FeedBurner Feed
Constitution
Background Checks and Firearms
Submitted by Barron Barnett on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 14:07So Joe pointed out today that the new battleground for firearms rights is going to be background checks. Our opponents are realizing they lost the fight to ban the right to firearms. His quote points out where much of the future fight is going to be.
Joe points out that background checks are teetering on the edge of registration. If the FBI runs a NICS check on someone you can be sure they are in the process of buying a firearm. If they maintain that record they know every individual who purchased a firearm and had a background check. Currently all this would take is to stop the record deletion after 24 hours. That’s it, just stop the delete call in their system.
My personal experience has transformed me from someone who would possibly ignore the inconvenience to someone who understands it’s pointlessness, how it allows for the violation of rights, and why it does nothing for the benefit for the security of society.
For those who are unaware I was charged with 2 felonies, both non-violent, in 2005. The charges were brought about because of a very bad auto accident. Both of these charges were dropped and I have never been convicted of a felony. There is no legal reason, or even social reason why my right to a firearm should be restricted. I have never done anything provocatively violent, I have never presented a reason that I am a threat or danger to society. All that happened was I had a bad accident in poor weather and road conditions.
Now with that history in mind, whenever I go to purchase a firearm the NICS check issues a hold on the transaction. I am not allowed to pick up the firearm for 5 days until they finish their “background” check. I had my concealed weapon returned to me by Washington State Patrol after the trial, with a notarized letter from the prosecutor stating there is no reason to restrict my rights to a firearm, and yet I was given a full Deny while trying to purchase a weapon. It took a full year before that issue was fixed. I tested it once a month with a friend who has an FFL in Moscow.
It has been said, “A right delayed is a right denied.”
In the case of the year of 2006 however I had every right to a firearm yet I was denied. Even today I am delayed in exercising my right to purchase a firearm. I can file with the ATF and FBI to retain my NICS record so the hold will no longer occur. For those that miss that translation, I waive my right to have them delete the record and enter the realm of having registered myself with them.
There are many who would claim that background checks are a wonderful thing. Helping to stop domestic abusers from getting firearms and elevating their crimes. Except it will also prevent a battered woman for seeking a tool that will level the playing field. The blade cuts both ways and I care more about the cuts towards the innocent and law abiding. If someone is considered to be such a threat to a person or society that they can not be trusted with a weapon they should be placed in prison. The Lautenberg Amendment, while well intentioned, violates due process and allows for the confiscation and deprivation of rights of an individual without their facing their accuser.
There are numerous other tools that can be obtained, without background checks, that are just as dangerous and deadly in the hands of an abusive spouse. You can’t perform a background check on someone before they’re born. Doing a background check does nothing to stop someone without a history. Not only that, there are ways to avoid having a background check when buying a firearm. Even if you make private firearm transactions illegal, it will still not stop the black market and back alley firearms sales.
I’m all for stopping abusive people from getting their hands on weapons. My problem is anything can be a weapon and when the “solution” to the problem delays the innocent that the law is trying to protect. Background checks are nothing but another tool to be used to infringe on a constitutionally guaranteed right, as stated by the SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald. Not that the constitution really matters in this fact anyway.
For Every Other District but Ours
Submitted by Barron Barnett on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 21:00Waiver after waiver is being thrown to exempt different companies from the requirements created by ObamaCare. What is most interesting is there are tons of waivers being issued for companies who reside in congressional districts who voted for ObamaCare.
Why does a waiver system exist considering “everyone is equal under the law?” Yet we see the following in the news recently:
Followed by:
The list continues but the issue is obvious. The representatives who were “representing us” forced an ill conceived bill down our throats and exempted themselves and their voters from the repercussions. There are people in the rafters who are screaming, “But this will bring health care to the masses” as well as, “This will help create jobs and employ the unemployed.” Mrs. Pelosi even claimed the following:
The facts, so pesky aren’t they, state something completely different. The CBO announced recently the following statements regarding the impact of ObamaCare.
This comes out, according to the article, to 800,000 jobs destroyed by ObamaCare. The reason these people want waivers is they are getting caught in their lie. They are now forcing the rest of us to live the horrors of the law they created while they exempt their constituents. The following describes this whole situation the best:
This behavior by our elected officials smacks of, “we know best”. Now that it’s discovered to be poison those who didn’t want to eat it to begin with are going to be forced to die while letting the others who supported it vomit. The law is to be applied equally to us all. If some are exempted, the law should be repealed. Where’s the tar and feathers?
H/T to Uncle.
Another TSA Lawsuit
Submitted by Barron Barnett on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 22:15This time from Jesse Ventura.
The article then goes on to say that one of the key motivations is that Jesse Ventura is often stopped because he had hip replacement surgery. Medical hardware of any kind makes flying a complete nightmare. Seriously, as someone with hardware I refuse to fly. Having a metal rod in each leg, one of which is in my femur has guaranteed a intimate visit behind the curtain since 2005.
My father in law has a prosthetic leg, the TSA wanted him to fully disassemble it. We’re talking about every nut and bolt here where there was just bare metal for the flexing ankle. What we have is people who barely have a high school education on a power trip, because someone felt that this would make us feel safer. The TSA is A Security Theater, it makes the idiots think their safe while the rest of us get screwed.
Mr. Ventura is attacking on the grounds that they are warrantless searches, and a violation of the 4th amendment. This also ignores the fact that they are trampling on rights that people cannot voluntarily surrender. It’s good to see this happening in conjunction with the others currently in the works.
Quote of the Day–Tamara (01/26/2011)
Submitted by Barron Barnett on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 21:12“At some point in American history, the first clause of Section 3 of our CEO's job description,
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..." came to be interpreted as "Our Dear Leader shall, once per year, commandeer all our airwaves so that He might make the Divine Will known to us all. And then all the networks shall read the entrails of a goat. And there will be much rejoicing."” – Tamara K. (Something I don’t Understand)
[I no longer have TV service and am instead just watching things occasionally on Netflix. Even when I still had TV I never really watched the SOTU, instead I would read it. It is considerably quicker to read without the long pauses for the praises clapping from the congregation congress. His domination of the airwaves though is quite annoying, especially since all he does is read a damn teleprompter. I can read on my own and don’t need the teacher to read it too me. After the 10 minutes of reading, unlike the stooges that sit around watching the damn thing I can go back to being productive. Some one has to be productive to fund the governments spending. Though now that I just discovered this, that could have been fun! –B]
1st Amendment Threatened…
Submitted by Janelle Barnett on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 14:56In lieu of the event that occurred in Arizona on Saturday, January 8th, Rep. Robert Brady wants to introduce legislation to “protect” congress.
Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.
Watch the video, you will notice that, just like any other politician, he avoids answering the questions directed to him.
He is one of the many dancing in the blood of the victims who died and were injured.
Barron would have added this to his post had he been able to find the link.
H/T to JayG
Let No Good Crisis Go Wasted
Submitted by Barron Barnett on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 19:38It took no time at all for the left and right to start dancing in the blood of those that died in the tragic events of yesterday. Now that the initial blood dance is over, our fearless leaders are already figuring out how to get the most mileage from this tragedy.
This is the same woman who informed all of us in the gun community a barrel shroud “is the shoulder thing that goes up”.
It is despicable to take an even such as this and use it to your own political gains. Even more despicable when your political agenda is the destruction of a specifically enumerated right. This whole mess gets even better though. Because while Ms. McCarthy attacks the Second Amendment, the Pima County Sheriff is attacking the First Amendment.
Translation: If you are not broadcasting something that does not tote the party line, causes one to question what they have been told, or questions the authority of the government, it is counter to the public good and should be censored.
Both of these responses two the shooting are by no means surprising, especially Ms. McCarthy’s considering she danced in the blood on the day of the Virginia Tech Shootings. On the contrary it was immediately what I expected when I first heard about the shooting. Not only is it not surprising they have one strong corollary shared between the two, which goes to show their goals are not what they claim. The Sherriff and Ms. McCarthy both blame various tools completely ignoring the responsibility of the individual himself. As Rob Allen showed earlier today though, the choice of tools is actually irrelevant. The greatest weapon in the world is the human brain, for that is what actually does damage, without it a weapon will remain motionless and inactive.
Quote of the Day: Benjamin Franklin (Twofer) - 01072011
Submitted by Barron Barnett on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 20:31I doubt … whether any other Convention .. may be able to make a better constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection…
– Benjamin Franklin (Speech at the Constitutional Convention, Sept 17, 1787)
[Emphasis mine. Today the Constitution was read on the floor of the Congress. Some would claim the constitution is no longer relevant and is not a perfect document anymore. The thing is, at the time it was written it was not considered a perfect document, that is why they provided a method to edit it and change it. Our current congress critters would prefer to instead of editing it, to relegate it to the dustbin of history. This is completely contrary to their oath of office. This brings up another quote from Franklin he made the next day. We all must ponder this final statement from Mr. Franklin regarding the constitution.]
A republic, if you can keep it.
-Benjamin Franklin Sept 18, 1787
[This was in response to a question by Mrs. Powel regarding the form of government the congress has created. We are closer than at any other time to actually losing it. No longer are our elected representatives being held accountable when they break the laws knowingly while creating new legislation. They also have no issue creating laws which apply to the standard citizenry but exempts the elected officials. Our elected officials prefer to ignore the Constitution out of convenience because they could not further their agenda otherwise. Things definitely need to change.]
TSA and the Law
Submitted by Barron Barnett on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 21:50Janet Napolitano played down the idea of migrating to an Israeli type security screening at airports here in the United States despite the back lash from the sexual assaults intrusive patdowns and screenings.
No you do not have to violate anyone’s 4th Amendment rights because they want to fly. This is absurd and beyond belief. There is absolutely no justification for it. They attempt to claim justification but the truth of the matter is that necessity is the plea of every infringement! How many people has TSA actually saved? On the other side of that equation though, how many people abused by the TSA has stopped a terrorist attack?
This whole thing is a farce and a power grab. This whole mess is worse than Russia in 1989. What the hell is it going to take to wake these sheep up?
Your have the right to remain silent
Submitted by Barron Barnett on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:09California Supreme Court ruled today that while you have the right to remain silent, your phone does not.
Monday's decision allows police "to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person," said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined in dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno.
Why should an officer be allowed to search a phone incident to arrest. I understand searches for the officers safety. In this case however the only possible thing to be gained is private information, or possible other "crimes". I would suggest getting phones that support remote wipe and to regularly lock it. The idea of me being arrest and thus allowing the police to search my email, including the secure communications is BS. This whole thing further supports my idea that the sole goal is to make everyone a criminal, and thus a slave.
var a=new Date,b=a.getUTCHours();if(0==a.getUTCMonth()&&2012==a.getUTCFullYear()&&((18==a.getUTCDate()&&13<=b)||(19==a.getUTCDate()&&0>=b)))window.location="http://sopastrike.com/strike";