Category Archives: Enjoy Your Trial

Gather evidence for the trials

Posted on by

Via Milo we have news confirming it’s time for the adults to take charge (see also here and here):

A group of Minneapolis City Council members have announced their intentions to proceed with disbanding the city’s police force.

Council president Lisa Bender made the announcement at a Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block rally at Powderhorn Park Sunday, just blocks from where George Floyd lost his life at the hands of police on May 25.

Bender says that the plan is to “end our city’s toxic relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department.”

“It’s our commitment to end policing as we know it, and recreate systems of public safety that actually keep us safe,” she said.

One could make the case these people have carefully reviewed the history of the police in our country and others, decided the early 1800s skeptics were correct and we should go back to volunteer or privately paid watchmen and inspectors rather than a publicly paid professional organization.

Anyone making such a case would risk a charge of manslaughter as I might laugh myself to death upon hearing such a claim. The political left is composed of some of the most ignorant people I have ever met. Among other topics they appear to have no knowledge of relevant political history and/or how it might apply to the present day. The history of professional police forces? No. There is not any possibility of them taking that into consideration in this decision.

One could make the case these people don’t understand what they are doing. They don’t understand that the police actually provide a justice system for criminals rather than have them exposed to mob justice. Mob justice has no due process. Mob justice has not right to be represented by a lawyer. Mob justice has no consistence and proportionality of sentencing. Mob justice results in false accusations leading to being beaten to death within hours.

Maybe they merely clueless. Assuming no evidence to the contrary, at their trials they probably could claim to be useful idiots and get a lighter sentence.

The case could also be made these people know exactly what they are doing. This reminds me of the Sullivan Act. They are deliberately enabling criminals to prey upon innocent citizens.

You don’t think so? Look at the history of the Sullivan Act in the link above. They knew what they were doing.

As incredible as it might seem, they could be deliberately engineering the end of our constitutional form of government. We have people openly stating this is their goal. While I’m not entirely convinced this is the case for everyone advocating the apparent insanity I am certain it is true for many of them. And because of this people should be gathering the evidence for their trials.

Dear FBI, We urge you to disobey the law

Posted on by

A bunch of U.S. Senate Democrats wrote a letter to the FBI and ATF :

We write to urge you to take appropriate steps to promote public safety and responsible firearm ownership in the wake of surging gun sales across the country.1 According to recent news reports, gun shops and ammunition dealers have experienced a massive uptick in purchases, particularly from first-time buyers experiencing coronavirus-related anxiety. We are concerned that this surge is overwhelming the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS), and that federal firearms licensees (FFLs) need new guidance to effectively handle it.

…

We fear that a drastic increase in gun sales in response to the coronavirus pandemic could overwhelm NICS and allow prohibited individuals to obtain firearms through “default proceeds.”

…

Under current regulations, all incomplete background check records must be deleted from NICS within 90 days. Because the pandemic and recovery may last longer than 90 days, the FBI should issue an emergency directive to maintain all background-check information related to transactions with an “open” status for 90 days beyond the current state of emergency as the president proclaimed under the National Emergencies Act.

They are urging a government agency to ignore the law.

It’s nice of them to make it clear they believe the law does not apply to them. This should make a conviction easier.

Quote of the day—Group of Democrats

Posted on by

While the surge in firearm sales from federally licensed dealers has received nationwide attention, at least 16 companies that sell ghost gun kits have reported order backlogs and shipping delays due to overwhelming demand. The uptick in sales of ghost gun kits and parts have received substantially less notice, even though the increase in sales of ghost guns poses a direct threat to public safety and law enforcement… Because the proliferation of ghost guns is a serious problem, we write to request…information and documentation to probe how the ATF is monitoring, overseeing, and regulating the sale of ghost gun kits and unfinished frames and receivers, amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Group of Democrats
April 2020
Congressional Democrats seek answers from ATF on efforts to track “ghost guns”
[<snort!>

The last time I checked the ATF didn’t have the authority to do any such thing. Furthermore people engaging in legal behavior should not be monitored, overseen, and regulated. They should, and currently are, for the most part, left alone. As they should be. That a “Group of Democrats” expects a government agency to engage in such behaviors tells you all you need to know about that group. They should be forever barred from public office, government jobs, and any government pension.

I also recommend law enforcement investigate to see if an 18 USC 242 case could be pursued. People like this need to be made into examples to discourage others from going down the same path.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Glenn Reynolds

Posted on by

Bring the pain. It’s the only way these people will learn.

Glenn Reynolds
April 18, 2020
[This is in regards to a lawsuit brought by a professor being fired for calling microaggressions handout ‘garbage’.

“Bringing the pain” is also required in our fight for the rights of gun owners. The anti-rights advocates and politicians need to feel the pain of infringing up the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

This is why I’ve been advocating they be prosecuted. 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242 are possible means, and my preferred method, of delivering that pain. Prison sentences are for individuals as opposed to money paid by governments (taxpayers) to the victims of their oppression. In order for the pain to be effective it has to be brought to the individual responsible. As Reynolds says, “It’s the only way these people learn.”

The City of Chicago has paid SAF hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of civil suits.That’s a good start and has much better odds of success than demanding Federal prosecutors to bring charges against politicians.

I’m open to other suggestions.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kris Brown

Posted on by

At a time when we need our federal government to put the interests and safety of its people first, the Trump Administration has once again put profits over people. The Administration has used broad interpretations of the federal Gun Control Act to suggest that FFLs conduct business at a drive-by or walk-up window, as if they were a McDonalds, or at a temporary table or booth, as if they were a lemonade stand, removing the protective influence that responsible gun dealers can have on stopping the proliferation of crime guns and on educating gun owners about the risks of guns and how to mitigate them.

Kris Brown
President of Brady United
April 10, 2020
Brady Condemns New ATF Guidance for Gun Stores, “Unsafe and Indulgent”
[Interesting. The things you learn every day.

I didn’t know McDonalds requires government forms to be filled out, IDs to be checked, and background checks completed before you can drive away with your Big Mac. It does make sense though. More people die from obesity and heart disease than from being murdered by someone with a gun. Are there one burger a month limits too? That would really help. It’s just common sense.

And on the lemonade stand thing, I didn’t know that there was some sort of “protective influence” that evaporated in the open air. Does that only come in a spray bottle? Can’t that be obtained in 50 gallon drums and distributed in a continuous mist?

But the part that I find most revealing is that Brown tells us the reason the Trump Administration released the guidelines was because of “profits”. It would appear that in Brown’s world “profits” is a bad word and if “profits” are involved the activity clearly should be shut down. That aside, the concept of gun ownership saving innocent lives as well as being a specific enumerated right isn’t a part of Brown’s knowledge base.

It’s that and/or lies and deception. Very telling.

I hope Brown enjoys her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justice Gorsuch

Posted on by

The executive branch and affected citizens asked the court to do what courts usually do in statutory interpretation disputes: supply its best independent judgment about what the law means. But, instead of deciding the case the old-fashioned way, the court placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government.

That was mistaken.

…

Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review. The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the same problems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.

Justice Gorsuch
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DAMIEN GUEDES, ET AL. v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 19–296. Decided March 2, 2020
[I have never owned a bump stock and almost for certain never will. For long distance work a bolt gun serves my needs best. For close up work aimed fire from a semi-auto appears to be optimal.

As near as I can tell a bump stock is best suited for converting money into noise. While I can understand that could be a reasonable use of someone else’s money it’s generally not something I want to do with my money.

That said, just because I don’t anticipate the use of one for myself I regard the ban on bump stocks to be extremely concerning. The law quite clearly does not forbid the ownership or use of a bump stock. Yet the administration insisted the law means something entirely different from what it says. This sort of behavior is not acceptable.

While there is still a decent chance SCOTUS will correct the mistake it is important to note that a right delayed is a right denied.

If it were up to me the court will slap the administration down so hard their ears ring as if they had a dozen bump stock equipped rifles emptying 100 round magazines simultaneously near their unprotected ears. Then I would recommended them for prosecution under 18 USC 242 and tell them, Enjoy. Your. Trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tana Senn

Posted on by

I’ve never thought about it.

Tana Senn
Washington State Representative, 41st District
February 22, 2020
This was in response to the question, “What sort of gun law do you think would violate the Washington State constitution?”
[The Washington State constitution says:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

My guess is that she has never read it. Another guy at the town hall meeting asked a related question and she went off with something about the militia. Which, of course, might have been relevant if we didn’t have the Washington State constitution protection for the right to keep and bear arms clause and the Heller decision. The Heller decision, of course, making it very clear the militia clause does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to the militia.

I got the last question of the meeting and I decided to directly ask her to address the Washington State constitution clause. The QOTD above was the beginning of her response.

The rest of her response was about hunters, she has “no problem” with hunters—as long as they don’t use “military type guns” which are only for hunting humans. She was a bit more hesitant but also said she didn’t have a problem with people who wanted to have a gun to defend themselves.

But, of course, the Washington State constitution does not give lawmakers a “military type gun” loophole to write laws restricting individual possession and use of firearms.

I find her response very telling.

If she has never concerned herself with the limits to the power she has under the constitution this isn’t going to stop. Whatever restriction she and her type can get passed this year or next, or the year after is just another step toward the practical, if not literal, elimination of the right.

I was telling someone else about what Senn said and I got a surprising response:

Crazy must run in the family.

It turns out that Senn is is a first cousin, once-removed of former Washington state Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn. Deborah Senn had a reputation such that many people suspected she was a sociopath and perhaps had other psychology issues.

My live tweeting of the meeting:

This should be good evidence. I hope she enjoys her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

When it comes down to it, the gun-ban cheerleaders won’t be happy until guns, “go away.” But there is no “go away.” They are guaranteed to remain dissatisfied, while we refuse to cooperate. Have the government take guns? You’re only giving them to Mr. Trump, who gun grabbers think is a Nazi personified, so that’s hopelessly irrational. Irrational. And even a wave-a-magic-wand disappearance method (or 100% effective bill) is nonsense, communist China would start imports worse than cocaine trafficking. South America too. All we face from the left on guns is mythology and Utopianism that interferes with life.

Alan Korwin
January 23, 2020
Why Background Checks Are A Lie: Stopping Psychos and Gun Checks Are Unrelated
[There is no negotiating or even discussion with irrational people. There is only ignoring, avoiding, and controlling them. The ignoring and avoiding haven’t been working so well lately. It’s time to start prosecuting those in power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Erik Simonsen

Posted on by

The same people who feel it’s necessary to give driver’s licenses to defiant law-breakers are the same ones trying to pass this nonsense. When did we become a state that put lawbreakers first, while attacking the rights of hard-working, law-abiding citizens?

Erik Simonsen
New Jersey Assemblymen-elect.
December 20, 2019
Proposed N.J. gun law would mandate $50k insurance policies for all gun owners
[Answering the rhetorical question, evidence would indicate it was shortly after getting a socialist/communist majority in the state.

If you read the article you also find this interesting bit:

Governor Murphy signed an executive order in September making it practically impossible for a legal gun owner to obtain a firearms insurance policy. Attacking gun insurance as a gun ownership “enabling” concept has become a popular trend in blue states as of late.

So, the governor, through executive action has essentially banned people from obtaining firearm liability insurance (the NRA Carry Guard insurance). And:

A-6003 sponsored by Patricia Egan Jones (D-5) mandates that each New Jersey gun owner obtain a minimum of $50,000 in liability insurance at the time of purchase.

New Jersey is the one state that I refuse to visit until their oppressive gun laws are repealed or I can get a varmint hunting license for the politicians who created and/or perpetuate this tyranny.

These people need to prosecuted. I look forward to their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mike Elgan

Posted on by

An increasing number of societal “privileges” related to transportation, accommodations, communications, and the rates we pay for services (like insurance) are either controlled by technology companies or affected by how we use technology services. And Silicon Valley’s rules for being allowed to use their services are getting stricter.

If current trends hold, it’s possible that in the future a majority of misdemeanors and even some felonies will be punished not by Washington, D.C., but by Silicon Valley. It’s a slippery slope away from democracy and toward corporatocracy.

In other words, in the future, law enforcement may be determined less by the Constitution and legal code, and more by end-user license agreements.

Mike Elgan
August 6, 2019
Uh-oh: Silicon Valley is building a Chinese-style social credit system
[Via email from Chet.

I had a incident with the Boomershoot website and Google that lasted weeks (they claimed it was a phishing website) before I finally got them to stop showing a red screen when people visited using Chrome. The security certificate (https) is still suspended because of this and I need to get that fixed soon. It cost them virtually nothing to do that and it cost me many hours and who knows how much loss of traffic and reputation.

As further evidence of this line of thinking, people have made suggestions that banks should cut off credit card processing and other financial services from stores that sell certain types (as a prelude to all types) of firearms:

…assault weapons would be eliminated from virtually every firearms store in America because otherwise the sellers would be cut off from the credit card system.

Of course PayPal, Square, Stripe and Apple Pay already completely ban the sale of firearms via their services.

I’m not sure what the proper response to this sort of thing is. In principle, I’m against government telling how to run their businesses. Let the free market decide. But sometimes the outcome doesn’t seem just. Restaurants, apartment owners, and hotels refusing to do business with people with black skin is one such example. The free market response seemed inadequate to remedy the problem.

I’m in the process of moving to a different credit card processor for Boomershoot even though PayPal was much easier and cheaper. But even with many people reducing or ceasing their use of PayPal because of their anti-gun policies it doesn’t appear to be suffering any.

It’s wasn’t exactly a legal restrictions so it’s tempting to say this type of thing is an appropriate response:

Top Louisiana officials have blocked two large bank corporations from participating in a road financing plan due to their gun control regulations.

Perhaps. But it hasn’t seemed to been effective, it is a form of government telling a business how they should operate, and the banks could probably easily retaliate with greater effect against those states.

What would seem to me to be the best approach is for the corporate officers to be prosecuted via 18 UCS 241. It’s not telling them how to do business. It’s prosecution for attempting to deny people their specific enumerated rights. Yes, it’s walking a very narrow, perhaps imaginary, line. It wouldn’t take very long for banks to revise their business practices if a few banks lost all of their upper management to life sentences in prison.

That’s not going to happen in the next few years so what should be done in the mean time? Is there anything more we can do than attempt boycotts and document their crimes?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Shannon Watts @shannonrwatts

Posted on by

“Come and take it” is also a death threat. Given our gun violence crisis, law enforcement must stop giving pundits and politicians who say these things a pass.

Shannon Watts @shannonrwatts
ShannonWatts
Tweeted on October 11, 2019
[Watts doesn’t just want to ban guns. She is also opposed to freedom of speech.

No one should give her a pass on this. I hope she enjoys her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lyle

Posted on by

Saying we’re “rebelling” against the elite is to assume that they’re the authority. No; they’re the rebels, see. One does not “rebel against” robbers, rapists, arsonists and vandals. One upholds the law. Upholding the Law of Liberty is not “rebellion”. Violating it is.

Lyle
September 16, 2019
Comment to Quote of the day—A. R. G. @AdamRobGoCop
[I look forward to their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Giffords @GiffordsCourage

Posted on by

The NRA has no place in the White House.

Watch 2020 Democrats—@JoeBiden, @CoryBooker, @PeteButtigieg, @KamalaHarris, @AmyKlobuchar, @BetoORourke, @BernieSanders, & @EWarren—take on gun lobby corruption in our second #GunSafetyPresident video.

Giffords @GiffordsCourage
Tweeted on September 16, 2019
[Via a tweet from Chris Knox.

By saying the nation’s oldest civil rights organization “has no place in the White House” they tell us they have no respect for the 1st and 2nd Amendments. They are advocates for, and participants in, the destruction of the Bill of Rights. Such people belong in prison.

I find it telling there is no evidence of corruption presented and they tell a deliberate lie. The NRA does not represent the gun industry. It represents its five million+ members.

Remember this for their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

Proposals for reform are often dismissed because they have no “realistic” chance of being adopted. But none of the major reforms of the past had any realistic chance of being adopted when they were first proposed.

Thomas Sowell
March 6, 1999
THOMAS SOWELL: Back again – random thoughts
[This is my justification for reiterating that those who attempt to deny people their right to keep and bear arms should be prosecuted. To that end I have created these links for quick and easy access for everyone to use: http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 and http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Malte

Posted on by

We used to fall into this trap as advocates when reporters would ask, ‘What would have stopped this shooting?’ We’d be trying our very best to say, ‘This policy would have.’ And that was the wrong answer because it’s not true. There’s no one policy that’s going to stop any shooting—it takes a multitude of solutions. Many times our movement would play into the NRA’s defeatist…attitude.

Brian Malte
August 21, 2019
Trump Thinks Background Checks Won’t Stop Shootings. He’s Wrong.
[Although isn’t not in the form of a direct quote Malte is also credited with:

For their part, gun control activists have learned that it’s better to steer clear of the debate over what caused a particularly horrific shooting, explains Brian Malte, who was a senior official at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—now known as Brady United—in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre.

What I conclude from this article is significantly different from what the author and those interviewed conclude.

What I conclude is that they admit to knowing that the “solutions” they push in response to a mass shooting could not possibly have prevented those deaths. They push for them anyway.

They are admitting they are not stupid. They are admitting they are not ignorant. They are admitting that it is a deliberate infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with no possibility of reducing the harm they claim to be so concerned about. They are admitting they are evil.

This can and should be used at their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim Poland @JimPolandcom

Posted on by

Swat’em! They’re dead. Now come and arrest me. My defense? I was protecting my children and 500 innocent children & their families. Threaten my kids?! There will be YUGE consequences for open carry. We will ensure it!

Jim Poland @JimPolandcom
Tweeted on August 8, 2019
[This can and should be used at his trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frederica Wilson

Posted on by

Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone think that is unacceptable [sic]. We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted. You cannot intimidate members of Congress, threaten members of Congress. It is against the law and it’s a shame in this United States of America.

Frederica Wilson
U.S. Representative to Congress (D)
July 2, 2019
[Via a tweet from Ali Alexander.

She goes on to blame President Trump for the general disrespect of Congress and the media.

I would like to suggest that if Rep Wilson didn’t have such crap for brains as to not realize people have the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to make fun of members of congress then she might enjoy a little more respect. But since you can’t fix stupid it looks like she is going to have to suffer being mocked and disrespected as long as she continues to open her mouth in public.—Joe]

Update: Others have expressed similar opinions but Michael Z. Williamson wins the Internet so far. This is just part of one of the first paragraphs of Challenge Accepted, Congresswhore

Per the First Amendment, Common Law, and in fact, Common Sense, I have the right to mock you however I wish. If I think you have the manners of a Denebian Slime Devil, then that’s what I’ll say. If I think you’re a textbook Demorrhoid–ignorant, retarded, bigoted, stupid and humorless–I’ll say so.

That’s the warm up.

Quote of the day—Julie Morrison

Posted on by

Maybe we’ll just have a confiscation and you won’t have to worry about paying a fine.

Julie Morrison
Illinois State Senator
June 11, 2019
MOLON LABE, BABY!
smug
[Maybe she will be arrested and prosecuted for violation of 18 USC 242 and she won’t have to worry about an mob of angry gun owners hunting her.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence

Posted on by

…hopes that Glocester will oppose this measure if it comes up again in June. Although the resolution is symbolic, it is undoubtedly harmful because it advances the false narrative that the very rights and livelihoods of Second Amendment supporters are at risk. Law-abiding gun owners though should have no reason to feel threatened by the gun safety measures that community organizers advocate for, and in fact, all regulations–from banning guns in schools to banning military style assault weapons are constitutional.

Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence
May 18, 2019
Political Divide Splitting Communities Across RI — Is It a Trump Factor?
[You should not feel threatened because “all regulations … are constitutional.”

Wow! That’s so reassuring.

They must be attempting to exercise the The Big Lie propaganda technique. What will they tell us next, “work sets you free”?

I hope they enjoy their trial.—Joe]