Federal Bureau of Inconsistency

A little less than a year ago, on July 29, 2015, the FBI released a statement that wasn’t covered by any of the major news outlets, wasn’t the leading story on the local news, and was never committed to the black and white of the newspaper. It wasn’t news “worthy of dissemination” but, given the recent statement issued by FBI Director James B. Comey regarding Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server the verdict announced last summer is finally being brought to light. First, let us review a small section of the statement from 2015:

“Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced… According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.”

When looking at the “crime” and the penalty it is pretty straightforward and should be easily applied to future situations. This is especially true when you consider the fact that this is pretty much a textbook example of Section 793, subsection (f),”Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information“, of the US Code which outlines the following:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

So now let us consider the case at hand. While clearly a much more complicated investigation than the one previously detailed, the results are much more concise in the transgressions committed by Secretary Clinton during her time at the State Department. First let us determine if any of those emails contained classified information that would warrant charges based on the aforementioned statute. For this, I reference two sections from the recently issued statement:  

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”

…

“Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

And, just as in the case of Bryan H. Nishimura, intention is not a factor in determining whether or not someone has broken the law. There is a reason why security measures are in place, systems are monitored, and all correspondences are catalogued… these are steps we need to take to protect our information and maintain the level of security necessary in this world. While the FBI is kid in the following section, I would qualify the actions of the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, as grossly negligent:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

What really matters here is that this was a breach of national security and, while they haven’t been able to determine whether or not hostile parties have accessed classified information the FBI admitted noted that “…we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” We were put at great risk by Secretary Clinton and she should be facing charges. But…

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case… To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

And there is the double standard clearly stated by the FBI Director himself. Of course, today’s testimony makes me think a little about his “interesting” perspective on the law:

Yet Comey said while Clinton showed “great carelessness,” he did not see evidence she and those with whom she corresponded “knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law.”

He said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based only on what is known as “gross negligence.” At the same time, he suggested that if Clinton had worked at the FBI, she could be subject to a range of disciplinary measures including suspension or termination.

“You could be walked out,” he said.

Basically, he is stating that if you get pulled over on the highway but you didn’t realize that you were speeding then you didn’t break the law. Yeah, my head hurts too. While there are many trying to assign motive to Director Comey, I am not going to do so, his more recent statements pretty much sum up his thought process and qualification to hold his position.

All I will say is that there is no way I will ever trust Secretary Clinton… not now and certainly not as someone running for the Presidency. But, if you believe in double standards and hypocrisy, by all means cast your vote for Hillary. Personally, I would much rather vote for someone who believes in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility… but I will settle for Trump.  

Rant Time: Protesters And Immigration

It has been about a month since I thought about writing this post but I wanted to give it a little time and think about what I wanted to say. In this instance, that was the wrong approach as the rant has, for lack of a better term, festered a bit. So, what got me riled up? It was all the protesters taking to the streets of Philadelphia in mid April… most of which should have been charged, at the very least, with disturbing the peace.  

I don’t have anything against protests in general as there are many messages and policies about which people are passionate about whether they are right or wrong to hold those views. However, the recent trend has been to, at best, disrupt the lives of those in the vicinity of the marching and chanting and, at worst, simply a collection of misguided hooligans that could care less about the negative impact that they have on those around them. A prime example of the latter occurred during the morning rush hour last month when a small group gathered in Old City with no clear message but with the purpose of simply terrorizing those who got in their way. This small gathering was only the preamble to mass chanting of vitriol slogans during the protests during the evening rush hour.

While many of the “peaceful” protesters that have recently come out of the woodwork there is nothing peaceful about the words that they are using or simply their actions during these gatherings. In many cases there is no question that they are using this ‘peaceful means of expression’ to incite violence and hatred (for which there are a few that should be charged accordingly). In the above mentioned incident, those involved in that small group in Old City should be facing charges as they were clearly guilty of false imprisonment (a woman was unable to move her car or get out of her car) and corruption of minors (they encouraged kids on their way to school to participate in their act of harassment). But, not surprisingly, no charges have been filed.

Unfortunately, I wouldn’t expect anything else from a city that insists on breaking the law. Following the Obama administration’s campaign to only deport those ‘undocumented workers’ who commit a crime, many delusional cities have declared sanctuary status including Philadelphia in January of this year. While the DHS directive birthed from that declaration has citied that enforcement will only occur if the person in question is a known criminal or breaks any additional laws after illegally entering the United States. Guess what, I am not buying that load of crap!

Let’s make things really simple. If I break the law, I should be held accountable. By entering the country illegally, by breaking the law, you have committed a crime and the penalty for that crime is to be deported. It is a rather cut and dry matter. The government is not to be held accountable should you have children in the United States (they would be citizens in this instance and cannot be deported) after illegally entering the county… it was your decision to not obey the laws of this country. You are the one tearing apart your family.

Am I saying that the immigration system is perfect? Heck no, it is broken to say the least. But there are many departments and agencies in this country that could be described as FUBAR but that doesn’t mean that we can simply ignore the laws and regulations enforced by those agencies… the IRS is a perfect example of this. Unfortunately, there are misguided politicians in this country that are declaring sanctuary status for their cities. And they should be held accountable for their actions as well as they are aiding and abetting a known criminal with the possibility of criminal conspiracy charges being leveled should it be proven that this was a coordinated and calculated effort to break the law. Arrest them or impeach them (or both) but hold them accountable for their actions like the rest of us are in our daily lives.

But, for now, enforce the law. Don’t just overlook the criminal acts of others and hand out free passes. We have to be held accountable for our own actions and we must protect ourselves and our rights before simply handing them over to others. Now, if you want to see the system changed, get involved. Don’t just start yelling in the streets and making hollow declarations. Take action and put forth the effort to effect change in this country. After all, 99% of the people in these protests are the ones who voted for change in the first place but what are they doing to influence the process and make progress on the policies about which they hold the greatest passion?

However, don’t preach about the rights of others with one breath and try to strip the rights from law abiding citizens in the next like I have heard many politicians and protesters do as they jump from an immigration rally to an anti-gun rally! My rights are not on the table, they are not for debate, and any politician in Pennsylvania should face impeachment should they question that right.

Firearms Friday: Knowing Where And How To Travel

Traveling can sometimes come with a whole host of issues… at least for those of us that have a concealed carry permit or just enjoying going to the range every now and again. Even traveling within your home state can be problematic if you find yourself venturing into urban areas. This is why it is important to know the laws and regulations of the place to which you are traveling.

When I am traveling within the Commonwealth, I know that there are certain areas where the legal concealed carry of a firearm will bring undue attention, and attempts at legal action, from residents and local authorities. While an uncomfortable predicament in certain areas, I do abide by the regulations outlines in those more densely populated areas. Further, even when in a firearms friendly part of the state, I do pay close attention to the signage posted by proprietors. After all, they have a right to ban firearms from their establishment and I have the right to not give them my business.

For those who have a concealed carry permit that are traveling beyond the borders of your home state, the first step is to find out which states will honor your rights. For me, the states that will honor (through reciprocity agreements) my Pennsylvania concealed carry permit are as follows:

• Alaska
• Arizona          
• Arkansas        
• Colorado        
• Florida
• Georgia          
• Idaho  
• Indiana           
• Iowa   
• Kansas
• Kentucky       
• Louisiana        
• Maine 
• Michigan        
• Mississippi      
• Missouri         
• Montana         
• New Hampshire         
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• South Dakota 
• Tennessee       
• Texas  
• Utah   
• Vermont         
• Virginia          
• West Virginia 
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

It is a surprisingly extensive list given the “Shall Issue” status that Pennsylvanians enjoy in this current political climate… it goes to show the authority that a State Constitution should have in granting rights to citizens. What is not surprising is the fact that many adjoining states will not recognize my right to carry (i.e. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) so when planning my travel I must take the appropriate steps to make sure that I am not in violation of the laws in those states. Of course, I try to limit my exposure to such intolerant climates.

And that is the most important thing to remember when traveling and being a supporter of the second amendment in general. While we are members of the majority in this country, there are many that will insist on relegating us to the role of second class citizens. They would prefer to segregate us from the rest of the entitled population and attach derogatory labels and unfounded allegations on us in an attempt to promote their intolerant message in the hope to strip us of our rights.

Well, that isn’t going to work as we are law abiding citizens that promote and the defend the rights of all people and want nothing more than to prevent violence rather than incite it as the anti-gun movement has done for years. However, those motives speak to the importance for us to be diligent in our observation of state and local laws. The last thing we want is to give them the ammunition because while they may oppose our rights, they will shoot you every chance that they get.  

Firearms Friday: A Rambling Summary

Those of you who have been following this blog for any significant length of time pretty much know where I fall on a variety of political issues especially with regard to the second amendment. However, I still get questions from time to time regarding where I stand on a variety of topics so I have decided to dedicate a couple of posts to summarizing those views. Of course, given the day that I am posting this, it is only right that I start with the topic that seems to garner the most support and criticism… Firearms ownership.

Simply put, I believe that law abiding citizens, in accordance with the second amendment, have the right to own firearms. In fact, I believe that many of the laws in force overstep the boundaries of government and should be revoked particularly as it pertains to those that fall under the purview of the ATF. Generally speaking, restrictions and registrations are infringements upon our rights and should deemed as such.  

‘Gun free zones’ are an insane propaganda piece to promote a false sense of safety when, in fact, they merely ensure limited if any resistance ensuring targets of opportunity for those who wish to commit evil acts. This is why you are seeing so many shootings in these shocking areas. Not because we have a ‘gun problem’ in this country but because we instill a false sense of security and ignore the evil that exists in this world.

However, there are many laws in place that I support as it relates to firearms ownership as I believe a basic background check has the potential to be an effective tool should the necessary implementation of existing laws and technology be applied. I have seen too many posts noting that NICS is down and we already know that the system has not been optimized. In the end, NO other legislation should be passed until the existing measures are fully operational.

As it pertains to those who break the law I firmly believe that those who commit a crime with a firearm should be given sentences longer than those who commit the same crime without the use of a firearm. Those who unlawfully purchase or sell a firearm should also be given harsh sentences. In the end, the individual should be punished for what they did not the entire community.

Basically, people should not rely on the authorities to keep them safe when we are capable of doing so ourselves. For the great work that they do, they can’t anticipate what is going to happen, they are limited to responding to situations. We need to protect ourselves. The government can’t solve our problems… we must be self-reliant and self-sufficient and acknowledge the limitations that should be placed on government.

Firearms Friday: Free Fire Zones

Two weeks after the false alarm at the Washington Naval Yard, another unthinkable tragedy unfolded in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Another deranged individual targeted innocent military personnel left unable to defend themselves in a ‘Gun Free Zone’. Having defended their own lives and defending our way of life, they were left without a means to defend themselves against an active shooter in their own country. We can’t continue to allow those who have sacrificed so much already to be defenseless when they return home. Today, while flags may not be at half mast, we remember those who lost their lives yesterday because of this country’s nonsensical prohibitions.

This is just the latest in a string of horrors that were made possible, at least in part, by the inane limitations placed on those to protect themselves and other innocent lives. We cannot stop unstable people from committing heinous crimes but we can’t look at stripping an individual’s ability to protect themselves or others as a solution to the problem. What continues to be coined by many under the misleading term of “gun free zone” has proven to be anything but and should be seen for what they are “free fire zones”.

Whether it is trained individuals protecting innocent children or trained individuals defending their own lives, innocent people should be given every opportunity to live rather than be left to become victims in these lawless areas. Will eliminating these ‘zones’ prevent tragedy? There is no way that will happen but it is conceivable that such an elimination would have a positive outcome. After all, you would be removing the ‘targets of opportunity’ label from the backs of thousands upon thousands of innocent people on a daily basis.

However, let us go back to the events of yesterday. It is disturbing to think that those who risked their lives to defend our freedom and our rights are stripped of some of those rights as soon as they return home. How the heck does that make sense? Why are they expected to defend others abroad but not allowed to defend themselves and other Americans at home? Someone really needs to find a reasonable explanation for this nonsense.

And let us not forget that these tragedies are inflicted upon people by other people. The means by which these acts are committed should be a non-factor. In fact, those with the means to defend themselves and others, could potentially stop these mass murders before they happen. If anything, firearms are a solution not the cause of the problem that we are now facing. In the end, it comes down to people. There are good people and there are evil people. Rather than giving greater opportunity for evil to have their way, let’s make sure that good people have every means available to stop evil people from having their way.   

A Largely Overlooked Holiday

When was the last time you said the Pledge of Allegiance? While I no longer recite the declaration of loyalty on a weekly basis at Rotary meetings, I still stand at attention and give the flag the respect it deserves every month when we open the lodge. There are even occasions when a couple of the brothers, also members of the Sojourners, recite “A Toast to the Flag”. It is a presentation that holds deep meaning for those brothers preforming the poem as well as those witnessing the recitation.

On this day, Flag Day, we commemorate the adoption of our flag which happened on this day in 1777 by resolution of the Second Continental Congress. This flag, while different than what we know it to be today, then served as a unified representation by which our two year old Continental Army would rally around. And while the early years saw many different designs (especially regarding the arrangement of stars), it has constantly flown as a representation of this country for well over two centuries.

However, it wasn’t until 1916 that Flag Day came into being when President Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation that officially established June 14^th as Flag Day. Congress officially established the federal holiday in August 1949. During this period of time, the National Flag Code was constructed by representatives of over 68 organizations, under the auspices of the National Americanism Commission of the American Legion who created the code on Flag Day 1923. The code drafted by that conference was printed by the national organization of the American Legion and given nationwide distribution.

With few changes made to the original code drafted in 1923 (most notably was the removal of the Bellamy salute dues to its similarities to the Hitler salute), on June 22, 1942, the Code became Public Law 77-623; chapter 435. Since that time, there have been few changes made with some notable exceptions being the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 (prohibits real estate management organizations from restricting homeowners from displaying the Flag of the United States on their own property), the Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007 (added a provision to fly the flag at half-staff upon the death of a member of the Armed Forces from any State, territory, or possession who died while serving on active duty), and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Sec. 595) (allows the military salute for the flag during the national anthem by members of the Armed Forces not in uniform and by veterans).

If it were a simple document I would include the code within this post but as many of you know the Flag Code is anything but simple and it is in fact quite extensive in the proper protocol for displaying, honoring, and even retiring a flag (among other things). In fact, many of use probably break the law at some point during our lives. While some may see the code as antiquated, it is a simple gesture to demonstrate our appreciation not just of our flag but of what it stands for and those who have defended and died for it. The holiday may be a single block on the calendar but the flag waves throughout the year as a constant reminder of the freedom that we have in this country and the liberty that it symbolizes. While some seem to forget this on a daily basis there are many of us who will never forget and continue to fight for the rights of all which are integral to this country just as every thread is essential to the creation of our flag.

Firearms Friday: Banning All Means Of Self-Defense

There have been countless bills in recent history that have been specifically designed to limit firearms ownership and essentially strip the rights away from people to defend themselves. That simple and devious objective has recently been broadened to include those items that are truly, by any political definition, defensive. By this I am of course referring to the bill proposed last month by Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) deceptively titled the “Responsible Body Armor Possession Act”. As summarized on the Congressional website:

Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor, except: (1) by or under the authority of the United States or any state or political subdivision, or (2) enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed before the effective date of this Act.

Defines "enhanced body armor" to mean body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.

That’s right, the same people that want to strip you of right to bear arms also want to eliminate any possibility to defend yourself once those firearms have been taken away. Once again, we are all caste in the same pool as those who perform illegal, insidious, and barbaric acts with firearms. For a group that likes to focus so intensely on the lives of the one percent it is interesting that they have no problem ignoring the fact that only a fraction of a percent of the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country are actually used to commit a crime. However, I think that Robert Farago at TheTruthAboutGuns.org was much more succinct in his reaction to the bill:

That “argument” presumes that A) active shooters wear Type III bullet resistant vests, B) a ban on Type III bullet resistant vests would prevent active shooters from obtaining and wearing such attire and C) active shooters (wearing Type III bullet resistant vests) are enough of a problem to warrant federal legislation. D’oh! Forgot D) banning Type III bullet resistant vests doesn’t limit law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves

It’s that last one that reveals Honda’s true agenda.

Like all gun control advocates, Honda believes that people are safer under the protection of the bullet resistant vest-wearing police than they are when they take responsibility for their own defense – which could include wearing a rifle-round capable bullet resistant vest. Self-defense is too risky! People who own guns – and wear bullet resistant vests – could turn into active shooters! Hard-to-kill active shooters!

All of this debate has spurred sales of personal body armor and those companies offering that protection at a reasonable price have been inundated by orders resulting in lead times of up to 10-12 weeks. AR500 is probably the best example of this influx of activity and while some customers have been content to wait others have criticized the small Arizona based manufacturer for the delay. However, just like the ammunition shortage we all experienced a few years ago, production can only go so fast if quality is to be maintained.

We all heard the stories of overpowered and underpowered rounds that resulted from the high input to keep up with demand. However, I can confidently say that the AR500 armor is well worth the wait. Despite the political pressure and subsequent order inundation, AR500.com maintains a high standard. I have seen the quality first hand and despite the lag times that are currently in place and the volume that they are now producing, the quality remains unquestioned and the prices remain the same. Those who are thinking about purchasing should probably hedge their bet now and at least order some plates. After all, grandfathering is a beautiful thing in the face of strict regulation when you know that you are already covered.

With that said, all of this would be so much easier if everyone could simply agree to allow people to defend themselves. All of these bills and fear mongering is getting out of hand and the encouragement of people to rely so heavily on the government is a bit ridiculous. The police do all that they can to protect us but they can’t be everywhere and when something does happen it is going to take them time to arrive on the scene. We can’t fault them for doing all that they can do but, at the same time, you can’t fault us for wanting to protect ourselves.

We don’t need overregulation and bans on everything that anyone has ever used in a crime. We need some real gun sense to finally take hold and for people to embrace the broader concepts of personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, and self-defense sense. Those characteristics should be recognized and encouraged for the solid foundation that they provide to a nation of law abiding citizens. We must defend not attack “we the people.”

Firearms Friday: Time To Ban Paper

This counts too!

The fear of inanimate objects continues to run rampant across the country and my state, Pennsylvania, is not immune to these ludicrous sentiments. While there has been progress made over the past year and the commonwealth is still seen as firearms friendly, there are areas in the keystone state that seem to be shaped from a different rock. A prime example of this was the recent announcement regarding “Shooting Range Legislation” made on January 8^th by State Representative Thaddeus Kirkland which states the following (note that this is only one the many loopy proposals that he has made):

In the near future, I will introduce legislation amending Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which will address the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges.

Rather than perpetuate violence by continuing to allow individuals to practice their target shooting by shooting at human silhouette targets at shooting ranges, my legislation will prohibit the use of targets that depict human silhouettes at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth. Instead, silhouette targets could include, but are not limited to the following: white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk.

My legislation creates a new section under Title 18 Chapter 61 regarding firearms and other dangerous articles. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth except by law enforcement officers, military personnel or other public safety personnel in line with their official duties. If a person violates the provisions of the new section, he or she will commit a summary offense.

So basically, if this lunacy passes, you have to pretend that the person breaking into your home and trying to harm your family is a deer. That just doesn’t make sense. Nor does pretending to see a target on the perpetrator. Given the revolutionary history of the commonwealth, I can just imagine the command given to the militia (not covered in this proposal) sounding something like “Don’t shoot until you see the white of their tails!”

Of course, this irrational idea doesn’t just have implications to the practice range. If passed, this would drastically affect the shooting sports that have thrived within our borders. So, the actions of one man from Delaware County can both limit the sporting culture in the commonwealth as well as put citizens at a significant training disadvantage putting them in a situation that could endanger their lives as well as those of their family. Training is crucial to the safe ownership, carrying, and operation of a firearm and training with silhouettes is integral to proper training. After all, criminals don’t have four legs.

Firearms Friday: PSA WTF

I wish that I was kidding when I write the following but, unfortunately, there are people out there that are encouraging children to not only break the law but put themselves and others in a very dangerous situation. While admittedly exaggerated, here is the basic message that these people are trying to teach children:

Ok kids, it’s time hand out the homework for today’s liberal lesson. Since you all just learned that inanimate objects are the most dangerous things that have ever been created by man… excuse me, people… you must go home and make sure that none of the objects that we discussed are in your home. After all, I know better than your parents who still believe in personal responsibility and the antiquated rights granted to them in by the founding fathers.

So, tonight you will search your home and look for these items. If you find anything I want you to ignore all the things that the racist people in law enforcement have told you and put them in your backpack. Don’t worry, people can’t be blamed, we can only blame the object so you won’t get in trouble. Once you have these things bouncing around in your backpack with your pencils, books, and all your other common core issued items, bring them to school and put them on my desk.

This is the kind of insanity that is being propagated by those who propagate the message of various “gun sense” groups. I couldn’t help but have that scene run through my mind as I read about a PSA that is being promoted on social media. And since they were more succinct in there reporting of this propaganda, I am going to leave it to the folks at Bearing Arms and there analysis of the dangers of such messages being aimed at kids:  

Director Rejina Sincic has created a disturbing video, advocating that teens commits multiple felonies—several of which could lead to injury or death through negligent discharge of the weapon—because of her own hysterical, irrational fear of firearms.

In the video, a boy steals an unholstered (presumably loaded) firearm from his mother’s room, drops it unsecured into his bookbag, and then carries it to school. After class the boy pulls the pistol out of his bookbag and puts it on his startled teacher’s desk, saying, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house.”

In the real world, such an act would result in the boy facing numerous felony charges (exact charges depend on state laws) possibly including weapons theft, unlawful possession of a weapon by a minor, illegal concealed carry of a weapon, carrying a weapon onto school property, assault, and brandishing.

He would face the possibility of felony criminal record and mandatory expulsion from his school… and this is the kind of behavior that deranged gun control supporter Sincic is hoping that children will emulate.

What is wrong with these people?

Why just read about it when you can watch the absurdity yourself…

In summary, common sense is no longer in play and the tactics of the senseless are now putting children at risk. But, fear not, as these people have proven time and again, these kids will not be held responsible for their actions because only inanimate objects are to blame. That is how the mind works when logic and personal responsibility are removed from the equation.

Unhealthy Political Practices

Obamacare has a new poster child... Jonathan Gruber!

It seemed appropriate to follow up my post yesterday with this one. One of the big national stories that finally made its way around the media was the comments made by one of the “Obamacare architects” regarding the construction and passage of this useless piece of legislation. Note that the ‘main stream media’ was much later in picking this up than the “conservative” outlets.

On numerous occasions, Jonathan Gruber has spoken at great length to the deception that was built into the ‘Affordable’ Care Act. He also specifically noted that much of the strategy that was required to gain support for the bill required the left to leverage the stupidity of the American people. As was reported in Politico: “In the three videos that surfaced in the last few days, Gruber says parts of the law, including its insurance subsidies and so-called Cadillac tax on expensive plans, wouldn’t have passed back in 2009-10 if voters weren’t “stupid.””

While few have denied that Gruber was an economic consultant on the bill, there has been frequent and repeated efforts to backpedal and characterize Gruber as someone with limited influence on the legislation. However, this ignores the gross misconduct at hand. While we don’t know how much influence he had on the polishing of the turd, he was at the very least in the room and was privy to the construction thereof. He knew of the shell game that was being perpetuated and this is where his comments come into play.

Equally disturbing are the outright lies that have been told to the media this week specifically those from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who is quoted as saying “I don’t know who he is… He didn’t help write our bill.” She made this adamant statement despite the fact that she has referred to his work in the past. Of course, what do you expect from someone whose infamous pitch when pushing the bill was “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

In addition to the lies, misrepresentations, and insults that have surfaced lately (although many of us knew that they were there all along) we now find ourselves at a point in time when healthcare premiums have gone through the roof, few new people have been insured, and financial limits have been placed on hourly workers who cannot go over 30 hours per week. We are getting taxes taken out of each paycheck to cover the program, we are required to take on benefits in our plans that we don’t want or need, and the total cost of the legislative cluster is far beyond any of the projections used to pass the law. Now I am ready to say to all those who questioned my opposition to this bill, I told you so!

Put Them Away!

Photo from the dedication of the Brad Fox Memorial. 

As many of you have read on this blog in the past, I am not a proponent of gun laws that don’t make any sense. Specifically, laws that go after those who LEGALLY purchase and own firearms. The people that we need to go after are those who hold the law in complete disregard. This is why I was thrilled to read the news this week that a woman was sentenced under the Brad Fox Law. We don’t need ‘gun laws’ we need criminal laws like this one.

Just over two years ago, in September 2012, Plymouth Township Police Officer and Marine Corps veteran, who served two tours in Iraq, Bradley Fox was shot and killed in the line of duty. The criminal behind the heinous act illegally bought the murder weapon in a straw purchase. The law, signed by Governor Corbett in January 2013, establishes a minimum five-year prison sentence for anyone convicted of multiple straw purchases.

This law is a step in the right direction and is already having a positive impact on the judicial system. However, this law, while well intentioned, is tremendously flawed. If we are to honor Officer Fox and all those who fall victim to criminals, we must change this law and truly make the penalties a deterrent.

The first issue that I have with this piece of legislation is that it applies to ‘multiple’ straw purchases. The penalties should be applied to every straw purchase. If you buy a single firearm for someone who is not allowed to legally own a firearm, you should be put away for a long time.

This brings me to the second issue that I have with the law… the sentencing guidelines are too lenient. Five years is not enough. If someone violates federal gun laws (specifically referring to the ATF) there is a minimum sentence of 10 years in federal prison and up to a $10,000 fine. While much of the ATF regulations and NFA laws are outdated and complete crap, the penalties are in line with what should be handed down to someone who knowingly violates laws involving firearms.

In the end, the problem does not lie in the inanimate objects or the law abiding citizen, it is in the black hearts and twisted minds of individuals. These people, those who commit the crimes and, as in this instance, those who help to facilitate these crimes, need to be deal with and done so harshly. After all, we don’t have a ‘gun problem’ in this country we have a people problem and a public that is too willing to blame anything and anyone else rather than looking the problem right in the face and sending them to prison for a very long time.

Bringing Equality To The Courtroom

Pennsylvania House of Representatives

I have been keeping an eye on the state legislature for the past couple of weeks in the hope that actions would be taken to uphold previously passed legislation designed to curb the plethora of firearms regulations that are constantly being debated across the state under the public and media radar. While firearms preemption has long since been enacted, these state measures have largely been ignored by those who refuse to understand firearms and insist on restricting our rights. This week the Pennsylvania legislature took a step forward by providing additional means for citizens of the commonwealth to protect their second amendment rights. You can imagine my relief when I received the following email from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action:

After four years of effort, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives finally passed critical firearms preemption legislation. Yesterday, the state House voted to concur on the Senate amendments to House Bill 80 by an overwhelming 138 to 56 vote. HB 80, when signed into law, will strengthen the state firearms preemption statute to further ensure that firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout Pennsylvania.

State firearms preemption was originally enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature to avoid the possibility of 2,639 separate firearm laws across the Commonwealth. However, over recent years, more than fifty localities have enacted gun control ordinances in violation of the current state firearms preemption law, creating a myriad of local gun laws that make compliance difficult for responsible gun owners. HB 80 will provide a way for responsible gun owners to hold these municipalities responsible for infringing on our Second Amendment rights.

Contrary to reports from the Philadelphia Inquirer and statement made by other politicians, this is NOT a means of weakening the laws that we all agree must be enforced against straw purchasers. That is NOT what this legislation is designed to do and this is not how it should be applied. We all agree that those who break the law should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Additionally, the vast majority of firearms owners support stiffer penalties for those who are found guilty of breaking those laws especially those found guilty of illegally purchasing firearms.

The problem lies in that those who support “common sense firearms legislation” don’t have any common sense when it comes to firearms or the second amendment. Law abiding gun owners are constantly going out of their way to accommodate state, local, and federal laws no matter how absurd they really are but this is not enough for the Bloomberg devotees. There are already enough laws on the books that we abide by, many of which we disagree with but follow, and we should not face further regulation and restrictions of our rights.

So, ignoring the liberal hype and media mongers, what is the real purpose of this legislation? Essentially, the law allows citizens of the commonwealth to bring suit against local and state agencies with the assistance of national organizations such as the NRA, 2^nd Amendment Foundation, National Association for Gun Rights, etc. Laws and regulations are ever changing in the commonwealth thanks to the actions of irrational hoplophobes and this strengthening legislation is a means to even the legal playing field as many of us do not have the means to defend our rights in the courtroom. After all, we are only looking for equality, the ability to exercise our rights without fear of the repercussions and a means of support if we are refused those rights and we are forced to fight for them. Of course, there is also this little piece of legislation in Pennsylvania law which can be found in Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which states the following:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

What Happens In Atlantic City, Stays… On The Front Page

According to the Atlantic County, New Jersey prosecutor it is better to intentionally beat your wife than to accidentally carry a firearm into the state. Something seems a little off with that logic. I don't know what but there is something that doesn't quite make sense. Oh, that's right, one is a crime and the other was an innocent mistake. But recent events have proven that delusional fact as the cases of Ray Rice and Shaneen Allen have caught the attention of the media and the public at large.

In the case of NFL running back, excuse me, former NFL running back, Ray Rice he was caught on camera knocking out his then fiancé, now wife, inside an elevator at a hotel in Atlantic City seven months ago. While most of this is fairly recent new, the case has, in fact, been going on for months. As it turns out, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael Donio and New Jersey District Attorney Jim McClain agreed to put him in a diversion program for 1st-time offenders to keep him out of jail. That’s right, he may not be playing in the NFL at the moment but he also isn’t sitting in a jail cell like he should be.

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, the New Jersey judicial system hasn’t been as understanding with Shaneen Allen. From The Huffington Post (yes, the Huffington Post):

Allen, a mother of two from Philadelphia, was driving in New Jersey last fall when she was pulled over by a police officer. She informed the officer she had a handgun in her purse and a Pennsylvania license-to-carry permit, at which point the officer arrested her and charged her with a felony for unlawful possession of a weapon, because New Jersey does not recognize out-of-state gun permits.

Allen tried to avoid a trial and jail time by applying to a pre-trial intervention program in New Jersey for first-time offenders… But Atlantic County prosecutor Jim McClain, the same prosecutor who allowed Rice to avoid prosecution, denied Allen's application to the program…

Without question, she should have known the law but the dichotomy in the judicial system seems a bit out of whack. While one is a famous football player making millions of dollars and the other is a single mother trying to protect herself and her children, the same opportunity should be given to each of them. As it stands, the prosecutor and judge seem to think that gun owners, however innocent and naïve they may be, are flat out criminals who don’t deserve a second thought while a little boy (I can’t call him a man because of what he did) who knocks out his fiancé deserves a second chance.

I don’t remember reading about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of your wife into the elevator so you can beat the crap out of her”. Did I miss that passage? Was a recent amendment passed? However, I do recall the second amendment which many seem to have forgotten. Interesting how that works.

Do You Really Want Me As A Juror?

 
Today is the date that I was told to report and like any other day during the work week I woke up early, grabbed my stuff and got in the car. Last month I went to pick up the mail and as I flipped through the envelopes one stood out to me. Crap! I got called for jury duty. While many might try to feed you the lines of ‘serving the community’ or ‘supporting the legal system’ I firmly believe that it is a complete waste of time and I shouldn’t be required to burn one of my vacation days to simply fill a seat. Plus I have to drive to Norristown and supposedly park in a temporary lot while the juror parking garage is under construction. This is sounding like it is going to be so much fun!

 

Hopefully some of my displeasure came across in my answers to the questionnaire that I filled out last week (they should pay me for the time it took to fill out that list of crap). And that was even after I waited and had accepted my fate before filling it out. The interesting thing about most of the questions that they ask is that if you think about them long enough you can honestly answer them yes or no. Here are just a couple of the yes or no questions that can be found on the form:

 

Do you have any religious, moral, or ethical beliefs that might prevent you from serving as a juror?

 

When you first read it you think that as a moral, ethical, and grounded person you should check yes but if you put some thought into your response, as I did, I had no choice but to honestly answer no. As a proud Jew (Israeli actually), if someone were to go on trial who is proven to have any kind of tenuous affiliation with a terrorist organization (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) or white supremacist group, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the crime, I would immediately assume them to be guilty. Right or wrong that is honestly how I would react. Plus I have a huge gripe with the extreme liberals and hippies in this country so the same type of scenario could play out that way too. Don’t be offended regular non hippie liberals that is not directed at all of you.

 

In general, would you have any problem following and applying the judge’s instruction on the law?

 

Well… in general, using the Supreme Court as a means of measurement, I am certain that I would completely disagree with a judge’s instruction on the law about half the time in a number of different kinds of cases. If this were specified as a means of applying the letter of the law to a case I would say no. However, this is specifying the generality of the situation so that I have no other option than to respond with yes. While I am obviously by no means a legal scholar, I have my views and there are numerous laws that I disagree with which could, albeit not guaranteed, influence my ability to serve and follow said instruction. Therefore, in general, I might take issue with certain instructions. Also see the previous question and response because there is the potential that one of the instructions could be to ignore such affiliations that are not pertinent to the case at hand.

 

While it could have been simply a lack of cases there is a good possibility that my honesty on the questionnaire is why I was not required to report. Instead, I got to go to work and earn the money that gets taxed to hell so that we can have these overburdened and sometimes broken systems in place. But at least I didn’t have to burn a vacation day!

 

Damn This Slope Is Slippery!

In New Jersey, this could become an "assault weapon".

The Brady Campaign might have to adjust their rankings as New Jersey could be moving up as the state with the third most restrictive firearms laws and into the second position if the current legislation is passed in the State Senate. As reported in the New Jersey Star Ledger, on Monday, “The state Senate’s Law and Public Safety Committee today voted 3-2 along party lines to approve the legislation (A2006), which lowers the allowed size from 15 rounds to 10. The bill has been kicking around the Legislature since 2012 as one of several dozen pushed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Ct. But while it has already passed the Assembly twice, this is the first time it has advanced in the state Senate.”

For those proponents of these ridiculous restrictions this is a clear victory in the limiting of the second amendment rights of New Jersians. However, the expansive wording found in the legislation underlines a clear misunderstanding of firearms and the manpower needed to enforce such harsh restrictions. Case in point, is how the term “assault weapon” is defined….

The legislation currently under consideration would expand the term to include all firearms with fixed or detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, regardless of caliber. In essence, this would turn granddad’s old Henry Golden Boy lever action, tube fed, 22 rifle would become illegal as it would be deemed an “assault weapon” by the state. Back in February, Emily Miller wrote extensively on this aspect of the restriction in a piece published in The Washington Times:

Since the legislation covers both detachable and fixed magazines, it has the effect of banning popular, low-caliber rifles.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs gave the draft legislation to top firearms experts in the country to determine what guns would fall under the expanded ban.

They discovered that the bill would affect tube-fed, semi-automatic rifles because the magazine cannot be separated from the gun.

Thus, the experts found that at least 43 common rifles would suddenly be considered a prohibited “assault firearm,” such as the .22 caliber Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190.

Just having one such gun would turn a law-abiding owner into a felon overnight.

We are not just talking about the AR-15 debate anymore which, by the way, they do not meet the actual definition of “assault weapon” either. So, now that we have that bastardization of the term out of the way, let’s discuss the actual evolution of the term “assault weapon”. Actually, it all began with a completely different term, “assault rifle”.

During World War II, Adolf Hitler personally chose the name "Sturmgewehr" (literally, "storm rifle", translated in English as "assault rifle") to describe the first (the Sturmgewehr 44) of a new class of small arm, which combined the characteristics of a carbine, submachine gun and automatic rifle. A half-decade earlier the propaganda-friendly term "Sturmgeschütz" ("storm gun") was similarly invented and applied to certain armored military vehicles, turretless tank chassis mounting artillery intended for direct fire support. Otherwise, in English, use of the term "assault weapon" was restricted, prior to the 1980s, to naming certain minor military weapons systems, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M\16 assault rifle. More information and misinformation can be found on Wikipedia.

It wasn’t until later years that the definition was expanded, beginning with politicians in California in 1985, to incorporate the semi-automatic classifications and magazine restrictions of 20 rounds and the creation of a term, without definition, “assault weapon”. Basically, it was a means to lump in all firearms they deemed “scary looking” and to rally liberal support of restrictions on the second amendment. However, even this terminology is shaky to this day as “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are seen as interchangeable when, in reality, they are separate terms. “Assault weapon” is still a term floating in the realm of rhetoric… it is basically a slogan relegated to the island of undefined terms. “Assault rifle”, including the definition above, is a fully automatic rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge. You can get a better understanding of this whole dichotomy on the website “The Truth About Assault Weapons”.

The current actions of New Jersey politicians are a clear example of the slippery slope that all Second Amendment supporters have been dreading. And, since we are using completely made up terms anyway, moving forward I will see these actions in New Jersey and other right repressing states as assault legislation. Because while a hunk of steel cannot harm anyone without a person imposing their will upon it, a piece of legislation written on paper cannot harm anyone without politicians imposing their will upon it and upon the people. That is the real assault that is happening in the world today.