Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Monday, March 5, 2018

The Right Side by Budd Schroeder Commentary on Banning Guns



March 7, 2018


            The battle continues as the sides line up in the gun control debate.  This column is based on the experience of a Second Amendment advocate with more than fifty years of experience of research and practical application regarding the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

            The Second Amendment clearly states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  That should be pretty clear, but it has been argued by the intellectuals for decades.

            Some had said that the well regulated militia meant something like the National Guard.  But would the Founding Fathers believe that the Constitution would have a provision that gave the military the right to possess guns?  That interpretation is just plain stupid.

            It took the Heller Decision by the Supreme Court to clarify that this right was to guarantee the individual citizen was the one protected by this right. Several of the quotes by the same patriots who wrote the Constitution affirmed that the right was given to the individuals to protect themselves in case the government attempted to destroy the Constitution.

            It was so important that the framers of Constitution placed it in the Second Amendment right after the right of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right of peaceable assembly and the right to petition the government for grievances.

            Now, we see that there is controversy of some of the provisions of the First Amendment by people who question and even protest expressions relating to the freedom of religion.  The controversy on this issue can be heated and like the controversy on the Second Amendment relies more on emotional rants than discussions based on logic.

            Every time there is a mass shooting, the anti-gun crowd calls for a banning of certain kinds of guns.  Decades ago, there was the outcry to ban the Saturday Night Special.  |This was described as a small short barreled handgun that was relatively cheap to buy.  It was an issue for decades before reason prevailed.

            The next attack was for the “plastic gun” that the anti-gun dimwits claimed could defeat the metal detectors in buildings and airports.  That finally got straightened out and that the “plastic gun” is widely used by many police agencies, and, yes, it is detectible by the metal detectors. Stupidity still is used in arguments against logic on gun control.

            The mass murder at a school in Florida has spurred another attack on firearms.  It followed a school mass murder in Sandy Hook CT half a decade ago and that involved the outcry to ban “assault weapons.”  This is a misnomer by the anti-gun fanatics and it does appeal to those who are unfamiliar with firearms as well as the weak minded who are easily swayed by rhetoric.

            An assault weapon, by definition, is a rifle that has a selector switch which can convert a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun.  A semi-automatic firearm requires the trigger to be pulled for every shot fired, just like a double action revolver, but the liberal leftists enjoy the confusion and keep up the facade.

            For all practical purposes, machine guns were outlawed in 1934 and are strictly controlled by federal law and are already banned in some states.  That is where the confusion benefits the gun banners.  However, they used the definitions for banning their “assault weapons.” by cosmetic features like having a bayonet lug on the barrel.  We seldom see any news articles about a homicide of a person who was bayoneted

            Other features that cause a semi-automatic rifle to be banned are folding stocks, barrel shrouds and stocks with a pistol grip or thumbhole.  Having a flash suppressor or even a threaded barrel can put a gun on the list.  Along with those bans, there is the ban on magazines that will hold more than ten rounds.  In New York, a person can get a seven year sentence in prison for possession of one, even if he doesn’t have a gun to put it in.

            It is truly a tragedy when a large number of innocent children are murdered and society always looks for blame and a solution.  It is a fact that more than ninety percent of all mass murders are committed in “gun free zones.”  It is like believing that a person who is determined to kill people will obey a sign telling him he can’t bring a gun to the facility because it is illegal to do so.

            The two school shootings were committed by evil people with mental problems.  The current one was caused by a person who should not have been able to legally purchase the gun he used.  Federal law forbids the sale of firearms to anyone who is a felon, mental defective, user of class one drugs, has a history of domestic violence and other restrictions.  Even those who are prescribed medical marijuana are now forbidden to possess a firearm.

            Nikolas Cruz, the latest alleged killer had several run ins with the law and even was reported to the FBI as a dangerous person.  The Broward County Sheriff, local police agencies and the FBI should have reported him to the NICS system. It would have prohibited him from legally buying any gun..  That was the real reason he was able to commit the murders.  Had they done their job properly, he couldn’t have legally bought any kind of gun.

            The anti-gun group really wants to ban all guns.  They say they don’t, but it is difficult to believe them when the typical response to having a gun control bill passed is “this is a good first step.”  Honest gun owners fear they are in danger of eventual confiscation.  It is difficult to convince them otherwise.

            Those who approve of the banning and confiscation of guns keep saying the problem causing the mass murders is that there are too many guns in the country.  Think about this.  Almost all the mass murders are committed in gun free zones.  Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun club?  Even a crazy person isn’t stupid enough to try that.  This is a point to ponder.


Saturday, March 3, 2018

As the box stores flee the firearms owners BPB will take your business!

Reloading Supplies FFL 30+ yrs Veteran owned will be more than happy to fill you ammo /firearm/REI/Wal-Mart/Dicks orders & all future purchases. This isn't the 1st time retail outlets have held the 2nd amendment hostage with boycotts, lets make it the last time.

Contact me via email or call On FaceBook,Google+

Regards Bill

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

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.”


Monday, February 19, 2018


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

FEBRUARY 21, 2018


            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.

Monday, February 12, 2018

TIME FOR ANGER & OUTRAGE 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.


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.