Translate

Saturday, December 15, 2018

BI-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT TO USURP CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ON GUNS COMING?

BI-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT TO USURP CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ON GUNS COMING? 
BY STEVE BYAS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 
Americans who value the right to keep and bear arms are largely complacent about that right, content that the Second Amendment rather clearly protects a citizen’s right. After all, they smugly tell themselves, did not the Supreme Court specifically, a few years ago in the Heller decision, confirm that the Second Amendment protects the right as an individual right?
That is all true, yet the words of Congressman John Randolph, a cousin of Thomas Jefferson, are quite applicable to today, when he said the Constitution of the United States is “just parchment” — just words — unless we are prepared to make sure government officials follow that document.
Resting right now in the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations is a very dangerous bill, — H.R. 5717, the Jake Laird Act of 2018 — that threatens every American’s right to keep and bear arms, despite the clear wording of the Second Amendment. It is a bipartisan bill. It even has a Republican sponsor, Susan Brooks of Indiana, lest one think that the threat to the Second Amendment rests only with Democrats. In fact, the bill has 15 co-sponsors, and only six are Democrats. Nine co-sponsors are Republicans.
The Brooks bill proposes to authorize the attorney general of the United States “to make grants to States that have in place laws that authorize the seizure of firearms from dangerous individuals, and for other purposes.”
This is a method that has been used frequently to get states to bend the knee to the federal government, basically bribing them with “federal” money. Several decades ago, when the federal government decreed the states should lower their speed limits to 55 miles an hour or face the loss of federal highway funds, all 50 states meekly complied. Brooks’ bill provides for $50 million to implement the bill.
So, don’t smugly think that your state would not comply. And don’t look to the White House for a presidential veto, were this bill to pass Congress. President Donald Trump has already indicated that he would be open to a law that takes guns away from “dangerous” Americans, and worry about “due process” later.
But exactly who is a “dangerous” individual? Is it someone who has been convicted of a crime, or even arrested and charged with a crime? Not under Brooks’ bill.
Under the Brooks bill, a “dangerous” person is defined as an individual who presents an imminent risk of injuring himself or herself, or another individual; or one who may present a risk of injuring himself or herself, or another individual, and has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication, but has demonstrated a pattern of not voluntarily and consistently taking such medication, except under supervision; or is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct; or poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself or herself, or another individual, by possessing a firearm.
All of this is very subjective. Who could make the decision that this wording applies to a particular individual? A court of competent jurisdiction may issue a warrant authorizing a law-enforcement officer to seize a firearm from a person that the court determines there is probable cause to believe is dangerous and in possession of a firearm.
The affidavit to obtain such a warrant must be submitted with facts supporting the law-enforcement officer’s probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm, including a description of the law-enforcement officer’s interaction with the individual, or with another individual who provided information relating to the individual against whom the warrant is sought, and whom the law-enforcement officer determines is credible and reliable.
In blunt language, a judge may issue a warrant to take away the firearm of a law-abiding citizen even though that person has committed no crime. If a law-enforcement officer believes that individual is dangerous — maybe when merely relying on the word of an enemy of the individual — it’s enough While there is a subsequent hearing before a court, in which the burden of proof is supposedly upon the government, a person can be deprived of his property without having committed any crime.
Not only that, the name of a person so judged to be “dangerous” will then be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Despite not having been convicted, or even charged with any crime at all, he is now considered a criminal!
In addition to the person losing his firearm, or firearms, he also is stripped of any license to carry a firearm, if he has one, and the judge can order the person not obtain a firearm in the future.
While this bill obviously does violence to the Second Amendment, it also violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people “to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” With the Brooks bill, government can take your property, despite your not having ever been charged, much less convicted of a crime.
This is yet another reason not to hold a convention, under Article V of the Constitution, to consider amendments to our Constitution. The very fact that such a bill could even be contemplated should cause us to ask this sobering question: Do we want such a convention made up of delegates elected by the same electorate that elected Congressman Brooks and her co-sponsors? Would it not be better to just stick to the Constitution crafted in 1787 by James Madison and his fellow delegates?

MILLION PLUS NEW JERSEY GUN OWNERS DEFY STATE LAW, REFUSE TO TURN IN BANNED GUN MAGAZINES OVER 10 ROUNDS

 GESTAPO POLICE STATE
MILLION PLUS NEW JERSEY GUN OWNERS DEFY STATE LAW, REFUSE TO TURN IN BANNED GUN MAGAZINES OVER 10 ROUNDS 
BY JOHN CRUMP
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 Opinion
 Over one million New Jersey Gun owners defy Governor 
Murphy's gun magazine ban & turn in demands of what some estimate is
 easily more than ten million now illegal standard capacity gun mags.
 
New Jersey-(Ammoland.com)- New Jersey's standard capacity magazine ban is now in effect making New Jersey's one million gun owners criminals in the eyes of the state. But in an act of mass definace, New Jersey residents refuse to comply.
Any magazine holding more than ten rounds is now illegal in the Garden State. The standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds. Glock 19s, which is the most popular pistol in the United States, holds 15 rounds. Anyone who is possession of larger magazine is committing a fourth-degree felony.

Anyone caught with one of the now banned magazines in their possession faces up to 18 months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines or both for each magazine found.

The bill was signed into law last June by Gov. Phil Murphy (D). Residents had until December 11th, 2018, to turn over magazines to police or sell or store them out of state.
Pro-gun groups sued New Jersey to try to prevent the law from going into effect. Their attempt on blocking the law failed in a federal appeals court. The three-judge panel ruled that a law limiting the number of rounds a magazine holds did not violate the US Constitution and did not put an undue burden on New Jersey gun owners.
“New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home,” the court wrote in their decision. “The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified.”
AG Gurbir Grewal applauded the ruling on Twitter stating: “This just in: for months, individuals have been challenging NJ’s limits on large capacity magazines—a sensible law to address mass shootings. Today, the court of appeals upheld the law. Big win for public safety and law enforcement safety!”
Residents of New Jersey on various message boards have called the magazine ban unenforceable. Some were going as far as laughing at Gov. Murphy and his attempt at regulating magazine size.
New Jersey is not saying how they plan to enforce the ban on standard capacity magazines. Gov. Murphy's office referred AmmoLand to the New Jersey Attorney General's office. The AG's office refused to comment.
Sharon Lauchaire, Director of Communications for the Office the Attorney General told AmmoLand: “We do not discuss law enforcement strategies.”
AmmoLand's sources within the New Jersey State Police that spoke on a condition of anonymity stated that they had not received any guidance on how to enforce the ban from the AG’s office. They said that there is currently no plan to investigate gun owners suspected of having the now banned magazines.
According to the source, the plan that has been discussed among officers is only to file charges against people who are guilty of other crimes. This plan might change once superiors give guidance on how to enforce the ban.
AmmoLand reached out to several local police departments in New Jersey to see how they plan on enforcing the ban and what the turn in numbers have been? Much like the New Jersey State Police, none of these departments have a concrete plan on how to proactively enforce the ban and none had a single report of magazines turned over.

From all Reports, NO Mags Turned In,  Governor Murphy & His Law are Joke

AmmoLand also asked the Governor's office what Gov. Murphy thinks of users on the internet saying that the ban is unenforceable and laughing at the Governor's attempt at regulating magazine sizes.
Gov. Murphy and his office refused to comment on these gun owner's opinions.
AmmoLand also asked Gov. Murphy's office about the number of magazines turned in by New Jersey residents. Once again AmmoLand was referred to the New Jersey Attorney General's office.
In this case, Lauchaire would not offer a comment and referred AmmoLand to the New Jersey State Police. Lauchaire stated she was aware of AmmoLand's previous inquire to the State Police on the number of magazines turned in meaning that State Police contacted the AG’s office about our request for information.
The New Jersey State Police have not officially responded to our request on the number of magazines that were turned over by citizens.
Two sources from within the State Police, who spoke to AmmoLand on condition of anonymity, told AmmoLand News that they both do not know of any magazines turned over to their agency and doubted that any were turned in. They also stated that the State Police also engaged the AG's office for guidance on how to respond to inquiries such as ours. They were unaware if the Attorney General has returned to their request for guidance.
All the local police departments that AmmoLand contacted stated that they have not had any magazines turned into them.
AmmoLand has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with The New Jersey State Police to get an official count of the number of magazines turned in by New Jersey citizens. We will update the story if our FOIA request is fulfilled.
About John CrumpJohn Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

  • THE BOY SCOUTS ARE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY~HERE'S WHAT LED TO THEIR DEMISE

    THE BOY SCOUTS ARE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY~HERE'S WHAT LED TO THEIR DEMISE 
    ALLOWING GAYS, SEX ABUSE CAUSED 
    MEMBERS TO FLEE;
    FEMINISTS HAVE DESTROYED 
    A MALE ONLY ORGANIZATION 
     Facing mounting legal costs from defending itself against lawsuits and massive decline in membership, the Boy Scouts is considering filing for Chapter 11 protection, The Wall Street Journal is reporting. The BSA has reportedly hired the Sidley Austin LLP law firm and released a statement on Wednesday saying that it was “working with experts to explore all options available to ensure that the local and national programming of the Boy Scouts of America continues uninterrupted.”
    SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/boy-scouts-lose-425000-members-dropping-boy/

    BRANCO CARTOON: "OBAMA BUILT THAT"~OBAMA GAVE IRAN $150 BILLION, BUT DEMOCRATS WON'T GIVE TRUMP $5 BILLION FOR THE BORDER WALL

    OBAMA GAVE IRAN $150 BILLION, BUT DEMOCRATS WON'T GIVE TRUMP $5 BILLION 
    FOR THE BORDER WALL
     Iran Obama Built That