Abuse of the Innocent

Rob Morse has a post over at his blog, Slow Facts that challenges the current rush to create so called "Red Flag" laws entitled Red Flag Laws: Public Safety or Abuse of the Innocent. Morse's point is that these laws encourage abuse of the innocent by design. Even if these laws sound reasonable on their face, they will in practice be used by unscrupulous attorneys and anti-gun judges to take away the Second Amendment rights of innocent people, while leaving criminals largely untouched.

They are called Extreme-Risk Protection Orders. Some people call them Red-Flag Gun Confiscation. Whatever you call it, we’re supposed to call the cops and stop a bad man with a gun before he hurts someone. That sounds more like the script from a cop-drama on TV than what happens in real life. In practice, these laws are designed for abuse. We’ve already seen them fail to stop violent crime. We’ve also seen police kill gun owners during early morning Red-Flag raids. At best, innocent individuals have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get their rights restored after they’ve been served with a red-flag order.

Is that the unavoidable price of freedom, or is that the bigoted abuse of a disfavored minority for political gain? These gun confiscation laws were proposed so that politicians could get facetime on the news and could increase their campaign contributions. When you read beyond the press releases, you’ll see that these laws are a tax on gun owners..particularly on poor gun owners. We know that violence is a very tough problem to solve and red-flag gun confiscation isn’t the solution.

Morse also makes the point that predicting violent behavior is a tricky thing, and even those whose very job should be to predict whether someone strikes out violently have a poor record in fact:

Psychiatrists who have access to complete medical records often have to assess if a patient will be violent. They make that assessment for the safety of the patient and for the safety of hospital staff. These doctors make the correct prediction 60% of the time when they are predicting behavior for the next 24 hours. That means they are slightly better than flipping a coin while they are looking a day into the future. They have no idea if the patient will be violent in the next week, the next month, or the next year. These highly educated and dedicated specialists can’t predict the future. That record will get worse as red-flag laws let non-professionals disarm near strangers with a phone call.

Today, we want a court judge to do the impossible with Red-Flag laws. Your vindictive relative can make a phone call based on a post in social media. You’ll have your firearms confiscated..at no cost to them, but at the cost of tens-of-thousands of dollars to you.. or worse. We’ve already killed gun owners during midnight police raids instigated by a Red-Flag complaint. The dead gun owner had no record of violent or criminal behavior.

Morse writes that these laws are designed for abuse. A gun owner becomes embroiled on the basis of an accusation, which doesn't actually have to be substantiated. Domestic abusers will use red flag laws to disarm their innocent victims. And of course, busy body do gooders who believe they are riding the world of weapons will use these laws to disarm friends and neighbors anonymously. No doubt that may be part of the fun. On the other hand, truly dangerous criminals are unlikely to fall victim to a red falg law because the tend to associate with other criminals. Other criminals, whatever else, understand the need for self defense.

Please read all of Mr. Morse's piece at Slow Facts. You will, I think, see why we are against these laws. There is no way to write this type of law that actually doesn't abuse the innocent.

Surprise! Little Marco Rubio betrays gun owners.

Supposedly, during the Medici's reign in the City of Florence, if one had a problem with a neighbor, a business partner, or some merchant who had done you wrong, the solution was to anonymously put that persons name into a box that was kept at the palace gates.  The accusation was enough to throw the person squealed upon in prison, or worse.  There was no confronting your accuser, no jury of your peers, and no appeal.  If that was you, you were essentially convicted and to hell with your rights.  Today, we seem to be trying to replicate this approach.  It is going backwards, and we don't need to do it.

Senator Rubio, the man Trump referred to as "Little Marco Rubio" has a bill he wants to push, apparently approved by none other than your National Rifle Association to spread so called "Red Flag Laws" nationwide.  A discussion of the bill can be found at Off the Grid Survival (not the greatest language but were all big boys.) Hat tip to David Codrea at the War on Guns.

As I have expressed on several occasions, I have real problems with a law that purports to take away my Constitutionally protected rights on the basis of  ex parte proceeding where the "defendant" has no knowledge that an accusation has been lodged, has no ability to defend his position, and the first time he knows anything about it is a 5;00 AM when sheriff's deputies are beating on his door.

Rubio claims to be solving these problems:

According to Rubio’s team, here’s what the bill will do:

Creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program at the Department of Justice Makes states enacting qualifying laws eligible for funding to help implement such laws, as well as priority consideration for Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grants.

Requires that a qualifying state law be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in the act, including: Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.

Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.

The duration of such order may not exceed 12 months but may be renewed upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence it remains warranted. Respondent has the right to request a hearing to vacate an order or renewal.

Providing a process where a Temporary Ex Parte Extreme Risk Protection Order can be issued if a court finds probable cause to believe that an individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by possessing or purchasing a firearm.

Establishing a felony criminal offense for knowingly making a false statement relating to an Extreme Risk Protection Order regarding a material matter.

Requiring clear processes and instructions for the surrender of a respondent’s firearms should an Extreme Risk Protection Order be issued, as well as clear processes and instructions for the swift return of such firearms upon expiration or successful motion to vacate an order.

Requiring that an issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.

The first problem with such a law is that it targets not those who are truly dangerous, but the generally law abiding who happen to utter an unfortunate comment within the hearing of someone who then runs and files for a protection order.  One can imagine that at a Thanksgiving dinner, Uncle Jim says something like "Well, if they had had guns on those planes on 9/11, they would have gotten those towel heads. "  Eventually, Uncle Jim goes off with the other guys to watch the game, and forgets all about it.  Meanwhile, spinster Aunt Sue, who fears guns and doesn't think anyone should have them, runs to court and says that Uncle Jim needs to be "red flagged" because he wants to kill any Muslim he sees.  Her anonymity is protected, and in any case, the process is ex parte so who's to say she lied?  That will never be prosecuted, though it should be.

Assuming Uncle Jim survives the SWAT team invading his house a 5:00 AM, he isn't rich, and can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars required to get his weapons and his rights back.  So effectively, he is now defenseless.  In any case, the guns themselves were only worth a few thousand dollars whereas he will have to spend tens of thousands to get them back.  The state will hardly take the kind of care of his property that he would have, so if they are a bit rusted, or seized up, well that's just the price of keeping the community safe, right?

Meanwhile a truly dangerous criminal, who truly means to kill and maim people, will not be reported or have his guns taken from him.  Why?  Because who in their right minds believes that he won't find out who narced on him?  Who believes he won't retaliate?  That guy is truly dangerous, and nobody is going to mess with him, including your courts.  Meanwhile your busy taking guns away from blowhards like Uncle Jim who isn't the least bit dangerous.

No, Mr. Rubio, while your process sounds all nice a legal like, it will not work that way in the breech.  Its just an excuse for gun grabbers to take yet more guns from the law abiding, while doing nothing about mass shooters.  Anti-gun lawyers and judges will, out of an abundance of caution, take away the rights of any honest citizen that comes to their attention, and resist ever giving the back their rights.  But the dangerous criminals among us will remain.  ready to strike at a moments notice.

What if what he wants is to kill you?

I am amazed whenever this old saw comes up.  A Chicago woman was assaulted by a man with a knife and defended herself with her own concealed carry gun according to a report at The Federalist. Apparently, Think Progress was furious that she did this stating "The penalty for theft is not death, nor do we want it to be." As the post at The Federalist notes:

Ford’s logic concludes that a woman must first determine the motives of her attacker before she has the right to defend herself.

David Codrea put this more succinctly as "What if he wants to kill you?" I first encountered this line of reasoning when I purchased my first gun for home defense. I was at lunch with a county prosecutor and told him about it. He informed me that if I shot an intruder in my home, he would have to prosecute me on the grounds that the penalty for theft is not death.

One imagines that the law therefore expects a home invasion to go something like this:

Mrs PolyKahr: Wake up! I hear someone downstairs moving around.

Me: Ok, call the police. I will go down and find out what he wants.

Me going down stairs.

Me again: Hello? Who's there?

Bad Guy: Why, yes, my name is BG, and I am here to steal your small screen television set and stereo system (this was 1977 remember.)

Me: Oh, good. Just wanted to make sure you didn't intend to hurt us, just steal our stuff.

BG, pulling a revolver out of his belt: Say, now that you mention it, I didn't want any loose ends. I am just going to shoot you. (Keep in mind that BG here isn't a deep thinker, and hasn't played a number of different scenarios out in his mind.)

Bang bang, as his gun goes off.

 Now, that is the ideal where you may not defend yourself unless and until you have first ascertained his intentions, preferably in writing.  Not very satisfying, is it?  On this basis you are screwed, either way, and the criminal may or may not get justice.  But this is not how a self dense situation works out in real life.  In real life, you are the first responder, and it is up to you to make the split second decisions that will determine if you breathe another day in this life or not.

Good luck!

Democrats Pushing Gun Confiscation in Virginia.

I lived in Northern Virginia, or NOVA as we colloquially called it, for 20 years.  During that time, I experienced the attacks on 9.11.2001.  Those attacks woke me up to the idea that my life, and those of my wife and daughter could be snuffed out at any time though no fault on our part.  A random event like a Columbine shooter, or a bank robbery, or just a mugging gone wrong might happen at any time.  I finally came to the conclusion that I needed to carry a gun and went about the task of obtaining training and a weapon.  I also, in the process changed my attitude for the better, because I was no longer a victim.  Win or lose, I would fight back.

Back then, I looked upon the District, and Maryland and the Northeastern states as foreign occupied America.  Virginia was American occupied America, as were the states to the South and West.  Sadly, however, Democrats have slowly invaded Virginia until we find our former home in its currently reduced state, with a Democrat Governor and a slim majority of Republicans in the Commonwealth legislature.  Those Repbulicans, however, are not terribly pro gun either, just to note.  The fact that the Governor thinks it is a winning strategy to propose a seeping  gun grab says that another state has fallen in the civil war that currently exists in the "United" States. According to the Washington Free Beacon:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun manufacturers and dealers, said the vague description of the legislation released by Northam on Jan. 4 would apply to most firearms currently on sale in the commonwealth.

“The legislative proposals being discussed would put most firearms beyond the reach of law-abiding Virginians who choose the firearms of their choice to protect themselves, hunt, and practice recreational target shooting,” said Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s general counsel. “That could potentially impact the availability of tens of millions of firearms.”

You can read the whole piece by Stephen Gutowski here. Note that Gutowski calls it a "gun confiscation proposal" and in its current form, that's a fair assessment.

Most people today, when they think about Virginia think about the high population centers.  Those would be the counties of Northern Virginia: Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria and Prince William, and then Richmond, Virginia.  But Virginia consists of vast rural area outside these areas.  The people living there have guns for a variety of legal purposes, and they aren't going to give them up because some highfalutin politicians in Richmond with their too big for their britches attitude says so.  It just ain't happening. And turning all those people who have done nothing wrong into instant criminals won't go down well either.  This isn't about public safety, or common sense, or anything other than the Democrats think this is a winning strategy going forward.  They think they have imported enough new voters to push this out there.

During the 20 years I observed Virginia, and traveled about the Commonwealth, I noted that people from high tax, low freedom states like New York and Massachusetts  were moving into Virginia.  All well and good, but they brought the voting habits with them.  Most did not see any relation between the voting patterns where they were and the high taxes and lack of freedom.  I now see the same thing happening here.  When you get here, don't vote for Democrats.  The only way to change a Democrats mind is to deny them the one thing they want most in life: to gain control over the average American.  Don't give them that.

Why We Continue to Have School Shootings?

Rob Morse asks the question: Why We Continue to Have School Shootings? It's a good question. We have known for a long time what will make our schools a less tempting target. We just have not been able to either convince the nay sayers, or to politically overcome them. Meanwhile, every gun owner cringes when another mentally unbalanced person takes to shooting up a school, because we know that the old, tired, and utterly useless bromides will be circulated again.  So, you want to hear the actual truth? Here it is:

We have not stopped these rampages because the news media and political special-interests feed on mass murder.

That sounds harsh. Would people really want children to die rather than to solve a problem in the first place?  However, Morse points out that the probability of being killed or injured in a school shooting is vanishingly small.  We could not afford to put a SWAT team in every school on the off chance that someone might decide to strike a particular school.  The other problem is that even knowing the solution, no one can guarantee that a shooter will never strike at a school again.  People are not that predictable.

So, who benefits from school shootings?  Have you ever heard the saying "If it bleeds, it ledes"?

...The next mass murderer is inspired by the media coverage given to the last mass murder. Today, the US news media gives these murderers a billion dollars of publicity after they kill. We even changed our language to describe them. “Celebrity murderers” and “celebrity violence” are the terms we invented to describe these killers and what they do. Psychologists and media experts said that a third or more of these mass murders could be stopped if we changed media coverage.

No doubt Morse and I will be accused of grossly overstating the case. Journalists don't have an agenda, they just want to keep the public informed.  Except that coverage always seems to sensationalize these maniacs.  Rather than turning away from obviously deranged people whose actions should be shielded for compassionate reasons, the media highlight them, making them "celebrities."  But they have done nothing to celebrate...unless, of course....the media is of the same mind.

Media coverage has gone beyond the public’s “need to know”. Instead, the media exposure actively promotes the next mass murder. Why would the networks inspire evil? I think the media is desperate in the face of declining credibility and their dwindling number of viewers. Many of the major networks will say anything to keep us watching and to support their political agenda.

Then there are the progressive politicians, and the go along to get along RINOs. Progressives have had a goal of disarming the average American for as long as the they have been operating on these shores. Why> Because as long as we have guns, we can resist the trash they keep shoving down our throats.

The average citizen doesn’t know that we already have 23 thousand firearms regulations on the books. Each law, each regulation, was described as essential for public safety, yet politicians failed to deliver on that promise each and every time.

Firearms prohibition hasn’t worked to stop violent crime or to stop mass murder. Gun-control fails where ever it is tried. Gun-control in the Ukraine and Russia are far stricter any legislation proposed in the United States, yet just a few months ago there was a mass school shooting in the Crimea.

All the wasted ink of legislation hasn’t kept blood off the floor. The political promises made in front of the TV cameras were hollow. Gun laws haven’t stopped the crazies and criminals from killing, so why do anti-gun Democrats propose more of the same failed ideas?

Progressives have always worked to undermine the idea of limited Government. Each school shooting brings calls for more gun-control. Destroying the Second Amendment is essential to the Progressive project because the Second Amendment is a constant rebuke to their primary goal of unlimited government power.

Read the whole thing, of course. Please also remember that if a politician does not trust you and me with a gun, he is probably not to be trusted himself. And if he can't be trusted himself or herself, maybe he or she should not be allowed near the levers of power? Just a thought.

The Left Culturally Appropriates Christian Doctrine

As a Christian, one who tries to follow my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, but who often falls short, I get a little upset when non Christian use the Bible to try to score political points. Apparently, I am not alone in this, because Deana Chadwell has a piece over at the American Thinker entitled How the Left Appropriates Christianity. Ms. Chadwell writes:

Secondly, the Bible is not a catalog of verses to grab willy-nilly when we want to browbeat someone into agreeing with us. Both legalistic and liberal Christians are often guilty of doing that. Okay, a proof-text is sometimes necessary, but it should never be taken out of its immediate context, nor out of the context of the entire Bible. Nor should it be used without careful consideration of the historical background against which the verse is set; neither should it be applied without checking the correctness of the translation being quoted.

When a person who only knows the Book by reputation (from movies, or cheap novels, or anti-Christian professors) throws a Bible verse at me, I find it very trying. Some of that is pride, which is my fault, but much of it is ire at hearing this astounding Book handled so cavalierly, so belligerently, and so ignorantly.

I am reminded here of a short conversation with a Leftist wherein he brought up the that Jesus advocated heavy taxation for social programs because in his advice to the Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18: 18-23) he told the Rich Young Ruler to "So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”" I had to point out that this needed to be a voluntary action, and one taken with joy, not as some horrible duty. Jesus didn't say "Have Ceasar sieze everything you own and distribute it to those most likely to vote for him." There is a difference. As I said, it was a short conversation.

Then, of course, there is the ridiculous issue of border security, of defending our borders against illegal immigration, and allowing just so many in each year.  As always, one must note that one is not against immigration, just illegal immigration.  But while were at it, why must we accept immigrants from countries that want to change us?  I find it odd that people want to come here, and then vote to change us into the places from which they came.  Why not simply stay where you are?  You want Sharia?  Go to a Muslim majority country.  Voila', instant Sharia.  You want Communism?  There are several Communist and Socialist countries to choose from.  Try you luck with one of them.  North Korea, I hear, is a lovely place, as is Cuba.  And according to Michael Moore, you get free health care in Cuba!  What a perk.

Recently, I got into a discussion with a Leftist, who was trying his best to get my goat over my voting for President Trump.  After a bit of back an forth, he came out with how President Trump was keeping children in cages.  I pointed out those pictures were from 2014 when Obama was in office.  He tried to deflect by saying that this was because no one could get in to take pictures now.  I pointed out that even if it was true, and the ubiquity of cell phones with cameras made it unlikely, that it still did not make it Trump's fault that Obama kept children in cages.  Seeing he was losing, he turned to the old "Didn't Jesus say to let the little children come to him/"  Now this guy identifies as an American Indian (think Elizabeth Warren) and practices some version of American Indian sprituality, complete with sacred fires and drum circles.  I then pointed out that what Jesus said was "Let the little children come to me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."  The context had nothing to do with immigration.  After that he said I just did not have enough compassion.  I then point out that there are 5 billion poor people in the world.  Why do these, at our Southern border, deserve any more consideration than the other 5 billion.  Furthermore, if we took the attitude that anyone coming to this country from a poor nation should automatically get in, could we actually afford to take care of them all?  Another short conversation.

Go read the article.  It is good. 

Making America Moral Again

Unless something comes up between now and the new year,  this will likely be the last post before January 1, 2019.  So, it is fitting then that an important think piece by Selwyn Duke is the article being highlighted today.  The article, at The American Thinker is entitled Restoring Civilization. Duke expends considerable ink debunking the notion that either moral relativism, or more likely, moral nihilism has any relation to true morality at all. Such notions of "morality" have at their heart, the notion that man is indeed the measure of all things, and thus what is moral today can change tomorrow. We have seen this happen with abortion, with transgenderism, with the LBTQxyz movement, and lately with the idea that our rights can be taken away because ...well...the majority thinks so.  Various excuses are offered such as the right not to be offended, or public safety, but in the end these are just fig leafs covering our nakedness.

Duke makes the point that in order to make America great again, we must first invest the time and effort to make America moral again.  Duke gives examples:

Well, imagine the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla. Would this make vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? It’s just a matter of preference, of whatever flavor works for you.

Okay, but is it any more logical saying murder is “bad” or “wrong” if we only do so because the vast majority of the world prefers we not kill others in a manner the vast majority considers “unjust”? If it’s all just consensus “opinion,” it then occupies the same category as flavors: preference.

One can see that if there is no absolute truth, no moral authority beyond ourselves, then even a situation like The Purge would be "moral." The Purge represents people taking revenge for the smallest hurts for which they otherwise can not get "justice." Were you just laid off at the Chevy factory when you neighbor drives up in a brand new BMW. The Purge is your answer.   Come purge night, make the bastard pay for belittling you in the most public way.

Conservatives and libertarians have often written about our decaying morality by talking in humanistic terms about the consequences of one item or another.  Unfortunately, people don't believe them, or else believe that the consequences won't happen to them.  Everyone is afraid to offend their fellow beings by bringing up the "G" word, or worse, the "J" word.  How gauche!

Perhaps we should all talk a little more about God, about sin, about the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, One with God and the Holy Ghost.  From there, we know that murder is a sin.  Abortion is murder.  Theft, robbery, fraud, are all sins.  Bearing false witness is sin.  God created mankind male and female.  Just two genders.  You are what you are, God doesn't make mistakes. And God, or Creator, endowed us with certain inalienable rights, among these being life, liberty, and the ownership of property.

Selwyn Duke is correct, that efforts to make America great must start by making America moral.  Everything else is just putting a band aid on a gaping infected wound.