Well, if you say it’s really “Extreme Risk”…

You have to ask yourself what the true objective of “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders really is.

These orders target the inanimate object – “The Gun” – rather than the potential perpetrator of violence.

If a person is potentially violent enough for the state to take away guns in an exParte hearing without the person being present, it should be clear that the person could easily find another source for replacement guns and continue to pursue their violence against themselves or others. And, of course, there are any number of other substitute weapons available to them while their guns are confiscated.

Why stop at taking away guns? In fact, why focus on the guns themselves? Why not go all the way and temporarily incarcerate the potentially violent person for observation until a hearing can be scheduled?

I suspect that the thing preventing supporters of these draconian social manipulation techniques have been overly influenced  by people that see the violently insane as “victims” instead of potential problems. At the same time, these people have demonized lawful responsible gun owners as “dangerous” and a public health risk.

That is irrational, and probably reflects the insane levels of irrationality I’ve witnessed in individuals that are motivated to action by the “gun control” zealots.

Next time you meet one, ask them why they are unwilling to put some real teeth into ERPO laws… I bet the answers will surprise you, especially when you see how confusing truth is to them.

So, we have to ask ourselves, “why don’t the current crop of ERPO laws proposed and passed in many states, and soon by congress, address the real safety problem?”

What keeps the politicians that propose, support and vote for these laws from going “all the way” to safety? Isn’t violent behavior the real problem that they want to solve? If not, why not?

The real objective of these laws may be to determine how close legislatures can come to unconstitutional actions and still have the laws stand.

Washington state was one of the first places that passed these laws. Since enactment in 2014, they have been used 27 times. In 7 of these cases (about 20%) the target of confiscation didn’t even have possession of any firearms.

Many suspect that they have not been used more extensively since being passed so that the outrageously dangerous and civil rights violations like the one in Maryland (where the target was literally a target, and killed) don’t activate lawful gun owners against them.

And the worst of this is that they are really unnecessary, and the rights violation isn’t necessary. There are existing procedures for declaring someone dangerous, and taking them into observational custody – separating them from potential weapons – without resorting to exParte hearings. Of course, they are more invasive and difficult to execute than an order that doesn’t allow the target to respond in any way until after it’s in force.

Advertisements

Anybody need a wake up call concerning American youth?

This aired last night on PBS:

https://www.pbs.org/pov/mindingthega…mindingthegap/

It’s a 90 minute film that follows the lives of a number of 20 year old friends in Rockford, Illinois.

“First-time filmmaker Bing Liu’s documentary Minding the Gap is a coming-of-age saga of three skateboarding friends in their Rust Belt hometown. While navigating a complex relationship between his camera and his friends, Bing explores the gap between fathers and sons, between discipline and domestic abuse and ultimately that precarious chasm between childhood and becoming an adult.”

I have long been concerned about the completely irresponsible approach many people take to child raising in this country. I’ve often quipped that instead of concealed carry permits, the nation would benefit more by issuing licenses for childbirth, and only making them available after a period of training. Both are, of course, absurd. But the problem of generations of citizens that take no responsibility for their actions persists – as it always has in our republic.

This documentary is deeply disturbing because it documents complete social irresponsibility from the point of view of one of these young men’s peers and friends. It continues the problem by claiming that these young men’s indefensible actions are the faults of their fathers, and not their own very poor decisions.

This documents the very problem when children grow up without consistent leadership, limits, obligations and responsibilities.

I’ve been a long time supporter of firearm ownership for people once they reach the age of majority (18 in this nation). I’m not starting to wonder if we’ve made a big mistake by lowering the age of majority below 21. This film documents some of the results, and comes from an area of the country that is reasonably prosperous. Alcohol and drug abuse is endemic, as are failed relationships, debt and the next generation of children that are not being raised by adults. Layer these problems onto the poverty experienced in much of both rural and urban America and the wisdom of declaring 18 year old people “adults” becomes questionable.

With Friends like Beto, who needs propaganda?

Beto O’Rourke is quite a liberal phenomena, especially coming from a reasonably conservative part of the nation like Texas. He’s an example of political power created by money and the legacy media.

Never discount the prejudicial agenda of the legacy media. They have always understood that power, and have used it since the beginning of the United States.

Propaganda can turn a nothing burger into steak just like it tried to do in Texas during the last election.

The liberal socialists’ “Hope and Change” mantra sounds good, and works well in the advertising and negative campaign strategies. Unfortunately, it always breaks down pretty quickly. That’s when their backup strategy of dividing the nation kicks in to help keep them in power. That strategy can continue to be flogged even after they have lost power in Congress and in the Executive branch. The nature of the Judicial branch is more long term, and somewhat problematic right now for the liberal revisionists.

In a time where there is little organized external military threat to a nation like ours (one of the advantages of the Islamist Terrorist Zealots being that they are not geographically structured as nation-states) it’s harder to keep our nation’s attention and focus on the threat. Citizens don’t particularly feel under threat from some hard to identify “other” and politicians can more easily fragment us into groups. This is tribal behavior, and represents devolution of society. It’s also playing on the natural instincts of humans.

And liberals always assume that some visible but never realized territorial threat from countries like North Korea will be “taken care of” by the government – a very dangerous assumption.

So… the economy is good, and taken for granted. That eliminates one electorate motivation. We’re relatively invulnerable from organized mass attacks. That’s a big comfort factor. The 8 million or so illegal invaders are mostly invisible, meaning average citizens don’t pay any attention to them, and think that they are unaffected by them. And liberals treat any issue that doesn’t motivate masses of the electorate as political fodder for gamesmanship.

It really is an interesting state of affairs, confirming the Chinese curse, “may you live in interesting times”… And into all this walks a very different kind of President. No wonder they all hate him so intensely. He puts lie to their entire game.

President Trump is sure to have some surprises in store for Beto and his ilk…

Winning in 2020 started yesterday…

So, how do conservatives reach the middle electorate?

I suggested years ago that we focus on fiscal and security related issues, and put social engineering on the back burner.

Specifically, cut out the deficit spending, get the truth out about border security and the “gun control” fallacies, and make sure opportunity is there for the success of average working people.

Right now, we’re partially there – which is why you see so much noise and radical leftist and socialist strategy oozing out of congress and state houses.

The siren song of socialism is very attractive for average citizens until you actually confront the reality of it. Couple that with corruption and tyranny in government and you’ve got a world class losing combination. Don’t see the liberals moving to Venereal, Iran or Canada for that matter, do you?

Remember when talking with friends, every single “gun control” strategy is a delusional fantasy consisting of rainbows and unicorns and actually delivering nothing when it comes to combating crime or stopping violence. Actually, delivering less than nothing because of the unintended consequences that slowly chip away from the liberty of the nation and our citizens.

Don’t let a single lie go without addressing it. Get ready, the 2020 election started yesterday.

Don’t you find some of the fights remarkable? How about asking if you’re a citizen on the census? That’s a particularly good one.

How Universal Background Checks Ultimately Fail the Nation

Liberal Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened her kimono enough to warn to American gun owners with a strategic glimpse into the future of Gun Control.

On Thursday, Pelosi issued a warning to Republicans poised to support President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency at the southern border, the next Democrat president, she said, could do the same on guns.

“A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

“Let’s talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said. “That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.

“But a Democratic president can do that.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4…mbozVqN7rd0yJg

So, now you can begin to understand the real reasoning behind “Universal Background Checks”… It’s all about control. And a single control point.

If the nation implements background check requirements between private individuals, tyrants like Pelosi will have a very efficient tool for shutting off lawful firearm transfers.

All a future liberal socialist Democrat President would need to do to destroy the civil firearms industry in the United States would be to issue an emergency order that would either temporarily or permanently stop the NICS system and shut down the NICS call center. In one masterstroke, no more legal gun sales in the USA.

The emergency order could also direct that all firearms be registered in order to document any transfers and provide evidence for prosecutions.

It is clear to anyone that looks into the history of background checks that they never work to stop violent crime. Period. The terrorists, criminals and psychopaths that want to use firearms in their crimes have simple ways of bypassing these laws, including either maintaining a clean background or recruiting people with clean backgrounds to commit the crimes.

Prohibition has never worked in a free society. It only leads to the unintended consequences of a criminal black market and financially supporting organized criminal organizations. Thus, a new black market in firearms would be established. This is only the first unintended consequence.

The prime objective of the gun grabbers would be a significant step closer.

Such behavior by a President attempting to destroy the American civil firearms and ammunition market would not stand. The issue has already been taken up by a Federal court that ruled on the emergency executive powers of the Governor in North Carolina.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/court-strikes-down-nc-gun-ban-144948865.html

But… clearing up these government abuses takes time. Think of the years it took to reverse the presidential actions that interred the Japanese during World War II. Court challenges to reverse a de-facto gun sales ban in the United States could take years.

Smith and Wesson: 1 – Bully Nuns: 0

I don’t know if you noticed this growing up, but bullies come in all shapes and forms. In this case they come in the form of Nuns… Specifically the Adrian Dominican Sisters lead by one Sister Judy Byron, an anti-gun owner activist. She and her order are part of “The Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investments” an anti-Second Amendment anti-gun activist group. It is apparently alternately known as Sisters of the Holy Names and Jesus and Mary and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility… Bully nuns with an identity issue?

Here’s their assertive and misdirected demand to AOBC and Smith and Wesson:

https://www.iccr.org/investor-statement-gun-violence

The fawning anti-liberty media fell all over itself four months ago as the Nuns “took on” Smith and Wesson via it’s parent company American Outdoor Brands Corporation when they forced the company to waste time and money on a report on “product safety measures”.

This article gives an overview of what happened in September, 2018 when these nuns used what money they had to snatch a little power, and exert their dogmatic influence:

http://fortune.com/2018/09/26/nuns-gun-violence-report-proposal-smith-wesson/

They touted the nuns and their social manipulation bullying movement as “powerful”…. Bullies generally appear that way until they are dealt with.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/10/smith-wesson-rejects-push-by-anti-second-amendment-shareholders/

When they made it clear that they wanted to hobble Smith and Wesson and other gun companies (like Ruger – I saw a similar group at their stockholder’s meeting a couple of years ago) they also made it clear that they were not investors, but rather manipulative liberal socialists bent on lies and furthering their destructive agenda. They always start by justifying their bullying with their fight against “gun violence”, a concept steeped in fantasy. Their concern with the “safety of children” always neglects to address the fact that most “children” involved with misusing real firearms are violent gang-bangers and thugs that have not happened to reach the age of majority yet…

AOBC on behalf of Smith and Wesson were forced to waste time and money on the bully nuns’ report. Here’s a copy:

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/AOBC_020819_Shareholder_Doc_2.pdf

Download and save it. It discusses the highly politicized issue of gun ownership, the company’s efforts to keep real children (not the thugs) safe, along with the importance of firearms in keeping lawful citizens safe from the nun’s gang-banger “children” and other criminals, psychopaths and terrorists.

It clearly rejects the Nuns’ pet “Smart Gun Technology” as unworkable and dangerous.

It also takes on the Nun bullies directly for their lack of clarity and obvious political grandstanding in the face of AOBC and Smith and Wesson’s rational business behavior and obviously safe products.

BTW, there is a complete list of the organizations that joined together to harass Smith and Wesson and Ruger at the end of the AOBC report in appendix “C”.

Oh… and Smith and Wesson has absolutely no interest or intent to change anything about their products or business model. The AOBC report discloses the details, agenda and dogmatically abusive nature of the bully nuns and their real agenda. It’s an agenda made in legacy media Bloomberg heaven or hell depending on your point of view on liberty and citizens having the means to protect themselves from violent bullies.

It would seem that American Liberty and the Second Amendment are not for sale…

Here, from appendix “A” of the AOBC report, are Smith and Wesson’s ten principles of engagement.

I think it’s a very polite way to say what we’d all like to say to bullies using just a couple of words:

STAKEHOLDERS OF AOBC, INCLUDING EQUITY SHAREHOLDERS, WHO WISH TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH THE COMPANY, SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THESE PRINCIPLES ARE CORE TO AOBC.

  1. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms. AOBC recognizes that its customers view the Company as a steward of this right and will act accordingly.
  2. The Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller confirming the broad rights of citizens to possess firearms is settled law.
  3. As a manufacturer of firearms for the lawful use by citizens, AOBC recognizes its responsibility to its shareholders, its employees, and its customers to defend the Second Amendment.
  4. AOBC accepts its responsibility to its shareholders to determine threats or benefits of regulatory proposals relating to firearm rights, and will support only those regulatory proposals that are consistent with the Second Amendment and that deliver demonstrable societal benefits.
  5. AOBC will engage in advocacy through education, communication, and public affairs efforts on behalf of its shareholders, employees, and customers opposing the imposition of onerous and unnecessary regulations adversely impacting citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
  6. AOBC will work for a better and more consistent application of existing local, state, and federal laws regarding the sale, acquisition, use, manufacture, and distribution of our firearms as a primary means of reducing criminal gun use and its related harm.
  7. AOBC has a fiduciary responsibility to grow shareholder value and to engage in activities that will allow the Company to flourish amidst a complicated political climate.
  8. AOBC will remain focused on the manufacture and distribution of firearms that meet market needs and will not sacrifice shareholder value in pursuit of technologies or products that destroy shareholder value or that serve only the purpose of advancing the agendas of third-parties who do not otherwise agree with these Principles.
  9. AOBC is committed to promoting the legal, responsible, and safe use of firearms.
  10. AOBC supports a comprehensive discussion regarding reducing criminal and violent acts in our communities, including those committed with guns, and will consider any good-faith proposal, provided that such proposal is consistent with these Principles.

Nothing can justify exParte “Extreme Risk Protection Orders”

I have tried, but I cannot think of one single example of effetive prior restraint like this involving a constitutionally recognized basic right.

While rights are not unlimited (think of someone yelling “fire” in a theater versus freedom of speech) the ready willingness to disarm citizens that have never committed a crime because they are scary is troublesome.

This represents a serious degree of disrespect for the rights of individuals to self defense and preservation, all based upon the basic mistrust of strangers.

There are already adequate laws on the books to deal with someone that is threatening in a serious way, just not enough individuals willing to take the responsibility of using them properly.

Extreme Risk Protection Order (“Red Flag”) laws that advocate using exParte hearing to secretly disarm citizens are so potentially dangerous that it’s beyond reason to let passage attempts go unaddressed.

Couple that with the fact that they can never be effective in stopping a determined criminal, psychopath or terrorist and we have the recipe for disastrous unintended consequences with no benefit to society.

Based solely upon the fear of potential anti-social impact:

  • Imagine subjecting a newspaper to “prior restraint” before allowing it to be lawfully published and distributed. Ridiculous.
  • Imagine requiring a religious leader to clear all public statements with government authorities first. Ridiculous.
  • Imagine a business being required to get government approval before publishing a video game or movie. Ridiculous.
  • Imagine a requirement to first clear a trip in your car with government in order to prevent climate change. Ridiculous.

That all this is justified by the Parkland Florida Stoneman school incident is even more ridiculous when you simply read the state government committee report and realize the number of times existing law was ignored, and administration, police and government responsibility was shirked along the perpetrator’s criminal path.

Sorry, but I’m not interested in riding along with the associated guilt trip.

The fact is that it is impossible to use law to keep firearms out of the hands of people that are determined to commit violent acts. Prohibition never works in a free society. It’s been proven again and again.

The only way to keep potential victims safe is to ensure that lawful people have the ability and means to stop these criminals. It is for this reason that attempts at prior restraint will always fail. If prevented from lawful firearm acquisition, criminals will obtain them in other ways.