(from Joel in part)
Here’s an actual headline I did not make up…
SAFE Act seems to fail at keeping guns from criminals
You guys remember the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013, right? It was going to make New Yorkers safe from scary-looking rifles and standard-capacity magazines, as well as restricting ammo sales and forcing shrinks to snitch on their patients. Thus, you know, ushering in the glorious millennium or some thing, I dunno.
And here’s a total shock: In addition to turning virtually every New York gun owner into a felonious scofflaw, it doesn’t do any of the things promised! Wow. It’s just so out of the blue. Who saw that coming?
Undismayed, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman attacks the problem head-on with strawmen and buzzwords blazing:
“Target on Trafficking: Analysis of New York Gun Crimes” found that 74 percent of guns used in a crime recovered in New York came from outside this state.Of these, 70 percent originated “in just six states with weak gun laws — the states along I-95 that make up the Iron Pipeline,” says an online presentation on the report.
Yes, of course it’s not the fault of New York’s well-meaning totalitarians. They wrote a perfect nightmare of a law, which would have worked perfectly if not for all those other state lawmakers with all those weak gun laws! Yeah!
“The Iron Pipeline.” I love it. I hope whichever writer came up with that one got paid a generous bonus. Then had a piano fall on his head.
Surprising to me, though, is that the article writer actually dares point out that it ain’t necessarily so…
However, the report’s data shows that the percentage of crime guns from out of state remained remarkably even before and after New York’s SAFE Act was passed in 2013. From 2010 to 2015, it only fluctuated between 73 and 75 percent. The number of recovered crime guns went down, along with the violent crime rate throughout the Northeast, but the out-of-state percentage stayed the same.
[B]y Mr. Schneiderman’s measure, it hasn’t worked. If the out-of-state gun percentage had spiked since the new restrictions took effect, that might indicate criminals were being foiled here and turning more often to other states, but that doesn’t seem to have happened.
Careful there, kid. Speaking truth to power works best from a respectful distance.
I’ve not been a private investigator since 1986. I’ve not been a credit card fraud investigator since 2009. But I’ve been some-kind of investigator (private security, process server) most of my adult life.
It’s in my blood.
As such, I’ve tried to keep up with the latest regarding what records are available, what has been limited (due to privacy concerns) and the like.
And, of course, the overall erosion of privacy since Al Gore invented the Internet! And the government passed The Patriot Act, NDAA, et al.
My dear friend Biff (previously lauded in song and story in these pages – well story, anyway) recently met me for coffee, and, as he oft wants to do, presented me with a gift!
I like gifts! 🙂
As he peruses used bookstores (in search of first editions and signed editions) he sometimes finds books his friends might appreciate.
And he found THIS!
It was obviously used and in fair condition. He was curious what I thought of it and it’s value to today’s sleuth.
It took me a few days to read it. I had to keep reminding myself this was geared for the neophyte. Hence the clever title…
Overall it’s a pretty good book. The author claims to be a retired FBI agent who now has his own P.I. agency in Florida. (The Internet does confirm this.) It’s fairly well organized and has both current and historic information regarding how to find stuff and to keep out of jail in so doing. It even has material regarding sources on the Internet, and electronic surveillance.
My copy is the second edition. An Amazon search revealed there is now a third.
It now holds a place of honor on my bookshelf, adjacent to Where’s What (the CIA book regarding where to find records, circa 1974).
Yeah, I’m a snoop at heart…
(FTC – neither Amazon, nor this book’s author gave me anything! Biff did, but he’s my friend! BACK OFF!)
New Jovian Thunderbolt passes along an allegory on one Constitutional Issue versus another.
That is Voter’s Rights versus Gun Rights!
Both Constitutional and of equal status, right? Wrong!
Stop saying that Washington DC now allows conceal carry. People posted that all over. It’s May Issue. And like most May Issue states it means “nobody without the juice.” It’s not allowing CCW.
Saying DC allows conceal carry is like saying a black man in Alabama in 1885 had the right to vote. Look at the 15th Amendment! It says so! Highest law of the land says a black man can vote. But that’s not the reality on the ground back then, is it?
No, Gun Crow laws are still in effect in DC, Maryland, New Jersey, New York… others.
How would you feel if Oregon, Washington, California, and Nevada, assuming you don’t live there, were just ignoring the 19th Amendment and didn’t let women vote? Maybe let them pretend they are voting at the polls, but then just not counting those female votes? Would you feel a little less free in North Carolina or Maine, or Wisconsin? Doesn’t really impact women near you, so… What’s the big diff? Just tell women in California to move someplace better. Right? How does that make you feel? It’s not like it’s in another country. It’s still YOUR country out west, there. If you join the military you are fight for those hypothetical and blatant disenfranchising states, too.
People tell me to move out of THIS state because of the gun banning regime. No, I’ll stay here. The state will change. Same with Jersey. Same with DC, and New York…
In fact, YOU should move here.
Mea culpa. I, too, probably jumped on the same bandwagon, extolling the freedom now being exercised in D.C. OOPS. – Guffaw
Until all our personal wealth is ‘shared’ (by force) with the less fortunate! It’s
Karl Marx’s, The President’s way…
Judicial Watch reports
that the Department of Justice is giving liberal activist groups money from a $16.6 billion settlement with Bank of America.
The groups benefitting from the lawsuit, according to Investor’s Business Daily
, are the National Council of La Raza, Operation Hope, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. The money also went to “delinquent borrowers” in Chicago, Oakland, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other major “Democrat strongholds.”
“This is a wealth redistribution scheme disguised as a lawsuit,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told The Daily Caller. “And who benefits from the distribution? Interest groups the administration relies on, outside interest groups, allies and politicians in communities trying to benefit as well.”
How Times Have Changed!
Law Enforcement of The United States forcibly taking a Cuban child refugee back to communist Cuba. (1999)
Law Enforcement of The United States welcoming illegal alien children (who are being abandoned by the thousands, many of whom are ill) into the United States. (2014)
What’s wrong with these pictures?
I recently received an email from the Libertarian Party (Large L). (I self-identify as a libertarian (small L).) In part it says we (The United States) should wholesale accept these (illegal alien) children, as we have accepted other minor refugees previously – like after the fall of Nazi Germany. They state there are enough private or religiously-funded charitable entities to handle their care and welfare. Of course, what they fail to mention is someone is still needed to catalog and sort these children by their needs, and distribute them to the appropriate charity for assistance.
Gee, I wonder what government entity will
volunteer demand to assist in this Herculean task?
At what cost to whom?
Of course, the Libertarian Party (Large L) also stands for open borders, and unrestricted commerce. This is where they and I part company – philosophically.
I believe we should secure the borders and monitor commerce. Securing the border allows us to maintain food safety, security from external terrorism, and parity of domestic goods and services. If we allow completely open borders, and we get tainted produce from say Chile, who ya gonna call, the U.N.? (snicker)
Not to mention all the diseased minors being forced across our border, designed to tax the system and weaken the health of Americans.
Don’t get me wrong – these kids do pull at my heart strings – just as designed. The same folks who don’t want us to be the World’s policeman want us to be the World’s doctor. Interesting…
I keep thinking of the Cuban boat people, and Cloward & Piven. Yet again.
Some things never change.
h/t Theo Spark
HERE ARE LISTED, IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, ALL THE DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD THAT OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE BABIES OF TOURISTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS:
1. United States of America
(anyone else? Bueller, Bueller?)
That’s right, every other modern developed nation in the world has gotten rid of birthright citizenship policies! Yet, during the last few months most of the U.S. news media and many politicians have ridiculed comments by other politicians that it is time for the U.S. to put an end to birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens.
Folks, the U.S. stands alone.
For more on this exciting development, including modern developed countries that recently ENDED their birthright citizenship policy, please go read the following blog link:
Nobody Asked Me…
We need radical immigration law changes and enforcement to protect the rights of those legally here, not to automatically increase the voting rolls by fiat government mandate.
h/t Old NFO
No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money tells us of the above policy having been implemented by the UofC, obviously in an effort to stop the violence perpetrated against students.
Because those legally-armed, vetted students are (in)famous for inciting violence on campus against the
sheep other unarmed students.
From the Denver Post:
The University of Colorado Boulder and University of Colorado Colorado Springs are amending their student housing contracts, segregating students who possess a valid concealed-carry permit.
The university said Thursday morning that both campuses will establish a residential area for residents over age 21 with a permit. In other residential areas, students will not be permitted to carry a concealed weapon, the new policy states.
The new housing policy does two things. First, it seeks to use contract law to negate the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court which stated that the University of Colorado did not have the power to ban concealed carry on campus. Second, and more insidiously, it points out to thugs, rapists, and other criminals areas on campus where they will be relatively safe. That is, by creating obvious gun-free zones, the University System has put a big red target on the back of all those students living in traditional undergraduate student housing.
Go and read the whole thing. And, when your stomach returns to normal ruminate as to whether Colorado concealed-carry permit records are public records. (I don’t live in Colorado – I’ve no idea).
If I were a student with a valid permit, and the records were confidential (as they are in Arizona) I think I’d just play it close to the vest (or under the vest) and keep my damn mouth shut.
But, that’s just me.
h/t John Richardson, The Denver Post
Shall Not Be Questioned points us to an interesting story – Armed robber is shot by an armed customer, but it occurred in a store that posted against carrying firearms.
Which begs two questions?
1. When did warning signs ever stop criminals?
2. Is the World a better place because a usually law-abiding person ignored the sign and stopped an armed robber?
…reported on a few recent decisions, yesterday.
One on the ‘Affordable Care Act’ aka Obamacare; the other on the right of sleezebags to wear military medals that were not awarded or earned.
Like many, I initially thought Chief Justice John Roberts had sold out by siding with the more pink side of the court. But, I’ve not yet had time to read the entire text of both sides of the decision. So, I withheld judgement.
Then, I saw a number of conservative and libertarian bloggers pronounce that my initial impression was not the case. i.e.
Posted on June 28, 2012 by I.M. Citizen
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights* by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
My two biggest impressions from the above essay were:
1) The ACA IS a tax, in spite of the was it was
sold put over on the American People differently, and
2) Civil communication and discord have gotten so far afield in this country that the author warns in his first sentence against doing harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family! WTF?
Speaking of harm, my gut tells me that finding out someone has dishonored our military by wearing their medals and gaining benefit from having done so turns my stomach. Just as burning the American Flag does. But I recognize we DO have a First Amendment and acting independently against these sleezebags is just as wrong attacking the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Doesn’t mean I have to like it, though.
I wonder if this decision is defacto extended to other federal blackmail – as with enact our kind of highway laws, or you don’t get the funding?
If so, the fun is just beginning.
*’states rights’ – a sadly over-used term.
Amendment 10- Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Powers, not rights.
h/t Rev. Paul, Whitehouse12.com
North has been blogging less, of late, but, when he does…WOW.
He recently posed the above question. My answer was simple. Amendment the Second enumerates rights already held by the citizenry. The courts have interpreted this (in at least one case) to mean military- style weaponry, capable of being operated by one individual.
I call this the ‘Stinger in the Basement’ approach.
Of course, if these rights are misused, there should be severe consequences.
I suspect this approach would be looked at with a jaded eye by the anti-rights folks, though.