Self incrimination

Posted on by

In addition to thinking law enforcement should be going to jail instead of Ms. Taylor I find this interesting because it seems to me there is a 5th Amendment issue here as well a 2nd Amendment issue:

Texas woman arrested in Albany for declaring a firearm to a Delta Airlines representative

Albany County Sheriff has reported the arrest of a Texas woman for Criminal Possession of a Firearm.

On Wednesday, June 15th, at approximately 11:45 AM, Deputies responded to the Delta Airlines ticket counter for a passenger declaring a firearm to a Delta Airlines representative.

Upon investigation, Deputies discovered that Natasia R. Taylor was in possession of a Walther P22, .22 caliber handgun.

Taylor does not possess a New York State Pistol Permit.

Taylor was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, a Class A Misdemeanor.

Isn’t it a self incrimination issue that you are required to declare a firearm under these conditions?

Dark times ahead

Posted on by

Via Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras:

Changes at a QFC store — apparently for security reasons — have some customers say the store is going too far. Some are worried about safety and exiting in an emergency.

Two Seattle QFC stores now have extensive plexiglass inside, directing traffic for shoppers and limiting how people can exit. The grocery chain told KIRO 7 the changes are “to maintain a safe shopping environment,” but customers believe the goal is to thwart shoplifting.

“It’s like shopping in a dystopian novel or something, it’s really bizarre,” said Chris Mobley, a shopper at the store. “Seems to be a way to annoy customers — it’s really hard to navigate the store,” he said.

A few days ago Barb was at a store (not QFC) not far from our home in Bellevue, a suburb of Seattle, and the clerk commented, “There goes one of our regulars. He comes in every day.” It was a shoplifter.

Also, The police aren’t coming, but now in Seattle, they have a name for that:

It’s well known that Seattle police are struggling to respond to 911 calls in a speedy manner. But the notion that “the cops aren’t coming” has become such a routine of city life that they’ve created a new way of tracking their nonresponsiveness.

It’s called the “Z protocol.”

I have to wonder how much of inflation is the result of “defund the police” and related nonsense.

My greatest concern is that at some point many people will to conclude they are stupid for not stealing whatever they want. That will bring some very dark times.

Red flag law memes

Posted on by

VIa Sean D Sorrentino @SorrentinoSean:

image

Via MiguelGGG @MiguelGGG12:

image

Via Maga Gang ShawnP @6_OClockShawn:

image

Via Meme Space Nine @meme_space_nine:

image

Via Mr Dexter Sinister @Mr_Dex_Sinister:

image

Via Wise Dalai Lama @MedinaDalaiLama:

image

VIa PewPewFF @FfPew:

image

Via Claire Balan @CBalan010611 there is this Did the Supreme Court just deal a blow to red flag laws?

Quote of the day—Miguel Gonzalez

Posted on by

This is an unfortunate example of a religious leader interjecting himself into a political discussion. I understand that is something tempting to do because we all seek popular recognition, especially at his level. But in his statement he fails to see the irony he creates by assigning an almost evil intent to the inanimate object rather than seeking and healing what ails the souls of those who use the object to commit evil which is what he is duty bound to do. It is the equivalent of blaming the cross for the Crucifixion of our Lord.

Miguel Gonzalez
June 4, 2022
Christian Science Monitor: “Has the gun become a sacred object in America?”
[Via an email from pkoning.

Nice analogy! And he did an awesome job handling the questions of the CSM reporter.—Joe]

Quote of the day—THE Red-Headed libertarian™ @TRHLofficial

Posted on by

The left are throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks before they lose their stranglehold in November. Their behavior is reactionary and it’s going to get more insane, more sinister, and more hysterical.

THE Red-Headed libertarian™ @TRHLofficial
Tweeted on June 6, 2022
[This is my expectation too.—Joe]

Indicator of not trustworthy

Posted on by

She has a great point:

image

Of course, as Gideon J. Tucker said:

No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

Therefore, untrustworthy should be your default view of politicians until conclusively proven otherwise, or they are dead, which ever comes last.

NOW is time to buy

Posted on by

If you live in or plan to visit Washington state effective July 1, 2022 standard capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds will be illegal to:

manufacture, import, distribute, 22 sell, or offer for sale

Existing magazines in the state can be taken out of the state and then brought back in.

The law has been challenged in court but it is likely to take years to wind it way through the courts and a successful reversal of this unconstitutional law is not guaranteed.

You should seriously consider purchasing all the magazines you expect to need NOW. Here are a few options:

Quote of the day—Burgess Everett

Posted on by

The group is also planning to bundle $1 million each to a handful of gubernatorial candidates and secretary of state hopefuls, a reflection of the increased focus on top election officials after the still-unfolding fight against false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Burgess Everett
May 17, 2022
MoveOn plows $30 million into ‘Us vs. MAGA’ campaign
[If there was no fraud, then why do they need increased focus on these election officials who gave us fair and open elections?—Joe]

Quote of the day—sacrebleu14 / SA Hinchcliffe @sacrebleu141

Posted on by

your history in assaulting women, can see why you demand women to be defenseless

sacrebleu14 / SA Hinchcliffe @sacrebleu141
Tweeted on June 6, 2022
[This was in response to a tweet by Andrew Cuomo about supporting gun control.—Joe]

This is what they think of self-defense with a gun

Posted on by

Mayor Jim Kenney and DA Larry Krasner clash over charging man in South Street mass shooting:

Taking issue with a decision by District Attorney Larry Krasner, Mayor Jim Kenney said Wednesday that anyone who fired a weapon during Saturday night’s mass shooting on South Street deserved to be jailed — including the man prosecutors said had acted in self-defense.

Speaking at a virtual gun-violence briefing, Kenney said: “Anybody who fired a gun that day should be locked up.”

Krasner’s office took exception to the mayor’s comments. “He’s not a cop, he’s not an attorney,” said Jane Roh, Krasner’s spokesperson. “The DA and our entire office is incredibly frustrated with the gun violence that’s happening.

“But just like the mayor, we are bound by the law, we cannot invent crimes that don’t exist and facts that aren’t true.”

Would the Mayor insist someone who used a rock to hit and kill the guy who just shot him be locked up too? I’m betting the answer is no. The mayor is prejudiced against gun ownership and using a gun for self-defense.

If he somehow manages to someday get his way and anyone who defended innocent life against imminent danger of serious injury or death is prosecuted then it would be my desire that the mayor and anyone assisting him in such a crime be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

See also this article.

Quote of the day—Danny Westneat

Posted on by

More than 400 officers have left while crime has soared. This past week The Seattle Times and KUOW reported new sex assault cases aren’t being investigated because of understaffing. Meanwhile, the softer approaches envisioned for community safety still are in the pilot stages.

This past week the city announced it is refunding 100,000 parking tickets and voiding another 100,000 because of an oversight — namely that the parking enforcement officers, who are civilians, were not regranted the authority to write tickets after they were switched out of the Police Department last fall.

Danny Westneat
June 4, 2022
Seattle’s botched experiment with defund the police keeps getting worse
[Emphasis added. I cannot believe these people are this stupid. It has to be intentional. These people are verifiably evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy

Posted on by

We will stop you.
We will repeal your laws.
We will restore natural rights.

We are winning.

You will cope and seethe.

Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy
Tweeted on June 6, 2022
[Donate to the Firearms Policy Coalition here. I donate nearly $1700/year to the Firearms Policy Foundation and get a tax deduction.—Joe]

Implications

Posted on by

Via a tweet from the JPFO:

image

I’m tempted to respond, “Good question!” But, actually, their actions just confirm what I’ve known for decades. That is, the political left considers gun owners their mortal enemy.

Quote of the day—ENOUGH ALREADY! Wear a damn Mask! @moluvs2dive

Posted on by

I’ll just leave this here for mr tiny dick!

ENOUGH ALREADY! Wear a damn Mask! @moluvs2dive
Tweeted on April 21, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

Via a tweet from In Chains @InChainsInJail.—Joe]

Insightful observation

Posted on by

If found this very interesting:

Stop conflating mass shootings with mental illness

It’s important to understand the most common underlying factors that lead to violence: untreated anger, family violence, past history of violent acts, growing up where violence is used, and being young and male. To be clear, anger is not a mental illness. Hatred of others is not a mental illness.

It strikes me as probably true and gives us insight as to why Federal law against people who have been involuntarily treated for mental illness being banned from gun ownership is mostly useless and should be repealed.

A bigger issues is, “Can this this knowledge be leveraged in some way to reduce violent crime without infringing upon the rights of individuals?”

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Posted on by

Economics has a concept called “revealed preference.” The gist is that a person’s observed actions reveal more about their preferences than what a person might profess to prefer. As applied to anti-gun politicians, despite all the noise they might make about stopping the criminal misuse of guns, their actions reveal that their policies are designed to attack the rights of law-abiding Americans.

…

For FY 2017 there were a grand total of 12 prosecutions out of 112,000 denials. When, all else being equal, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of being prosecuted for a crime in which the perpetrator necessarily offers himself up to the government, the goal isn’t public safety, it’s to control the law-abiding.

NRA-ILA
June 6, 2022
Gun Control is About Stripping Rights NOT Stopping Crime
[They are, of course, referring to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)..—Joe]

Schrodinger’s Gun

Posted on by

Via email from Rolf:

SchrodingersGun

I think I could write the equation for the probability density function for that. Of course, it would violate mathematical law and prove the claims of the anti-gunners invalid. But, as they wouldn’t understand the concept, let alone the math, I won’t bother.

Getting a clue?

Posted on by

The words and concepts are all there. But I’m not sure he is putting it all together to arrive at the obvious conclusion:

Nobody talks tougher on guns than the left. We want to regulate them, seize them, control them, even ban them.

The uncomfortable part of this stance is: Who is going to carry all this out, though, if not the police? Police who are stopping, searching, interfering — all the things various city actors have understandably said they are most skeptical police can do safely and without racial bias.

Recently, I wrote about how Washington state’s aggressive gun control laws, which ban AR-15 gun sales to people under age 21 and also institute a 10-day waiting period, would likely have prevented the recent Buffalo and Texas mass shootings (because both were committed by 18-year-olds who legally bought their guns).

What they don’t prevent are the types of gun crime that Seattle is awash in right now — where drug dealers, gang members or others steal guns or pick them up on an ample black market.

He needs to ask himself, and then his entire readership, just one question.

This makes perfect sense

Posted on by

Michael Moore Urges 2nd Amendment Repeal: Get Dogs, Not Guns

“I know that there are Democratic Party leaders that do not want me saying this. … I make no apologies for it because I understand the history of this country, and I don’t think we should be afraid to say this: Repeal the Second Amendment. Repeal the Second Amendment,” Moore urged.

“You don’t need a gun,” Moore added. “If you’re afraid of somebody breaking in, get a dog.”

If a dog is going to be a deterrent to a violent predator then they have to be large and capable of inflicting serious, life threatening, damage. So, essentially you have the same level of damage as a firearm but instead of under your complete control it is under the control of an animal brain over which you have moderate control.

The way I see this is that if you believe a dog is better than a firearm it means you believe some dog brain has better judgement and is less likely to make a mistake in defending you and yours than you are. Plus there is the lack of availability when you go to work, the store, or the movies, etc.. That is also a “cost” of making that tradeoff.

For this increased reliability and decreased availability you are willing to a pay a lot more. This says to me that the increased reliability must be an order of magnitude or so better than what you have with a firearm 100% under your control.

This makes perfect sense in the case of Moore. But he should not be speaking for others who are not so mentally handicapped that, by his own indirect admission, he believes a dog is ten times smarter than he is.

Interesting

Posted on by

Barb and I like cruises, but I’m not sure we like them this much:

When Angelyn Burk, a recently retired Seattle accountant, decided to crunch some numbers one evening last year, she made a stunning discovery: It would be cheaper for her and her husband to spend their retirement perpetually aboard cruise ships than to continue living on land.

“This is how I want to retire,” Angelyn, 53, decided in that moment. “Life is too short.”

She turned to her husband, Richard Burk, and said: “We can do this. Let’s make cruise ships our home.”

To her delight, he was onboard. The couple had thoroughly enjoyed the nearly 10 cruises they had been on together in the past, and they have a mutual love for travel as well as a shared disdain for airports.

They looked online and determined that, on average, they could string together voyages on various cruise ships for markedly less money than their collective cost of living on land. All they had to do was hop from ship to ship with some small breaks in between.

“We calculated that we can probably live reasonably well with about $100 a day together, with what we’ve saved up,” said Richard, 51, who retired as a computer programmer last month.

$100/day per person? At first thought that seems high but after some estimates and crunching my own numbers including infrequent things like home maintenance, vacations, and car purchases that probably isn’t far off. But looking at the cabin type and cruise lines we prefer the cost would be significantly more than $100/day per person. I did find cabins in that price range. So, if you didn’t mind having a tiny interior cabin with no view you could live your life like that.

The risk of being a victim of violent crime would be much lower. You would get maid service and great food with no time investment in shopping, cooking, washing dishes, etc.. My gun activities such as competition and reloading would be left behind. And we would not see our long time friends nearly as often.

I’m thinking the answer is no. But it is an interesting idea…