A good example of liberal-progressive thinking.
The federal government, which has Tomahawk cruise missiles, Apache and Lakota helicopters, and used the code name “Geronimo” in the attack that killed Osama bin Laden, officially objects to the name of the …
Ambiguous wording? What else would you expect from an anti Second Amendment piece of legislation spawned by gun control enthusiasts and backed by billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg and more recently Bill Gates and his Microsoft executives. Washington’s controversial I-594 was one of the few gun rights losses of late and recently went into effect. Gun owners are worried and for good reason.
I-594 passed by an 18-point margin. Had gun rights voices been louder and the truth known, the numbers might have reversed. The new law expands background checks in Washington to include all gun sales whether made in private, online or at gun shows. Opinions within the pro 2A community unfortunately vary on this point.
However, the biggest danger is not in the debate of private sales, but the ambiguous language defining what constitutes a transfer. The new law does not stipulate that such actions as handing someone else your gun to shoot at the range or for a day is not legal. Yet many critics say that the law only loosely defines what constitutes a transfer, and some gun owners worry that something as simple as handing someone else a gun at the range or while hunting could be illegal. As ridiculous as it sounds… sure, you would win in court, but after having to spend how many thousands of dollars to prove your innocence?
To test the theory, gun rights advocates are planning a rally later in December in front of the state Capitol in which they will be “exchanging guns.” There are no plans to arrest anyone exchanging firearms at the rally, says a Washington State Patrol spokesperson. However, the spokesperson did not go so far as to clarify law enforcement’s position on the matter overall.
“We don’t think that we could prove that that’s a transfer,” Bob Calkins, spokesperson for the patrol, told The Seattle Times. “These are law-abiding folks, they have a political statement. We don’t expect a huge problem.”
This leads to the question of whether the law will have any positive effects as intended. According to law enforcement, it is very unlikely, which is why the gun control crowd may well have duped the voters. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action cites 22 of the state’s 39 sheriffs as critics of the law. The prevailing belief among the sheriffs is that the new tighter gun restrictions will strain police resources and possibly be unenforceable. This leaves less time to enforce other laws and prevent crimes.
Critics of the law also worry that I-594 will expand the state’s gun registry and make it illegal to loan firearms to friends or family members. That sounds like an overstatement to many, but Sheriff Ben Keller of Garfield County.
“This initiative is a violation of the Second Amendment,” said Keller. “I come from a gun owning family and it would be a crime every time someone wanted to use my trap gun at a trap shoot. Being in law enforcement for 24 years, this initiative is not going to keep guns off the street. What keeps guns off the street is keeping the felons that are using the guns illegally in jail.”
Much to the dismay of its residents, California is the testing grounds for much of the anti gunners agenda. Assembly Bill 1014 is no exception. Signed on September 2014, the new law subjects legal gun owners the seizure of their Second Amendment rights without representation or due process.
Assembly Bill 1014 allows any police officer or immediate family member to petition a court for a gun violence restraining order. The subject of the order does not have to be present, is not consulted or given the opportunity to mount any defense. So basically, a disgruntled spouse, parent, child—or many others because ‘immediate family member’ is loosely defined—can feed the court any story, fail to offer any proof and your right to posses and bear arms are immediately stripped via an emergency restraining order. The order would prohibit you from possessing firearms or ammunition for 21 days. Can you say “instant victim?”
During these 21 days, the subject of the restraining order is notified and must get rid of his or her guns and then given an opportunity to mount a defense. Failure to convince the judge that you are not a danger to yourself or others results in the order going into effect for a year.
Can you imagine the nightmare this would be for anyone, not to mention a collector with hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars wrapped up in a collection? Moreover, all without proof, just someone’s contention at a hearing? If the alleged mentally disturbed person were not on the edge before the initial hearing, what would a 21-day notice of a loss of Constitutional rights do?
As would be expected, Assembly Bill 1014 is yet another knee-jerk reaction by opportunists to capitalize on a tragedy. The democratically controlled legislature quickly pushed Assembly Bill 1014 through in wake of a tragedy perpetuated by a mentally ill student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. In that incident, the attacker first stabbed three men to death in his apartment. He then used legally acquired pistols and legal magazines that held 10 or fewer rounds—both subject to ineffective laws to reduce gun crime—to kill three more people. This happened while killing and injuring more with his car.
All of this carnage, yet the only weapon the legislature was concerned with was the firearm. No legislation resulted to deal with the underlying issue of mental illness. There was nothing to keep mentally ill individuals from accessing cars or knives.
How dangerous and general is Assembly Bill 1014? Well, to begin the law defines “immediate family member” as “any spouse, domestic partner, parent, child, any other second-degree relation, or anyone who has regularly resided with the individual in the past six months.” I suppose anyone could say they were a house guest. What about a college roommate? How is “immediate family member” defined in a dorm style situation or military barracks?
Doctors of Psychology with years of academic training and field experience cannot accurately predict which patient will become violent and which ones will not. How does anyone expect law enforcement and “family members” to figure it out?
In the case of the UCSB student, law enforcement had been in contact with the subject only weeks before his spree. They did not determine him a threat then, so why would this law have changed anything? What about the Constitution? The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment against due process. The AB 1014 order can be issued without so much as a mental health evaluation. The defendant is judged without representation and their property seized before adjudication.
The fight is far from over. The Second Amendment defenders have made great strides of late, but let’s not overlook the dangers of the recent defeats and the potential implications if they go nationwide.
Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!
Here’s What Happened When a Texas Police Officer Confronted an Open Carry Advocate and Thought Nobody Else Was WatchingDec. 10, 2014 2:02pm Jon Street 8.7KSharesA Houston officer has sparked an internal police investigation after video of his confrontation with anprotester legally carrying a firearm was captured on video – but only after the man objected to the officer who at first tried to delete it.“Got your ID?” the officer asked the man.“No, sir. I do not,” he said.The officer later told the man he needed to have his ID so he could tell who he was. The man then told the officer he could tell him who he was.The officer then asked him, “How do I know you’re not lying to me?”Moments later the officer demanded that the man take his gun off as the officer appears in the video to throw the man’s protest sign on the ground and then take the gun without the man’s consent.Image source: YouTubeImage source: YouTube“You are going to jail for failure to ID because you can’t tell me who you are, you can’t prove who you are. I’m tired of you idiots coming out here,” the officer said.It was then that officer must have realized the man had been recording the entire incident.“Take the phone off now because we are going to erase it because you’re recording everything,” the officer said.But fortunately for the man involved, the officer tapped the button to end the recording twice, thus stopping the video and then starting it again.The video was posted to YouTube December 6 but a police spokesman said the exact time and date of the incident cannot yet be confirmed because of the ongoing investigation.David Amad of the gun advocacy group, Open Carry Texas, responded to the controversial encounter by accusing the officer of being an “un-convicted felon.”“He may not ever get convicted, but the fact of the matter is this one particular officer broke the law big time,” Amad told KRIV-TV, while adding that he thinks this was an isolated incident of police misconduct and does not necessarily reflect accurately on the organization’s relationship with the Houston Police Department.KRIV-TV legal analyst Chris Tritico called the officer’s actions “completely illegal,” and a “violation” of police policy.“Someone calls up and says this makes me nervous, they were pointing the gun, whatever the complaint was, the police then have the right to come to you and investigate that complaint and so at that point they lawfully have the right to say give me that weapon while I talk to you and you have to give it up,” Tritico told the outlet.No charges were filed against the man who was confronted by the officer, an HPD spokeswoman confirmed to TheBlaze on Wednesday. The spokeswoman said she believed the man was lawfully carrying the gun and was released at the scene but that information was not immediately confirmed by officials, who cited the ongoing investigation.
About stuff & Things, Rick Grimes style. Test, test, test.
There has been a lot of noise being made in the main stream media about a report that says the CIA used “illegal” and “unethical” methods to get information from individuals. The media has even called these individuals “innocent civilians”. The Study, as it is referred to, says that “dozens” of people were subjected to “torture” and that “no actionable intelligence” was taken from said “torture.”
The response from CIA Director John Brennan, being the career politician he is, basically said he wasn’t there when it happened, he supported the closing of the program, but hey- we did get some intelligence from it, including actionable intelligence that led to OBL’s death. He then attached over 100 pages of documents supporting that claim.
Well, if that don’t just take the cake. Let me lay some facts on you from the official documents, including those in the CIA’s official response.
– Those people came here, flew planes into our buildings, killed a whole bunch of people in the US, then later the UK and several other places around the world.
-Those people torture and behead every westerner that they can get their hands on for political gain.
-Those people picked the fight with us.
– The CIA used enhanced interrogation on a total of 5 people. Five of the worst scum this planet has ever seen and they were all in key positions within the enemy structure.
-Every other person was interrogated using mainstream, legal, and long standing methods and was approved after gaining legal opinion from CIA lawyers.
-One of those individuals was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. Not exactly somebody I would call an “innocent civilian.” According to the person who actually interrogated him, Mr. Jose Rodriguez (Director of the National Clandestine Service of the United States Central Intelligence Agency and CIA Deputy Director for Operations before that position was expanded to D/NCS in December 2004) KSM ONLY started to spill the beans once he was water boarded.
-There is no real threat of death while being water boarded. We even do it to our special forces operators so they know how to deal with it if they are captured. It works because your mind thinks its drowning.
-Sleep deprivation is a time honored traditional interrogation method. So they were exposed to heavy metal, rap, and other music or other media at loud levels in the process. I used to fall asleep listening to Metallica on my headphone, full blast. You’re telling me these people couldn’t?
-The CIA is one of the biggest law firms in the world. To say that they weren’t running things past at least one of them is a bold face lie.
Here’s an alternative theory as to why this report was released, especially timed now, for your viewing pleasure.
The report was published December 13, 2012, that’s two whole years ago. Last month, The Democrats lost the senate in spectacular fashion. Moreover, the signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, is currently beset by lawsuits, “software failures”, and a jackass who said they did it by the grace of the “Stupidity of the American Voter.” I should also mention that there are Congressional hearings taking place right this second about that exact piece of legislation. I have a hunch that it is going to be put on permanent public record the exact level of debauchery, or should I say douch-bagery, that particular piece of legislation is, and how evil the people who forced it upon us really are.
So, what to do? Well, If I’m a democrat, I would want to distract the public from listening to the hearings in order to minimize our losses. Enter the “scandal” of the old torture chambers. This was dealt with administratively years ago, and was even stopped & closed several years before the study was undertaken. But suddenly it’s relevant again because the Democrats called up their propaganda arm, the main stream media, and asked for a diversion. They “wag the dog”, control public interest and run with this story instead of the hearings. It also has the bonus of making Republicans “look bad” because they can once again “blame Bush.” Watch for that during the next Presidential election.
Look, should we torture? No. Was enhanced interrogation torture? Maybe. From what I’ve seen, read about, and researched, not really.
To me, the CIA did what they had to do and saved American lives in the process. The release of information in the study report is diversionary by Democrats, and is nothing more than an attempt to once again “Blame Bush” and inflame their base so the left hand doesn’t see what the right is doing. Furthermore, the release of this report puts more American lives in danger by inflaming the middle east, protest groups around the world, and makes terrorist groups seem more credible to the people they are trying to influence! It also hurts our intelligence gathering abilities by both tying the hands of interrogators and dissuades possible informants from helping us. All that this release has done is make things worse and probably extended the war.
So cry me a freaking river. I’m sorry it comes down to this, but I don’t give two hoots about some bad guy getting a bath and being made to listen to rock music. Hell, do it to them all and send the message- pick a fight with us and you will wish you hadn’t. That is the job of our intelligence and military departments.
If you want to worry about the mental health and treatment of somebody, look to the VA. Those are the people who actually served in our nations uniforms. Not living up to our promise to care for them, leaving many homeless, sick, broken mentally and physically and without medical treatment is equal to abandoning them in the best case, Torture in the worst.
Look to the people who lost loved ones on 9/11 or to anybody who lost somebody they care about in the war. Is their mental and physical care not more important that some evil men who want to kill us?
Stop making excuses! Stop treating America and Americans like WE are the enemy. Stop with this America hating nonsense!
And that’s my two cents!
Just in case you wondered, here are the actual reports. Read them for yourself, if you’ve got a couple days to spare.
SSI Study: Warning- 525 page PDF’s aren’t always easy on system resources
CIA Response: 136 pages
Dear NRA News, National Rifle Association, NRA’s American Rifleman (Official), NRA Competitive Shooting, NRA Women On Target, Show Your Support for the NRA, NRA Women’s Network,
I’ve been using my super awesome tactical bag for about a month now and today on the way to my vehicle the strap broke.
Now in all honestly I can’t say I expected much out of my free gift that was made in China, but I really expected to get more than a month of use out of this bag.
Seriously disappointed in the CRAP you send to your loyal members.
#nra #nationalrifleassociation #freestuff