Tag Archives: culture

Red Flag Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Apart from their unconstitutionality—they ignore due process, equal protection, and privileges or immunities that are central tenets of our Constitution and of what it means to be an American—these laws don’t work on a petty practical level, either.

Illustrative of that are the mass shooting in Buffalo and especially the one on Independence Day in Highland Park.

In the latter case, police even entered the shooter’s home in 2019 and seized knives, only to return them later that same day.

According to Lake County officials, police had visited Crimo’s home twice in 2019 after he threatened to kill himself and his family. Police said they recovered knives from the home but no guns.
But, authorities pointed out, he responded no when asked if he felt like harming himself or others, and his father said the knives were his and were being stored in his son’s closet for safekeeping. Based on that information, the Highland Park police returned the knives to the father the same day.

Following that, at the end of 2019,

Crimo applied for a FOID [Firearms Owner Identification] card, according to the state police. Because he was under 21, the application had to be sponsored by a parent or guardian, according to state law.
“The application was sponsored by the subject’s father,” the agency said.
In January 2020, “There was insufficient basis to establish a clear and present danger to deny the FOID application” and Crimo was given a card, according to the state police.

Then,

Crimo passed four separate background checks to buy guns on June 9, 2020, July 18, 2020, July 31, 2020 and Sept. 20, 2021, the state police said.

Pushing for Red Flag laws is frivolous, nothing other than cynical virtue-signaling, and it’s a waste of taxpayer money for the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and too many Republican Party politicians to push them in government legislatures.

Independence Day

Posted on by
1

I posted this in 2012; it bears repeating.

On this day 235 and more years ago, a group of Americans got together and, pledging their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor to each other while relying on the protection of divine Providence, took our country free from tyranny and set us on a new, wholly experimental course.

These men openly acknowledged both our right and our duty to throw off any government that too badly violates its moral obligations to us sovereign citizens, that for too long abuses our liberties and our individual responsibilities.  At the same time, though, they acknowledged that routinely rebelling at every small offense was equally wrong: Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.  Yet those light and transient offenses want correction along with those abuses and moral failures.

And so, while fighting (and many dying) for our newly born nation and during the immediately ensuing years of a troubled peace, these men, with others from the newly independent and united States joining them, in a second phase of our experiment invented a wholly new form of government.  They created a government that would recognize the essential sovereignty of the members of a voluntarily formed social compact over our compact’s government, and they gave that government a structure and a strictly limited set of authorities designed to maximize our control of government and our ability to maintain that control.

They also invented a wholly new mechanism for throwing off an abusive government and replacing it with one more suited to our needs and to our control: a set of elections that would let us turn all the rascals out of one house of our legislative body every two years, that would let us depose the whole of the other house of our legislative body in sequential one-third increments every two years, and that would let us fire the chief executive of this government every four years—any and all whom we found wanting during their time in office.  This invention was accompanied by another invention of these men: a judiciary that sat, neither above nor below our executive and legislative, but equal to and separate from them—a third powerful check that granted stability to the whole.

We are here today arguing amongst ourselves, usually with great passion, over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, climate change, Benghazi, emails, immigration, viruses, and a host of other things, too, both momentous and trivial.  And we could not be without the genius and the sacrifice of those men those 235 and more years ago.

As you sit around by your barbecue, or at the beach, or wherever you may be, hamburgers and hotdogs in hand, beer nearby, children screaming and yelling in their own happinesses, take a moment to think about that.

“Technical Expertise”

Posted on by
Reply

In The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v EPA, in which the Court ruled that the EPA had badly overstepped its bounds, the Editors pointed out that

[t]he dissenters bemoan that Congress lacks the expertise to regulate technical subjects such as climate change.

This is a cynically offered sophistry by those activist Justices. There’s nothing preventing an inexpert Congress from consulting experts. Congress does, after all, hold the occasional hearing on matters related to legislation under consideration.

The Uniter Says…

Posted on by
Reply

…to Hell with bipartisanship. Again.

Last time, President Joe Biden (D) wanted an “exception” to the Senate’s filibuster rule so he could get passed the Progressive-Democratic Party’s voting “rights” legislation on strict party lines—no bipartisanship wanted.

This time, Biden wants an “exception” to the Senate’s filibuster rule so Party can codify Roe v Wade in the law.

If the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this[.]

The Senate’s filibuster rule forces compromise and bipartisanship—a measure of unity—in legislation by requiring at least 10 members of the minority party to agree to the legislation.

To Hell with bipartisanship, Biden says. Pass Party’s legislation. Unification means everyone does it Party’s way.

California Progressive-Democrats Strike Again

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s the California’s Attorney General, the Progressive-Democrat Rob Bonta, who released the personally identifiable information of thousands of California’s firearm owners and concealed carry permit holders.

In the name of transparency, he claims. Oh, and that much transparency was an accident, he claims.

The information “accidentally” released includes

the person’s full name, race, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.

This is what Bonta said in his Press Release, put out last Monday, regarding his “transparency” move:

The dashboard [Bonta’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal] is accessible though DOJ’s OpenJustice Data Platform. The announcement will improve transparency and information sharing for firearms-related data and includes broad enhancements to the platform to help the public access data on firearms in California, including information about the issuance of Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits….

You bet he broadly enhanced public access to data about firearm ownership and concealed carry permit holders.

This sort of thing doesn’t happen by accident. Bonta knows who is in the IT section of the California DoJ that he runs. He knows who did the software adjustment to release the data from the department’s concealed carry permit holder database. That those folks have not been fired for cause, much less arrested by his California Bureau of Investigation or Bureau of Firearms agents, speaks volumes about Bonta’s role in this attack on honest American citizens, who also are citizens of California.

That Bonta hasn’t resigned now that his release (yes, his release—he’s the one in charge; he’s the one who authorized the release) has been exposed says volumes about his continued approval of the release.

This is a continuation of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s attack on our 2nd Amendment rights, just a few days after the Supreme Court upheld them, explicitly, in striking down New York’s law requiring a citizen to get government permission to exercise his right by satisfying a government bureaucrat that he has a “need” and is a proper—in the bureaucrat’s eyes—citizen.

Update: Corrected the opening sentence, which had mistakenly omitted the first half due to a copy/paste fit of sloppiness.