Tag Archives: Red flag

authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

Commenting On Biden’s Proposed Rules

9 Comments

As I told you earlier, the Biden Harris administration is planning more Second Amendment infringements. We now know more about the time frames.

  • The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”
  • The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.
  • The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states: Red flag laws allow family members or law enforcement to petition for a court order temporarily barring people in crisis from accessing firearms if they present a danger to themselves or others.

The first two will require Administrative Procedures Act rule-making with public commenting. The Zelman Partisans will provide links for comments when they are published. But why wait until then to prepare? Start working on comments now. I have some draft comments you may wish to work with.

Pistol Brace = Short Barrel Rifle
I expect them to dust off the same one they floated last year, so this may work:

The ATF has not presented any “objective factors” to determine whether a pistol-braced firearm is a pistol or short-barreled rifle.

No single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis.”

That is no more than fancy language for Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s infamous, “I know it when I see it.”

That statement would appear to leave us precisely where we are now: at the mercy of a proven arbitrary and capricious federal agency bound to infringe upon the Second Amendment. But it is really worse than that. By including “length of pull” in the “factors,” the ATF starts with the assumption that a braced firearm is a short-barreled rifle until and unless it is proven otherwise.

An objective definition of pistol brace would be: A device designed to aid a user in holding a large pistol with one hand, which extends no further than the user’s forearm when gripping the firearm normally, and which conforms to the user’s forearm.

“Ghost Gun” Unfinished Frames/Receivers
Rumors of this circulated last month, so I’ll draw upon my remarks then for potential commenting:

I object to the classification of unfinished parts as firearms.

Per 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3)
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Per 27 CFR § 478.1
Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

Taking the AR-pattern lower “receiver” as an example: , that does provide housing for the trigger group and hammer. But note the lack of the rest of the firing mechanism, the firing pin. That goes in the upper, which is not considered a firearm. No does the lower house the bolt/breechblock. It doesn’t even have an attach point for the barrel. One characteristic out of four magically makes it a “firearm.” Federal courts have taken note of this, and dismissed firearm possession charges against those who had unassembled lowers.

An UNFINISHED frame or receiver doesn’t provide housing for any component, nor does it have a barrel attach point. That is WHY it is unfinished.

If you administratively enact this proposed rule, you will open up the can of worms that is most semiautomatic pistol frames: no bolt or breechblock, no barrel attach point, no firing pin or striker. Under current law, most unassembled semiautomatic pistols are not “firearms,” and we will take the point to court as part of demonstrating why your proposed rule on unfinished parts fails to meet legal definitions.

Model Red Flag Law
This amounts to a “white paper,”s o doesn’t get a rule-making process. But sending the Attorney General some remarks… well, won’t really do any good, but it can’t hurt.

The state of Florida enacted a “red flag” law on March 9, 2018 in response to the Parkland school shooting. It has proven ineffective.

For two years prior to enactment, Florida’s homicide rate was in decline. Its suicide rate was flat.

In the first year after passage, both homicide and suicide rates increased; dramatically so in the case of suicides. Two years after passage both rates are still above pre-“red flag” rates.

If correlation were causation, we would be forced to consider “red flag” laws as equally dangerous to rights AND lives.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Academics, authoritarian swine, Culture, genocide, gun grabbers, hatred of Jews, hoplophobia, Israel, Law, mindset, Political philosophy, Politics, Rights, Schools and campuses, self defense

Because they love their ideology more than they love children

7 Comments

Yours, theirs, doesn’t matter. Progressives are all in for the ideology of control. Be it whether or not you can have a 32 ounce soda pop or an AR-15. And yes, Mikey Bloomberg financier of the astro-turf Everytown for gun safety, is gearing up to run for President. It’s about control because without control they don’t have the power they are striving for.

Soda Bans

They are trying so desperately to peddle the bill of goods known as “It’s for the children”. But it really isn’t you see.

All those “Red Flag” or Preemptive prove your innocence or extreme risk orders of protection? No matter what you choose to call it by, it stinks. It is gun confiscation without due process from someone who has done nothing. In most cases they are engaging in mind reading. Or in some cases, just vindictive behavior.

In the case of the Bucket O’Chum school terrorist at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, he had given a wealth of signs, but due to a policy put in place during obama’s term there had been no consequences for his previous criminal behavior. The same with Trayvon Martin. Recently there was a juvenile in Baker County in Fl. who had made threats against his classmates and teachers. He had a plan all written out. He showed it to another student who told authorities. He was taken into custody by authorities before he could carry out any of his heinous plan. But I found this interesting.

“MAKE SURE THE TEACHERS ARE DEAD,” he ranted in a notebook. “Then rinse repeat.”….

The boy’s plan described killing teachers and fellow students in chilling detail. To maximize the carnage, he’d deploy an arsenal of knives and guns at a pep rally or some other high-traffic venue. He calculated he’d have nine minutes before squad cars and medics could reach the scene. He wouldn’t be acting alone, he hoped, having recruited at least three schoolmates who, like him, were “100% down that they might die that day.”

Emphasis mine. So what happened to the juvenile? Oh, the wise judge turned him loose back into the community he threatened. Truly.

They try to hoodwink us, telling us there is no time to spare to ensure someone’s rights are upheld, Baker act won’t do. Must have confiscation without due process, without facing your accuser in court.

So about those nine minutes.

At the recent attack at Saugus High School, the Bucket O’Chum began firing and his pistol jammed. Although according to the Daily Mail he used a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle, which he removed from his backpack. Heck of a backpack. But they are British, and MSM, so #FakeNews. What do they know about firearms? But it was a regular semi-automatic pistol. And it jammed. He cleared the jam and safely continued on firing secure in the knowledge he had plenty of time. He counted his shots saving the last one for himself. Help was only moments away,

Three off-duty police officers, who had just dropped off relatives at the school, were the first responders on the scene: a detective with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and police officers from Inglewood and Los Angeles.They were joined within a minute by uniformed deputies on duty from the sheriff’s station in Santa Clarita, as well as a sheriff’s deputy who works at the school as the school resource officer.

But the help was needed within seconds.

This being Kalifornia, I wonder if the off-duty police officers will be reprimanded for carrying their weapons into the school? The school resource officer was one of the last to arrive. I’m not criticizing him. He is one man, he can’t be everywhere. He’s not like Scott Peterson, the “Coward of Broward” who stood by outside the building, or former Sheriff Steve Israel who supported him. He was just the last to arrive. When seconds count the police are only moments away. If it saves just one child, right Mad Mommies? Right harridans of The View? Well, yeah, as long as it doesn’t involve anyone but the bad guy having the gun. How much quicker could the response have been had there been an armed teacher near by?

Laurens County, Georgia doesn’t intend to ever have to look back and wonder. They have began arming and training their teachers. They intend to do everything, politically correct or not, to protect the children from harm. I like the sign outside the school.

Outside every school building in the county is a yellow sign that reads, in part: “Warning. Staff members are armed and trained. Any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force.”

Seem straightforward to me.

Like the shooting in a Duncan Oklahoma Walmart parking lot recently. The first two victims died, then a good guy with a gun put a stop to further carnage. But, there was a good guy, a regular citizen there, with his gun. Or as the Daily Mail would call it, his semi-automatic rifle.

But to progressives, it’s not really about protecting children, if it saves just one life is a bunch of schiff. What is the message taught at schools? Violence is always wrong, if there is a fight and you defend yourself, you get in trouble (and suspended) same as the person who started it. Don’t fight back, just tell a teacher. Since Jews are being attacked all over the world now, some just for wearing a Kippah and the charges are often ignored, or even dropped. This is not working out well. I recently heard an interview with Schmuel Hacohen “Super Jew”, on the Tamar Yonah show. He relates a story about his father decking a man when he was young. His dad was a scientist, but he still knew how to fight. Afterwards when young Schmuel was bubbling over about it, he father told him he was not proud of what he did. “Violence is not a good thing, it is not always a bad thing, sometimes it is a necessary thing.” We now have generations of children who only use violence to bully and intimidate, those that would stand up for themselves against it are vilified. And just in case someone would be inclined to fight back, or step in, they must have you disarmed and deprived of your most effective defense weapons. Only criminals are allowed to have those.

The episode of the Tamar Yonah show that followed was an interview with Eitan Fischberger, Israel Campus Coordinator for CAMERA on Campus and Aviva Rosenschein, CAMERA’s International Campus Director. They told of what it’s like on college campuses for Jewish students and those that would stand up for Israel against the lies being told, and against the bullying. Sometimes by their professors. They address the false information being put out by Jewish Voices for Peace, Peace Now, the BDS BS movement, J-Street, If Not Now and others. Far too many Jews have become disconnected an apathetic about Israel. There is one Jewish Nation, if you allow it to be destroyed, where are you planning on going as antisemitism increases? France? England? Have at it.

But some young Jews are defying the herd. And doing it brilliantly. The fact that he needs to write under a pseudonym is too bad. But I understand why he feels he must. The lad is a student of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, HY’’D. Rabbi Meir’s father was close friends with Zev Jabotinsky. My Shimshon’s middle name is Zev. Many many of Rabbi Meir’s predictions have sadly come to pass. He believed Jews should be living in Israel, and that Jews should be able and willing to defend themselves. The writer laments that Betar is no longer around. I do as well. I’m an American Jewish teen and believe we need to teach self defense. It’s a good column.

My one and only (so far) multimedia column for The Zelman Partisans is a reading of a letter by Rabbi Meir Kahane, Dear World

Progressives see the same events we do, but they are determined to double down on their policies of leaving the innocent helpless and at the mercy of someone else showing up to help them. It doesn’t matter if it is there children, your children or parents, or you. No one must be allowed to defend them. They continually attempt to force law-abiding gun owners who have committed no crime to pay the consequences of people who have already committed several. It gets in the way of their ideology, and they love that way more than anything or anyone else. Why are they willing to sacrifice innocent souls on the alter of their ideology? Power.

Dictators Prefer
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Sellouts and traitors

Amy Swearer is riding her “red flag” hobby horse again

5 Comments

I’ve previously observed that, for a “Senior Legal Policy Analyst,” Ms. Swearer seems to have a limited grasp of legal issues; particularly “red flag” laws. Or pretends so.

Once again, she is pushing “properly crafted” “red flag” laws.

In a nation with a constitution with a Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment, and where Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921) yielded a SCOTUS decision that due process must take place before a taking, before an abrogation of constitutionally protected rights, there is no such thing as a properly crafted “red flag” law.

The sort of laws Swearer describes as good “red flag” laws, are not. She describes the existing, standard protective order: accuser presents real evidence, hearing is held in which the accused — who must be informed — can have legal representation and present his defense, and the judge rules. If the ruling is in favor of the accuser, now firearms may be taken.

By deliberate intent, “red flag” laws:

  • Allow no-due process ex parte proceedings in which the accused’s first warning is when the police arrive to SWAT him.
  • Far from facing his accuser, it is unlawful for anyone to tell the accused who did it to him until his eventual hearing.
  • Lower the standard of evidence to the level of I feel that something might happen sometime, but I can’t prove it or I’d file a police report so they could get an arrest warrant.
  • When a ex post facto hearing is eventually held (laws vary from two weeks to a month after the seizure of property), the burden of proof is shifted to the accused. He must prove his innocence of something that hasn’t happened and for which there may have been no credible evidence was going to… because if there was, he could have been arrested already.

That is what makes a “red flag” law: No due process, gossip as evidence, and forcing the accused to prove his innocence. Anything else is a standard, existing protection order process.

Those elements are bad enough. The practical implementation of the laws is worse. In no “red flag” law I have reviewed* is there any requirement to take the allegedly “dangerous” person into custody; neither for “public safety” nor for a mental health evaluation. Florida’s perfunctory nod to that is a requirement that law enforcement merely inform the accuser if they are planning to — eventually — Baker Act the accused.

The accused is so dangerous that he must be SWATted on no notice and forcibly disarmed, but so safe he can be left on the loose to obtain other weapons?

Florida and Colorado allow the initial “hearing,” in which the accuser’s application is considered, to be conducted telephonically. Even an accused murderer deemed too dangerous to transport from jail to courthouse gets a video hearing so the judge can consider little things like the defendant’s demeanor and credibility as demonstrated by gestures, body language, and facial expressions.

The federal “encourage the states to SWAT innocent people” bill includes a pretend protection in the form of a felony perjury charge for a false report. But how does a prosecutor prove that the accuser didn’t really “feel” that “something” “might” happen “sometime”?

“I turned out to be wrong, Your Honor, but I honestly ‘felt’ that at the time.”

So why are people pushing for “red flag” laws? Why does Swearer think they’re so great? Do they honestly believe that they will reduce gun violence, and that makes the constitutional shredding worth it?

Florida passed its “red flag” law in March 2018. They are reportedly flagging an average of five people per day. 2019 data isn’t in yet, but an analysis of 2018 homicide, firearms-related homicide, and suicide numbers strongly suggests otherwise: post-red flag, homicides went up; firearms-related homicides went up; and suicides increased dramatically.

The suicide statistics — suicide rate held steady at 14.1/100K for two years, then suddenly jumped to 15.3/100K post-passage — suggest the law is making that worse. Imagine a borderline suicidal person suddenly betrayed by an anonymous accusation from a supposed loved one, his property stolen without a chance to defend himself; perhaps he’ll cross that borderline now, from potential to successful suicide. Would a depressed person choose not to seek professional help lest a well-meaning busybody “help” him by violating his human/civil rights?

“Red flag” laws are clearly unconstitutional. Far from helping, they may be aggravating the situation.

Protection order procedures with due process already exist in every state. Every state already has a Baker Act equivalent law to take at-risk people into custody for evaluation. “Red flag” laws are not needed… for the advertised purpose.

Which begs the rhetorical question of, “Why push for them?” In some cases, it appears to be ignorance of existing laws. That should not be the case for a “senior legal analyst.”

But consider the backlash to Presidential candidates suggesting the use of overwhelming military force against civilians to confiscate firearms in bulk (and how far we fallen when credible candidates could even think of such a thing). They cannot do it. It is impossible. That is why every “assault weapon” ban proposed prior to the current psychotic Congress grandfathered existing arms; even Feinstein understood the problems of kicking millions of doors because the occupants are well-armed.

If you go at it piecemeal, one firearm owner at a time, you can “boil the frog.” Pass a “red flag” law, use pretend “evidence” against someone who has done nothing, give him the semblance of a day in court, and you can sneak up on everyone. And if you happen to round up an occasional person who really was at risk, the people-controlling politicians and media will be happy to put him on display as the posterboy for wonderful ERPOs. “See? It works! Never mind that he was one in a few thousand.”

And you don’t even need expansive “assault weapon” definitions, because you’re taking everything anyway.

* I freely admit that I have not analyzed every law that has been passed, nor have I analyzed the results of those laws as I did with Florida. I lack the resources to do that. Unlike a “senior legal analyst” funded by a ritzy foundation with tens of millions of dollars to throw around, I do what little I can on my own time and dime. As is, I have to add airtime to my 4.5 year-old dumb flip-fone a bit at a time as I can scrape up the money, and I sold my 23 year-old truck a few months ago. If you would like to see more, and more in-depth, analyses feel free to hit my tip jar below.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, Law

Florida Red Flag Law: How is it working out?

Leave a comment

Post-Parkland, Florida passed a “red flag” law allowing the confiscation of firearms from people deemed at risk of harming themselves or others. That was in March of 2018.

Since more states are adopting such laws, and federal “red flag” legislation is being considered, I thought it would be a good idea to see if the rights-violation was “worth it” in terms of lives saved.

Recently, we learned that Florida is apparently using its “red flag” law an average of five times a day.

Five times per day. That’s 1,825 people flagged per year. People that allegedly couldn’t be stopped by conventional — due process — means. Preemptively preventing their crimes should make a noticeable dent in homicide numbers. If the “red flag” law actually works.

Let’s take a look.

The law was passed in March, so it was only in effect for nine months. With the 5/day average, that’s approximately 1,350 people who didn’t kill, who otherwise would have, in 2018 (2019 data isn’t available yet).

2017 had 1,057 homicides, of which 791 were firearms-related.

2018 had 1107 homicides, of which 836 were firearmsailerons -related. OK, to be fair, Parkland is included in that count. Let’s exclude that to see how the numbers went down:

1,090 homicides. 819 firearms-related.

The numbers went up? Even when we exclude Parkland? But… but… red flag.

Ah, perhaps all or most of those flagged individuals were suicidal. With the “red flag” law, I’m sure we’ll see a nice decrease in suicides.
2016: 3,122 (14.1/100K)
2017: 3,187 (14.1/100K)
2018: 3,552 (15.3/K)

If the usual homicide:suicide ratio of 1:2 in firearm deaths applied to the “red flagged” people, Florida should have seen a drop of 900 suicides: 2,652. Or, since approximately half are by firearm, perhaps only half of those flagged people were planning to go out that way: 3102. Not an increase of 365 to 3,552.

If “red flag” laws worked.

“Red flag” goes into effect. Homicides go up. Firearm homicides go up. Suicides go up.

They don’t work. The vast majority of firearm homicides are committed by people who aren’t supposed to have guns anyway, and who will get them; generally in an unlawful fashion.

“Red flag” laws may even make suicides worse, by aggravating already disturbed people while leaving them on the loose to die by other means, and by not Baker Acting them so they get help. If I’m correct, 2019 suicide numbers in Florida may well be even worse than the significant increase of 2018.

Added: Based on comments elsewhere, I was apparently too subtle in noting that the law didn’t work as they claimed it would. Since I’ve been noting for years that gun control laws target the demographic not committing the crimes, therefore the unspoken goal isn’t what they claimed, I didn’t bother to say it explicitly again. It’s people control.

I hereby apologize for failing to repeat myself again.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Law

The cluelessness is strong in this one

Leave a comment

Amy Swearer, of the Heritage Foundation, is stunningly ignorant of “red flag” laws (and Constitutionality) for an alleged “senior legal policy analyst.” But then, she works in the Meese Center, and Edwin Meese was never a friend to the Constitution.

Answers to Common Questions About “Red Flag” Gun Laws
What are these laws? What do they accomplish that existing laws don’t already do? What concerns should law-abiding Americans have about them?

These are the types of questions that must be explored in depth, with reasoned analysis and absent knee-jerk conclusions.

And a-fisking we go. It rapidly becomes obvious Swearer has no frickin’ idea what she’s talking about.

These laws have become increasingly popular since the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, even though the first such law was enacted by Connecticut in 1999.

The chumbucket had been reported to law enforcement for multiple disqualifying felonies and misdemeanors. He was known to be so dangerous that the school had him searched for weapons daily. He was probably a prohibited person — whom the state failed to report to NICS — because Florida DCF claims he was a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness,” which is a legal status based upon adjudication by a court. So-called red flag laws weren’t needed to deal with him, and they’d do no good if authorities aren’t interested in enforcing any laws like assault with a deadly weapon, domestic abuse, criminal threatening, destruction of property, killing animals, and so on and so forth. The FBI likewise blew off credible — documented — reports that the chumbucket intended to shoot up a specific school with a specific weapon.

Part of the problem is that civil commitments are a legally intensive process with serious (and often lifelong) implications for the person being committed. They are, therefore, often reserved as a last resort when all else has failed.

So are “red flag” orders; sometimes they last the rest of the person’s — short — life. But they are for when nothing else has been resorted to. The Odessa-Midlands killer had contacts with the FBI seemingly going back for years. Local law enforcement blew off a report of unlawful gun-fire simply because his address wasn’t in their GPS; they “couldn’t find” his house.

Q: What about the Second Amendment?

A: The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms commonly used for lawful purposes.

What about the 5th and 14th Amendments, while you’re busily dismissing the Constitution? There’s that funny little thing about “due process.”

Where the facts and circumstances give specific reason to believe that a person is likely to cause imminent unlawful harm to himself or others, the person may be disarmed until he can reassure the community that he does not pose a violent threat.

Incorrect. If there is a factual basis for an accusation that a crime is being planned, the person can be arrested, and face due process procedures. “Red flag” proceedings are — by definition — ex parte, and generally require an unsubstantiated accusation. Colorado allows accusations to be phoned in, and the order is granted immediately with no actual hearing in which the accuser presents evidence.

Of course, the Constitution also demands that such individuals receive meaningful due process protections prior to the restriction of their rights, and great pains should be taken to ensure that individuals cannot be punished for merely holding offensive views or engaging in objectionable, but nonviolent, behaviors.

So where is the due process in “red flag” orders? In TRUAX, the Supreme Court requires “due process” to occur before the taking. “Red flag” laws allow no course for the accused to defend himself until well after his property has been stolen. That’s their intent.

And apparently holding the “offensive view” that one should be prepared to exercise deadly force to defend against initiated deadly force is suitable grounds for red-flagging innocent people.

For example, the parents of the man who killed six people and wounded 13 in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011 were so worried about his mental health, they disabled his car and tried to hide his firearms. They tried unsuccessfully to get him mental health treatment.

They didn’t try very hard. In fact, the punk had been arrested on charges which, if convicted, would have made him a prohibited person. The sheriff — who immediately blamed the lack of gun control laws for the attack — exercised a little professional courtesy to a fellow county employee, and ordered the killer-to-be’s release without charges. No “red flag” needed… if the sheriff did his job.

Similarly, red flag laws could have prevented the Parkland, Florida, shooting by allowing the family with whom the shooter was staying to petition a court for disarmament after local law enforcement and school officials refused to take action, despite repeated indications that the shooter was dangerous.

That single sentence is astounding: “Red flag” laws could have worked, even though they had — ignored — evidence that he was dangerous.

Let’s get into this more.

Q: What makes a good red-flag law?

Good question.

Use narrow definitions of “dangerousness” that are based on objective criteria and that don’t treat factors such as lawful firearm ownership or political affiliation as presumptively suspicious;

That rules out every “red flag” bill I’ve read. They are all based not on objective criteria, but I feelz that somebody might do something sometime.

And firearm possession is a primary criterion for “red flag” orders, since they are for removing firearms thought to be present.

Moving on, it appears Ms. Clueless is attempting to define what “red flag” orders are not.

Be temporary in nature, limited only to the period of time the person remains a danger to himself or others, and provide for the prompt restoration of firearms and corresponding rights when the danger no longer exists;

But none of them do that. They arbitrarily set extended periods on rights violations, and specifically disallow petitions for rights restoral except at preset intervals; usually 6-12 months, sometimes years, regardless of medical findings in the meantime.

Afford strong due process protections, including high burdens of proof (i.e., “clear and convincing evidence”), cross-examination rights, and the right to counsel.

Look, “senior legal policy analyst,” go read TRUAX. Understand due process, then explain how an after the fact, in which the accused is required to prove his innocence (of something that hadn’t occurred), at his own expense, is due process. The burden of proof on the accuser is Well, he might, while the actual burden of proving he didn’t is on the victim.

Provide meaningful remedies for those who are maliciously and falsely accused, and expunge any records of petitions that are not granted;

Most “red flag” laws exclude penalties for false accusations. In one case, a legislator offered and amendment that would specify flase accusation penalties; it was refused.

Be integrated with existing mental health and addiction systems to ensure that people who are deemed to be dangerous because of underlying factors receive the treatment they need.

No “red flag” law does that. Florida’s version includes the option of invoking the Baker Act after the fact, and in a separate action (meaning the victim of the order needs even more — expensive — legal representation.

Q: Aren’t red flag laws dangerous for law enforcement?

A: Certainly, law enforcement officers may face violent threats while serving red flag orders and seizing firearms from individuals determined to be dangerous under these laws.

To date, they’ve proven more dangerous to the target of the order.

And more dangerous to the rights of other people on the theory that the subject non-targets, with authorities seizing firearms might burglarize a house and steal guns.

Q: Where can I find out more about red flag laws?

A: The Heritage Foundation has previously written about red-flag laws here:

Better to get your information from someone who knows something about “red flag” laws.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

A willingness to defend yourself WILL get you “red flagged”

3 Comments

Consider this report.

Remarks against Antifa prompt FBI seizure of former Marine’s weapons under Oregon’s ‘red flag’ law: reports
A former Marine who said at a protest that he would “slaughter” Antifa members in self-defense, if attacked, recently had his five weapons confiscated by the FBI, according to reports.
[…]
Based on the court order, Kohfield – who served two tours of duty in Iraq — was committed to a veterans hospital for 20 days and was barred from participating in subsequent protests in Portland.

What was the horrible “threat” Kohfield made, that got his firearms stolen and him involuntarily committed to a psych hospital by judicial order (the latter part means he may never get his firearms back, nor replace them)?

“If Antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,” Kohfield told a crowd, according to the Oregonian. “I’d slaughter them, and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out Antifa.”

Consider:

  • “If” A conditional
  • “they start killing us” If someone else initiates deadly force against him
  • “going to kill them next” A potential response of deadly force against deadly force
  • “I have a detailed plan” A considered course of defensive action

Do you, like 17.25 million other people, have a concealed carry license?

If you carry a firearm for defensive purposes, you are prepared to exercise deadly force in defense to counter initiated deadly force.

By obtaining a license, you have documented that you have planned for the conditional possibility.

You probably go to the range and practice your plan. Your defensive plan.

This is what Dim-ocrats and Repugnant-cans alike want to inflict upon you.

Think you’re safe because you aren’t licensed and don’t carry? Think again. Maybe you know someone who does.

Vermont used an ex parte “red flag” order to steal firearms from someone because of the possibility that another person thought to be a threat might get into the other person’s house and steal them.

Florida “red flagged” an innocent man because he had a name similar to someone else.

California took the lawfully owned and securely stored (in a safe) firearm from a woman because someone else in the home was “red flagged.”

The Oregon precedent can be used against any CCW licensee. The Vermont/Florida/California (and other places where I’ve seen the same thing reported) can be used against anyone who happens to know, be related to, or lives near someone who has been “red flagged”… for a willingness to defend himself.

And being an ex parte action, the first you’ll know about it is when the cops show up in the wee hours to steal your guns, and maybe kill you in the process. If you do survive, you may have to wait weeks for a hearing (at your expense) in which you have to prove your innocence of something someone else hasn’t done.

Lindsay Graham calls that “due process.”

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Law, Rights

Baker Act vs. ERPO

2 Comments

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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

[Update] Red Flag Orders: Weasel-wording from the VNRA

Leave a comment

See below, for more hypocrisy.

No, for once, I’m not going to talk about bump-fire stocks (anyone who doesn’t understand that problem by now can’t, or won’t, comprehend it).

Let’s talk about ERPOs. And the Vichy NRA.

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

The first a person has any idea that he’s been accused may be when the police show up to kill him. Some people call that SWATting. I do.

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.

Specifically, the VNRA said:

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.

Article 1, Section 9
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

What’s a Bill of Attainder?

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.

Update: The VNRA is “opposing” a red flag law in North Dakota.

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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, guns, hoplophobia, Law, mindset, Politics, self defense

Where Does Evil Live?

1 Comment

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.

It’s frightening to realize that even if you get away from a psychopath they can have had a very detrimental effect on your life, your bank account, your friendships, your job.

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.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail