Previous post
Any voting American with a thimble-full of common sense and the willingness to open her eyes to Barack Obama’s Progressive agenda for the United States knew, with one hundred percent certainty, that he’d go after our guns on Day One of his Second Term. Boy, do we hate being right sometimes.
Oregon resident Manuel Martinez, testifying before state legislators attempting to ban weapons in Oregon, asserted that “a Revolution…individuals…malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats, revolutionaries, established a regime…a dictatorial regime…in my nation. Called Communism…The reason why it was done was to take away the guns from the People.” The tyranny Mr. Martinez witnessed is now befalling this nation.
New York, Colorado, and other states in various stages of trampling our natural rights to self-defense, are proving Mr. Martinez right. In New York a form of gun confiscation has begun:
“How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed psychotropic drugs.”
Never mind that it clearly violates privacy laws.
In Colorado, reports are surfacing that a new bill, passed nearly along party lines, essentially gives up the state’s sovereignty, handing it over to the Feds, allowing secret service agents to arrest anyone they deem in violation of federal gun laws, including, potentially, county sheriffs, our first line of defense against an overreaching federal government. The bill was signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper:
“Without a doubt, this law essentially gives police powers and arrest authority to the executive branch of federal government (Secret Service) within the State. In other words, it is shoving out the elected peace officers (the local sheriffs) who answer to the people and the Constitution and is replacing them with unelected Secret Service members who answer only to the federal government.”
As if there was any doubt, the text of the bill reinforces it: The secret service agent acts in accordance with the rules and regulations of his or her employing agency. A secret service agent is a person who is employed by the united states government, assigned to the united states secret service, empowered to effect an arrest with or without a warrant for violations of the united states code, and authorized to carry a firearm and use deadly force in the performance of his or her duties as a federal law enforcement officer.”
Washington State is considering a similar law that would make anyone who’s had a restraining order filed against them ineligible to own a firearm. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this is an intentional road around the Second Amendment, under the guise of keeping guns out of the hands of the “mentally ill,” to confiscate our weapons.
And in Missouri:
“State Senator Kurt Schaefer confirmed today that the Missouri Highway Department did in fact share confidential CCW lists with the federal government in violation of Missouri law.”
Those who argue that we are not headed toward gun registration, and ultimately, confiscation, had best pull their heads from the quicksand. We’re already there. Make no mistake, these alleged “public safety” laws, which arguably violate the Second Amendment, are not being enacted to make us safer; any criminal will tell you they don’t acquire their firearms from the corner gun shop. It’s the Progressive Left “masquerading as Democrats” chip, chip, chipping away at our Second Amendment rights so that the implementation of their Socialist agenda meets with little resistance. It’s about nothing other than power and control. Once the Second Amendment is abolished, the remainder of our natural rights will fall rapidly, like a stand of precarious dominoes, until all that remains is a police state.
The choice is yours. Will you fight; or will you surrender? There are no fence sitters.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -Benjamin Franklin
>>>Washington State is considering a similar law that would make anyone who’s had a restraining order filed against them ineligible to own a firearm.<<<
Which is merely an extention of the fact that if there is a restraining order against you in Washington, it already ties into a Federal statute which prevents the restrained party from possessing or transporting a firearm.
Lindy says: I elected not to go into too much detail on the proposed Washington state law as it was covered earlier this week. According to the article below, Washington State does not require those who seek restraining orders to prove they are warranted. Therefore, abuse of that system as a method for gun control is a very real concern.
See “Kit’s” article on this issue:
https://victorygirlsblog.com/?p=10533
“In 2001, the group Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, or SAVE, released a special report on the use and abuse of protection orders. While they declared that the idea was initially sound, the report cites large amounts of system abuse and incompetence in how orders are granted. “The judge issues the order without the respondent having legal representation, being allowed to present opposing evidence, or even being aware of the allegation,” it states. This means that if someone requests a restraining or protection order against you, you will not be granted an opportunity to defend yourself, present evidence that the order is unfounded, or even know that the order is being granted against you. In Washington State, it’s even worse. “The burden of proof rests not on the complainant, but on the respondent to prove that the order should not be extended for a full year.” In addition, the report states that the broad definition of what constitutes grounds for a restraining order makes getting them incredibly simple and easy. This means that anyone can ask for a restraining order against you, have it granted if they feel somehow harassed or unsafe—regardless of whether you have actually done anything to them physically, emotionally or sexually—and then it’s YOUR responsibility to prove that the order should not be extended to a full year. That’s not counting the effects of this order on your current employment, your ability to gain future employment, any security clearances, or even ability to pass a basic background check—and yet you’ve never been convicted or even charged with a crime.”…
I don’t have to read it. I argued a case on this last year on a renewal of a protective order. The person being restrained argued against it. He was trying to argue that the thresholds required by RCW 9.41 were not met, and therefore the weapons restrictions should have been witheld from the order. However, he didn’t bring his challenge in the manner set forth in the same statute, and did not make any showing how the statute applied to a temporary restriction to begin with. Add to it the fact that the order was a “check-the-box” form that specifically referenced a federal statute, thus providing a federal premption argument, and you get a judge completely unwilling to step out on a limb and provide the relief requested.
And as a practical matter, it doesn’t play out QUITE as badly as the article would suggest.
The respondent can be temporarily restrained for 14 days, but commissioners are loathe to do it without any support for doing so, which usually takes the form of a police report, and not generally the naked assertion of the petitioner.
4 Comments