Quote of the Day – HR 4269 (12/28/2015)

To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Mr. Cicilline (for himself, Ms. Adams, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Bass, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms. Brownley of California, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Carney, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Delaney, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Esty, Mr. Farr, Mr. Foster, Ms. Frankel of Florida, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutiérrez, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Himes, Mr. Honda, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Israel, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Keating, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lowenthal, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Mr. Lynch, Mr. McDermott, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms. Matsui, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Ms. Moore, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neal, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Pingree, Ms. Plaskett, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Rangel, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Richmond, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Sires, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Speier, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Takano, Mr. Tonko, Mrs. Torres, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Veasey, Ms. Velázquez, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Wilson of Florida, and Mr. Yarmuth) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary – HR 4269

December 16th, 2015


[Let me quote one thing first.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What is so fucking hard to understand about that? Let me be clear, since evidently Heller and McDonald were too complicated for these simpletons.

Let me save you reading that entire slop and give you the few lines that matter:

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

With a definition broad enough to encompass everything but bolt action rifles. While it exempts things manufactured prior to the date it won’t be long for that tune to change. Don’t let anyone ever tell you they don’t want to take your guns.

I have one phrase to cover this, Molon Labe. If the shooting starts, every person who put his name on that bill has declared themselves my enemy. They are willing to kill me and my family when I have done nothing to them. I’m sick of this shit. I’m sick of being abused. I’m sick of being blamed. You want to penalize me for shit I haven’t done, well let me introduce you to the concept of earning the penalty. When the first house’s door is kicked in, the war will not be with the police. It will be with the politicians who sent them there. -B]

 

Tibor Kovacs Update & Legal Threats…

Tibor Kovacs. Picture via Starr Telegram and the Arlington Police Department.

Tibor Kovacs. Picture via Starr Telegram and the Arlington Police Department.

So over two years ago while I was running the State Sponsored Criminal Count I did a post about this incident out of Arlington Texas.

Update regarding Tibor Kovacs’s legal entanglement:

Now according to this following quote from one of his local papers a Judge ruled him to be rehired in June. While at the same time the city has stated its desire to continue to appeal.

A Tarrant County judge reinstated an Arlington police officer who was fired three years ago after being accused of sexually assaulting his girlfriend and interfering with the investigation.

State District Judge David Evans ruled late Monday that the Police Department should immediately rehire Tibor Kovacs and awarded him $164,471 in back pay.

Assistant City Attorney Melinda Barlow said that Arlington plans to appeal the ruling and that Kovacs had not rejoined the force as of Tuesday and had not received the back pay.

The story does state that a grand jury failed to indict him on the charge however that is neither a guilty nor not guilty verdict. The priors of the case remain as a matter of public record and historical documentation.  If I were a magic 8 ball my response regarding Tibor Kovacs and his place on the count would be something like this, “Reply hazy try again later”. I don’t know the details of what’s going on in this pissing match but obviously there’s something rotten in the state of Denmark and I don’t know who’s good or who’s bad.

Now I hadn’t been keeping up with this specific case, there’s a huge pile of them in the criminal count, though I am more than happy to give updates and corrections when things are taken care of in a civil manner. Seriously that update was an email from one of the involved parties and said, hey you might be interested in seeing this. It was two different news articles detailing the update which I then reported. It was polite, they understood the value of not being confrontational, providing information and letting people arrive at their own conclusions.

How not to become my friend.

When something like the following hits my inbox, I am less than pleased and even more specifically less than inclined to converse directly with said individual and instead promptly seek legal counsel.

Email 1:

From: Tibor Kovacs 
Subject: information removal request

Message Body:
The link:  http://www.the-minuteman.org/2012/09/12/sscc-409-arlington/

is incorrect and highly defamatory!  I request the prompt removal from your website.
Thank you Barron for your cooperation in this matter.

Tibor Kovacs

--
This mail is sent via contact form on The Minuteman http://www.the-minuteman.org

Semi-polite but obvious legal threat. My father didn’t raise no fool, I was raised in a house filled with law books by a man with a Juris Doctorate. I know the basics and I know when to shut my mouth and not deal directly with someone.

So I contact a law-smith on the subject to get the extra ins and outs and find out that there are numerous reasons this is NOT defamation, that I should not be concerned, and am directed to ignore the email because any response should go through counsel given the obvious threat. Had things been more polite I probably would have been more receptive but using the phrases “incorrect” and “highly defamatory” to a set of quoted statements from a news paper makes me want to dig in my heels. Then a couple days later I get the following into the inbox associated with my domain registration:

Email 2:

Subject: information removal request
Date: 09/26/2014 07:41 PM
From: Tibor Prince <>
Reply-To: Tibor Prince <>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
The following link on your website: http://www.the-minuteman.org/2012/09/12/sscc-409-arlington/ is outdated, false and defamatory.
For legal reasons I request the prompt removal of that link from your site!
Thank you!
Tibor Kovacs

I write-up a post and am then directed by my preliminary law smith to just let it die. It will just rile him up and no good can come of it. The law smith states the same as before but that I might start preparing with full counsel for a response letter. Bam, prep the lineup and say I’ll give him one more chance to just let it die.  Well you’re reading this and a bunch of my friends on Facebook were asking me WTF was going on and well here it is.

Email 3:

From: Tibor Kovacs <[email protected]>
Subject: legal request for information removal

Message Body:
Mr.  Barron,

In light of District court decision to obliterate all claimed arrest records, Tibor Kovacs was never 
arrested in accordance with law and Texas Code of Criminal procedure 55.03.  Therefore I respectfully
make the request to remove all such reference to my arrest.  I was also reinstated by the District 
court to my position in light of the false allegation made against me.  

I ask you to stop disparaging my name and jumping on the bandwagon of trashing officers based on the 
barrage of constant complaints we get after arresting thousands of offenders you wouldn't want around 
your family.  It is an ungreatful career and we don't make many friends by arresting people.  Don't be
one that makes our job harder!

Thank you.

Tibor Kovacs

--
This mail is sent via contact form on The Minuteman http://www.the-minuteman.org

I just immediately shook my head and fired off the email to the full counsel. Now he did advise me I could just pull the article, make it all go away and it would cost me less money. I don’t care, at this point with the intimidation behavior I wasn’t budging and I’m more than happy to shell out cash to do the right thing, even if it hurts. Overall from my interactions thus far, Tibor Kovacs seems like a petty tyrant instead of a polite individual. I’m more than happy to stand up when others won’t. As I said on Facebook:

“Barron you can just make yourself feel better by just taking it down and doing what the guy asked.”

“How does me giving a petty tyrant what he wants when I’m in the right make me feel better?”

That seriously was a conversation I had yesterday. It reminded me that I am unique when it comes to principals when compared with many. I am willing to suffer discomfort, pain, and expense purely because of principal. While many would look at me like a fool, I feel more physically upset at doing the wrong thing to make my life easier than it is just doing the right thing.

Many people often wonder how they will react in a trying situation. There are many more who later on regret their decisions.

I do not have to wonder. I am glad to say I have yet to ever regret a decision or action I took that I believed to be the right thing to do. Even when doing the right thing worked against me.

That’s why I just dropped 6 bills with the potential to spend more on something I could just make go away by pushing a delete button.

#‎CharacterCounts, especially when the other guy doesn’t appear to have any.

I had done some searching and couldn’t find any record of the District court decision, however my lawyer was more than happy to fill me in on TCCP 55.03. It is an expungement of the arrest from the courts, nothing more. It is not a finding by a judge of not-guilty with prejudice, it is merely clearing someone’s arrest record who wasn’t convicted. Hey, good, that’s the way it should be. If asked in a legal setting if you were arrested you should be able to say no if you weren’t convicted. I know better than anyone, I have two felonies that follow my ass around I was never convicted for.

I however did not and do not run around like a 5 year old screaming at people who wrote news articles and commentary at the time.

Seriously this behavior spinned me into a world of pissed off and is the absolute wrong way to approach me correcting information in the count. Doubly so since he waited until email 3 to even present any of the information above and even then didn’t provide copies of the orders or documentation, I was merely supposed to take his word on the subject.

So my lawyer sent this in response:

So here’s my full summary of the above and interpretation.

Tibor Kovacs may or may not have committed the crimes he was accused of.  While a grand jury failed to indict, that is neither an indicator of guilt or innocence. That does not change the actual history of the case and honestly wish him the best of luck.

That said the behavior of Tibor Kovacs as outlined above implies to me he is a petty tyrant of the exact type I ran the criminal count to highlight. While the original charge may have evaporated his behavior of intimidation and legal threats in an attempt to intimidate me to pull what is quite honestly a 2 year old news article highlights his character quite well. Doubly so since the statement of being willing to interview Tibor Kovacs was sincere and after proofing the letter I also told my lawyer to note I would even allow him to provide a written statement which I would include in its entirety unedited.

It has been one week since this all went down. I have heard nothing at which point I believe Tibor Kovacs does not wish to talk to me or make a statement. If he sees this he is free to say something in the comments on his own behalf and I will publish it unedited. Note the comments are automatically closed after 30 days due to spam. 

Deep down I have a serious issue with scrubbing things or otherwise trying to erase them from history. This to me is the equivalent of asking a newspaper to delete all of the stories relating to the topic. While yes this is the internet and I can make it go away, is that correct with regards to the historical record? 25 years ago people would look up the history of a series of events using microfiche in a library. The internet is the modern day library.

Winning Quote Related to the Subject:

I had many friends text or message me asking what was going on. One friend had a conversation with me that was just epic:

Buddy: So what’s the deal? Someone try to come between you and the last Snickerdoodle?

Me: Basically cop emailed me and tried to intimidate me into pulling down a 2 year old post.

Buddy: WTF? But you’re white.

Buddy: Sorry… someone must have got a pic of us walking to lunch, and said, “That’s him… the “threatening guy” That’s Barron!”

Buddy: Maybe it’s your choice of donut providers…

Well more than just a single quote but frankly after the beginning context the statements were just hilarious. Again, I love my friends.

Additional Observation

There is a much different attitude between Tibor Kovacs and myself; and it is actually kind of disturbing. I am more than happy to talk about my arrest and legal experience despite the fact I think it was complete bullshit. I lay it out in front of everyone and am more than happy to discuss it with anyone who asks. I have nothing to hide, I stand behind my actions that day and while I wish the outcome was different I do not feel I did anything wrong.

Tibor Kovacs is moving to sweep things under the rug, doesn’t want to discuss it, and is yelling at people to try and make it go away. I only have one question on that front, Why? My conscience is clean and I don’t give two shits about that case because there’s always two sides to every story and I’m more than happy to make sure people hear mine.

Lastly the woe is me, people hate me for doing my job, so on and so forth. Here’s the thing Mr. Kovacs, I don’t want you anywhere near my family just as I don’t want a violent felon around them. You have this badge which you seem to think grants you extra rights and immunities and while I can shoot a felon attempting to harm my family without fear of reprisal, the same can not be said for a thug with a badge. Your attitude and behavior in directly interacting with me doesn’t indicate that you’re an honest man with a badge but a thug. Like any brotherhood though, your brothers will circle the wagons even if you’re totally in the wrong. Taking all that into account I’d actually rather have the violent felon around them, at least then I could perforate them and be assured a equitable and fair investigation into what happened.

*TL;DR:

Stolen as a direct quote from a buddy:

well, here’s the deal:  if he were 1) not a dick, 2) didn’t pull the “woe is the life of a cop” card, or 3) actually provided some evidence on his behalf, then it’d be reasonable to at least ask you to add some extra info to let people make their own grown up decisions.

It should also be noted that picking a fight like this is never a good idea if your objective is to suppress information. Your best bet is to just ignore it and let it fade into obscurity. That page in its entire existence has had a whole whopping 57 views as of the time I wrote this article. Now that number is likely to go up given another post referencing it, especially with the threat of legal consequences. Behavior like that attracts attention, just ask Barbra Streisand.

Quote of the Day – Darrell Issa (9/25/2014)

Eric Holder is the most divisive U.S. attorney general in modern history,… by needlessly injecting politics into law enforcement, Attorney General Holder’s legacy has eroded more confidence in our legal system than any attorney general before him.

Darrell Issa – Quote to Fox News on Holder Stepping Down
September 25, 2014


[Nailed it and I have nothing else to add other than Christmas came early. -B]

 

Surprise, Feds making it up as they go along!

So some somewhere got his panties in a bunch.  even more entertainingly the feds are claiming they have the right and authority to ban it and regulate it.

There are so many things I can comment about that piece. Such as “lets run to the airport and tell some pilots people are shooting skyward.” Tell me, what the hell is trap and skeet shooting, there’s a reason they use shotguns in the sport not rifles.

Moving forward we have the feds claiming their aircraft and creates a safety hazard while then having the following Charlie Foxtrot:

But the question here is not why the FAA considers hand-sized drones to be aircraft, regardless of their size or the altitude at which they’re operated.  But why it can’t decide that an 1100 pound passenger-carrying Flying Hovercraft that looks like an aircraft – wings and all – and can fly at speeds of 70 miles per hour (and more) and at altitudes of 20 feet to more than 50 feet in the air, over water or land, is also an aircraft.  These flying machines, called WIG craft or wing in ground effect craft, fly on the air cushion created by aerodynamic lift due to the ground effect between the craft and the surface, the same as occurs between any aircraft and the ground on landing.  

Not to mention the complete destruction of the hobbyist activity of RC aircraft by reclassifying everything as a drone. Know why the FAA is now going that route to attack the activity? Because they keep losing their arguments on why they have the power.

So here’s a set of rhetorical questions:

  • If our elected officials are not held accountable to the same laws and regulations they create over us, why should anyone comply or care?
  • If regulatory agencies are constantly modifying and changing the rules to grow their power, why should anyone comply or care about them any more?
  • If regulatory agencies are using their power to stop activities which harm no one but the people in charge disagree with for political reasons, why should anyone comply or care?

America is a Republic, and what we’re seeing is the destruction of law through bureaucratic fiat. Me thinks I need to build a couple just for lunch time destruction during Boomershoot. Hey if it’s my own personal property, !@#$ off! There isn’t any commercial aspect involved.

Barron why do you want to shoot at drones?
Because !@#$ YOU!!! That’s WHY!

**Seriously I had no interest in doing such a thing until I saw they’re trying to stop it. Now it’s like owning a 100 round drum magazine that freezes after firing 10 rounds. I need one just because you said I can’t have one!

Hat tip “The short lady with the grey hair” (Otherwise known as my mom.)

Puritan: Someone that is afraid someone, somewhere is having fun.

Quote of the Day – Karl Denninger (8/15/2014)

A very large number of black people aren’t rioters and thugs just like a very large number of white people don’t go around pointing machine guns at people and kidnapping them.  The common thread among all of those who don’t do the nasty things is that they’re not criminals, and have an inherent civil right to resist violence attempted against their person — a right that is constantly under assault by those who do commit the evil acts, whether they happen to have magical blue suits on or not.

Karl Denninger – Let’s (Properly) Rewrite A News Story

August 14, 2014


[First go read the whole thing, it’s absolutely worth it and illustrates one of my biggest problems with law enforcement and how they’re treated. Here’s an illustrative picture of exactly what he’s talking about.

Outrage In Missouri Town After Police Shooting Of 18-Yr-Old Man

K, all read up? Here is another recent incident:

image33

That woman is pointing the firearm at another person, her finger is on the trigger. There is no question that woman is committing assault with a deadly weapon.  However thanks to the fact she’s a police officer in the LAPD this has just been kicked to internal affairs and she will at most get a slap on the wrist.

Think about that for a second. A cop can do this:

checkpointguns3

and it’s perfectly acceptable and OK. Never mind rule 2. Cops evidently are exempt and when they point a gun at someone it is NOT a threat of deadly force, it’s just them doing what cops do. This is NOT acceptable in a free society and should not be tolerated. The problem is, who’s policing the police. That’s right, they’ve made it us vs them and that’s why Ferguson has turned into a battle ground. If I heard there was a militia rolling that way tomorrow it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

If you aren’t questioning the militarization of law enforcement compare it now to 20 years ago. This crap needs to stop.

Besides, when cops behave like the above is it any surprise that innocent unarmed people are shot? The rules exist for a reason. -B]

Quote of the Day – William McCormick (8/14/2014)

A valid point Mike. Not a contradiction of mine, but ….I have to say, one of my biggest beefs with the LE community. If you want my respect and consideration, that REQUIRES you to police yourself.

[Emphasis mine]
William McCormick – Facebook comment
August 13, 2013


[This was in reference to an incident by LAPD where they shot and killed a hostage after shooting every last square inch of a vehicle. I don’t know all the details of said shooting. I do know if I shot an killed an innocent person while trying to defend myself in such a reckless manner I would be prosecuted for not exercising judicious marksmanship.

Look I get it, some times bad things happen. Problem is just because of your job you shouldn’t be held to a lower standard than everyone else. If anything it should be higher. More importantly that statement above illustrates my issues with law enforcement currently quite accurately. I don’t hate them, I don’t think their all evil. I however have no respect for them as they cannot even keep their own house clean.

Doubly so as we then have people in the Seattle PD who go out and publicly endorse things like I-594, as members of the department. You want to make me a felon for teaching people how to shoot a firearm and I’m supposed to respect you for it? Thankfully WACOPS doesn’t support I-594 and it’s a glimmer of hope, but publicly denouncing that type of behavior goes a long way for the public trust, which at this point is dying. And at least WACOPS isn’t someone doing so as a member of the department but as an organized body. I view this as the equivalent of me stepping up and saying something while claiming to be representative of my employer. Military members are not to make political statements while in uniform, why is it different for the police? -B]

Evidently the State Doesn’t Want My Money…

So let me lead off with the email I’m sending GoodToGo as I type this:

So some how I wasn’t notified as my account level got low. It’s now at -0.35 cents. I just went to go put money on it and am told “I can’t make a payment currently because the account is in negative balance.”

OK, I’ll try to call. I call and it wants some pin number that I don’t have and cannot find anywhere to set one on the website. I try to find a way to talk to a human and cannot find one.

So just to make sure I’m clear on this. I give an interest free loan to GoodToGo (WA DOT), am finally notified when I have a negative account balance because it’s run over, and when I try to go give another interest free loan I can’t? If it wasn’t for the fact this is “sanctioned by the state” I’d be calling the BBB to report a scam.

Why would I report a scam? Because at this point my assumption must be that the reason it is so difficult to pay a negative account balance is to accrue interest against the user, in which case why is my loan to the state an interest free one? And if not that to bill the user at a higher rate for using the toll bridge because my account is out-of-order. This also ignores the fact the first time I drove across the bridge I was billed through GoodToGo and sent a paper bill at a higher rate in the mail.

I have updated to a different card, although I would prefer not to have automatic payments configured on that card, but if this is going to be the way the state is going to behave I do not have much of a choice.

I had been making a habit of making one time payments when notified and this time I couldn’t.

As an additional note I will be forwarding this to my state representatives asking how this type of user interface and treatment of Washington State citizens is acceptable. Especially for those of us who purely use this in transportation to or from work. I will also be posting a copy of my experience and this letter, along with how the situation is handled on my blog.

Thank you and sincerely,
Barron Barnett

So for those not familiar with the GoodToGo system, you maintain a balance for toll roads around Western  Washington.  When you take one it subtracts from that balance.  When the balance gets low it can automatically get more from a credit card or deduct from a bank account.

The initial credit card I was using has been disabled, not because of lack of payment or anything, it just has and I’m too lazy to go call the bank to fix it.  I’m going debt free so why bother worrying about it, it forces me to not use it.

So I take to paying off my debit card when I get a low balance notice.  I get no low balance notice until I get a call and email about it this morning.  I go look at my account, -$0.35.  Well I need to fix that, I go into payments and see:

Outstanding Balance
Account balance is negative, payment not allowed. Please contact the Customer Service Center.

I then hop on the phone and start getting drug through automated menus.  Finally get to one that sounds reasonable, it asks me for my account number. I enter it.  Then it asks for a 4 digit pin.  A what?  I never configured a 4 digit pin, not that I remember anyway, and I cannot find anywhere in the online forms to find or configure a 4 digit pin.

So lets recap.  I’ve been giving interest free loans to the State of Washington so that I can drive over public roads at a non-inflated price.  I guess you could say that’s the interest, but then some pay more interest in others do they not because that becomes dependent on how long it takes for them to dwindle their account balance, but I digress.

Evidently my account ran negative and I just discovered this.  I attempt to use the manual payment system and am told to contact the Customer Service Center.  I do exactly that, and am greeted with an automated system asking for information that I do not know and cannot find a method to find out or set.

Ultimately leaving me in the following state, an outstanding balance I’m now aware of and unable to pay because their system is so screwy I could swear it was built by the same idiots that made the Obama-care website, and some would wonder why I don’t want my financial information stored within it.

And people wonder why I view the state as worthless and unable to pour piss out of a boot reading the directions off the heel.  If I can’t pay them when I owe them money, what the hell do they need the money for in the first place?

Quote of the Day – Michael Z. Williamson (2/5/2014)

It may be time to start planting claymores instead of tulips.

Michael Z. Williamson – Facebook Comment

February 5th, 2014


[The catalyst was this event.  All I have to say is there is something very wrong in the system and they are not policing their own anymore. -B]