Acts of Defiance

de·fi·ance
diˈfīəns/
noun
noun: defiance
1.
open resistance; bold disobedience.
“the demonstration was held in defiance of official warnings”

synonyms:

resistance, opposition, noncompliance, disobedience, insubordination, dissent, recalcitrance, subversion, rebellion

The country has been watching an act of defiance in Nevada for the last week. That confrontation between citizens and members of the federal government has subsided…for now. There was another act of defiance occurring in New York. That one received little attention from the media.

The state of New York requires gun owners to register certain firearms. Compliance to that law, known as the SAFE Act, has been low. Protesters to that law met outside the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti to protest the act.

Shredding SAFE Act Registration Forms In New York

Caleb Howe (Diary)  | 

On Tuesday in upstate New York, outside the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti, gun owners gathered in protest. Together they shredded their SAFE Act registration cards to signify their non-compliance with the controversial new law. Grisanti is a Republican who helped to pass the SAFE Act, including by offering up changes to the bill to make it bipartisan.

Human Events wrote last week about a recent SAFE Act protest that had a huge turnout, and involved many of the same people and groups as the rally on Tuesday, where gun owners intend to shred their registration forms as a form of protest. One of the organizers, Rus Thompson of TEA New York, was recently interviewed about this event, and discussed in depth the reasoning behind the shredding.

Gun owners across the state have been speaking out and protesting the SAFE Act from the beginning. As Bearing Arms reported yesterday, as many as one million are refusing to register their weapons.

Non-compliance of the ban is expected to be between 90%-99%, but a provision in the NY SAFE Act prevents registration data from being shared with the public.

Non-compliance in the neighboring state of Connecticut is thought to be in excess of 85%, with an estimated 80,000-100,000 gun owners refusing to register their firearms. Connecticut State Police have made no move to enforce their law four months after their registration deadline, fearing possible armed resistance.

Conservative estimates are that at least 300,000 and as many as one million New Yorkers will likewise practice civil disobedience and refuse to comply with the registration requirement.

The Shredding Registration event has a Facebook page here, and was covered live by a local Buffalo talk radio station here.

The defiance in New York isn’t limited to gun owners. Some officials—county Sheriffs, have declared they won’t enforce the law, either.

Despite deadline, protesters ‘will not comply’ with SAFE Act

Registration deadline for law was Tuesday

on April 15, 2014 – 8:30 PM, updated April 16, 2014 at 2:04 AM

Rus Thompson, a tea party activist, shreds the state assault weapon registration form during a rally Tuesday outside the Mahoney State Building.

Rus Thompson, a tea party activist, shreds the state assault weapon registration form during a rally Tuesday outside the Mahoney State Building. Harry Scull Jr. /Buffalo News

Owners of assault-style weapons were supposed to have registered their guns by Tuesday.

But there is no way of knowing exactly how many of these weapons there are in the state and how many were registered under the NY SAFE Act.

The state refuses to say how many were registered, claiming it is confidential information protected by the law.

Gun-rights advocates estimate compliance will be less than 10 percent.

And in Erie County, the sheriff says he will not force his deputies to enforce registration.

“Theoretically, any law enforcement officer who encounters anyone with this type of gun at a minimum is supposed to record the serial number and the individual’s identity and report it to Albany,” Sheriff Timothy B. Howard said.

But will his deputies do that?

“I don’t know. I am not encouraging them to do it. At the same time, their own consciences should be their guide. I am not forcing my conscience on them. That is a decision they should make,” Howard said.

The sheriff’s opposition sits well with roughly 70 opponents of the law who gathered outside the Walter J. Mahoney State Office Building in downtown Buffalo late Tuesday afternoon to shred State Police registration forms for assault weapons.

It was seen as a form of civil disobedience to a law that opponents say was hastily drafted some 16 months ago in response to the December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn., where 20 elementary school children and six adults were slain by a heavily armed gunman.

But rather than make the public safer, opponents contend the law’s main accomplishment has been to create a new classification of criminals – individuals who out of conscience refuse to register their assault weapons because they believe the law overstepped their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The column continues at the website. The Erie County Sheriff echoes the sentiments of many law enforcement officials across the country. “Will…shall I comply with a law that is clearly unenforceable and does nothing more than make criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens?”

The New York Sheriffs Organization has examined the SAFE Act and has found a number of flaws and inconsistencies. They noted these flaws on their website and point out that a number of the Act’s provisions are unenforceable and produce undue burden of their offices and other agencies and institutions.

Three acts of defiance with days of one another: the Bundy Ranch vs. the BLM, gun owners of New York vs. the SAFE Act, and the NY Erie County Sheriff versus that same SAFE Act. When you add the defiance of many states against Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, the refusal of those same states to create state exchanges, a person could reasonably expect more acts of defiance to occur at any time, any where.

 

Monday Moments

It is bright outside here near KC. That won’t last. According to which track you’re following and which model your local forecaster is using, we’ll get between 8″ to over 12″ of snow in the next 36 hours. One local station estimates up to 18″. My wife teaches on Tuesday nights. She is expecting a snow day.

KC Storm Watch February 25, 2013

KC Storm Watch February 25, 2013

***

South Carolina democrats are planning to hire private detectives to “discover” dirt on their ‘Pub opponents. It’s not an new tactic. In South Carolina, the purpose is to “cripple” the  legislative agenda of the ‘Pub state leadership and Governor Pat McCrory.

Liberal groups lay out blueprint for attack on state leaders

By Mark Binker

Raleigh, N.C. — A strategy memo circulated recently among liberal-leaning groups prescribes “crippling” legislative leaders and Gov. Pat McCrory with bad press and pressure tactics.

The memo, which was first reported by The Charlotte Observer, details communications strategy, political tactics and polling data that progressive groups can use to push the policy agenda in Raleigh, where Republicans control both the governor’s mansion and the legislature. 

According to documents included with the memo and interviews, the strategy outline was produced by Myers Research and Strategic Services for Project New America. It was originally provided to Progress North Carolina, a liberal nonprofit that has aggressively attacked McCrory during the 2012 campaign and his early term in office. Progress North Carolina shared the memo with Blueprint NC, a nonprofit that coordinates the activities of liberal-leaning nonprofits. In turn, Blueprint NC distributed it to its member organizations.

An electronic version of the memo appears to contain at least three separate documents. One is an email from outgoing Blueprint NC Communications Director Stephanie Bass describing the material and emphasizing that it is “CONFIDENTIAL to Blueprint, so please be careful – share with your boards and appropriate staff, but not the whole world.”

Sean Kosofsky, Blueprint NC’s director, said his group did not pay for or commission the research. “We were just forwarding it on,” he said.

On Saturday, two days after this post originally published, Kosofsky distanced his group from most inflammatory parts of the document, although acknowledged it was distributed at a meeting organized by Blueprint NC. Click here to read more about what Kosofsky says about the controversial memo.

The second document is a “talking points memo” that outlines strategies for progressive groups. Policy wins for the political left, the memo said, would likely be defined as “mitigating” legislation, rather than pushing their own agenda items.

“The most effective way to mitigate the worst legislation is to weaken our opponents’ ability to govern by crippling their leaders (McCrory, Tillis, Berger, etc…)” the memo reads, referring to the governor, House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger.

The memo goes on to describe a “potential two-year vision” during which the groups would “eviscerate the leadership and weaken their ability to govern.”

***

Need a job? Get paid to be a Gun Control supporter. Progressive USA Voters can’t get enough members to make an impact in Chicago’s ongoing battle against guns and the 2nd Amendment. They’ve found a solution. If there isn’t enough support, buy some!

Liberal astroturf group offering $9 to $11 per hour to join its gun-control campaign

10:12 AM 02/24/2013

The liberal organization Progressive USA Voters, which is housed in the same progressive Denver office building as a chapter of the infamous left-wing astroturf group ProgressNow, is offering an hourly wage of between $9 and $11 to join its gun-control campaign in Chicago, according to a flyer that was photographed and posted to Reddit Friday.

“Join the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence” reads the flyer, which also notes, “Hourly Wage: $9-11/hr.”

Progressive USA Voters is specifically focused on the April 2013 special election for Jesse Jackson Jr.’s vacated House seat in Illinois’ Second Congressional District. The group is targeting Democratic primary candidate Debbie Halvorson, who accepted more than $10,000 from the National Rifle Association, according to the Progressive USA Voters website.

Halvorson is running against former state representative Robin Kelly, who has received the endorsement of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s super PAC, Independence USA, which is also attacking Halverson on the issue of .

“Progressive USA will be going door-to-door in this important race in the coming weeks in order to educate voters about Halvorson’s record,” according to the group’s website.

Progressive USA Voters is a project of Progressive USA, which claims to “advocate for sensible policy solutions, hold our nation’s elected officials accountable for their actions and take head-on the flawed policies and hypocrisy of the radical right.” The group does not list its staff or directors on its website, and does not disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission.

I don’t contribute to democrat politicians…but I’m tempted to send a few pennies to Debbie Halvorson.

***

Greed!

Chicago Teacher Union Prez Karen Lewis led a strike against Chicago Schools and Rahm Emanuel’s education reforms. Lewis won pay raises of 17.6 percent and now she’s under pressure—because she didn’t extort enough concessions and money. If I were the editor of the Chicago Tribune, I’d title this article as “Feeding on their own.”

Union boss who led Chicago teachers strike faces leadership challenge

6:19 PM 02/24/2013
Karen Lewis, the tough-talking boss of the Chicago teachers union who led the strike last September that derailed many of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s education reform plans, will face a leadership challenge in May.

Some members of the Chicago Teachers Union are dissatisfied with Lewis’s leadership. They think she should have won more concessions from the city.

We struck, we fought, we gave Karen Lewis all the power she needed, but she didn’t deliver at the bargaining table,” said Tanya Saunders-Wolffe, a school counselor who plans to run for CTU president, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

As a result of the strike, Lewis was able to win teacher salary increases of 17.6 percent over the next four years. The compromise also gutted Emanuel’s proposal to tie teacher evaluations to students’ performances, and kept in place benefits and job protection for teachers with seniority.

Emanuel came away with his sought-after extension of the school day. He also turned the situation into an opportunity to push for school choice reforms.

Lewis wasn’t entirely happy with the deal and called it an “austerity contract.”

Evidently, some teachers agree with her. Saunders-Wolffe will run as part of a slate of candidates opposing Lewis’s leadership.

Lewis previously faced criticism for joking about the underclass murdering rich people.

Lewis is a nasty piece of work as is Rahm Emanuel. On one hand, it’s great to see two parasites fight one another. On the other hand if Lewis loses her re-election, Chicago will be saddled with a worse union goon boss.

***

My final topic today is an ad the NRA is running in some states. They acquired some DoJ documents that prove Obama really is planning to confiscate guns from US citizens.

NRA uses Justice memo to accuse Obama admin of wanting to confiscate guns

By Associated Press, Saturday, February 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is using a Justice Department memo it obtained to argue in ads that the Obama administration believes its gun control plans won’t work unless the government seizes firearms and requires national gun registration — ideas the White House has not proposed and does not support.

The NRA’s assertion and its obtaining of the memo in the first place underscore the no-holds-barred battle under way as Washington’s fight over gun restrictions heats up.

The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department’s leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Obama’s. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy.

The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.

It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.

The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”

The administration has not proposed gun registration, buybacks or banning all firearms. But gun registration and ownership curbs are hot-button issues for the NRA and other gun-rights groups, which strenuously oppose the ideas.

Justice Department and White House officials declined to provide much information about the memo or answer questions about it on the record.

The memo has the look of a preliminary document and calls itself “a cursory summary” and assessment of gun curb initiatives. The administration has not released it officially.

But the NRA has posted the memo on one of its websites and cites it in advertising aimed at whipping up opposition to Obama’s efforts to contain gun violence. The ad says the paper shows that the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation” and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration” — ideas the president has not proposed or expressed support for.

“Still think President Obama’s proposals sound reasonable?” Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief Washington lobbyist, says in the ad.

Last month, White House spokesman Jay Carney said none of Obama’s proposals “would take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.” Other administration officials have said their plans would not result in gun seizures or a national gun registry.

A Justice Department official who would only discuss the issue on condition of anonymity said the NRA ad misrepresents Obama’s gun proposals and that the administration has never backed a gun registry or gun confiscation.

While the memo’s analysis of gun curb proposals presents no new findings, it is unusual for a federal agency document to surface that raises questions about a president’s plans during debate on a high-profile issue such as restricting firearms.

Obama wants to ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines exceeding 10 rounds that are produced in the future. He wants universal background checks for nearly all gun purchases. Today, checks are only mandatory on sales by federally licensed gun dealers, not transactions at gun shows or other private sales.

His plan also includes tougher federal laws against gun trafficking and straw purchases, which occur when a person legally buys a firearm but sells it to a criminal or someone else barred from owning a weapon.

Interest in the gun issue has intensified since the December shootings in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first-graders and six staffers at an elementary school. The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee plans to write legislation addressing some of Obama’s proposals in the next week or two.

The NRA’s Cox declined to say how his organization obtained the memo.

He said the commercial is running online in 15 states, including many Republican-leaning states where Democrats will defend Senate seats next year, such as Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. There are also ads in papers in five states.

The memo was written under the name of Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department’s research arm. It is dated Jan. 4, nearly two weeks before Obama announced his plan for restricting guns, and Ridgeway’s first day as acting chief.

The article is long and I included only a portion. Please follow the link and read the entire column. Obama may not get the legislation that he wants but we’ve already seen that he ignores congressional and constitutional constraints whenever they obstruct his goals.

What would you…really do?

Banning semi-automatic weapons is all the vogue in today’s liberal media. It’s been tried in various forms around the world.  The most famous and touted example is Australia. That government, in a fit of insanity after a shooting in Tasmania, banned semi-automatic weapons.  Many dutifully turned in their weapons.  Many, including criminals, did not. A study revealed that the weapons ban had no effect on the homicide rate.

California tried to ban “assault” weapons.  First they mandated registration with confiscation for those who didn’t register. When the compliance was low, they threatened to seize the weapons of those who did comply with the law. Fortunately, it was all talk. I’ve not heard of any actual confiscations. But, there aren’t any new sales of so-called “assualt” weapons in California except individually, private sales which are also illegal for “assault” weapons in California.

Was the ban effective in California? No. There are still semi-automatic rifle in the possession of many, many Californians. The ban did reduce the spread of those rifles, legally. However, the black market thrives.

But, what about registration?  Canada has it.

Well, yes, Canada had it Not anymore.

It started in 1995. It ended in 2012. It lasted 17 years, cost multiples of millions of dollars, was corrupt in its administration, weakened by fraud and mismanagement and in the end, it did nothing.

There were numerous promises to expand it, others to eliminate it. The history was littered with non-compliance. Fees were levied initially to register weapons. The program had a history of false reporting, corruption, misuse and misdirection of fees and funds. A registration amnesty was granted to allow registration without fees. That had low compliance as well. The cost-overruns continually made headlines in Canada and the purpose of the program—reducing criminal and homicide rates could not be met. You can find the history of Canada’s registration program through 2011 here.

On October 25, 2011, the government introduced Bill C-19, legislation to scrap the Canadian Firearms Registry.[3] The bill would repeal the requirement to register non-restricted firearms (long-guns) and mandate the destruction of all records pertaining to the registration of long-guns currently contained in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of the chief firearms officers.[3] The bill passed second reading in the House of Commons (156 to 123).[36] On February 15, 2012 Bill C-19 was passed in the House of Commons (159 to 130) with support from the Conservatives and two NDP MPs. On April 4, 2012 Bill C-19 passed third reading in the Senate by a vote of 50-27 and received royal assent from the Governor General on April 5.[37]

Upon passage of Bill C-19, the Province of Quebec moved for a motion to prevent the destruction of the records. A temporary injunction was granted on April 5, 2012 which will leave enough time for proper legal arguments to be heard.[5]Wiki

Canada ended their registration program on November 5, 2012. The experiment failed. After millions wasted on the development of the registry, it never really worked. Despite of the claims from the RMCP, there was not a single instance that the registry ever prevented a single crime nor helped to resolve a single crime or criminal act. It was a complete failure. One estimate said that 2/3rds of Canadian gun-owners, especially in western Canada, never registered their weapons.

If a semi-automatic weapons ban is ordered here in the U.S., what would happen? Most likely massive non-compliance like that in Australia and in Canada.

What about a ban on “large capacity” magazines? It’s shockingly easy to make large capacity magazines. With a source for magazine springs, any sheet metal fabrication shop could make the bodies. It’s easy to make the magazine base-plate and to mold magazine followers.

I doubt few would obey an order to turn in their ARs, AKs, other semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns. It would be very difficult, next to impossible, if firearm dealers mislaid, lost, or destroyed their sales records.

It is the BATFE form 4473 that links a particular weapon to an individual. Those records are retained by the FFL, the firearms dealer. The 4473s are “supposed” to be turned in to the BATFE if the dealer goes out of business.

There has been attempts by the BATFE to copy the books of some FFLs in Alaska illegally. The dealers refused to comply. If a ban occurs, would FFLs comply with a law that has effectively put them out of business?  Maybe. Maybe not.

The reality is that the federal government doesn’t really know who has what. Except for a few states, there is no registration in the US. A weapons ban would be ineffective. All it would do would be to create a massive class of new “criminals.”

A probable outcome would be the creation of a black market of weapons; expensive ones at that. Locally, enforcement of a confiscation or registration law would be ignored resulting in a “you don’t bother me, I’ll not bother you” attitude. Wyoming has drafted a law preventing the enforcement of any such federal law.

The feds, however, will try to enforce the law, probably using their usual no-knock entry in the middle of the night, with some CCW holder. It won’t take long until someone is killed. What happens then?

What would you do? Comply? Turn in your weapons? Or, ignore any such law and become a criminal in the eyes of the Feds? The liberals already consider you as such.