A couple of months ago, I received a form response (in reply to my email regarding reciprocal carry) from Senator Johnny “Crickets” Isakson, the new nickname earned through his silence when questioned about his actual RKBA positions. The Senator noted that he was a co-sponsor of that bill, which I already knew, but avoided saying what he might do to advance it.
But his form letter did tell me something else.
“I firmly believe that we do not need more gun control in America; rather, we need more criminal control. To that end, I support instant background checks on the purchase of all guns to prevent convicted felons from obtaining them, but I do not support waiting periods or the registration of any firearm.”
— Senator Johnny Isakson [R-GA], December 14, 2018, A rated by the NRA, A- by the GOA.
At that point, several Democrats had said that they would be filing bills to implement “universal background checks.” Since Isakson is on record supporting that, I decided a proper interview on the subject was in order. I sent his office a list of questions on January 3, 2019.
Receiving no response, not even an automated acknowledgement, I followed up on 1/9/2019. And again on 1/13/2019. Then on 1/15/2019. At long last, on 1/22/2019, I received a reply. I sent a request for clarification or expansion of his statement. No reply.
Let the interview begin.
1. How would you respond to those who say background checks, a requirement that a buyer preemptively prove his innocence, are a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right?
-crickets-
2. Research shows that approximately 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained through unlawful channels bypassing background checks (private sales between non-prohibited persons without background checks are not one of the unlawful channels). How will you shut down the unlawful transactions, thus forcing those people to turn to lawful channels and background checks?
-crickets-
3. At least 93% of NICS denials turn out to be false positives, and there is currently a backlog of tens of thousands of denial appeals. How will you fix the false positive problem, which can only increase the backlog as private sales are forced to turn to NICS?
-crickets-
4. There is an unknown, but large, false negative problem with NICS; prohibited persons listed in NICS still passing background checks. How will you fix that?
-crickets-
5. A 2017 study showed that “We cannot conclude that states that regulate private gun sales have a higher, or lower, gun homicide rate.” California, with universal background checks as part of the most comprehensive gun control laws in the country, saw an 18% increase in firearms homicides from 2014 to 2016. How would federally imposed universal background checks work better?
-crickets-
Other legislation has been entered or seems likely:
Graham has introduced an “Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO/”red flag”) bill would you support that? If so, why; and how would you respond to those who say that “preemptive” orders with after the fact “due process” are unconstitutional bills of attainder?
-crickets-
Do you support or oppose a ban on bump-fire stocks, and why? Do you consider the recent rule change making bump-fire stocks “machineguns” to be lawful?
-crickets-
Do you support or oppose national reciprocal carry, and why?
“In the 116thCongress, I have again cosponsored the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This commonsense legislation would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws, while abiding by that state’s laws.”
An answer! A form reply, but something.
Do you support or oppose removing suppressors/silencers from National Firearms Act regulation, and why?
-crickets-
Do you support or oppose raising the minimum purchasing for rifles and shotguns from 18yo, why?
-crickets-
Do you support or oppose a ban on any class of firearms, such as “assault weapons,” and why?
-crickets-
Is there any other firearms-related legislation you would support or oppose?
-crickets-
About all I can establish about Senator Crickets’ positions is that he’ll eventually sign on to reciprocal carry but not carry through (or it might have at least come to a floor vote last session), and that he wants ineffective, expensive prior restraint of rights through preemptively-prove-your-innocence background checks whose only real purpose can be to assemble 4473’s to identify gun owners and their firearms.
Sadly, Georgia and the nation are stuck with him until the 2022 elections.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
A week or so ago one of our Zelman Partisans facebook readers sent me a copy of a letter from Oregon ceasefire, a victim disarmament group.
Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, today I shall address the situation.
Letter from Oregon Ceasefire
I had seen an alert from Oregon’s Firearms Federation about the mask being off, but I hadn’t been aware of other very serious things that were going on with this gun rights organization. But after I read the letter from Oregon Ceasefire, my eyes were opened! It seems Oregon Firearms Federation is antisemitic according to Oregon Ceasefire! I am shocked an appalled. Antisemitism is one the rise everywhere, from Jews in Francistan that can no longer wear a Kippah in public safely to the US where two muslim women have been elected to congress. One of whom supports BDS and has made antisemitic tweets about “Israel hypnotizing the world” and the other has covered up the one Jewish state on her map with the name of a country created in 1964, same year as the Beatles by the way. Indeed, this charge of a Second Amendment rights group being antisemitic needed investigation! So, I did.
I wrote both groups, and asked what incident lead to such a charge?
I wrote Oregon Firearms Federation first. Please note, I’m not a reporter, I’m a columnist and so I have no guilt over telling them to keep up the good work.
Email to Oregon Firearms Federation
Within a minute after I wrote Oregon Ceasefire.
Letter to Oregon Ceasefire
It’s a few days later now, I’ve heard back from Oregon Firearms Federation(OFF), I have not heard back from Oregon Ceasefire.
It seems according to Oregon Firearms Federation the charge was prompted by a page that OFF had on their web site.
Ah! Indeed the images are horrific. Horrible images of the Holocaust, please G-d may such a thing never happen again. A sane person would never want to see such images mar the pages of history. If you have a pipe freeze and break in your house due to a air leak that can reach a pipe (speaking from experience here) one would do their best to assure that such conditions will not re-occur by sealing the leak. They would not get a hammer and enlarge the hole. But then I’m me, and the hole got sealed. Oregon Ceasefire is not me. They choose to grab that hammer. It’s worth noting that when Oregon Firearms Federation emailed me back, they informed me that the page had been up for months, and apparently in an attempt to get their name back in the news, Oregon Ceasefire notified the media who promptly called the “experts” in their Rolodex that will recite what they want to hear. But please note that the Rabbi in question Michael Z Cahana has 180 degree different opinion on these matters than another Rabbi Kahane, who’s motto was “Every Jew a .22”. Rabbi Meir Kahane HY’’D הי״דto be exact. So Rabbi Cahana in favor of defenseless victims, most certainly does not speak for us all.
But back to the matter at hand, one of the pieces of legislation, victim disarmament if you want to call it what it is, is SB0501 according to OFF.
Sponsored by Senator WAGNER, Representative SALINAS (at the request of Students for Change) (Presession filed.)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Requires person to secure permit before purchasing or otherwise receiving firearm. Specifies qualifications for permit and manner of applying for permit. Creates procedures for appealing denial of permit. Punishes receipt of firearm without valid permit by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonmen $6,250 fine, or both.
Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container.
Punishes failure to secure firearm by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to report to law enforcement agency loss or theft of firearm within 24 hours.
Punishes failure to report loss or theft by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition.
Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition. Restricts ammunition receipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period.
Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party until latter of 14 days or Department of State Police has determined that recipient is qualified to receive firearm.
Alrighty, now let’s take a look at some actual nazi (no, they still don’t get capital letters) gun laws.
Straight from the Book “Gun Control” Gateway to Tyranny. Let’s have a look-see, shall we? See if anything looks familiar. Remembering that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was based on nazi weapons control laws of 1938, Sen. Chris Dodd’s -D daddy Sen. Thomas Dodd -D had a copy of the nazi weapons laws that he had translated. It was on those laws that he based his gun control act.
So, Page 52
Page 52
And page 57. Please note sections 12, 13 and 14
Please note the sections
And last, page 81.
Page 81
As Aaron points out in the book, these gun control laws are immoral. Because they treat the law abiding citizen in this manner as a reaction to acts committed by criminals. Torah absolutely supports self-defense. Too many blather “Thou shalt not kill”. NO, and more no. It says “Thou shalt not MURDER”. Not the same thing.
So the virtue signaling Oregon Ceasefire chooses to ignore (or never learned) history. Let’s do a brief recap shall we?
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”
During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.
On October 4, 1938, Nazi police arrested one Alfred Flatow in Berlin. His crime: being a Jew in lawful possession of a firearm. Lawful because he had dutifully registered his guns in January 1932, complying with the pre-Hitler anti-firearm decrees of the Weimar Republic. The arresting police were probably unaware that Flatow won Gold and Silver medals for Germany in the 1896 Olympics. He had also served in the German army in the 1890s.
….
The Nazis also moved to control others who possessed weapons. Despite protests, the government banned all voluntary “shooting clubs” (Schuetzenvereine) in Germany. These clubs were popular forms of recreation across the nation, and many club leaders opposed the ban and even expressed objections to the Nazi government. As Hitler was rapidly centralizing and broadening his powers, he dissolved all local and independent shooting and sports clubs on May 10, 1933. Two weeks later, he created the Nazi-controlled German Shooting Sport Association (Deutscher Schiesssportverband), which became another mouthpiece for the Nazi government and, with war on the horizon, a source of males already trained in marksmanship.
So many of the laws advocated by Oregon Ceasefire have been implemented. What did that lead to?
I’ll let the witnesses tell you themselves.
First up, Eta Wrobel, a truly amazing woman. She wasn’t doing dishes either, or cleaning the camp. Eta was a modern day Devorah, leading battles.
Why oh why does it have to get to the point you need two hand grenades? Why can’t tyrants just fear to attack citizens? Why would a woman even think like this?
Oh, that’s why.
These are far from the only two female partisans. There is a little film clip on some of them.
I understand that part of the reason Oregon Ceasefire reached out to Der Stürmer, the media was because they are losing relevance since Michael Bloomberg began shoveling money into Mad Mommies, his favorite astro-turf group. So, if all guns are evil and people will be safer if they are all banned he will no doubt be glad when that happy day comes right? Um, no. Seems Bloomberg is a elitist hypocrite.
“When you have a city that has the murder rate that Baltimore has, I think it’s ridiculous to think that they shouldn’t be armed,” Bloomberg said of the Hopkins security force.
….
A group of Hopkins students called Students Against Private Police expressed dissatisfaction with Bloomberg’s remarks. In a statement, the group said Bloomberg’s support for a private, armed police force is at odds with his other work to promote gun control
Just an FYI: The Bloomberg School of Public Health is located at John Hopkins. There moulders the academic wing of Bloomberg’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, anti-self defense, of course.
I’m actually shocked, I mean Baltimore has a Demoncrat Mayor a very strict gun control as it is. Why on earth is Bloomberg worried about high crime?
Michael Bloomberg, to quote Aaron Zelman, is a “Bagel brain”.
So, in conclusion. Is Oregon Firearms Federation antisemitic? No. They oppose laws that enabled the brutality of the Holocaust, and if you’ve forgotten just how brutal it was, or never learned, that page reminds you. A post on my Zehut list mentioned a poll conducted by Schoen Consulting found that 11% of all US adults and 22% of millennials haven’t ever heard of the Holocaust. Perhaps Oregon Ceasefire is one of them.
Is Oregon Ceasefire Antisemitic? I think so. If you can compare what they are advocating with what nazi Germany had for gun laws and the persist in doing so, I would say yes they are. I believe as you look at the rise of antisemitism world wide it’s imperative that Jews learn to shoot and be ready to do so.
To that end I reached out to one of my favorite groups, Cherev Gidon. In the wake of the Pittsburgh Synagogue attack they came on my radar. I asked a simple question, Why do you do what you do? Why are you teaching Jews and others to shoot and how to defend themselves?
Yonatan, director and founder was kind enough to answer me.
Cherev Gidon Israeli Tactical Training Academy exists for the purpose of training American Jews with Israeli combat shooting skills, so that every American Jewish community will be well armed and professionally trained with the ability to mount an effective defense against any violent attack on any Jewish community (as we saw in Pittsburgh). Our goal is to have each and every American Jew carrying a firearm with them to synagogue (and everywhere they go), so that never again will any Jew fall victim to antisemitic violence. Thankfully, our program has become incredibly popular recently, and we are actively achieving our goal of making those communities hard targets. We are currently expanding to different regions and communities across the US as a result of the unprecedented demand and we hope to be able to make our training programs easily accessible to all Jews, no matter what part of the country they live in.
And do you know what? This
beats this
Wedding rings
Every day of the week and twice on Shabbat. When I wrote OFF back and thanked them for answering me, I made a comment.
There’s a fad for “red flag” extreme risk protective orders that makes the pet rock craze look rational. Even the Vichy NRA backs this supposed tool to keep guns away from “dangerous” people.
Except when they claim they don’t. Oh no, says the VNRA, we only back ERPOs with “due process.” Except when they don’t.
Why the demand for ERPOs, with their intended lack of due process? If the goal is to prevent a potentially dangerous person from harming himself or others, one could implement a Florida-style Baker Act.
The Baker Act allows an adult to be involuntarily held for mental health evaluation for up to 72 hours (12 hours for a minor). The 72 hour limit conforms to the usual 72 hour maximum that criminal suspects may be held without charges.
Neither a 72 hour questioning period nor a 72 hour mental health evaluation result in a permanent or semi-permanent loss of Second Amendment human/civil rights. In either case, a loss or suspension of rights would come only after a due process hearing (indictment or involuntary committal), resulting from the outcome of the questioning or evaluation.
It is noteworthy that victim disarmament advocates, and the VNRA, do not see any need for due process before rights are violated. In fact, typical “red flag” laws do not require that the allegedly dangerous person be taken into custody at all (the VNRA suggests this as an option available to a judge in an ex parte proceeding). The target is merely one class of weapons, not the person allegedly in need of help.
One class of weapons: firearms. Not baseball bats, knives, nor even motor vehicles, which in 2016 were implicated in almost 2,000 more deaths than firearms, even though estimates of the number of motor vehicles is 138,360,614 less than the number of firearms in America. ERPOs take firearms useful for defense, but not statistically more deadly automobiles. Not even the driver’s license.
Does that sound like something meant to ensure safety?
Another difference between a Baker Act hold (or hold for questioning) and “red flag” laws is that a person held for evaluation or questioning is allowed representation and communication. The subject of a “red flag” order never has the chance for either, because the first he knws about the order is when the police show up to seize his property, or kill him. And where is the due process for someone whose firearms are taken, because someone else was subject to a “red flag” order?
Further, standard “red flag” law language imposes a long-term loss of 2A rights even if the person is never found to require treatment, nor accused of an actual crime. Typically, the accused may petition for restoral of rights after a set period. In contrast, a criminal suspect released from custody without charge retains all of the rights he enjoyed prior to questioning.
“Red flag” extreme risk protective orders protect no one. Not the accused, not anyone else whom he allegedly might harm.
ERPOs are designed from the ground up to violate the rights of gun owners without pesky things like hearings or trial. ERPOs are legislatively and judicially blessed SWATting, no guilt required.
So why does the VNRA support “red flag” ERPOs, with ex parte proceedings instead of a simple Baker Act-style law in which no one loses their constitutionally-protected rights until adjudication has occurred?
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Call them extreme risk protective orders, red flag orders, gun violence protection orders, or what have you, they had been floated for years, but became particularly popular after the Parkland school shooting. Rather irrationally, since the local, state, and federal authorities had plenty of time and warnings to stop the murder before he escalated to the deaths of humans (per reports, he’d been killing animals for years). The point was to deflect attention from their own failures. If only we’d had ERPOs (in addition to unused protective orders, unused Baker Act, unused arrests/indictments/convictions for what he’d already done, maybe even ignored prohibited person status), we could have stopped him.
Of course, the VNRA was blamed, too. So the VNRA had to put up their own deflector shields. They jumped on the ERPO bandwagon. Yeah, red flag laws are a great idea!
And the knowledgeable gun community — for once — exploded.
ERPOs have a little constitutional and moral problem.
I’m going to generalize, because the specifics vary from state to state. Getting a regular protective order is relatively easy. The person who thinks they may be threatened goes to a judge and asks for an order keeping the accused away from them. The court sets a hearing date. Parties involved show up and speak their piece. The judge decides if the order is justified, and if so issues it. He may set special conditions: some monitored contact, maybe zero contact, no threats, if he sees a particular danger he may order the accused to turn in any firearms he possesses. And with the order in place, he cannot lawfully obtain another firearm.
Whoa. Wait. Full stop. I’ll bet newcomers to this thought newly empowering judges to take those guns was the point of ERPOs. Victim disarmament advocates — like the mainstream media — have certainly done their best to convey that impression. But, generally, judges already have that power.
Though adjudication, a hearing in which the accused has the chance to defend himself before hand.
ERPO laws don’t change that power. What they do change is:
The accused doesn’t get the chance to defend himself. He isn’t even told of any hearing before his firearms are taken.
The claim that the accused is dangerous doesn’t have to come from anyone who feels threatened. In fact, as some laws have been written, the accused and accuser need never have met. The accused might not even know of the accuser’s existence
ERPOs have even been executed against people who aren’t accused of being “dangerous” (they took firearms from an innocent third party because the accused thought he might be able to steal guns from him; might, not “could”).
That is what ERPOs are. And that is what the VNRA endorsed. Initially.
When gun owners (and even the ACLU) noted due process problem with ex parte proceedings, and the whole “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” thing, the VNRA backed off. Oh, no! What we MEANT was that we back ERPOs with due process.
Just in case they decide to retroactively edit reality, here’s a screencap showing their support for ex parte proceedings.
Any ex parte proceeding should include admitting the individual for treatment.
A person’s Second Amendment rights should only be temporarily deprived after a hearing before a judge, in which the person has notice of the hearing and is given an opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf.
Make up your minds, VNRA. Stop weasel-wording on the issue. Would the VNRA allow ex parte (the accused not given the opportunity to participate) hearings or not?
Again, the NRA will continue to oppose any proposal that does not fully protect due process rights. We will only support an ERPO process that strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due process rights at the same time.
Due process is defined in 5 U.S. Code § 554 – Adjudications. It requires the subject to be informed of the hearing before it is held. That excludes any ex parte action.
And yet, the VNRA is still (as of January 8, 2019) allowing for ex parte hearings with no due process.
If the VNRA wants due process hearings for protection orders, then “red flag” ERPOs are exactly what they should oppose.
Smart people — which seems to exclude VNRA “leadership” — understand that. The framers of the Constitution certainly did.
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs)
[…]
The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the right to due process, the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group, and the separation of powers.
No trial: Check.
Nullifies civil rights: First Amendment rights to speak in a hearing denied, Second Amendment rights to firearm denied. Check.
Takes property: Check.
Heck; 4A, 5A, 6A, and 9A gone. Check.
The VNRA officially supports unconstitutional Bills of Attainder which strip anonymously accused people of their rights and property with no due process.
The Vichy NRA officially supports Star Chamber-ordered SWATting with no due process.
Not only do they fail to provide any sort of mental health treatment but they allow the state to deny law-abiding gun owners their due process of rights. If the state can deny due process to these law-abiding residents then what’s to stop them from denying any right to any group of people?”
Which is exactly why I am calling out the VNRA’s hypocrisy in supporting ex parte proceedings lacking in participation, before the deprivation of 2A human/civil rights, by the accused.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Everyone has flowcharts, companies have them, to perform CPR there is a flowchart, to fix a car there is a flowchart, to diagnose illness or even make financial decisions, there’s a flowchart.
So I decided I needed to make us a little flowchart. It’s another one of those things where I see two things that fit together, well, in my mind.
First off we have this story about a 25 year old woman. She was alone at a bus stop minding her own business in essentially gun free, so crime free Chicago. Or, as some call is Chi-raq.
Residents are praising the 25 year-old woman, with a concealed carry license, who shot and killed a man who was trying to rob her at a bus stop.
Surveillance video shows the woman waiting alone at a bus stop at 103rd and Wallace around 5:45 a.m. Tuesday. Police say a 19-year-old man, in a light colored hoodie, pulled a gun on the woman in an attempt to rob her.
She pulled out her own gun and shot him in the neck.
How’s about that! So that made it all the more interesting when I saw this cartoon on facebook the other day. My buddy Chris puts up great stuff. Then I’ve been watching Miss Fisher Murder Mysteries. It’s set in 1920s Australia, before it was a gun free paradise. Back when women could defend themselves. This was the first one I watched called I believe “Cocaine Blues”. Costumes are beautiful, very elegant, the cars are amazing and the music is swell. The stories are great, when watching the first one it hit me! A flowchart. A simple flowchart to determine if you value women’s lives. To be fair, it can be anyone’s life, but all these stories involve women. Apples to apples don’t you know?
I have spent the past ten and a half months trying to confirm or deny one little report.
On February 16, 2018, the Sun-Sentinel reported on an investigation conducted by Florida DCF of the scumbag who would become the Parkland murdering a$$h0le. Basically, it was just another case of the “authorities” blowing off another chance to do something about him before anyone died.
But eleven paragraphs in, I noticed something.
Cruz came under DCF’s supervision and care because he was classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness.
As I’ve written before, “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” is a specific legal status in Florida. It is based on a finding by a judge in a formal hearing in which the subject has the opportunity to appear with legal counsel. In short, a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” is a prohibited person under the criteria of 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(4). Chumbucket should not have been able to pass a background check to buy his rifle.
To be fair, the reporters might’ve misunderstood what DCF told them. So I contacted the Sun-Sentinel to verify that part was correct. I never received a response.
Since then, in an effort to discover if that “vulnerable adult” claim was accurate, I’ve contacted Florida DCF, state legislators, Senator Grassley (when he held a hearing on the shooting), the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school public safety commission, and the world. I have received no answers either way. From anyone. Until today.
A couple of days ago, the Sun-Sentinel’s Randy Schultz wrote an op/ed. He took the position that even if their sheriff is a complete screw-up (which he is), we still need more gun control.
If chum was a prohibited person, then gun control didn’t work. Maybe we should fix what we have before piling on more. I wrote to Schultz to suggest he look into that “vulnerable adult” issue, because I’d had zero luck myself.
Schultz replied. I’ll give him that much. In fact we had quite the email exchange.
Based on published reports, the Florida Department of Children and Families investigated and determined that Cruz was not a danger to himself. It ended there.
No. The results of that investigation had no bearing on chum’s prohibited status. They investigated because he was already a prohibited person “vulnerable adult,” according to the Sun-Sentinel. Which I told Schultz.
If you mean prohibited from buying a firearm, the conditions are that a person must have been committed or adjudicated,
Yes, and if bucket-head really was a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” that’s exactly what he went through to achieve that status. That’s why I want to know if he is: that status is achieved through adjudication of mental incompetence under Florida law.
But neither applied to Cruz.
-blink-
I gave him the Sun-Sentinel story with the original claim, and Florida and federal law cites to show that yes, it did
Correct. But the state made no no finding that he was a threat to himself.
He’s back to claiming that the investigation wouldn’t have made him a prohibited person because it cleared him. I reiterated that the investigation wasn’t done to determine if DCF should petition a judge for “vulnerable adult” staus for the a$$h0le. They were in a position to investigate him because he already was, according to the Sun-Sentinel.
You’ll have to ask the editors. I’m a freelancer.
See above: Been there, done that. They aren’t talking.
“Freelance” this: Was Cruz a prohibited person, as reported by the Sun-Sentinel, or not?
Being a reporter in the area, it should be easy enough for Schultz to check. If he was, the court record should be available. Even if sealed, that the record exists should be public. Heck, he could just talk to the original reporters and ask them to check their notes to see if that was a direct quote from DCF.
Personally, I originally thought the story simply mischaracterized Cruz’s status; reporters make mistakes. Or maybe it was correct, and I’d noticed just another governmental failure. No big deal. Except for all the dead people. I’m used to bureaucratic cock-ups.
After months of deafening silence, I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more to it.
Was Cruz a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness,” or did DCF make a series of truly amazing errors (having an adult under supervision without a judge’s ruling, making a very specific claim of that status mistakenly)?
If Cruz was a vulnerable adult, why wasn’t he reported to NICS? If he wasn’t a vulnerable adult, why does DCF have a report of an evaluation conducted of him as an adult?
If some DCF employee simply misread something, and Cruz was not classified as a vulnerable adult, why doesn’t DCF simply make the correction?
If the murderous slime was not a prohibited person, then folks like me can’t say NICS failed. Gun controllers could use that to rationalize more laws to catch folks not otherwise caught. If he was prohibited, then laws failed, and gun controllers don’t want to admit the system is at fault.
Why the silence? If he wasn’t prohibited, then that supports their gun control agenda. They could say so.
That they won’t say at all suggests to me that he was prohibited, but they can’t risk lying about it and getting caught.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I often ask victim disarming gun controllers how they expect their infringement du jour to apply to criminals who already bypass laws. For instance, I recently asked Senator Johnny Isakson [R-GA] how he expects to get criminals — who already obtain their firearms through unlawful channels around 93% of the time — to submit their black market purchases for “universal background checks;” otherwise known as preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI) prior restraint of rights.
I almost never get an answer. Certainly Isakson hasn’t answered yet.
This why:
Tucker Zings Progressive’s Attempt at Comparing the Border Wall to Lawful Gun Ownership
“And to borrow the NRA’s argument though, if we put a wall up though to block out illegal, you know people from coming here to want to harm us, people who come here legally are going to be the only ones stopped by that wall because people who are going to come here illegally or to harm us are going to figure out a way around it, just like they’re going to figure out how to get guns.”
[…]
[Former aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)] Hahn laughed and then continued, “No, no. Law-abiding people will be stopped by the wall but the people who wish to break our laws will avoid the wall. That’s the right’s argument for everything! It should be accepted here too!”
Don’t build a wall, because it only stops law-abiding people.
Do pass victim disarmament laws because they only stop law-abiding people.
Masks off. They aren’t even pretending anymore. As we all knew, the laws are never intended to do anything but infringe human/civil rights. Criminals aren’t even supposed to be affected.
That’s why Democrats (and Republicans like Isakson) see no irony in announcing new PPYI legislation to “honor” Gabby Giffords, who was shot by a man who passed a background check.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
The Zelman Partisans have a page, A Gun Culture Primer, originally meant as a guide for newcomers to firearms, but especially gun-controlling idiots so they would have some clue what they are talking about. I often point “reporters” to it when I’m trying to explain why they’re wrong about… pretty much everything gun-related.
As you can guess, it doesn’t get many visitors.
While it covers such things as the Constitution, laws, judicial precedent, firearms technology, terminology and notable people and groups both pro- and anti-gun, possibly my favorite section is “Imaginary Stuff.” Think “shoulder thing that goes up.”
You may have missed a few of the more recent innovations um… inventions uh… misconceptions hell… schizophrenic delusions, so I thought I’d share that with you.
I figure TZP readers need a laugh about now.
Every one of these has actually been reported in the news.
Automatic Rounds:According to CBS these are apparently cartridges that turn any gun into a machine gun. In the real world of physics these don’t exist.
Body-piercing rounds: Either these idiots have found remote-installation nipple piercing rounds (“Do you want dumbbells or rings?”) or simple idiocy. Pretty much any bullet fired from a firearm is “body-piercing.” Context suggests reporters Ricardo Torres-Cortez and Emma Cauthorn simply haven’t read the charges… or any other report about Haig, who is accused of manufacturing and selling armor piercing ammunition.
Carnage-enhancing pistol grips: According to Rep. Eric Swalwell [D-CA], rifles are “more powerful and cause more carnage when used with a pistol-grip.”
Deadly Assault Funnel: “a shotgun is like a backwards funnel, you don’t have to have direct aim to hurt a lot of people.” Umm… No. Just… no. Apparently physics isn’t taught in journalism school. Or a prerequisite. At office range, 12 gauge 00 buck from a cylinder bore (i.e.- max spread) will have a baseball or softball-sized pattern. You have to aim. That’s why shotguns have sights.
Double-Single Action 1911: Invented by The University Daily Kansan, this photoshopped monstrosity includes an extra double action trigger because it’s “more dramatic” that way, and propels complete 9mm cartridges.
Full semiautomatic: Invented for CNN by retired (presumbably forceably retired, for mental health reasons) Army general Hertling. Either Hertling and CNN are idiots, or they wanted folks to hear “full automatic” and mistakenly think ARs are machineguns. Or both. There is no such thing as “full semiautomatic;” a firearm can be semiautomatic, as are AR-15s, or full automatic (machineguns; highly regulated and taxed, and impossible for honest civilans to purchase new). Assault rifles are select-fire, meaning they have semiautomatic and automatic modes, but no “full semiauto” (and are machineguns; see above re:regulated).
Ghost Gun: Compliments of California’s De Leon, inventor of the Caliber Clip(tm), it is either a nonexistent gun made entirely of plastic, a homemade non-serialized gun, or a factory stock gun whose serial number has been obliterated. We suspect the variant depends on what De Leon has been smoking, but that hasn’t been confirmed.
Heat-Seeking Bullets: Other than the fictional rounds in the Sellek movie Runaway, these exist only in Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington’s feveredincendiary imagination.
High Magazine Cartridges: “Ban ‘assault weapons,’ ban high magazine cartridges,” says Congresswoman Michelle Lujan-Grisham [D-NM01], and gubernatorial candidate, on 5/18/2018. I’m not even going to guess. Is it a magazine? A cartridge? Does it count if it’s drunk instead of high? Is there an exemption if it’s on Ritalin (i.e.- speed) for ADHD? Is Lujan-Grisham drunk or high?
Multi-burst trigger activator: An imaginary device that causes a semiautomatic weapon to fire multiple bursts of rounds with a single trigger activation. Being imaginary, it does not exist. It is the result result of fevered dreams of ignorant Massachusetts politicians. They apply the term to trigger cranks (which allow a shooter to activate the trigger rapidly by turning a crank), “hellfire” adapters (an ineffective spring behind the trigger which is intended to return the trigger to firing position quickly), bump-fire stocks (which have nothing to do with the trigger or any other internal operating part of the firearm), and anything else that frightens them.
Massacre Machine Gun Magazine: Since Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney used this in the context of a school shooting in which no machinegun was used, we assume it has the same level of reality as heat-seeking and ghost bullets, possibly chambered in 30 caliber.
Rapid Fire Ammunition: Apparently eliminates any need for machineguns or bump-fire stocks. Patent pending by People for the American Way’s Elliot Mincberg. Still trying to find this ammo in stores.
Shoulder Thing That Goes Up: Former NY Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy introduced a bill to ban “assault weapons” based on cosmetic features. One feature she found particularly objectionable was the barrel shroud. A reporter asked her what is a barrel shroud; McCarthy cluelessly explained that it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.
“Machine gun loophole”: An imaginary hole in the law; coined by Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes who, lacking any knowledge of law or firearms, thinks bump-fire stocks are machineguns, yet somehow not covered by the NFA. (see bump-fire, machinegun)
Rapid-Fire Magazine: Invented by MENSA founder(/sarc) Debbie Wasserman Schultz, we suspect these are magazines for unicorns, written on the 2nd Reading Grade Level. No such firearms accessory exists.
If you know of any I’ve missed, please send me a link, and I’ll be happy to add it.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
I had an interesting discussion with a girlfriend of mine the other day. I made the statement I thought someone was evil. She disagreed and said she didn’t think people were evil, some just made bad choices, even appalling choices. But people weren’t evil.
Yeah, I think they are. I watched a show the other night that talked about Nellie May Madison. Born in 1895, Nellie was an interesting lady. Raised on a ranch in Montana she learned to shoot, ride and survive in the wild from a young age. She was also the first woman in California sentenced to death for the murder of her husband. Nellie’s first set of lawyers did her no favors, and she got a judge determined to make an example of her. Luckily for her, she had a lawyer as one of her ex-husbands and he persuaded her to get a different lawyer and appeal. When the legendary Aggie Underwood got involved her sentence was commuted and eventually she was paroled. So why did she kill her husband (other than some people just need killing)? She could have been one of the first #MeToo people as well as the first woman on death row. Her husband had a nasty tendency to marry women, then abuse them, pick up teenage hookers, force his wives to write letters that they had been unfaithful because back then that was a sure way to win in court and then beat them. When Nellie held a gun on him and told him to give the letter back, he pulled a box of knives out from under the bed, told her he’d cut her heart out and flung a couple of the knives at her. He missed. She didn’t. But he had seemed so charming when she met him. Snappy dresser, nice car and treated her well. Pretty much the same thing his first wife said. He was really nice, till he wasn’t.
There are a lot of documentaries and crime shows with the topic of people that seemed to be kind, compassionate wonderful people. And how shocked people were when the found out that John Wayne Gacy , Bob Berdella, Samuel Little and the very charming Ted Bundy killed people. Stories of how people had been taken in by someone that seemed wonderful only to lose family members to them, or to be hauled into the police station to see when they knew about the neighborhood rapes, murders, thefts, whatever. These people didn’t see the traits, if they saw them they didn’t recognize what they were and if the did see the signs and suspect they tamped down their uneasiness and stifled their fears. And sometimes they had fears of their own and were unable to do anything useful, such as calling police, due to those.
FBI murder statistics 2017
So, when I think of evil, I think of someone who takes pleasure in hurting others in some form or fashion. I think of someone who has no empathy for others, and only sees people as someone who will help them get what they want, or is preventing or standing in the way of them getting something they want. Which is part of what got me to thinking about psychopaths. There are differences between psychopaths and sociopaths.
And if you’re really curious, this video explains a lot.
Again, victims usually do not understand what is occurring until it is too late. The psychopath may have already launched smear campaigns, taken unfounded legal action, and manipulated those the victim cares about, simply for sport. Once the victims begin sharing their stories with others, the people to whom they tell these stories, often cannot believe what they are hearing. It is common for others to be in disbelief, either because they perceive the victim as an unlikely candidate for targeting or abuse, or because the stories can seem so inherently unlikely that it may be difficult, at first, to believe they are true.
Because they are very convincing, and excellent at lying. The psychopath doesn’t really have a conscience, while the sociopath does, but it’s small and ineffective.
Why are the always usually successful? Because they are really, really good at picking their victims.
The sad thing is, most of us have traits that make us susceptible. Things like compassion, extroverted or introverted, sensitivity to the feelings of others, “go with the flow” attitude, competitive or sentimentality are all traits that can be exploited by someone with “antisocial personality disorder”, the comprehensive phrase for both psychopath and sociopath.
Several of the sites I did some reading on advise trusting your instincts, but sadly a lot can happen before the warning bell goes off it seems.
But what really got me to thinking about this, is a couple of the stories I’ve put up on social media for The Zelman Partisans recently about how the grabby giffords crew and the elitist Michael Bloomberg have been pushing the “red flag” laws, extreme order of protection in different states. They confiscate first and ask questions later. If you’re still alive after the confiscation. Maryland Red Flag Gun Confiscation Order Ends with Dead Gun Owner.
While some of those with “antisocial personality disorder” may not be violent, some obviously are. And now the criminal protection bunch have made it even easier. They don’t need to disarm the victims themselves, they just make a phone call and the law will do it for them.
You know, I believe I’m in favor of a law allowing civil lawsuits against the sponsor of such legislation when they result in a death. Like waiting periods cost Carol Browne her life because the restraining order only made her a target. So yes, I think we need legislation that when a civilian disarming law is passed, that those harmed by it are allowed to sue the sponsor and co-sponsor of such legislation. I realize it’s probably a pipe dream, but hey! If it saves just one life.
My dear, it’s time to admit it. You are in an abusive relationship. He doesn’t really love you. He loves controlling you. You may even suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, in which you’ve come to believe that he does this for your own good.
He is manipulating you with fear. He tells you that you have to give up some things, or freedoms, or you risk losing more.
That’s his modus operandi. “Just give them what they want, or they’ll take everything.”
It’s time for you to take your family and escape from his abuse. You can’t save this “relationship.” It isn’t a relationship, it’s enslavement. Get out, and go to a shelter that will protect you.
It’s time to leave the NRA.
In 1934, the NRA backed the National Firearms Act. They told you they did it to save handguns. But what it did was make militia grade weapons unaffordable, inaccessible, for most militia members. A black eye.
In 1968, the NRA compromised on the the Gun Control Act. They told you it was to prevent worse infringements. But it established licensing and large classes of “prohibited persons” with no constitutional rights. It effectively ended mail order of firearms. Bruises.
The NRA compromised on the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act. They told you it “protected’ you from unconstitutional state abuses. Those abuses still exist. And what you got was a complete ban on new machineguns, making the few in circulation far more expensive. A missing tooth.
The NRA rolled over on the Undetectable Firearms Act. They told you it was to protect existing guns. But it killed research and development of new firearms technologies. A broken, bloody nose.
Gun Free School Zone Act: For the children. But it could make you a felon for walking in the area of a school you couldn’t even see. More bruises, a cracked rib.
Brady: It’ll keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the NRA told you. They didn’t tell you that a supermajority of criminals get guns through unlawful channels bypassing background checks. You got a prior restraint on your human/civil rights, more expensive guns, delays, and the FBI keeping records of purchases. A concussion.
The NRA helped write an “assault weapon” ban. They told you it was because if they didn’t write it, it would have been worse. The NRA’s ban included SKSes with fixed ten-round magazines. Is that blood leaking from your ear?
Remember when the NRA thought constitutional carry — honest folks being armed for defense without begging the state’s permission, and paying for the privilege — was bad? The NRA actively sabotaged state-level CC efforts; successfully in New Hampshire. Slap. Punch.
The NRA supported Fix NICS, which includes language that encourages states to add people to NICS without any trial, hearing, or notice; for non-criminal activities. Boom. Coma.
The NRA petitioned the federal government to “regulate” bump-fire stocks as machineguns, then feigned surprise when they discovered that bump-fire stocks would now be banned post-1986 machineguns… thanks to the NRA’s FOPA compromise. And if bump-fire stocks “easily convert” semiautomatic rifles to machineguns… The all semiautomatic rifles are machineguns under the same open-bolt ban, or ban of semiauto ARs that could accept an M-16 trigger group. The NRA is punching and kicking your unconscious body.
The NRA has endorsed no-due process extreme risk protection orders, so-called “red flag” laws, allowing the confiscation of firearm from someone not accused of a crime. And now they’ve been used to confiscate firearms from folks who simply know someone who wasn’t accused of a crime. Oooh. Fractured skull.
So, my dear, it’s time to wake up and escape your abuser, while you still can. The NRA isn’t beating on you because it loves you; just your money. And when your abusive partner demands money to fix the injuries he inflicted upon you, find something creative to do with those NRA fundraising letters.
Leave the National Rifle Association. For good. That marriage cannot be saved.
(edit: corrected “by passing” to “bypassing”)
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
