Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Friday, May 26, 2017
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Teach the Constitution in Ill-Annoys and...
Warning lands Batavia teacher in hot water
A Batavia High School teacher's fans are rallying to support him as he faces possible discipline for advising students of their Constitutional rights before taking a school survey on their behavior.
They've been collecting signatures on an online petition, passing the word on Facebook, sending letters to the school board, and planning to speak at Tuesday's school board meeting.
Students and parents have praised his ability to interest reluctant students in history and current affairs.
But John Dryden said he's not the point. He wants people to focus on the issue he raised: Whether school officials considered that students could incriminate themselves with their answers to the survey that included questions about drug and alcohol use.
Dryden, a social studies teacher, told some of his students April 18 that they had a 5th Amendment right to not incriminate themselves by answering questions on the survey, which had each student's name printed on it.Damn right they have the right to know! Just because a kid steps through the schoolhouse door, he or she does NOT become property and lose basic human rights.
What does this good citizen get for his trouble?
Dryden faces having a "letter of remedy" placed in his employment file. He said this week he is negotiating the matter with district authorities.
Only a school board can issue a letter of remedy, which informs teachers their conduct was improper and could have consequences up to dismissal, according to state law.Today, you definitely take your career in your hands by speaking the truth - especially in school.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Question
Originally posted 1/7/2013 - worth repeating.
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.
It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.
Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.Read the whole thing, as usual.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Will YOU resist when they come for your guns?
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?
I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.Another taste:
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.
It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.Read the whole thing.
I sure as hell am going to resist, come that day.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
A beginning?
From the Chicago Tribune:
ROCKFORD – In the only state that doesn’t let its residents walk around with concealed firearms, a northwest Illinois county could become the testing ground for gun enthusiasts who want a clean sweep for their Second Amendment rights.
A grass-roots movement in Winnebago County is taking aim at Illinois’ long-held position, setting up a possible showdown between gun-rights advocates and a sympathetic state’s attorney who believes the effort won’t pass legal muster.
The county has scheduled a pair of hearings this month to determine whether it should allow people to carry guns within Winnebago borders. The proposed ordinance – which was written after officials received a petition with more than 11,000 signatures this year – would contradict state law.
+++++++++++++++++++
"Contradict state law"?
"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury vs. Madison.
Since Winnebago County is abutting Rock County, dare I hope for reciprocal CCW?
ROCKFORD – In the only state that doesn’t let its residents walk around with concealed firearms, a northwest Illinois county could become the testing ground for gun enthusiasts who want a clean sweep for their Second Amendment rights.
A grass-roots movement in Winnebago County is taking aim at Illinois’ long-held position, setting up a possible showdown between gun-rights advocates and a sympathetic state’s attorney who believes the effort won’t pass legal muster.
The county has scheduled a pair of hearings this month to determine whether it should allow people to carry guns within Winnebago borders. The proposed ordinance – which was written after officials received a petition with more than 11,000 signatures this year – would contradict state law.
+++++++++++++++++++
"Contradict state law"?
"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury vs. Madison.
Since Winnebago County is abutting Rock County, dare I hope for reciprocal CCW?
Friday, February 3, 2012
Emily Miller testifies in DC
Exercising her inalienable rights in our nation's capitol:
Something has to change - now.
Something has to change - now.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Nebraska enacting UN child rights legislation?
Sure looks like it:
++++++++++++++++++
Got to watch our "public servants" like a hawk, all the time - or they try to sneak in stuff like this.
The proper answer to a malfunctioning governmental agency is to remove it - not add another layer of government.
H/t Domestic Divapalooza
++++++++++++++++++
LB 821 Poses Great Danger to the Family and Civil Liberties
On Sunday, Jan. 1, there was an article in the Omaha World-Herald about legislation that will be introduced during the current session of the Nebraska Unicameral.
Questions about child welfare to dominate Nebraska Legislature - Omaha.com
It reads:
"Nebraska's 2012 legislative session looks to be the year of the child.
"During the next four months, lawmakers will wrestle with key questions about the future of child welfare and juvenile justice in the state.
"How they answer...those questions will shape the lives of abused and neglected Nebraska children and youthful troublemakers."
But how they answer those questions will also shape the lives of regular, ordinary children too, especially since Nebraska has been showing an unsettling willingness to draw the parameters wider and wider for what constitutes an "abused" or "neglected" child or "youthful troublemaker." Nebraska has a serious problem with breaking up families – it does so at the second highest rate in the nation. And it has recently begun removing children from their families for what the state deems to be poor school attendance, under the new “truancy” law.
It’s good that Nebraska is working to address the serious problems in its child welfare system, and some positive proposals are being advanced this session. However, two of the proposals mentioned in the article, and brought together in one bill, LB 821, are deeply concerning. These proposals would only intensify the problems the system now faces.
LB 821 proposes to create a 26-person Children's Commission, and a brand new state children's agency. (LB 821 - http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB821.pdf ) The bill recognizes the major problems with Nebraska's current child welfare system, but it proposes to remedy these problems by creating more government!
In addition to the simple paradox of creating more government to solve a problem created by government, I believe that these two legislative proposals present a threat to every Nebraska family in another way. These two proposals would establish in Nebraska a framework that could implement the concepts contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), an overreaching document which the U.S. Congress has refused to ratify for 22 years.
++++++++++++++++++Got to watch our "public servants" like a hawk, all the time - or they try to sneak in stuff like this.
The proper answer to a malfunctioning governmental agency is to remove it - not add another layer of government.
H/t Domestic Divapalooza
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Thursday, November 17, 2011
I made the local paper!
Just a couple of mentions, but I just got a call from a WISC Channel 3 TV reporter, wanting to do an interview...
Did my 15 minutes of fame start with the paper article, or is it after I see it on TV?
++++++++++++++++
Wisconsin's newly enacted concealed carry laws, the critics argue, reaffirm every individuals' constitutional rights to bear arms, and those rights should not be interfered with by the proposed city ordinance.
"The right to bear arms is a personal right that should not be infringed," said Chuck Kuecker, a federally licensed firearms dealer whose business is located in the Town of Beloit. "We think the City of Beloit would be better off if they just accept the fact that the state of Wisconsin says individuals can carry if they're law-abiding citizens with a permit."
Kuecker, who identified himself as a Tea Party member, was among a small group of like-minded gentlemen at the Beloit City Council meeting Nov. 7, when the ordinance was read for the first time. The ordinance will face a second reading on Nov. 21, and the seven-member council will decide whether to vote on or table the measure at that time.
The ordinance's wording leaves councilors with four key decisions that will dictate the measure's impact and reach. Essentially, the council could adopt a full ban, partial ban or no ban at all.
Attempts to contact several councilors went unanswered, so there's no telling what adjustments, if any, might be made to the ordinance before a vote is taken.
Beloit is not alone in considering a weapon-barring ordinance for its public facilities, as other municipalities near and far have also recently weighed similar measures.
"Numerous communities across Wisconsin such as West Bend, Green Bay, Delafield, Kenosha, Sturtevant, Germantown, Hudson, Elkhorn and Chippewa have rejected bans such as that put forth by the Beloit City Council," reads a press release from the Rock County Voter Education Forum, an organization encouraging residents to oppose the Beloit ordinance.
But other governing bodies, those in Whitewater, West Baraboo and elsewhere have supported a firearms ban in public properties. Rock County recently decided to prohibit dangerous weapons from county property.
The state legislation, named the Wisconsin Personal Protection Act, was designed to give local governing bodies a certain level of control over their own properties, said City Manager Larry Arft. Permitting individuals to carry firearms inside City Hall, which was never allowed before Nov. 1 (the Act's implementation date), could create unnecessary dangers, as certain visitors - those paying tickets, those disputing fines and the like - are prone to become emotionally upset, he said.
City employees, Arft said, strongly support the weapon-barring ordinance. City Attorney Tom Casper, who has worked with Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Krueger in crafting the ordinance, confirmed Arft's statement.
Arft said councilors are free to adjust the budget as they see fit, but he is issuing a "staff recommendation" that it passes in its full capacity.
The ordinance, Arft and Casper said, essentially restores the city's rules regarding firearms inside public buildings as they were before Nov. 1. The two men also point out that the new state law bars weapons from specific facilities, including police stations and courtrooms.
"The Act outlines certain areas where carrying a weapon is strictly prohibited, regardless of whether any local restrictions are implemented," a report to city council reads. "In Beloit, the prohibition applies to those portions of City Hall that include the Police Department and the Municipal Court when the court is in session."
As for other municipal buildings or facilities, the Act permits municipalities to make decisions locally regarding whether to permit or restrict the carrying of weapons."
However, "just because a government can pass a law doesn't mean they have to," Kuecker and others fighting the ordinance have said.
Second Amendment arguments aside, those opposing the ordinance say there are several practical reasons it should not pass.
Under the Act, municipalities cannot place restraints on concealed carriers in open-air public places like parks, parking lots or the city streets. So what happens when an individual visits the park, gun in tow, but needs to use an indoor restroom facility?
Arft and ordinance supporters say the individual should place his or her weapon inside his or her vehicle.
But this simply isn't practical, opponents say. What if someone doesn't have a car?
"Is the city going to buy you a car?" asked Mike Zoril, a former city council candidate who plans to seek office again come springtime. "No."
The proposed ordinance unfairly punishes Beloit's bus riders those without vehicles, who through state law have now been granted the ability to defend themselves, Zoril said.
Weapons were never allowed on city buses before Nov. 1, and the ordinance being considered would reinstate that rule.
And what about entering City Hall? Will there be a locker for individuals to store their weapons while inside? Will there be additional metal detectors to ensure people aren't violating the ordinance?
No, Casper and Arft said.
Weapons have never been permitted inside City Hall and there have never been metal detectors at the building's entrances. Therefore the security policies to not need broad changes, the two men said.
Again, Casper said, the assumption is that individuals can leave weapons inside their vehicles.
Capt. Vince Sciame, a veteran member of the Beloit Police Department, said there have been no serious incidents involving weapons inside City Hall or in other public facilities in recent memory.
The intricacies of Wisconsin's concealed carry laws have been hotly debated since Gov. Scott Walker passed the legislation in July. The Wisconsin Department of Justice's website has several resources for individuals seeking more information.
State Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville, seeking clarification, last week asked Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen for a formal opinion on liability for property owners regarding the Act.
++++++++++++++++
Did my 15 minutes of fame start with the paper article, or is it after I see it on TV?
++++++++++++++++
Gun rights advocates argue ban in city buildings goes too far
Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:00 pm | Updated: 2:14 pm, Wed Nov 16, 2011.
Some local gun rights advocates say a proposed city ordinance banning weapons from city properties goes too far.Wisconsin's newly enacted concealed carry laws, the critics argue, reaffirm every individuals' constitutional rights to bear arms, and those rights should not be interfered with by the proposed city ordinance.
"The right to bear arms is a personal right that should not be infringed," said Chuck Kuecker, a federally licensed firearms dealer whose business is located in the Town of Beloit. "We think the City of Beloit would be better off if they just accept the fact that the state of Wisconsin says individuals can carry if they're law-abiding citizens with a permit."
Kuecker, who identified himself as a Tea Party member, was among a small group of like-minded gentlemen at the Beloit City Council meeting Nov. 7, when the ordinance was read for the first time. The ordinance will face a second reading on Nov. 21, and the seven-member council will decide whether to vote on or table the measure at that time.
The ordinance's wording leaves councilors with four key decisions that will dictate the measure's impact and reach. Essentially, the council could adopt a full ban, partial ban or no ban at all.
Attempts to contact several councilors went unanswered, so there's no telling what adjustments, if any, might be made to the ordinance before a vote is taken.
Beloit is not alone in considering a weapon-barring ordinance for its public facilities, as other municipalities near and far have also recently weighed similar measures.
"Numerous communities across Wisconsin such as West Bend, Green Bay, Delafield, Kenosha, Sturtevant, Germantown, Hudson, Elkhorn and Chippewa have rejected bans such as that put forth by the Beloit City Council," reads a press release from the Rock County Voter Education Forum, an organization encouraging residents to oppose the Beloit ordinance.
But other governing bodies, those in Whitewater, West Baraboo and elsewhere have supported a firearms ban in public properties. Rock County recently decided to prohibit dangerous weapons from county property.
The state legislation, named the Wisconsin Personal Protection Act, was designed to give local governing bodies a certain level of control over their own properties, said City Manager Larry Arft. Permitting individuals to carry firearms inside City Hall, which was never allowed before Nov. 1 (the Act's implementation date), could create unnecessary dangers, as certain visitors - those paying tickets, those disputing fines and the like - are prone to become emotionally upset, he said.
City employees, Arft said, strongly support the weapon-barring ordinance. City Attorney Tom Casper, who has worked with Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Krueger in crafting the ordinance, confirmed Arft's statement.
Arft said councilors are free to adjust the budget as they see fit, but he is issuing a "staff recommendation" that it passes in its full capacity.
The ordinance, Arft and Casper said, essentially restores the city's rules regarding firearms inside public buildings as they were before Nov. 1. The two men also point out that the new state law bars weapons from specific facilities, including police stations and courtrooms.
"The Act outlines certain areas where carrying a weapon is strictly prohibited, regardless of whether any local restrictions are implemented," a report to city council reads. "In Beloit, the prohibition applies to those portions of City Hall that include the Police Department and the Municipal Court when the court is in session."
As for other municipal buildings or facilities, the Act permits municipalities to make decisions locally regarding whether to permit or restrict the carrying of weapons."
However, "just because a government can pass a law doesn't mean they have to," Kuecker and others fighting the ordinance have said.
Second Amendment arguments aside, those opposing the ordinance say there are several practical reasons it should not pass.
Under the Act, municipalities cannot place restraints on concealed carriers in open-air public places like parks, parking lots or the city streets. So what happens when an individual visits the park, gun in tow, but needs to use an indoor restroom facility?
Arft and ordinance supporters say the individual should place his or her weapon inside his or her vehicle.
But this simply isn't practical, opponents say. What if someone doesn't have a car?
"Is the city going to buy you a car?" asked Mike Zoril, a former city council candidate who plans to seek office again come springtime. "No."
The proposed ordinance unfairly punishes Beloit's bus riders those without vehicles, who through state law have now been granted the ability to defend themselves, Zoril said.
Weapons were never allowed on city buses before Nov. 1, and the ordinance being considered would reinstate that rule.
And what about entering City Hall? Will there be a locker for individuals to store their weapons while inside? Will there be additional metal detectors to ensure people aren't violating the ordinance?
No, Casper and Arft said.
Weapons have never been permitted inside City Hall and there have never been metal detectors at the building's entrances. Therefore the security policies to not need broad changes, the two men said.
Again, Casper said, the assumption is that individuals can leave weapons inside their vehicles.
Capt. Vince Sciame, a veteran member of the Beloit Police Department, said there have been no serious incidents involving weapons inside City Hall or in other public facilities in recent memory.
The intricacies of Wisconsin's concealed carry laws have been hotly debated since Gov. Scott Walker passed the legislation in July. The Wisconsin Department of Justice's website has several resources for individuals seeking more information.
State Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville, seeking clarification, last week asked Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen for a formal opinion on liability for property owners regarding the Act.
++++++++++++++++
Saturday, December 25, 2010
This is getting rediculous
Time for massive civil disobedience. If enough refuse the grope, we can overwhelm their jails...
As the video by that pilot shows, the bad guys can plant bombs with immunity, while women like this get raped again by the "authorities".
Fight the system.
Merry Christmas from the TSA!
Woman arrested at ABIA after refusing enhanced pat down
kvue.com
Posted on December 22, 2010 at 9:38 PM
Updated Thursday, Dec 23 at 9:39 AM
Early Wednesday morning, a computer glitch shut down a security checkpoint for a couple of hours at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. The line snaked out the door as many travelers waited for more than an hour and some missed their flights. One of the first people in line after that shutdown never made it through. She was arrested and banned from the airport.
Claire Hirschkind, 56, who says she is a rape victim and who has a pacemaker-type device implanted in her chest, says her constitutional rights were violated. She says she never broke any laws. But the Transportation Security Administration disagrees.
Hirschkind was hoping to spend Christmas with friends in California, but she never made it past the security checkpoint.
"I can't go through because I have the equivalent of a pacemaker in me," she said.
Hirschkind said because of the device in her body, she was led to a female TSA employee and three Austin police officers. She says she was told she was going to be patted down.
"I turned to the police officer and said, 'I have given no due cause to give up my constitutional rights. You can wand me,'" and they said, 'No, you have to do this,'" she said.
Hirschkind agreed to the pat down, but on one condition.
"I told them, 'No, I'm not going to have my breasts felt,' and she said, 'Yes, you are,'" said Hirschkind.
When Hirschkind refused, she says that "the police actually pushed me to the floor, (and) handcuffed me. I was crying by then. They drug me 25 yards across the floor in front of the whole security."
++++++++++++++++++++As the video by that pilot shows, the bad guys can plant bombs with immunity, while women like this get raped again by the "authorities".
Whistleblower: Pilot Posts Video Exposing Airport Security Flaws
Fight the system.
Merry Christmas from the TSA!
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wisconsin attempting to strip veterans of their votes
At Barking Moonbat Early Warning System:
10 States Seek Waiver to Comply With Military Voting Law’s Absentee Ballot Rules
Kohl, Feingold and all the other Demonrats must be pissing themselves at the thought of how all those servicemen and women overseas would vote if allowed to.
UPDATE 8/28/10 - Petition refused, for Wisconsin. I guess our "leaders" will just have to take their chances in the election.
10 States Seek Waiver to Comply With Military Voting Law’s Absentee Ballot Rules
Kohl, Feingold and all the other Demonrats must be pissing themselves at the thought of how all those servicemen and women overseas would vote if allowed to.
UPDATE 8/28/10 - Petition refused, for Wisconsin. I guess our "leaders" will just have to take their chances in the election.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Got published again
My letter about the state's attorney not enforcing un-Constitutional laws got published - on the same page as an editorial about the same issue:
Another prosecutor pursues a personal agenda.
WELL, AT LEAST it can be said that when district attorneys lose their legal bearings about enforcing the law, it’s a bipartisan exercise.
First it was Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth, a Republican, who warned schools that criminal charges might be lodged if the details from the state’s new sex education plan became part of the curriculum. Southworth argued that instructing students about condoms and contraception, prior to the age of consent, could put teachers on the wrong side of the law if the kids subsequently engaged in relations.
Now Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox, a Democrat, has drawn his own line in the legal sand. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s gun decision last week, Fox says he no longer will enforce any Wisconsin gun laws.
WHAT DOES the district attorney mean? According to the Associated Press, his statement said Jackson County no longer will prosecute violations of Wisconsin prohibitions on concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns — even carrying switchblade knives.
Fox says the high court ruling makes all of Wisconsin’s gun laws unconstitutional.
“These so-called public safety laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over,” Fox said.
He closes his statement: “Let Freedom Ring.”
THAT’S A POLITICAL argument, not a legal analysis. Ditto the earlier foolishness from DA Southworth.
In the first place, as legal analysis, Fox’s stand would be wildly wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling was an extension of an earlier decision, originating in the District of Columbia, which had established that the Second Amendment included an individual right to own firearms — not just that states could maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.” Last week’s ruling affirmed that the right exists in all 50 states, not just the federally-controlled D.C. zone.
The decision did not strike down, as Fox seems to believe, any and all gun regulations across America.
In fact, sorting out exactly what the ruling really means may keep lawyers busy for years.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, such rulings should not give license to politically-motivated prosecutors to superimpose their personal beliefs on the law.
We have no doubt the good voters of Wisconsin put prosecutors in place with the expectation they will enforce the law, not reinterpret statutes to suit themselves.
The simple fact is, though, mischievous prosecutors can pursue their own agendas with relative impunity. Under Wisconsin law, elected district attorneys have wide discretion when it comes to charging. The intent is to permit prosecutors to assess individual cases and proceed in a manner aimed at delivering justice to all parties. But it also can allow an unscrupulous prosecutor motivated by politics or a personal agenda to, essentially, distort the law.
The remedy rolls around every Election Day, when fair-minded voters can send these rascals packing.
I just sent Mr. William R. Barth of the Beloit Daily News this:
Dear Mr. Barth,
It was interesting to see the juxtaposition of your editorial "Just enforce the state laws" and my opinion piece "Go after the real criminals". Thanks for posting my letter.
I think, however, that you have a problem with history and the role of the people and the courts in our society. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, first off, and any law in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. That is fact.
The courts are not pro-active - they don't rule on Constitutionality until a suit is brought challenging a particular law. One might wish for a pro-active court system, but that could cause mischief in the other direction, depending on the political leanings of the judge involved, so I would advocate leaving bad enough alone there.
Anyway, the purpose of a state's attorney, as I see it, is to bring charges against people who are causing injury to the community by their actions, and to use common sense to prevent prosecutions based on faulty laws that would likely cause problems such as large payments of taxpayer's money to people harmed by the attempted enforcement of those faulty laws. I can see why Mr. Southworth warned against schools following the new sex-education law, since its literal interpretation would be corrupting the morals of minors, a crime. Perhaps this was a subtle hint for the Wisconsin legislature to revisit that law and re-write it to eliminate any possibility of teachers being charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor by attempting to follow the law.
The Supreme Court recently incorporated the Second Amendment, an action quite long overdue. This places it on the same level as the First Amendment, which prohibits the government, state, local, and federal, from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press. I am sure you would agree that any governmental agency attempting "speech controls" would and should be slapped down quickly and solidly.
The same concept is now attached to the Second Amendment. True, there will be thousands of lawsuits, each aimed at one or more of the 20,000-odd now un-Constitutional laws on the books. The courts will have to try each and every suit and render decisions, which will probably be appealed by officials fearful of losing power, however meaningless and petty that power is.
In America, our citizens are empowered to decide the law as jurors. Sadly, this power has been ignored and actively denied by judges in their instructions to juries. The power of nullification means that the people can effectively overturn a stupid or illegal law without waiting for the courts to rule. I see the actions of Mr. Southworth and Mr. Fox to be similar to this principle. Mr. Fox may be a bit gung-ho about this particular Supreme Court decision - I can understand that, since our Second Amendment rights have been systematically infringed upon starting with the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, and continuing with New York's Sullivan Act, the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (copied from 1930's German law), Illinois' FOID Card law, Wisconsin's Handgun Hotline, and all the rest.
Mr. Fox can see clearly that the Supreme Court's decision has effectively nullified every gun-control law now on the books, even if the courts have not yet ruled on those individual laws. He is trying to prevent his county from having to pay tax dollars to plaintiffs who successfully contest, say, concealed carry in his county. This also has the side-effect of preventing the suit that may well overturn Wisconsin's concealed-carry ban from being tested in courts in his county.
(Looking at it that way, perhaps Mr. Fox did us freedom-lovers a disservice by refusing to prosecute people for violating the useless and un-Constitutional laws on the books - because someone who is not prosecuted for exercising an inalienable right has no standing to bring suit to overturn the law he has not run afoul of.)
The Supreme Court decision does indeed strike down all of Wisconsin's present gun-control laws, but they will not be removed until each and every one is tested in court. There is nothing to fear from these laws being removed from the books - ask yourself, honestly - how many crimes have been prevented, say, by preventing a handgun transfer to someone who already owns six handguns until a waiting period expires, or by requiring federal background checks on law-abiding people before they can buy a gun from a dealer. The honest answer is zero. All these laws have ever succeeded in doing is preventing good folks from defending themselves. Criminals will always ignore the law. Our prosecutors should be lauded for attempting to prevent lawsuits that will cost us money, and should concentrate on prosecuting those who are actually harming others.
By the way - what's with the 'even carrying switchblade knives' comment? You do understand that the only reason for laws regulating knives was politicians in the 1950's getting all worked up over movies like "The Asphalt Jungle" - Google 'The Asphalt Jungle switchblade laws" turns up one typical comment near the top: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=298931 . You do understand that simply carrying something does nothing to harm society - until you pull it out and commit a crime like robbery, rape, or murder with it, right? Sort of like all those shootings in Beloit and Chicago that would never have happened is "gun control" actually worked.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
EDITORIAL: Just enforce the state laws
WELL, AT LEAST it can be said that when district attorneys lose their legal bearings about enforcing the law, it’s a bipartisan exercise.
First it was Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth, a Republican, who warned schools that criminal charges might be lodged if the details from the state’s new sex education plan became part of the curriculum. Southworth argued that instructing students about condoms and contraception, prior to the age of consent, could put teachers on the wrong side of the law if the kids subsequently engaged in relations.
Now Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox, a Democrat, has drawn his own line in the legal sand. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s gun decision last week, Fox says he no longer will enforce any Wisconsin gun laws.
WHAT DOES the district attorney mean? According to the Associated Press, his statement said Jackson County no longer will prosecute violations of Wisconsin prohibitions on concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns — even carrying switchblade knives.
Fox says the high court ruling makes all of Wisconsin’s gun laws unconstitutional.
“These so-called public safety laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over,” Fox said.
He closes his statement: “Let Freedom Ring.”
THAT’S A POLITICAL argument, not a legal analysis. Ditto the earlier foolishness from DA Southworth.
In the first place, as legal analysis, Fox’s stand would be wildly wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling was an extension of an earlier decision, originating in the District of Columbia, which had established that the Second Amendment included an individual right to own firearms — not just that states could maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.” Last week’s ruling affirmed that the right exists in all 50 states, not just the federally-controlled D.C. zone.
The decision did not strike down, as Fox seems to believe, any and all gun regulations across America.
In fact, sorting out exactly what the ruling really means may keep lawyers busy for years.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, such rulings should not give license to politically-motivated prosecutors to superimpose their personal beliefs on the law.
We have no doubt the good voters of Wisconsin put prosecutors in place with the expectation they will enforce the law, not reinterpret statutes to suit themselves.
The simple fact is, though, mischievous prosecutors can pursue their own agendas with relative impunity. Under Wisconsin law, elected district attorneys have wide discretion when it comes to charging. The intent is to permit prosecutors to assess individual cases and proceed in a manner aimed at delivering justice to all parties. But it also can allow an unscrupulous prosecutor motivated by politics or a personal agenda to, essentially, distort the law.
The remedy rolls around every Election Day, when fair-minded voters can send these rascals packing.
I just sent Mr. William R. Barth of the Beloit Daily News this:
Dear Mr. Barth,
It was interesting to see the juxtaposition of your editorial "Just enforce the state laws" and my opinion piece "Go after the real criminals". Thanks for posting my letter.
I think, however, that you have a problem with history and the role of the people and the courts in our society. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, first off, and any law in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. That is fact.
The courts are not pro-active - they don't rule on Constitutionality until a suit is brought challenging a particular law. One might wish for a pro-active court system, but that could cause mischief in the other direction, depending on the political leanings of the judge involved, so I would advocate leaving bad enough alone there.
Anyway, the purpose of a state's attorney, as I see it, is to bring charges against people who are causing injury to the community by their actions, and to use common sense to prevent prosecutions based on faulty laws that would likely cause problems such as large payments of taxpayer's money to people harmed by the attempted enforcement of those faulty laws. I can see why Mr. Southworth warned against schools following the new sex-education law, since its literal interpretation would be corrupting the morals of minors, a crime. Perhaps this was a subtle hint for the Wisconsin legislature to revisit that law and re-write it to eliminate any possibility of teachers being charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor by attempting to follow the law.
The Supreme Court recently incorporated the Second Amendment, an action quite long overdue. This places it on the same level as the First Amendment, which prohibits the government, state, local, and federal, from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press. I am sure you would agree that any governmental agency attempting "speech controls" would and should be slapped down quickly and solidly.
The same concept is now attached to the Second Amendment. True, there will be thousands of lawsuits, each aimed at one or more of the 20,000-odd now un-Constitutional laws on the books. The courts will have to try each and every suit and render decisions, which will probably be appealed by officials fearful of losing power, however meaningless and petty that power is.
In America, our citizens are empowered to decide the law as jurors. Sadly, this power has been ignored and actively denied by judges in their instructions to juries. The power of nullification means that the people can effectively overturn a stupid or illegal law without waiting for the courts to rule. I see the actions of Mr. Southworth and Mr. Fox to be similar to this principle. Mr. Fox may be a bit gung-ho about this particular Supreme Court decision - I can understand that, since our Second Amendment rights have been systematically infringed upon starting with the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, and continuing with New York's Sullivan Act, the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (copied from 1930's German law), Illinois' FOID Card law, Wisconsin's Handgun Hotline, and all the rest.
Mr. Fox can see clearly that the Supreme Court's decision has effectively nullified every gun-control law now on the books, even if the courts have not yet ruled on those individual laws. He is trying to prevent his county from having to pay tax dollars to plaintiffs who successfully contest, say, concealed carry in his county. This also has the side-effect of preventing the suit that may well overturn Wisconsin's concealed-carry ban from being tested in courts in his county.
(Looking at it that way, perhaps Mr. Fox did us freedom-lovers a disservice by refusing to prosecute people for violating the useless and un-Constitutional laws on the books - because someone who is not prosecuted for exercising an inalienable right has no standing to bring suit to overturn the law he has not run afoul of.)
The Supreme Court decision does indeed strike down all of Wisconsin's present gun-control laws, but they will not be removed until each and every one is tested in court. There is nothing to fear from these laws being removed from the books - ask yourself, honestly - how many crimes have been prevented, say, by preventing a handgun transfer to someone who already owns six handguns until a waiting period expires, or by requiring federal background checks on law-abiding people before they can buy a gun from a dealer. The honest answer is zero. All these laws have ever succeeded in doing is preventing good folks from defending themselves. Criminals will always ignore the law. Our prosecutors should be lauded for attempting to prevent lawsuits that will cost us money, and should concentrate on prosecuting those who are actually harming others.
By the way - what's with the 'even carrying switchblade knives' comment? You do understand that the only reason for laws regulating knives was politicians in the 1950's getting all worked up over movies like "The Asphalt Jungle" - Google 'The Asphalt Jungle switchblade laws" turns up one typical comment near the top: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=298931 . You do understand that simply carrying something does nothing to harm society - until you pull it out and commit a crime like robbery, rape, or murder with it, right? Sort of like all those shootings in Beloit and Chicago that would never have happened is "gun control" actually worked.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Common sense in a county prosecutor-and stupidity elsewhere
Article in the Beloit Daily News:
Prosecutor says he won't enforce state gun laws
Jackson County, Wisconsin District Attorney Gerald R. Fox is a very intelligent man. He has read the Supreme Court's ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, and has done the right thing - he refuses to prosecute people in violation of un-Constitutional state laws.
Contrast this with Little Dick Daley in Chicago, who in response to the same ruling, rushed through new restrictions on an unalienable right.
Lots of lawyers are going to get rich, and the taxpayers of Chicago are going to get poorer. Finally, the people of Chicago will be free - but it's going to take years, and Daley getting ridden out of town on a rail, dripping tar and feathers.
I can dream, can't I?
Just sent this to the Daily News letters:
Jackson County District attorney Gerald R. Fox is the kind of public official we need more of in Wisconsin. He has announced that, in accordance with the highest law of our country, he will no longer prosecute people for exercising their God-given right to self defense under the Second Amendment.
We now need to get our legislators to do the correct thing, and repeal all the un-Constitutional gun laws on the Wisconsin books. The useless 'handgun hotline', the waiting period for gun deliveries, the ban on concealed carry - all of them.
We need more people to take a stand like this. How about Rock County's district attorney being the next to announce he will follow the highest law of the land and ignore laws in violation of it?
Our prosecutors and police should be going after people who are committing real crimes, with or without weapons. Possessing an object should never be a crime. It's what you do with that object that matters, and only the action of harming another person should be prosecuted as a crime.
Prosecutor says he won't enforce state gun laws
Jackson County, Wisconsin District Attorney Gerald R. Fox is a very intelligent man. He has read the Supreme Court's ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, and has done the right thing - he refuses to prosecute people in violation of un-Constitutional state laws.
Contrast this with Little Dick Daley in Chicago, who in response to the same ruling, rushed through new restrictions on an unalienable right.
Lots of lawyers are going to get rich, and the taxpayers of Chicago are going to get poorer. Finally, the people of Chicago will be free - but it's going to take years, and Daley getting ridden out of town on a rail, dripping tar and feathers.
I can dream, can't I?
Just sent this to the Daily News letters:
Jackson County District attorney Gerald R. Fox is the kind of public official we need more of in Wisconsin. He has announced that, in accordance with the highest law of our country, he will no longer prosecute people for exercising their God-given right to self defense under the Second Amendment.
We now need to get our legislators to do the correct thing, and repeal all the un-Constitutional gun laws on the Wisconsin books. The useless 'handgun hotline', the waiting period for gun deliveries, the ban on concealed carry - all of them.
We need more people to take a stand like this. How about Rock County's district attorney being the next to announce he will follow the highest law of the land and ignore laws in violation of it?
Our prosecutors and police should be going after people who are committing real crimes, with or without weapons. Possessing an object should never be a crime. It's what you do with that object that matters, and only the action of harming another person should be prosecuted as a crime.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Email to NRA-ILA
Re: H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT -
How can you in any way support this? I did not send in all that money to the NRA to become a life member so that the NRA-ILA would be a party to un-Constitutional infringements on the First Amendment.
It's bad enough to have a state senator - Feingold - who thinks the First Amendment is not a restriction on the government - but to have my NRA aid and abet the loss of freedom is unconscionable.
What's next? Are you going to send money to the Brady Bunch? They are hurting financially, I hear, and I bet they would love help getting their message out!
How can you in any way support this? I did not send in all that money to the NRA to become a life member so that the NRA-ILA would be a party to un-Constitutional infringements on the First Amendment.
It's bad enough to have a state senator - Feingold - who thinks the First Amendment is not a restriction on the government - but to have my NRA aid and abet the loss of freedom is unconscionable.
What's next? Are you going to send money to the Brady Bunch? They are hurting financially, I hear, and I bet they would love help getting their message out!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
More exchanges with Herb Kohl
I recently sent Mr. Kohl an email expressing my concern about CIFTA.
http://beloitballistics.blogspot.com/2009/08/anoterh-set-of-emails.html
His response:
-----------------------
United States Senator
-----------------------
My response:
Hi, Herb,
Just got your response on my email about CIFTA. In part, you said:
"I agree that the right of law abiding Americans to own a gun should be protected. However, laws prohibiting felons and other potentially dangerous individuals from owning guns are reasonable and effective ways to reduce violent crime in our communities. In the past, the Senate has considered a variety of gun safety measures. I carefully evaluate each of these proposals, and I only support gun control legislation that corresponds to two important principles. First, I do not believe we should deprive law abiding gun owners, particularly hunters and target shooters, of their Second Amendment rights. Second, I only support proposals that I believe will unquestionably make our communities safer."
I appreciate your desire to protect our firearms rights, but i feel I need to point out a couple of possibly subtle points.
First, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting and target shooting. It is the last resort for the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
Second, "laws prohibiting felons and other potentially dangerous individuals from owning guns" are a waste of time, since these individuals will obtain whatever they want regardless of the law - that goes along with them being "criminals". Also, "felons" who have served their sentences are either safe to release back into our society as full members, or they are dangerous and should be kept locked up for life - there is no middle ground. Released "felons" have the same God-given right to protect themselves and their families from danger as the rest of us - and since "felon" nowadays includes several thousands of "crimes" that have nothing to do with violence, this "law" makes no sense except as a means to disarm increasing numbers of Americans.
Finally, international treaties on "arms trafficking" need to concentrate on rogue powers such as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, and leave American citizens alone.
Any Congress that ratifies this treaty is composed of traitors to our Constitution, and should be prosecuted and punished as such.
Just my personal point of view.
http://beloitballistics.blogspot.com/2009/08/anoterh-set-of-emails.html
His response:
-----------------------
Dear Mr. Kuecker:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA). I appreciate hearing from you.
CIFTA was adopted by the Organization of the American States in 1997 to prevent and stop the illegal traffic of firearms at the international level and entered into force on July 1, 1998. The treaty established that the parties must establish criminal offences under their domestic law against illicit manufacturing and trafficking if they had not already done so. Treaties must be agreed to in the Senate before they are ratified. President Obama has stated he will seek the ratification of CIFTA but has not yet submitted the treaty to the Foreign Relations Committee.
I agree that the right of law abiding Americans to own a gun should be protected. However, laws prohibiting felons and other potentially dangerous individuals from owning guns are reasonable and effective ways to reduce violent crime in our communities. In the past, the Senate has considered a variety of gun safety measures. I carefully evaluate each of these proposals, and I only support gun control legislation that corresponds to two important principles. First, I do not believe we should deprive law abiding gun owners, particularly hunters and target shooters, of their Second Amendment rights. Second, I only support proposals that I believe will unquestionably make our communities safer.
Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on this treaty. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
United States Senator
-----------------------
My response:
Hi, Herb,
Just got your response on my email about CIFTA. In part, you said:
"I agree that the right of law abiding Americans to own a gun should be protected. However, laws prohibiting felons and other potentially dangerous individuals from owning guns are reasonable and effective ways to reduce violent crime in our communities. In the past, the Senate has considered a variety of gun safety measures. I carefully evaluate each of these proposals, and I only support gun control legislation that corresponds to two important principles. First, I do not believe we should deprive law abiding gun owners, particularly hunters and target shooters, of their Second Amendment rights. Second, I only support proposals that I believe will unquestionably make our communities safer."
I appreciate your desire to protect our firearms rights, but i feel I need to point out a couple of possibly subtle points.
First, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting and target shooting. It is the last resort for the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
Second, "laws prohibiting felons and other potentially dangerous individuals from owning guns" are a waste of time, since these individuals will obtain whatever they want regardless of the law - that goes along with them being "criminals". Also, "felons" who have served their sentences are either safe to release back into our society as full members, or they are dangerous and should be kept locked up for life - there is no middle ground. Released "felons" have the same God-given right to protect themselves and their families from danger as the rest of us - and since "felon" nowadays includes several thousands of "crimes" that have nothing to do with violence, this "law" makes no sense except as a means to disarm increasing numbers of Americans.
Finally, international treaties on "arms trafficking" need to concentrate on rogue powers such as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, and leave American citizens alone.
Any Congress that ratifies this treaty is composed of traitors to our Constitution, and should be prosecuted and punished as such.
Just my personal point of view.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
S 773 - the Internet control bill
Sent to the usual suspects:
-------------------------------
Senate bill S 773 must never see the light of day.
Our Constitution is quite specific on this - in case you've forgotten:
Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in there allowing "emergency powers" to allow the President - or anyone else in government - to shut down the Internet or require special licenses to work on private networks.
This is a stupid and dangerous bill. Kill it.
----------------------------------
Similar, sent to Tammy Gay...
----------------------------------
I realize you are in the House, but if there's a corresponding House bill to Senate bill S 773, it must never see the light of day.
Our Constitution is quite specific on this - in case you've forgotten:
Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in there allowing "emergency powers" to allow the President - or anyone else in government - to shut down the Internet or require special licenses to work on private networks.
This would be a stupid and dangerous bill. Kill it.
By the way - when are you coming out of your hiding place to discuss health care reform face to face with your employers?
-------------------------
-------------------------------
Senate bill S 773 must never see the light of day.
Our Constitution is quite specific on this - in case you've forgotten:
Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in there allowing "emergency powers" to allow the President - or anyone else in government - to shut down the Internet or require special licenses to work on private networks.
This is a stupid and dangerous bill. Kill it.
----------------------------------
Similar, sent to Tammy Gay...
----------------------------------
I realize you are in the House, but if there's a corresponding House bill to Senate bill S 773, it must never see the light of day.
Our Constitution is quite specific on this - in case you've forgotten:
Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in there allowing "emergency powers" to allow the President - or anyone else in government - to shut down the Internet or require special licenses to work on private networks.
This would be a stupid and dangerous bill. Kill it.
By the way - when are you coming out of your hiding place to discuss health care reform face to face with your employers?
-------------------------
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Untraceable weapons
From this evening's Beloit Daily news. My comments interspersed:
http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2009/03/31/news/local_news/news01.txt
By Hillary Gavan
Police ask owners to keep record of serial numbers: 46 guns stolen so far in Beloit
Gun owners in Beloit need to be responsible by recording their weapons' serial numbers and storing them properly, which will help prevent thefts and help recover them after a burglary.
Exactly HOW does recording serial numbers help prevent thefts?
Proper storage is a no-brainer, if one is intelligent enough to be trusted with a weapon.
“It's hard to track weapons without serial numbers,” said Deputy Police Chief Norm Jacobs. “Most people would feel terrible if they had a weapon stolen from their home and a year or two later it came up used in a robbery or in an incident where someone got hurt.”
I suppose these people would be carefree if they had recorded the serial numbers, and later the gun was used in a crime. I love how officials try to work emotion into everything.
Why, exactly, do the police need to "trace" a weapon? If they can show it was used in a crime, it's evidence, obviously. If the possessor is not allowed to have that weapon, how is it important where he got it?
Jacobs said 46 weapons were reported stolen in Beloit so far in 2009, and several were taken in home burglaries. Others were taken out of automobiles when owners were illegally transporting them. Jacobs noted that in Wisconsin a gun must be unloaded, encased and located in a non-passenger area of the vehicle.
In other words, the only way to transport a weapon in Wisconsin is to make it unusable as a defensive device. Typical Democratic mindset - only the police and 'trained professionals' can carry ready to act - the rest of us need to call 911 and pray.
How does one who owns only a pickup with an open bed transport his legally possessed weapon?
Notice how the guns 'taken out of automobiles when owners were illegally transporting them' are rightly listed as 'stolen'. Nowhere in the Second Amendment do I see any requirements for enclosing an unloaded gun while transporting it.
Theft is still theft when a government official does it.
Or, did I misunderstand, and people illegally transporting weapons called the cops to report their illegally transported guns were stolen? I know crooks are generally stupid, but this is akin to the stoner calling the cops because his roomie smoked all the weed.
Of the weapons stolen only about half the owners were able to give police the serial numbers. Only 17 of 46 weapons were entered into a stolen gun database used by law enforcement across the country to identify stolen weapons.
Why were not all 46 entered into the stolen gun database at least by make and caliber?
I would like to have seen statistics on how many of those guns were returned to their rightful owners who DID have the serial numbers.
Jacobs said that weapons stolen so far this year include: .357 magnun Ruger revolvers, 9mm Smith and Wesson semi-automatic handgun, 6 shot Derringer, Winchester shotgun, and a Remington Arms 308 rifle with scope.
Interesting, but not pertinent. The thieves take what they find, and the cops recover what they find.
“These stolen weapons are untraceable with no serial number. As with any weapon, they never go away, sometimes bounding from thief to murderer until years later being used to hurt someone,” Jacobs said.
Again with the anthropomorphizing of an inanimate object. As if the guns would somehow refuse to jump into the arms of another crook if their numbers were written down in the cop's records, or even in the theft victim's records.
Actually, these weapons are eminently traceable if they were manufactured since the BATFE started requiring manufacturers to serialize and record the guns, and who they were shipped to. At least, in theory - IF the BATFE hasn't lost the records from closed gun shops, something they are legendary for doing...
Any modern firearm with an obliterated serial number is the tool of a criminal, plain and simple.
Gun serial numbers are located on various parts of the weapon depending on the make of the gun. Jacobs stressed that honest gun owners don't take the serial numbers off weapons.
Why would ANY sane gun owner want to mutilate his property? The serial number is important not only to help a theft victim get his property back, but it allows the owner to reliably order parts or get the gun serviced - or be made aware of recalls or defects.
“People who aren't interested in a safe community won't record serial numbers or act responsibly. We are not asking anyone to register weapons, we are just asking to record the serial numbers in case they are stolen,” Jacobs said.
Idiots who don't care if they recover their property don't keep track of serial numbers.
People not interested in a 'safe community' are of two kinds - those who will not take responsibility for their own safety - i.e., 911 callers who would never own a gun, and criminals.
Jacobs said that police see these stolen weapons sold from city to city and then used in small time robberies and sometimes gang shootings.
Exactly how is this going to be helped by legal owners recording serial numbers? He's trying to put a guilt trip on the honest folk, possibly softening us up for that mandatory gun registration - so we can get 'em back if they are stolen.
Right...
“It might be time for Beloit to consider an ordinance requiring owners to supply a weapon serial number to report a theft if they expect their property to ever be returned,” Jacobs said.
OK. So what happens if you DON"T keep the numbers and report the gun stolen?
How about a lot of folk who got the guns through private trades now just don't bother to tell the cops about the theft, to avoid the penalty?
Guns without serial numbers can be destroyed by police.
Guns WITH serial numbers can be destroyed by police - and have been. They have also been stolen by police, from the evidence lockers, and returned to the streets - Chicago had a problem of 'crime guns' returning to the evidence lockers multiple times.
Karen Thorson, an identification technician at the Beloit Police Department, said she drives guns to the Wisconsin State Crime lab when they need to be destroyed properly. Thorson said there are two locked closets full of guns at the Beloit Police Department and the number of guns is increasing.
It's nice to know that those guns are being euthanized in the correct manner. Wouldn't it be even better for the City of Beloit to sell those guns to legitimate owners if their original owners cannot be found? At least this would add some cash to the coffers of a struggling city, and provide Beloit residents with a source of reasonably priced defensive weapons.
Of course, we can't do that! That would result in more guns out there, and the people certainly cannot be trusted with the means to defend themselves!
http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2009/03/31/news/local_news/news01.txt
By Hillary Gavan
hgavan@beloitdailynews.com
Police ask owners to keep record of serial numbers: 46 guns stolen so far in BeloitGun owners in Beloit need to be responsible by recording their weapons' serial numbers and storing them properly, which will help prevent thefts and help recover them after a burglary.
Exactly HOW does recording serial numbers help prevent thefts?
Proper storage is a no-brainer, if one is intelligent enough to be trusted with a weapon.
“It's hard to track weapons without serial numbers,” said Deputy Police Chief Norm Jacobs. “Most people would feel terrible if they had a weapon stolen from their home and a year or two later it came up used in a robbery or in an incident where someone got hurt.”
I suppose these people would be carefree if they had recorded the serial numbers, and later the gun was used in a crime. I love how officials try to work emotion into everything.
Why, exactly, do the police need to "trace" a weapon? If they can show it was used in a crime, it's evidence, obviously. If the possessor is not allowed to have that weapon, how is it important where he got it?
Jacobs said 46 weapons were reported stolen in Beloit so far in 2009, and several were taken in home burglaries. Others were taken out of automobiles when owners were illegally transporting them. Jacobs noted that in Wisconsin a gun must be unloaded, encased and located in a non-passenger area of the vehicle.
In other words, the only way to transport a weapon in Wisconsin is to make it unusable as a defensive device. Typical Democratic mindset - only the police and 'trained professionals' can carry ready to act - the rest of us need to call 911 and pray.
How does one who owns only a pickup with an open bed transport his legally possessed weapon?
Notice how the guns 'taken out of automobiles when owners were illegally transporting them' are rightly listed as 'stolen'. Nowhere in the Second Amendment do I see any requirements for enclosing an unloaded gun while transporting it.
Theft is still theft when a government official does it.
Or, did I misunderstand, and people illegally transporting weapons called the cops to report their illegally transported guns were stolen? I know crooks are generally stupid, but this is akin to the stoner calling the cops because his roomie smoked all the weed.
Of the weapons stolen only about half the owners were able to give police the serial numbers. Only 17 of 46 weapons were entered into a stolen gun database used by law enforcement across the country to identify stolen weapons.
Why were not all 46 entered into the stolen gun database at least by make and caliber?
I would like to have seen statistics on how many of those guns were returned to their rightful owners who DID have the serial numbers.
Jacobs said that weapons stolen so far this year include: .357 magnun Ruger revolvers, 9mm Smith and Wesson semi-automatic handgun, 6 shot Derringer, Winchester shotgun, and a Remington Arms 308 rifle with scope.
Interesting, but not pertinent. The thieves take what they find, and the cops recover what they find.
“These stolen weapons are untraceable with no serial number. As with any weapon, they never go away, sometimes bounding from thief to murderer until years later being used to hurt someone,” Jacobs said.
Again with the anthropomorphizing of an inanimate object. As if the guns would somehow refuse to jump into the arms of another crook if their numbers were written down in the cop's records, or even in the theft victim's records.
Actually, these weapons are eminently traceable if they were manufactured since the BATFE started requiring manufacturers to serialize and record the guns, and who they were shipped to. At least, in theory - IF the BATFE hasn't lost the records from closed gun shops, something they are legendary for doing...
Any modern firearm with an obliterated serial number is the tool of a criminal, plain and simple.
Gun serial numbers are located on various parts of the weapon depending on the make of the gun. Jacobs stressed that honest gun owners don't take the serial numbers off weapons.
Why would ANY sane gun owner want to mutilate his property? The serial number is important not only to help a theft victim get his property back, but it allows the owner to reliably order parts or get the gun serviced - or be made aware of recalls or defects.
“People who aren't interested in a safe community won't record serial numbers or act responsibly. We are not asking anyone to register weapons, we are just asking to record the serial numbers in case they are stolen,” Jacobs said.
Idiots who don't care if they recover their property don't keep track of serial numbers.
People not interested in a 'safe community' are of two kinds - those who will not take responsibility for their own safety - i.e., 911 callers who would never own a gun, and criminals.
Jacobs said that police see these stolen weapons sold from city to city and then used in small time robberies and sometimes gang shootings.
Exactly how is this going to be helped by legal owners recording serial numbers? He's trying to put a guilt trip on the honest folk, possibly softening us up for that mandatory gun registration - so we can get 'em back if they are stolen.
Right...
“It might be time for Beloit to consider an ordinance requiring owners to supply a weapon serial number to report a theft if they expect their property to ever be returned,” Jacobs said.
OK. So what happens if you DON"T keep the numbers and report the gun stolen?
How about a lot of folk who got the guns through private trades now just don't bother to tell the cops about the theft, to avoid the penalty?
Guns without serial numbers can be destroyed by police.
Guns WITH serial numbers can be destroyed by police - and have been. They have also been stolen by police, from the evidence lockers, and returned to the streets - Chicago had a problem of 'crime guns' returning to the evidence lockers multiple times.
Karen Thorson, an identification technician at the Beloit Police Department, said she drives guns to the Wisconsin State Crime lab when they need to be destroyed properly. Thorson said there are two locked closets full of guns at the Beloit Police Department and the number of guns is increasing.
It's nice to know that those guns are being euthanized in the correct manner. Wouldn't it be even better for the City of Beloit to sell those guns to legitimate owners if their original owners cannot be found? At least this would add some cash to the coffers of a struggling city, and provide Beloit residents with a source of reasonably priced defensive weapons.
Of course, we can't do that! That would result in more guns out there, and the people certainly cannot be trusted with the means to defend themselves!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Taxing inalienable rights
So, Gov. Doyle has found a sure-fire way to balance the Wisconsin budget - he's going to charge law-abiding folk who wish to exercise their God-given Second Amendment right to self defense almost four times the current rate for a background check that wastefully duplicates the work of the FBI's NICS Instant Check system, that we already have paid for out of federal taxes.
Why am I not surprised?
In the meantime, Illinois seems closer than ever to becoming the 49th state to provide some form of concealed carry legislation for their citizens.
Wisconsin's 'leaders' seem to want to follow all the best that other states have done - like smoking bans and the like - but when it comes to legislation that could make our citizens actually safer, they run screaming.
Why am I not surprised?
In the meantime, Illinois seems closer than ever to becoming the 49th state to provide some form of concealed carry legislation for their citizens.
Wisconsin's 'leaders' seem to want to follow all the best that other states have done - like smoking bans and the like - but when it comes to legislation that could make our citizens actually safer, they run screaming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)