Thursday, April 20, 2017

Oregon lawmakers consider stricter gun laws

Oregon lawmakers consider stricter gun laws:
(April 16, 2017)
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Three new bills that would strengthen gun background checks and make it possible for law enforcement to take guns away from people with mental health issues will be introduced in the Oregon Senate on Monday. There’s already high interest in the bills — SB 764, SB 797 and SB 868 — and there’s expected to be a big turnout for public testimony on both sides.
Without even looking at the bills ... I'm against them.

But let's look at the bills anyway, just to see why I'm against them.

SB 764: Written test required to prove gun-handling skills - 
This is just silly.  You can't prove that you are competent to handle a gun by passing a written test.

I teach a class in gun-handling safety.   I've seen too many 'students' who could pass a written test, but don't even know where the safety-switch is located on their pistol ... or even that there IS a safety-switch!

SB 797: Close the Charleston Loophole -
The term Charleston Loophole refers to a murder which occurred because someone (name not cited) in Charleston was able to purchase a firearm because the NICS system was unable to verify his ineligibility to purchase a firearm.   Yes, (name not cited) was a drug user who had been arrested and charged ... but he had not been convicted of a crime; he was not legally a criminal.

It is not legal to deny one's constitutional rights without trial.  Therefore, there were no legal grounds to deny his purchase.

That's not a "loophole"; that's a "feature".   It's in the Constitution; look it up.

SB 868: Confiscate private firearms without proof of criminal action -  

SB 868 would let law enforcement take guns away from people convicted of stalking. It would also let concerned family members go to court to try and take guns away from a loved one, if they can prove that loved one is a risk to themselves or others.

This may be the most egregious of all laws, if it violates the constitutional rights of a private firearm owner without proof of "wrong doing".

Here is the bill:

The bill purports to allow the 'accused' (by a family member or member of the household) to be deprived of firearms as a consequence of any of several events.  One of the events which may be used to justify this order is:

(g) Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a firearm, ammunition of another deadly weapon

In other words, if you purchased, or "tried" to purchase, a firearm (or ammunition) within the past six months, you may be considered a threat by the court.  Other situations are applicable, but this is considered prima facie evidence that the confiscation of your firearms might be justifiable.

 There has never been a law passed which performs such an indefensible breach of property rights, and that includes those laws which, for example, allow a governmental agency to condemn your private property ... real estate ... to build a mall.

The worst part of this law is that it is so easily subject to abuse.

A jilted lover, a divorced spouse, a relative who learns he/she has been left out of your will ... any person with whom you have a relationship might potentially use such a law to gratuitously undermine your civil rights.  When you grant them the power to take away your rights, and the law does not noticeably allow you to defend yourself.

In practice in other states, this kind of law has been used to deprive lawful gun owners of their property.   It may sound paranoid, but at this point the burden of proof is on you; better find a good lawyer.

And if you haven't inventoried your firearms (including make/model/caliber/serial number and a photograph), this might be a good time to do so.  Otherwise, you may not get them all back after they have been confiscated.

Also ... you need photographs to verify the condition they're in before they were confiscated.

Photograph both sides of firearm, and the serial number.  The people who come to "turn them all in" may not be as careful of the fit and finish of your custom rifle as you are.

Watch: Dangerous 1936 LA Police Trick Shooting -

Watch: Dangerous 1936 LA Police Trick Shooting -

What these guys are doing here is extremely stupid.

It's fun to watch, though.


On the value of legal "Concealed Carry"

Op-ed: Federal concealed carry reciprocity is wrong for Pennsylvania and the country — NewsWorks:

 An explosion in the number of people interested in carrying concealed weapons has occurred in recent years, due to the belief that a "good guy" with a gun can deter crime or violence. The facts simply do not support this notion. A recent study that analyzed data on number of concealed handgun licenses issued from 1998 to 2010 and arrests in every county in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas found no significant effect of concealed carry laws and increases or changes in crime rates ...

Cherry-picked data is no data at all; the above quote is a non sequitor, because to doesn't really have anything to say about the value of  "allowing" law abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm.

It doesn't' matter whether anyone can find verifiable data that a CHL ("Concealed Handgun License", in my state) has had a "significant effect of concealed carry laws and increases or changes in crime rates";  what matters is that the 'good guys' may legitimately carry a gun to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property.

In a way, I have some issues with the CHL system.   I think that the 2nd Amendment already justifies carry of a defensive weapon, and the CHL system is redundant.

But it does have some value, in that a LEO meeting an armed citizen can easily separate the felon-with-a-gun from the honest citizen (one whose right to be armed has not been abrogated by a felony conviction, etc.)

On the other hand, when a LEO meets an armed person, it's a matter of moments before a background check can identify a convicted felon who is forbidden by law to carry.

While I resent having to "prove" my status as a non-felon, it does have value because when (for example) I am pulled over by a LEO for a minor traffic infringement, the officer knows before he gets out of his car that (a) I am probably armed, (b) I'm not likely to be a threat to him.  As I'm forthcoming with my drivers license, insurance card and CHL license when he arrives at the window of my automobile,

This avoids the possible tragedy demonstrated by the Philandro Castille episode, where a CHL driver was shot by a cop when he reached for his CHL .. inside his jacket ... and the LEO thought he was reaching for a gun.

Cops aren't perfect; so you have to be.

Thus endeth the lesson/

Yes, I've already said all these things before; they bear repeating.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Welcome to Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love

I would think that a guy who was going to a job interview wouldn't be the most likely source of a lot of money for three men.

Watch the video.   This vicious beating was personal, not a robbery.

Caught on Cam: 3 Men Beat, Rob Victim Leaving Job Interview | NBC 10 Philadelphia:

 A man who had just left a job interview was brutally beaten, knocked unconscious and robbed by three men in the Kensington section of Philadelphia. The attack was captured on surveillance video. The 25-year-old victim, who did not want to be identified, told NBC10 he had just finished a job interview inside a restaurant at B and Tioga Streets back on April 15 at 12:30 p.m. As he walked out of the restaurant he was suddenly attacked by three men. A surveillance camera captured the suspects punching and kicking the man until he lost consciousness. The men then stole his cellphone, wallet and money before fleeing the scene.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

They Kill Their Own Kind?

I'm amazed that "Hillary Clinton Supporters" might be so threatening to a "Liberal actress"!

I'm sure that must mean ... something; but I cannot understand the Thought Process of Liberals.
 I didn't even know they had 'thought processes'!

Susan Sarandon: Angry Hillary Clinton supporters forced me to change my phone number - Washington Times: By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 13, 2017
Liberal actress Susan Sarandon revealed Tuesday that she had to change her phone number after President Trump won the election because Hillary Clinton’s supporters wouldn’t stop harassing her. 
(emphasis added)

Note:   I like Susan Sarandon as an actress.
I never thought that she had a political opinion which we might share.

Warm and Fuzzy Feelings?  Probably not.

Monday, April 17, 2017

Cogito Ergo Geek

"Cogito Ergo Geek" means (in my personal lexicon) that I tend to "overthink" almost everything, and sometimes it gets me in trouble.  Literally, it means: "I Think, Therefore I'm A Geek".   (It should probably be "I'm A Geek, Therefore ..." you know)

But I chose that title for my personal blog because ... this blogposting thingie is a way for me to 'think out loud'.  And I write because I have to; not because I want to.

Sometimes (too often) I don't like where I end up at the end of a article, and I just don't publish it.


Other people take the "undifferentiated meat" that runs through their mind, work with it, and publish to the benefit of their readers

Sebastian is one of those rare individuals who can change blogger-angst into pure gold.

Beliefs Change Over Time | Shall Not Be Questioned:
I’m short on things to write about, probably because I haven’t been paying as close attention to the news. It’s occurred to me that there’s a lot of things I believe now that I didn’t ten years ago. Ten years is an awful lot of time to be immersed in writing about a single issue, and there’s not much I haven’t thought through, thought through again, then thought through a third time just to be thorough. Thinking about a list:

That's what they call a "lead", in Journalism.   I'm envious of the intellectual prowess demonstrated in the article.

You should go read it.  Twice.

My only comment would probably be:
"Yeah; what he said"

Either that, or "I wish *_I_* had said that!