Stand-by Virginians

Knee jerk reaction inbound


here

Link above dead. This one works, for now: https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/06/to...each-killings/

Common Sense Gun Control"?
 

Liberal Democrats want no GUNS in the entire U S A They want total control and all the power to dictate Socialism, Communism, and Populism. NEVER VOTE FOR A LIBERAL.

Its always good to see the media holding up their end of reporting "news"...

CNN's version of le truth:
Source

And the New York Post:
Source

Yet none of the other big media houses mention anything about possible issues at work before crabcock spontaneously killed a bunch of co-workers except for a very brief sentence in a New York Times Post:
Source

Strange coincidence the timing of this one...

Which supports the politician trying to deflect questions about his "liberalness". This provides an opportunity to demonstrate his mindless dedication to the hive.

Never pass up a good tragedy of the serfs to advance your personal agenda.

Updated
 

These are the laws Northam proposed:

Universal background checks
Child access prevention
One gun a month limits
Banning assault weapons, including bump stocks
Requirement to report lost or stolen guns
Allowing localities to ban guns from municipal buildings
Red flag laws


Pull the string....

Surival
 

I look for integrity, ownership of consequences of action, moral equilibrium and compassion for others in the world around me. Somehow governments are undoing all our natural rights with a complete lack of knowledge of "common law".

There seems to be no avenue available other than to become fit and ready, aware and vigilant. To hone skills of knowing bush tucker, catching water and feeling comfortable in my skin. The fact that I may be considered offbeat or paranoid bothers me not.
I really feel that we are entering a time of survival of the fittest.

I am prepared.
So many haven't even defined their interpretation of "Fit", yet.
We don't have a second amendment but the weight behind the idea is irrefutable for any citizen in any country.:

You forgot one:

"The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired." If we can save just one child. . .

Universal background checks - If I understand the intent of this, it is to make it a crime for one private citizen to sell another private citizen a firearm.

I agree with background checks and it appears that Virginia has a much stricter/thorough questionnaire than states I have inhabited. I am under the impression that it is already illegal to sell via a private transaction, a firearm to someone who can not legally own one. "Universal background checks" just seems to be the lingo that leaders are supposed to bandy about when talking about gun control.

Child access prevention - How can this be enforced? If what they want is "common sense gun control", then keeping your damn untrained children away from firearms seems pretty common sense to me.

One gun a month limits - This is silly. Is the mindset that crabwalk used 2 guns the motivation behind this?

Banning assault weapons, including bump stocks - I think this speaks to the real agenda. crabcock didn't even use an assault weapon, nor a bump stock. Hell, why not throw suppressors in there? Guess they cant miss out on any opportunity to turn a whole bunch of people into criminals.

Requirement to report lost or stolen guns - Back to the "common sense" thing. I dont know if I have read it or if its just "common sense" to me to do this anyway. Again, how are they going to enforce this? "if a weapon used to commit a crime is found to be registered to someone other than the criminal then the registered owner is somehow complicit in the crime if he has not reported it stolen"?

Allowing localities to ban guns from municipal buildings - Yeah this always works well. They are already prohibited from federal buildings, schools, airports, etc... Back to enforcement. The county courthouse in my city is the only building I'm aware of with metal detectors and armed officers frisking entrants. Funny that that is where all the judges and lawyers and mayors hang out all day :rolleyes:

Red flag laws - this one is interesting, especially given the grey area (in the US) in which mental health issues and right to keep and bear arms co-exist.
I'm curious, again, how this can be legislated. To give close friends/family the power, so to speak, to report a gun owner as being unstable and therefore incapable of possessing firearms IMO would trigger first a sit down with a psychologist to determine the gun owners actual mental state, in general, under no specific pretense before the case is presented to a judge, where the culpability of the reporter as well as the psychologists findings can be weighed in the balance.
I would also think that the gun owner should have pre-scheduled re-evaluations at regular intervals with a psychologist who was unaware of WHY he was ascertaining the mental health of the gun owner, and that these reevaluations can be reviewed in a timely fashion, by an impartial judge for the possibility of reinstating the right of the gun owner to his weapons.

Or... Common sense from another direction. Make it a law that every citizen whom can demonstrate mental and physical ability to safely and proficiently operate a firearm, own and carry a firearm (when reasonable) at all times. -- In re-reading this last paragraph, I wonder if something like this would decrease crime and increase accidental shooting injuries/deaths and/or suicides...

MOO YMMV

Lol

Sorry governor, you still ain't getting them.

If it's any consolation - not everyone is okay with fear mongering knee jerk reactions.

A friend of a friend was involved in the most recent incident in VB. Fortunately, he is alright. Unfortunately, some of his coworkers are not. You may have seen some of the footage he took online somewhere, if that gives you any idea to his proximity.

In light of the events, he recently took to social media to express his grief over the loss of life and presented a relevant solution - the removal of the current gun laws which prevented him or his coworkers from carrying at work and thus rendering themselves defenseless. He was asked if his views had changed given the event and he steadfastly responded negatively, if anything his conviction was only confirmed. It's a well thought out and articulated response - short and sweet. Unfortunately his privacy settings are set in a way it's not able to be shared, so there's no possibility of his message getting out and going viral.

This is just a 'regular guy', mind you. As far as I'm aware, no prior military or law enforcement experience - certainly no 'cool guy' stuff.

Fortunately none of that is a requisite for being a thinking human being who can acknowledge reality when it's in your face.

It's too bad that so many voices - I'm reasonably sure he's not alone - will not share that view because it's the opposite one that makes all the noise. Sanity is lost in the static because of insufficient volume.

Sadly these days, prior military or law enforcement experience will translate into thinking that firearms do not belong in the hands of civilians.

Your friend is a right thinker, he doesn't need LE or MIL experience for that. It's tragic that his government infringes upon his ability to defend himself from evil men.

With all of the gyrations going on in reference to the Second Amendment.

If one of the authors or signatories has not yet sent a copy of the original letter to Trump, Pence, McConnell and others - this might be a good time.

Times have changed. I would recommend a revision. A more pity one at that.

Maybe something more along the lines of what the FPC put out but nuanced in our own special way.

Completely agree. It hasn't taken long here for the subject of "red flag" laws to come up. In an almost "man bites dog" moment, even our new Dem governor has said he's not necessarily a fan because of the lack of due-process involved in the way they're done. It doesn't hurt that he's also aware of the battle involved in R's dominating both chambers of the legislature. But anecdotally I've heard, from many places in the state, that folks were actively engaging their reps when these things first started popping up in other states, and providing some not-to-subtle warnings about how that might fly when the notion of guilty until you prove yourself innocent is written into code.

The reps are well-aware - due to the aformentioned chirping - of the guy who's already dead after being ERPO-Swatted by a disgruntled ex in-law (or whatever she was) and decided, "No" and was shot for his trouble. It will not be the last when proceeding down that road. And, sadly, the current POTUS already ran his mouth on the topic, to wit: "Take the guns first, do due-process later."

So yeah, he could do with a copy of the letter, even updated. (Although I reserve my view, garnered over some decades, that attempts to legislate human behavior end up being filed under Fool's Errand.)

I think we also need to add US vs Miller 1939. A semi auto and standard capacity magazine ban would go against guns necessary for guns that have a military purpose for the militia.


CD

Where do I sign the letter
 

How and or where is the link to sign the 2nd Amendment letter??

An interesting piece...theory versus reality. The costs to defend an accusation - including a false claim, i.e., a LIE - in court can be quite substantial.

Republicans Who Support Gun Confiscation Laws Imagine 'Due Process' That Does Not Exist on Paper or in Practice

Here is how the states with "red flag" laws fail to protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.

JACOB SULLUM | 8.7.2019 12:55 PM
REASON

When President Donald Trump endorsed "red flag" laws on Monday, he described them as providing "rapid due process" to people accused of posing a threat to themselves or others before suspending their Second Amendment rights. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), who plans to introduce a bill aimed at encouraging more states to enact such laws, says they should provide "robust due process." But as I note in my column today, due process is neither rapid nor robust under most existing red flag laws, which 17 states and the District of Columbia have enacted. There is little reason to think the situation will improve as more states rush to do something about mass shootings.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last March, David Kopel, a gun policy expert at the Independence Institute in Denver, emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of respondents in gun confiscation cases. Kopel's recommendations include requiring that petitions be submitted only by law enforcement agencies after an independent investigation, allowing ex parte orders (which are issued without an adversarial process) only for good cause, limiting them to one week, limiting subsequent orders to six months, requiring clear and convincing evidence, providing counsel to respondents, giving them a right to cross-examine witnesses, letting them sue people who file false and malicious petitions, and giving them advance notice of confiscation orders. Here are some of the ways existing laws fall short of those criteria.

Who can file a petition?

According to a handy summary prepared by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, just five states (Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Rhode Island, and Vermont) require that petitions come from police officers or prosecutors. In the other 12 states and D.C., lots of other potentially aggrieved (or well-meaning but mistaken) people, such as blood relatives, in-laws, current and former cohabitants, current and former intimates, physicians, and mental health specialists, can also file petitions. A pending California bill would add employers, co-workers, and school personnel to that state's already lengthy list of potential petitioners.

When are ex parte orders allowed?

Every state and D.C. allow judges to issue gun confiscation orders without giving the respondent a chance to rebut the claims against him. In some states, the standard for such ex parte orders is minimal. New York requires "probable cause" to believe the respondent is "likely to cause serious harm" to himself or others. Other states are stricter. Vermont requires showing by "a preponderance of the evidence" that the respondent poses "an immediate and extreme risk."

How long do ex parte orders last?

The maximum length ranges from a week in Nevada to six months (for "good cause") in Maryland. Fourteen days—twice as long as Kopel's recommendation—is the most common limit.

What is the standard of proof for final orders?

Most states require clear and convincing evidence. But a preponderance of the evidence (any probability greater than 50 percent) is enough in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington state, and Washington, D.C.

How long do final orders last?

Orders issued after an adversarial hearing typically last up to a year (twice as long as Kopel thinks appropriate), and they can be renewed. Illinois and Vermont have six-month limits, while Indiana and New Jersey impose no time limit. Instead the respondent has to win back his Second Amendment rights by proving he is not dangerous.

Do respondents have a right to legal representation?

Colorado is the only state that provides counsel to respondents who cannot afford a lawyer or choose not to hire one.

Do respondents get a chance to cross-examine their accusers?

Not necessarily. In some states, Kopel says, "The accuser and witnesses supporting the accuser never need to testify in court, where they would be subject to cross-examination. Instead, persons can simply submit an affidavit."

Do respondents have a civil cause of action against petitioners who lie?

No state lets petitioners sue their accusers for knowingly misrepresenting facts in their petitions. While dishonest petitioners could theoretically face criminal charges, Kopel says, such cases are hard to prove and are almost never brought. He argues that the threat of litigation is necessary as a deterrent to people who would otherwise abuse the system to hurt people they have a grudge against.

Do respondents have advance notice before gun confiscation orders are executed?

In some states, Kopel says, "a respondent never receives notice of anything until
the police show up to confiscate his or her firearms," which "creates an inherently volatile and dangerous situation for law enforcement and the public." (See, e.g., the Gary Willis casein Maryland.) Kopel argues that "the safer approach is to authorize no-notice confiscation only when a court has made specific factual findings about why such an approach is needed."

How do red flag laws work in practice?

The actual performance of red flag laws tends to be worse than the promises on paper. While Indiana notionally requires that a hearing be held within 14 days of a gun seizure, for instance, a 2015 study found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms. Although Maryland officially requires evidence of an "immediate and
present danger" for ex parte orders, judges issue them in virtually every case.

Even when clear and convincing evidence is required for a final order, the thing to be proven—usually a "significant" risk but in some states a mere "risk," "danger," or "risk of danger"—is vague and undefined. When standards are amorphous, judges are especially likely to err on the side of issuing orders, because they imagine that failing to do so could lead to terrible consequences. The possibility that a respondent will unfairly lose his Second Amendment rights is bound to pale in comparison to the possibility that he will use a gun to commit suicide or murder. That psychological dynamic helps explain why judges in Florida issue final orders 95 percent of the time.

Donald Trump can talk about due process. Lindsey Graham can talk about due process. David French can talk about due process. But when push comes to shove, state legislators will give it short shrift, and so will judges, because they both have strong incentives to cast the net as widely as possible, the better to catch potential mass shooters. Never mind that red flag laws are mainly used to protect people against their own suicidal impulses, or that so far there is no real evidence that they prevent homicides. The point is to do something about mass shootings, whether or not that thing works or produces benefits that outweigh its costs, which in this case consist mainly of constitutional rights unjustly lost.

https://reason.com/2019/08/07/republ...r-in-practice/

Found this last night; pertinent to the current discussion:

Exactly!

Bingo. And it will happen.

The dilemma,

1)ban all weapons (guns, knives, hammers, tomahawks, curling-irons)
2)red flag crazy people

The solution

1)binary, you either ban or not
2)chaos - bureaucratic minions of the state pick & choose the baddies


Sounds like a Lose-Lose :(

I do not advocate violence,, BUT we had one Bunker Hill, there can be others :mad:


PS: Notice the Pine Tree on the flag? It lives on,, To this very day.

What a coinky-dink; I have that very thing (with the paw) framed on the wall right behind me as I type.
:cool:

The definitive aurgument against gun-control!
 

This is the definitive aurgument against gun-control! It's not a unique story, it's just that it happened to a Los Angeles radio talk show host who is also a decorated war veteran married to a former LEO (this is very important). So, he has a voice that can not be ignored.

Brian Suits does a military focused weekly broadcast on KFI in LA. He took over when the previous host, Dale Dye, left to become the Technical Advisor on The Pacific.

Short bio from Wiki: Enlisting in the United States Army Reserve in 1989, he served in Operation Desert Storm as a medic in HHT/2nd Squadron 2nd Armored Cavalry. In 1992, Suits was called up as a California Army National Guardsman in 4bn 160th Infantry in response to civil unrest following the "Rodney King" verdicts. In 1998 he deployed as a member of the Oregon Army National Guard to Bosnia as part of SFOR, the NATO mission to Bosnia. Suits was involved in the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia) investigation of the Croatian militia called "The Jokers." This work is still classified. In 2002, he attended Officer Candidate School and received his commission. As a member of C Company, 1st Battalion, 161st Infantry Regiment, Washington Army National Guard he deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom." "Suits was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and was wounded in action several times and awarded the Purple Heart."

This podcast is of his broadcast last Saturday night where he explains how his and his 10-year-old daughter's lives are melting down because they live in California and especially LA County. It's the first 66 minutes of his show. It's a must hear and hopefully it will be widely disseminated. Even with such a serious subject, he's still very entertaining.

August 17, 2019 A Very Different Episode: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-d...lace-28067787/ Just hit the go button at the bottom of the page.

Universal Background Checks
 

Well, I had written a long and concise post, but I timed-out and it was deleted. I will post the short version, now and follow-up. As I respect the experiences and opinions, here, I would like to know your thoughts on universal background checks. In short, should we (gun owners) be okay with or support UBC? What reasons should we oppose them? Thanks.

Not no, but hell no! My current job exposes me to a fair number of security clearance investigations, both my own and others. The inaccuracies, ineptitudes, arbitrary and capricious nature of the judgements or personal animus on the part of the deciding official, difficulties inherent in clearing ones name from the aforementioned, and the lifelong stigma associated with a failure to clear one's name are understandable evils when viewed in the context that obtaining/holding a security clearance is a privilege. These same "understandable evils" become intolerable when they impede the pursuit of an "endowed by their Creator" natural right - access to the tools required to provide for defense of self and others.

Bottom line - UBCs abridge the rights of the righteous and deter not the criminal.

And if my opinion carries little weight, I invite an examination of others' thoughts with respect to the 2nd Amendment and the place of Arms in a free society: https://ammo.com/articles/citizens-owning-guns-quotes

GUN CONTROL ?
 

"MARK MY WORDS" by John Mark. Look it up.

First, UBC doesn't "fix" anything. Anyone who thinks that such a thing is going to keep Tyrone Shoelaces from selling Hi-Points or Kel-Tecs out of the trunk of their car in The City or out of their crack house is deluded. It's important to understand that, in current dialogue, the word "loophole" is defined by aspiring tyrants as "something in law that you get to use that I disapprove of that makes it look to others as if you're engaging in deceitful behavior (e.g., tax "loophole" otherwise known as authorized deduction already in the tax code).

Thus, the myth of the "gunshow loophole." Dealers who pay for & operate booths at a gunshow must still conduct background checks & it's done telephonically, quite easily. To do otherwise completely risks the termination of their business & possible fine and imprisonment. (And if you think the ATF doesn't hawk gunshows I've got some land to sell you...) This leads to my primary objection to UBC.

UBC takes one of the core tenets of being a free person walking the planet and throws it away, that of being able to purchase, own, control and dispose of Private Property. There is almost no other thing that defines freedom as the ability to own private property. One of the aspects of that ownership is the ability to dispose of it, in a simple transaction based on terms agreed upon by 2 free men. UBC turns that on its head and says you must get permission first, and if you must get permission then the property isn't truly yours, nor are you free. You are also then not free to arm your trusted neighbor should the need arise during times of high threat to the community, unless they be one of the "generous exemptions granted by your betters"* such as a relative.

Make your own decision about what's important; just thought I'd offer that.



* I also predict that such laws will get crafted to include sworn & retired law-enforcement personnel, since the drafters of these laws like to get LE on board - just as with carry laws - by making them a special different class of person who also doesn't have to play by the rules everyone else does.

Everyone in here knows, the only real reason for “UBC” or any other “must pass a background check before selling” type law is to have ALL guns registered in a database. Otherwise, how could they “prove” that I sold / gave my neighbor a gun? Registration is the first step in confiscation.......

Yep

I am concerned about what any politician will do.

I will always say the one thing all shooting events (mass or indicidual )have in common is that a PERSON pulled the trigger.

But people are getting sick of the routine. New rules are coming, maybe problems with what and how deep.

At the same time..
How do we stop people before they start shooting?

Any reasonable idea?

Is finding ways to stop people before they start shooting an isolated effort? Is it any more important than figuring out how to stop people before they start raping, before they start driving impaired, before they start stealing, before they start lying under oath, before they start stabbing, before they start...?

It comes down to refocusing efforts on teaching a culture of personal accountability and respect for human life. Re-establishing a sense of community would likely also help.

How to go about doing that in today's environment is a more complicated question.

Exactly! I would also suggest legal accountability... take the orange haired movie theater shooter from Colorado, he has been coddled by the system, while I understand not violating his rights so no technicalities develop, there should be ramifications that equate to his crimes ie. A very public sanction!!! The liberal influences on that process are deluding the intent.

The division created by saul’s followers has no doubt been a negative for our society.

The attack on the 2d amendment is just a charade.

The main assault is against the entire spectrum of individual American liberties but most Americans are too stupid and too emotional to see past the argument that it is all because we should "think about the children"

The current crop politicians are NOT stupid and they certainly aren't innocent. They hide behind the 2d amendment because that is the most popular one to attack. Attacking the 2d amendment is the easiest course of action if you are looking to mask the truth -
the truth is - fuck you and ALL of your liberties...

Fuck off with your silly idea that the 4th Amendment secures the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
When the government decides that they want your shit - they WILL come and take it. If you resist - the news roll will show that you had too many guns and too many bullets to be left alive.

Fuck you and your belief that the 5th Amendment declares that no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
When the government decides that they want your shit - they WILL come and take it. If you resist - the news reports will paint you as an extremist.

Fuck you and your belief that you should enjoy 8th Amendment protections against the imposition of excessive fines - if a bureaucratic government agency wants to impose excessive licensing fees that are so high that it prevents "the common man" from enjoying "legal" ownership of property - well - tough shit.
Besides, "excessive" is a subjective term - and to get around it, they'll just call it a 'tax' and when you don't pay your "tax" - well... like I said - when the government decides that they want your shit - they WILL come and take it. If you resist - the 6 O'clock news will turn you into nothing more than another law breaker that refused to pay his "taxes"


Just to make sure that you all understand how little the machine cares about you - to add insult to injury - those in power don't mind extending EXTRA protections under the 1st Amendment to special interest groups and activists that want to protest your racist, homophobic, islamophobic, sexist, greedy, self absorbed, gun toting, bible thumping mania by using the 1st Amendment as a club to attack YOUR 2d, 4th, 5th, ad 8th amendment rights which could be argued, serves as an indirect infringement of your 9th amendment rights.


It has NEVER
EVER
EVER EVER EVER
been about "gun control" - its about population control

Pretending otherwise seems like a dangerous approach to retaining the REAL essence of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
...just my two cents - I could be wrong

No. You're not wrong.

"MARK MY WORDS" by JOHN MARK. LOOK IT UP & WATCH IT. 4 Episodes so far.