Monthly Archives: May 2013

Another day off, too

Posted on by

Once or twice a year, I get the blahs. By that, I mean nothing seems appropriate for the blog. One such time was after last year’s election. I’m in another now.

You’d think, with all the scandals being investigated in Washington, that would not be the case. Instead of pounding the Obama, Holder and the dems, the ‘Pub establishment injects their usual stupidity to screw up any actual gains we may have achieved.

Establishment stupidity? How about this. It appears our local congresswoman is about to sell us out, again, on the Food Stamp bill. Of course, it isn’t named for what it is. No, they call it a Farm Bill. That’s a strange name for a bill tha 80% of the massive spending is for food stamps. The remaining 20% is mostly pork for corporate farms—not the kind that runs on four legs and you find in the supermarket as ham, bacon and porkchops.

So, I’m extending my vacation. I won’t be posting next Monday or Tuesday, either. I haven’t had a complete physical in…well, I don’t remember the last time. The first set of examinations is next week. There will be more in a month. I don’t expect anything adverse to be found. I’m in excellent health, some minor arthritis aside. But, it will make my wife feel better.

Maybe my muse will return next week.

Facebook

Taking the day off

Posted on by

Why not? I’m retired. I can do that if I want.

Really, though, I overslept. I was surprised, with all the rain and storms passing through, my leg didn’t hurt after completing 21 laps (1.75 miles) around the track at the local community center. Instead, I made up for several days of interrupted sleep. I didn’t wake up until after 9am.

So…vacation day!

Facebook

A Whiff of Grapeshot

Posted on by

The title of today’s post is attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte when, following orders of the revolutionary convention in 1795, he used cannon and grapeshot to clear the narrow streets of Paris and ended a Royalist insurrection.  The tactic has been used several times—once, during the riots in Paris in 1848 and again, in 1863, to end the draft riots in New York City.

Today’s American Thinker e-newsletter has two articles concerning civil insurrection, the weaknesses of government and portents of revolution. The articles struck a cord because they mirror my own concerns and observations.

One article concerns the riots in Stockholm, Sweden.  There, the constabulary stood aside and didn’t intervene—until counter attacks occurred by those defending their lives and property. SwedishHotdogRoast2WebCR-5_28_13-thumb-600xauto-3185Then the constabulary intervened—not against the original rioters but against those defending their homes, lives and property.

 

 

Riots and Liberals

By Christopher Chantrill

After a few nights of “youth” riots in Sweden, the ordinary Swedes had had enough. So they took to the streets to protect their property. Fortunately the police knew just what to do. They attacked the “vigilantes.”

You can see the logic of that for our modern liberal ruling class. It’s one thing for youths to riot in their welfare ghettos. Nothing much you can do about that except search for root causes and implement midnight basketball programs.

But when the crypto-fascists in the middle class start a sensible and practical effort to defend themselves from mayhem, that’s different. There is no excuse for taking the law into your own hands.

…

Nobody in the ruling class is telling the rioters that their behavior will be stopped and their rebellion crushed by any means necessary. That would be racist, or classist, or anti-religious bigotry. No, the ruling class immediately clamped down on the ordinary people that were responding to the age-old problem that when seconds count the police are minutes away.

The article is long and meanders a bit but it is an indictment against socialist government that has become too steeped in its own rhetoric. I urge you to follow this link and read the entire column.

The second article hits closer to home. The theme of it can be isolated with this single sentence. “Most regimes began to fall when they lose legitimacy.”

The reference is toward the Czarist Regime before the 1917 revolution in Russia. The statement, taken alone, applies to many regimes from the that of Louis VIII to our own, each suffering purposeful, liberal mismanagement.

The thoughts of regime failure engage me because of what I see as a continual separation of elites from ordinary people in Western democracies.  There are many facets in our own polity where this occurs, from the economic meltdown laced with fraud and greed, for which no executive has been held accountable, to the current administration’s seizure of the institutions of government to harass and hinder legitimate political opposition, to make journalism a crime, and to apparently  lie about it with impunity, as the attorney general appears to have  in the case of James Rosen. — The American Thinker.

The loss of legitimacy can occur not only by what the government does, but also by what it does not. The column continues with these observations.

…I am more concerned about Western regimes denying the fundamental internal threat to security — the rise in our midst of radical Islam and the refusal to grapple with it.  There are the recent bombings at the Boston Marathon, the beheading of a Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich, in broad daylight; a similar attack in France where the perpetrator prayed before he stabbed a French soldier in the throat, the Muslim riots in Sweden, still ongoing as of this writing, similar to riots in France, and the creation of Sharia no-go areas in Amsterdam and London. 

Throughout each of these episodes and earlier ones going back to 09/11, the public is told that this has nothing to do with Islam.  We are told that the massacre at Fort Hood by a Muslim fanatic is workplace violence, that an Afghan Muslim who drove from his neighborhood in Fremont, California some forty miles through heavy urban traffic to run people down near San Francisco’s Jewish Community Center was simply a deranged individual, that the shooting by an Egyptian Muslim of the El Al ticket counter at LAX had nothing to do with Islam, and neither did the shootings by a Muslim at the Jewish Federation in Seattle. 

It is beginning to sound as if the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, and the Reformation had nothing to do with Protestantism.   Such nonsense does not make us feel safer; it makes us feel that the government has deserted us. — The American Thinker.

It is that last sentence that affects us more…that the government has deserted us. Our immediate security concerns is not just Islamic infiltration but includes our open borders and the refusal of government to enforce existing immigration law.

The essence of low intensity conflict is to make a people feel that the government, corrupt, inefficient, and inattentive, cannot protect the people. Guerrilla warriors go to great lengths to create this message, but in the Western world, the government itself is formulating this message at the expense of its own credibility and ultimately its legitimacy.

When British Prime Minister David Cameron says that the beheading of a British soldier is an insult to Islam, when the police stand by in Stockholm while Muslim youth burn cars, and when President Barack Obama tells us that the Fort Hood massacre was an example of workplace violence, the inadvertent messages they send is that they are more concerned about protecting Islam than protecting everyone else.  And the mixture of silence and euphemism with which a compliant media advances these ideas only reinforces public cynicism.

In each of these actions, the government tarnishes and diminishes its own legitimacy. In doing so, it paves the way for an alternative political narrative, one that will say: the truth is what you are not being told; the truth is what is obvious to you but hidden from the public agenda by corrupt elites who will not protect you from the next act of violence perpetrated by radical Muslims.  

Amid such perceptions, social movements arise outside of the political mainstream.  Fear is the appropriate motivator and hate is the great unifier. The two reinforce each other.  If the mainstream political system is unraveling, the consequence of that interaction is an alternative political reality, an alternative more credible explanation of events and, most of all, a more credible interpretation of the otherwise inexplicable behavior of elites.

Revolutions are not made by those who desire them, but — as  Tocqueville notes — by the stupidity of those who least want them to occur. — The American Thinker.

The column concludes with this paragraph. It addresses “Western Democracies” as a whole. Taken out-of-context, it can apply equally to our situation here in the US.

The legitimacy of mature democracies is strong, but it is not unbreakable. Whether those who view themselves on the periphery will be mobilized is ultimately not up to those willing to go into the streets, but up to those who control the levers of power.  Regimes blunder into revolution.  It remains to be seen what course Western democracies follow in confronting the challenges presented by the Islamists.

We still, here in the US, have time and means to alter, or at least defer, this drift towards revolution—if we choose. We must also be aware that our foes are not just liberals and the democrat party but includes the entire establishment entrenched in Washington and in the states of both parties.
Facebook

A Productive Session for Firearms from the Missouri Legislature

Posted on by

I doubt that it’s a record but the Missouri Legislature produced a bumper crop of legislation this year—bills that reined in the scope of the FedGov while addressing school safety and increasing the state’s support for the 2nd Amendment.

The summary below was created by Marc Perez, a Missouri 2nd Amendment activist.

HCS/SB 75 – This act modifies provisions relating to public safety.

SHERIFFS: This act provides that no person will be eligible for the office of sheriff unless he or she holds a valid peace officer license under Chapter 590. Any person filing for the office must have the license at the time of filing. These provisions do not apply to St. Louis County or St. Louis City. (Section 57.010)

Every sheriff must maintain, house, and issue concealed carry permits beginning January 1, 2014. (Section 57.100)

The sheriff of any first class county not having a charter form of government, second class county, third class county, or fourth class county may employ an attorney to aid and advise the sheriff in the discharge of his or her duties and represent him or her in court. (Section 57.104)

Under current law, prisoners in a county jail must pay the costs of their board. This act requires the circuit clerk in each county to report to the Office of State Courts Administrator the names of people certified by the sheriff as being delinquent in the payment of money owed for a period of imprisonment in a county jail. Whenever a person has satisfied his or her debt or begun making regular payments to the sheriff, the sheriff must notify the clerk that the person is no longer considered delinquent. (Section 221.070)

The sheriff of any county may establish and operate a canteen or commissary in the county jail for the use and benefit of the prisoners. The revenues received from the canteen or commissary must be kept in a separate account and must be used to acquire the goods sold and other minimum expenses of operation. Any excess moneys must be deposited in the Inmate Prisoner Detainee Security Fund. (Section 221.102)

These provisions are substantially similar to HCS/HB 464 (2013) and HCS/SCS/SB 42 (2013).

ASIRT: This act establishes the Active Shooter and Intruder Response Training for Schools Program (ASIRT).

By July 1, 2014, each school district and charter school may train teachers and school employees on how to respond to students with information about a threatening situation and how to address a potentially dangerous or armed intruder or active shooter in the school or on school property.

Training may be conducted on an annual basis. Initial training may be eight hours in length and continuing training may be four hours in length. All school personnel must annually participate in a simulated active shooter and intruder response drill conducted by law enforcement professionals, as described in the act.

Program instructors must be certified by the Department of Public Safety’s Peace Officers Standards Training Commission. (Section 170.315)

EDDIE EAGLE GUNSAFE PROGRAM: Each school district and charter school may annually teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program to first grade students, or use a substantially similar or successor program of the same qualifications.

The purpose of the program will be to promote safety and protection of children and emphasize how students should respond if they encounter a firearm. School personnel and program instructors must not make value judgments about firearms. Firearms are prohibited from the teaching of the program. Students with disabilities will participate to the extent appropriate. (Section 171.410)

FIREARMS OWNERSHIP RECORDS: Any records of ownership of a firearm or applications for ownership or an endorsement that allows a person to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm are not open records and will not be open for inspection except by order of the court to persons having a legitimate interest. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. (Section 571.011)

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS: Under current law, a person seeking to carry concealed firearms must apply to the sheriff for a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement. Upon the issuance of the certificate, the person must then present the certificate to the Department of Revenue, which issues a driver’s licenses or nondriver’s licenses with a concealed carry endorsement.

This act repeals the provisions requiring the person to present the certificate to the Department of Revenue for a driver’s license or nondriver’s license with a concealed carry endorsement. Instead, the permit issued by the sheriff authorizes the person to carry concealed firearms. (Section 571.101)

Concealed carry permits will be valid for five years from the date of issuance or renewal. A concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013 must continue for a period of three years from the date of issuance or renewal, as described in the act. (Section 571.101)

This act changes the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry permit. Non-citizens who are United States permanent residents are eligible. Currently, an applicant must not have pled guilty or pled no contest to certain crimes punishable by a prison term of one year or less. This act increases the prison term to two years. This act adds closed records to the documents in which a person cannot have engaged in a pattern of behavior considered dangerous to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Applicants must also not otherwise be prohibited from possessing a firearm under section 571.070 or 18 U.S.C. 922(g). If an applicant is not a U.S. citizen, the application must include his or her country of citizenship and any alien or admission number issued by the federal Bureau of Customs and Immigration Enforcement.

An applicant must show a government-issued photo identification only for the purpose of verifying the person’s identify for permit renewal. (Section 571.101)

The concealed carry permit must specify only the following information: the permit holder’s name, address, date of birth, gender, height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes, and signature; the signature of the issuing sheriff; the date of issuance; and the expiration date. (Section 571.101) The permit must be no larger than two inches wide by three and one-fourth inches and must be of a uniform style. The permit must be assigned a Missouri uniform law enforcement system county code and must be stored in sequential number. (Section 571.101)

Biometric data is prohibited from being collected from the applicant. The sheriff must perform an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If no disqualifying information is identified, the sheriff must issue the permit.

However, if the required background checks are not completed within forty-eight hours and no disqualifying information has come to the sheriff’s attention, the sheriff must issue a permit. The permit will be valid until the sheriff issues or denies the certificate of qualification. If the background checks identify a disqualifying record, the sheriff must revoke the permit. (Section 571.101)

Sheriffs must keep a record of all applications for concealed carry permits or permits. Any record of an application that is incomplete or denied must be kept for a period not to exceed one year. Records of approved applications must be kept for one year after the expiration and non-renewal of the permit.

Beginning August 28, 2013, the Department of Revenue must not keep any records of applications for concealed carry permits. Any information collected by the Department of Revenue related to an application for a concealed carry endorsement prior to August 28, 2013 must be given to MoSmart and the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides. (Section 571.101)

Certain personal protected information is required to not be batch processed for query and is only available for a single entry query if an individual is a subject of interest in an active criminal investigation or is arrested for a crime. In addition, the distribution of bulk downloads or batch data to federal, state, or private entities is prohibited, except to MoSmart as provided in the act. Any state agency that has retained any documents or records, including fingerprint records provided for a concealed carry endorsement prior to August 28, 2013 must destroy them upon successful issuance of a permit. (Section 571.101)

For purposes of chapter 571, the term “concealed carry permit” will include any concealed carry endorsement issued by the Department of Revenue before January 1, 2014 and any concealed carry document issued by any sheriff or under the authority of any sheriff after December 31, 2013. (Section 571.101)

If a permit holder is convicted, as described in the act, the court must forward the permit to the issuing sheriff. (Section 571.104)

To renew a concealed carry permit, a renewal application must be completed. In lieu of the fingerprint requirements and firearms safety training, the applicant need only display his or her current concealed carry permit. A name-based background check, including an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, must be done for each renewal.

The process for renewing a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013 will be the same as for renewing a concealed carry permit except that the applicant need only display his or her current driver’s license or nondriver’s license containing an endorsement in lieu of the fingerprint and firearms safety training requirement. (Section 571.104)

Late fees assessed for a renewal and notice of expired certificates to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system and the individual are extended to concealed carry permits. Also, when a permit or endorsement holder’s permanent address changes and he or she reports the address change to the sheriffs, the sheriff of the new jurisdiction may charge a fee for processing not to exceed ten dollars.

If the person has a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, he or she must also furnish proof to the Department of Revenue. The sheriff must report the residence change to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system. A ten dollar fee may be charged for the replacement of a lost or destroyed permit or a driver’s license or nondriver’s license containing a concealed carry endorsement.

A sheriff may charge a fee not to exceed ten dollars for name changes. The sheriff must report the name change to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system. (Section 571.104) This act repeals the requirement that a concealed carry endorsement suspension be reinstated at the time of the individual’s driver’s license. (Section 571.107)

FIREARMS SAFETY INSTRUCTION: This act reduces, from fifty to twenty, the number of minimum rounds of live firing an applicant must do to receive a certificate of firearms safety training course completion by a qualified firearms safety instructor. Certificates from a firearms safety instructor course approved by the Department of Public Safety must be notarized.

This act allows a qualified firearms safety instructor to submit a copy of a training instructor certificate, course outline bearing a notarized signature of the instructor, and recent photograph to the sheriff of the county in which he or she resides. The sheriff must collect an annual ten dollar fee from an instructor who chooses to submit the information and must retain a database of qualified instructors.

This information will be a closed record except for access by any sheriff. Any firearms safety instructor who violates any provision of section 571.111 will be prohibited from instructing concealed carry permit classes and issuing certificates. (Section 571.111)

OTHER CONCEALED CARRY CHANGES: The forms used to petition a court to revoke an individual’s concealed carry permit or endorsement will be updated to incorporate changes in the law, including: the previously mentioned allowable increase in prison term from one year to years’ imprisonment; the effect of the issuance of a provisional certificate of qualification; and disqualification based on 18 U.S.C. 922(g). (Section 571.114)

The term “concealed carry endorsement” is replaced, or supplemented with, the phrase “concealed carry permit” throughout to reflect the change from the issuance of a concealed carry endorsement to a concealed carry permit. The terms “provisional certificate of qualification” and “certificate of qualification” are changed to “permit.”

In addition, “permanent resident” is added in conjunction with “United States citizen” or “U.S. citizen.” (Sections 50.535, 302.181, 571.030, 571.037, 571.107, 571.114, 571.121)

PROHIBITION ON SHARING RECORDS OR DEVELOPING DATABASES WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: This prohibits state agencies, departments, contractors and agents working for the state from constructing, enabling, maintaining, participating in, developing or cooperating with the state or federal government in developing a database or record of the number or type of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories that an individual possesses. This provision is also contained in HCS/HB 787 (2013). (Section 571.500)

MOSMART: Any information collected by the Department of Revenue related to a concealed carry endorsement must be given to the members of MoSmart. In addition, on August 28, 2013, the Department of Revenue must begin transferring any records related to the issuance of a concealed permit to MoSmart for dissemination to sheriffs. (Sections 571.101 & 650.350)

This act creates the “Concealed Carry Permit Fund” within the state treasury. The director of the Department of Public Safety must distribute all funds annually in the form of grants approved by MoSMART. The Department must administer all MoSMART grant deposits. Grant funds must be spent first to ensure county law enforcement agencies’ ability to comply with the issuance of conceal carry endorsements, including but not limited to, equipment, records management hardware and software, personnel, supplies, and other services. (Section 650.350)

REPEALED SECTION: This act repeals section 571.102, which governed the effective date of the law based on the date when the Department of Revenue begins issuing nondriver licenses with conceal carry endorsements. (Section 571.102)

This act contains an emergency clause on Section 650.350. (MoSmart) Provisions in this act are similar to HCS/SS/SB 252 (2013) and HCS/HB 787 (2013).

SCS HCS HB 436 — FIREARMS: This bill changes the laws regarding firearms. SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT The bill establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act which specifies that although several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties under the powers granted under the United States Constitution, the supremacy does not apply to federal laws that restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the state except to the extent that they are necessary for the regulation of the land and naval forces of the United States Armed Forces.

The bill specifies that all past, present, or future federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution are invalid, will not be recognized, are specifically rejected, and will be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. It is the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of the state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of the state, and no public officer or employee of the state has any authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements on the right.

Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Any state citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms under these provisions will have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting the enforcement.

OPEN CARRY OF FIREARMS – (My personal contribution—Marc Perez.)  In any jurisdiction that prohibits the open carry of a firearm by ordinance, the prohibition is lifted if the person has a valid concealed carry endorsement from this state or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state in his or her possession at all times, he or she displays the endorsement or permit upon the demand of a law enforcement officer, and the firearm being openly carried is 16 inches or less in overall length. In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, a person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun cannot be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest. Any concealed carry endorsement holder who violates these requirements may be issued a citation for an amount of up to $35, but it will not be a criminal offense.

SCHOOL PROTECTION OFFICERS: Any school district may designate one or more elementary or secondary school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer, whose responsibilities and duties are voluntary and in addition to their normal responsibilities and duties. Any compensation for serving as a school protection officer must be funded by the local school district without using state funds.

The bill authorizes a school protection officer to carry concealed firearms in any school in the district, but he or she must keep the firearm on his or her person at all times while on school property. A person violating these provisions must be removed immediately from the classroom and is subject to employment termination proceedings.

A school protection officer may detain any person the officer sees violating or any person who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any state law or school policy. Any person detained for violation of a state law must, as soon as practically possible, be turned over to a law enforcement officer. Any person detained for a violation of a school policy must be turned over to a school administrator as soon as practically possible. However, a person cannot be detained for more than four hours.

The bill specifies the requirements to be designated as a school protection officer, including requesting the designation in writing to the school district superintendent, holding a valid concealed carry endorsement, and submitting a certificate of school protection officer training program completion from a program approved by the Director of the Department of Public Safety. Any school district that designates a teacher or administrator as a school protection officer must notify the department director in writing within 30 days that includes specified information.

A school district may revoke the designation of a person as a school protection officer for any reason. The district must immediately notify the person in writing and must notify the department director in writing within 30 days of the revocation. The department director must maintain a listing of all persons designated as a school protection officer and make the list available to all law enforcement agencies. However, any identifying information collected is not considered public information and is not subject to an information request under the Open Meetings and Records Law, commonly known as the Sunshine Law.

Any school employee who discloses any information to anyone, other than those authorized to receive it, will be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and will be subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district. Currently, a person with a valid concealed carry endorsement cannot carry a concealed firearm in any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body or a school official or the district school board. The bill exempts any teacher or administrator of an elementary or secondary school who has been designated by his or her school district as a school protection officer and is carrying a firearm in a school within that district from the requirement of obtaining consent. The substitute requires the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission must establish minimum standards for the training of school protection officers, the minimum number of hours of training, and the curriculum for training programs and specifies the minimum training requirements. The commission must also establish minimum standards for school protection officer training instructors, training centers, and training programs.

The director of the commission must develop and maintain a list of approved school protection officer training instructors, centers, and programs and make the list available to every school district in the state. The bill specifies the information that must be submitted by each person seeking entrance into a school protection officer training center or program. A certificate of school protection officer training program completion may be issued to any applicant by any approved instructor affirming that the person has taken and passed a program that meets all requirements specified in the bill and that the person has a valid concealed carry endorsement.

FIREARM OWNERSHIP INFORMATION: A person or entity cannot publish the name, address, or other identifying information of any individual who owns a firearm or who is an applicant for or holder of any license, certificate, permit, or endorsement that allows the person to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm. Any person or entity violating these provisions is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

A licensed health care professional cannot be required by law to inquire if a patient owns a firearm, document or maintain in a patient’s medical records if the patient owns a firearm, or notify any governmental entity of the identity of a patient based solely on his or her status as a firearm owner. These provisions cannot be construed as prohibiting or restricting a health care professional from requesting or documenting the information if it is necessitated or medically indicated by the professional’s scope of practice and it does not violate any other state or federal law.

CONCEALED CARRY ENDORSEMENTS: The bill changes the minimum age at which a person can be issued a concealed carry endorsement from 21 years of age to 19 years of age.

SURRENDER OF FIREARMS: No county, municipality, or other governmental body or an agent of the entity may participate in any program in which an individual is given a thing of value in exchange for surrendering a firearm to the entity unless it has adopted a resolution, ordinance, or rule authorizing the participation in the program and the resolution, ordinance, or rule provides that any firearm received must be offered for sale or trade to a licensed firearms dealer. The proceeds from any sale or gains from a trade must be the property of the entity unless the proceeds are collected by a sheriff, in which case the proceeds must be deposited in the county sheriff’s revolving fund. Any firearm remaining in the possession of the entity after it has been offered for sale or trade to at least two licensed firearms dealers must be destroyed.

HB 533 — FIREARMS This bill specifies that a person who is found guilty or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a prior felony offense and who commits a subsequent felony offense in which the person possesses, displays, brandishes, threatens to use, attempts to use, or discharges any firearm will be guilty of the offense of unlawful possession or use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The offense will be in addition to and not in lieu of any underlying felony offense or other offense for which the person may be charged. The bill specifies that a person who commits the offense by possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to 10 years imprisonment; by displaying, brandishing, threatening to use, or attempting to use a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to 20 years imprisonment; and by discharging a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to a term of life imprisonment. The terms of imprisonment must be imposed consecutively to any other terms of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.

The bill exempts law enforcement officers or United States military personnel who are performing their lawful duties or who are traveling to or from their places of employment or assignment from these provisions.

The bill specifies that a person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly possesses a firearm while also knowingly in possession of controlled substances that are sufficient for a felony violation.

This bill specifies that the state cannot prohibit any state employee from having a firearm in his or her vehicle on state property, provided the vehicle is locked and the firearm is not visible. These provisions apply only to the state as an employer, when the state employee’s vehicle is on property owned or leased by the state, and the state employee is conducting activities within the scope of his or her employment.

That’s a long list. I congratulate Marc Perez for documenting all the firearms related changes passed during this session. These bills are now on Governor Jay Nixon’s desk. Early reports appeared to indicate that he would veto these bills en mass. That would require another legislative vote during the Legislature’s Veto Override session in September.

However, a new report as been published that opines that Nixon will let the bills sit, unsigned nor vetoed. That action will allow the bills to pass by default.

On May 22, the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436) was sent to Governor Jay Nixon. As of this writing, Nixon, a Democrat, has not indicated whether he plans to veto or sign the bill.

Earlier this month, both houses of the Republican-controlled state legislature passed the bill by an overwhelming majority.

When asked about Governor Nixon’s intention, a source inside his office told The New American that in an effort to avoid multiplying the several scandals already plaguing his administration, Nixon would likely let the bill sit on his desk without signing or vetoing it, thus allowing the measure to become law without his participation. — The New American.

Yes, a very productive session this year, indeed!

Facebook

Repost: Eagle Veteran

Posted on by

This was originally posted for the 4th of July. It’s appropriate, too, for Memorial Day.

The photo below and the link to the news article is self-explanatory.  Let’s remember what Independence Day is really about and how we’ve had to fight to retain it.

(H/T to Mobius.)

Frank Glick took this photo at Fort Snelling National Cemetery. When he recorded the shot, he never could have guessed how much it was going to mean to the widow of the World War II veteran buried there.

It was a crow that first caught Frank Glick’s attention. It was flying around erratically, so Glick got out his Nikon camera and followed it. It was around 6 a.m. on a hazy spring day and he was driving through Fort Snelling National Cemetery because he was early for a training meeting at Delta Airlines, where he works.

Glick is an amateur photographer, but he always carries his camera, just in case. So he followed the crow, in some cultures a symbol of good luck and magic, until he saw it: a huge eagle perched on a tombstone, its eyes alert, its head craned, looking for prey. In the foreground, dew glistened on the grass.

He didn’t think too much about the photo, until he showed it to a co-worker, Tom Ryan, who e-mailed it to his brother, Paul.

Paul wondered whether a relative of the soldier might want a copy. The tail of the eagle partially covered the man’s name, but Paul did some research and looked up the soldier’s name in newspaper obituaries. The eagle had landed on the grave of Sgt. Maurice Ruch, who had been a member of the St. Anthony Kiwanis Club, the obituary said.

Paul called the club, and it put him in touch with Jack Kiefner, Ruch’s best friend. When Glick took his photo, he never could have guessed how much it was going to mean to Kiefner and Ruch’s widow, Vivian.

One day this week, I met with Kiefner and Vivian Ruch in her St. Anthony condo. The actual print would be delivered later that day, but Vivian held a copy of the statuesque photo and her voice broke as she talked about Maurie, his nickname, who died from a form of Parkinson’s in 2008 at age 86.

“I’m sorry,” she said. “This is very emotional for me.”

Maurie graduated from college in mechanical engineering in December of 1941 and enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Known for his keen eye, he became a rifle marksman and was stationed in the Aleutian Islands. He served four years in the military and earned a bronze star.

To those who knew Maurie, he was a calm and deliberate giant. He stood 6 feet, 4 inches tall, with broad shoulders, but he was also unassuming and unpretentious.

“Used to call him Mr. Precise,” because of his love of order and knack for fixing things, said Vivian. The Ruches had a rotary telephone long after they became obsolete because Maurie scavenged parts and kept the phone working.

Go here for the complete article.

Facebook

The Return of the Friday Follies, May 24, 2013

Posted on by

My time as chauffeur is over. (As least for awhile.) Now that I’ve time to scan headlines and news articles, I’ve decided it was well worth the absence. For the first time in a decade, perhaps, the media and Washington pols and staffers speak of a flat tax to rein in the power of the IRS.

I’ve listened to conservative and libertarian friends and acquaintances say the IRS must be abolished—NOW! I can agree with the sentiment. They pronounce scheme after scheme. None that are realistic. Some, all too many of them, also have their tin-foil hats screwed on too tight. And that, is dismaying.

Why? Because it prevents them from looking and seeing the reality of government. They have a firmly held fantasy and won’t give it up. That same attitude led them to stay home in the last election and ruined our chance to remove Obama from office.

OK. ‘Nuff said on that issue. Getting back to the post. The IRS—as a function of government, will NOT go away. As long as government receives funds, income, money to operate, there will have to be an agency to insure the government gets their legal share. Note, I didn’t say fair share. There is nothing fair about government. We, the people, must control government to insure we receive as much “fairness” as feasible. For the rest, well, life…and government, isn’t fair. Live with it.

As long as government requires funds to accomplish the task of government, some agency, whether it is called the IRS or by another name, must exist. Our task, our duty, is to insure that mechanism is controllable and as simple as possible, while still accomplishing it’s single task. To insure the government receives its legal share of the wealth of the people and the nation.

Too many of my friends believe a national sales tax is the solution. For the nation, I don’t believe it is the answer. As long as the 16th Amendment exists, the income tax can return as soon as the dems, once again, control Congress. If that happens not only will the income tax return, but we’ll still have the national sales tax—both forms of taxes—like Europe. And how long will that sales tax exist until it becomes a VAT tax? Only until the dems gain power again in Congress.

The promises of, by, and from Congress are only valid until the next election. The probability of repeal of the 16th Amendment is so low as to be impossible. It can neither gain 2/3rds approval in Congress nor can it gain 2/3rds approval from the states. It won’t happen. Any plan to reduce the power of the IRS must, therefore, be formulated within the bounds of that amendment. The Flat Tax does.

I’ve yet to hear any cry from Congress nor the states to repeal the 16th Amendment. That leaves the Flat Tax as an option…and it has little support either. What can we do?  Really not much with the dems controlling the Senate. If we conservatives can control both houses of Congress and have enough real Tea Party conservatives elected, maybe, just maybe, we can repeal Obamacare in its entirety and shrink the IRS back to its original function. Strip the IRS of everything else—including its criminal investigative function. Relegate that to the FBI or within the Treasury…the Secret Service, perhaps?

We can’t eliminate the IRS. We can reduce it to its core functions and strip it of much of its extra-legal power.

***

I wrote earlier this week how the present events remind me of those leading to Nixon’s resignation. Nixon’s woes began with the desire to eavesdrop on his political opposition, i.e., the Watergate affair.

Obama’s excesses, crimes as some claim, make Nixon appear to be a piker. The common statement heard on the ‘net is that no one died in Watergate. Four died in Benghazi.

Obama’s support appears to be shifting. The segments he once had in his pocket may be escaping. Scott Rasmussen published this column today.

The Political Ground Is Shifting Under the President

A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

Friday, May 24, 2013

Despite a tough couple of weeks, President Obama’s job approval ratings are holding up fairly well. As I write this, 47 percent of voters nationwide offer their approval. That’s little changed from attitudes of late and essentially the same as the president enjoyed during most of his first term in office.

But if you dig just a bit beneath the surface, it becomes clear that the controversies dogging the White House have had an impact. So far, there are three major issues — the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservatives, the Justice Department’s secret media probe and the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in Benghazi last Sept. 11.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, speaking on CNN, dismissed “the premise, the idea that these were scandals.” However, voters see it differently. Just over half believe each of the three qualifies as a scandal. Only one out of eight sees them as no big deal.

Voters also reject the notion that the IRS targeting was the work of some low-level rogue employees. Just 20 percent believe that to be the case. A slightly larger number (26 percent) thinks the decision came from IRS headquarters. But 39 percent believe the decision to target conservative groups was made by someone who works at the White House.

This isn’t just a case of people believing politicians always behave this way. Only 19 percent think the IRS usually targets political opponents of the president.

Skepticism is so high that few are convinced the IRS acted alone. Sixty percent believe that other federal agencies also were used to target the tea party and other conservative groups. Ominously for Democrats, two out of three unaffiliated voters share that view.

So, why hasn’t it hurt the president’s overall job approval? Some believe it has. The theory is that with a recovering economy, his ratings should be higher. Another possibility is that the president’s base may have doubts, but they are still sticking by their man.

It also may be that the doubts are popping up in other ways. For example, at Rasmussen Reports we regularly ask voters which party they trust to deal with a range of issues including government ethics and corruption. Before the scandals broke, Democrats had an 8-point advantage on this particular issue. But there has been a 10-point swing, and the GOP now has a 2-point edge.

Among unaffiliated voters, Republicans enjoy a 23-point advantage on the ethics front. Before the controversies, it was a toss-up.

The last week has seen serious slippage in the president’s numbers when it comes to national security. From the moment Obama took office, he has always received better ratings on national security matters than he did on the economy. However, just 39 percent of voters now give him good or excellent marks in this area. That’s down 7 points from a week ago and the lowest ratings he’s had on national security since Osama bin Laden was killed two years ago.

There is obviously no way of knowing where things will lead. At this point, however, it’s fair to say that the controversies have had an impact, and the political environment is shifting against the president.

***

When Holder approved the investigation of the AP and FOX’s James Rosen, he gored a major ox—the MSM. They thought they were Obama’s partners (in crime). When they realized they were perceived as just another tool to be used—or abused as needed, they responded. Like this.

Huffington Post: Time for Eric Holder to go

By Charlie Spiering May 23, 2013 | 7:55 pm | Modified: May 23, 2013 at 8:05 pm

“We have a message for Attorney General Holder over at http://huffingtonpost.com,” read a message from the Huffington Post political Twitter account earlier this evening.

The website’s home page is one big splash calling for Eric Holder’s exit from the Obama administration, suggesting that the news reported earlier by NBC News was the final straw for liberals who are critical of Obama’s attorney general.

NBC News’ Michael Isikoff reported that Holder signed off on the search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator”authorizing seizure of his private emails.

The Huffington Post page also highlights Holder’s record on banks, marijuana, mortgage settlements, drones and the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

***

Not only has the HuffPuff beat on Holder, Peggy Noonan, a so-so conservative, chimed in on Obama this week in the Wall Street Journal. Her column is another ram, battering at Obama’s walls.

Noonan: A Battering Ram Becomes a Stonewall

The IRS’s leaders refuse to account for the agency’s corruption and abuse.May 23, 2013, 7:25 p.m. ET

“I don’t know.” “I don’t remember.” “I’m not familiar with that detail.” “It’s not my precise area.” “I’m not familiar with that letter.”

These are quotes from the Internal Revenue Service officials who testified this week before the House and Senate. That is the authentic sound of stonewalling, and from the kind of people who run Washington in the modern age—smooth, highly credentialed and unaccountable. They’re surrounded by legal and employment protections, they know how to parse a careful response, they know how to blur the essential point of a question in a blizzard of unconnected factoids. They came across as people arrogant enough to target Americans for abuse and harassment and think they’d get away with it.

So what did we learn the past week, and what are the essentials to keep in mind?

We learned the people who ran and run the IRS are not going to help Congress find out what happened in the IRS. We know we haven’t gotten near the bottom of the political corruption of that agency. We do not know who ordered the targeting of conservative groups and individuals, or why, or exactly when it began. We don’t know who executed the orders or directives. We do not know the full scope or extent of the scandal. We don’t know, for instance, how many applicants for tax-exempt status were abused.

We know the IRS commissioner wasn’t telling the truth in March 2012, when he testified: “There’s absolutely no targeting.” We have learned the Lois Lerner lied when she claimed she had spontaneously admitted the targeting in a Q-and-A at a Washington meeting. It was part of a spin operation in which she’d planted the question with a friend. We know the tax-exempt bureau Ms. Lerner ran did not simply make mistakes because it was overwhelmed with requests—the targeting began before a surge in applications. And Ms. Lerner did not learn about the targeting in 2012—the IRS audit timeline shows she was briefed in June 2011. She said the targeting was the work of rogue agents in the Cincinnati office. But the Washington Post spoke to an IRS worker there, who said: “Everything comes from the top.”

We know that Lois Lerner this week announced she’d done nothing wrong, and then took the Fifth. (Or tried to…Crucis.)

…

With all the talk and the hearings and the news reports, it is important to keep the essentials of this story in mind.

First, only conservative groups were targeted in this scandal by the IRS. Liberal or progressive groups were not targeted. The IRS leaked conservative groups’ confidential applications and donor lists to liberal groups, never the other way around.

This was a political operation. If it had not been, then the statistics tell us left-wing groups would have been harassed and abused, and seen their applications leaked to the press. There would be a left-wing equivalent to Catherine Engelbrecht.

And all of this apparently took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. Meaning that before that election, groups that were anti-Obamacare, or pro-life, or pro-Second Amendment or constitutionalist, or had words like ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their name—groups that is that would support Republicans, not Democrats—were suppressed, thwarted, kept from raising money and therefore kept from fully operating.

That is some kind of coincidence. That is some kind of strangely political, strangely partisan, and strangely ideological “poor customer service.”

IRS officials have complained that the law is murky, it’s difficult to define what the tax exemption law really means. But they don’t have any problem defining it. They defined it with a vengeance.

Second, it is important to remember that there has never been an investigation of what happened in the IRS. There was an internal IRS audit, not an investigation, carried out by an inspector general, who was careful this week to note to the House what he’d done was not an investigation. He was tasked to come to conclusions on whether there had been wrongdoing at the agency. It was not his job to find out exactly why it happened, how and when the scandal began, who was involved, and how they operated.

A dead serious investigation is needed. The IRS has colorfully demonstrated that it cannot investigate itself. The Obama administration wants the FBI—which answers to Eric Holder’s Justice Department—to investigate, but that would not be credible. The investigators of the IRS must be independent of the administration, or their conclusions will not be trustworthy.

An independent counsel, with all the powers of that office, is what we need.

Again, if what happened at the IRS is not stopped now—if the internal corruption within it is not broken—it will never stop, and never be broken. The American people will never again be able to have the slightest confidence in the revenue-gathering arm of their government. And that, actually, would be tragic.

I’ve excerpted the section of Noonan’s column concerning the trials of Catherine Engelbrecht, “a nice woman, a citizen, an American.” Her story could make a post all by itself. I invite you to go and read Noonan’s entire column and the one from the National Review about Engelbrecht. I don’t always agree with Noonan, but this time, she’s hit the mark.

Facebook

No Post today

Posted on by

I’m chauffeuring my daughter today. Next post will be tomorrow, Friday, May 24, 2013.

Facebook