Blog
Civil Rights
Suspending Civil Rights During an Emergency?
A representative from the Florida Sheriff's Association openly opposed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry arms during an ordered evacuation of their home. At a time when a family is least likely to have timely police protection, the FSA feels that being vulnerable to a storm should be augmented with being vulnerable to outlaws. The representative went on to indicate that bearing arms is a privilege. When you watch the video, you can't help but wonder where she (the FSA representative) has been for the last 5 years.
This from Florida Carry:
Thursday March 27th 2014, the Florida Sheriffs Association (FSA) openly testified against Second Amendment rights to the Florida House Judiciary Committee saying, "In our opinion, there is a difference between owning a firearm and carrying one concealed on your person. Owing a firearm is a right; carrying it concealed is a privilege; and it is a privilege that is earned..."
In what can only be viewed as contempt and distrust for law-abiding gun owners, the Florida Sheriffs Association went on to say that during an emergency you are "least likely to use a firearm in a safe and responsible manner". Think about that. The Sheriffs are telling your legislature that when you are under attack by looters and rioters, you should be disarmed because you will be the irrational person in the situation.
The Sheriff's Association also told the committee that "there is plenty of time before hurricane season starts to go out and get a concealed weapons permit so you can carry on your person." This is completely false. Hurricane Season starts June 1st, only 62 days from now. Even if you already have your training certificate, your fingerprinting done, and have the $112.00 in fees ready to spend today, appointments at the regional offices are booked up to six months out and applications by mail are currently taking more than 90 days.
In other words, FSA is saying your Second Amendment right to BEAR arms can only be exercised if you have the time and money to get a license to carry a concealed handgun.
The Sheriffs go on to claim that "Given modern technology, the approach of storms can be predicted days in advance; and the last second flight scenarios are just not realistic." Anyone who has tracked approaching hurricanes knows this to be false.
A similar law to the one that we are trying to fix was struck down in North Carolina in 2012. The federal court there said:
"[T]he statutes here excessively intrude upon plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights by effectively banning them (and the public at large) from engaging in conduct that is at the very core of the Second Amendment at a time when the need for self-defense may be at its very greatest." Bateman v. Perdue, No. 5:10-CV-265-H, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47336, (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2012)
In 1987 the Florida Sheriffs Association also opposed concealed carry, saying at the time that citizens should be forced to carry firearms openly so they would be able see who has guns. Once concealed carry passed, they turned around and pushed for the ban on open carry -- which was legal until 1987. In 2011 the FSA opposed a bill that would have restored the open carry of handguns.The fact is that the Florida Sheriff's Association has opposed every right to bear arms bill that has ever been offered.
While the FSA may have some sympathy for people's the Right to Keep Arms at home, it is obvious that the group has disdain for the Right to Bear Arms for self-defense. At the same committee hearing, Assistant Adjutant General for the Florida Army National Guard Maj. General Don Tyre spoke in support of the bill that will allow law abiding Floridians to take their guns with them during a mandatory evacuation order without the need for a concealed carry license.
Thanks mainly to D.C. v Heller and Chicago v McDonald, the United States Supreme Court has clarified, to those who have been paying attention, that the core of the Second Amendment is the right of self-defense.
/fl
Another Swan Song
Piers Morgan signs off final show with gun control lecture
The Piers Morgan's didn't understand the concept in 1776, so why expect them to understand it in 2014?
I don't have cable TV, so I don't watch CNN; this is from Legal Insurrection:
In the last few minutes of the final broadcast of his program at CNN Friday evening, Piers Morgan said goodbye to his viewing audience.
And he just couldn’t help himself. [when he said]
"Regular viewers will know that the issue of gun control has been a consistent and often very controversial part of this show. And I want to say something more about that before I bow out.
I have lived and worked in America for much of the past decade. It’s a magnificent country. A land of true opportunity that affords anyone, even British chancers like me, the opportunity to live the American dream. The vast majority of Americans I have met are decent, hard-working, thoroughly dependable people. As my brother, a British Army colonel, says, “You’d always want an American next to you in a trench when the going gets tough.”
But that’s where I think guns belong – on a military battlefield, in the hands of highly trained men and women fighting for democracy and freedom. Not in the hands of civilians. [I guess Piers hasn't given much thought to where the "highly trained men and women" come from.] The scourge of gun violence is a disease that now infects every aspect of American life. Each day, on average, 35 people in this country are murdered with guns, another 50 kill themselves with guns, and 200 more are shot but survive. That’s 100,000 people a year hit by gunfire in America.
Now, I assumed that after 70 people were shot in a movie theater, and then, just a few months later, 20 first-graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school, that the absurd gun laws in this country would change. But nothing has happened. The gun lobby in America, led by the NRA, has bullied this nation’s politicians into cowardly, supine silence. Even when 20 young children are blown away in their classrooms.
This is a shameful situation that frankly has made me very angry. So angry, in fact, that some people have criticized me for being too loud, opinionated, even rude when I have debated the issue of guns. But I make no apologies for that.
As Sir Winston Churchill said: “If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then, hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.”
My point is simple: more guns doesn’t mean less crime as the NRA repeatedly tries to tell you. It means more gun violence, more death, and more profits for the gun manufacturers. And to those who claim my gun control campaigning has been “anti-American,” well, the reverse is true. I’m so pro-American, I want more of you to stay alive.
But I’ve made my point. I’ve given it a tremendous whack. Now it’s down to you. It is your country; these are your gun laws. And the senseless slaughter will only end when enough Americans stand together and cry: Enough!
Piers, your last sentence above describes the main reason that we carry guns in this country!
Move along Piers; there doesn't seem to be anything for you here... Here's a little exit music for ya:
And, in case you want to sing along as you go, here are the lyrics:
Shaking her shimmer like you buzz,
They soothe to the sing swan song.
Shaking her cold hand to hear
You've been just the drunky hot bowls.
She's sucking having game but happy
As the days run.
Shaking her shimmer like you buzz,
They soothe to the sing swan song.
Shaking her shimmer like you buzz,
They soothe to the sing swan song.
Shaking her cold hand to hear
You've been just the drunky hot bowls.
She's sucking having game but happy
As the days run.
Shaking her shimmer like you buzz,
They soothe to the sing swan song.
Shaking her cold hand to hear
You've been just the drunky hot bowls.
She's sucking having game but happy
As the days run.
/fl
Law
Stand Your Ground
As I have said before, there is nothing in Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" statute that will make illegal activity legal. The Marissa Alexander case is an example of a futile attempt to abuse the law.
/fl
Violence
Dying for a cell phone?
Heads up!
Just because you wouldn't consider doing something like this to another human being, doesn't mean that there isn't someone nearby that has his (or her) sights set on you.
“David Peterson went out for a walk around the neighborhood after dinner and never returned”
King County prosecutors contend [Byron] White, a [17-year-old] Ballard High School student, first approached Peterson at 8:30 p.m....
White attempted to steal Peterson’s cell phone, but Peterson, 54, fought him off, according to prosecutors.
According to charging papers, Peterson called 911 from the parking lot of a Mud Bay pet store and reported he’d been punched in the head by a man trying to steal his cell phone.
White is alleged to have walked away, then doubled back and shot Peterson in the chest, killing him.
“[White] showed his companions the phone he had finally taken from the man and expressed his disappointment that it was not a nicer model.”
This case demonstrates that, for a victim, there may be no discernible difference between a robber and a murderer prior to said victim's being in extremis with the latter. It will then be too late for the victim. It would probably be wise to consider aggravated assault, or an attempt, as though it were 'pre-murder.'
Some "inside baseball" advice for living safely under today's 'politically correct' radar: Remember, and practice, the Boy Scout motto—and learn the art of discreet profiling.
Stay safe.
/fl
Florida Law
Threatened Use of Force
This video of the proceedings of the 2014 Florida Senate Rules Committee hearing gives some insight into the intent of Florida SB 448 (Threatened Use of Force), a law which creates an exception to the minimum mandatory sentence for aggravated assault under specified conditions. It is pointed out, in the video, that the 1999 10-20-life law was designed to help prevent the criminal use of firearms, however mis-application can lead to unintended consequences resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The bottom line is that the same rules still apply to the citizen who needs to use force for personal defense.
/fl
2nd Amendment
Pathway of Civil Rights
From an article by Glenn Harlan Reynolds that summarizes the latest civil rights struggle involving the right to keep and bear arms:
In 1995, Second Amendment scholarship had been almost entirely nonexistent for decades...
The Second Amendment, we were told, protected only the right of state militias (or as former Chief Justice Warren Burger characterized them, "state armies") to possess guns. Lower court opinions, to the extent they existed, were largely in agreement...
But then came a wave of scholarship, much of it by eminent constitutional scholars ...
By the turn of the millennium, it was well-established among scholars that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right to arms, one that would be enforceable in court against infringements by states, municipalities and the federal government...
At present, we've reached the point where the Second Amendment can be characterized as ordinary constitutional law. That is, it now protects a right that attaches to individuals, and that those individuals can enforce in federal court...
America has more guns in private hands than ever before, even as crime rates fall, and, after a half-century or so of anti-gun hysteria, the nation seems to be reverting to its generally gun-friendly traditions.
Nothing is easy.
/fl
Subversion
Trojan Horse
The Birmingham [England] Mail reports that it has received documents purporting to show that jihadists are launching an operation called 'Trojan Horse' through which they plan to orchestrate false allegations against staff members.
And, who is stupid enough to think that they (or any other enemy) wouldn't try this kind of spurious campaign against the United States and our Constitution, especially when our Constitution guarantees an obstacle as threatening to them as an armed citizenry?
/fl
Violence
Yet another example of life in a 'gun-free zone'!
Police are looking for a suspect who walked up to a 23-year-old man on a [New York city] Lower East Side street and punched him in the face early Thursday, knocking him unconscious and breaking his jaw.
Authorities say the suspect sneaked up behind the victim, Kyle Rogers, near the Bowery Mission and hit him with a closed fist before running off. Rogers, who says he had just left a bar, passed out and woke up in the ambulance with a broken jaw.
Anyone want to guess where New York City is headed with this sort of thing?
/fl
Civil Rights
All Eyes on The Constitution State
From Connecticut Carry:
We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it's time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.
From Bearing Arms:
The politicians have made their decision. By a twist of fate–your file simply happened to be on the top of the stack for no particular reason–you’ll be the first example....
You’ve made two major mistakes; they will cost your life and destroy your family: you live in a blue state where the governor and legislature have no respect for the Constitution and the lives and liberty of citizens, and you were foolish enough to obey the law.
Only 50,000 firearms and 38,000 magazines were registered. Perhaps another 350,000 firearms belong to those who refused to register their arms. Nearly 2 million magazines are thought to remain unregistered.
These unregistered firearms and magazines are thought to belong to 80,000-100,000 gun owners who view the law as a blatantly unconstitutional infringement upon the very spirit of the Second Amendment, and a prelude to confiscation.
Those most obviously in danger of being arrested at this time are 106 rifle owners and and 108 magazine owners who tried to register their arms, too late. The government knows exactly who they are through their botched registrations, and sent them letters giving them options on how to surrender their arms and magazines.
In a free country, the police must rely on citizens' voluntary compliance with the statutory law. There are not enough police to "enforce" a law that is rejected by a majority of the people. The police know that. That is why public opinion plays such an important part in the debate over "gun rights." That is why there has been an attempt to demonize guns by some who favor the confiscation of guns.
Legislators often care about nothing but seizing and maintaining power. Too many come to see themselves not as public servants hired temporarily to do the people’s business, but as the intellectual and moral superiors of the people, divinely chosen–by themselves; they recognize no higher power–to tell the people what to think, what to say, what to own and how to behave. They do not react well to the people thinking for themselves or refusing to obey. They forget–if they ever knew–that no rational legislator passes a law they know will not be obeyed, because when they do, and when people ignore them, a difficult choice is forced upon them. Take it and back down from a law they should never have written in the first place, or attack and show those peasants who’s boss. Punish them for daring to challenge their betters.
And who are the enforcers for the elite legislative class. The police.
With the recent trend in militarizing civilian police forces in this country, we may see a change in both conventional law-enforcement thinking and tactics; if so, it is likely that we will see it play out first in Connecticut.
/fl