Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. The Cato Institute recently filed an amicus brief in support of a U.S. Supreme Court petition against an unconstitutional Massachusetts firearms ban. Currently, Massachusetts law prohibits the ownership of “assault weapons.” This definition includes the “most popular semi-automatic rifles in the country, as well as ‘copies or duplicates’ of any such weapons,” according to the Cato Institute. The law was passed in 2004 by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, who said semi-automatic firearms “are not made for recreation or self-defense.” A group of plaintiffs challenged the ban only to see both a federal trial judge and appellate court – which included former Justice David Souter – upheld the ban. The plaintiffs are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case, arguing that the lower courts has improperly applied the “common use” test from the court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision. The institute joined the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) and the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL), an NRA Massachusetts state affiliate and plaintiff in the case: Worman v. Healey. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide later this fall whether or not to hear the landmark case. “The NRA believes this case embodies a critical moment for America’s gun owners. With 2020 presidential candidates and members of Congress encouraging the confiscation of commonly-owned firearms—like the AR-15—it is vital that the Supreme Court remind politicians that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes our sacred Second Amendment,” said Jason Ouimet, NRA-ILA executive director.
  7. More than 100 gun-rights supporters rallied at the Oklahoma state Capitol to celebrate constitutional carry becoming law on the same day it went into effect. “That is the core principal main function of government—to secure our rights—that is what government should be about, and today, in Oklahoma, we are celebrating the restoration of our rights to keep and bear arms,” state Sen. Nathan Dahm (R.) told a local news source. House Bill 2597 legalized constitutional carry in Oklahoma after it passed by a vote of 70-30 in the House and 40-6 in the Senate. With the bill’s passage, Oklahomans can now carry firearms, openly or concealed, without a permit. Purchases of firearms still require background checks in the state. Oklahoma joined over a dozen other states that recognized constitutional carry as law. The NRA has worked closely with the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association for nearly a decade to bring constitutional carry to the state. “Government exists for the people, not the other way around. This law honors the right of law-abiding Oklahomans to defend themselves and their loved ones without begging for the government’s permission beforehand,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The NRA fights for law-abiding gun owners because we recognize that our freedoms are fundamental and natural, not government-given.”
  8. It just popped in on my list so I passed it along - I thought it was from some time ago but maybe they were trying it again with all the new pushes by our liberal friends.
  9. Town Bypasses Constitution, US Citizens Given 60 Days to Turn in Guns Or Become Criminals
  10. The death of a Georgia college student and the disappearance of an Auburn student in Alabama have many women paying more attention to their own personal safety, and that led to a packed house at a recent concealed carry course in Birmingham, Alabama.
  11. In recent weeks, gun owners have been given two prime examples of just how important strong firearms preemption laws are to the vibrant exercise of Second Amendment rights. On October 22, the Montana Supreme Court struck down a Missoula ordinance that purported to restrict city residents’ ability to transfer firearms. On October 29, Allegheny County Common Pleas Senior Judge Joseph M. James struck down a raft of Pittsburgh ordinances that purported to regulate the use of firearms in public places within the city and provide for the confiscation of firearms without due process. In both instances the tribunals pointed to the state firearms preemption statute as precluding the locality’s anti-gun efforts. Today, almost all states have a firearms preemption law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms in a manner more stringent than state law. These laws are vital as they prevent localities from enacting an incomprehensible patchwork of local ordinances. Without these measures unsuspecting gun owners would be forced to forego the exercise of their Second Amendment rights or risk running afoul of convoluted and potentially inaccessible local rules. A look back at a 1970s edition of ATF’s State Laws and Local Ordinances reveals a baffling mishmash of local ordinances aimed at all manner of firearms related conduct. Prior to the enactment of preemption statutes there were city waiting periods, county gun seller licensing and gun registration schemes, and local permits to purchase regimes. With prodding from moneyed interests, localities have become increasingly brazen in defying state preemption statutes. The Missoula case concerned City Ordinance 3581. Passed in 2016, the ordinance criminalized the private transfer of firearms in the city. The ordinance required almost all transfers to take place pursuant to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check. The city passed the ordinance in defiance of Montana’s strong state firearms preemption statute. The Montana Code Annotated § 45-8-351 provides, a county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun. The language is straightforward and explicitly prohibited the locality from regulating “the purchase, sale or other transfer” of firearms. Illustrating the obvious illegality of Missoula’s ordinance, the Montana Supreme Court ruled 5-0 against the city. The Pittsburgh case concerned a trio of ordinances passed in 2018. Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto called on the city to enact a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, a total ban on standard capacity magazines, and the development of a procedure to confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process of law. Further, Peduto called on municipalities throughout the country to ignore state statutes enacted by their residents’ elected representatives. In the end, Peduto and his cohorts on the city council enacted narrower, but still impermissible, versions of the initial gun and magazine ban proposals and the confiscation measure. Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statute, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120, provides, No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth. Like Montana’s statute, the language clearly prohibited Pittsburgh’s conduct. Moreover, in the Keystone State the matter of Pittsburgh’s power to regulate firearms had already been decided in the courts. In the 1996 case Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the question as to whether Pittsburgh and Philadelphia could restrict commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In finding that they could not, the court stated, Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation. In ruling against the city’s most recent ordinances, Judge James noted that “the City has expended a large amount of energy attempting to categorize the restricted behavior in such a way that it is not expressly prohibited” by the state preemption statute. Continuing, James explained, “Despite the city’s efforts…. they are not able to avoid the obvious intent of the Legislature to preempt this entire field.” Note Judge James’ use of the word “obvious.” Both the Montana and Pennsylvania statutes contain clear language that obviously barred the cities’ behavior. Even so, city officials usurped the authority to regulate firearms and wasted untold taxpayer resources in order to persecute a disfavored subset of law-abiding citizens. Often more ideologically homogenous than larger political units, local governments have repeatedly shown a willingness to attack their gun owning constituents rather than practice the politics of pluralism. The larger political unit of a state can temper such virulent intolerance and provide a much-needed check on the radical impulses of local politicians. Such blatant defiance of state law and profligacy with taxpayer dollars should have state legislatures looking for ways to strengthen existing state firearms preemption statutes. This can be achieved by providing a clear avenue for which a variety of interested parties, such as civil rights organizations like the NRA, can bring suit to enjoin improper laws. Moreover, state preemption statutes can be crafted in a manner that provides a prevailing plaintiff with attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages. As the cases in Montana and Pennsylvania show, state firearms preemption statutes are an essential protection for gun owners. However, gun owners should not be forced to constantly vindicate their rights through the courts. State legislators should work to craft state preemption laws that prevent even the most recalcitrant localities from enacting illegal ordinances.
  12. Former Texas Congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke abandoned his run for President last week, once again leaving a void for the most strident anti-gun candidate seeking the Democrat nomination. Even before declaring his candidacy for President, California Representative Eric Swalwell raised the specter of banning AR-15s and similar firearms, forcing Americans to turn them in through a confiscation scheme mislabeled as a “mandatory buyback,” then “go[ing] after” resisters. He even famously “joked” about using nukes to enforce his scheme. After Swalwell became the first candidate to bow out of the race when he failed to generate any noticeable poll numbers, O’Rourke stepped up to push the confiscation message. Clearly, every Democrat that wants to run against Trump is anti-gun. The main difference among them, when it comes to semi-automatics, seems to be whether they want to ban their future production, ban them completely and confiscate them, or ban their future production and register those currently owned (presumably to make future confiscation easier). Candidate O’Rourke staked out his strident position during the third Democrat Debate when he infamously declared, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….” The former Congressman even seemed to double-down on his ban and confiscate scheme. He said during the fourth debate that if a gun owner doesn’t turn in a lawfully acquired firearm, “…then that weapon will be taken from them,” as well as suggesting they may face “other consequences from law enforcement.” He also told Joe Scarborough during an interview the day after the fourth debate that if someone did not turn over a banned semi-auto, “there would be a visit by law enforcement.” Last week, an Iowa high school student confronted O’Rourke about his plan to ban AR-15s, the rifle the teen uses for hunting deer. The candidate feigned ignorance over the notion that people use the rifle for hunting deer, even though it is commonly used for taking such game. Later in the week, at an event in Newtown, Conn., that was closed to the public and organized by groups promoting gun control, O’Rourke was again confronted. This time, a Newtown resident accused the candidate of trying to exploit the tragedy her town experienced to promote his anti-gun agenda. O’Rourke must have finally seen the writing on the wall. He faced harsh criticism over his anti-gun extremism, even in what he may have thought would be “friendly” environments. He burned through an estimated $14 million in campaign funds, while poll after poll saw him stagnating in the low-to-mid single digits. And don’t forget he spent around $80 million last year to lose his U.S. Senate race against Senator Ted Cruz. If he could not win a statewide race with that kind of money, what hope did he have of winning a national election? Last Friday, the Texan answered that question when he pulled the plug on his latest campaign. But with O’Rourke now out of the race, will any Democrat candidate don the mantle of wannabe Confiscator in Chief? On Monday’s episode of The View, while the cast was doing a postmortem on O’Rourke’s failed campaign, host Joy Behar chastised the former Texas Representative for revealing exactly what NRA has been saying for years is the ultimate goal of anti-gun extremists. Perhaps as a warning to the remaining Democrat candidates, Behar stated, “They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you are going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected and then take them away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.” For a party that claims to support transparency, it seems odd to hear a Democrat like Behar offer such advice. Perhaps more concerning, however, would be to consider what else Democrat candidates for President might have in store for law-abiding gun owners that they do not want to publicly reveal until after next year’s election. Of course, it is likely Behar’s advice will be followed. The top three candidates seeking the Democrat nomination seem to be set at Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Vice President Joe Biden, while South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been showing signs of gaining some traction. All have rejected O’Rourke’s call for confiscation, at least openly, and at least for now. But, with multiple sources now reporting that anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg is once again considering throwing his name into the already crowded Democrat field, it’s likely that anti-gun extremists won’t have to wait long for a new champion of confiscation. After all, he’ll be the only candidate who can tout his experience as a firearm confiscator.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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