February 23, 2018

We Now Enter a New Phase of Gun Confiscation

*Editor’s Note* – I received this email from Grass Roots North Carolina

Gun Confiscation Courts to be Proposed

You read that right. Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham), a former judge, whose April appointment to the NC House filled a vacant seat, is looking to turn North Carolina into California—but not regarding sunshine and fad diets. In short, Morey will be proposing the establishment of “firearm restraining orders” (FROs) in our state. An FRO would be issued as a result of an “exparte” (emergency) hearing, where a judge can authorize the seizing of a private citizen’s guns where no crime has been proven (no guilty verdict delivered), and in fact, even where no arrest has taken place. Most likely, the proceedings will be allowed to take place even in the absence of the accused. This means the accused citizen cannot face his accusers, nor defend himself through counsel or otherwise. This is a serious violation of fundamental Constitutional due process rights.

A First Amendment Analogy
One could liken an FRO hearing, and subsequent confiscation, to accusing a reporter of so-called “hate speech,” and then, once the accusation is made, an emergency hearing is held without the presence of the accused reporter. The hearing could result in a ten-day gag order being placed on the reporter, barring the reporter from speaking (or reporting) until a primary hearing. So, the reporter’s First Amendment rights are suspended—absent any due process! In the case of Second Amendment rights, even if the accused’s firearms are returned after ten days, there is nothing to prevent the police from having registered them with the BATFE. Moreover, the accused will still be out thousands of dollars spent on the ensuing legal defense—that is, only if the accused can afford it in the first place.

No Pretense, Just Straight-up Confiscation
FROs are not a foot in the confiscatory door. There is no pretense here. FROs blatantly and aggressively kick that door down, and once FROs are in place, the valid reasons for establishing an FRO against an individual will surely loosen. At first, perhaps close family members and a few others very close to a person may be able to point a finger and “report” him. That’s bad enough, but be sure, the already Orwellian rules surrounding FROs will surely expand. It’s likely that, eventually, virtually anyone in a person’s sphere will be able to accuse a person and begin the unconstitutional process of having the accused’s legally owned firearms forcibly confiscated. Does this sound like a free country to you, a free state?

Will Republicans Protect the Citizenry?
As of now, we don’t know how the Republican majority in Raleigh will react when asked to establish a gun confiscation mechanism. We do know that there is always danger that politicians will stick a finger in the air and just “go with the flow,” as the anti-gun crowd aggressively pushes to not “let a crisis go to waste.” There is real danger here. We need to inform our representatives that we will not allow them to rescind our Constitutional due process rights. Free, law-abiding citizens are to remain free, and we will not tolerate being punished for the crimes of another.

Share

Maine State Senator Davis: Lessen the Punishment for Hunting Over Bait

It’s a beginning I guess! Maine Senator Paul Davis has introduced LD 1816, an amendment that will lessen the punishment for hunting over bait.

Earlier this year, the Legislature, after making changes to a bill that came out of committee, passed LD 1083, that would, after a second offense, make the offender ineligible, for life, to buy a hunting license. No other similar legal offenses carry such draconian measures. Sen. Davis doesn’t believe “the punishment included in the new deer baiting law fits the crime.” I completely agree.

Now, what is it going to take to get the Maine Legislature to revisit the illegal law they passed last year where they opted to punish hunters and fisherman more than any other group if they were caught destroying private property – in this case, “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557 states that, “The hunting and fishing licenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled previously in cases involving “unconstitutional animus” that you cannot punish one group over another for a similar crime. While the SCOTUS has tiptoed around cases where state’s rights and “sovereignty” are involved, under no other cases decided by the SCOTUS have they wandered very far from the ruling that regardless of whether a state thinks it has a right to make laws, they cannot inflict biases, especially social ones, against one group over another.

As one example, in U.S. Department of Agriculture vs. Moreno, Congress attempted to pass a law that would deny “hippies” Food Stamp Benefits. Members of Congress openly admitted their intent of this law was because of their refusal to accept “hippies” as part of their idealistic social existence. Regardless, SCOTUS said no. This unconstitutional animus, in essence, violated Due Process.

I applaud Sen. Davis’ desire to correct a disparate law that hinders due process while at the same time targeting hunters, but someone in Augusta needs to step up to the plate and correct LD 557 that destroys the due process allowed under the U.S. Constitution through unconstitutional animus. All licensed hunters and fishermen should be incensed that the Maine Legislature would specifically and unequally target these two social groups for punishments that are held in reserve to other preferred groups.

If the Maine Legislature corrects this problem, as they should, they must then correct LD 557.

Share

Should Maine Licensed Hunters and Fisherman Help Landowners Clean Up After Being Targeted for Undue Process?

So, let’s get this straight. I just received a press release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife seeking volunteers to help clean up trash, etc. on land owned by private individuals “to secure access to private land for recreational use and show your appreciation for Maine’s landowners.” Maybe licensed hunters and fishermen should seriously consider whether helping out the landowner who just screwed them over is in everyone’s best interest.

The Maine Legislature recently passed a bill, which unjustly targets licensed hunters and fishermen for extra punishment if caught harming signs and other private property. If you create the same damage and are not a licensed hunter or fishermen, there is no extra penalty for said crime.

One can understand the frustration of a landowner who is tired of replacing damaged signs or other property, but to specifically target one group is unlawful and until attention is brought to this travesty passed by the Maine Legislature, why should any licensed hunter or fisherman help out a landowner who just saw to it that you would get doubly screwed over for breaking the same law as an unlicensed person?

Sorry, landowners. I have always supported the rights of landowners and will continue to do so. I will not stand ignorantly by while I am unjustly targeted for extra criminal penalties for committing the same crime as an unlicensed person. Until that law is changed, and intelligent landowners step forward to change this law, licensed hunters should send a message.

But, they won’t!

Share

Maine Passes Bill That Unconstitutionally Targets Hunters and Fishermen

This is a tough one to address because I do not, in any way, shape or form, condone the destruction of anybody’s property, including “Posted” or “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557, with amendments, has passed the Maine Legislature that, in summary, states: “The hunting and fishing
licenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

There should be laws that protect a landowner from such destruction, and there probably are. Piling on to prove a point, while it might be a bit understandable, particularly to a frustrated land owner, cannot be justified by targeting a specific sector of the general public to punish that group for a law violation more than any other member of the public that is not part of the hunting and fishing community.

Even in testimony given in support of the law, a landowner states that he believes the majority of sign destruction comes from “hunters” shooting up his signs, but also admits destruction of his property, other than just signs, is being carried out by many different individuals and groups of individuals. Is it then constitutional to increase punishment on one group over others? I think not!

I’m not a lawyer but you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that this law is not right. I am surprised that the Maine Legislature, the Governor, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and others supported this law and could not see that it violates the constitutional rights of licensed hunters and licensed fishermen.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for a dismissal of lawful punishment for the willful act of property destruction, protected by Maine law. However, in order to be justified in taking away the licences of hunters and fishermen for one year, then one must ask what is the punishment for the same kind of destruction that might be carried out by a snowmobiler, an ATVer, a hiker, a berry picker, etc.?

I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case a hunter or fisherman, is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.

As a society we have been programmed to believe that the more draconian our laws are the more of a deterrent it is to prevent the crime in the first place. Whether that is true or not, I do not have the data to show one way or another. All drivers of automobiles that violate the law by speeding, are subject to the same set of laws and punishments. Would it be considered the right thing if hunters and fishermen were targeted for greater punishment because somebody believes them to speed more than other groups or individuals? This is what this new law allows.

This bill needs to be repealed and a different, constitutional approach taken in order to protect the rights of all people to ensure equal protection under the law, due process and to stop the obvious discrimination this law allows.

 

Share

PLF sues Corps of Engineers for First Amendment retaliation against Duarte Nursery

Today, after the federal court granted leave to file an amended pleading, Duarte Nursery, Inc., and its president, John Duarte, filed this amended complaint against the United States and the Corps of Engineers, to add a claim for First Amendment … Continue reading ?

Source: PLF sues Corps of Engineers for First Amendment retaliation against Duarte Nursery – PLF Liberty Blog

Share

Day 38 – No Executive Orders

DISHONEST!

Day 37 and Barack Obama has failed the American people. He lied and has yet to make public the details of his fake signing of 23 executive orders claiming he would control gun access and ban assault weapons. Nothing posted on the White House website regarding his executive orders on gun control.

quills

Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage is expected to speak during his weekly radio address about gun rights and at the same time urge Congress to put its focus on mental health rather than lawful gun owners.

I’m still not sure what it will take to wake this nation up to the realities around them. Perhaps this bit of information will rattle a few of you awake.

According to an article written by Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D., veterans are receiving notices from the government that they have been determined to be either physically and/or mentally “incompetent” to take care of personal affairs, including owning a gun. One such letter read, in part, as follows:

A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).

Has our government merely disregarded any “due process” when it comes to life, liberty and property? Evidently. Is there no criteria, established by law, that a judge or jury can use in determining a person’s ability to fend for themselves and/or own a gun for protection and sport?

My God! WAKE UP!

Another article written by Jim Shepherd and posted on Outdoor Wire, delves into a bunch of “what ifs” as it might pertain to efforts to disarm Americans through rewording of laws to cloud the interpretation of those laws. In that article it states the following:

California already has legislation that allows police to confiscate any firearms owned by people once qualified for firearms ownership but subsequently disqualified. These two measures are only two of the most blatant attempts to make firearms illegal-and allow officials to legally seize them from their owners.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, California already seizes as many as 10,000 guns per year under their “once-qualified” provision.

California is believed by some to be the model or testing grounds used by the ruling class as to what they want to see the rest of the country like.

Share