Thursday, February 22, 2018

Sheriff's Say Gun Wars Civil War Before Gun Confiscations

Maryland Sheriff Says It Will Be CIVIL WAR Before Gun Confiscation
Some sheriffs protest gun restrictions; others refuse to enforce the laws
By Marlena Chertock, Emilie Eaton, Jacy Marmaduke and Sydney Stavinoha
NEWS 21

Sheriff Mike Lewis considers himself the last man standing for the people of Wicomico County.

“State police and highway patrol get their orders from the governor,” the Maryland sheriff said. “I get my orders from the citizens in this county.”

With more states passing stronger gun control laws, rural sheriffs across the country are taking the meaning of their age-old role as defenders of the Constitution to a new level by protesting such restrictions, News21 found.

Some are refusing to enforce the laws altogether.

Sheriffs in states like New York, Colorado and Maryland argue that some gun control laws defy the Second Amendment and threaten rural culture, for which gun ownership is often an integral component.

They’re joined by groups like Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, both of which encourage law enforcement officers to take a stand against gun control laws.

“It’s not (the judge’s) job to tell me what I can and can’t enforce,” – Weld County, Colo. Sheriff John Cooke

Lewis and some other sheriffs across the nation, most of them elected by residents of their counties, say their role puts them in the foremost position to stand up to gun laws they consider unconstitutional.

“The role of a sheriff is to be the interposer between the law and the citizen,” said Maryland Delegate Don Dwyer, an Anne Arundel County Republican. “He should stand between the government and citizen in every issue pertaining to the law.”

While the position of sheriff is not found in the U.S. Constitution, it is listed in state constitutions: Article XIV of Colorado’s, Article XV of Delaware’s, Part VII of Maryland’s and Article XIII of New York’s. Nearly all of America’s 3,080 sheriffs are elected to their positions, whereas most state and city police top commanders are appointed.

Upstate New York sheriffs don’t understand why the state passed the
SAFE Act when, as they see it, the only place with a gun problem is
New York City. The governor signed the act last year in response to
the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
When Lewis was president of the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association, he testified with other sheriffs against the state’s Firearms Safety Act(FSA) before it was enacted in 2013. One of the strictest gun laws in the nation, the act requires gun applicants to supply fingerprints and complete training to obtain a handgun license online. It bans 45 types of firearms, limits magazines to 10 rounds and outlaws gun ownership for people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

After Lewis opposed the FSA, he said he was inundated with emails, handwritten letters, phone calls and visits from people thanking him for standing up for gun rights. He keeps a stuffed binder in his office with the laminated notes.

“I knew this was a local issue, but I also knew it had serious ramifications on the U.S. Constitution, specifically for our Second Amendment right,” said Lewis, one of 24 sheriffs in the state. “It ignited fire among sheriffs throughout the state. Those in the rural areas all felt the way I did.”

In New York, the state sheriff’s association has publicly decried portions of the SAFE Act, legislation that broadened the definition of a banned assault weapon, outlawed magazines holding more than 10 rounds and created harsher punishments for anyone who kills a first-responder in the line of duty. The act was intended to establish background checks for ammunition sales, although that provision hasn’t taken effect.

A handful of the state’s 62 sheriffs have vowed not to enforce the high-capacity magazine and assault-weapon bans. One of the most vocal is Sheriff Tony Desmond of Schoharie County, population 32,000. He believes his refusal to enforce the SAFE Act won him re-election in 2013.

“If you have an (assault) weapon, which under the SAFE Act is considered illegal, I don’t look at it as being illegal just because someone said it was,” he said.

Desmond’s deputies haven’t made a single arrest related to the SAFE Act. Neither has the office of Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum of Ulster County. Van Blarcum said it’s not his job to interpret the Constitution, so he’ll enforce the law. But he said police should use discretion when enforcing the SAFE Act and determining whether to make arrests, as they do when administering tickets.

In Otsego County, New York, population 62,000, Sheriff Richard Devlin takes a similar approach. He enforces the SAFE Act but doesn’t make it a priority.

Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis is taking a strong stance against
potential limits to Maryland citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
“I feel as an elected official and a chief law enforcement officer of the county it would be irresponsible for me to say, ‘I’m not going to enforce a law I personally disagree with,’” he said. “If someone uses a firearm in commission of a crime, I’m going to charge you with everything I have, including the SAFE Act. I won’t do anything as far as confiscating weapons. We’re not checking out registrations. People that are lawfully using a firearm for target shooting, we’re not bothering those people.”

Colorado made national headlines when 55 of the state’s 62 sheriffs attempted to sign on as plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of several 2013 gun control bills in the state. The most-controversial measures banned magazines of more than 15 rounds and established background checks for private gun sales.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke sits in his office in Greeley, Colo., on June 6, 2014. Cooke was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the governor when the state legislature passed gun control laws in 2013. Cooke says the new laws are unenforceable and unconstitutional. (Photo by Morgan Spiehs/News 21)
A federal judge said the sheriffs couldn’t sue as elected officials, so Weld County Sheriff John Cooke and eight other sheriffs sued as private citizens. Cooke was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, which a federal district judge threw out in June. He and the other plaintiffs are preparing an appeal.

“It’s not (the judge’s) job to tell me what I can and can’t enforce,” Cooke said. “I’m still the one that has to say where do I put my priorities and resources? And it’s not going to be there.”

Cooke has won fans with his opposition. He, like Maryland’s Sheriff Lewis, keeps a novel-thick stack of praise and thank-you notes in his office. He’ll run for a Colorado Senate seat in November and is endorsed by the state’s major gun lobby, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

Lewis, who is running for re-election this year, said sheriffs have a responsibility to push against what he sees as the federal government’s continual encroachment on citizens’ lives and rights.

“Where do we draw a line?” he asked. “I made a vow and a commitment that as long as I’m the sheriff of this county I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my law-abiding citizens of the right to bear arms. If they attempt to do that it will be an all-out civil war. Because I will stand toe-to-toe with my people.”

But Brian Frosh, a Maryland state senator and an FSA sponsor and gun-control advocate of Montgomery County, said Lewis’ understanding of a sheriff’s role is flawed.

“If you are a sheriff in Maryland you must take an oath to uphold the law and the Constitution,” said Frosh, now the Democratic nominee for Maryland attorney general. “You can’t be selective. It’s not up to a sheriff to decide what’s constitutional and what isn’t. That’s what our courts are for.”

Bronx County, New York, Sen. Jeffrey Klein, who co-sponsored the SAFE Act, agreed that sheriffs who refuse to enforce laws they disagree with are acting out of turn. Constitutional sheriffs are not lawyers or judges, Frosh said, which means they are following their convictions instead of the Constitution.

“We had lots of people come in (to testify against the bill) and without any basis say, ‘This violates the Second Amendment,’” Frosh said. “They can cite the Second Amendment, but they couldn’t explain why this violates it. And the simple fact is it does not. There is a provision of our Constitution that gives people rights with respect to firearms, but it’s not as expansive as many of these people think.”

But sheriffs have the power to nullify, or ignore, a law if it is unconstitutional, Maryland Delegate Dwyer said. He said James Madison referred to nullification as the rightful remedy for the Constitution.

“The sheriffs coming to testify on the bill understood the issue enough and were brave enough to come to Annapolis and make the bold stand that on their watch, in their county, they would not enforce these laws even if they passed,” said Dwyer, who has recognized the sheriffs for their courage. “That is the true role and responsibility of what the sheriff is.”

Rural versus Urban Divide
Some rural sheriffs argue that gun control laws are more than just unconstitutional — they’re unnecessary and irrelevant. In towns and villages where passers-by stop to greet deputies and call local law enforcement to ask for help complying with gun laws, they say, firearms are less associated with crime than they are with a hunting and shooting culture that dates back to when the communities were founded.

Edward Amelio, a deputy in Lewis County, New York, shares that sentiment. There’s no normal day for Amelio, who has patrolled the 27,000-person county for eight years. But he usually responds to domestic disputes, burglaries and car accidents. That’s why he considers the SAFE Act unnecessary.

“We issue orders of protection and some contain a clause the judge puts in there saying a person’s guns are to be confiscated,” Amelio said. “That’s mostly when we deal with guns.”

Zachary Reinhart, a deputy sheriff in Schoharie County, New York, said he responds to a wide variety of calls, too.

“Our calls range from accidental 911 dials to domestic disputes to bar fights,” he said. “You can’t really typify a day at the Schoharie County Sheriff’s Office. It’s all pretty helter-skelter.”

Violent crime also isn’t common in Wicomico County, Maryland, where Lewis is sheriff. He receives daily shooting reports from the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center, which are not available for public disclosure.

“You always see ‘nothing to report’ in the eastern region, in the southern region, in the northern region, in the western region,” Lewis said. “But the Baltimore central region? Homicide after homicide after homicide.”

Even though there are few gun crimes in rural areas, Sheriff Michael Carpinelli in Lewis County argues that people need guns for self-defense.

“People rely on the police in an urban environment to come and protect you all the time,” he said. “People who live in a rural area also rely upon the police, but they realize that they live further out from those resources and that they may have to take action themselves.”

Duke law professor Joseph Blocher said gun culture has varied in urban and rural areas for centuries.

“It has long been the case that gun use and ownership and gun culture are concentrated in rural areas, whereas support for gun control and efforts to curb gun violence are concentrated in urban areas,” he said. “In the last couple decades we’ve moved away from that towards a more-centralized gun control.”

“When I was five years old, my grandmother was raped, and I was with her when it happened. I remember getting on the telephone and dialing the operator and saying, ‘I need the police.’ And I couldn’t tell her where, and I couldn’t tell her for who, and I was told to hang up and don’t play pranks. At five years old, what do you do? You don’t know. A neighbor had heard my grandmother screaming and took up his shotgun and ran to the woods and held the person at bay that was raping my grandmother. I think that’s probably what made me want to become a police officer. I didn’t want to see that happen to anybody else.” —Sheriff Michael Carpinelli, Lewis County, N.Y.  (Photo by Emilie Eaton/News21)
Lewis bemoaned lawmakers who craft gun-control legislation but are ignorant about guns. “They have no idea between a long gun and a handgun,” he said. “Many of them admittedly have never fired a weapon in their lives.”

But Klein, the Bronx County senator, said he does understand the gun and hunting culture in upstate New York.

“Growing up, my father was in the military,” Klein said. “When I was younger, I had a .22-caliber gun. In the past, I’ve gone pheasant hunting, quail hunting. It’s great,” he said. “I mean, there’s nothing that we do in Albany, especially with the SAFE Act, that in any way takes away someone’s right to own a gun for hunting purposes.”

Oath Keepers and CSPOA
If former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack had it his way, there wouldn’t be a single gun control law in the U.S.

“I studied what the Founding Fathers meant about the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and the conclusion is inescapable,” said Mack, the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). “There’s no way around it. Gun control in America is against the law.”

“The people here they are like the original rebels that rebelled against England. They’re strong in their thoughts. They will protect themselves, protect their families and they cherish and respect their freedoms. One of the biggest freedoms that they have is the right to keep and bear arms.” —Sheriff Tony Desmond, Schoharie County, N.Y.  (Photo by Emilie Eaton/News21)
He knows his no-compromise stance has cost him and the CSPOA the support of some sheriffs and law enforcement organizations around the country. And it’s resulted in civil rights agencies labeling CSPOA an anti-government “patriot group.”

But Mack, the former sheriff in eastern Arizona’s rural Graham County, is not letting up. His conviction is central to the ideology of CSPOA, which he founded in 2011 to “unite all public servants and sheriffs, to keep their word to uphold, defend, protect, preserve and obey” the Constitution, according to his introduction letter on the association’s website.

CSPOA also has ties to Oath Keepers, an organization founded in 2009 with a similar goal to unite veterans, law enforcement officers and first-responders who pledge to keep their oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Mack serves on the Oath Keepers Board of Directors.

“I’m very proud that the people have put me into this office. As I said, I ran unopposed four years ago and I’m unopposed again this year. I guess I must be doing a good job. It’s an honor to serve the residents. There’s difficult things at times. The SAFE Act is one of those difficult things that you have to deal with and you do the best that you can and you try to be fair to everybody.” —Sheriff Richard Devlin, Ostego County, N.Y.  (Photo by Emilie Eaton/News21)
Oath Keepers is larger and farther-reaching than CSPOA, with active chapters in 48 states and the District of Columbia, and an estimated national membership of 40,000. Its website features a declaration of “orders we will not obey,” including those to disarm Americans, impose martial law on a state and blockade cities.

CSPOA grabbed media attention in February with a growing list of sheriffs — 484 as of late July — professing opposition to federal gun control. Detailed with links beside each name, the sheriffs’ stances run the gamut from refusals to impose a litany of federal and state gun-control laws, to vague vows to protect their constituents’ Second Amendment rights, to law critiques that stop short of promising noncompliance.

“Why are we being penalized? Why are we being crucified because we’re standing up for our Second Amendment right? Why does everybody look at us like we’re right-wing nuts because we’re standing up for our constitutional rights?” —Sheriff Mike Lewis, Wicomico County, Md.  (Photo by Sydney Stavinoha/News21)
Only 16 of those 484 are listed as CSPOA members.

Some sheriffs perceive Oath Keepers and CSPOA as too radical to associate with. Desmond, of Schoharie County, New York, is known around his state for openly not enforcing provisions of the SAFE Act that he considers unconstitutional. Still, he’s not a member of either organization.

“I understand where they are, I guess, but I just have to worry right here myself,” Desmond said. “I don’t want to get involved with somebody that may be a bit more proactive when it comes to the SAFE Act. I want to have the image that I protect gun owners, but I’m not fanatical about it.”

Mack is familiar with that sentiment. He suspects it’s hindered the growth of CSPOA.

“This is such a new idea for so many sheriffs that it’s hard for them to swallow it,” Mack said. “They’ve fallen into the brainwashing and the mainstream ideas that you just have to go after the drug dealers and the DUIs and serve court papers — and that the federal government is the supreme law of the land.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights nonprofit that classifies and combats hate and extremist groups, included both CSPOA and Oath Keepers on its list of 1,096 anti-government “patriot” groups active in 2013. Both groups have faced criticism for their alleged connections to people accused of crimes that range from possessing a live napalm bomb to shooting and killing two Las Vegas police officers and a bystander in June.

Media representatives from the Southern Poverty Law Center did not return phone calls and emails requesting comment.

Franklin Shook, an Oath Keepers board member who goes by the pseudonym “Elias Alias,” said the organization doesn’t promote violence, but rather a message of peaceful noncompliance.

“What Oath Keepers is saying is … when you get an order to go to somebody’s house and collect one of these guns, just stand down,” Shook said. “Say peacefully, ‘I refuse to carry out an unlawful order,’ and we, the organization, will do everything in our power to keep public pressure on your side to keep you from getting in trouble for standing down. That makes Oath Keepers extremely dangerous to the system.”

The Future of Gun Control Laws
Self-proclaimed constitutional sheriffs hope that courts will oust gun control measures in their states — but they recognize that may not happen. Lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of gun control legislation in Maryland, New York and Colorado have been, for the most part, unsuccessful.

In New York, five SAFE Act-related lawsuits have yielded few results: One lawsuit resulted in an expansion of the magazine limit from seven rounds to 10, but the rest of the measures were thrown out and are awaiting appeal; a similar lawsuit was stayed; a third was thrown out and denied appeal; and two additional lawsuits have been combined but are stagnating in court.

Plaintiffs in the Colorado sheriff lawsuit are preparing to appeal the decision of a federal district judge who in June upheld the constitutionality of the 2013 gun control laws.

A lawsuit seeking to overturn Maryland’s assault weapons and high-capacity magazine bans went to trial in July, but the judge has yet to issue a ruling.

“My hope is that the governor will look at it now that it’s been a year plus and say, ‘We’ve had some provisions that have failed. Let’s sit down and look at this and have a meaningful conversation.’” New York’s Devlin said. “I personally don’t see that happening, but I’d like to see that happen.”

__
http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/some-sheriffs-protest-gun-restrictions-others-refuse-to-enforce-laws/









Monday, February 19, 2018

PEOPLE CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL

#FireSheriffScottIsrael    39 visits to the shooters home and they did nothing

THE RIGHT SIDE
BY BUDD SCHROEDER
FEBRUARY 21, 2018

            PEOPLE CONTROL,  NOT GUN CONTROL


            The recent tragedy in a Florida school predictably brings up the cry for more gun control and it is still not the solution to deal with the acts of evil or crazy people.  It is a terrible action and people demand that the government do something to prevent repeats of any tragic event that isn’t a natural disaster.
            The first cry is for more gun control.  It is a conditioned response for any mass murder that involves a firearm.  However, that is about as logical as saying we can stop the deaths of drug addicts if we have tougher drug laws. We tried that and that doesn’t seem to be working, either.
            The massacre, like more than 92 percent of the mass shootings occurred in a gun free zone.  Perhaps that should be one of the prime considerations to consider when looking for a solution.  The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
            We cry about the deaths caused by drunk drivers, but nobody has started a movement to have stricter controls on the purchase of alcohol.   There was a period of time in American history where the government actually banned the sale and use of alcohol.  It proved that the “cure” was worse than the “disease.”
            Of course with the drunk driving problem (and it is a big one) nobody has addressed that if it wasn’t for cars, we wouldn’t have a large number of deaths because of drunks.  Neither of these causes of death has suggested banning or stricter government control of these products.
            There is another leading cause of death that also gets a pass from the government.  That is the multiple negative health conditions caused by cigarette smoking.  The high rate of deaths by heart disease, cancer, and pulmonary problems could be greatly reduced if people didn’t smoke.
            We see commercials on TV that show horrible examples of what can happen to smokers, but for all practical purposes, the only restriction is that stores can’t sell tobacco products to minors.  Is it possible that there isn’t much governmental intervention with smoking because the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol brings in a lot of tax revenue?  It is amazing what large sums of money can do regarding legislative involvement.
            To solve a problem, one must be able to competently define the problem, and while a gun is involved in any shooting, is the fault of the gun?  Of course not!  It is the actions of an evil or mentally deranged person. Here is where the big question comes in.
            The investigation of Nikolis Cruz began with his background .  It appears that he is a loner with unresolved issues that were not dealt with and should have been.  He had been reported to local law enforcement agencies and even by the FBI. Neither did their jobs properly.
            He should have, at the very least, been placed on the NICS list which would have made him unable to legally purchase a gun.  They screwed up and now, the gun is to blame?  If a person has a driver’s license and then drives drunk, it is the fault of a liquor store who sold him a bottle of booze six months earlier, the cause of his abuse of the product?
    He used what the media terms to be an “assault weapon.”  This is a term they use to confuse the public.  An “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic rifle that has a selector switch that will make it fully automatic.  However, it suits the anti-gun zealots purpose, so they use it.
Rational people realize that the same amount of damage could be done with any modern firearm, or by using other methods.  Timothy McVeigh killed more than seven times as many people using a rented truck and common fertilizer and fuel oil.  Others have killed more with fire bombs and homemade explosive devices.
What makes people commit such violent crimes?  We didn’t have that big a problem fifty years ago. What makes young people tend to be more ready to commit such atrocities? Some will blame it on how the child is raised, influences when growing up, medications, and attitudes.  Some say it is because they are being desensitized by media and electronic games.
There may be truth to some or all of them. For example, the horror movies we see make dismemberments, torture, and mass killings entertaining.  A generation or so ago kids would go outside and play games with each other as a matter of growing up.  Now, they spend their time with an electronic device playing games and interact with their friends by texting on their cell phones.
Sometimes they talk to each other on their phones, but when is the last time people could comment about seeing the kids playing games that gave them exercise rather than eyestrain or hearing problems?
The games that are popular are, more often than not, based on violence.  To win points it is necessary to shoot someone or dispatch them in some other fashion, but killing is part of the game. Isn’t there something wrong with that kind of conditioning?  That kind of impression on expressional minds can have a significant effect on attitudes.
In this case, whatever the motive for the killing of people in a school, by a person who demonstrated and mentioned on social media that he wanted to be a “professional school killer,” should have been a huge red flag. He had contact with law enforcement agencies and school personnel who did not react in a proper manner.  Had they done so, they could have saved seventeen lives.
Blaming a certain kind of gun for the actions of a deranged person who should (and could) have been stopped before he became a murderer, is inexcusable.  When placing blame for a tragedy, it should be done where the blame belongs.
Taking away Second Amendment rights by banning guns from honest, law-abiding people won’t make a good, rational person out of a criminal or crazy person.  The problem has been defined.  It is the dangerous people who need the control, not guns.
                                                -30-

Monday, February 12, 2018

TIME FOR ANGER & OUTRAGE by Budd Schroeder

THE RIGHT SIDE

BY BUDD SCHROEDER

February 14, 2015



                      TIME FOR ANGER AND OUTRAGE.



            This is going to be an interesting year regarding the state elections.  Every assembly and senate seat is up for grabs and traditionally, the reelection rate is more than 90 percent.  With the districts so gerrymandered, change usually has to come from primaries.  Also Governor Andrew Cuomo is also running and incumbency is usually a big edge.

            However, New York has been facing a lot of bad publicity and the governor is in the middle of it.  It has been 96 years since and upstate candidate was elected to that office, and decades since the leadership in the senate and assembly came from west of the Big Apple.

            This year there could be a change because of a couple of big issues.  The first one is the corruption trial going on where Cuomo’s close friend and confidant is being tried for bribery and other misdeeds.  The evidence is very believable and it must be a tough time for Joseph Percocco and the others who are being charged.

            Cuomo ran his last election on the promise to clean up Albany and get rid of the corruption stigma.  After all, the national news puts New York in the upper echelons of states with corrupt government.  Strange that the former Speaker of the Assembly and Majority Leader in the Senate were convicted of corruption and sentenced.  However with a glitch in a judicial decision made in Virginia, the verdict was overturned and the two will be tried again later this year.

            It is amazing what a good team of lawyers and a lot of money can do to redefine “justice.”  It also is interesting to see that when Democrats are involved in crimes and chicaneries they don’t seem to get as much press as Republicans do when they are misbehaving. Is it possible that there is bias in the news?

 It is all about power and money and from the times of Tammany Hall, New York has perfected the art of corruption.  Many partake and few are caught.  Whether it is bribery or sexual harassment the punishment seldom gets to fit the crime.  Those who are caught and jailed get to keep their lavish pensions while doing time.

Along with the tip or the iceberg getting bigger in the Cuomo administration corruption scandals there are still questions waiting to be answered.  One of which is about a $90 million factory built in DE Witt with taxpayer money. Now, the company doesn’t want it, so it sits empty.

The Buffalo Billion is a bigger outrage regarding the perfection of the “pay for play” tradition where large sums of taxpayer money are involved.  For those in the game it is “spend a dime and get a dollar.”  This one should be a real interesting story if the truth gets out and the players identified.

Along with these scandals. we look at the $375 million spent for ads for economic development.  Since New York is at the top of the heap for taxing businesses, that doesn’t seem to be a good investment.  Not many businessmen care to start a business that takes a big chunk of money just to exist.

Then, there is the “chicken feed” expenditures of taxpayer money like the $10 million to settle sexual harassment lawsuits and also the money to put up the illegal signs on the Thruway.

The Feds will withhold $14 in highway funding if they are not removed.  Besides the money wasted on the signs, it will also be expensive to remove them.  Not much use for an illegal sign, but maybe there will be a way to make a few bucks if the scrap metal prices hold.

The startup tax breaks so far, have not shown much value for the taxpayer investments.  This is in a state that is already running a $4 billion deficit.  Yet, Governor Cuomo is looking for ways to give away more money for his pet projects.

These are some of the problems the Governor will face if he does not get indicted in the corruption investigations.  Sometimes people get fed up with being the patsy of schemes that enrich the favored few.  Sometimes people get angry when their rights and freedoms are compromised or taken.

The SAFE Act is now bringing the chickens home to roost.  The recertification of pistol permits has gotten big news coverage and a lot of gun owners are very angry at the way the law was passed and the way it has been administered.

 The gun owners resent the Third Reich type of attitude in its inception and its enforcement.   A big resentment is that the gun owner can lose four constitutional and civil rights without due process after being falsely reported as being involuntarily admitted to a hospital or an opinion by a person who is not a qualified mental health expert.

It is an expensive procedure to correct the state’s mistake and we found out that the state does not have to obey HIPPA Laws.  They also don’t have to correct the mistake of putting the person in the Federal NICS data base which prevents them from buying or owning a gun.  The false report is almost impossible to remove.

Gun owners are skeptical of the true motive for this action.  Many believe that it is a means to require the registration of rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.  This is already the law in New York City.   With the data base of all the guns, of course, the next logical move for corrupt politicians would be to tax them.  The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Already, the gun clubs and Second Amendment organizations are beginning a voter registration effort to get the gun owners ready and primed to change the makeup of the legislature, at least in Upstate New York.  The math is simple.  If 75 percent of the gun owners come out to vote, Cuomo can lose.

Anger and outrage are powerful motivators.  It should be an interesting year for and election.

                                                =30=

Robinson vs Sessions 3 Judges rule against him!

MR. ROBINSON V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-70673 (9th Cir. 2017)

As soon as I locate the interview it will be posted.
Yea news in last week the 3 judge panel who asked more questions about why the sky is blue all voted NO. So now the suit moves onto U.S. Supreme court. 

According to my findings from a talk radio show WYSL interview with Webster , NY Civil rights attorney Paloma A. Capanna  the judges didn't know squat about firearms law or the second amendment.

The filing is here at this link.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/robinson-v-united-states/

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Oral arguments at 2C in Robinson vs. Sessions Posted by Paloma Capanna on Jan 9, 2018 in Blog, Featured

Never ceases to amaze me the questions judges ask. bpb

oral-arguments-at-2c-in-robinson-vs-sessions/

I'll paste Paloma A. Cappana's short report but please go listen to and read the arguments.

On Monday, January 8, 2018, I presented oral arguments at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Robinson vs. Sessions (docket 17-1427).

Court was held in New York City at a building that is at once formidable and foreboding.  Massive stone columns and steps lead to its metal front door of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse.  Once past security, my shoes echoed loudly in the marble-veined lobby that is void of people and furniture.  The landing of the 17th floor contained a couple of benches, but was otherwise ringed tight with windowless doors that gave no clue what went on behind them.  The only welcoming detail was the ceiling decoration of flowers in plaster relief technique.

Presiding were Judges Jacobs, Hall, and Raggi.  Two men, born and raised in NYC.  One woman, like me, born in New Jersey and women’s college educated.  The Slate in 2005 suggested Raggi might be on the short list of potential SCOTUS nominees.

Robinson vs. Sessions was called as the third case of the five cases argued.  We stayed to observe the subsequent cases.  Orals in the other four cases were more formal and focused on the facts, excepting one female lawyer pounding a favorable SCOTUS decision handed down after the briefs had been submitted in this intermediate appellate court.  Unlike my extensive experience before the New York State Appellate Division Forth Department, there was no lightness or humor.  The judges in NYC did not express any identifiable recognition of any attorney as being a familiar colleague.  There was no casual banter.

Second Circuit Courtroom 1703Oral arguments in Robinson vs Sessions resembled the oral arguments and decisions I have been experiencing these past five years in federal court.  Unfortunately, two things occurred.  First, questions had little to do with the pending case.  Second, questions were poorly framed by the judges because of their own lack of familiarity with this area of the law.

The first question came promptly from Judge Hall, who wanted to know how it could happen that NICS did not contain the disqualifying records of a man dishonorably discharged from the military, referencing the recent homicide committed by one Devin Kelley that is the subject of the pending litigation in City of New York, et al. vs. US Dep’t. of Defense, et al.  (For the statutory analysis concerning that topic and that case, refer to my recent blog on point.)

Judge Raggi’s questions followed and were erroneously premised that the disqualifying factors under 18 USC §922(g)(1)-(9) do not have an associated due process component.  I selected one, specifically (g)(4), to explain its due process requirements set out in the implementing regulations found at 27 CFR §498.11, but her facial expression went blank when I explained that the mental health disqualifier mandates an involuntary commitment pursuant to court order.

Back to Judge Hall, who didn’t know that federal and state agency record submissions to NICS is voluntary (not mandatory).  He evidenced no comprehension of the mechanics of how the ATF Form 4473 is used in the FFL setting, how the customer fills it out under oath, how an FFL runs the interface with the ATF, and so forth.  And on.

You can listen to the oral arguments for yourself.

Few of yesterday’s questions from the three judges had anything to do with Robinson vs. Sessions.  Instead, the questions had everything to do with the misinformation – intentional or not – pounded into the American public by every mainstream media outlet in the country.

The dynamics I experienced with the three judges is that which I experience every time I talk to reporters and before an audience.  It reflected the myriad of questions that you throw at me every day through lengthy voicemails, e-mails, and FB messages.  I might do my best to try to speak about one sub-topic at a time, but what comes at me is pure chaos.  The average person – and the average judge is no different – is too hyped on hysteria to organize a cogent question or participate in a two-way conversation.

What is it that I am saying that makes everyone, including you, so off-put?

The law as it stands.

If you’re pro gun control, you don’t want me to provide a clear explanation that a legal outcome was correct on the law when you are looking at a dead body and a smoking gun.  Those folks say the laws and the constitution be damned, do whatever it takes to get guns off the street.

If you’re pro Second Amendment, you don’t want me to provide a clear explanation that a legal outcome  is correct on the law when a defendant is put behind bars and firearms are confiscated.  You folks say the law be damned; I’m not going to follow it.

Nobody wants to hear me say, “Your concerns are appropriately addressed to Congress.”

And so I become the messenger that gets shot in the crossfire of political discontent.

My commentary on oral arguments is that if the Second Amendment is to become the modern civil rights movement that it deserves, you’re going to have to address at least two things.  Number one (the easier), you are going to have to become public relations experts on trending Second Amendment topics.  Seriously and consistently invest your time in monitoring mainstream media.  Where you spot errors or quotes without a response from the right, you must contact reporters and editors to set the record straight in a timely and professional manner.

Second, you need to start pounding the pavement to recruit lawyers to represent litigants on these critical civil rights issues.  Lawyers educate judges in every well-researched and presented case.  The federal bench is operating at only the most basic level concerning firearms law.  I can’t do it alone.  Start knocking on doors and going to law schools and actively recruit lawyers.  I’m no fool; I know lawyers don’t want my cases because I’m not getting paid and neither will they.  Gang, you’re going to have to get organized and raise the serious money necessary to get the attention of lawyers and/or you’re going to have to create your own ACLU-like foundation.  The Brady Center did.

As soon as the decision is issued by the Second Circuit, I’ll let you know.  For now, you have the Briefs and the oral arguments.

We can do this.  Ultimately, we will prevail.  We’re right on the facts and we’re right on the law.

But, if we’re going to effectively fight and win in our lifetime, then everyone is going to have to get off the sidelines and get actively involved.  The Second Amendment is a heavy lift and right now our civil rights are treading water in the Hudson.

Friday, December 15, 2017

Firearms Owners & the Mental Health Scam

Run this plan.
You know how the mental health system or medical community is always on some sort or mission to raise awareness for a specific illness. Well, I was thinking of the past media blitz on mental health and the need for more of our tax dollars to fund the medical system. How much are you willing to bet that much of the mental health reporting for firearms owners is a ruse to get government to fund more pork I.E. junk research in the medical community.

With very little going to the actual patients. I bet if we could get a look into the medical lobbyist emails and letters we'd find a direct link to them lobbying Albany for funds to support them. Just like the other anti groups have done. It's all to similar.

So ask your legislators who in the medical community has been in to speak for support for mental health issues & mentioned guns in the same meeting.

If the government can't get you in the system as a criminal. A mental health problem will do just as well.

It all boils down to control of your life & wallet.

 With the government and crooked politicians either one will do to break you.  Why would a politician and those in jobs the need our tax dollars care if you were made a criminal, as long as they collected a pay check and co-pays from you?

Really why would they care if your life is ruined?

They don't , and the sooner some of you wake up from that coma the better off you'll be.

Like I've written in the past. "you're already a criminal, you just have't been arrested yet".