Category Archives: authoritarian swine

Welcome to 1933, nope 2022 Germany

German Airline Bans Jews From Flying; Lufthansa Supervisor: It’s “Jewish People Who Were The Mess, Who Made The Problems, Everyone Has To Pay For A Couple!”

On Wednesday, I heard about an incident on Lufthansa flight 401, a Boeing 747-8 that flew from JFK to Frankfurt, that was almost too hard to believe. Allegedly, Lufthansa refused to allow any of the Jews from that flight onto their connecting flight to Budapest, while non-Jews were free to continue on their journeys. Two dozen armed police officers ensured that no Jews boarded the flight or caused issues at the gate.

Apparently the excuse Lufthansa is using to refuse to honor the tickets bought by the Jews is…masks.

While US carriers have dropped mask requirements, rules in airports and on foreign carriers can be confusing. For example, you don’t need to wear a mask on KLM planes to their Amsterdam hub, but you do need to wear it in the Amsterdam airport. You do need a mask on Lufthansa planes to their Frankfurt hub, but you don’t need to wear a mask in the Frankfurt airport.

Lufthansa flights from JFK and Newark to Frankfurt on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, were filled with Jews, mostly Hasidic.

….

Lufthansa requires surgical masks or N95s to be worn on flights, and handed out 3 ply masks to everyone who didn’t have a mask or only had a cloth mask at boarding.

Hope they get sued for pulmonary damage making people wear those things on long flights

Study finds plastics found in masks present in patients’ lungs

Microplastic fibres were found deep in the lower lungs of living human beings in almost every person sampled in a recent UK study.

The study from Great Britain discovered microplastic particles — present in many COVID-19 masks — in the lung tissue of 11 out of 13 patients undergoing surgery.

Polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) were the most prevalent substances present in the lungs.

The microscopic plastic fragments and fibres were discovered by scientists at Hull York Medical School in the UK. Some of the filaments were two millimetres long in patients undergoing surgery whose lung tissue they sampled.

The plastic dust and microscopic debris comprises the same plastics used to manufacture the ubiquitous surgical masks worn by hundreds of millions of people around the world as mandated by governments in an attempt to halt the spread of COVID-19.

But back to our story.

They told me that there was zero mask enforcement in first class and that one of the first class flight attendants was not wearing her own mask for most of the flight. Passengers in first class didn’t wear masks for most of the flight and weren’t asked to.

From talking to several passengers in economy, it seems like there were a couple of isolated masking issues in economy class, both among some visibly Hasidic Jews as well as non-Jews. It’s a shame that they flouted the rules, but it’s unclear why those few passengers weren’t singled out for punishment as would happen on most airlines in the world.

….

David Landau told me that at 7:20am they finally started boarding, but this was no typical boarding. The gate agent was paging individuals by name to come up and board the flight. He recalled that the paged individuals that were able to board were not visibly Jewish, but he recalled that a Rosen was paged and he saw that he didn’t make it onto the flight.

….

Yitzy tried asking the Lufthansa agent if being Jewish made him part of “the group from NYC,” but police kept them away from the Lufthansa agents, while saying that they were just there to enforce what Lufthansa tells them to do. It seemed to him that Lufthansa was using the police to shy away from answering passengers’ questions.

Ahhh, the old “Just following orders” canard. The good Germans.

But Lufthansa has now (in their opinion) made everything all okie dokie.

They apologized to the Rabbi of Berlin and the employee that perpetrated this modern day example of anti-semitism has been suspended. No idea for how long, not fired. Just suspended.

Lufthansa’s head office reached out to him to setup the video chat. I asked the Rabbi why he thought the airline called him, instead of a Rabbi in Frankfurt, home of the incident and the airline’s base. He wasn’t positive, but notes that Berlin is the capital city and that he has worked with the federal government and companies in the past when similar cases about anti-Semitism have surfaced.

Rabbi Teichtal said that the CEO’s apologies sounded genuine and personal, a far cry from the generic “apology” that was published by the airline yesterday which ignored anti-Semitism and merely “regretted the circumstances.” That non-apology also referred to the passengers on the flight as a group, when in fact there were many passengers who booked their own travel and were also denied boarding to Budapest.

Yeah, I’m guessing he has worked with the German authorities on anti-semitism as he himself has been attacked more than once in Berlin.

Hoodlums Attack Berlin Rabbi Anti-Semitic hoodlums attacked the Chabad rabbi in Berlin and eight students one week before the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht.

Rabbi attacked in apparent anti-Semitic incident in Berlin

Lufthansa refused to book the Jews on other flights, banned them from the airlines for 24 hours, wouldn’t refund their money and then blamed them for the problems. The original link I gave has a lot of videos shot by the passengers asking why they can’t continue their flight.

Passenger: Just the Jewish people on that flight?

Lufthansa: Do you want to discuss with me or no? Do you want to listen to me?

Passenger: I’m like shocked beyond, never in my adult life. I’ve never heard this.

Lufthansa: If you want to do it like this, Jewish people who were the mess, who made the problems.

So yeah Lufthansa, calling the Rabbi in Berlin (when the incident took place in Frankfurt) not refunding money, not personally calling every passenger you stole money from and traumatized totally makes it cool beans. /sarcasm.

As Jack Posobiec says, “Know what part of the movie you’re in”.

Rise of the Nazis and Beginning of Persecution

On April 1, 1933, a general boycott against German Jews was declared, in which SA members stood outside Jewish-owned stores and businesses in order to prevent customers from entering.

Covid, like hitler used health, has made nazis out of teachers, flight attendants, shop keepers and torn families apart thanks to the medical lies and attempted tyranny by the left in not just America but world wide. We don’t have to turn a blind eye again.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

California Red Flag Law Doesn’t Work

You might think that headline is the big news. Not really. We already know red flag laws don’t work.

The news here is that Garen Wintemute, the victim-disarmament advocate who previously couldn’t find data he could not twist, finally hit a brick wall. And worse.

Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law
VROs were not associated with reduced population-level rates of firearm violence in San Diego County, but this may change as the number of orders increases over time; the association between GVROs and firearm violence at the individual level cannot be inferred from our findings and should be the subject of future studies.

Wintemute is notable for crappy “studies” using bogus tools like synthetic controls (imaginary populations, because real populations wouldn’t support his predetermined “results”), tossing out most of the inconvenient data (because two-thirds of the subjects declined to kill themselves), and using personally identifiable data obtained through legally dubious means (so dubious that California tried to pass a bill to legalize it). He has also violated privacy rules with covert surveillance.

This paper was another example of a synthetic control; an artificial “San Diego.”

To estimate the association between GVRO implementation and firearm violence in San Diego, we used the synthetic control method, a quasi-experimental comparative case study design.

This was a particularly egregious example. To the extent that synthetic controls have any value, you build one by using data from populations (other California counties, in this case) with conditions and populations similar to the variable you wish to examine, except for the variable in question. That is, when studying the effects of a red flag law on a county, you would make up an imaginary comparison county from places that don’t have a red flag law.

All California counties were subject to the same statewide red flag law.

Properly, if you want to see the effects on San Diego County of the red flag law, you simply do a temporal analysis of per capita homicides and suicides in San Diego prior to law passage and after implementation. Wintemute didn’t need a synthetic San Diego to come to a conclusion; he already had real San Diegos without a red flag law (pre-2016) and with a red flag law (post-2016). You use a synthetic control when you don’t expect real world data to support your preculsion.

For example, one year after Florida passed a red flag law, homicides and suicides went up. That was especially nasty, because for two years prior to passage both rates had been declining.

Two years after the Florida law’s passage, and homicide and suicide rates were still increasing.

[Side Note: To anyone with an operational brain, this was… a no-brainer, so to speak. You have a potentially violent –to self or others — person. You piss him off, or depress him, off by stealing his property without due process. Then you simply leave him loose on the streets. WTH did they expect to happen?!]

So what was really happening in San Diego County?

Violent Crime Rate per 1,000*
2011: 3.49
2012: 3.75(up)
2013: 3.35 (down)
2014: 3.28 (down)
2015: 2.35 (up slightly)
2016: 3.3 (down) Red Flag Passes
2017: 3.41 (up)
2018: 3.42 (up)
2019: 3.4 (inch down)
2020: 3.45 (up)
2021: 3.74 (UP!)

The violent crime trend reversed post-Red Flag, to increase.

Suicide Rate per 100,000
2013: 12.9
2014: 12.5 (down)
2015: 12.0 (down)
2016: 12.0 (no change) Red Flag Passes
2017: 12.3 (up)
2018: 12.86 (UP!)

The suicide rate trend reversed post-Red Flag, to increase.

Such a surprise. Not.

Wintemute et al went with a synthetic control — showing no effect of the Red Flag law to hide the fact that no only did it have an effect, but it appeared to make things worse.


* Sorry; I had to go with Violent Crime Rate, which includes homicides, because multiple fast searches didn’t turn up homicide rates broken out separately. There’s only so much I can do without funding.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

I stand on the shoulders of Giants

The Second Amendment rights movement has suffered what I consider to be some grievous losses the last few years. We lost Brad Alpert in 2019 who’s Second Amendment activity went way back to 1966. We lost his beloved wife Jo Ann just a few weeks ago. She was a Southern Second Amendment powerhouse in her own right. They were some of the smartest people I ever met, and many a time a visit to see them would sooth my troubled heart, soul or both. Not to mention they were a great source of inspiration.

I’m not on FakeBook much at all anymore, but a quick check in showed me we lost a another stalwart on the 15th of April.

And then last night I got a phone call from an old friend, going way back to 2004. January 22nd of 2004 to be precise. I was a young(er) country gal who had traveled to the state capitol to attend a hearing for a court case against Missouri’s concealed carry law. I was going to write my first column for a grassroots Missouri Second Amendment rights group. I didn’t know anyone. I was going because I didn’t have to work that day, and I wanted to see it, and write about it. And it became what I consider to be a life shaping event. I met some amazing people that day, people I had only heard of in Second Amendment rights group meetings. People that had been instrumental in getting concealed carry passed in the state of Missouri. One of those people was John Ross, the author of Unintended Consequences. It is a big book, it combines history with his modern day story line and while I haven’t read it for a few years, in some ways I think it’s prophetic. As I recall it’s towards the beginning there is a part that takes place in the Warsaw ghetto. I was hooked. Part of it does have some pretty graphic scenes, just a warning up front. But it’s a once you read it, you’ll never forget it. I remember when it came out he, and his ex-wife were harassed by alphabet soup agencies, but the book still went on sale.

My phone call last night was from my friend Michael Meyer (who despite never getting me a Clydesdale, I still adore) telling me John had passed on. I didn’t even know he had been working on his next book. Who knows what that might have been like. Michael said everyone was in shock. I get it, I am as well. I told Michael it’s because we never expect our legends to die. I guess some people have been looking on the net for that original column I did, about meeting them all. So I’m sharing some pictures with you from that day, the lunch at Madison’s and Michael generously shared some really good pictures of John with me.

I was in the presence of Warrior Angels that day, I still aspire to become one, and to inspire others to become one as well. Because I stand on the shoulders of giants.

In the Presence of Warrior Angels

I was lucky enough to be able to attend the Missouri Supreme Court (MOSC) hearing on the 22nd of January. It was an amazing experience for us. We found out by attending the WMSA meeting the night before that we needed to be there around 10 AM, rather than the 2 PM we had planned on. There would be tickets given out to enter the hearing. So I got up bright and early so I could leave on time. If you have never had to wake up chickens to feed them, it is pretty funny.

After an uneventful journey, I arrived around 9:40 AM found a parking spot in a 2 hour parking meter lot and got all set. I knew what the building looked like from internet hunting. I had ever been to the MOSC. I went in and passed through the metal detectors. Seemed an unnecessary step to me, as there was a big sign on the door to the effect of no weapons beyond this point. All criminals will certainly obey that sign, so why both with the metal detector? Then the intrepid Marshal went through my purse, more or less. Now that is bravery! We all left our cell phones on a table along with everyone else’s. I was told we couldn’t take our camera upstairs, so I asked the Marshal if I could take a photo by the beautiful marble stairway. He said sure. I started to take the photo, and a very nice gentleman, who turned out to be John Gordon, came up and offered to take a photo. Then tongue in cheek (at least I think it was) he asked which side we were on. I told him, VERY pro. He smiled and said as long as I was on the right side and laughed. John took the photo. Afterwards we met Tom Mendenhall, both were from Columbia. There were another group of men standing around, mostly in suits, I wondered which side they were on. While we were waiting for the tickets to be given out I amused myself by trying to figure out which side folks were on according to how they dressed and acted. After a while a line formed, we asked Carl, the guard behind the desk, by this time we were on a first name basis with Carl, if we should get in line. He softly laughed and said he didn’t know why folks were forming the line, that the tickets would be given out in order of arrival, and the Marshal knew the order of the arrival. Shortly after 10 AM, out he came and proceeded to pass out tickets. As we walked outside Dennis told me he had traded tickets with the gentleman that was walking out with us, so he could sit with his friends. I asked if we were still sitting together, he said we were. The gentleman then introduced himself. Tim Oliver. I lunged across Dennis and yelped TIM OLIVER?? THE Tim Oliver? He laughed and said yes. He told us he had a table reserved at Madison’s for lunch, we should come. Now we are in a strange city, we don’t know anyone, and this nice man invites us to join his group. We asked if he was sure there would be enough room for us. He said sure. He told us where it was, so we set out to move our car and find the place. We found it. It turned out, it was across from the parking garage. We went in and began our meeting of Warrior Angels. It was the most amazing thing, we ended up having lunch with Tim Oliver, Greg Jeffery, Tom Mendenhall and John Gordon on one side of the table. On the other was Dennis, Mike Meyer, John Ross (Author of Unintended Consequences, which if you haven’t read it, wow, you should!) and C. Michael Gamble. These are men who have labored long and hard in the fight for our Second Amendment Rights. They are intelligent, informed and generous of nature. They allowed two folks from the country who were pretty much alone in the city to be a part of their group and within 5 minutes we felt at home, we were among our own kind. Then it was back to the MOSC. We were front row center, I sat next to John Gordon, who secured press packets for us. When the lawyers filed in, Tim, who sat on the other side of Dennis, told us who the players were. Bert Newman opened for the bad guys (no bias in reporting here folks!). His argument hinged on the statement in the Missouri constitution that Article 1 section 23 which stated “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” meant that it couldn’t be done. One of the justices pointed out then it would apply to law officers, process servers and the like. Mr. Newman felt this applied only to citizens, not to law enforcement or the like which he said are “the state”. That law officers, process servers and the like have much more extensive training, regulation & requirements. There was a long discussion about rights under the first clause of Article 1 section 23, rights to promote personal security-guaranteed by the first clause, the right to defend their person or property. Mr. Newman feels that our law enforcement officials are promoting personal security by protecting the citizens of the state in a manner that is consistent with the first clause of Article 1 section 23. So as I understand that, Mr. Newman feels that our right to defend ourselves is taken care of by law enforcement officers. While I listen to this, I am remembering the part in Missouri Weapons and Self-Defense Law by K. Jamison, that the police do NOT have a duty to protect the individual, just society as a whole, and am thinking, oh, this isn’t good. Then came one of the most entertaining portions of the show. I believe it was Judge Benton, that ask Mr. Newman, so your definition of the word justify is sanction? What definition do you give us of the word justify? Faster than a speeding bullet, Mr. Newman whipped a pair of black patent tap shoes out of his briefcase and tied them on. He began to dance at a rapid speed. He started with the last phrase means accept, then went into the intent of the founders is so clear, looking back to the mischief to be remedied, spirit of the times, 1875 havoc, civil war…. The Justice re-asked the question of what justify meant, and where did he get the definition. With his feet furiously flying, Mr. Newman launched into another diatribe, included in his points, meaning of “does not justify” is a ban on concealed weapons, means can’t have. In the back of my head I am hearing this raspy voice saying “it depends on what your definition of the word is, is”…Finally after another Justice asked a time or two, Mr. Newman finally stated that the word justify meant “allow”. Mr. Newman then took off his tap shoes and Mr. Miller, the other bad guy (for simplicity in reporting) got up to present the Hancock portion of the argument. Judge Benton pointed out that the Sheriff may charge up to $100, or may not charge anything. That there may be a Sheriff that has said he will do it for free, as part of his running platform. Mr. Miller kept insisting that for judicial economy, that instead of having 114 counties come before the Supreme Court asking for relief from this unfunded mandate, it should just be ruled on now. One Justice pointed out that some counties have said they will not need any additional personnel, they already have the process in place for fingerprints, and basically, it won’t be any big deal. Obviously, this was not the Jackson County Sheriff. Mr. Miller’s point is that although the Sheriffs may charge up to $100, that the way the law is written prohibits the Sheriffs from using the money to pay for cost of processing the applications. Huh, where do these people get this stuff?

Then the mighty Paul Wilson from the Attorney General’s office (One of the good guys) came up to bat. Justice Wolf wanted to know if the money goes to the Sheriff’s fund for training, would the County be compensated for other expenses. Mr. Wilson replied that there was no way to know what other expenses there might be. He said that there is no way the legislature would draft the law, allow the Sheriffs to charge up to $100 and then say they could not use it to pay the expenses. One of the Justices asked “what if we struck the restriction to training and equipment? Then they could use the money as they see fit.” Mr. Wilson replied they could, or they could acknowledge the next section in the law which requires a sheriff to reimburse a local police chief any reasonable expenses meant that these categories were not to be exclusive to other expenses. He stated that the legislature had acted rationally in providing funds. When asked how could he say that in a county like St. Louis that it will not result in increase work load, Mr. Wilson replied they can’t, they have no way of knowing if 1 person, or 100,001 people will apply. He pointed out that the legislature will likely give a law against cross burning this year, and that will result in increased work for detectives. He asked if it was to be suggested that the law would violate the Hancock Amendment. He stated that is work they do, they capture criminals and bring them to the prosecutors. That these duties are part and parcel of what they do. Mr. Wilson stated that if a county doesn’t want to oblige someone who wants a concealed carry license, the county would raise the Hancock issue, they would have to prove, which they have not, that it is an unfunded mandate. That county would then need to come before the MOSC to be excused from complying. BUT if the court did choose to do that, it would not be preventing any other county from complying with the law.

Then it was back to Dancin’ Bert Newman for his final argument which is banning concealed carry promotes personal safety.

Mr. Miller’s final say was if they didn’t decide now on the Hancock issue (before there is any data to base a decision on mind you) that they would have to decide the issue 114 times. Just then a little Red chicken ran across the court room, something about the sky falling….I think. And with that the arguments closed.

What can I say, Mr. Brooks didn’t look too happy. It was the most amazing day, meeting these wonderful men, they truly are Warrior Angels, and to be present when history is being made!

Lunch at Madison’s

A gathering of Warrior Angels at the Missouri Supreme Court
The late, very great John Ross

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Not Anti-Gun Per Se”

Ah, victim-disarmers being reasonable again.

Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment
“Constitutional Carry”: What a euphemistic, “newspeak” concept!

Passed to the governor for signature a day ahead of the announced schedule, depending largely on his political ambitions, not merit or lack, for passage. Next probable and equally “logical” step: Unregulated firearm ownership for every man, woman and child in America.

The weirdly disjointed sentence structure, and the peculiar “logical” leap from “one state passed Constitutional Carry” to “totally unregulated firearm ownership for absolutely everyone in America” was an instant warning that I was reading the ravings of a not-entirely sane person. I scrolled down to see who this Paul Shriver is.

Paul Shriver, EdD, is a forensic and clinical psychologist.

Sad to say, but in my experience (and others*) psychologists have a strong tendency to be b–f— nuts. As you’ll see, this appears to be the case with Shriver. Couple that with a pointless EdD, and we have a perfect storm of irrationality. He doesn’t have both oars in the water. The elevator doesn’t go to the top. Pick a metaphor.

Firearm use is by definition a violent act (homicide when a human is the recipient) and has no place in civilized society.

He seems to be unaware of target practice; which would explain another statement he makes later. He also seems to think that humans invariably, without exception die when shot. Chicago says otherwise.

No reasonable person could possibly imagine that expressing one’s feelings or opinions with a bullet could be equivalent to “free speech” or even exist as a “right” on the same piece of paper.

Projecting much, Shriver? Offhand, I don’t recall ever firing a round to express an opinion.

But let’s get to the meat.

The only real solution must begin with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and without delay. It might then be re-written in clear language as a privilege to be strictly regulated — the details to be worked out later by usual democratic means.

Never mind that the Supreme Court has already found that it is a right, not a privilege; and that it pre-dates the Amendment he finds so bothersome. And he seems to be ignoring Indiana’s own pesky constitution.

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

He’ll be needing to convince his neighbors to repeal that one, too. Based on my time living in Indiana, I’d say not damned likely.

In the interim, of course, all guns in current ownership, manufacture, storage, etc., would need to be recalled, and if not “re-legalized,” eliminated. Some current types and uses, would be restored, regulated and licensed as appropriate with little real inconvenience. Thus, this idea is not anti-gun per se, nor in any sense extreme.

Repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating all firearms in the country is anti-gun. And it sounds pretty damned extreme. And about as “anti-gun” as one could get.

Hmm. No exception there for police. Universal disarmament. hat should be interesting.

Meanwhile, I and my personal gun: Locked, no bullets, single action, and not very accurate (and therefore little threat) remain very truly yours for peace, good will, and universal disarmament in our times.

I imagine the “not very accurate” issue lays mainly in his lack of practice, since he wouldn’t want to violently attack a peice of paper. But if all firearm use is violence, why does he have one? Perhaps Paul Shriver should be red flagged, starting his “universal disarmament” with himself.


* I knew a woman with a doctorate in psychology. She once told me she left the field — research psychology — when she realized that most of her peers were nuts. She also told me that clinical psychologists are worse.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall

Who’s the dumbest one of all? I never expect much sense from victim-disarmers, but the CT Mirror’s Mark Robinson may have set a new low bar.

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that
Let’s not buy into misconceptions about the 2nd Amendment when advancing Gov. Lamont’s gun control proposals.

What might those misconceptions be?

Public perception and debate only changed a little more than a generation ago. Until recently, this has been the overwhelming consensus among Americans and in the courts. Ever since the aftermath of the War of 1812 (when veterans returned home from war with their firearms) the federal government has regulated and restricted the right to bear arms, and did so without political controversy.

According to “A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” by Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, during the decades after the Revolutionary War, the sale of firearms was forbidden to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans.

He went there: Gun control is good because there is no individual right to arms, and we used to disarm Catholics, slave, and Indians.

Holy s[…].

Say… since slavery was legal then, does he want to re-institute that as well?

Moving on.

In U.S. v Miller in 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the National Firearms Act, (which was passed after the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre). In that case, the Court ruled unanimously that the 2nd Amendment pertains to militias and not to individual rights.

Aside from the chronological error (MILLER was 1939, which gives you an idea of how well Robinson studied this issue), MILLER was about the status of the defendant’s sawed-off shotgun, not individual RKBA. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear militarily useful arms, and that no evidence was presented showing that the military used short-barreled shotguns; thus, registration of a non-militarily useful arm could be required. No such evidence was presented because the defendant had died, and with no one to pay their bills, his attorneys didn’t show up to argue the case. (And keep that “militarily useful part in mind.)

But in 2008, in District of Columbia v Heller, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, ruling that the 2nd Amendment did create an individual right to bear arms. That is – literally – the first time the high court took this position.

No. The Court found that the Second Amendment protects a preexisting right.

Nor was this the first time that SCOTUS had found the Second to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has ruled that way since at least 1857 (hint: SCOTUS ruled against Dred Scott because if he was a free man, he would have a right to bear arms just like anyone else). If Robinson had bother reading the HELLER decision, he might have noticed that Scalia cited numerous prior precedents for an individual right.

Robinson has a little list of further infringements that he wants CT Governor Lamont to impose.

Close the loopholes in assault weapons laws

Remember that “militarily useful” part of MILLER? If “assault weapons” are nasty, military-style arms, then MILLER (and HELLER) already found that we have an individual right to them. Shall we go there; in court, I mean?

Make domestic violence convictions an automatic disqualifier for obtaining a gun permit

Well, that seems a little redundant, since a domestic violence conviction already makes possession of a firearm a crime. Doubly redundant since CGS § 29-28(b) also mentions that no permit may be issued to anyone prohibited under 18 USC 922.

Perhaps Robinson could spend some time perusing Connecticut General Statutes regarding firearms. Our Gun Culture Primer might help, too.

Until then, he should keep his mouth shut and avoiding proving himself an ignorant fool.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

When a lie is the FIB

With the recent decision in the Gretchen Whitmer faux kidnapping plot, which saw two of the defendants acquitted and another two had a result of a hung jury. Which is amazing considering how little evidence the defense was allowed to present. In some cases because it might “confuse the jury”. Uh huh.

There’s More to Yesterday’s Verdicts in the Michigan Whitmer Kidnapping Case – Much More…

Both before and during the trial, prosecutors went to extraordinary lengths to exclude evidence and witnesses that might undermine their arguments, while winning the right to bring in almost anything favorable to their own side. As a result, defense attorneys were largely reduced to nibbling at the edges of the government’s case in hopes of instilling doubt in the jurors’ minds, and to making claims about official misconduct with vanishingly few pieces of evidence to support them.

But did you know there is actual video of the planning sessions?

Well, yeah, it’s the Bee, but I figure that’s probably about how it really worked. So isn’t it interesting that the head of the Detroit office at the time was transferred to DC shortly before January 6th? Guess he had a perfect work resume, eh wot?

Head of FBI Detroit during the fake Whitmer kidnapping plot was transferred to DC Field Office before Jan 6

Many have pointed out the striking FBI parallels between the Capitol riot that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, and the Whitmer would-be kidnapping case. Even a New York Times reporter admitted on footage captured by undercover Project Veritas staffers that there were “a ton of FBI informants” among the Jan. 6 rioters.

That is quite a coincidence isn’t it? The events following January 6th have long bothered me. There is so much video footage that hasn’t been released, why not? Ashli Babbit’s murder by a cop who had left his service weapon in a bathroom in the past, now murdered an American citizen who moments before had been yelling at a cop to call for back up and tried to stop a man much bigger than herself from breaking in a door. Oh, and he’s now been promoted. And rather than have a fair hearing or trial the DC swamp just covered it up.

One article says there may have been as many as 20 federal “asses”, er “assets” embedded on January 6th. Twenty? Oh, I’d guess much higher. 20 Federal ‘Assets’ Embedded at Capitol on Jan. 6, Court Filing Says

“How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of Jan. 6?” Cruz asked Jill Sanborn, executive assistant director of the FBI’s national security branch.

“Sir, I’m sure you can appreciate that I can’t go into the specifics of sources and methods,” Sanborn said.

Cruz replied, “Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of Jan. 6, yes or no?”

“Sir, I can’t answer that,” Sanborn said.

“Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on Jan. 6?” Cruz asked.

“I can’t answer that, sir,” Sanborn replied.

Well of course you can’t.

The list of normal American citizens the FIB went after is staggering. Here’s a selection of a few. Included are a single Mom who is at risk of losing her infant and spending 30 years in jail. For the crime of…..wait for it….being a proud boy. Yep, those Demoncrats really can’t tell boys from girls. One would think the FIB, being the crack investigative agency that it is could figure out if she just gave birth..oh yeah, I forgot, birthing person. Well, and they probably aren’t biologists either. If we’re lucky Demoncrats will be extinct in time, seeing as how they don’t have the reproducing thing down yet. But these stories are just heartbreaking, a Dad who forgives the piece of crap son that turned him into the FIB because he wouldn’t let the boy take his Mom’s car to a BLM riot. Geez, didn’t tell him he couldn’t go, just he couldn’t take his Mom’s car. I mean these stories are heartbreaking. Especially when you get into how the prisoners have been treated in the DC prison.

DC Prison Warden Throws J-6ers into Lockdown and Isolation Without Warning – Democrats Continue to Shred Constitution in Quest for Total Dominance

14 GOP Lawmakers Sign Letter to DC Mayor Bowser to Fire Deputy Warden Landerkin Who Allows Torture of DC Political Prisoners

Fourteen. A whole fourteen, out of 213 Republicans in Congress at the time of the article.

Marjorie Taylor Greene GA

Louie Gohmert TX

Matt Gaetz FL

Paul Gosar AZ

Bob Good VA

Andy Harris MD

Ralph Norman SC

Mary Miller IL

Barry Moore AL

Tom Tiffany WI

Andy Biggs AZ

Lauren Boebert CO

Scott Perry PA

Michael Cloud TX

None from my state. None were Demoncrats.

Unhinged Deputy Warden Kathleen Landerkin of the DC Prison Wants White Republicans Extinct

DC Gulag Deputy Warden Bragged on Twitter After Blocking Republicans Greene, Gohmert and Gaetz from Witnessing J6 Prisoner Abuse at the Facility

Deputy Warden at DC Gulag Where Pro-Trump Political Prisoners Are Violently Beaten and Abused Deletes Twitter Page After She Is Exposed as Toxic Trump-Hater

Deletes Twitter page? Wow, that sounds really serious, not got fired, denied pension or anything like that, just deletes Twitter page.

These people are being denied edible food, access to see their families, healthcare (thought that was a human right obama?) and basic human rights, let alone dignity. I’m not sure it’s true, but I hear there is a letter asking for Putin to liberate the DC gulag.

In case you want a refresher on some of the MSM aka #FakeNews talking points, Mother of January 6th Political Prisoner Whose Son Faces 20 Years for Reporting Inside US Capitol Publishes Must-Read List of Facts and she rebuts them all. Guess there’s a reason they call it #FakeNews. For those that don’t know, many of the rally goers were waved inside. “I’m Defending the Right to Express Your Views Under the First Amendment” – Alan Dershowitz Speaks Out in Defense of J6er He Is Representing who Was Waved in to US Capitol

“None of Them Should Be in Jail. They Should All Be Out On Bail…It Is an American Gulag” – Judge Napolitano on the DOJ’s and Court’s Actions with January 6ers

As Washington DC is funded by taxpayer dollars, I would think there would be some leverage. And this is what gets to me. Other than some notable names how many politicians are defending people that are in jail for going to a peaceful rally? How many are parroting back how appalled they were by the behavior and on ad nauseam? I thought Americans objected to political prisoners, and they certainly are. But our big speaking politicians are all mush mouthed on this.

Why has no one contacted Amnesty International?

But you know who has stepped up to the plate? Bin Laden. Yep, Bin Laden. Not that one. Noor, his niece. She is amazing, and I’m not just saying that because I’m totally jealous of her hair. On February 7th, this year:

*On February 7, 2022 PACE submitted this document (ref. A/HRC/49/NGO/244, published on March 9, 2022) to the UN Human Rights Council with literally one minute left before the automated system was shut down. Hence why there are a couple of typos in the official document. Also, UN editors systematically changed ‘the U.S.’ or ‘U.S.’ to ‘the United States of America’, annoyingly making the original document less than an ideal read –– please ignore.

Yes, Noor Bin Laden has submitted a document to the UN Human Rights Council on behalf of the January 6th political prisoners. The story behind it, and what she submitted can be found here, on her web site. There is also a link to the official UN document. Here’s a snippet:

An African regime that behaved like the Biden administration, using its state security services to suppress dissent and punish political opponents, under the guise of a “domestic war on terror,” would be swiftly condemned by the UN, and punished with sanctions.

We respectfully urge the OHCHR to reconsider its January 18, 2021 statement, in light of new evidence, and to take forceful action against the grievious human rights violations now being unleashed against political dissidents by US security services.

Yep, Noor Bin Laden doing the job American politicians haven’t done.

Meanwhile the FIB has become a joke, and it needs to be defunded as well as D.C.

I did hear the had a January 6th reunion recently though. FBI To Host First Annual Jan 6 Reunion There was video of that as well.

Yeah, I wanted to try to find a way to end it on a bit of a smile, if possible. Pesach starts tomorrow evening. We celebrate our G-d taking us out of the slavery of Egypt, towards a life and land where we could live with the directions for living a good life according to the directions G-d would soon be giving us.

May political prisoners all over the world soon taste freedom, and may we all leave the slavery of our own private “Egypts”.

חג פסח שמח

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Unregulated “Ghost Guns”

I think it’s high time for manufacturers of unfinished frames to start suing the heck out of Everytown for Gun Safety.

But gun safety advocacy groups, like Everytown for Gun Safety, which pushed the federal government for years to take action on ghost guns, applauded Biden’s moves and insisted that both Dettelbach’s appointment and the finalized rule will help combat gun violence.

“Ghost guns look like a gun, they shoot like a gun, and they kill like a gun, but up until now they haven’t been regulated like a gun,” said John Feinblatt, Everytown’s president. (link)

Feinblatt isn’t stupid. He isn’t ignorant. He isn’t mistaken.

He is a liar.

Privately manufactured firearms are firearms, and are regulated as such. A prohibited person may not build one. A prohibited person may not possess one. They may not be manufactured with the intent to sell, only for personal use. All that before the Biden administration’s new rule.

Certainly the Department of Justice and ATF are aware of that.

Seven men charged with guns trafficking in Inland Empire, ‘ghost guns’ among 30 firearms seized
Seven men have been arrested and charged with multiple federal firearms- and drug-related offenses as part of a federal investigation that recovered seven automatic weapons among a haul of so-called ghost guns, officials said Tuesday.
[…]
Most of the guns were privately made firearms bearing no serial numbers or identifying marks, commonly referred to as “ghost guns.”
[…]
Damon Moore, aka “Damage,” 27, of Bellflower was charged with engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, being a prohibited person in possession of a gun, and distribution of methamphetamine.

If “ghost guns” are, as Everytown Liar-In-Chief claims, unregulated, exactly what US Code were these men charged under, eh? Looks like a truckload of 18 U.S. Code § 922 and 18 U.S. Code § 923 violations, but Feinblatt says it ain’t so; not too swift for an attorney. Maybe the Catholic University of America should demand his law degree back.

And a question for real attorneys: Is it a reportable ethics violation for an attorney to deliberately misrepresent laws?

I’m a bit curious about why the AP’s “Lead Justice Dept. & federal law enforcement reporter” let a demonstrably false statement like that go unchallenged. It raises the question of whether he’s an ignorant idiot, or just a fluffer for the victim-disarmament industry. (Rhetorical, of course; it’s AP.)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

HR 6225: Victim-Disarmer Wishlist

I haven’t done a deep dive on legislation lately, so let’s take a look at HR 6225 Federal Firearm Licensee Act, sponsored by Illinois DIMwit Robin Kelly.

First, get past the bill’s name. It is not just Federal Firearms Licensee regulation. So what is it? Everything. The kitchen sink might even be in there.

Section “(36) The term ‘facilitator’ means any person engaged in the business of hosting a commercial marketplace in which offers for firearm sales, purchases, or other transfers are allowed to be made,

This is new. Landlords would have to have a federal license to lease to FFLs. A thousand bucks. Per year.

We can’t have those nasty “ghost guns” out there.

Sec. 3 “(40) (A) The term ‘frame or receiver’—

“(i) means a part of a weapon that provides or is intended to provide the housing or structure to hold or integrate 1 or more fire control components, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect those components to the housing or structure; and

“(ii) includes a blank, casting, or machined body, that requires modification (including machining, drilling, or molding) to be used as part of a functional firearm, and that is designed and intended to be used in the assembly of a functional firearm, unless the blank, casting, or machined body has had—

So much for 80% — or 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10% — unfinished blanks. If it’s vaguely receiver-shaped, and could be worked into a firearm, it would be a firearm. For that matter, the definition is so vague that plumbing suppliers may need an FFL, and to serialize all their pipes.

I expect empty, aluminum cans to be next.

Next up is the upper/lower receiver problem, where AR-pattern lowers do not meet the definition of receiver in current law.

“(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), in the case of a weapon with more than 1 part that provides the housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate 1 or more fire control components, each such part shall be considered a frame or receiver, unless the Attorney General has provided otherwise by regulation with respect to the specific make and model of weapon on or before January 1, 2022.

Both upper and lower are each a receiver. Brilliant! Coupled with one-gun-a-month limits, this would prevent you buying a complete AR.

This next bit confuses me. Or maybe it’s Kelly who is confused. Or she’s simply doing a litte housekeeping on US Code.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF TEMPORARY BRADY PROVISION.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (s).

18 U.S. Code § 922(s) is a bit convoluted, but basically it’s the old 5 day handgun waiting period provision; a provision that expired many years ago.

Moving on…

SEC. 5. PHYSICAL SECURITY OF DEALER PREMISES.

This is a collection of physical (safes, bars, reinforced wall, vehicle barricades) and surveillance (lots of cameras, semi-permanent video storage) intended to make running a gun store financially prohibitive. Again.

And because no FFL would ever consider keeping track of his inventory…

SEC. 6. BUSINESS INVENTORY FIREARMS.

Now they would. Apparently Kelly believes in her tiny, shriveled, black heart that dealers have no idea what they’ve got, and don’t care if guns get stolen.

Section 7 gets really nasty.

(b) Records Databases.—Section 923(g) of such title is further amended by adding at the end the following:

“(9) (A) Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shall establish and maintain electronic, searchable databases of all records regarding the importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms required to be submitted by licensees to the Attorney General under this chapter.

You read that correctly. That mandates a searchable database of all firearm transfers. And yes, that includes individual 4473s.

Full gun and gun owner registration.

In Section 9, we have a new requirement for multiple firearm sales; expanded from handguns to… basically eveything. And she slipped in another “high capacity” magazine definition: more than tens rounds, or theoretically modifiable to hold more than tens rounds. There are no exceptions for .22s or fixed internal magazines like tubes.

Here’s another FFL harassment measure.

Sec. 10 “(4) WARNINGS TO PURCHASERS.—All licensed dealers operating a physical retail location shall post conspicuously within the licensed premises all warnings required to be provided to firearms purchasers under applicable State and local law. The Attorney General shall develop materials regarding suicide prevention, securing firearms from loss, theft, or access by a minor or prohibited person, and straw purchasing, and provide the materials to licensed dealers who shall disseminate the materials on transfer of a firearm to a person not licensed under this chapter.”.

By the time they prominently post all that, there’ll be no room for commercial displays.

SEC. 11. INSPECTIONS is a mess. Essentially — and piecemeal — it mandates FFL inspections at least annually. It could be more often, with no limits. Monthly? Weekly? No wonder the Biden administration wants a $1.7 billion increase in the ATF budget.

Or maybe there won’t be that many FFLs to inspect after all. SEC. 12. AUTHORITY WITH REGARDS TO LICENSE ISSUANCE AND RENEWAL makes FFLs explicitly may-issue.

For those who still manage to get a license, fees would double (Sec. 13).

Read on: It’s got new employee background checks, loss of FFL protections, restrictions on appeals… If you can think of some way to screw dealers, it’s probably there.

The good news is that GovTrack gives this bill a mere 2% chance of passing. Depending on Dim leadership IQs, that may even be — for Dims — optimistic. The midterms are coming, and passage of this bill would likely require election fraud that leaves 2020 in the dust, if Dims expect to win any election. Worst case — for them — is how many abruptly vacant seats would suddenly be up for grabs, due to hordes of irate constituents.

The bad news is that, while this package won’t pass, we will see every individual provision coming back like whack-a-mole.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Hogg Hunting

How much for a Hogglet tag?

If killing people has become legal — a bit of news I somehow missed — I’d pay a premium for a Hogg-hunting tag. Not that I’d use it; it would just be worth it for Hogg to simply know he was a lawful target of the people whose rights he wants to violate.

If you need a license to kill deer why don’t you need one to kill humans?

Let’s look at his other non sequiturs.

If you need a license to drive car, cut hair or to hunt you ought to need one to buy a gun.

I only need a license to drive a car on public streets. I don’t need a license to buy one.

I need a license to cut hair professionally, not to buy clippers or cut my own hair or that of family members.

I need a license to hunt some game, not to buy a gun.

There is something of a difference between buying a tool, and using said tool in a specific manner.

But Hogglet is to too g-ddamned stupid to grasp that.

Your right to own a gun with little regulation matters a lot less to me than the rights my classmates had before they were killed.

What do my rights have to do with what a known criminal in another state did to your classmates?

That’s not a rhetorical question. I’m waiting.

-crickets-

But let’s look at that “little regulation”:

18 U.S. Code § 921

18 U.S. Code § 922

18 U.S. Code § 923

18 U.S. Code § 924

18 U.S. Code § 925

18 U.S. Code § 925A

18 U.S. Code § 9226

18 U.S. Code § 926A

18 U.S. Code § 926B

18 U.S. Code § 926C

18 U.S. Code § 927

18 U.S. Code § 929

18 U.S. Code § 930

That’s just at the federal level. It’s harder to do a straightforward list of state laws. Picking my own state as an example…

2020 Georgia Code Title 16 – Crimes and Offenses

You’ll have to go through that to find all the firearm specific restrictions and crimes.

Firearms are hardly “little regulated,: which Hogglet would know if he had the brains G-d gave a grapefruit.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Time For Another Irrational Comparison To Rationalize Gun Control

At least it isn’t cars vs. guns again.

It’s been a while since I delved into the murky world of scholarly pro-victim-disarmament papers. Let’s take a look at Can States Block or Heavily Restrict the Second Amendment Constitutional Right by Following the Design of Texas Bill 8? (PDF). Basically, the weirdos compare the alleged right to abortion to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (yet oddly keep talking about licensure). The paper is a difficult to read mess, mainly — I suspect — because they have no frickin’ clue what they’re talking about.

In this research we ask three interrelated questions. First, does the Second Amendment right constitute an afront to International Law’s right to life under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)? If yes, can states adopt a design similar to Texas Bill 8 to ban or extensively regulate the second amendment right? Finally, what are the intrinsic differences between the right to bearing arms and the right to abortion? If they are intrinsically different, this research calls for examining each of them under a different scrutiny standard. In order to answer the last question, we assess two landmark cases regarding abortion and right to bear arms currently pending before the US Supreme Court, in an attempt to predict the future of those rights.

At the first glance, it follows from a logical point of view that allowing anyone in the street to possess lethal weapons only results in more homicides, assassinations, and general chaos even when initial purchasers meet the arm licensing conditions. [emphasis added]

Only?

Yet the potential dangers surrounding bearing arms did not enter public discourse until after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Not until 1963? I seem to recall something in 1934.

Money quote:

Taking our findings into account, we argue that the US Supreme Court should assess the right to abortion under a strict scrutiny standard, and the right to bearing arms under an intermediate scrutiny standard.

So abortion, not a right until 1973 — and not to be found enumerated anywhere in the Constitution should be given strict scrutiny. But a right recognized by states prior to the Constitution and specifically enumerated therein for more than two centuries should only get intermediate scrutiny?

The second practical concern was to guarantee personal and state autonomy against the federal government. This was influenced by John Locke’s thesis legitimizing revolution against oppression or injustices.36 By examining these practical concerns in the 21st century, they seem to be largely hyper-vigilant. Further, these practical concern could easily be rebutted by the distinction between militia’s right in bearing arms (which is currently substituted by the police force) and bearing arms for personal self-defense.

Ah, NO; the “police force” is not the militia. One might expect a law professor to know something about the law, particularly in an area he chose to write about. But clearly he doesn’t:

Perhaps the majority created this exception on a misreading of history regarding the ban of shotguns and machineguns…

When did that happen? I was aware of registration requirements for machineguns and short-barreled shotguns (the previously linked National Firearms Act of 1934), but when did this alleged ban happen? Anyone? Bueller?

Dear Bog, they even slipped in this BS argument:

In contrast, an accurate originalist interpretation of the second amendment would lead to a contrary result: namely, banning most firearms currently existing since they are not the same – technologically – as the ones existed in the 18th century when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the second amendment.

-sigh- Allow me to quote myself.

The next victim-disarming idiot who uses a smart phone connected to a computer network operating over fiber optic lines to tell me the framers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment never envisioned modern firearms, and that the Second Amendment only protects muskets is getting bitch-slapped.

James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.

Consider yourselves slapped, bitches. And recall that repeating firearms predated the very existence of the United States. By centuries. These folks’ knowledge of history is matched only by their knowledge of federal law. Well, lead author Yacoub is an “International Lawyer” practicing in Egypt, so perhaps there’s some slight excuse for his ignorance. But Briggs claims to be a practicing US attorney; G-d save her clients.

Section II of this paper gets interesting, in a morbid way. Now they bring up the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights — more a hash of muh socialism and a checklist of things governments can do to their citizens, than a bill of individual rights — and argue that it trumps the Second Amendment, because life. You see, keeping and bearing arms somehow violates someone’s right to life; but ending a life through abortion doesn’t.

The right to life was specifically mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); regional conventions such as the American Convention on Human Rights among others.90 Invoking the right to life was very influential in abolishing the death penalty in many nations.91 Yet the indirect relationship between the right to life and the US constitutional right to bear arms remains unexplored to a large extent.

In the HRC General Comment No. 36 issued in 2018, paragraph four, in particular, connects the right to life and states’ obligation to implement policies so a person is not arbitrarily deprived of their life. “[A]rticle 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law.

No.

Under the Convention, gun control is essential to protecting the right to life. While persons can claim self-defense of the individual person as an exemption to criminal responsibility, it does not trump the fundamental right to life that is inherent in international human rights law.109 Even if there was a so-called “right to self-defense,” States still have a positive legal obligation under the Convention to implement gun control measures to protect their citizens in the collective sense and not the right of one individual to carry a gun.

I said, “No.” An aggressor’s “right to life does not trump my right to self defense — protecting my own life, BTW. And defending myself against a specific individual who attacks me is not arbitrary; I’m not randomly shooting every sixth person that walks past.

I really wanted to analyze this whole mess for you, so you wouldn’t have to. But I’m going to have to stop only a third of the way through, for the sake of my own sanity if nothing else. Feel free to read it yourself. But be aware that it only gets worse.

As a warning of what you’ll encounter, note that these two scholastic schizos have done a number of papers together. My personal morbid favorite is the one where they argue for the United States to adopt Sharia law to “solve the problem of US mass incarceration.”

Beating, hand-chopping and beheading as an alternative to prison time? That might make “the rehabilitative approach of the Icelandic criminal justice model part a bit tough to implement.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail