Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    2,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. Gun-control advocates in Maine recently pledged to continue pushing for stricter legislation after the Maine Legislative Council voted against many gun-control proposals on Oct. 23. Rep. Vicki Doudera (D), who proposed a pair of gun-control bills, “is disappointed the bills didn’t move forward,” but believes that proponents of gun control “will regroup,” reported The Associated Press. The Maine chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America criticized the legislative council, saying the results could have “deadly consequences.” Despite having a Democratic majority, the Maine Legislative Council voted against the majority of restrictive gun-control proposals and tabled one other. Each requires approval from the 10-member council, comprised of legislative leadership from both parties, in order to move forward to the full legislative session that begins in January. The proposals included “anti-gun schemes such as banning commonly-owned firearms, requiring gun owners to purchase mandatory liability insurance, expanding arbitrary zones where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless and imposing one-size-fits all storage requirements that render firearms unavailable for self-defense,” as reported by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, told the AP “the pushback against new controls shows Maine’s current laws are already working in the state.” Gov. Janet Mills (D) spoke earlier this year about previously proposed gun-control bills, including those regarding background checks, saying that the voters have already spoken. The governor was referencing a 2016 ballot referendum that would have required background checks on virtually all firearms transfers; it was rejected by voters.
  2. RED FLAG LAWS MORE DANGEROUS THAN EXPECTED People declared guilty without trials are left out on the streets Americans don't realize that the safety promised by "red flag" laws will be dangerously lost, if red-flagged people become enraged. They are left free on the streets, where they can terrorize those who assaulted them with the new laws. No grounds or means for locking them up are included, a side effect of dropping traditional due process. Promoters of new red-flag creations, by ignoring the safeguards of due process--well known "innocent unless proven guilty" standards that keep you free--introduced new dangers. By abandoning this fundamental safety net, they lifted restrictions that hold tyrants, bigots and other malfeasants at bay. A recent survey has shown that most Americans cannot even describe what due process is, let alone hold it up as a basic right to be honored or defended. Removing due process allows officials to act as if the public is guilty without the burdens of a trial--or even formal charges. Red flag laws are only expected to be used against supposedly deadly dangerous psychotics, before they act out in spree murders, sort of "pre-crime." Once officials take--without proper paperwork or court orders--firearms they can find in those people's homes, the people are simply left alone. Any weapons officials miss, plus knives, gasoline, or firearms that can be easily obtained on the street--these remain with the flagged people. Nothing stops the supposedly murderous psychotics--if flag laws are applied as intended--to attack their suspected accusers, authorities or ambush anyone, in attempts to rebalance the scales of justice. Experts have been hard pressed to describe a more dangerous legalistic invention. "Eliminating due process, and declaring people guilty without trial or representation, means totally abandoning the U.S. Constitution," said Alan Korwin, author of ten books on gun law and consultant to JPFO. "We know democrats have been ignoring the rule of law, but this shows they know no bounds. Do they expect courts to support this? Or have the courts abandoned the rule of law as well?" When this comes home to roost, he says, you'll really wish you had your right to keep and bear arms intact, as the Founders intended, for your own safety.
  3. What I was trying to do is make everyone think and reason - but the question was still not answered - "Who is to be the judge of when a debt to society is paid in full?
  4. Too often, firearm violence prompts calls for lawmakers to “do something.” This often includes policies that abridge rights and fail to increase public safety.Key points:Texas is the safest it has been in a generation, yet some are calling for stricter gun control.Common gun control proposals often penalize law-abiding gun owners while failing to improve public safety.
  5. This only came about in recent history, just prior to WWII because of the crime wave of the 20's The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 was enacted in the hopes of reducing the crime rates by restricting firearms access to criminals. Since then more and more laws have been enacted to further restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans (not just criminals). Some of these laws turn law abiding citizens into criminals. So are you now advocating the restriction of the 2nd Amendment, a God given right? In my court I have seen many people who have made a mistake and I agree they must be punished for it. How long must this punishment last? This is a question I have to ask myself in each case. Laws we must have to avoid a total breakdown in society, but they must be just and tempered with compassion as well. The more severe the crime the stricter the punishment (agreed); but who is to be the final judge of when the debt to society has been repaid in full? For some crimes I agree that will be a lifetime. But what about those that there for the grace of God go I crimes? Yes it is a choice to commit a crime and everyone does. Consider the rolling stop at a stop sign. What if while calculating your taxes at 3 am, you accidentally put a a decimal in the wrong place and the IRS catches it, you go to court and are convicted of tax evasion. I am not advocating for or against this effort but the justice system in many cases has failed at restoration of these rights. There was a 75 year old man that made a mistake at age 18 (1 oz marijuana). After his release he led an exemplary life and was highly thought of in his community. He was trying to do get his rights restored a number of years back so he could take his grandson hunting before he died. He started the process at age 50 and died at 78 without ever having his rights restored. How would you feel in his place? Finally, tell me; where have any of these restrictions actually reduced crime by keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals who by their very nature ignore the laws and welcome a defenseless victim? Finally, I have seen where when only 1 in 20+ felons in possession were referred for prosecution, were actually prosecuted; and more often than not they received probation at most. We have enough laws on the books to put a felon in possession behind bars for the rest of their life, we also have enough firearms laws on the books to lower the crime rates by 50% were they vigorously enforced; this has been shown. But back to the question at hand. "Who is to be the judge of when a debt to society is paid in full? Before answering consider that the founders gave us our Constitution and Bill of Rights because they did not trust an all powerful government. Charlie
  6. RED FLAG LAWS MORE DANGEROUS THAN EXPECTED People declared guilty without trials are left out on the streets Americans don't realize that the safety promised by "red flag" laws will be dangerously lost, if red-flagged people become enraged. They are left free on the streets, where they can terrorize those who assaulted them with the new laws. No grounds or means for locking them up are included, a side effect of dropping traditional due process. Promoters of new red-flag creations, by ignoring the safeguards of due process--well known "innocent unless proven guilty" standards that keep you free--introduced new dangers. By abandoning this fundamental safety net, they lifted restrictions that hold tyrants, bigots and other malfeasants at bay. A recent survey has shown that most Americans cannot even describe what due process is, let alone hold it up as a basic right to be honored or defended. Removing due process allows officials to act as if the public is guilty without the burdens of a trial--or even formal charges. Red flag laws are only expected to be used against supposedly deadly dangerous psychotics, before they act out in spree murders, sort of "pre-crime." Once officials take--without proper paperwork or court orders--firearms they can find in those people's homes, the people are simply left alone. Any weapons officials miss, plus knives, gasoline, or firearms that can be easily obtained on the street--these remain with the flagged people. Nothing stops the supposedly murderous psychotics--if flag laws are applied as intended--to attack their suspected accusers, authorities or ambush anyone, in attempts to rebalance the scales of justice. Experts have been hard pressed to describe a more dangerous legalistic invention. "Eliminating due process, and declaring people guilty without trial or representation, means totally abandoning the U.S. Constitution," said Alan Korwin, author of ten books on gun law and consultant to JPFO. "We know democrats have been ignoring the rule of law, but this shows they know no bounds. Do they expect courts to support this? Or have the courts abandoned the rule of law as well?" When this comes home to roost, he says, you'll really wish you had your right to keep and bear arms intact, as the Founders intended, for your own safety.
  7. On Friday, November 22nd, the Kentucky state Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary will consider so called “red-flag laws.” Though no legislation has been introduced, such laws usually allow for Second Amendment rights to be suspended and firearms seized without due process. Please contact leadership of the General Assembly, as well as the committee, and urge them to oppose these firearm confiscation schemes. “Red-flag laws” generally allow courts to suspend individual Second Amendment rights without adequate due process. Such orders are typically issued after an ex parte hearing where the individual is not present to challenge allegations or face their accuser. These hearings have low evidentiary standards that fall well below the norm for removing fundamental constitutional rights. Again, please contact leadership of the General Assembly, as well as the committee, and urge them to oppose legislation that violates our fundamental due process rights.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.