Quote of the day—Mark Truppner

With the increase in firearms across the state, Bonta partnered with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to call on Californians to utilize the state’s red flag laws – Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs). GVROs and DVROs can help local law enforcement temporarily recover firearms or prevent the purchase of firearms by individuals who have shown a probability to commit violence. Red flag laws can be a proactive tool to help prevent gun violence.

Mark Truppner
July 2, 2021
Attorney General Bonta Releases 2020 Gun Sales Data
[“Prevent crime” by confiscation of a constitutionally protected property.

What is the proper action to be taken to prevent Bonta and his ilk from committing the crime of deprivation of rights under color of law?—Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Mark Truppner

  1. i get laws that allow police to seize weapons in the home if they are called there for mental issues, but anything other than that should not be allowed…under this red flag crap, the neighbor who doesn’t like you can say you threatened them and some libtard gun hating judge signs an order and next thing you know the swat team is kicking in your door and taking your toys without you getting a say at all….not right…at all

    • “…for mental issues” — but on whose authority? The law already provides for people adjudged “mentally defective”. But for the police, who have zero competence on the subject, to be permitted to make a judgment that someone has “mental issues” — never mind that the term has no clear meaning — is not reasonable.

  2. GVROs and DVROs can help local law enforcement temporarily recover firearms….

    How do they “recover” something they never owned and never had possession of?

    It’s the same mindset that allows a city to “buy back” firearms. How do you “buy back” guns you never owned, sold, or had possession of?

    It’s a mindset that has no concept of individual rights or property.

    • “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

      ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

      ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

      I had a situation like this at work. It turns out that a “Principal Engineer” position can be given to someone who has never taken an engineering class or done any engineering work in preference to someone with decades of engineering experience and a masters degree in engineering. I am NOT happy about this. The official explanation is that the title just refers to a pay band and doesn’t really have anything to do with the job. That didn’t make me any less unhappy. Word mean things. And when the master decides they mean something other than what they obviously do it means we no longer have a basis for communication, nor would I want to attempt communication with such people. It would seem the only reasonable options are to revert to stable meanings or to terminate the relationship.

  3. Great! These new laws give Bonta and company everything they need. Should be no problem cleaning up East LA, So. Central, MS-13, Nortanjos, Soranjos. Crips, Bloods. And outlaw biker gangs!
    And until he / they do. They got nothing to say to anybody else. (Sorry, I’m not giving odds)

    • Criminal gangs are not “the problem”. Lawful citizens, those who uphold the fundamentals (most notably the Christian fundamentals), as the ideal, are the problem for any corrupt system. Understand THAT and you understand the otherwise inexplicable, and otherwise contradictory, world.

  4. I understand that similar rules can be used, possibly with a doctor’s cooperation, to get a person’s driver’s license suspended for unsafe driving.

    I am not claiming that Attorney General Bonta is an unsafe driver. But I do wonder how AG Bonta would feel about being deprived of something lawful because of an anonymous snitch.

    • That’s a good analogy, as far as it goes, but there is no constitutionally enumerated right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.

      • Just because the constitution doesn’t explicitly say “The right to travel freely being necessary for the security and prosperity of a free state, the right to own and drive a motor vehicle on public motorways shall not be infringed” does not mean that the constitution does not protect the right to own & operate a motor vehicle.

        As far as constitutional scholars are concerned, the constitution protects the right to travel freely within and between each state.

        As far as I’m concerned, this right is not technologically hidebound, and applies to the operation of motor vehicles.

        It’s widely understood that no license can be required to walk, ride a bicycle, ride a horse, or drive any sort of animal-powered vehicle, and for good reason: Those are were among the practical forms of transportation that existed at the time of the founding, and the Americans of the time understood that they fell under the umbrella of the right to travel.

        Motor vehicles are no different–Requiring that motor vehicles be registered, or that their operators procure licenses, are both every bit as unconstitutional as firearm registration laws and carry licensing laws.

  5. ” What is the proper action to be taken to prevent Bonta and his ilk from committing the crime of deprivation of rights under color of law?”

    Pushing for legal prosecutions, just as you allude (by invoking 18 USC 242). 241 would apply here also, because Trumpner, Bonta and their ilk are actively involved, even now, in a Conspiracy to Deprive Rights whether it be under color of law or otherwise.

    I assert that any ostensible “gun rights” organization that isn’t actively strategizing, planning, and searching for a case and a venue in which to get criminal charges pressed, with the anticipation of a conviction, is not serious. I further assert that they’re not only un-serious, but that the fact is made obvious by such inaction. QED.

    So long as we’re limiting ourselves to lobbying for our rights, and so long as the perpetrators against those rights remain free to continue their evil work, we’re not really seeing our so-called “rights” as rights at all. And the “protections” therefore cannot protect, because we refuse to use them.

    And so one MUST ask, what’s really going on here?

    If someone breaks into your house and robs you, you fully expect a prosecution whenever the perpetrator can be identified. Somehow, when the vastly more serious crime of wholesale Deprivation of Rights is committed daily by those sworn to uphold said rights, the best we can think of is to have their laws and rules overturned while the perps remain free to do it again and again!

    The analogy to this, in our robbery example, is that the perpetrator is well known, and has a gang which operates openly, and the gang has a publicly known address and possibly even a 501C3 tax status. In this case, the gangster often gets away with his planned and organized robberies freely, and the best we hope for is that, maybe, the “property rights group” that you’ve been giving money to can get some of your property returned to you or that your house is declared off-limits while other people’s houses are still enthusiastically and openly targeted and robbed! The robbery gang continues to operate openly and may even be subsidized by your local government. Every now and then the chief of the gang may be dismissed for one reason or another, but is always replaced. Also, that robbery Gang is often supported, in public statements, and financially, by your local police!

    And the whole operation is never targeted by the justice system that swore to uphold your property rights, and you continue to support the “property rights group” that literally never seeks justice for the perpetrators or even thinks to shut down their entire operation!

    And so, whenever a “gun rights” group calls me, I tell them I’ll start giving them money again as soon as I see a successful prosecution and conviction under 241 or 242, or for sedition, or for willful violation of the Oath of Office.

    As long as our “grounds keepers” are thus robbing us, and as long as our “nannies” are “raping and murdering our children”, and never getting prosecuted for it, this will never end.

  6. “What is the proper action to be taken to prevent Bonta and his ilk from committing the crime of deprivation of rights under color of law?”

    Considering that ALL the legislative bodies in the USA along with about 99% of the
    judges are OWNED body and soul by the commie left that really leaves us no
    LEGAL resort to these actions….does it.

  7. Pingback: Quote of the day—Brandon Smith | The View From North Central Idaho

  8. I wonder if this falls apart on them, will Brady leave the principals holding the (legal) bag, like they did with that couple that sued Luckygunner?

Comments are closed.