Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-27-2019, 18:31   #1141
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 4,711
H/T Tony for the link with the testimony; thanks.

Had a ftf with a state senator during a coffee/bakery stopover he made & mentioned to him the when-not-if of this movement. That testimony, while worthless to those who've made up their mind against it, may be of value to some who would engage their locals - and reminding them that they'd better play the tape to the closing credits before they get froggy. As in the Maryland situation described, "because if it saves even one life...' yadayada.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 19:46   #1142
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 1,711
They are very close to making the red flag bill law here in Colorado....many of the sheriffs are against it and ours here in El Paso as well as others are prepared to sue the state if it gets through and here I El Paso co. Colorado the Sherriff Bill Elder has stated he will not enforce the law and has stated he expects to be jailed for not enforcing it....what is good to hear is he seems to know the Constitution well and stated that he has a responsibility to stand against overreach of the government against this very law as implied in the Constitution
__________________
“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.” –Rudyard Kipling, The Law of the Jungle, The Jungle Book.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 20:20   #1143
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 4,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat View Post
They are very close to making the red flag bill law here in Colorado....many of the sheriffs are against it and ours here in El Paso as well as others are prepared to sue the state if it gets through and here I El Paso co. Colorado the Sherriff Bill Elder has stated he will not enforce the law and has stated he expects to be jailed for not enforcing it....what is good to hear is he seems to know the Constitution well and stated that he has a responsibility to stand against overreach of the government against this very law as implied in the Constitution
Good on your Sheriff. That is a further step than most rhetoric (often hollow) when someone steps up, clearly acknowledging the possible consequences. How many of his professional colleagues, I wonder, understand that "just following the law" didn't work out well at Nuremburg either. I wish him well.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 20:30   #1144
PSM
Area Commander
 
PSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cochise Co., AZ
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat View Post
They are very close to making the red flag bill law here in Colorado....many of the sheriffs are against it and ours here in El Paso as well as others are prepared to sue the state if it gets through and here I El Paso co. Colorado the Sherriff Bill Elder has stated he will not enforce the law and has stated he expects to be jailed for not enforcing it....what is good to hear is he seems to know the Constitution well and stated that he has a responsibility to stand against overreach of the government against this very law as implied in the Constitution
Sheriffs actually have more power than they seem to realize since they are the only law enforcement officers elected by We, the people. And they can deputize We, the people.
__________________
"Hector Lives!"

"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass

"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." -- Dennis Prager

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." --H.L. Mencken
PSM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 21:19   #1145
Razor
Quiet Professional
 
Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 4,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyz View Post
That’s always the question isn’t it ?

Convicted felons are a relatively easy group to identify - mental illness is not always so easy...
So a guy with a felony tax evasion rap or convicted of disorderly conduct should never again own a gun?
Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2019, 17:39   #1146
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor View Post
So a guy with a felony tax evasion rap or convicted of disorderly conduct should never again own a gun?
The portion of the OP that you focus on:

“...criminals and mentally ill should never be allowed weapons...”

...was really an imprecise aside and not the main point of my post - mea culpa. There are felonies and then there are felonies in the context of gun confiscation statutes. Point well made. And, I understand that convicted felons might be able to petition the feds to see if they might be approved to own weapons. States have thier own set of rules and there may even be differences regarding handguns and long guns. These are also asides and not the intended focus of the OP or this post.

My intended focus in the OP was really for the reader to be focusing on DUE PROCESS in the context of gun confiscation statutes...but...I did say (even if it was merely an imprecise statement said in passing and not the focus) in that post that “...criminals and mentally ill should never be allowed weapons...” so allow me to briefly clarify a bit and elaborate - using your examples of tax evasion and disorderly conduct...and do so in the context of what was my intended focus...DUE PROCESS. Again, mea culpa, but your question does allow me some elaboration which might induce some to read the attached article which was the subject of the OP - and that might get some folks to think about what a well-drafted gun confiscation statute might actually contemplate and include.

So, to address tax evasion and disorderly conduct in the context of gun-confiscation statutes and due process...Ahhh, felony tax evasion - you talking a true tax gangsta ? Millions at issue? Offshore accounts, money laundering?...serious stuff?...sorry no gun if I’m king for a day.

Disorderly only?...yes a felony...but...I’d like to know more...did the accused cause a friggen riot with serious injuries?...or...like under some disorderly state statutes...just made “unreasonable noise?”

Riot? violent behavior with serious injuries? (not self-defense) = typically no gun if I’m king for a day.

In contrast, if “unreasonable noise” ... merely means loud pipes on your Harley...then you can still play if I’m king for a day.

So, to reiterate, the truly significant point of the OP in the context of gun confiscation statutes...REQUIRING that DUE PROCESS generally be granted to an accused pursuant to gun confiscation statutes - generally provides a reasonable opportunity for a judge to address the nuances of your suggested concerns.

Due process...will assure that someone (both sides) will be granted notice and opportunity to be heard...

The judge, listening to both sides should be able to flesh out the underlying truth of the matter asserted as well as the context of the matter and if the statute is properly drafted...exercise some discretion.

Thus, generally speaking, the mere granting of due process - proper notice, a hearing with a true opportunity to be heard - will typically provide an opportunity for a judge to assess whether you are truly dangerous or mentally ill...or both.

Of course, there are circumstances that will require immediate action and judges are human so while not perfect...due process...is not just the best that we’ve got...but it is also a Consitutional guarantee. The ex-parte grabs should truly be a tiny tiny fraction of all cases - highly unusual cases.

And, finally as your examples provide...DUE PROCESS will hopefully (depending on how well the state statute is drafted) provide the opportunity for a reasonable judge to exercise some discretion under a truly lawful gun confiscation circumstance.
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Last edited by tonyz; 03-30-2019 at 07:14.
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 06:15   #1147
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 4,711
A CA judge stands their (Judicial) ground (again)

Declaration of unconstitutionality of California's ban on standard-capacity magazines reaffirmed.
Quote:
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
The case has been grinding for a few years & the same judge re-affirmed it after it was afffirmed higher & sent back to him. (These are wheels of justice?)
Story.

The opinion document is a decent read.

BFYTW
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 17:53   #1148
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger52 View Post
Declaration of unconstitutionality of California's ban on standard-capacity magazines reaffirmed.

The case has been grinding for a few years & the same judge re-affirmed it after it was afffirmed higher & sent back to him. (These are wheels of justice?)
Story.

The opinion document is a decent read.

BFYTW
An excellent result - thank you Badger.

Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts. “The judiciary is – and is often the only – protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy.” -- Senator Ted Kennedy, Senate Hearing on the Nomination of Robert Bork, 1987.1

David Kopel provides a good summary below.

District Court Permanently Enjoins California Magazine Confiscation Law
David Kopel|Mar. 29, 2019 6:52 pm

Magazines, California, Second Amendment, Duncan V. Becerra
California's statute to confiscate all magazines over 10 rounds has been permanently enjoined by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The opinion was written by Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Previously, Judge Benitez had issued a preliminary injunction against the confiscation law, and the preliminary injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, as discussed in this post. Today's decision follows cross-motions for summary judgment, and makes the injunction permanent. The next step in Duncan v. Becerra will be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The 86-page opinion is the most thorough judicial analysis thus far of the magazine ban question. The opinion is founded on a careful analysis of the record, and thus provides an excellent basis for future appellate review on the merits, perhaps one day by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Covering all bases, the opinion analyzes the confiscation law under a variety of standards of review. First is the standard favored by Judge Benitez, what he calls "The Supreme Court's Simple Heller Test." In short, magazines over 10 rounds are plainly "in common use" "for lawful purposes like self-defense." Ergo, they may not be confiscated. The analysis is similar to then-Judge Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion in the 2011 Heller II case in the D.C. Circuit.

The Duncan opinion then examines the confiscation statute under various levels of "heightened scrutiny": categorical invalidation, strict scrutiny, and intermediate scrutiny. The confiscation statute is found unconstitutional under each of these standards.

Under the various heightened scrutiny tests, the government bears the burden of proof. The opinion explains in depth why the evidence put forward by the California Attorney General does not come close to carrying that burden. The core problem is that the Attorney General's evidence, which relies heavily on expert declarations, is speculative, shoddy, or unrelated to the statute at issue.

Nor are there any "longstanding" laws that create a tradition of banning magazines over ten rounds--notwithstanding the Attorney General's efforts to invent such a tradition based on state machine gun controls enacted in the 1920s or 1930s.

The Attorney General's argument that law-abiding citizens do not "need" magazines over 10 rounds is rejected as directly contrary to Heller, which defers to the choices of the American people, not the government, about what is appropriate for self-defense. Several incidents detailed at the beginning of the opinion describe the harms suffered by crime victims who had insufficient defensive ammunition capacity.

Moreover, defense against ordinary criminals may be a leading purpose of the Second Amendment, but it is not the only purpose. "Today, self-protection is most important. In the future, the common defense may once again be most important. Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy." The government may not respond to bad political ideas by censoring speech, nor respond to crime waves "with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals."

Under heightened scrutiny, laws restricting constitutional rights must be "tailored"--in strict scrutiny, "narrow tailoring"; in intermediate scrutiny, "a reasonable fit." But the confiscation statute "is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state."

The confiscation statute cannot be saved by invoking the mantra of "deference." First of all, the confiscation law was enacted by ballot initiative, and not by the California general assembly. No deference is due to ballot measures that infringe constitutional rights. Even if the statute were a legislative enactment, the statute is not proven to be constitutional simply because the government offers some evidence. Some courts in Second Amendment cases have adopted an ultradeferential "some evidence" standard, but Judge Benitez disagrees. As he points out, the key case cited by advocates for ultradeference is the Supreme Court's Turner II decision, upholding certain congressional mandates on cable television providers. The Supreme Court majority in Heller rejected Justice Breyer's dissent urging Turner deference in Second Amendment cases. And even if Turner were the controlling case, the Turner Court was hardly lax in its judicial review. The Supreme Court "extensively analyzed over the course of twenty pages the empirical evidence cited by the government, and only then concluded that the government's policy was grounded on reasonable factual findings supported by evidence that is substantial for a legislative determination....Turner deference does not mean a federal court is relegated to rubber-stamping a broad-based arbitrary incursion on a constitutional right founded on speculative line-drawing and without any sign of tailoring for fit."

Congratulations to plaintiffs' attorneys Michel & Associates. While a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit lies ahead, and so perhaps do an en banc and the Supreme Court, today's opinion is a victory for serious judicial review of arms confiscation laws.

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/29...ns-calif/print
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 09:17   #1149
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,141
Any number of vendors (based on the legal decision posted by Badger above) are currently shipping standard (high) capacity magazines to California.

Experience your freedom all you previously stifled - law abiding - gun owning folks located in California !
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 19:20   #1150
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 4,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyz View Post
Any number of vendors (based on the legal decision posted by Badger above) are currently shipping standard (high) capacity magazines to California.

Experience your freedom all you previously stifled - law abiding - gun owning folks located in California !
OK, fuck Coors. We need a semi-load with a wild Nashville guy that can pick anything on a guitar drivin', and a devil-don't care guy with a shit-hot black Trans-Am to run interference.... any takers?
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 16:44   #1151
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,141
By some accounts freedom is flying off the shelves and shipping to Cali.
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2019, 23:41   #1152
Uman
Asset
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 28
A great organization

Here is a great organization that needs to be supported and if you know any Sheriffs past along to.

It was started by the Sheriff that took a lawsuit all the way to the SCOTUS challenging the The Brady Bill

https://cspoa.org
Uman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:43.



Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies