The Pratt Shooting....

The front door of the Pratt Company, a declared "gun free" zone.

Signs don't work, and the company is responsible for the loss of life that occurred as the result of forbidding lawful defensive carry.

Obviously, the sign was defective. I think the company and families need to sue the sign printer for producing what was obviously a defective gun free zone sign.

Response to Sen. Stabenow Form Letter Regarding So-Called “Universal” Background Checks....

After expressing concerns regarding pending gun control legislation in the US legislature (so-called “universal” background checks), I received the same form letter from her office that I have received numerous times, the one assuring me that she understands my concerns about the Second Amendment because she grew up in a home with firearms and hunters.  Of course, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but I will let that slide for the moment.

I sent her the following email in response:

Senator,

I have received this same tired letter several times over the years you have been in office in response to concerns expressed regarding continued attacks on the Second Amendment.

"I support enforcement of laws that protect our children and our families from gun violence and other criminal activity.”

I would like to know what those laws are?

Heller vs. DC has already declared mandatory trigger locks and other mandatory storage laws unConstitutional on their face because, and I quote (from the syllabus for brevity’s sake), 

"3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

McDonald v. Chicago has already pre-empted so-called “red flag” laws that call for the confiscation of firearms without due process, noting that the Fourteenth Amendment declared the Bill of Rights to be operative on the States, therefore GUARANTEEING both the due process AND Second Amendment rights of citizens (again, quoting from the syllabus for the sake of brevity) :

“(3) The Court eventually moved in the direction advocated byJustice Black, by adopting a theory of selective incorporation by which the Due Process Clause  incorporates particular rights contained in the first eight Amendments. See, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 341. These decisions abandoned three  of the characteristics of the earlier period. The Court clarified that the governing standard is whether a particular Bill of Rights protection is fundamental to our  Nation’s particular scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. Duncan, supra, at 149, n. 14. The Court eventually held that almost all of the Bill of Rights’ guarantees met the requirements for protection under the Due Process Clause. The Court also held that Bill of Rights protections must “all . . . be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment.” Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 10. Under this approach, the Court overruled earlier decisions holding that particular Bill of Rights guarantees or remedies did not apply to the States.See, e.g., Gideon, supra, which overruled Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455. Pp. 15–19. (d) The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19–33.”

OK, so universal background checks will stop the killing, right?  

Not so.  

None other than the Washington Post evaluated Sen. Rubio’s claim that “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”  After an exhaustive overview of such shootings, they awarded Sen. Rubio with the rarely awarded Geppetto Checkmark, indicating that his statement was 100% factually true, WaPo Rubio Gun Control Claim Absolutely True. Even Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee acknowledged the fact that background checks would not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals when she stated from the floor of the House,

“Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked — that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws.”  

This is all backed up by a 2016 Department of Justice study, “Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Inmates, 2016.”  Only 1.3% obtained their firearms via retail outlets; only .8% obtained them at gun shows.  43% obtained them on the black market, while the remainder obtained them in one way or another from family and friends (stolen, straw purchased), found them at the scene, or convinced a stranger to make a straw purchase on their behalf.  By the way, only .8% of all inmates used a rifle of ANY kind during the commission of their crimes;an even more infinitesimal fraction of that .8% (something on the order of .003%) used a so-called “assault rifle.” In the final analysis, background checks have stopped nothing; those who are denied the lawful sale of a firearm due to the results of a background check still manage to get their hands on firearms anyway, and let us not forget that Gabby Giffords’ shooter PASSED his background check, as did several other high profile shooters.  The firearms used by the San Bernardino shooters firearms were straw purchased.

So lets go on to mandatory psychological evaluations prior to purchasing firearms.  

In the wake of the GermanWings suicide several years ago, there were loud shouts for mandatory psychological evaluations, thinking that this would prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.  Noted psychologist Dr. Gary Greenberg in an article written for the New Yorker regarding the incident, 

“[…] But as any mental-health professional will tell you (and as many did in the wake of the crash), nearly one in three Americans meets the criteria for a mental-disorder diagnosis in any year, and more than half of us will qualify at some point in our lives. Once diagnosed, people with mental illnesses, even severe psychotic disorders like schizophrenia, do not commit violent crimes at higher rates than the rest of the population. And most people who have had suicidal thoughts do not go on to kill themselves, let alone a planeload of strangers…

"Mental disorders cannot be diagnosed reliably; every day expert clinicians square off on witness stands over the proper diagnosis (if any) of criminal defendants. Even if we could put flight crews through the psychological equivalent of an airport body scanner, the results would still provide virtually no specific information about what someone would do in the future. Mental-health workers are called upon to make predictions frequently—to help a corporation decide if a job applicant will make a good employee, say, or to help the criminal-justice system decide if a sex offender can be discharged to the community—and yet unsuitable employees still get jobs and sex offenders deemed safe still re-offend…”

Psychologist Dr. Erin Brown echoed his thoughts during a segment of the Today Show:

“The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady, Giffords, Bloomberg, and Every Town anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can’t predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

These are just a few of the measures that are said to be “common sense” and which advocates of gun control assure us will prevent crimes using firearms.

With all of this in mind, I would truly like to know what laws you back that 1) are Constitutional and 2) are going to insure that CRIMINALS aren’t going to get their hands on firearms while FULLY PROTECTING the rights of law abiding citizens.

In closing, I am going to include the following breakdown of so-called “gun deaths” that took place in the United States in 2016.  I published this online a few years ago, and revised the numbers to bring them in-line with current CDC statistics:

In 2016 there were about 39,000 “firearm deaths.”

66% of those 39,000 deaths were self-inflicted; this was an increase over 2014.  By the way, the number of non-firearms related suicides for 2016 actually increased more than firearms-related suicides did.

34% were gang-related.  This number remained stable.

Less than 1,000 were accidental, and about 2,200 are non-gang related homicides. These numbers also remained stable.

Gun controllers honestly believe that background checks are going to stop that?

Restricting access to firearms isn’t going to stop suicides. Our suicide rate is about the same as Britain’s – which severely restricts access to firearms, and the world leader in suicides is Japan, which also severely restricts access to firearms, so the fact that firearms happen to be the tool of choice for suicides in the US is incidental (in Japan the two most popular methods of committing suicide are poison and jumping in front of trains).

Background checks aren’t going to stop gang-related firearm killings; Rep. Lee from Texas admitted as much when she told the House of Representatives that gang bangers use “trafficked” firearms.

OK, so we have 2,200 non-gang related homicides that we can do something about, right? Wrong. Most of the weapons used in the commission of crimes were obtained illegally, so, again, background checks will do nothing to reduce that number.  One other observation: the homicide number doesn’t distinguish between justified police/civilian self-defense shootings and crime-related shootings; this is the problem inherent in using HOMICIDE statistics rather than MURDER statistics.   It gives a false impression.

That leaves us with less than 1,000 deaths in a nation of 350,000,000 citizens who own 360,000,000 firearms that we can do something about, and most of those deaths can be chalked up to one thing – accidents.That is a problem that comes down to personal responsibility and individual lapses in judgement. Again, background checks are going to do nothing to change that.

Long story short, the premise that background checks will solve all of our perceived problems is hogwash. If gun controllers are truly concerned about those who have a history of crime and mental illness, then they need to concentrate their efforts on providing better access to mental health care and solving the gang/drug problem. Solve those two problems, and our “epidemic” of “gun violence” almost completely disappears.

Lost In The Shuffle, What About Nathan Phillips?

I am going to begin with my standard disclaimer: I voted for no presidential candidate in the last election, and I am not a supporter of Pres. Trump.

Having said that, I have a question: why has there been no media coverage of Nathan Phillips' attempt to enter the national basilica with a group of protestors during a mass to disrupt the service AFTER his run-in with the student? 

He didn't "intervene" between the "black hebrews" and the white boys, he saw an opportunity to gain public sympathy for his cause, to make himself out to be the victim of the white aggressor before attempting to effect his own invasion and confrontation of a peaceful church service.

Let's be absolutely clear: those boys had the option of leaving the scene when it became clear that confrontation was becoming imminent. They chose to stay, to put themselves in a position that was already stacked against them:

Strike 1: They were in DC for a pro-life event. 

Strike 2: They were white. 

Strike 3: They were wearing Trump hats. 

There was absolutely no way this was going to end well for them. 

But Phillips' attempt to disrupt a mass also clearly demonstrates that his intentions were far from peaceful - despite how the media have tried to portray him.  And now they have IGNORED his own attempts to disrupt a peaceful church service. The boys, conveniently and unwittingly, simply gave him a more prominent platform - and may have irreparably harmed themselves in the process.

Nathan Phillips attempts to disrupt a mass at the national basilica in Washington, DC

On "Arming" Teachers....

The New York Times article trumpets, "Florida public safety commission votes 13-1 to recommend arming teachers".

Nothing is further from the truth, and it highlights the lengths to which the media will go to prejudice the public against lawful firearms carry.

The commission did not recommend "arming" teachers, which would have the effect of making firearms carry part of their job, it recommended allowing teachers who wish to carry to do so. Many of these teachers already have pistol carry permits and carry off the job without causing any of the unbridled bloodshed or collateral damage the gun control lobby have been hysterically threatening for years. 

In fact, contrary to another widely- and dearly-held gun control myth, lawful firearms carrriers are better trained to accurately use their firearms than most officers. A national study of officer involved shootings found that officers are only able to hit a moving target at point blank range (2-10 feet) FOURTEEN PERCENT of the time, while civilians can do so SIXTY-EIGHT PERCENT of the time. You are more than FIVE-AND-A-HALF TIMES more likely to be shot accidentally by an officer than by a lawfully carrying civilian. 

The fact remains that civilians spend more time honing their skills than many officers who spend just enough time at the range to meet basic qualification standards. 

I hope Florida will act on this recommendation and permit teachers who wish to carry to do so.

Rep. Swalwell To Firearms Owners: "... The government has nukes...."

"... Swalwell sniped back, saying the U.S. military is more equipped to take guns than those who are standing pat with their Second Amendment right to bear arms..."

I have news for the gentleman from California: there are far more true patriots in the US military who understand that their oath is, first and foremost, to the Constitution of the United States of America, who will refuse to obey such an unConstitutional order, than he realizes.

Add to THEIR numbers the millions of veterans who believe that their oath to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE.

Add to THOSE numbers the myriad of law enforcement officers who ALSO take THEIR oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies seriously, who would also refuse to carry out orders to forcibly confiscate lawfully owned firearms, and the veterans of law enforcement who ALSO, like myself, believe their oath to defend the Constitution has no expiration date.

So this man, who fights the idea of sending our troops to our border to stem the flow of illegals because "... it’s also costing you 200 million dollars...," (the actual cost is closer to $77 million) has NO PROBLEM spending FIFTEEN BILLION DOLLARS  - AND using the US military AND its nuclear arsenal - to forcibly remove LAWFULLY OWNED firearms from UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

As I have observed in the past, if legislators like this one are relying on military force, even threatening the use of nuclear weapons, to confiscate firearms in the US, they will have to bring in the UN to make it happen.

And then they really WILL have a war on their hands.

Admiral Yamamoto didn't really say it, but it is still very true: you cannot invade the mainland United States; there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

This legislator - AND EVERY OTHER LEGISLATOR STANDING WITH HIM IN SUPPORT OF HIS STATEMENT - should be immediately impeached, arrested, and tried for sedition.

One Race, One Blood...

I am so tired of white folk calling police on black folk whose only crime is doing something while black.

President Trump....

Mr. President, 

Our Marines recently concluded this humanitarian exercise in the Philippines using amphibious landing craft.  We now face a humanitarian crisis in Florida as a result of Hurricane Michael.  It is time to put this exercise into action for our own citizens.  

Roads are gone.  

Utilities are down.  

Medical facilities are inoperable. 

Nations across the world have benefitted from the speedy humanitarian responses of our military in the aftermath of disasters.  Now, the people who paid the taxes that made those exercises possible are in need themselves.  Activating the national guard is a start, but as the saying goes, charity begins at home. If we can afford to use our military to address disasters abroad, then we owe a similar speedy response to our own people.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=111365346425573&id=323772930193

Ojibway Correctional Facility...

The Michigan Department of Corrections is planning to close the Ojibway Correctional Facility in Marinesco, MI, on an effort to save $19 million.

 This region is already financially depressed - and has been for generations. It isn't just about high unemployment numbers, this area has one of the highest poverty levels in the entire US. Over the decades, they have absorbed loss after loss: the loss of the mining industry with all of its attendant enterprises and job shops, a dwindling lumber industry, and now these folks are expected to absorb a $70+ million dollar hit to their economy: $21 million lost wages, $50-$55 million in other prison related expenses.  This may not be a significant number to folks in Lansing or other large, downstate communities, but to those in Marinesco, Bessemer, Wakefield, and other local communities that support this facility, this is a devestating figure.

And it isn't just about moving jobs 250 miles to Newberry.  A number of the facility employees are ALREADY driving substantial distances from homes in Hurley, WI, Bessemer, Ironwood, and other distant communities.  Promising to help some transfer to other facilities involves more than additional distance. These people have families enrolled in local schools; that translates to a loss of state aid to local school districts, leading to the loss of teachers and staff, possibly requiring the shuttering of local schools and requiring costly and time-consuming bussing to other districts.  These people also own homes that will have to be sold.  How do you propose to transfer employees to a new community, taking on new mortgages or rents, while continuing to pay mortgages on homes that, in this area, will remain on the market for months or YEARS before selling, if ever? 

This facility is one of the best-run facilities in the state.  It is also one of the newer facilities, and it went through extensive upgrades and renovations just a few years ago.  Even the MDOC has to admit that the prisoners housed in this facility are model prisoners, being well-prepared to re-enter society as productive citizens (https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/08/14/ojibway-correctional-facility-michigan-prison/985771002/).  Moving prisoners to Jackson, on the other hand, as has already happened, or other such facilities that are not nearly as well run and that house prisoner populations that are far more violent is counter-productive and will lead to higher rates of rescidivism among the former inmates of Ojibway.   YOU claim that keeping these prisoners in the Ojibway facility would be vengeful; I believe the available data prove otherwise.  It is in their best interest to continue to be housed here.

Past analysis regarding the possible closure of this facility concluded that doing so was untenable to the local communities due to the disparate - even catastrophic - effect the closure would have on them.  The state chose on the basis of these studies to keep it open in the recent past, and while it might not be intended to be a jobs program, neither is it morally or ethically supportable to locate such facilities in depressed areas where they become integrated into the local economies and then rip them out without regard for the catastrophic effect such actions will have.

There are older, more poorly run facilities that are far better candidates for closure than the Ojibway Correctional Facility. 

Why Care About the Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

The Preamble establishes the reason for the existence of a given document. It establishes context of the document and is foundational to properly understand and interpret the document. It gives us the Who, the What, and the Why behind the creation of the document.

The Preamble to the American Bill of Rights, for example, details why the US Founding Fathers believed the document to be necessary and states the thesis of the document:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

Who called for its authorship? The representatives of the States.

Why did they believe it to be necessary? “… to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers… [and to] extend[ing] the ground of public confidence in the Government..” They believed the US Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the God-given rights of citizens, especially in light of the creation of a standing army, which several of the Founders had previously observed, was, historically, always eventually used as a weapon against the people.

For what purpose was the document written according to the Preamble? To add “… further declaratory and restrictive clauses…” to our Constitution. In other words, the limit the authority and reach of the US federal government.

If you take the resulting Amendments to the Constitution that comprise the Bill of Rights out of this context, you can justify alternate understandings.

So, for instance, the US courts have concluded that the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," applies to a standing army. But if the bill of Rights was intended to restrict the government and limit its authority, how can this be? The standing army must follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and carry out the wishes of the federal government. In what way does this restrict the government? It doesn’t. So given the context established by the Preamble, the Second Amendment must, of necessity, apply to another entity - the Citizen Militia. The Citizen Militia exists to act as a counter-balance to the federal government, to act if the government becomes tyrannical.

By taking the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” out of the context established by the Preamble, courts have determined that the government IS permitted to conduct warrantless surveillance of our citizens. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to make it more difficult for the government to conduct searches, surveillance, and seizure - not less. So given the context established by the Preamble, there is no enumerated right or exception under which the government is permitted to conduct ANY kind of search or surveillance on citizens unless ALL of the requirements outlined in the Fourth Amendment are met.

These are just two examples.

The Preamble, then, is critical to a proper understanding of the resultant document; ignore it, and anything can be justified.

9-11, 2018...

Never forget.