Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 761, March 9, 2014

Don't You Know There is a War On?

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 3-9-2014
by Neale Osborn

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

As has become my custom I shall begin this one with a piece from Mama Liberty, AKA Susan Callaway, NRA certified instructor for firearms and self defense. [Link] Today's entry is one of her older treatises on situational awareness and self defense. EVEN if you arev well trained in self defense, a few minutes to review the material, and compare it to your regular practices might be a good idea.... Yes, Rob, they ARE hypocrites. [Link] Didn't you realize that they've ALWAYS been more equal than the rest of us?

You have special rules and special exemptions if you're a favored government employee. You're exempt from the regulations limiting ammunition magazine capacity, exempt from gun storage requirements, "smart gun" restrictions, and buying handguns from California's approved roster. Those laws only apply only to us, the everyday citizen. That smells like political favoritism to me. It stinks.

Who is exempt? These laws apply to you and me, but not to sheriff's deputies and police officers. Not to the highway patrol, the department of fish and game, corrections officers or probation officers. Oops, I almost forgot the auxiliary and honorary officers and deputies. Then there are retired law enforcement officers who get special rules just for them. These "life saving firearms regulations" don't apply to the security staff at the state capital! I see a pattern. Honest gun owners are told that California gun laws are not punitive or inconvenient. We are told these laws are essential to public safety.

Yet each time these public safety laws are written, public safety officers are the first to receive exemptions.

Of course they do! They are more worthy of protection, and protection requires the best. we, the little people aren't worth protecting. Di Fi made that quite clear when she said "If I had the votes, it would have been Mr and Mrs America, turn them in." while having a CCW in her purse.

Gee, is this another Chinese attempt at population control? [Link] By denying their citizens the right to own guns, for ANY reason (Mao, after all, said political power comes from the barrel of a gun—they obviously don't want the Chinese people to have any power at all), 27 people are dead and 100 +/- wounded by a gang of knife wielding thugs. Oh, wait. Maybe I shouldn't print this—the Victim Disarmament Crowd will start advocating banning all knives with blades longer than 1 inch.

A group of knife-wielding men attacked a train station in southwestern China on Saturday, leaving at least 27 dead and more than 100 injured, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

Xinhua did not provide more details about the evening attack at the Kunming Railway Station in Yunnan province, and the attackers were not identified. Kunming city police said they did not have immediate information to release.
The motive behind the attack was not immediately clear, but China has seen a number of mass stabbings and other attacks carried out by people bearing grudges against society.

Hmmmmm, Population control—either to lower the population or to politically control it. You decide which.

Read this man's letter. [Link] The next Thomas Jefferson? There is so much about the Connecticut assault on the Constitution, but this one seems to me to be among the best. [Link] Connecticut Carry, a (obviously) pro-2nd Amendment organization, told the foisters of this piece of crap law where to get off.

"From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur."—Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta
...State officials look down the barrel of the laws that they created, and it is very probably that they now tremble as they rethink the extremity of their folly. Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision: Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or else repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety.

As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it's time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.

Of course, there's ALSO this one. [Link]

Cinque rightly points out that this is an unconstitutional law. He then goes down the list: "You register your AR, you register your magazines and you say we can keep everything we have, but it's not going to prevent the next Sandy Hook, correct? It's a simple 'Yes' or 'No.'"

"We don't know that definitively," Yaccarino said.

"You absolutely know that," Cinque retorted.

Then came Cinque's ultimate question, "What are you going to do about those of us who will not comply with this law?"
Cinque responded, "So I'm a thirty year public servant, twenty year fireman, OK? United States Navy veteran, upstanding citizen all my life with three children, and with the stroke of a pen from the ivory tower, with the gold top, you've decided to create me to be a felon; a Class D felony, for doing absolutely nothing wrong."

Thunderous applause erupted from the crowd gathered in New Haven.

"It's wrong," Cinque continued.

Apparently the lawmaker couldn't understand how Cinque would become a felon. However, Mr. Cinque said he would choose not to comply with the law. "That's your right," responded the representative.

And, as this woman found out, the CT officials, including the police spokesman Lt. Vance, forgets who his masters really are. [Link]

A woman known as "Ashley" called and spoke to Lt. Vance regarding the possible repercussions of the refusal of many of the state's residents to either register their firearms or turn them over, in compliance with the state's ridiculous new law. Things are getting heated in the state as tens of thousands refuse to comply with the unconstitutional law, the home addresses of pro-gun control members of the state legislature have been published, and a well-armed patriot group points out, "We are familiar with the finer points of marksmanship."

Vance said so many outrageous things during the taped call that it's hard to limit ourselves to just a couple of quotes, but here are the two that really tell the tale:

"Ma'am, it sounds like you're anti-American, it sounds like you're anti-law.""I'm the master, ma'am. I'm the master."

Well, enough about Connecticut. Let's move on to other places the next "Shot heard 'round the World" might occur. Maryland is moving towards confiscation. [Link] No, registration doesn't lead to confiscation. And the check is in the mail. Okay.... ONE more Connecticut piece. A nice summation of events. [Link]

Where we are today? Connecticut has an unenforceable law on its books. So many gun owners refused to follow the law that Connecticut does not have the physical or fiscal means to enforce their law. The ranks of law enforcement, the number of courts, and the number of prisons would have to grow ten fold. The costs of court trials and prison incarcerations are enough to bankrupt the state. There are other costs as well.

How could the situation get worse? Police have murdered innocent civilians during no-knock raids. It is a sad fact, but it has happened and is commonly known. Though the media will try and cover for them, police and politicians will have blood on their hands if they injure civilian gun owners during firearm confiscation. Police violence will further heighten the fear felt by honest gun owners in Connecticut. Connecticut gun owners could try and protect themselves if people violently break into their homes. This could lead to further bloodshed for all concerned. Police and politicians would then be seen as murderous oppressors rather than defenders of a fair and impartial justice system.

NOW I'm done with Connecticut.... for this rant, at least.

I want this headboard. [Link] Though mine would have a 1911 AND a shotgun.

If rumors be true, lads and lasses, even that dirty Russian TulAmmo crap will be off the market quite soon. [Link] this is the first place I've heard this, so take it as rumor, not fact. On a side note, I have found some VERY nice Serbian ammo (in a bright blue box), 165 grain JHP for my .40 S&W Taurus Millenium PT140 that feeds great, shoots to point of aim consistently, and ISN'T dirty crap that fouls up my guns like TulAmmo does. AND it's reloadable brass-cased ammo, not steel cased disposable Russian crap.

Will miracles never cease? AGAIN, the most liberal, usually anti-2nd Amendment, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down an unConstitutional Kahleefourneeeyah gun law. Or at least part of one. [Link]

Just weeks after striking down the San Diego County "good cause" requirement as burdensome to the exercise of the Second Amendment, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Yolo County, CA's requirement that a concealed carry applicant "prove they face a threat of violence or robbery" before being allowed to carry a gun.

According to The Sacramento Bee, the ruling came via an "unpublished memorandum" on March 5. The 3-judge panel that issued the memorandum is the same as that which issued the broader ruling against "good cause" on February 13.

As with the decision against "good cause," the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Yolo County "policy impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

This ruling "effects only Yolo County directly" and "serves notice" to Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto that his policy of requiring concealed carry applicants to "prove they face a threat" is unconstitutional.

Who'da thunk it? Judges, actually doing their jobs (sorta) and upholding the Constitution (again, sorta). I'm waiting for a judge to strike down the entire concept of CCW licenses/permits and ruling that carry MUST be Vermont-style "Constitutional Carry", where no licensev is required for concealed OR open carry. But I won't hold my breath.

Remember Mike Vanderboegh from last week's rant? Well, he's been warned that CT police and politicians "want you dead or in jail." [Link] No, I sincerely doubt that any of our fine, upstanding politicians would ever resort to illegal activities against an American citizens excercising his 1st and 2nd Amendment rights (he says with tongue firmly in check and a sarcastic grin on his face), but if I were Mike, I'd be avoiding Connecticut for a wee bit!

After Vanderboegh returned from a trip, he was met with several messages making it clear that he had rattled numerous lawmakers who voted for the law and were now seeking personal protective details as a response to his letter. "They also want you in jail," Vanderboegh was told.

Vanderboegh said a source within the CT state police warned him, "Mike, the upper echelons don't know whether to shit or go blind. You really hit them with those last two letters. Much discussion—some whispering and more than a little shouting. They realize that this is a PR nightmare and they don't know what to do about it. I heard (a supervisor) cussing Malloy and Lawlor and that (graphic expletive deleted) Vance. All of a sudden they're starting to realize that we are on the line to be shot at and not them. The higher ups (like Vance) can afford to be in denial. We can't."

Again, I ask, will Connecticut become the location for the 2nd "Shot heard 'round the world?" Remember, Bunker Hill was in response to an attempt by "legal authority" to confiscate privately owned firearms. though this time, I don't see the authority as being military, but rather the foolish few cops willing to steal guns er, confiscate unlawful firearms from their fellow citizens.

Do we need MORE proof that Facebook sucks, and is a liberal's paradise? [Link] Zuckerberg COULD have said (legitimately, I might add) that what consenting adults choose to sell or trade on his site is not his responsibility. But no, he claims he is going to ban "unregulated sales" of firearms through FaceBook. Tell, Markie-boy, exactly HOW you intend to tell who is "properly regulated" to sell firearms? ESPECIALLY since all regulation of firearms sales is ridiculous AND unConstitutional.

Social media giant Facebook on Wednesday announced new policies designed to tamp down on unregulated firearm transactions over its network, earning praise from groups who see the Internet as the world's largest gun store.

Under the new policy, Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram will block minors from seeing posts about the sales of guns and other regulated items, require pages used for that purpose to include language reminding people of the applicable legal restrictions and warn sellers that they are bound to comply with those laws.

Do you REALLY think a stern warning will stop us?

What ever happened to privacy and "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? [Link] Apparently, this Clackamas County Cop figures, "If I stop'em, I can do whatever I wish, and post photos of them anywhere I want, because they MUST be guilty."

The deputy said he pulled him over for a lane change that left him following too close to the vehicle in front, but gave him a ticket for window tint.

What is interesting about the video is that the deputy uses his personal iPhone camera to take pictures of the vehicle, the plate, the driver, and god knows what else.

With a little research, Zimmerman was able to find out that the deputy has been photographing people he tickets and posting the photographs online as a virtual "dart board" for his personal friends—most of which are probably cops to make fun of.

Here's a cop who needs to find a new career, AND to be the subject of a few civil rights lawsuits. This behavior is offensive AND unConstitutional.

Methinks I must put this rant to rest, and start next week's rant tonight.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

Big Head Press