archives

history

This tag is associated with 509 posts

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense

(from NRA-ILA)

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense

 

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense
It is refreshing to finally see some common sense coming out of a court in NJ, as the state is notoriously known for its illogical and Draconian gun laws that do little more than make felons out of law-abiding gun owners.

MORE

Advertisements

The Large Magazine Debate: How Much is Too Much?

The debate on restricting the sale of gun magazines that hold more than ten cartridges has been going on since the first mass shooting. The fact that the magazines have been available to the public for many years prior brings the question of “Why worry about it now?”

Neither conservatives nor liberals can deny that the 2nd Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own firearms. The question is, “how much is too much?”

There’s no real answer due to the fact that limiting one aspect of the 2nd Amendment can cause other aspects to be limited as well.

Mass Shootings

Almost every mass shooter in history has used large magazines and semi-automatic weapons in their attacks on unsuspecting citizens. While many claim that reducing the number of rounds they can fire in a second or two would save lives, others can also claim that if teachers were allowed to be armed it wouldn’t matter how many rounds the shooters had available.

Is the Size of the Magazine Really That Important?

The main debate revolves limiting magazines that carry ten rounds or more. Legislators seem to miss the fact that it’s the person that pulls the trigger, not the weapon. If the person is intent on harming others, they will find a way to do it whether they have a ten round clip or a 100-round magazine.

The debate will continue to go on as long as there are people in society who have different points of view. The answer may be in the opposite direction, however. Instead of limiting the rights of the people who can use weapons effectively, let’s keep the weapons and their accessories out of the hands of those who misuse them.

~ Firearm Daily

While I don’t thing this was written by a knowledgeable firearm owner, it does make some points for conversation.

As for my .02, I strongly believe in the nose-under the tent,  If we allow magazine size, then it’s number of magazine carried, or total rounds carried.  Or weight of weapons.  Or permissible calibers…

This is not about GUN CONTROL.

It’s about CONTROL!

 

What State Law?

( from NRA-ILA)

 

This week (September 8), the city of Tucson, Arizona agreed to repeal their firearm destruction ordinance. This decision came in response to the recent state Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city’s firearm destruction policy as a violation of state law that prohibits local governments from regulating the ownership, licensing, or use of firearms.
The city of Tucson ignored this Arizona state law 12 years ago when the Tucson city council passed an ordinance allowing for the destruction of firearms. Last month, the state Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as violation of state law, and in its ruling specifically acknowledged the NRA’s amicus filing by adopting its argument “that preserving the right to bear arms under the federal and state constitutions is also a subject of state concern.”
“We applaud the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Firearms should not be summarily destroyed by local governments.”
Chris Cox issued a statement thanking the Arizona Attorney General for his efforts in assisting Arizona’s law-abiding gun owners.
“On behalf of the NRA’s five-million members, I want to thank Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for his defense of Arizona’s firearm preemption law,” concluded Cox. “This decision sets an important precedent to protect Arizonans’ firearms freedoms from future infringement by local ordinances.”

About time!

It’s That Day Again

September 11.  The Sixteenth anniversary of the attack on American soil by segmented tribal forces of the Islamic right.

Have we ‘won’?  Hell no!

Yes, we got Bin Laden.  But the attacks now continue, internationally.

Including home-grown terrorists, here.

What are the choices?  To give up and eventually be assimilated (or killed) by radical Islam?

Or continue to fight the good fight?

I choose the latter.  And I’m medically retired and 64.  But I still have some fight left in me.

Today, I will take a moment to remember the innocents who died in the Twin Towers (including those who worked for

TMCCC, my former employer, and all the first responders)

And just remember…

My Credit Onion Sent Me This!

CREDIT

(I must assume it applies to other financial institutions, as well!)

ACH PAYMENTS ARE CHANGING

Dear Guffaw,

Beginning September 15th, 2017, the Federal Reserve will start processing most ACH debits (also known as electronic payments) on the same day that the transactions are made. This means that some of your payments could come out of your account faster than they have in the past.

To avoid overdraft charges or insufficient fund fees, please ensure that your available account balance is enough to pay any debits or withdrawals at the time you write or authorize them.

3 TIPS TO BE PREPARED

1 Plan for immediate transactions: Whenever you pay for something, the best practice is to expect that your transactions will be processed the same day.

2 Know your balances: It makes good financial sense to make sure that your balances can support your spending. Keep on top of them with online banking or with the (Credit Onion) app for Apple or Android!

3 Be aware of different kinds of ACH debits: ACH debits can also be things like writing paper checks to grocery stores or using debit cards from retailers, such as Target or Nordstrom.

For those of you out there of limited means who ‘use the float’, as they said in check kiting days of yore!

(Not that I’ve ever done that!  😉  )

Washington D.C. Reaffirms its Rejection of Right-to-Carry

(from NRA-ILA, in part)

In an unsurprising turn, officials in the District of Columbia have decided to continue to defend their near total ban on the right to bear arms.  On Thursday (published August 25), D.C. filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the combined cases of Grace v. D.C. and Wrenn v. D.C.  As we reported last month, the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s restrictive handgun permitting law that required applicants to show a “good” or “proper” reason for needing to carry a concealed handgun.  Under this system, D.C. officials have denied all but a few applicants their right to carry a firearm for personal protection.
Georgia Law Enforcement Looking Into Gun Turn-in Operation

 

Governor in U.S. Virgin Islands Orders Gun & Ammo Confiscation

(from Liberty Headlines)

(WND) A hurricane is on the way, and preparations always include boarding up windows, stocking up on food, water and batteries, and sometimes fleeing inland.
A governor in one U.S. territory, however, has another plan: Grab all the guns.
According to the Daily Caller, the governor of the Virgin Islands, a U.S. territory, has signed an order to that effect.

The order explains that Gov. Kenneth E. Mapp authorized the territory’s adjutant general “to mobilize such units of the National Guard as are necessary to maintain or restore public order, and to guarantee the safety of life and property,” as Hurricane Irma approaches from the Atlantic.

The adjutant general, he said, “is authorized and directed to seize arms, ammunition, explosives, incendiary material and any other property that may be required by the military forces for the performance of this emergency mission, in accordance with the Rules of Force promulgated by the Virgin Islands National Guard and approved by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice.”

Irma was reported on Tuesday to be a Category 5 hurricane, with winds up to 175 miles her hour, and the eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the islands on Wednesday.
The Daily Caller said Mapp signed the order Monday.
He warned, “This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane.

“It’s not time to get on a surfboard,” he continued.

The gun seizure order technically also allows authorities to take control of “any other property.”

Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselo and Florida Gov. Rick Scott also declared states of emergencies in anticipation of Irma. But they did not include the gun confiscation authorization.

Mapp wrote that the order was issued under authority of Title 23, Chapter 19, Virgin Islands Code, and insisted it is necessary “to maintain the health, welfare, and safety of the people of the Virgin Islands.”

The adjutant general is given the right to “take whatever actions she considers necessary to carry out the assigned missions.”

The order provides for “payment for salaries, benefits, health insurance, worker’s compensation, necessary meals, fuel and other operational and administrative costs.”

But there was no mention of compensation to gun owners.

DON’T THESE CLOWNS REMEMBER KATRINA AND THE RESULT OF ILLEGAL GUN CONFISCATION THERE?

Oregon Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law

(from americangunnews.com)

A new Oregon gun control law was recently passed by the governor in an attempt to establish Extreme Risk Protection orders. The governor, who signed the bill with no comment remarked previously that the new law was the, “best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.”
Unfortunately, the law is a far cry from being protective of individual gun owners’ rights as it allows police to confiscate a valid owner’s firearm without providing them with their day in court before the confiscation occurs. While those affected by the law would have a right to be heard in court, the owner would not be able to appeal their rights in court until after they have been revoked.
In essence, the law is multi-faceted allowing police officers to confiscate a gun owner’s weapon if the police, a family member, or close friend reports that they pose a risk to themselves or others. Once the order is established by the court, the individual will be prevented from buying firearms or ammunition for the duration of a year, and the police will have the right to seize the owner’s weapons or require them to be stored with a gun dealer for the duration of the order.
While this new law was created to reduce the risk of firearm related suicides that has been on the rise in recent years, it is doing it at the expense of law-abiding citizen’s rights and requires them to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. This situation could cause many well-meaning family members and friends to have their loved one’s rights stripped from them for something that may be no more than an unfounded concern or an attempt at revenge.
In the United States, a citizen has the right to due process, which requires that a person is informed of the crime they are being charged with as well as the rights they are entitled to during the criminal process. After they are informed, they may be temporarily detained until they are seen by a judge. The proceedings will then proceed to trial and a sentencing phase if convicted, but during this entire process, a citizen’s rights may not be limited until they are convicted and sentenced in a court of law.
The new Oregon law SB 719A will have citizens subject to the restriction of rights based on suspicion or presumption. It is then their responsibility if they want those rights back to schedule a hearing and prove they deserve them, in essence violating some of the most important laws that established the founding of this country.
In addition to the fact that the law will allow citizens to be stripped of their 2nd amendment right to bear arms before they are granted the right to due process, it will also put the determination of one’s mental state and intention in the hands of people that are not qualified in the mental health field or even have the tools to make a valid determination on one’s mental health. Quite simply we have mental health professional make these types of assessments because they are the ones who are properly trained to do so.
The new law also provides gun restriction requirements for those who have had a restraining order filed against them by a significant other as well as allowing the indefinite delay of gun sales to be completed. The previous law gave the state three days to determine whether or not a gun purchase could go through. With the new law, this period could be extended indefinitely, which in effect will inhibit a citizen’s right to obtain personal protection.
While the intentions of the new gun confiscation law in Oregon may have started with good intentions, to achieve the desired results, the state is allowing law-abiding citizens to be stripped of their rights without due process and proper assessment. The new law will end up having more citizen’s in court explaining why they deserve their rights instead of the court system fighting to protect the rights of their citizens.

Whatever happened to DUE PROCESS?

Of course, Oregon is rapidly becoming California North.  And Washington isn’t far behind.  Seems the pioneer spirit that brought folks westerly stopped at Idaho, Utah and Arizona.

This seems to be prevalent on both coasts.

Seawater pollution?

Things Change…

One of the most wise people I know says this.

Because the only thing constant is change.

It would make sense that law enforcement especially should keep up on the latest in court decisions, and how they might affect their performing their job!

Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being handcuffed after refusing

to take blood from unconscious victim

Published on Aug 31, 2017

Alex Wubbels, a nurse at University Hospital in Salt Lake City, was arrested after explaining to police that she couldn’t draw a blood sample from an unconscious person. A Salt Lake City police detective asked for a blood sample. After explaining to the detective that the police needed a warrant, consent from the unconscious patient or that the patient needed to be under arrest before the blood sample could be drawn, she was arrested.
Apparently numerous State court decisions have determined taking blood from an an unconscious person without permission is illegal (without a warrant?) and this has been further reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One would assume this officer (and ALL officers) should know this! 
The latest I read about this is punitive measures will be taken against the officer involved.
This is of great personal interest to me.  After the accident of March 18, 1995 (this court decision was not yet in effect) both me and my 12-year-old daughter were subjected to involuntary blood draws, while we were unconscious!
The guy who hit our car (who was uninjured) was NOT subjected to any blood test, as the responding officer didn’t think it necessary!

Is Trump Causing a Slowdown in Gun Sales?

Politics works in mysterious ways. The more firearm regulations former President Obama tried to push through Congress, the higher gun sales became. Obama himself was lampooned as “the best gun salesman on the planet” by some industry insiders.
Obviously, the threat of overbearing regulation has faded in the era of the Trump administration. While one may think that a loosening of the reins would encourage more gun sales, the exact opposite has occurred. Gun stocks are down, and so are profits.
What is the explanation?
For all of his bluster, Obama was actually able to do very little about regulating firearms during his time in office. Yes, he was successful in bolstering the amount of total background checks processed. However, the Congress blocked all of his traditional legislation on the issue, and his Executive Orders addressing the topic have been all but completely overturned.
As it turns out, Americans were buying more guns on the threat of gun regulation rather than on any actual policy. Because Americans thought that certain types of rifles and add-ons such as sidearm silencers would soon be difficult or impossible to get, they stocked up. With Trump, there is no talk of gun regulation. Second Amendment rights advocates are no longer in a frenzy thinking that gun rights will disappear in the near future, so the new additions to the cache can wait.
The second factor that may account for a drop in gun sales is a level of satiety in the market. When Americans stocked up on guns during Obama’s term, they really stocked up. Contrary to popular belief, the modern American under Trump believes that they have enough guns – for now.
The Trump slump is a serious issue for the firearms industry. Mid America Armament gun show sales have dropped 50%, with total sales down about 25% from Obama administration years. The former Smith & Wesson, now known as the American Outdoor Brands Corporation, had its stock price drop significantly on election day. Sturm Ruger faced similar losses in its stock price.
Financial analysts predicted firearm sales would take a hit as far back as November. Learn why in the video below.
~ Firearm Daily

“When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!”  (from a 1920’s Naval Academy magazine)

We political gun folks seem to become apoplectic when those in power even suggest possible gun control legislation.  But we become complacent when the people in power seem to support gun rights.

Not so fast, there, Bucko!  Historically, there have been a number or Republicans (Conservatives?) in power who signed in legislation which was antithetical to the Constitution, and that which is near-and-dear to us.

Tried to buy a newly-made European machine gun lately?

We must remain vigilant and (if we are able) support the marketplace.

Lest more of our rights whither or be taken away!

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…