December 5, 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

Maine Legislature Approves Consideration of Four Fascist Bills They Claim Will Make Schools Safer

Right on cue, the knee-jerk jerkers in Maine are hard at it proposing worthless fascist-style bills, I suppose feeling the need to “do something.”

History is proving that nobody ever learns anything from history.

Here’s a peek at the four pieces of proposed legislation that made its way past the emergency bill standards of the Legislature.

One bill seeks a $20 million bond to be used to “make schools safer.” Yesterday I weighed in on that nonsense. All you need to do is simply trust your government. And how has that worked out for all of us so far?

A second bill, according to the Portland Press Herald, “…would set up a process for police to temporarily confiscate guns from a person whom a court has found to be a danger to the community.” Think about this for a moment. What could possibly go wrong? And do you want others more insane than you deciding whether or not you are a danger to “the” community? By whose standards will this claim of “danger” be based? This is fascism at its finest carried out and perpetuated by useless eater totalitarians. Just blindly, out of fear of government, cede all your rights away, is slavery in its purest form.

A third bill proposal, “…would seek to build community education programs to raise awareness of those who may be a danger to themselves or others.” Historically, the Vatican, and thus the infrastructure of the Catholic Church have always taught their followers to spy on other people and turn them in if they are not following the laws of their church. This proposal I see as no different.

Consider that this proposal would allow insane, brainwashed morons, to educate other brainwashed, insane morons how to recognize someone who is a “danger to themselves and others.” By someone’s standards, everyone can fit that description. Just look at the insanity that has prevailed since the presidential election. And, I must ask, who is mentally fit to educate others as to their own insanity? We have gone mad!!

And to further perpetuate the fascist nonsense by propping up and showing adoration for the mental health profession, a fourth bill will be considered that would give shrinks, with masters degrees or higher, access to loan forgiveness programs.

So the insane make the rules for the rest of us as to their industry’s standards of mental illness and mental normalcy, and Maine is considering propping up this industry that has proven to make us all even that much more insane, by paying off their debt so we can expect and eagerly await being forced to conform to the State’s standards of mental normalcy.

Smart! Real smart!

Share

Florida Representative Proposes Ten Year Ban on Bear Hunting

*Editor’s Note* – As we continue to see such legislation that strips wildlife managers of necessary tools to do the jobs they are commissioned to do, is there any wonder that other states, sick and tired of ignorant animal rights perverts and environmentalists crafting legislation to rule out science over emotional clap-trap, crafting some of their own bills that would prohibit any legislation of this kind pertaining to wildlife management. Where will this nonsense end? 

Press Release from the Sportsmen’s Alliance:

Take Action! Currently House Bill 491 is in House Natural Resources & Public Lands Subcommittee. Florida sportsmen should contact their state representatives and ask them to vote NO on House Bill 491. Members can use the Sportsmen’s Alliance Legislative Action Center to contact their state representative.

In Florida, Rep. Amy Mercado (D-Orlando) has proposed legislation that would place a ten-year ban on black bear hunting in Florida. House Bill 491 also requires bear-proof garbage cans, and restricts burning in habitats that could impact bears. The bill also would commission a study on the effectiveness of non-lethal means for the management of bears.

In 2016, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission paused plans to have a hunting season for bears after anti-hunting groups pressured both commissioners and legislators.

“HB 491 would set a terrible precedent by removing the management authority from the commission altogether and instead establishing an arbitrary timeline,” said Luke Houghton, the Sportsmen’s Alliance associate director of state services. “The Commission was created to make scientific decisions regarding wildlife, and House Bill 491 undermines that process and politicizes wildlife decision making.”

Taxpayers would also be on the hook for at least $1 million to pay for bear-proof trash cans, which local governments would then apply for funding from. HB 491 also mandates an end to any timbering of palmetto and oak trees in state forests. Rep. Mercado claims that bears will avoid garbage if there are more food sources available naturally.

“HB 491 substitute’s politics for science, ignoring the advice of Florida’s wildlife experts,” continued Houghton. “It sets a precedent that politicians can step on sound scientific wildlife management decisions when opponents of hunting become upset. HB 491 also poses a serious public safety risk, as Florida’s growing bear population expands unchecked.”

Share

Senators Move To Protect Scientists From Political Interference

*Editor’s Note* – Well, it sounds like something that should be done….HOWEVER…I just can’t stop laughing.

Press Release from the Democratic News of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced the Scientific Integrity Act, along with more than two dozen Democratic senators, to protect government scientists from political interference. The legislation comes in the wake of recent reports that Trump administration officials had placed gag orders on employees at the EPA.

Science should not be used as a political tool, but rather a search for the truth – the verifiable facts. With truth and fact under siege, now is a particularly dangerous time to be silencing our scientists. This bill will help ensure the public is kept safe and informed, tax dollars are spent most effectively, and our laws and policies are based on accurate, verifiable information,” remarked Sen. Cantwell, a senior member of the Senate’s Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Politics should not get in the way of sharing factual and independent scientific information, period,” said Sen. Murray. “It is the public’s right to have access to federally funded science and research, and this bill reinforces the critical principle that scientists supporting federal agencies or laboratories should be free from outside influences.”

Among other things, the legislation (S.338) would:

  • Reaffirm the principle of open communication of scientific findings and prevent the suppression of scientific findings;
  • Ensure that scientists are allowed to communicate their findings with the public, press and Congress;
  • Direct federal agencies to develop scientific integrity policies that include whistleblower protections and
  • Require scientific integrity policies to be posted online and given to all new hires.

Since November, more than 5,000 scientists, including many Nobel Prize winners, have signed an open letter urging President Trump and Congress to preserve scientific integrity.

The legislation was led by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and was also joined by Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

###

 

Share

Does Maine Fish and Game Dept. Really Need a Marketing Program?

George Smith has his undies in a bunch over one of his apparently failed bill proposals that would have forced the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to establish a marketing position. Why? Is it really the responsibility of MDIFW to “market” its programs? Is the idea to market MDIFW so as to generate income from increased license sales and fees? Another question, if ever asked, is seldom examined to understand what it means – who is the marketing director going to target?

I could spend a great deal of time discussing the business end of a marketing approach, and talk about what point is there is marketing to draw deer hunters to Maine, for example, when the market is poor at best. But, as would generally be the case, I would be accused of being a downer, instead of burying my head in the sand and pretending all was great with deer management.

Instead, I want to focus on one aspect of what Smith mentioned in his article.

In 2003 and 2004, The Management Assistance Team of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies examined the various divisions of Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and issued a very detailed report with many recommendations….these recommendations were never implemented. In fact, not long after the recommendations were received, DIF&W abolished its marketing position!

I would like to give MDIFW, and/or the governor, and/or the Legislature, credit for making sure these recommendations were never implemented. Anything that comes from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) is usually designed as a destructive mechanism to anything that once resembled normal fish and game heritage.

I’ve written often about AFWA before and they are a fraudulent group that was successful in convincing Congress to let them have a percentage of the Pittman-Robertson and Johnson-Dingell, excise tax money so that they can promote their anti hunting, fishing and trapping agendas.

I’ve also written about the outcome-based efforts of the most recent survey foisted on unsuspecting Maine sportsmen about hunting and fishing. Like the AFWA, these programs are designed by environmentalists for environmentalists whose goals are to end consumptive use of natural resources and eventually to put an end to the event itself. Odd isn’t it, or it would be if people would open their eyes, that sportsmen pay all the money, have it taken away from us by political, non-governmental agencies and used against us. If more sportsmen could see this, perhaps more than a small handful would begin asking what the hell is going to happen when the money dries up because there are no more sportsmen to take advantage of?

Which brings me back to the question of who is a marketing director going to target. Most will think a marketing director would be targeting other hunters and fisherman. On the surface, it might even appear that way. However, the real target will be those most susceptible to the propaganda created by Environmentalism. Most Maine sportsmen understand conservation of fish and game. Some are conned by Environmentalism, such as wanting for everyone to release all the fish they catch to save the planet. We play right into their hands when we do this sort of thing. What will the fishermen be saying when, after the forcing of catch and release, a perverted act in and of itself, the catch aspect is also done away with. Won’t happen? Just wait. It’s nearer than you think.

Environmentalism is no friend of the traditional hunter, trapper and fisherman…no friend at all. Our fish and game agencies have almost unanimously become fish and wildlife, or departments of natural resources, and along with it, imitate the environmentalists way of how fish and wildlife are discussed. This has been done by design and that design is such to destroy traditional hunting, fishing and trapping.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife doesn’t need a marketing director. I’ve spent a number of years writing about hunting, trapping and fishing and the outdoor business in general. In a previous life, I was quite extensively involved in the hospitality trade and tourism industry. One of the most important things I learned in those years was the simple truth that you have to have something that is marketable – that people want or you can convince that they want. The raw truth in that is that if you market something and the clientele discover the product stinks, you are in big trouble. So, you better have a good product first.

Another aspect I discovered, which caught me by surprise, was to learn that a large percentage – perhaps a majority – of Maine sportsmen, do not want to market hunting and fishing to “outsiders.” They want what limited product they have for themselves. And, for that you cannot blame them.

If we focus on deer hunting as an example, we know that from the deer harvest highs of many years ago – 35,000+ – to the lows of the latest years – less or near 20,000 – marketing a limited product to out-of-state interests might somehow generate a tiny bit more revenue, but most of that would end up being offset by the loss of locals who will give up hunting because the hunting is so poor and they have to share it with out-of-state hunters. And of course, if the product remains poor, what few hunters that were captured with a marketing scheme, upon discovery of false advertisement, would return home and never come back.

Consider marketing Maine fishing. Now, the push is to promote non-consumptive use of brook trout fishing – one of Maine’s more prized natural resources. This would mean a marketing campaign, aimed at convincing the “catch and release” brook trout fishermen to fish Maine waters. This means marketing to promote Environmentalism. That would result in a bigger push to force catch and release fishing, i.e. to end fishing altogether. But I know most don’t want to believe my words. We’ll see.

I don’t think MDIFW is the place that should be directing its resources and energy to market a product. Maybe the saying of “if you build it, they will come” comes into play here. And if the State of Maine believes they have a marketable product now, big enough to share with “those from away,” then the effort should come from the Office of Tourism, not the Department on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Tourism is the specialty of the Office of Tourism, not MDIFW.

Thank you to the Appropriations Committee for giving a 7-6 ought not to pass. Let’s hope the Legislature sees fit to drop this proposal and if necessary get a governor’s veto.

 

Share

Does LePage Still Have Life in His Back-In-Your-Face Reversion Bill?

It was my understanding, eight days ago, that Maine Gov. Paul LePage’s bill proposal, designed to prevent any president seeking to establish a “national monument” in Maine, was dead in the water.

According to a news release from the Maine Heritage Policy Center, LD 1600 still has some teeth…sort of. The Maine Senate narrowly passed the bill, 18-17, the meat of which says: “These deeds and conveyances or title 17 papers must contain a covenant requiring that all right, title and interest in the property 18 revert to the grantor if the United States attempts to designate this property a national 19 monument pursuant to 54 United States Code, Section 320301 (2015).”

This bill now heads back to the House for a final vote.

As I wrote before, if this passes, it will be interesting to see how this will wend it’s way through state and federal courts.

Share

Something Maine Sportsmen Can Sink Their Whine Into

According to George Smith, the Joint Standing Committee for Inland, Fisheries and Wildlife, voted unanimously to approve LD 1593 that was amended – I don’t have a full copy of the amendment.

Smith says the amendment goes with Maine Title 12, Section 10051 and is added (amended) to the end of the first paragraph, thus reading as follows: “The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is established to preserve, protect and enhance the inland fisheries and wildlife resources of the State; to encourage the wise use of these resources; to ensure coordinated planning for the future use and preservation of these resources; to provide for effective management of these resources; and to use regulated hunting, fishing and trapping as the basis for the management of these resources whenever feasible.” (Amended portion underlined.)

The best argument I can offer is that it’s better than nothing…maybe, and is better than what was proposed before. It will not accomplish what some think it will accomplish – protecting hunting, trapping and fishing. What it does do is give those who think it does, something more to whine about. This is not a mandate but merely a suggestion, with no teeth. It suggests that hunting, trapping and fishing “is the basis” for management. It does NOT say that hunting, trapping and fishing WILL be used for management, nor does it mandate the fish and game department to manage game species for the purpose of surplus harvest. It might provide a thin veil of protection against forthcoming lawsuit directed at banning hunting, fishing and trapping…but don’t bet the farm on it.

Share

LePage, Medway Democrat team up against North Woods park

AUGUSTA, Maine — Gov. Paul LePage took a land-rights squabble with North Woods national park proponents back to the Maine Legislature on Tuesday, introducing a bill that would undo transfers of land that the president designated a national monument.

Source: LePage, Medway Democrat team up against North Woods park — Politics — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

Share

Opinion: Maine expands gun rights while Idaho lawmakers balk

Idaho lawmakers should take note of what just happened in Maine. On Wednesday, Gov. Paul LePage signed a bill that will let Mainers carry a concealed weapon without a permit. That makes Maine the seventh state…

Source: Opinion: Maine expands gun rights while Idaho lawmakers balk | » IdahoReporter.com is your source for uniquely watchdog and free-market oriented coverage of state government agencies, the Legislature and state elected officials.

Share

Proposed regulation could keep 3D-printed gun blueprints offline for good

Those handy schematics to enable anyone to 3D print gun parts or even a weapon from scratch will not be able to for much longer thanks to a new proposal from the State Department.

Source: Proposed regulation could keep 3D-printed gun blueprints offline for good | Fox News

Share