Police and prosecutors driven by politics or policy to seize and keep non-contraband property can always postulate about a theoretical risk that a prohibited individual might exert future control over transferred firearms. But absent evidence, theoretical speculation shouldn’t justify the forfeiture of someone’s valuable property, no matter what kind of property it is. At least when it comes to firearms, however, it seems like some lawyers or judges who perhaps don’t like guns generally feel that forfeiting them to the government is a desirable political end, justifying the use of unfounded theoretical future risk constructs as the means to expand the doctrine of constructive possession and thereby effectuate the politics of gun control.
Chuck Michel March 12, 2015 Gun Seizure and Government Corruption [There are many cases where the government has taken peoples guns and then refused to give them back or even let the owner sell them to someone else. This is now being challenged with moderate success in the courts but don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Sarah Hoyt — born in Portugal, naturalized to the U.S. — has seen this kind of thing before. It’s the old Stalinist-Marxist mentality which Sarah got to see up close and personal. It’s the mentality my former boss (who was a refugee from Soviet-era Poland) knew all too well, too. Frankly, any time I talk about the 21st century American fascination with political correctness, refugees from the Marxist countries recognize it instantly: the collective effort to control and dictate what is and is not permissible to say, or to think, or to feel, including who you can and cannot associate with; lest you be hauled before the commissars to be tried for guilt-by-association.
This mindset must not be allowed to dominate politics. The body count racked up by this mindset during the 20th century was in the hundreds of millions. We must prevent a repeat performance in the 21st century.
It’s an attitude I’ve seen before: “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it.” Never mind if the something makes any sense or not.
In reality, this is CYA security, and it’s pervasive in post-9/11 America. It no longer matters if a security measure makes sense, if it’s cost-effective or if it mitigates any actual threats. All that matters is that you took the threat seriously, so if something happens you won’t be blamed for inaction. It’s security, all right — security for the careers of those in charge.
Bruce Schneier April 15, 2015 Metal Detectors at Sports Stadiums [Gun control outside of a stadium is of the same mindset but multiplied by some very large factor. It’s stupidity at a governmental scale.—Joe]
Don’t kid yourself that you’re in the clear because of your ancestors; it wasn’t just Jews, and the others weren’t all gay or gypsies, either: the politically unpopular got one-way trips, too. Once a nation starts down that path, each step into evil is easier than the one before.
You don’t have to like politics, but you’ve gotta keep an eye on it. No matter who you are.
April 15, 2015 Holocaust Remembrance Day
[The German people of the late 1930’s and early 1940’s are best known for their evil behavior but the Russians while Stalin was in power easily eclipsed the German body count. The Chinese killed millions at various times during the 20th Century. The Rwanda genocide wasn’t on the same scale in absolute numbers but may have account for as much as 20% of the population. The examples are incredibly and depressingly numerous.
There is one thing governments, of any type of people, do very well and that is killing people. We have lots of government in this country and it going to require lots of attention until we can get it back down to the originally designed limits. The stakes are incredibly high if it goes totally malignant.
This is Why Boomershoot. It’s next weekend. Be there if you can. You can be part of the solution if things go really bad.—Joe]
Barb L. April 24, 2015 [This was the first time she had shot a .22 rifle. It was also the first time she shot a scoped, suppressed rifle. And the first time she had shot a rifle from a “bench”. It made it much easier than kneeling and standing like her first rifle experience.—Joe]
SB 941 will not provide any additional protection of Oregon citizens against violence.
SB 941 will create new layers of legal barriers to already law abiding citizen.
My fear with SB 941 is that these citizens will now be at risk of being charged and prosecuted for acts they have done several times before with no negative effect on our community.
As with many of these laws, it becomes very difficult for law enforcement to enforce, and there’s no consideration of the financial impact on the already stressed court system and background check process already in place.
Tim Svenson Sheriff, Oregon’s Yamhill County April 22, 2015
What more evidence do you need to conclude these people have mental problems?
No matter. There will be a lot more evidence provided. I directly experienced it for decades and no matter how much I coached them they could not change. The problem, as they saw it, was always me.—Joe]
I’m not in favor of banning handguns or hunting rifles, but I am in favor of banning or seriously restricting access to weapons that have no purpose other than to kill a large number of people in a short time.
Liberals today are wrong to see contemporary issues like gun control and climate change as surfing on an inevitable wave of progress. Rather, these issues are boats piloted by committed activists who steer them forward through a sea of indifference. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, with all its triumphs and tragedies, rested on the shoulders of thousands of activists who fought oppression in the streets, in courtrooms and on public buses. It emerged not from the progress of Reconstruction but from the backwardness of Jim Crow.
Andrew Kohut Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases April 17, 2015 [Principals are important but public opinion is what wins elections and to a great extent judicial rulings. We are now getting nearly everything going our way. We need to politically exterminate the anti-gun people as quickly as we can and make them as socially distasteful as the KKK.
In addition to reasonably hard data like the surveys referenced above I know my workplace has a lot of people quite friendly to gun ownership. And I know one woman who just recently put her profile on Match.com after being “off the market” for several years. She commented to me just last week that many of the men on the site have pictures of themselves with guns. According to her this wasn’t the case even five years ago.
The anti-gun people are headed to the dustbin of history. Help them get there as quickly as we legally can.—Joe]
We can conclude that she has no regard for settled Constitutional law. This is because of United States v. Miller 59 S.Ct. 816(1939) specifically said that military equipment is protected by the Second Amendment:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Ms. Martens should also research Constitutional law regarding the “chilling effect” of regulations, such as background checks, on specific enumerated rights.—Joe]
The environmental movement has advanced three arguments in recent years for giving up fossil fuels: (1) that we will soon run out of them anyway; (2) that alternative sources of energy will price them out of the marketplace; and (3) that we cannot afford the climate consequences of burning them.
Matt Ridley March 13, 2015 Fossil Fuels Will Save the World [There is some really good stuff in the article. If you don’t have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal you can read the article here as well.
There is stuff like:
More than a billion people on the planet have yet to get access to electricity and to experience the leap in living standards that abundant energy brings. This is not just an inconvenience for them: Indoor air pollution from wood fires kills four million people a year. The next time that somebody at a rally against fossil fuels lectures you about her concern for the fate of her grandchildren, show her a picture of an African child dying today from inhaling the dense muck of a smoky fire.
And this point about plants being CO2 starved and grow better with more CO2 which I bring up with nearly everyone that wants to tell me about man caused global warming:
Although the world has certainly warmed since the 19th century, the rate of warming has been slow and erratic. There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of storms or droughts, no acceleration of sea-level rise. Arctic sea ice has decreased, but Antarctic sea ice has increased. At the same time, scientists are agreed that the extra carbon dioxide in the air has contributed to an improvement in crop yields and a roughly 14% increase in the amount of all types of green vegetation on the planet since 1980.
The more sophisticated global-warming/climate-change people want to talk about the positive feedback loops that will create runaway warming. But they give me a blank look when I ask about the negative feedback from the plants consuming more CO2 and more vegetation resulting from the increased CO2.—Joe]
Seems like the Seattle Times will use what ever angle they can use to further their anti-firearms ownership agenda. This time it’s the environmental angle. In the future it could be the medical angle, or the racial angle, or the feminist angle, or the gay angle, or whatever other angle they think can be used to limit the private ownership of firearms in the US.
What the Seattle Times needs to do instead is to acknowledge and accept the 2nd Amendment, and realize that it exists because this country owes it’s existence to the fact that private citizens owned and were proficient with the most modern firearms of the day.
Western civilization is experiencing a post-Enlightenment crisis.
For hundreds of years we fought the chains of doctrinaire thinking — as told to us by superstition, folklore, and the churches. In the 20th century the trappings of the churches were almost entirely cast off, and for a few decades we (the West) thought we’d finally done it. We’d liberated our collective intellect from the machinery of dispensed truth. All souls would be free to find their own truths and their own meanings, and none could gainsay another man’s or woman’s path of self-discovery. The 21st century was going to be a wonderland of abundance economics, and the melting away of nationalism, tribalism, territorialism, and all the rotten isms of history. A global village, joined by the techno-wizardry of the internet, would rise.
I particularly liked the references to Original Sin which, in essence, hypothesizes the concept of Original Sin is semi-hardwired into us. If this hypothesis is true then one might be able to rigorously show that as traditional religion fell from popularity it has been replaced with something else which has the same mindset including an updated version of the Inquisition for suppression of modern day heresy.—Joe]
I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be.
April 16, 2008 Democratic Debate in Philadelphia
[It would appear that Ms. Clinton is of the opinion that as long as there are one or more exceptions under some circumstances then a near total ban on guns would be Constitutional in her view.