1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

The only "problem" they want to address

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by freyasman, Mar 18, 2019.

  1. freyasman

    freyasman Senator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    25,770
    Likes Received:
    6,581
    with laws like these;
    https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs...rs-of-universal-background-check-legislation/
    From the link;
    "THE DANGERS OF UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK LEGISLATION
    February 27, 2019


    Very soon now, the House of Representatives will be considering a Universal Background Check bill that will have profoundly negative consequences on law-abiding citizens.

    If private transfers are banned, you will not be able to loan your rifle or shotgun to a sibling, adult child, or friend to go hunting.

    Suppose a friend, relative, or neighbor known to you to be responsible and competent with firearms but not owning one right now, suddenly becomes the victim of serious stalking and death threats. You won’t be able to loan them a gun on an emergency basis, with which to defend themselves and their loved ones.

    The other side will claim, “Oh, you can just drive to the nearest FFL dealer and do the paperwork.” No, you can’t. They may be closed. And, down the road, other anti-gun politicians may follow the Illinois legislation that requires onerous and redundant state firearms dealer licensing fees that are already driving small dealers out of business there. Dealers willing to do the transfer paperwork will be hard to find.

    A suicide prevention program spreading across the country, inspired by gun dealer Ralph Demicco and the New Hampshire Firearms Safety Coalition, encourages people to hold guns for friends and relatives until their period of depression passes. It has already saved lives. The proposed legislation will make this impossible, and will inevitably cost lives.

    You thought you were just going to bequeath your valuable firearms to your heirs in your will? This legislation may greatly complicate that, and make it significantly more expensive…all to no good end.

    The polls that say a majority of Americans want UBCs seem to be based on questions like, “Do you want crazy people and violent criminals to be able to buy guns at will, or not?” The general public has not been given the first clue of how many ways this theoretically well-intended legislation will criminalize countless law-abiding citizens. I doubt that more than one percent of those who told the pollsters UBCs sounded good had ever read the fine print of the actual proposals.

    Contact your representatives in Congress. Link to this blog if you like, or copy it. Let them know WHY it’s a bad idea that can literally cost innocent lives.

    Time is of the essence."
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. freyasman

    freyasman Senator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    25,770
    Likes Received:
    6,581
    And these;
    http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/red-flag-laws/
    From the link;
    "Red Flag Laws

    By John Bibby published on February 27, 2019 in General, Legal

    Are you aware that several states have laws in place to circumvent your Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, relating to guns. Are you aware that in most of those states it only takes one person to declare you as a danger to yourself or others to have your legally-owned firearms confiscated. After the declaration and with no chance for consideration or rebuttal, the firearms are removed from your possession. Often, this is done with a surprise, no knock raid in the pre-dawn hours.

    [​IMG]
    As of the end of 2018, 13 states had passed “Red Flag” laws. Mostly the usual suspects on the left coast and New England; but, Florida is also on that list. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are currently considering such rubbish.

    Are you aware that this is being proposed on a National Level?

    In some states, these “Red Flag” laws may be called Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) or a Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO). In most cases, they can be best described as being slightly more selective than the Salem Witch trials. Someone reported, therefore, you are guilty until proven innocent. The dunk tank or the fire pit will determine your innocence.

    Before you declare me as being over the top in my hyperbole, what are you going to do when your front door bursts open at 3 a.m., when you know for sure you don’t have any warrants, drugs, or the like. I know I am going to assume home invasion and prepare to repel boarders.

    In most cases, the SWAT team will have been sent to enforce compliance. They will crash through the door as a stack of armed and armored (mostly) men. In the fog of a “home invasion,” people (most likely me) will die. Don’t even think about what will happen to my dog.

    [​IMG]
    The photo may be dramatic and artistic, but a SWAT coming through your doors in the predawn hours will be traumatic, if not deadly.

    Maryland passed such a law in mid October 2018. They have already used it at least 9 times as of the publishing of this article. In those 9 seizures, one has already been fatal to a citizen. I realize it is a small sample set, but two things concern me. First, the issuing judge and Maryland Law Enforcement community stated, “This is proof the law is working.” Did we initiate a Bureau of Pre-Crime while I wasn’t looking? Second, at this rate over 350 people will have their right to possess a firearm removed through extra judicial means, in the first year and roughly 35 people will be dead because of it.

    Even if you take the word of the partisan group Gun Violence Archive, a group that claims there have been 307 mass shootings in the first 312 days of 2018. Of course, they include every incident of gang violence, bank robbery, and drive-by shooting as part of their statistics. Even inflating the numbers like they do, only gets them to 22 “mass shooting” victims in Maryland in 2018. If we exclude Baltimore from the rest of Maryland, that number drops to 3. Have you seen the gang violence statistics on Baltimore? I digress. So, by my math, they are willing to have roughly 50% more people die keeping “mass shootings” from happening? I guess, if the correct people (gun owners) are dying, it isn’t a bad thing to them.

    Infringement
    Second Amendment
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Fourth Amendment
    [​IMG]

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Fifth Amendment
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    As most of you know, the Fourth Amendment and to some degree the Fourteenth have been under assault. Supreme Court deference to the state and its investigatory powers is strongly documented.

    • Terry v. Ohio – Basically the “frisk at will” exemption
    • Florida v. Bostick – The “he didn’t stop us from searching” exemption
    • Schneckloth v. Bustamonte – An uninformed citizen is a legally searched citizen
    • Mapp v. Ohio – We got the exclusionary rule. In other words if the search is illegal, then any evidence obtained is excluded from use in court.
    This would be good news, except; Herring v. U.S. gives law enforcement the “good faith” exemption. Simply stated, if the police make a procedural mistake the fall out is on you, not them.

    [​IMG]
    Previous case law dictates that the Supreme Court is unlikely to strike down red flag laws.

    All of the above cases are my way of pointing out that the Supreme Court is unlikely to limit or strike down these new “Red Flag” laws. My fellow patriots, Constitutional Conservatives, and gun people; get off your butts and make sure your state is not attempting to pass such laws. If they are, get moving and work to pressure your (theoretical) representatives to follow the letter and intent of the Constitution and vote these travesties down.

    As of the end of 2018, 13 states had passed “Red Flag” laws. Mostly the usual suspects on the left coast and New England; but, Florida is also on that list. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are currently considering such rubbish.

    You have been warned."
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. freyasman

    freyasman Senator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    25,770
    Likes Received:
    6,581
    Is the "problem" of having free men who don't bow down to other's demands. Government is crime. It's all about imposing it's will on folks and taking their money and everyone involved knows that sooner or later, someone will say "No." and be willing to kill or die over it.
    Gun control laws are about making the victims of government as helpless as possible. Period.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Barbella

    Barbella Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    29,389
    Likes Received:
    11,043
    I'm 100% certain that criminals will totally abide by this proposed new legislation.

    Totally. 100%.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Dawg

    Dawg President Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Messages:
    130,048
    Likes Received:
    22,733
    Libs want the USA to be like Brazil where only criminals have guns
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. freyasman

    freyasman Senator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    25,770
    Likes Received:
    6,581
  7. freyasman

    freyasman Senator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    25,770
    Likes Received:
    6,581
    https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articl...enators-Lindsey-Graham-Marco-Rubio-Et-Al.aspx
    From the link;
    "Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:

    1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.

    2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.

    3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.

    4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.

    The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.

    We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.

    I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms."

    More at the link.
     
  8. freyasman

    freyasman Senator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    25,770
    Likes Received:
    6,581
    https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/ps...sonable-doubt-on-red-flag-laws/#axzz5tZJxBEuO
    From the link;
    Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/ps...sonable-doubt-on-red-flag-laws/#ixzz5tZLV48bU
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

    "Psychiatric Diagnoses Study Casts Reasonable Doubt on Red Flag Laws
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on July 12, 2019 by David Codrea
    [​IMG]
    It's a madhouse. A maaadhouse! Without requiring actual and comprehensive due process protections, allowing shifting psychiatric opinions to be the sole determinant for disarmament is a lunatic idea. (Francisco Goya: Casa de Locos)

    U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Psychiatric diagnoses are ‘scientifically meaningless’ in treating mental health,” a summary analysis of University of Liverpool research by StudyFinds reported Tuesday. The new findings are published in the American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” which “is considered the definitive guide for mental health professionals, and provides descriptions for all mental health problems and their symptoms.”

    What are they saying here?
    Essentially, “a significant amount of overlap” means disorder diagnoses “tell us little to nothing about the individual patient and what type of treatments they will need [and] this diagnostic labeling approach is ‘a disingenuous categorical system.’”

    Or as lead researcher Dr. Kate Allsopp concludes:

    “Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice.”

    Liberty advocates concerned about due process-denying gun confiscations empowered by “red flag laws” should see the danger of this, when even the experts can’t agree on the basics. Add to that the American Psychiatric Association’s own “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.”

    Its advocacy platform includes registration-enabling background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, and tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.

    Yet despite all that, APA admits:

    “Only a small proportion of individuals with a mental disorder pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.”

    In other words, they can’t justify their political biases scientifically but they still want the government to pass citizen disarmament laws over everybody. That’s even though they admit the problem is minimal and the latest findings conclude what they’ve been doing all along stigmatizes.

    That's just half the equation. Let’s not forget the back end to disarming someone due to psychiatric evaluations: How will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health reason to deny them?

    The answer is they probably won't be, although you won't hear that from the gun-grabbers or from our so-called “gun rights leaders” looking to appease the mob by offering “mental health” concessions.

    Ask yourself: Who are the psychiatric evaluators, the risk management administrators and the insurers willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a “disabled” person they later proclaim “fit” to once more own a gun be misdiagnosed and then shoots someone? The default bias – not to mention the financial and licensing incentives – will be to “err on the side of caution.”

    So should we just ignore crazy people and let them all have guns? Wouldn’t that be just plain nuts?
    What’s really insane is taking firearms away from a known danger and then leaving him free to stalk among us. It’s not like he couldn’t get more guns, as Chicago homicide headlines prove to us every weekend, or choose other ways to bring the hurt.

    The hard but undeniable truth is, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. In order to involuntarily segregate someone from society, full due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are called for. The say-so of motivated third parties who may have a conflict of interest may be enough to get an investigation started, but that’s all.

    It’s also true that we can’t just ignore mental health, but diagnoses and treatments need to be acknowledged as tools of a still-developing and thus inconclusive art. And they must absolutely be separated from political agendas."
     

Share This Page