July 16, 2019

Gun Control Laws Aimed At Public Safety: The Devil is in the Definitions

Yesterday I posted a notice about the intent of Maine lawmakers to introduce a bill disguised as a “Community Protection Order” that will “Prevent High-Risk Individuals” from possessing firearms.

Some may say the intent of the proposed legislation is a good idea and perhaps that is true to some extent. A serious argument can be made as to whether such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment as well as Due Process.

But forget about that for a moment.

Much of the problem with any of these laws is that interpretations of definitions are left up to a court and the arguments of lawyers. That, in and of itself, should alert us immediately to serious problems.

The crux of this proposed legislation is centered around “mental illness” and/or a person’s propensity toward violent and emotional behavior. Recognizing the seriousness of these conditions is a matter of a person’s perspective. Do we really want to limit Due Process based on the perspective of a judge?

LD 1884, is the Maine proposed bill which is the matter of topic. I’ll go ahead and post what this legislation uses for “definitions” to help understand the intent of the law and offer comments after.

§ 401.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

1.  Community protection order.   “Community protection order” means a written order signed by the court that prohibits and enjoins temporarily, if issued pursuant to subchapter 2, or on an extended basis, if issued pursuant to subchapter 3, a named individual from having a firearm in that individual’s custody or control or owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.
2.  Family or household member.   “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.
3.  High-risk individual.   “High-risk individual” means an individual who presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual and:

A.  Has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication but has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual’s medication while not under supervision; or
B.  Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual for the purposes of this chapter. As used in this subsection, “mental illness” has the same meaning as in section 3318-A, subsection 1, paragraph B.

4.  Restrained individual.   “Restrained individual” means an individual who is the subject of a community protection order.
Community Protection Order – Of note here is that this order can be issued in one of two ways – either as a temporary order by a court that has determined that an individual fits the bill’s criteria of being barred from having anything to do with a gun, or the same conditions on an extended basis once again according to the interpretation of the court of Subchapters 2 and 3.
The title of this order is designed to mislead the public into thinking this is the will of the “community” a communistic term and that it is for the purpose of keeping that “community” safe from those with a “mental illness.” After all, all those with a “mental illness” are mass murderers…right?
High-Risk Individual – This is where things get really dicey. A “High-Risk Individual” is here defined as someone who a judge thinks (his perspective of course because there are no real definitions for this condition) is going to hurt himself or another person. In addition to this perceived condition, this person has a “mental illness” – again an interpretation based on biased training or thinking/ideology. Once a court decides for themselves a person has a mental illness they must then decide whether they think this person has been taking their medications as prescribed by some quack doctor.
The suggestion here is that if a judge, having decided you have a “mental” condition, deems that you haven’t demonstrated “a pattern of voluntarily and consistently” taking your pills you lose your right to self-protection and due process.
Part B of this section is a real doozy! If it is shown “through evidence” (wink-wink) that actions by any person with a court’s definition of mental illness can show a “reasonable belief” that such a person has a disposition toward “violent or emotionally unstable conduct,” then they will be issued a Community Protection Order – perhaps ostracized for life.
The real joke is when the authors of the bill attempt to mislead the voters by saying just because a person has a mental illness, and has been “released from” a nut house, so long as they are being good brain-dead zombies and taking their chemicals, doesn’t necessarily mean they are a threat to the valued “community.” RIGHT!
History has shown us that it is most often a needless task to keep “mentally ill” people institutionalized and pumped up or down with chemicals and is a drain to that valued community, so they are gathered up and murdered. After all, these valued communities cannot be bogged down and given bad images from anyone with a “mental illness.” They MIGHT pose a threat, real or imagined, to their way of life. Society decides who lives and who dies.
Restrained Individual – Once you have met all the criteria that the “Community” has determined using their own standards of measurements, including societal tolerances, political ideology, and in general operation under the fear instilled in them by actions of a fascist governmental regime, the lucky winner becomes labeled as a “Restrained Individual.” How fortunate.
Whether you agree with the intent of the proposed bill or not shouldn’t matter once you consider how such fascist laws, put into play by willing and eager totalitarians, are a serious threat to any society that still deems itself to be free.
Giving power to the Courts and to governments to make decisions based on highly abstract and illusory definitions is quite akin to National Socialism. If you don’t fully comprehend National Socialism then you haven’t been paying very close attention.
There are channels that already exist in which efforts to control a deranged person from committing mass murder. If the information given to the public about the shooting in Parkland, Florida is at all truthful, then the lesson to walk away with is that those with authority to have intervened failed in their jobs. Insanity tells us to make more fascist laws that will not and cannot be enforced will somehow make a difference.
But this problem is not endemic to Maine. Since the Parkland, Florida shooting many state governments and the Federal government have proposed laws that are similar that leave the interpretation of what determines a mental illness, propensity to violence, or emotional unstableness up to the courts and the governments. Even fake Second Amendment advocates have stood firmly behind such insane legislation.
With each passing day, it amazes me more and more the eagerness of totalitarian useful idiots to help tie the noose that will one day be their demise. In the days of Marx and Stalin, when these two were finished using those that helped bring them to power, they just murdered them to get them out of their way.
So what’s happening to you today?
Share

ACTION ALERT: GUN CONFISCATION BILL PUBLIC HEARING

Sen. Dion’s so-called “Community Protection Order” bill, LD 1884, will have a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, April 3, at 1:00 PM in Room 438.

This bill gives law enforcement, disgruntled former spouses or domestic partners, and even anyone who claims to ever have been a sexual partner, the power to ask a judge to order that all of your firearms be *immediately* confiscated by police without prior notice; the first you will know of the order will be when the police knock on your door to demand your guns.

This bill has many problems, and is a close copy of bills that have been pressed by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg in multiple states. Anti-gun forces sense an opportunity to pass this bill in the heat of the astroturf outrage they have fomented over the last few weeks. We cannot allow this dangerous bill to advance.

We need you to show up in Augusta on April 3rd to be seen and make your voice heard before the Judiciary Committee. We need as many gun owners as possible to flood the State House and speak with one voice against this cynical, opportunistic and anti-due-process bill whose only real purpose is to tighten the noose around the throats of gun owners.

This is the only anti-gun bill which has made it this far in this session. We absolutely need your help to end it. Please find a way to be at the State House for this hearing. It may cost you a vacation day, or even a day’s pay, but it will cost us all far more if this bill becomes law. We cannot allow that.

The text of the bill is at the link below. Read it and weep. And remember, this is only what they think they can pass *today*. You can rest assured that if this becomes law, it will be amended to be even worse at the first opportunity.

See you in Augusta.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/b … 071901.asp


Todd Tolhurst
President
Gun Owners of Maine, Inc.

Share

Gun Confiscation and Prison Time

From Guns America:

“If you currently own a reciprocating stock you will soon be in possession of a machine gun. Unlawful possession of a machine gun is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison, according to the DOJ.”

“NRA called for “additional regulations” back in October. Trump wasted no time and kicked the movement to ban these devices into high gear. There was no pause to consider the ramifications of the policy change. Even more frightening, Trump seemed enthusiastic about getting it done.”

“By the way, bump stocks, we’re writing that out. I’m writing that out myself,” said president Trump in February.  “I don’t care if Congress does it or not. I’m writing it out myself, OK.”

“And we accused Obama of ruling by executive fiat.” <<<Read More>>>

 

Share

Former Justice Steven’s Call For Repeal of 2A Should Be a Call to Repeal Many Amendments

In former Associate Justice John P. Steven’s opinion piece in the New York Times that calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment, he describes the Second Amendment as “a relic of the 18th century.” His belief that the Second Amendment is a relic seems to be based on his narrow interpretation that the only purpose of the Second Amendment was for the formation and useful perpetuation of a “well regulated militia.”

If we, therefore, justify the repealing of the Second Amendment because it is no longer effective and precise today as it was when written, then why stop at the Second Amendment?

For the purest, one would have to ask if the Second Amendment has ever been completely recognized in its simplest form. No other amendment states that the terms of such amendment are qualified as “shall not be infringed.” The dictionary defines “infringe” as “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” And yet, from the very beginning, someone or group of someones has actively sought to “break the terms” and/or “limit or undermine” the Second Amendment.

If we base our modern appraisal of all the other amendments on whether or not they are fitting and suitable in today’s society according to how they are used and abused by Congress and the Courts, then applying Justice Stevens’ way of thinking toward the Second Amendment, perhaps we should consider repealing the First Amendment.

After all, isn’t it a “relic?” Congress seems to operate liberally in making laws that favor or protect one religion over the other. Mostly in today’s America people are seeking a uniform religion with idealism and ideology as its head. We are already beginning to see the call by some for the State to rid the country of at least certain religions in favor of one.

And how much real free speech do we have anymore? Censorship is running rampant in social media as well are other forms of limitation of free speech on display.

The Press gets to exercise their freedom to the extent that they are no longer reliable for truth. While it is ultimately up to the individual to decern truth from fiction, surely I can argue that such a dishonest and dangerous profession does not deserve a constitutional amendment that will protect their lying and cheating ways providing them an avenue toward propaganda and public influence.

It is rare these days that any protest is a peaceable assembly. Because this is now allowed, evidently the right to peaceably assemble is a relic of the 18th Century.

Of what real value does the Fourth Amendment carry? Your protection against “illegal searches and seizures” works well when it conveniently fits the narrative of the law enforcement/government at the moment. But when the government really wants to disregard that right of protection, no piece of paper is worth the ink that is written on it.

As an example that should be at the forefront of all American’s memory was during the Boston Marathon Bombing fraud. We were being told that the perpetrators went down a particular street and authorities were searching door to door. During this period armed thugs went door to door, breaking them down if necessary, without due process or any consideration of the Fourth Amendment. Obviously, by today’s progressive standards, what use is the Fourth Amendment? Shouldn’t it also be repealed, Mr. Stevens?

Amendment VI: Speedy trial? That’s a joke and has been for a long time.

Amendment X: The Corporate States have only those rights and sovereignty granted to it by the Corporate United States.

This effort pointing out the obvious could go on, but I digress.

It would seem that when ideology, and in particular, political ideology, doesn’t care much for certain bills of rights, the call is to repeal them or demand “reasonable” limitations. Perhaps if the Second Amendment hadn’t become so bastardized from its original intent and the people were actually allowed to keep and bear arms without infringement from any other source, there would be no calling out by some of the people to repeal the Second Amendment in an attempt to rid this nation of private ownership of arms. On the same token, if all the other Amendment had not been so muted and muddled, that protection of rights might be worth fighting to save.

Logical conclusions might be drawn when, upon examination, we discover that along with a downward spiraling society, the more the Second Amendment has been “reasonably” destroyed by all, the more of a problem this nation is seeing when it comes to violence and the ease in which a mentally deranged individual (or not) can enter a school property, or other “Gun Free Zone” and slaughter people.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. I’m not sure what it’s called when you take the same failure and work on increasing the rate of failure hoping for a better outcome.

Thomas Lifson’s article in the American Thinker says that all the events of late about guns and gun violence have resulted in the exposure of the true intentions of the Left. For many decades now, many of us have attempted to expose those seeking to limit or destroy the rights of people, along with our American Heritage, as carrying out acts of incrementalism, i.e. chipping away at those rights one tiny law at a time. Lifson says now we are seeing the true colors and uses the opinion piece of Justice Stevens as proof of the Left’s real intent of a full repeal of the Second Amendment.

I won’t argue with Lifson’s observation. One thing is for certain. The divide in this country grows. Where it will end up is anyone’s guess. One possibility is a terrible one.

The Global Power Structure is in control over all of this. The events we are seeing before us are mostly planned, and being carried out for sinister reasons. Justice Stevens’ call for a repeal of the Second Amendment is part of the plan.

The stage is being set. THEY have been working on it for a long time. It won’t be long before something breaks. What? I don’t know, but for certain something.

Share

The March For Our Lives Was The Coming Out Party For Generation Z, Or Whatever

Another article that deserves the Horse Excrement Award:

The author is Michael J. Hudome. His brief bio included with the article states: “Hudome is a Republican media consultant whose clients have included John McCain for President, all four national committees and several current and former members of the House and Senate.”

Doesn’t that say enough about the author? Anyone who would consult with the likes of John McCain should tell the enlightened what kind of a real person he his. But, if you don’t want to take that as a reason to turn your nose up at his liberal nonsense, then just read the article.

While parts of the beginning seem to make some sense. Intelligent honest people can agree that demanding that guns be taken away to end gun violence doesn’t work and is NOT a solution to an immoral society’s dilemma about the root cause of violence.

However, seeking solutions from children is as stupid an idea as taking away the rights of lawful Americans. Meaning no disrespect to the children of this nation but this has been tried before and it doesn’t work – at least it doesn’t work from the perspective of a wide awake, non-leftist who believes that progressivism is much the root cause of society’s problems today. More of it will only make a worse condition.

I must take just a moment here to add:

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Sorry!

But then the author, like any good fake “Republican consultant” who would support John McCain, calls upon the Whore of Babylon to empower Generation Z to solve the problems claiming “Z” “can lead on issues like Gay Rights.” He boldly states that “The future is bright for the “Z” generation. Let’s march with them.”

The author claims that the issue of Gay Rights is a settled issue, that it is the law of the land, therefore are we then to simply accept another societal destructive tool from the Whore of Babylon? Is that what this society uses today as a barometer of moral decency? Isn’t this part of the reason we are in big trouble today?

We have leaders promoting decadence and now we read and hear the same criminal bastards in Washington placing the undeveloped and easily influenced minds of children on a pedestal to be heard. And not only heard but this author suggests that we should accept them as our new leaders and to follow them into the pits of hell.

Share

Gun-Owners Are Being Blamed for [Modern] Liberalism Failures

*Editor’s Note* – This is a very respectable article that appears in the American Thinker about the failures of liberalism. Which brings me to the point of my note. It should be pointed out that this author when referring to liberalism, should more accurately qualify it as Modern Liberalism or a collective ideology of several left-leaning ideologies. Ancient Liberalism contains many great qualities many of which both conservatives and liberals agree on. But not to lose the point of the piece.

It has often been stated that liberalism is a disease. This becomes obvious to those whose ideology is quite different. But Liberalism is not interchangeable with “Leftism,” “Progressivism,” or the Democrat Party.

The Modern American Liberalism version of ideology has been well-hijacked by the Left and the progressives. Leftism, progressivism, and liberalism are not the same and shouldn’t be used interchangeably. As an example, liberalism was never opposed to Capitalism. The differences in ideology between liberals and conservatives on Capitalism is who should control that show – one believing the government should control it, the other leaving it to a free enterprise/individual effort. Leftism opposes Capitalism and most think this is a liberal perspective. 

In likewise fashion, liberalism shouldn’t be interchanged with Progressivism. Progressivism is the promotion of making every aspect of our lives “modern” often in disregard of long-held moral and religious reasons as well as disregard for the rule of law or the interpretation of long-held laws, rights, and policy. We all suffer from progressivism to some degree.

The Democrat Party is a mish-mash conglomeration of anyone thinking the party supports and promotes their values. This is the same with the Republican Party. Party politics is a completely different animal and yet the use of the terms are incorrectly lumped together.

Perhaps it might even be more understandable if it was stated that a combination of some or all of the ideology of Liberalism, Leftism, Progressivism, and the Democrat Party that has created failed policies referred to in this article, as they may pertain to public safety, gun-free zones and the right to keep and bear arms.

“Liberalism is largely a process of adopting illogical and factually invalid positions and then artificially placing blame on its opponents when policies based on those positions inevitably fail.  For the blame to bear fruit, it is necessary for people of good conscience to be fooled into believing that their actions and beliefs are bad for society and have brought about shameful consequences.  At the same time, it is necessary for people whose consciences have already been deformed and co-opted by the faux morality of liberalism to be conditioned to think fellow citizens, who have caused no actual harm but hold contrary views, are evil.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Banning Scary Things

Australia has banned a bolt action rifle simply because someone thinks it’s scary to look at. If that is the baseline to determine whether certain guns should be banned, then perhaps the same qualifications should be placed on other scary things that should be banned.

Here are a few suggestions:

Scary People

Scary looking Foods

Scary government and government-associated agencies

Scary Movies

Scary Nuns

Scary Pets

Scary People who do Scary Things Because they are scared

Share

Presumption of Innocence Has Been Missing For Decades

In America, there is no longer such a thing as Presumption of Innocence. Any high-profile crime allegation is tried in the Media and whoever controls the power determines a person’s guilt or innocence – often determined according to political ideology.

In our brainwashed circumstances, we unwittingly go out of our way to make sure not everyone is afforded their inalienable rights or the rights under the law of this law. It amazes me how many work toward their own destruction.

Yesterday it came out that during the Obama administration, the Department of Justice removed around a half-million names from the National Criminal Background Check System (NICS). That, of course, sent the Left into another tailspin but not as severely as one might expect because it was a Leftist administration carrying out the act.

According to the information I have been gathering, it was determined by Obama’s DOJ that anyone on the NICS list who was a “Fugitive of Justice” and were determined to not have crossed any state lines to flee from justice were dropped from the list. This interpretation was upheld in court (not that that matters anymore).

The Fugitive Felon Act makes it a felony to be a Fugitive From Justice and cross a state line. Because only convicted felons can be a candidate for the NICS list, those not considered to be felons were rightfully removed from the list.

I might remind people that simply because you have been labeled a fugitive from justice does not necessarily make you a convicted felon and have certain of your rights denied you. Anyone who skips a court date appearance is considered a fugitive from justice. If a person skips a court date because he or she must answer to the failure of child support, for example, are they to be automatically made a felon (a dangerous one)?

We have become so programmed to react just as the programmers want us to react, it is scary. Due to our blinded anger and hatred of almost anything with political strings attached, we willingly and gleefully destroy what is left of our rights under the law.

Is there no end to this madness?

Protection of our rights is so fundamental and necessary for any thoughts of Life, Liberty, and Property, that sometimes the act of protection places us in odd and uncomfortable situations. That is why Presumption of Innocence is so vitally important. When that internationally recognized right is completely gone, your individuality and the rights that go with it, are also no longer a part of your existence.

For eight years I didn’t have a lot good to say about President Obama (not that I do about any of them) but perhaps this is one thing he did that was the right thing to do.

Share

Former Maine IFW Commissioner “DEMANDS” Destruction of Your Inalienable Rights

Repeatedly I have written about the fact that fish and wildlife departments nationwide have gone green and become nothing more than Left-Wing environmentalist that oppose hunting, fishing, and trapping as well as complete predator protection. Going hand in hand with these mental-midget totalitarians is the call to ban guns believing in their progressive empty heads that such an action will somehow, magically stop violent crimes.

If there are any that agree with my assessment of things, they may not realize that this morphing didn’t happen overnight. It did not and here is some proof.

Some may remember former Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Bucky Owen. Owen served under Gov. Angus King (oh, that doesn’t surprise you?) in the late 1990s through early 2000s. It’s difficult to wrap your head around the idea that one man in charge of a government agency where once it’s function was fish and game management, which included the North American Model of Wildlife Management (includes hunting), is now “demanding” action to destroy the Second Amendment and your inalienable right to decide how you would prefer to protect yourself and your property.

In a brief Letter to the Editor of a Bangor, Maine newspaper, Owen writes: “…raise the age for gun ownership to 21; require a safety course for all gun owners just as we do for hunters; reduce the legal clip size to that of a traditional hunting rifle; make bump stocks illegal; require universal background checks for the sale of any firearm; outlaw semiautomatic weapons, such as the AR-15; keep weapons away from those who don’t have the mental capacity to use them correctly; and finally; ensure better data gathering and sharing among law enforcement agencies.”

In addition to his misguided empty-headedness on the fact that besides destroying our rights, not one single thing he suggests will do a damned thing to stop gun violence or make schools safer. But the liberal disease knows no deep-end bounds and he shows his real anger, hatred, and ignorance when he writes: “For those who want to play “Rambo,” make these weapons available at a licensed shooting range, and if that isn’t enough, join the Marines, where you can shoot to your heart’s content.”

This person once led the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Difficult to think this man served in a leadership role.

Owen, and many, many, others have encouraged and supported children dictating the social and political structure of this nation. I am reminded of when the Leftists actively sought to bring children into positions of authority sitting on school boards dictating what they wanted their education/brainwashing factories to look like. I ask, how has that turned out. Are we now so stupid that we look to children for our leadership?

With this infectious disease of progressivism/totalitarianism threatening our very existence, is it any wonder our fish and game departments are doomed?

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Shared Goal: Reduce Violence, Make Communities Safer?

Jim Shepherd at the Outdoor Wire ended his optimistic piece by telling readers that the National Shooting Sports Foundation sent out a press release encouraging people to become involved in the conversation, “to see violence in our society reduced and our communities and our children made safer.”

So far every so-called Second Amendment advocate group and most individual s0-called Second Amendment supporters have only talked about banning guns not being an answer, but have been willing to ignorantly support ridiculous efforts to make schools safer by “educating” (propagandizing/brainwashing) the public about violence and mental illness, while giving law enforcement more authority and leeway to confiscate your guns.

What’s not being addressed, and probably never will, are those issues that have MADE this society violent, angry, mentally ill, chemically altered, etc. that drives a person to exemplify that abnormal manipulation into violent actions.

If the real “Shared Goal” is to reduce violence and make our communities and children safer, the conversation needs to be broadened into areas where most people will become uncomfortable. It will never happen. Too much money at stake.

Share