Category Archives: Freedom

COVID-19 exemption to the Bill of Rights

Posted on by

Via email from Jason.

Apparently there is a COVID-19 exemption to the Bill of Rights. At least a judge found one. I just looked at my copy of the BoR and didn’t find it. But I guess Federal Judges just have better eyesight than I do. Here is what he said:

Given the significant number of identified and projected cases of COVID-19 in this
District and the severity of risk posed to the public, and given the above public health
recommendations from local public health authorities, it is hereby ORDERED that, effective
Monday, March 9, 2020:

1) All civil and criminal matters scheduled for an in-Court appearance before any district or magistrate judge in the Seattle or Tacoma Courthouses, including any associated
deadlines, are CONTINUED pending further Order of the Court;

2) All grand jury proceedings in this District are CONTINUED pending further Order of the Court;

3) With regard to criminal matters, due to the Court’s reduced ability to obtain an adequate spectrum of jurors and the effect of the above public health
recommendations on the availability of counsel and Court staff to be present in the
courtroom, the time period of the continuances implemented by this General Order
will be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, as the Court specifically finds that the
ends of justice served by ordering the continuances outweigh the best interests of the public and any defendant’s right to a speedy trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§3161(h)(7)(A);

4) Case-by-case exceptions to the continuances provided herein may be ordered for nonjury matters at the discretion of the Court after consultation with counsel;

5) This Order does not affect the Court’s consideration of civil or criminal motions that can be resolved without oral argument.

Here is the clause in Federal Law he refers to:

A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

I understand the practical matters involved. And I’m not sure I disagree with the action taken. But it does worry me that such precedence will be misused in the future.

How many times have we heard about “The Gun Violence Epidemic”?

Fill in the dots as appropriate.

Quote of the day—Widener’s Blog

Posted on by

Cooper understood that legislating guns away from the public was only a small part of the problem. The larger issue was a false social construct. One that was intent on disarming the populace of reason and will, of the mindset to act when necessary. He was not just talking about the direct attack of a mugger, but the steady erosion of “society” through the demand of conformity in defenselessness. Whether it be against criminals on the street or those in the capitol. Small wonder his copious quotes are often questioned by those who refuse to understand the virtues of violence.

Widener’s Blog
March 5, 2020
Historic Profile: Jeff Cooper
[Reading his profile made me miss him again.—Joe]

Public safety

Posted on by

Via sofa @room101_

PublicSafety

It was, of course, in response to Rolf.

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Posted on by

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions

…

Ideology – that is what gives the evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One) page 174.
[Via Extreme Retribution Punishment Orders: ‘Red flag’ laws are the death of due process and the Constitution.

We have some extremely evil ideologies in the world whos followers believe they are the good guys.

Nearly 170 years ago Thoreau put it more succulently.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tamara K. @TamSlick

Posted on by

Party politics today is a race to the boxcars; first team there gets to make the other team ride.

Tamara K. @TamSlick
Tweeted on February 21, 2020
[There is a certain amount of ominous truth to that.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark Judson For Congress @Judson4Congress

Posted on by

In 2021, after Trump is gone, we will be able to tell who 90% of his supporters are via Social Media records.

Should we fire all of them from any Federal Jobs, to include the military, in order to protect the Nation?

Mark Judson For Congress @Judson4Congress
Tweeted on February 23, 2020
[This reminds what Nazi did when they came to power. No more Jews in government jobs.

Perhaps someone already pointed this out to him because the Tweet no longer exists.

Too bad the Internet is forever.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Micah Uetricht and Meagan Day

Posted on by

Eventually, after the Left has won significant gains at the ballot box and in civil society, the capitalist class will take the gloves off against socialists and do whatever it takes to destroy our movement. We’ll need to fight back. The democratic road to socialism seeks not to elide this confrontation, but to make it possible.

Micah Uetricht and Meagan Day
February 22, 2020
Why Bernie Sanders is just the beginning of an American turn to the left
[Via email from Chet.

Remember when I said the other day that these crazy laws have to be deliberate attempts to destroy society?

Take appropriate action.—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—UBY: @ZubyMusic

Posted on by

Nazism was attempted once. It killed 6 MILLION+ people and the ideology was abandoned. Those who promote it are rightly shunned.

Communism has been attempted multiple times, in multiple nations. It has killed 100 MILLION+ people. Yet many still think it’s a ‘good idea’.

UBY: @ZubyMusic
Tweeted on February 20, 2020
[It’s amazing the price people are willing to pay for “free” stuff.

It would appear to me that the only way to avoid repeating the many lessons in the history of communism and socialism is to increase the cost on those who attempt to implement it rather than on those it is implemented on.

Never give up your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lyle

Posted on by

The underlying message in such talk of “gun violence” and “felons with guns” etc. is that violence, per se, is not the problem. If violence were the problem then the particular weapons being used wouldn’t be the central focus as they are now. They wouldn’t even be an issue.

Turning the populace into cattle, for the benefit of the “common good” (the rulers’ good) is the issue, and that means there must be disarmament.

So of course this is not, and has never been, about crime or violence or “public safety”. In the minds of the power-mad, common criminals are not the problem. Rather, YOU are the problem which needs to be “solved”; the more principled, peaceful, law-abiding and productive citizen patriot. The truth is a threat. You are the threat.

Lyle
February 20, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—ReelFun.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—ReelFun

Posted on by

the shooters in seattle a week ago have over 60 felonies between them and several each with firearm convictions. Why are they out of jail and on the street with more guns after those convictions? anyone with more than one conviction with firearm should be in jail for decades, not on the street after 30 days. Start there and there is all the data you need. put in jail felons with firearms period.

ReelFun
February 19, 2020
Comment to Pass bills to reduce firearm violence through research, limiting magazine capacity
[Truth. But, almost for certain, it will never happen in Seattle.

One of the reason this suggestion is almost never heeded by the progressives is because such criminals are their demographic. Remember, felons in prison who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of two to one. Another reason is that firearm restrictions are not about reducing violent crime. It’s about making the average citizen more dependent upon the state and giving power and control to the government.—Joe]

Washington office of firearm violence prevention

Posted on by

Via email from Luis we have this:

This bill just passed the senate, the implications are that, is almost certain that it will passed the house and become law.

This is a tax payer funded, new agency, to take your 2nd amendment rights, capable of issuing  grants to Bloomberg gun control organizations.

Heavy sigh.

If it were an agency with a charter to prevent criminal violence I won’t mind too much. But the way it is worded they could easily conclude that eliminating the use of firearms for self-defense is a positive goal and spend taxpayer money to achieve that goal.

Quote of the day—Julia Musto

Posted on by

Criminal justice reform is a lot like gun control. It’s not about changing the rules for everyone. It’s about selectively enforcing them along political lines.

So for example, the left will lecture you for hours about gun crime and how afraid they are of guns and they hate guns and guns are bad. But they don’t really feel that way. They oppose stop and frisk, which saved thousands of lives by taking many thousands of guns off the street. But they’re totally opposed to that.

Meanwhile, they’re working deep into the night, for example, to disarm law-abiding Virginians in rural Virginia who commit essentially no violent crime and are a threat to no one.

They’re not for gun control. They are for punishing people who don’t vote for them, and the same thing is happening here.

The left doesn’t want criminal justice reform. If they did, they’d be on Roger Stone’s side. No. What they really want is to send their political enemies to jail and that’s what they’re trying to do.

Julia Musto
February 15, 2020
Tucker Carlson: Roger Stone case is about the left wanting to send political enemies to jail
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Kopel

Posted on by

Tiers of scrutiny (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and the variants thereof) might sometimes be appropriate for judicial review of non-prohibitory gun regulations. Under Heller, bans on common arms are categorically unconstitutional, without need for use of the means-ends balancing tests of strict or intermediate scrutiny.

David Kopel
February 12, 2020
What arms are “common”?
Amicus brief challenging California rifle ban
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rolf

Posted on by

That’s the problem with too many rules: it rewards gaming the system more handsomely than actually being good, useful, productive, and wise.

Rolf
February 15, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—Karlyn Borysenko
[Excellent observation!

Perhaps some elaboration is worthwhile. More rules restrict those who are rule followers. But those who are more “flexible” will see the advantages of bypassing the rules and do so when they cannot compete with the rule followers or desire the profits obtainable by disobeying the rules more than the safety of following them.

Those willing to bribe, blackmail, and threaten those who enforce the rules have an even greater advantage over those who follow the rules. And in fact, want even more rules created to hinder their competitors even more. And, of course, the enforcers and creators of rules/laws are more likely to become and/or attract corrupt people the greater the potential for profit from excess rules.

California state Sen. Leland Yee is a prime example.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan M. Dershowitz

Posted on by

This hypocrisy of this double-standard — by political leaders, media pundits, academics and ordinary folks — is shameful, but done not only without shame but with self-righteousness. It was similar during the McCarthy era of my youth. Now as then, the “cause” — anti-Trumpism today, and anti-communism back then — were seen as so righteous that any means, no matter how unfair, is justified in achieving the end. Outright wilful lying is justified by anti-Trump zealots in the interest of getting rid of Trump.

Alan M. Dershowitz
February 12, 2020 at 1:00 am
Demonizing Defense Lawyers: The True Road to Tyranny
[Calling it tyranny will not be sufficient to stop such acts. Tyranny is their goal. It’s going to require prosecutions, convictions, and stiff sentences.—Joe]

It has to be deliberate

Posted on by

Last Monday Seattle passed a ban on evictions during winter months.

Sometime last week I read about the ordinance proposal and with zero emotional content to avoid a biased response mentioned it to Barb to see if what was obvious to me would be recognized by her as well. Her reaction was:

What? That’s crazy! Did that actually pass or did someone just propose it?

Good. It’s not just me.

We discussed it a bit. We concluded the action has to be deliberate. They have to know the side effects of this feels-good law will be the raising of rents to cover the loss of rent from those who abuse the loophole in the law.

You can see it in the laws that make it more and more difficult to acquire and use firearms to defend yourself against violent criminals. You can see it in the refusal to prosecute property crimes. You can see it in the use of the legal system to prosecute political enemies while giving political allies a pass.

As I have said before, these people are deliberately trying to destroy society.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Stockbriidge

Posted on by

They don’t need to take the bad guys guns. The bad guys aren’t who they are trying to control!

Bob Stockbriidge
February 9, 2020
Comment to 2nd Amendment Alert
[This hypothesis fits the known data.

Respond appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan O’Kelly

Posted on by

If you have a problem with the truth, who’s the bad guy?

Dan O’Kelly
February 7, 2020
Former ATF agent at center of legal dispute over AR-15
[The answer should be obvious. The problem is that the truth is a problem for a lot of people and they will insist the truth teller is the bad guy. Worst than that telling the truth can make you the enemy. And frequently it’s not just the enemy of one or a few people. You can be enemy of the state. In some countries that can get you prison or even death sentence.

O’Kelly is telling the truth and making himself the enemy of a lot of people. Fortunately, in this country he is unlikely to earn official sanctions from the government even though he is certainly making a lot of people in government very uncomfortable.

I wish him well in his continued truth telling.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dave Ellis

Posted on by

Why a certain sector of elected officials, whose job is to serve the public, are hellbent on trampling individual rights, boggles the minds of clear thinking folks. I believe it has to do with power and control. The battle over gun control is not really about guns; it is about control.

Dave Ellis
February 3, 2020
St. Lawrence Co. gun owners seek to declare 2nd amendment sanctuary
[It may boggle your mind at first. But gradually it makes sense as you see it all around you. And what cements it is when you discover that not only do some people think like this:

And it is a thrill; it’s a high… I love it; I absolutely love it.  I was born to regulate.  I don’t know why, but that’s very true.  So as long as I’m regulating, I’m happy.

But, a lot of people think like that. They absolutely get off on coming up with ideas for controlling other people “for their own good”. Some people even literally believe they need to be in control of other people’s money because they know how to spend it better than the people who earned it.

These type of people are those who seek political office. And they are the type of people who should be kept away from the levers of political power. And when those type of people became too numerous and too powerful, that is why we have the Second Amendment.—Joe]