Author: Bob

Hope From The Supreme Court?

You’ve probably heard the United States Supreme Court has finally decided to hear a Second Amendment case after refusing to do so in the 11 years since Heller and McDonald. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York case involves a unique to the nation law severely limiting the ability of New York City residents to transport firearms outside their homes. While 2A advocates around the country are hoping this will be THE case to finally break the gun control zealots back, there is an equally good chance it will not. 

The case is about a New York City law called a “premises license”. With it, the very few New Yorkers who are lucky enough to get it are allowed to posses their registered firearm ONLY at their home or be transported, unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition, to one of seven NYPD approved shooting ranges within the City of New York. The firearm cannot be taken out of the city to any other range or property, even if the owner owns the other property. 

New York City used to issue a “target license” in addition to the nearly impossible to get “carry license”, issued only to retired law enforcement, celebrities and other favored persons.  However the City reported widespread abuses of the target license with licensees traveling out of state, attempting to take their firearms out of the city on airplanes and being in possession of their firearms in areas and at hours when no NYPD approved shooting ranges were open. Thus the more restrictive “premises license” scheme was put into place. 

Even the most skeptical of us can see glaring Constitutional issues with this type of licensing. Only being able to possess your legally owned and registered firearm at your residence – the single premises listed on your license – or back and forth to one of seven shooting ranges within the city is so restrictive that you would not even be able to secure your firearm elsewhere should you leave on vacation, to say nothing of sanctioned shooting events, training or lawful self defense anywhere except the one licensed premises. 

Yet, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled this law was Constitutionally valid under the McDonald precedence that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” While this is one purpose of the Second Amendment, it is not the only one. 

One of the major issues with rulings like this is the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. In this case, like most others by courts hostile to the Second Amendment, intermediate scrutiny was used as opposed to strict scrutiny. While most of us would probably agree that determining whether something is Constitutional valid is going to be the same no matter how you look at it, that’s not the way the courts see it. 

In the absolutely briefest of terms, under intermediate scrutiny, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. In this case, that guns on the streets of the city are bad and having less of them makes the city safer. As we’ve seen in any number of other Second Amendment cases, the government doesn’t even have to prove that their logic is valid, only that they are pursuing this interest. 

Strict scrutiny on the other hand requires a narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest. Most First Amendment cases are decided under strict scrutiny and very few First Amendment restricting laws have been able to pass this test. 

So where does this leave us? Well, it’s very unlikely the current Supreme Court, with two new Constitutional originalist Justices, was willing to accept this case to uphold it. To do so would essentially relegate the right to keep and bear arms to your own home. However, as with all court challenges, nothing is a sure thing. 

Many gun rights advocates are looking at this case as being the one that finally affirms the right to bear arms outside the home, just as Heller and McDonald did for firearm possession inside the home. However that may be a little bit optimistic. Supreme Court rulings are more often than not very narrowly focused, impacting only the case at hand or ones nearly identical to it. With this being a one of a kind law, even if the appeal is successful, it may not easily translate into extended Second Amendment rights elsewhere. 

Potentially the best-case scenario would be a ruling that all Second Amendment challenges be interpreted using strict scrutiny. While highly unlikely, this would signal that the Supreme Court is finally ready to consider the Second Amendment a first class right. 

While I am cautiously optimistic, it’s worth noting that even with the Heller and McDonald decisions, politically motivated activist judges around the country have been upholding Constitutionally invalid laws that fly in the face of these Supreme Court rulings for years. 

Why? Quite simply it’s a numbers game. The gun control lawmakers and 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, it would take the Supreme Court decades of hearing nothing but Second Amendment cases to reverse all the Second Amendment infringements across the nation. 

With this, I’m going to repeat what I’ve said time and time again. Getting your rights restored through the courts AFTER they have been taken away is a fool’s game. Once your rights are gone, there is no guarantee and only a fair chance AT BEST that you will ever have these rights again. The ONLY way to positively keep your rights is to stop electing the people who write and support the laws designed to strip away your rights in the first place. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #FirstAmendment, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #Heller, #Mcdonald, #NYC, #NewYorkCity #SCOTUS, #GunRights, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Eliminating Firearm Retailers

Following the lead of other gun hating / gun control states, the freshly elected Democratic Governor of Illinois has signed a new Gun Dealer Licensing law. Not content with firearms retailers already being one of the most heavily regulated industries, closely monitored by the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives), the new governor has created a licensing scheme guaranteed to do one thing and one thing only, eliminate firearm retailers in the State of Illinois. 

The purported intent of this law is to enhance “responsible business practices” and uses as justification that the ATF is far too busy to keep a close enough eye on Illinois’s approximately 2400 Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs). It also claims the ATF lacks the authority to enforce the kind of “responsible business practices” the State of Illinois thinks should be implemented on the state’s firearm retailers. 

Among the many things the $1500 five year state license gets a firearm retailer are increased record keeping requirements including electronic inventory and sales records linked to the State, the need for increased security systems including 90 days storage of video surveillance – reviewable by law enforcement at any time, mandatory training and annual in-service training for the owner and all employees, interviews for approval from the State, the right of denial by the local law enforcement agency, specifically worded legal signage in one inch high letters, state mandated zoning limitations and of course, unannounced inspections and review of all business operations.  All additional cost and administrative burdens firearm retailers must now bear. 

Like most gun control measures, this is being sold as a “public safety” law without any proof that any of the things it requires will actually increase public safety. It all plays into the myth that firearm retailers are the cause of violent crime solely because they legally sell firearms. 

Ignored are numerous statistics proving criminals don’t buy their guns legally. Even the recent study by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has found that the vast majority of criminals armed with firearms obtained their guns from a place other than a gun shop or gun show.  The evidence revealed that only 1.3 percent of prisoners who committed crimes with firearms had obtained them through a retail sale.

The Illinois State Rifle Association and the National Rifle Association have called this unprecedented and have promised a lawsuit.  Unfortunately, it’s a little too little, a little too late.  The precedent has already been set by other states. 

For those of us who work in the firearms industry in California, this is old news. The State has long since licensed firearm retailers and by implementing its electronic DROS (Dealer Record of Sale) system has registered the buyer, seller and firearm information of every transaction for years.  

But wait, there’s more!! The Illinois Gun Dealer Licensing law specifically calls out that there is nothing that prevents local jurisdictions from implementing further restrictions and regulations. Again, this is nothing new to those of us in California. 

Local anti-gun cities have been enacting their own firearm retailer licensing schemes, each with redundant or additional security, record keeping and inspection requirements. All of which require local political approval and additional costs. The justification being used is that the ATF and the State licensing agencies are far too busy to keep an eye on all the FFLs in the area. 

But that’s not all!! The latest trend in the most progressive anti-gun municipalities – my hometown included – is to funnel any new firearm retailers through the local Conditional Use Permit process, a politically based ‘feel good’ process that has no clear definitions of what is needed to be approved and can be denied just because the local NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) crowd doesn’t want a new gun store in town. 

All of this has one purpose and one purpose only. By making it so costly, so complex and so easy to make an administrative mistake in the myriad regulations from so many licensing authorities that firearms retailers will simply be run out of business. 

The City of San Francisco, CA is held up as a model city when it comes to firearm dealers. Its comprehensive package of ordinances, designed to “ensure that local firearms dealers utilize common sense and responsible business practices”, has had the exact impact intended – the last firearm retailer in the city closed in 2015. 

The San Francisco supervisor who wrote the ordinance that finally drove the store to close had this to say: “From my perspective, if the last gun store in San Francisco wants to close its doors because of my legislation, so be it,” he said. “This store sold over 1,000 guns each year. I would much rather have a preschool or coffee store in the neighborhood than a gun shop.”

So there you have it; firearm retailers are being driven out of business one by one, state by state, community by community. Does this impact your Second Amendment rights? So far the courts have said no since you have other buying options in other communities. But what happens when they are gone too? What happens when your entire state has been purged of firearm retailers and the law says you can’t buy firearms out of state? 

If you think it can’t happen, look to our neighbors to the south. Mexico has one, and only one legal firearm retailer. The Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales is outside Mexico City and run by the Mexican Army. Funny thing is Mexico’s Constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms. But years and years of limitations and regulations – all in the name of “public safety” have restricted firearms so heavily that almost nobody can buy one legally.  And you can see for yourself the type of “public safety” the Mexican people now enjoy. 

How “safe” do you have to feel before you help stop the erosion of your Second Amendment rights?

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #IllinoisGunControlScheme, #MexicoGunControlScheme, #FirearmRetailers, #GunStores, #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

A World Without Guns

While discussing the ever-increasing nonsensical gun laws with a close friend, we deliberated what would happen if the gun control elitists were granted their ultimate wish, to have all of the guns in the world just go away.  And while there are some pros and cons to such a question, it’s also clear the one group who would never let it happen is the same group openly advocating for it, the gun control elitists.

For a moment, let’s just imagine it was possible for all of the guns in the world to just go away. With the push of a button, each and every gun around the world immediately and permanently disappears. Guns in the hands of civilians, criminals, security guards, police, federal agents, bodyguards and the military all vanish.  The world is now free from guns. How would you feel about that?

For me, there are two answers. First off, the elimination of all guns would put everyone on a level playing field. Nobody would have a force advance over anyone else. The ability to impose your will upon someone else would revert back to close quarters impact, cutting or personal weapons.  Physical ability or superior numbers would determine dominance or the ability to resist it. In other words, that playing field isn’t as level as we might think.

And that leads to answer two. Removing all guns would mean anyone weaker or less physically capable would be even more defenseless.  Firearms allow anyone to be able to protect themselves from others of who are bigger, stronger, more physically capable or from multiple adversaries.  Naturally, the wealthy elite would still be able to build barriers and hire small armies to keep themselves safe. But removing all firearms would mean smaller individuals, or those who are older or have physical limitations, or less well off would be at a huge disadvantage attempting to defend themselves.

There was an old Western saying that “God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal”. It is no less true today than it was then. A firearm evens the force playing field in a way that no other defensive weapon can. Yes, in an completely unarmed world, there are options but all require a lifelong commitment to physical fitness and ability.

Of course, there are also many reasons why making all guns go away wouldn’t work. To begin with, the genie is already out of the bottle on how to make firearms. Someone with little mechanical ability can easily fashion a crude firearm from common components at Home Depot in an hour.  Someone with machining skills can create just about any modern firearm from raw metal.

Again, let’s imagine that at the same time you rid the world of guns you also wiped out the information and knowledge of how to build them. (Hey, you magically got rid of all guns, so is wiping everyone’s mind too much of a stretch?). You now have a clean slate to work with.  So how long do you think it would take for someone to come up with the novel idea to push a projectile with gunpowder?

But the biggest reason why even if that magic button existed that would rid the world of guns once and for all, it would never be pushed; the gun control elitists would never allow it. They realize that not only do they need their guns to protect themselves; they need them to effectively maintain control over you.  When these people talk about getting rid of guns, they are talking about getting rid of YOUR guns, not theirs.

History provides many horrific examples of what happens when a population is disarmed. Unable to defend themselves, they are easily exterminated if they do not submit to the will of their armed dictators. Venezuela is a current example of this playing out with a population unable to speak out against the abuses of the brutal totalitarian government.

Mexico is another current example of runaway gun control. So restrictive are the laws that very few Mexican citizens are able to gain the necessary permits to acquire a firearm for self-defense from the one gun store in the entire country, run by the military. Even fewer are able to use them to defend their lives, families and businesses from a unchecked criminal population with the very best weapons money can buy. All while the citizens are safely disarmed for their convenience.

There is also the one flaw with making all guns go away that nobody wants to admit. While you might eliminate ‘gun violence’, you are not going to eliminate violence. Remove one tool and another one will be used. The United Kingdom for all its claims of success against guns has seen historic rises in violent crime and victimization. Of course, the UK still has an incredible and growing illegal gun problem, but they now are imposing Knife Control laws to deal with the next category of weapons.

What has the UK not dealt with? Victims who are unable to defend themselves against criminals who continue to use illegal firearms and knives to commit their crimes – just as they always have.

Firearms are used by everyday people around our country at a rate of 3:1 over felonious uses, to the tune of approximately three million per year.  In most of these incidents, the firearm isn’t even fired. Imagine that… Just demonstrating the ability to be able to adequately defend yourself against a criminal is enough to stop the crime in its tracks.

So when someone says they think all guns should go away, remind them that there is far more good firearm use than there is bad and that if they think the world is a scary and violent place now, imagine what it would be without the ability to defend yourself against a larger, stronger or multiple criminals.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #AWorldWithoutGuns, #SelfDefense, #ColtMadeThemEqual,#mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Refilling The Swamp – The 116th Congress

Today is a special edition of Odd Stuffing in honor of the One Hundred Sixteenth United States Congress, which includes the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It begins today and runs through January 3, 2021. With a new Democratic House majority and an expanded Republican Senate majority, we can expect our elected officials to do what they are the very best at – JACK SH!T!

Keep in mind this has less to do with what political party controls the House or Senate – or both – it has more to do with the goals, ambitions and willingness of the individual politicians who make up the parties to work together and with the Administrative branch. Both parties have made it abundantly clear they have no intention of doing anything bipartisan or in partnership with the President.

Separately, each party has displayed nothing but contempt for anyone other than themselves. The Republican Party, despite holding a majority in the House, Senate and having a Republican President hasn’t been able to get out of its own way for the past two years. Yes, they were able to confirm two new Associate Supreme Court justices, but look at what a fiasco those hearings were. The second one, instead of being a relatively clear process, was held up as much by individual members of the Republican Party as it was by the Democrats. Each one had to make sure the spotlight was on them instead of the job at hand.

So instead of being able to pass critical government reforms, the party in charge of both chambers clashed amongst themselves and with the Administration. No healthcare repeal and replace. No immigration reform. No border security. Of significance to those of us in the Second Amendment community; no Hearing Protection Act or National Concealed Carry reciprocity.  And we have a partial government shutdown since nobody wants to take a stand for national security.

The Democratic Party for their part has had just one agenda item for the past two years – resist. Anything put out by the Administration or the Republican Party was opposed, even if it was something they previously campaigned, championed and sponsored legislation for themselves. Instead of finding common ground, if it came from the White House or the other side of the aisle, it was wrong. Facts didn’t matter, lives didn’t matter, just being able to stand up and say “I RESISTED” mattered.

Sadly, what we’ve seen the last two years has been the fully entrenched Washington DC establishment, lifelong politicians and career bureaucrats, who have been more interested in protecting the status quo against an outsider than working for the benefit of their constituents. This is the swamp.

So who is responsible for allowing this to happen?  Guess what, it’s our own damn fault. You, me and every other citizen of this country who has allowed our government to become so completely unaccountable to us.

Where were we when our elected officials started passing laws that governed our behavior, which they were exempt from? Where were we when they set up special privileges for congressional members only, that we are not entitled to? Where were we when they voted for ever increasing pay, benefits and perks while voting against increased pay, benefit and perks for their constituents? Where were we when they set up a special process that handled sexual misconduct accusations against congressional members confidentially and paid out settlements funded by our tax dollars, for crimes we would have gone to jail for? Where were we when they violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States – in it’s entirety, not just the parts they agreed with, when we are losing our rights at an ever increasing rate?

What should we have been doing? We should have been marching to their offices with pitchforks and torches demanding they start acting on our behalf instead of their own or we toss them out and replace them with someone who will. BUT NO! We’ve been sitting on our asses letting this bastardization of our government continue unabated.

History tells us that following the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia spoke to Benjamin Franklin and asked,  “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Mr. Franklin was right to be concerned as a republic is the most difficult form of government to maintain. Despite this, our Founding fathers were well educated on the history of governments around the world and knew this would be the best for their new country. They knew we needed to be a nation of laws, from the United States Constitution down to the local level. They knew if the law didn’t apply to everyone, it applied to no one.

What can we expect for the next two years of the 116thCongress?  We can expect partisan bickering, accusations and investigations, grandstanding and backroom wheeling and dealing. We can expect both parties to claim the other is standing in the way of progress and everyone pointing the finger at the Administration. We can expect the 2020 Presidential hopefuls to focus on bolstering their campaigns by doing everything they can to look like THEY ALONE are the leader we have been looking for, even if it doesn’t make any sense.

In other words, we can expect exactly what the denizens of the swap have been wanting all along, a chance to puff up and get into a mudslinging smack down with the other party, all the while knowing it will all end in a stalemate.

Welcome to the 116thUnited States Congress! It’s going to be a long two years.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #FirstAmendment, #GunControlFails, #116thCongress, #RefillingTheSwamp,#mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Safety vs. Gun Control

Despite what you’ve heard, gun safety and gun control is not the same thing and the two cannot be used interchangeably.  They are in fact, completely opposite. So when you hear someone talking about ‘gun safety’, you need to step back and figure out who they are and what they are really referring to.  Simply put, one assumes you are a responsible law-abiding person; the other does not.

Gun control is pretty easy to understand. It’s the government wanting to limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase, posses and use firearms.  Sadly, the reasons they tell you don’t even matter since their intentions have nothing to do with it.  They tell you it’s about public safety and that you, your family and your community will be safer if you don’t own firearms, or certain types of firearms, ammunition and accessories, or can only have the precious few they currently approve of IF they are unloaded and locked up in your home. They tell you having less guns will mean less crime and that this is the only way for you to feel safe.

Of course there’s a big difference between ‘feeling safe’ and actually being safe. What they aren’t telling you is that all of the laws and rules they are putting into place to take away your right to purchase, posses and use firearms will do absolutely nothing to stop criminals, thugs and terrorists from getting and using their guns against you.

Instead of being able to protect yourself and your family, you are supposed to rely on your local law enforcement agency to protect you. But that too is a fallacy. As much as your local LEO may try, they can only respond AFTER you have been victimized. AFTER you have been assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered, and AFTER you or someone else manages to get to a phone to call and AFTER the police respond – somewhere in the 5 to 45 minute range, or more depending on where you are – they’ll do their best to figure out who victimized you. And that is supposed to make you feel safer.

Keep in mind the government that says public safety is best served by you not having firearms to protect yourself and your family is the very same government that is decriminalizing crime, reducing penalties for other crimes, redefining offenses like assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer; battery with serious bodily injury; solicitation to commit murder and rape/sodomy/oral copulation of an unconscious person or by use of a date rape drug as non-violent crimes so the offender can get out of prison earlier. The very same government that says eliminating bail and mandating those arrested to be released within 12 hours is fairer to ‘justice connected individuals’. And that too is supposed to make you feel safer.

Gun safety on the other hand is just what you would expect it to be, being safe with firearms.  Gun safety doesn’t say the only way you can be safe is to take away everyone’s firearms, it says the firearms you purchase, posses and use can be done safely.

If you talk to someone about gun safety – real gun safety – you’ll hear them talk about information, training and personal responsibility. You’ll learn how firearms and ammunition work. You’ll learn about how to pick up and handle firearms safely. You’ll learn about the law and what your responsibilities as a firearm owner are. You’ll learn that alcohol or drugs and firearms are never to be mixed. You’ll learn about safe storage based on the needs of you and your family.  You’ll learn about training to use firearms safely, confidently and accurately. You’ll learn about how to keep you and your family safe and ways to avoid becoming a victim. You’ll learn and live by the four basic firearms safety rules like your life and everyone else’s depends on it.

  • Treat all firearms as if they were loaded.
  • Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
  • Never place your finger on the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to fire.
  • Know your target, what is in front of it and what is beyond it.

Real gun safety isn’t a fantasy; it lives and breathes every day in every corner of this country by millions and millions of law-abiding families. All these people know that firearms can be purchased, possessed and used safely no matter if their intent is for hunting, sport, collecting or self-defense.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone talking about ‘gun safety’. Are they really talking about safety, or have they hijacked these words as a prelude to their real objective, gun control – and taking away your right to purchase, posses and use firearms.

The choice is yours – for now.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #SoftOnCriminals, #RealGunSafety, #GunControlledAmerica #RefuseToBeAVictim, #GunRights, #GunVote, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

California’s Victim Compensation Board

This week’s article is a public service announcement for all of the future victims of crime in California. The increasingly strict gun control laws eliminating the possibility of self-defense by law-abiding citizens combined with the soft on criminals focus of the state including decriminalization of many offenses, elimination of bail and early release of non-violent felons for crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer; battery with serious bodily injury; solicitation to commit murder and rape/sodomy/oral copulation of an unconscious person – your opportunity to become a victim of crime in California are better than ever.  Preparing ahead of time will get you into the long administrative line quicker when you are victimized.

Started in 1965 and evolving through several different state organizations, the current California Victims Compensation Board (CalVCB) is a three-member board of appointees whose mission is to provide financial assistance to victims of crime. There are also resources at the local and county level that may be of additional assistance or to help you complete the application to CalVCB.

There are of course limitations and caveats. The only crimes covered are: Domestic violence, child abuse, assault, sexual assault, elder abuse, molestation, homicide, robbery, hate crimes, drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter, human trafficking, stalking and online harassment. Claims must be filed within three years of the crime.

Expenses that are eligible for compensation include: Crime scene clean up, funeral and burial expenses, home or vehicle modifications for victims who became disabled, income loss, medical and dental treatment, mental health services, relocation and residential security.

It is also important to note that by law, CalVCB is the payer of last resort; reimbursement and recovery sources must be applied to all expenses first. Examples include medical insurance, disability insurance, employer benefits and civil suits.

Applications are available on the CalVCB website at: https://victims.ca.gov/publications/calvcpforms.aspx

So, why am I doing a PSA for victim compensation?  That’s easy… California is proudly taking the lead in being soft on those who break the law. In fact, in many situations, their activity is no longer considered a criminal violation.  In the situations where it is still a crime, the consequences of committing a ‘criminal’ act are so low there is no longer any reason NOT to commit the ‘crime’. Prop 47 and 57,  along with other so-called reforms, the commuting of sentences for those on death row, pardoning the crimes of illegal residents to keep them from being deported and the elimination of bail and mandated release of most of those arrested within 12 hours – all adds up to more criminals than ever being dumbed back on California streets.

If you’re thinking – I just saw the latest crime statistics from the State and my local PD/Sheriff and crime is down – well, there’s something you need to know. With the ever-changing definition of “crime” in California, it’s like comparing Apples to Oracles. Combine that with a little Common Core math, a copy of “How to Lie with Statistics” and people who want you to believe their BS, and you’ve got ‘safer feeling communities’.

If you want to know the truth, talk to your neighbors. Talk to the people who have been the victim of property and violent crime in your own city or town. Then see how that fits into the official narrative being shoveled out the back door of the Statehouse and City Hall.

It wasn’t that long ago when your local law enforcement agency partnered with the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) to offer public programs to promote safety in the home and in public. I’m not just talking about firearms; I’m talking about a range of real-life safety programs for everyone at every level.

But then… these programs promote individual self-reliance, something a victim encouraging government can’t stand. And there’s the association with firearms, something they don’t want you to have (see no individual self-reliance). As a result, very few law enforcement agencies in California still offer any programs other than registering your belongings and alarm/video systems.

Is being a victim of crime in California inevitable? For a lot of people I’m going to unfortunately say yes. Without the ability or knowledge to protect themselves, these are the people who are going blindly into the night thinking the state is doing everything possible to protect them and they “feel” safe.  For these people I recommend downloading and filling out a couple of victim compensation forms ahead of time.

And then there are the rest of us; the people who refuse to be a victim.  The people who do not believe the state is doing anything to increase our level of safety. The people who believe criminals should be punished for breaking the law. The people who believe they have a right to defend their own lives and the lives of their families with the best tools and training available to them.

Welcome to the new California, the leader in turning law-abiding citizens into law-abiding victims.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CrimePrevention, #FeelingSafer, #RefuseToBeAVictim, #NRA, #NSSF, #CalVCB, #NOTAVICTIM, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Kalifornistan vs. Gun Culture

With the election of California’s Lieutenant Governor to Governor, we enter a new era of oppressive and draconian gun control. If you think the past decades of small, incremental Second Amendment infringements was bad, the coming years are going to make what we’ve had up to now look like firearm owner’s utopia. As always, it will be built on the lie that gun control will make you safer. But as we’ve seen over and over again, it just turns law-abiding citizens into law-abiding victims. Welcome to the new Kalifornistan.

With the Lt. Governor’s elevation to the big-boy chair, he’s already planning out how he’s going to take your rights away. Freed from the pre-election moratorium on gun control comments that might have alienated firearm owning democrats or progressives, he’s already ramping up the rhetoric before being sworn in.

Here are a couple of quotes:

“The gun violence that continues to plague our nation is beyond heartbreaking — it’s a societal failure. Simply saying, “enough is enough,” is NOT enough. We must address the root causes of these devastating acts at every level of government.”

“It’s a gun culture. You can’t go to a bar or nightclub? You can’t go to church or synagogue? It’s insane is the only way to describe it. The normalization, that’s the only way I can describe it. It’s become normalized.”

Our governor-elect has promised that he “will raise the bar” on gun control when he takes over in January, and would not have vetoed the gun control legislation the current California governor has in the past.

So let’s pick apart a few of the incoming governor’s comments.  He wants to address the root causes of these devastating acts. By that I would hope he understands that violence isn’t about guns, it’s about violence. Violence has always been committed by whatever means is available and convenient. The use of a gun has never really mattered.

The gun control elitists love to herald the success of the Australian model of gun control, until you point out the homicide rate didn’t change when they took away the firearms from the law-abiding citizens or that the violent crime rate went up. If gun control is so effective, then why did London, England’s homicide rate recently surpass that of New York City, with a population 500,000 larger than ‘firearm free’ London?

Perhaps the fact that all the gun control laws only target the law-abiding citizenry would help explain these inconvenient truths. Or perhaps in California, it’s the effects of Prop 47, 57 and other soft on criminal laws. There are laws that reduce or eliminate the penalties for crimes – or actions formerly known as crimes. Perhaps it’s reclassifying such crimes as assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer; battery with serious bodily injury; solicitation to commit murder and rape/sodomy/oral copulation of an unconscious person or by use of a date rape drug as non-violent crimes.

Our governor-elect has chosen to villainize “gun culture” as the cause of death in public places. It’s never the criminal, the person who carried out the crime; it’s always the culture of guns that is to blame. It’s too bad he doesn’t know anything about gun culture.

The gun culture I know about, the gun culture I am part of, realizes the incredible responsibility that comes along with the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. The law-abiding citizens who keep and bear arms do so to prevent violence, not to inflict it upon others.  The law-abiding citizens I know use lawfully owned firearms to prevent and stop crimes at a rate of three times more than firearms are used feloniously in this country, to the tune of 2.5 to 3 million times per year. Considering 98% of all mass shootings in the United States since 1950 have occurred in gun free zones, maybe we should be encouraging MORE gun culture, instead of less.

Here’s the depressing reality of violence. There are no set of laws that will ever prevent someone from attempting to violently subject their will on someone else. Telling the unarmed masses they will ‘feel safer’ because the law-abiding are disarmed is an absolute lie. Criminals can obtain whatever weaponry they want, they always have and they always will.

Please take special note of the word “attempting” in the last paragraph. While there is nothing that will stop an attempt, there is something that will stop the act; having a law-abiding citizen there who is armed and willing to defend his or her own life.  As Wayne LaPierre so bluntly put it, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

Gun culture isn’t to blame for violence, but our politicians won’t come out of their firearm protected bubbles long enough to realize that. They want to keep the real safety and control all for themselves, while allowing the unarmed masses to simply ‘feel safe’; right up until they become victims.

Hold on tight law-abiding Kalifornistan firearm owners. It’s going to be a rough road ahead.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControFails, #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #EndGunFreeZones, #GunCulture, #GoodGunWithAGun, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

If It Bleeds, It Leads

First used as the mantra for news programming in the early 1980’s, “if it bleeds, it leads” has become the standard for network, print and social media news.  News after all is a big and prosperous business and the more attention given to the gore, the more viewers will tune in. It’s no wonder that the myth of the United States being the only country in the world to have mass shootings has been so easy to perpetrate. Of course, it is completely false and doesn’t tell the reality of firearm usage.

It’s easy to see why media outlets run 24/7 coverage of every shooting story they can get their hands on. By running these stories first and often, they set up the perception that this is what commonly occurs in our country. Then the gun control elitists come along and say how this only happens in our country and that the only way to make it stop is to implement their “common sense gun safety” laws.  The horrible, gruesome problem and the sensible solution are all presented in the first few minutes of the broadcast.  What could be easier?

Sadly it’s not just the left leaning stations, papers and other news outlets that follow this formula. Even the one major news network that isn’t completely anti-gun / anti-Second Amendment sensationalizes every tragedy, giving the pathetic psychopaths the very attention and notoriety they crave. Each story of a mass shooter who is able to kill X innocent victims inspires the next shooter to kill X +1 so THEY will be the biggest and baddest killer of all times.

Given this one sided approach to the news, it’s easy to believe that mass shootings are common place and the horrible death machines the shooters use – be it semi-automatic rifles or pistols, with or without so-called “high capacity” magazines are ONLY used by psychopaths to kill large groups of people. Since the stories show there is no legitimate use for them, the only way we can be safe is to get rid of them.

Time for a reality check here.

From this nation’s 44thpresident to every well-funded and centrally coordinated “grass roots” gun control group, you hear that this doesn’t happen in other countries. They quote statistics saying the United States is the worst among a select group of countries they call “high income” or “advanced” countries. In reality, it’s just a list of countries that happen to have lower crime rates than the United States. If you look at the entire planet using the current FBI definition of mass shooting, you’ll find the United States is really 64th. Now being 64thout of 195 countries isn’t something to be especially proud of, but then you realize there are 63 other countries that have more mass shootings that the United States – and that you’re being lied to.

The other commonly perpetrated myth is that firearms in civilian hands only increase the crime rate and do nothing to prevent violence, only make it worse. Again, a lie.

In long buried CDC (Centers for Disease Control) studies, the CDC found that civilian defensive use of firearms outnumbered felonious use of firearms by a rate of 3 to 1, to the tune of 2.5 to 3 million uses per year. Note that not all of the events involved the discharge of a firearm by the civilian. Often times, the mere presenting or challenge to the criminal with a firearm was enough to stop the intended crime.  It’s also important to realize this number ONLY includes persons who were not performing defensive duties as part of their employment such as law enforcement or security services.

So what we wind up with on the evening news is only one side of the story. The horrible crime, distraught and sobbing relatives grieving for the loss of their loved one and politicians jumping at the chance to celebrate the death of innocents in order to advance their own political agenda.  Lost are the stories of courage and heroism of everyday Americans who stood up to violence with a legally owned firearm and stopped the criminal right then and there.

When is the last time you saw the network news or even your local news station do a story on how someone used a firearm for lawful defense of life?  The stories are out there, but they are damn few and far between.  With three lawful uses to every unlawful use, you’d think it would be far more common.

Why is easy to understand from the business of news point of view. A homeowner pointing a shotgun at an armed criminal who just kicked in their front door before coming face-to-face with the determined homeowner and fleeing doesn’t sell the news. No bleeding – no leading. In fact, no story at all.

What do you think would happen if people saw on the news the courageous and lawful use of firearms by normal citizens on the news every day? What would happen if people saw on the news they could effectively defend their lives and the lives of their family with a firearm? What if people saw on the news how long it really takes for law enforcement to get to them when they really need help RIGHT NOW and that they can save their own lives and the lives of their families with proper defensive use of firearms? And finally – what do you think criminals are going to think when they see on the news a community that chooses to fight back instead of allowing themselves to be victims?

Since the news is never going to show you the good side of defensive firearm use, you’re going to have to seek it out yourself. Look for the local stories around our country – and around the world – of people standing up to crime & violence and taking responsibility for their own safety. Share these stories with your friends, family and neighbors. It’s time the best-kept secret about lawful, defensive use of firearms came out.  It’s time to save someone’s life.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #SelfDefense, #LawAbidingFirearmOwner, #ifitbleedsitleads,#medialies, #guncontrollies, #savealife, #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