who then will they blame? Two states over? Three states over?  Even if EVERY state gives in and the nation repeals the Second Amendment, who will they blame then when the violence doesn’t stop?  Oh I know, Mexico! Except Mexico has far stricter gun control laws than any state in this country and they have only ONE gun store in the entire country. Besides, the previous Presidential administration got Mexico to blame the US for its gun violence problem, so that’s not going to work. 

The truth is the only thing gun control laws are successful at is turning law-abiding citizens in to law-abiding victims. When you legislate away peoples rights and ability to protect themselves and their families at home and in public, while giving criminals a free pass to continue committing crimes and escalating violence with no repercussions, you are going to get exactly what you see happening – every terrorist, criminal and thug targeting your helpless residents. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

For all you elitist gun banning politicians, it’s time to stop lying to the people about gun control and just admit their safety means nothing to you. 

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GunControlLies, #GunControlExperiment, #GunControlFailure, #BlameSomeoneElse, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Sacrificing Children For Gun Control

School is officially out for the year and everyone is diving head first into their summer plans. Something we wish our lawmakers and school administrators were doing during the summer months is making school shootings a thing of the past. Instead, come the start of the next school year, all we can expect to see is a bunch of plastic “Gun Free Zone” signs protecting our children from the next active shooter. Why? To be blunt, gun control politicians are using your children as active shooter bait. They know that when children’s lives are lost, they’ll be able to advance their completely unrelated and useless gun control agenda. 

It’s not as if the gun control politicians don’t know any better. The inconvenient truths are out there. 

  • 98% of all mass shootings in the United States since 1950 have occurred in Gun Free Zones. 
  • The duration of most mass shooting incidents is less than the average law enforcement response time, and only after the incident has been reported.
  • Gun Free Zones deny law-abiding citizens their most basic Second Amendment right to bear arms while providing absolutely no protection from predatory actors.
  • Gun Free Zones provide nothing more than a false sense of security for those who enter them.

If you don’t think these politicians understand how to make an area protected and people safe, take a look at where they work. A secure perimeter where everyone has to go through weapons screening to get in. Nobody except them, select staff and their law enforcement and armed security are allowed to possess a weapon of any kind inside. They are protected and they can protect themselves. 

Contrast this to the security situation at your local school. Thanks to the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, the public isn’t allowed to carry firearms at any public, private, and parochial elementary schools and high schools, and to non-private property OR within 1000 feet of them. The Federal law allows states and localities to grant exemptions to it, but states like California – which used to allow local school districts to decide if they would allow administrators, staff and teachers to be armed – has now completely outlawed the practice. 

Even in the schools that do have law enforcement officers on duty, some school districts like Baltimore, Maryland, do not allow their sworn officers to be armed. The result is sadly predictable. Unprotected schools are targeted by psychopaths who face no opposition in carrying out their plans. 

As the offices of the politicians themselves prove, this is a correctable situation. Schools can be secured, hardened against attacks and unauthorized access restricted. Armed law enforcement and security can be deployed to stop anyone who does try to harm the students and staff. As a last line of defense, volunteer administrators, staff and teachers can be vetted, trained and armed. 

Before you jump on the “teachers are there to teach not shoot” bandwagon, consider a few things:

  • With the exception of suicides or gang violence outside of school hours, no school that allows teachers to carry has experienced a death or injury from a shooting.
  • No student has ever taken a teacher’s gun. In fact, the only accidental discharge occurred outside of school hours and resulted in minor injuries for the teacher in possession of the handgun.
  • Not all teachers are interested or qualified in being armed, and nobody is going to force them to be. 

I’d also like to point out the similarities between airline pilots and teachers. At one point in time, our Federal Air Marshal program was robust and had marshals on many flights in and around our country. Over time, as the threat of hijacking diminished, the bean counters decided they were too expensive and massively cut the program. Then 9/11 happened. Only AFTER the fact, did the Air Marshals get re-staffed and returned to the skies. At the same time, airline cockpits were hardened and the Federal Flight Deck Officer program started to train pilots to carry weapons and defend aircraft against criminal activity and terrorism. 

Why did they do this? Because they knew from history what would, and has already happen. Once the initial shock and threat has faded, the bean counters started looking at the number of arrests the Air Marshals made and decided the program could again be scaled back. What remains is the piece that the airplane can’t do without, the pilot – and the hardened planes. The very same thing will happen with armed law enforcement and security personal in schools. Once the shock and threat has faded, budgets will be cut and they will be gone, but the teachers – and the hardened schools, will remain. 

Politicians and schools know how to fix this, but they are unwilling to spend the time and money to do it. The massacre at the high school in Parkland, Florida could have been stopped before it started if not for massive incompetence by federal, state, county and local authorities. The school itself had not acted on threat assessments that could have stopped or limited the loss of life. 

Instead of taking concrete steps, or allowing the school districts themselves to take concrete, proven steps to stop the violence, the gun control politicians pre-write their tweets and speeches in preparation for the inevitable next attack on soft target schools with the most vulnerable of our population waiting to become victims. They will repeat their call for laws such as universal background checks / firearms registrations, so-called assault weapons bans and myriad other useless programs that have never done and never can do anything to stop criminal or terrorist violence – or would have stopped the incident that just occurred. The ONLY impact of these gun control laws is to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. 

If these politicians want to “do something”, they should tackle the root causes of crime like the economy, poverty, jobs and mental health in our nation. They might also want to rethink their so-called criminal justice reform efforts that release violent criminals back onto the streets with no punishment or accountability for their actions. 

If you want to keep children safe in schools, stop electing gun control politicians who are willing to sacrifice children in the name of gun control. 

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControFails, #DoSomething, #NRASchoolShield, #SacrificingChildren, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Sanctuary

The concept of sanctuary dates back thousands of years. Sanctuary was usually in the context of a religious organization providing a place of safe refuge for someone accused of some type of crime. Throughout the years, the legal significance of sanctuary within the walls of a place of worship diminished, however the concept mutated to political jurisdictions where sanctuary is granted against allegedly unjust laws. As you might expect, you can only support sanctuary for a politically correct cause, otherwise you’re just a criminal.   

Sanctuary cities in the United States got their start in San Francisco, California in 1985 with the “City of Refuge” resolution. It was followed by an ordinance prohibiting the use of city resources to assist federal immigration enforcement.  In the eyes of supporters, so-called sanctuary cities are better off when residents are not in fear of being deported. There are now more then 500 such sanctuaries across the United States.

While there is some logic to the argument, the contention that these individuals haven’t broken any laws is completely invalid. Federal immigration laws exist for many reasons. Less the Native American peoples, we are a nation of immigrants and millions upon millions have jumped through the proper legal hoops to join our nation. 

The federal government, who is responsible for the security of the nation and to oversee immigration, is obviously not supportive of these sanctuary cities. Efforts to force them to comply with federal law have been mixed. Threats of withholding federal grants and funds to sanctuary cities have been met with lawsuits and injunctions, which are still winding their way through the courts. The cities and states that support immigration sanctuary call the federal government racists, the laws unjust and say they have the moral obligation to provide refuge. 

But what happens when a jurisdiction within a sanctuary state says they do not agree and decline to be a sanctuary area? You then see the state threatening to withhold state funds and grants, or those involved face prosecution if they do not comply. If this sounds a lot like the same ‘evil tactics’ the federal government is being accused of, you’re right. The only difference is it is the state imposing its will on the cities and counties. In other words, if you support the politically correct cause, you are okay. If you don’t, you’re a criminal. 

Left wing politicians call the supporters of sanctuary cities and counties in non-sanctuary states heroes for doing what is right for their counties and say the state should stay out of the way of these localities. 

Fast forward a bit and you now have gun control zealots in charge of many state legislatures. Their so-called “common sense public safety measures” tend to trample the Second Amendment to death. But, since they do this in the name of public safety, activist/politician judges have ruled these infringements acceptable and provide the legal stamp of approval.  This has given rise to a new type of sanctuary, the Second Amendment Sanctuary City/County/State.

Second Amendment sanctuaries have adopted resolutions prohibiting the use of city, country or state resources to enforce gun control measures that violate the Second Amendment. Much in the same way immigration sanctuary cities are refusing to cooperate with laws they see as unjust, Second Amendment sanctuary areas are refusing to cooperate with laws they see as unjust. And the movement is spreading. At last count, three states and many jurisdictions within 11 more have declared themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries. 

As you might expect, the reaction within gun control states has not been favorable. Threats of withholding state funds and grants as well as prosecution for not following state laws are leveled at those responsible for declaring themselves a Second Amendment sanctuary. 

Left wing politicians call the supporters of Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties in non-Second Amendment sanctuary states rogue politicians, sheriffs and police chiefs who are out of touch with their communities and the call for the state to force them from office or prosecute them for disobeying state laws. 

A little hypocritical? You betcha! 

On one hand, you have supporters of immigration sanctuary openly defying federal immigration laws they believe are unjust. They call the efforts of the federal government to deny them federal dollars illegal and immoral. 

At the same time, and most often the very same group of people, say there is no justification for Second Amendment sanctuary against the gun control laws THEY enacted and vow to withhold state dollars, as well as threaten Second Amendment sanctuary supporters with prosecution for defying them. 

To me this boils down to a single key concept: the lack of respect for the rule of law. 

Despite what many believe, this nation is a republic, a nation of laws. If we were a pure democracy, 51% of the population could vote to take away the rights of the minority 49% and it would become the law of the land. But our republic says you have to obey certain basic rights principles – the Constitution – from which our entire system is built. Even if 99% of the population votes to take away the rights of the remaining 1%, the 1% would be protected, as the law must still pass Constitutional muster. 

The Constitution and Bill of Rights aren’t optional documents. You don’t get to pick and choose the rights and laws you like, while ignoring the ones you don’t. You don’t get to implement your own interpretation of other people’s rights just because it better fits your social agenda.  And lastly, we seem to have forgotten the concept that nobody is above the law. If the law applies to one person, it applies to every person. Yea, I’m looking at you US Congress.  

I admire people who see an injustice and want to correct it. But you don’t get to do that by making up your own laws to follow, and then punish those who do the very same thing with the laws you are unjustly imposing on them. 

Perhaps we should choose our representatives a little bit more carefully. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #RuleOfLaw, #Sanctuary, #SecondAmendmentSanctuary, #Hypocrites, #BeKindMyEditorIsOnHoliday, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Election Theater Act 1, The Lightning Rods

Much like a lightning rod on a building, political lightning rods are sacrificial elements designed to protect the main candidate from damage. Shoved out front and to the top of the candidate pool, the press, opponents and voters focus all of their energy on them, keeping the actual candidate from unwanted scrutiny and potential harm in advance of the general election. Who is the actual candidate? It’s way too early for us to have that information, but we do know whom it is not, the ones who are taking the heat right now. Election Theater Act 1 is now on stage. 

A word of 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. 

As of today, 22 Democrats are in the running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2020 elections. There are an additional 23 potential candidates who have discussed but not yet ruled out running on the Democratic ticket. With such a crowded field, it’s only possible to focus on the lightning rods. 

The lightning rods also serve another function, to throw out as many potential policy ideas as they can to see what sticks. If the ideas are well received, it becomes part of the party platform. If it crashes and burns, there’s no damage done to the candidate waiting in the wings.  After all, lightning rods are sacrificial. 

Why don’t I believe the current front-runners will be the ones on the ballot in 2020? The answer is in the voters being targeted by the DNC (Democratic National Committee) for a number of elections. The candidates they would likely support en masse are not two elderly, white male millionaires with more ugly baggage than the Kardashian’s on a weekend trip to Las Vegas. 

It all comes down to the illusion of choice. We believe all of the candidates have an equal chance to succeed and our opinions as voters are essential in the process. Instead, the pre-election campaign process is merely a smokescreen for the chosen few to determine who their favorite candidate is and what will be the winning platform issues. As we saw in the 2016 elections, and the lawsuits against the DNC by DNC’s own members, the DNC has the right to choose whomever they want, regardless of the will of the voters. 

Who is the actual Democratic candidate for President in 2020? Since the DNC hasn’t released their decision yet, we can only speculate.  I have my favorite, as I’m sure you do too. I’ve placed my first and second choices in an envelope, sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnall’s back porch to be opened following the Democratic National Convention. 

I should note that while I’ve been talking about the DNC with all this, it doesn’t mean I believe the RNC (Republican National Committee) is any different. I am firmly convinced the denizens of the D.C. swamp are so entrenched in their own little world that they will do anything to protect it and themselves.  Until we as a nation come together to kick them out, impose term limits on congress and ensure that the people who pass the laws are not exempt from them, it will continue. 

You may be wondering why is the pre-nomination process so important to a Second Amendment supporter. For me, it’s not so much the candidate as the platform they and their party are running on. In order to gain the support of the party, each candidate has proudly bought into the myth of gun control as public safety policy. Restricting your right to buy, use and carry firearms, taking your firearms from you, while doing nothing to curb criminal use of firearms against you, is what they are pushing. 

When political policy includes stripping away our Constitutional rights, I become very concerned and very involved. And I’m not just talking about Second Amendment rights, I’m also talking about the First Amendment and every other one of the rights we hold so dear. 

If you don’t think your rights and liberty are at stake, take a look at what has been happening in Venezuela. After being stripped of their arms, the people are at the mercy of a brutal and unjust government. But of course, this could never happen in a modern society like ours, right?  I’m sure that’s what the Venezuelan people believed too. 

If you value your rights, you’ll start paying very close attention to what’s going on. Not just want is being reported by the news or on social media, but all the things behind the scenes.  Get involved now and stay involved. 

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, ##FirstAmendment, #GunControlFails, #LightningRods, #PoliticalStooges, #DNC, #RNC, #DrainTheSwamp, #Election2020, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Farewell To Arms

I’m feeling a little literary today as I look at the impact of all the upcoming gun control laws.  At one point very early on in the world of gun control, there might have been a resemblance of a genuine public safety goal. While it was never the actual intent, at least they feigned the interest. Fast forward to today and it’s clear the intent is to rid our country of as many civilian owned firearms as possible, as quickly as possible.  The Second Amendment is no longer a barrier to every conceivable, irrational and nonsensical gun control scheme our gun-hating politicians can come up with.  The time to say farewell to arms is getting closer by the day. 

If you want to see how close we are to the end game, just take a look at the type of laws and ordinances being pushed around the country this year. Law makers are emboldened by support of political activist judges in the most liberal parts of the country who will rubber stamp anything that restricts law-abiding citizen’s access to firearms, ammunition and accessories. Combine this with a United States Supreme Court who hasn’t had any interest in taking Second Amendment challenges, political hacks around the country are redefining what a so-called “assault weapon” is to the point where – literally – any semiautomatic firearm, rifle or pistol, will be included. 

Of course, the latest and greatest is the attempt to make so-called “assault weapons” subject to National Firearms Act (NFA) registration. HR 1263 introduced in the US House of Representatives would include ANY semi-automatic rifle or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine. While the most obvious targets of “assault weapon” bans, the AR or AK pattern firearms would be included, it would also include firearms such as the vintage M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, the Remington 742 hunting rifle and Ruger 10/22, a .22 caliber plinking and varmint hunting rifle. Caliber or magazine capacity wouldn’t matter, only the fact that the firearm accepts a detachable magazine. NFA registration would bring with it all the same restrictions and fees, including the $200 tax stamp PER firearm now only associated with items such as fully automatic firearms and suppressors. 

But of course, that won’t be the end of it. The follow-up law being pushed by the behind the scenes architects would “Ban the future manufacture and sale of assault weapons to reduce the easy availability of such weapons to civilians.” Patterned after the 1986 ban on new fully automatic firearms, it would put a hard cap on the number of so-called “assault weapons” available in the country. A bill for this has yet to be introduced, and likely won’t be introduced until the NFA Assault Weapons bill is passed.  After all, it’s difficult to convince the people, and those all-important swing votes in Congress, that you’re not after an all out ban when you show all your cards at once. 

If you’re thinking the US Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald rulings are going to protect your Second Amendment rights, you are sadly mistaken. Gun control states like California, Washington, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois and Vermont – along with a long list of municipalities contained therein, have been thumbing their nose at Heller & McDonald since before the ink was dry on the rulings. The reason they can is quite simply, who is going to stop them? 

The gun control lawmakers and their political activist judges know the US Supreme Court only hears arguments on about 80 cases per year, and decides about 50 more without oral arguments. This is out of the roughly 7000 requests to hear cases per year. And that 7000 represents the best of the best cases with the highest likelihood of success before the court, thus worthy of the time, money and effort needed to litigate them. Knowing this, the chances of any particular gun control law getting overturned, to say nothing of setting a national legal precedence, are slim to never. 

So where does this leave your Second Amendment rights? Without an incredibly strong and wide reaching intervention by the US Supreme Court, something they are NOT known for, your rights are going to continue to erode away to nothing. What was legal last year is going to be illegal this year. What you used to be able to freely own will need to be registered or outright banned. What is registered today will be banned tomorrow. 

Today’s article was inspired by a section of George Orwell’s book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the book, Newspeak was the controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought, personal identity, self-expression and free will. It was under constant revision to eliminate terms, and thus any resemblance of resistance to the ruling party. 

‘The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition. We’re getting the language into its final shape — the shape it’s going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we’ve finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We’re destroying words — scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won’t contain a single word that will become obsolete before the year 2050.’

All you need to do is substitute ‘guns’ for ‘word’ and you can see where our laws are headed. In our real life edition of banning the civilian ownership of guns, I don’t see it taking until the year 2050 to happen. However, I can envision the 11thEdition of California Gun Laws looking something like the photo with this article. 

Unless…

Each and every person in this nation who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, whether or not they own firearms, gets up off their ass and says NO MORE! Systematically eroding our rights for the enrichment of the ruling class and their concept of an ideal society is what lead our nation to be formed in the first place. Why would we want to allow that to happen again? 

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #AFarewellToArms, #1984, #Newspeak, #NOMORE, #NRA, #CRPA, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Guns Cause Violence!!

A preposterous claim, isn’t it? To think an inanimate object causes violence is ludicrous. Yet that is the base concept behind the current fad of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Also known by such names as Extreme Violence Protection Orders or Gun Violence Protection Orders, these trendy new laws claim to be the solution to violence by separating owners from their firearms based solely on the word of a family member. Deemed “legal” since it involves a judge stripping you of your Constitutional rights, nothing could be further from the truth. 

I’ve written about these mockeries of justice before, but I’d like to point out something people continue to be missing.  Primarily, that removing firearms from someone does absolutely nothing to prevent violence or increase public safety.  

The intent of these gun grabs is to prevent someone from harming themselves or others. Thanks to these new laws, a family member may petition to have another family member’s firearms, magazines and ammunition confiscated. This secret, ex-parte hearing – which in some places may now be done over the phone with the judge – without the firearm owner’s knowledge or attendance, orders the police to immediate confiscate the firearms. From the point of view of the state, problem solved. 

In reality, it solves absolutely nothing. In the case of a potentially suicidal person, the order only removes firearms and accessories, not any other potential method of suicide. Drugs, poisons, knives, ropes, cars, high buildings, bridges and busy highways are all still within reach.  In the case of a potentially homicidal person, every other method of killing is still available to them – cars, bombs, poison, fire, knives, clubs, hands & feet… you name it, it probably can and has been used as a weapon.  

In other words, what hasn’t been addressed is the PERSON. It’s not the gun that is potentially dangerous; it’s the person.  These orders remove one and only one possible weapon from a person’s control. It does NOTHING to prevent this person from acquiring or using any other type of weapon. It does NOTHING to restrict this person from doing ANYTHING. 

The legal standard to initiate firearm confiscations under these so-called Red Flag laws is set purposefully low. It can be as simple as conversation between two people where one hears what they think is someone contemplating suicide or violence towards others. 

The person accused, the one who had their firearms confiscated now has the burden of proof to show they are innocent and not a threat to others. Legal costs, time and wages lost from work, mental health evaluations, costs related to the return of their property – if the law enforcement agency will even return it after a legal order to do so – are all born by the person accused, even if accused unjustly. The legal recourse for being falsely accused is of course up to the very same people who are advocating for the removal of your firearms in the first place. 

Why should it be easy to strip away someone else’s constitutionally protected rights? Why should anyone have such a low burden of proof to strip you of your Second Amendment rights in secret? Why should the person accused then be responsible for proving their innocence to avoid permanent infringement of their rights? Why should they be financially responsible for the costs incurred by someone else’s accusations? 

The reason why is simple. The Second Amendment is considered a second-class right, not entitled to full protection under the law. 

What is a first-class right? A CNN reporter having his White House press pass revoked for pushing an intern’s arm away. A federal judge ruled the White House’s decision to boot the reporter had violated the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process in government actions.  Or a Broward County Election supervisor being suspended for incompetence. Another federal judge ruled the former Florida Governor violated the election official’s constitutional due-process rights when he suspended and “vilified” her without first allowing her to make her own case. 

Yet stripping away your Second Amendment rights, entering your home or businesses and removing your property – by force if necessary – based on hearsay evidence alone in a secret ex-parte hearing is perfectly acceptable. 

Supporters of these confiscations will point to the fact that a judge must grant these orders to provide adequate protection are therefore “legal”. Yet we’ve already seen abuse. Recently in my former home state of Vermont, police learned of an overheard conversation about a planned school shooting with specific time and date details. One of the two youths involved – neither of which had firearms of his own – claimed he could get access to firearms from where they were locked up at the home of a non-involved relative.  The police were able to get an order under Vermont’s new Extreme Risk Protection Order law to confiscate the relative’s firearms. 

Even under Vermont’s very broad law, this overreach was illegal. Yet instead of the judge being removed from the bench and disbarred, the police officer fired and decertified and both of them charged with violating the Constitutional rights of someone who had nothing to do with this alleged planned incident, it is being hailed as a success and shining example of greatness of the new law. 

States and counties are all so proud to report on how many times they have used these so-called Red Flag laws to confiscate someone’s firearm. What they have yet to report is how many were reversed and the person’s property ordered returned during the person’s first hearing. 

Nobody seems to be concerned with the number of reversals or with how much it has cost the individuals involved to retrieve their property and clear their name. Nobody seems to be concerned with false statements made by vindictive or simply misinformed relatives. 

Taking someone into physical police custody, denying them of their freedom, requires probable cause. Why shouldn’t this same level of proof be required when stripping someone of his or her Constitutional rights?  Why have we allowed these so called “Red Flag” laws to proliferate when they do absolutely nothing to address public safety? And finally, what are you doing to put an end to these violations of your rights? 

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #RedFlag #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #GunGrab, #GVPO, #GVPO #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Government Failures = More Gun Control

When you look at the history of gun control in this country, you’ll find a rather disturbing pattern. While the gun control elitists tell you there is an urgent need for more gun control laws due to the ‘violent gun culture’ in this country, the truth is it is the government’s own failures that have allowed many of these acts to be committed.  And what is the only answer to these government gun control law failures? More government gun control!

It doesn’t take very long to find examples of where the government hasn’t done their job to make this point. The horrific tragedy in Parkland, Florida is one of the most graphic examples. Prior to the gunman’s acts, he posted videos – in his own name – foretelling his actions. Twice these were reported to federal authorities where no action was taken.

The Sheriff of the Broward / Coward County Sheriff’s Department was one of the loudest voices calling for the head of the FBI to resign or be fired because the FBI did not act. This continued right up until the point where everyone found out the Sheriff’s own department had dozens of calls with this same suspect, many with ample legal justification to intervene, remove weapons and prevent him from obtaining more. Of course, the Sheriff’s own deputies on scene refused to enter the building where students were being killed and prevented other rescue teams from entering.

Add to this, the school’s own policy of not disciplining students or calling in law enforcement, ignoring the safety assessment done prior to the shooting, the school’s guards seeing the shooter entering the building and doing nothing. County mental health evaluations also had opportunities to intervene, and did not.

What was the result of all this? New laws to eliminate the Second Amendment rights of millions of law abiding 18, 19 & 20 year olds around the country. New laws to outlaw so-called high capacity magazines – even though the Parkland shooter only used 10 round magazines. New gun violence restraining order laws where Second Amendment rights can be removed ex parte solely on the word of a relative or others.

Recall as well the origin of gun violence restraining orders or so-called red flag laws were the result of the completely bungled response of multiple law enforcement agencies to the 2014 Isla Vista (Santa Barbara) suspect prior to him killing six people, three by stabbing and three by shooting. While the gun control fanatics claim only the new gun violence restraining order law could have prevented this tragedy, they ignore the very same information the law enforcement agencies ignored, which could also have stopped it.

Look also at the Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooter who purchased his firearms AFTER being dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force for two counts of domestic violence, among other charges. Since the government never sent his convictions to the federal database used nationwide for firearms background checks, the shooter was able to “legally” purchase the firearm he used to kill.

The proposed solutions? Universal background checks and so-called “assault weapon” bans. Pay no attention to the fact it was a civilian with a so-called “assault weapon” that stopped this killer.

So who is to blame? According to the promoters of ever increasing gun control laws, you are!  You and every other law-abiding citizen who legally owns a firearm, who have never committed a crime and never will, are the problem.  It certainly was NOT the government agencies whose responsibility it is to enforce the laws, rules and regulations we already have and provide public safety to an ever increasingly disarmed and victimized populace.

The harsh reality is the government has never been able to protect any individual’s safety, and never will be able to. Unless you are one of the economic elite who can afford your own ARMED personal protection or are high enough in local, state or federal government to have your personal security detail provided for by the taxpayers, you get the same spread way too thin resources who will respond to your cries for help in 5 minutes to one hour depending on where you are at the time.

For most of us, this means your safety, and the safety of your family is YOUR responsibility. But if you live in an area where you need “good cause” to be able to carry a firearm for protection and are not a family member or close personal friend of the issuing authority, I can already tell you what the answer is going to be – you don’t have “good cause”.  In other words, your issuing authority not only can’t protect you, they won’t let you protect yourself. How’s that for a slap of reality?

Welcome to gun controlled America!

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GovernmentFailures, #GunControlLaws, #GunControlledAmerica #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com