When Law Enforcement Ignores The Law
Jul 29, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
We have tyranny.
The People’s Republik of Maryland (PRoM) has gun control laws that infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Those laws are pushed by liberal law makers who can apply for and receive carry permits based on their political office (and many are lawyers, another protected class) or are protected by armed police officers (such as the governor).
The average citizen cannot get a carry permit without a good and substantial reason. The law does not define what good and substantial is but the Maryland State Police Superintendant (charged with issuing permits and appointed by the moron governor) has narrowly defined it to mean you have documented threats or carry large sums of money. So the average person is left to the criminal element because the state and its enforcement arm in the State Police refuse to follow the Second Amendment (shall not be infringed).
[note]No one in Maryland needs to carry a gun because it is safe for us since criminals all obey the law.
NBC Washington
CBS Baltimore[/note]
The Maryland State Police (MSP) plays games with the permit process and that is bad. It is also bad that the MSP, an agency charged with upholding the law, ignores the law.
The law regarding the purchase of a regulated firearm states that the MSP (also charged with investigating the purchase and disapproving or not disapproving it) has seven days to either disapprove or not disapprove. Since Maryland began working on even more unconstitutional gun laws (and eventually passing them) the sale of firearms has gone through the roof. People are waiting well over 100 days for a process that the law allows seven to complete.
[note]The language used for a regulated purchase is either “disapproved” or “not disapproved” as opposed to approved or disapproved.[/note]
The law allows the transfer of a firearm after seven days if the MSP has not completed its statutory duty but many dealers will not do so for fear of backlash.
There are theories that the MSP is deliberately holding up the process in order to push the sales past October First in order to subject people to the more stringent anti gun laws including denying firearms that are legal now but will not be after 10/1. The MSP claims it is overwhelmed and can’t keep up.
That does not wash. Who cares if the MSP can’t keep up? It is bound by law to complete a certain action in a certain amount of time. If the MSP is unable to do that then it should issue a very clear memo to firearms dealers telling them to release firearms anytime after the eighth day. The MSP will not do that. It has released ambiguous memos. It has made clear that it prefers that the firearms not be released and the dealers do not want trouble. Keep in mind that the dealers would be following the law but would that stop the state from finding a reason to shut down a business?
Dealers have to think of their future (which is bleak in Maryland anyway).
Suppose some State Police Officer wrote a person a ticket for driving too fast and that ticket had to be paid within 30 days. Does anyone think that the police, the courts or the Motor Vehicle Administration would ignore any such person who decided that he was not going to pay the ticket for 100 or more days? Don’t get me wrong, plenty of people decide not (or forget) to pay tickets. BUT the state does not overlook it. Licenses are suspended, people are not allowed to reregister vehicles and warrants are issued. The state and its police expect YOU to follow the law (by not speeding and by paying fines on time) but it fails to hold itself to the same standard.
How do you think the MSP would treat a person who was given seven days to turn in all firearms because of a protective order and ignored that order? Suppose the person just decided he would wait 100 days. Do you think the police would show patience and say it was OK?
There is a law that specifically defines the time the MSP has to disapprove or not disapprove a regulated firearm purchase and the MSP is ignoring that law. It is asking for the firearm buying public to be patient while they work through the process.
Do you think they would exercise patience if YOU did not follow the law?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: carry permit, delays, gun laws, law, maryland state police, regulated firearm purchase
Chicago Is Hazardous To Children
May 28, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
AND EVERYONE ELSE…
Jonylah Watkins was only six months old when her life was suddenly ended by a gang banger with a gun. Thirty-three year old Koman Willis, a man with documented gang ties, shot the baby as she sat on her father’s lap in his parked vehicle. Jonathan Watkins was the intended target because he allegedly stole Willis’ video game console.
Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation yet it is among the most dangerous places to live. More people are murdered with guns in Chicago than in most places (if not all) in this nation and certainly more than any place where the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.
We have been through this before. Criminals do not obey gun laws so people like Willis will continue to use firearms illegally. Law abiding citizens are stripped of their rights while those with no regard for the law continue to obtain and use firearms illegally. There is no doubt that gun control and the failure of the judicial system resulted in the death of this innocent child. You see, Willis has 38 prior arrests so it is highly unlikely he is allowed to own a firearm. It is also a mystery why a person with such a record is not behind bars where he could not shoot people.
Chicago is an open fire murder zone where people are shot and killed each and every day despite the fact that guns control is extremely strict there.
This is the progressive dream city and it still has gun murders. The reality of this escapes progressive politicians like Barack Obama and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley who continue to harp on gun control as a means to end gun violence. Disarming law abiding citizens will not make them safer. There is no clearer example than Chicago but the progressives push on. They only want the agents of government to have firearms.
[note]The progressives tell us that certain firearms (they desire all firearms) should be banned because they are only suitable for war. These firearms are possessed by police departments across the nation so if they are only suitable for war, just who are the police departments planning on going to war with?[/note]
While gun control certainly plays a part in the violence in Chicago it is not the only reason. There is a fundamental breakdown in the family unit and in societal norms. Society is definitely in decline when members of the society think an appropriate response to the theft of a video console is to murder the alleged thief. When neighbors are so terrified that they will not cooperate with police, when young men father children with many women or women have many children with multiple men there is a problem. That problem is exacerbated in the generational welfare state.
People lose all self respect and all respect for life. The code of the street and the gang becomes the norm and we end up with babies being murdered because a father allegedly stole a video console.
While politicians beg gang members to stop shooting children and churches beg the community to come together and repent the violence continues.
It continues because people are no longer accountable for their actions. It happens because people become dependent on the government and lack the responsibility and social mores that keep a society together.
Basically, people become animals and act like them while an overburdened judiciary keeps turning criminals back to the street and government keeps digging in deeper to keep people on the plantation.
It is sad that Jonylah was murdered but even sadder that her death was not an isolated incident in the jungle known as Chicago.
It is also sad that the gun will be blamed for this as it is for all gun related murders.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: chicago, gun control, lies, murder, progressives
Media Finally Agree With Framer’s Intent?
May 20, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
[note]”That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)[/note]
I have always believed that a point of view depends upon whose ox is being gored. With the Second Amendment the media are silent with regard to what our Founders intended and will help push an agenda for anti gun (and anti American) liberals. In order to ignore what our Founders said and what they clearly intended the media will gladly tell us that the Constitution is a living document and that it must evolve with the times. Things change for the media when the right under attack is the one that affects them the most.
The idea that the Constitution is a living document is an incorrect assessment of the Constitution. It is not a living document subject to interpretation based on a particular point in history. It is the Supreme Law of the Land and the Founders did not intend for it to be interpreted this way or that. What they did was give us a method to change it should things change or should new situations arise.
In any event, the media love to bash the Second Amendment and tell us how things have changed. That point of view changes when the right attacked is the one that affects the media.
In light of the Justice Department’s infringement of the AP’s First Amendment right the media, at least the AP, have suddenly decided that the Constitution is not a living document and that the infringement by the Justice department is wrong. Here is what Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the AP, had to say about the incident:
Pruitt told CBS’ ”Face the Nation” that the government has no business monitoring the AP’s newsgathering activities.
“And if they restrict that apparatus … the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment,” Washington Post
Well isn’t it interesting that Pruitt mentions what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment? When it comes to the Second Amendment the media will tell us that things have changed, the framers could not have anticipated modern firearms (they did anticipate which is why they do not mention a specific type. People can have what the government has). They tell us that it is a living document and that we need to advance with the times. They dismiss any argument that claims if people are disarmed there will be no way to fight a tyrannical government as if the government is wonderful and would do no wrong.
It looks like the AP incident and Pruitt’s words now reveal that the media were wrong. The incident shows the tyranny of government and Pruitt indicated that this kind of tyranny leads to people only getting the information government wants it to.
I imagine it will be difficult for many anti gun zealots to see that these two issues are one in the same. Many, and I imagine Pruitt would be among them, will not see how the framer’s intent applies as much to the Second as it does to the First (and all parts of the Constitution for that matter). They will continue to dismiss the valid concerns of gun owners and tell us how we need to change with the times while crying foul over what the government did to them.
Mr. Pruitt, conservatives are on your side because we know all parts of the Constitution need to be defended against all enemies foreign and domestic. We know that the erosion of one right will lead to the erosion of another until the domino effect takes place. We wake up one day and are North Korea where people are disarmed, totally dependent on government and fed only the news government wants.
Mr. Pruitt, you and others in the media are responsible for this. You media folks pushed an agenda for liberals for decades. That was the anti gun agenda and it allowed for the slow erosion of the right to keep and bear arms. You folks in the media carried their water on this issue while cheerfully claiming that things have changed, this is a living document, the framers could not have anticipated the future, blah, blah, blah…
While you were helping with the slow erosion of our Second Amendment right you were putting in place the mechanism that allowed government to start going after the other rights. You allowed the camel’s nose to get under the tent and now you are feeling the effect of your failure.
Without a Second Amendment there will be no protection for the First or any other. Without a well armed citizenry there will be government tyranny. You helped bring this upon us by ignoring or dismissing the framer’s intent when it came to our right to keep and bear arms.
[note]”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
— Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)[/note]
You in the media became stenographers for the liberals in government. You abandoned your obligation to the people and stopped being our watchdog. YOU enabled government to encroach further and further on our rights and into our lives. You failed us and now you are reaping what you have sown.
How about you get on board and start supporting the Second Amendment the way you want the First supported? How about you push the message of the people and tout the intent of our framers with regard to the right to keep and bear arms? What say we the people and you the media work together to keep government in check?
Let me help you out with it:
- “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
- “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
- “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
- “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
- ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
Quotes from the George Mason webpage of Walter E. Williams
I along with most conservatives do not like what took place with regard to the AP. We do not like the violation of a Constitutionally protected right because we support all of those rights. It is time for the AP and all other media outlets to get back to doing their jobs.
You can’t cry that your Constitutional right has been violated when you willfully ignore your responsibilities under that right.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: ap, first amendment, government tyranny, Second Amendment
Will Obama Push To Ban Muslims?
Apr 19, 2013 Political, Second Amendment, Terrorism
After every act of terror that involves radical Islamists we are reminded by the left not to rush to judgment and that we cannot condemn an entire religion or its followers for the acts of a few. I agree that people should be judged individually. I also know that when a large group of those people or their individual governments support their acts then it is OK to paint them with a broad brush.
Unfortunately, the very people who tell us not to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few are the same people who condemn all gun owners for the acts of a few people with guns who do bad things. The reality is that most people who do bad things with guns have already broken countless laws to do so and usually do not own the guns legally. This fact escapes the gun grabbers as they paint all gun owners, law abiding citizens who exercise a constitutionally protected right, with a broad brush.
After the Newtown shooting, where a gunman who used guns he stole to murder a number of people (mostly children,) Barack Obama wasted no time condemning the act and then vowing to pass tougher gun laws. These laws would only affect law abiding gun owners as they are the only ones who would follow them. The guns that would be banned and the hoops people would have to jump through would only infringe on the people who obey the law. The people who do bad things will still get guns, won’t worry about the gun being on some approved list, and would not go through a background check.
That did not stop Obama and his anti gun zealots from vowing to pass tough gun laws. Some states did just that and ended up only harming those who did no wrong. In fact, some people were then targeted to have their guns confiscated. This all happened to people who did no wrong.
Now we have a terrorist attack that happened in Boston during the Boston Marathon. While we were cautioned not to rush to judgment Obama’s stenographers in the media wasted no time blaming the right wing, gun owners, rednecks, people who hate taxes, white people, and any other group they could paint as a right wing entity. I did not hear Obama asking them not to rush to judgment.
It turns out the bombers are followers of Islam. That should come as no shock as most of the acts of terror are committed by followers of that religion (notice I said most – added for liberals who have trouble with comprehension). The Muslims involved in 9/11 murdered more people than the gunman in Newtown. Hell, they murdered more than the recent mass shootings combined. George Bush did not say we should ban Muslims; he just went after those who intended to do us harm.
Since Barack Obama sees fit to go after all gun owners for the acts of a few deranged people I want to know if he will now ban Muslims.
You see, he was quick on the trigger after Newtown but slow and cautious in his response to the Boston bombing. Unlike his call to action on tougher gun control after Newtown, he was vague and asked us not to rush to judgment. He did not even use the word terror in his first address.
It is now abundantly clear that those who did this are Muslims. Will B. Hussein Obama now apply the same standard he did with regard to Newtown and ask Congress to ban Muslims from the United States?
In this country when a person drives drunk we go after that person not alcohol or cars. When a person stabs a bunch of people we go after the person using the knife, not the knife. When a gun is involved things get murky because the liberals go after the guns of all citizens.
Well Muslims have murdered more Americans than gun wielding morons in mass shootings.
If Obama is to apply the same standard then he must go after Muslims and work with Congress to get them banned.
The mantra from the left is; if we only save one child…
Well, banning Muslims would do just that (so would outlawing abortion).
This might not be a popular position but neither is gun control and the fact that it is not popular has not stopped Obama and the rest of the anti gun crowd from working to disarm us. Hell, they even lie about support.
I can’t say for sure but I bet more Americans support a Muslim ban than a gun ban.
I don’t support either (I believe in going after those involved in bad stuff) but if I had to choose I know America would be a lot safer with armed citizens than it would with Muslims (especially if it was disarmed).
Obama will probably not ban Muslims. What the they do is from the same textbook his buddy Bill Ayers uses.
John Jay has an interesting post up
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: boston, disarmed, Muslims, newtown, Obama, Second Amendment, Terrorism
Armed Citizen Saves Police Officer
Apr 8, 2013 Second Amendment
The left’s answer to bad people with guns is to ban law abiding people from having guns thus insuring that only bad people will be in possession of firearms. Criminals do not obey the law, they do not submit to background checks and they do not register their illegally owned firearms. The answer from those who violate their oaths is for you to call 911 and then pray a person with a gun gets there before you are dead.
In reality, the police show up to draw a chalk line around a dead body. If you are armed they draw that line around the bad guy. In the liberal world, they draw that line around YOU.
I have already documented how the police were called (via 911 no less) within a minute of the Newtown shooter shooting his way into the school. All the victims were dead within 5 minutes and the police arrived after that. They got to draw chalk lines around the victims.
Fortunately, there are still states in this union that believe in freedom and uphold the Constitution. Fortunately there are states where the words shall not be infringed have meaning. As an aside, Maryland is not one of them. The Communist governor and his comrades in the legislature have violated their oaths and made law abiding citizens of the state into one of two things; criminals or prey.
Back on point. The great state of Texas is one that believes in upholding and protecting the God given right to keep and bear arms. One police officer is alive, and thankful, that this is the case.
There was a dispute in a neighborhood (a trailer park at that) about dogs relieving themselves on other people’s lawns. This has been an ongoing issue and it came to a head when the neighbor whose property was under doggie assault (Charles Conner) got a gun and murdered the dog’s owners (David House and Iris Valentina) and shot their dogs. Someone called the police and the responding officer (SGT Steven Means) was not able to exit his car before he was under fire from Conner. The shooter was well protected from return fire because he was behind a tree. The officer was trying to keep from getting killed by hiding behind his car.
It turns out that a neighbor (Vic Stacy) who was home watching TV saw what was going on and after watching he assessed that the officer needed help. He had a direct shot, albeit at a distance, at the shooter. Stacy fired a shot and hit Conner knocking him down. He fired several other shots and SGT Means was able to shot him as well.
More police officers arrived (well after all the shooting had taken place) and placed Stacy in handcuffs. SGT Means explained what happened and Stacy was released.
No charges will be filed (who would even contemplate that) and Stacy is being hailed as a hero though he shuns that idea. He agonized over getting involved and had some trouble sleeping after. In other words, he is not some Wild West zealot who wants to kill. He saw an officer in distress and he intervened.
Let’s look at the facts. The nut job Conner murdered two people BEFORE police arrived. He then held an officer at bay placing that officer in grave danger (is there any other kind) and backup did not arrive until AFTER the nut had been dispatched with the help of a private citizen. The police were not even there in time to help one of their own even though the original officer responded to a call for shots fired.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The state of Texas is a place where the rights of good guys are not infringed upon.
SGT Means is probably very happy he is not in a state where the law abiding are disarmed or he might not be alive today.
One can either be protected or prey.
Liberals want to make us prey. Communists like Maryland’s gun grabbing Governor, Martin O’Moron, do not care about the law abiding and they don’t care about the Constitution. They know what is best for you and what will make you safe. And if you listen to them they will tell you just that.
If they can get their voices past their army of ARMED body guards…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: 2A, armed citizen, founders, gun grabber, tyrants