Category: The Law

Posted on

They Said this would never happen.

The SAID it couldn’t happen.

They said that they weren’t making a database. They said the information was safe. They said anyone who questioned them was a child hating, war mongering, insanely violent, racist, monster.

Yet here we are.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting a California DOJ breach of every single Concealed Carry permit holder in the state. Initial reports said the breach was limited, but subsequent reports now state the breach was all the records.

Other news outlets report that the data exposed not only those who had concealed carry permits, but all those who applied for permits, granted or not.

Breaking news… It appears now that even the information about people who’d obtained a California Gun Safety Certificate had their data exposed. FYI a California Gun Safety Certificate does not mean you own a gun, it only provides proof that you’re aware of pretty basic gun safety rules and some of the California laws surrounding gun ownership.

The California Gun Safety Certificate is a quick and easy way for California to collect $20 every 4 or 5 years and have you pay the California DOJ for the privilege of having your name, address, and other personal information put into their database. The safety certificate is a big nothing burger, but it’s required before you can purchase a gun.

All the better to identify law abiding citizens who may, possibly, need to have their homes raided by a SWAT team at 2AM, if California decides that person might, possibly, just maybe, need to have red flag search and seizure of property contained in their home.

Back in Oct of 2016, The California DOJ had another “oopsie” and released the names and addresses of 3500 firearms instructors.

I haven’t checked, but I seem to recall there was some kind of gun control law moving through the California Legislature which was encountering a lot of opposition. I don’t remember if the firearms instructors were being vocal about opposing the legislation at the time. It would be an interesting coincidence if they were.

California wants a complete gun registry. The California DOJ wants to know about every single gun in the state. Even if those guns were legally owned by a citizen prior to them moving into the state.

California lawmakers claim this is to provide better safety to the people of California. They often use the safety of California children as their justification.

Really? Using Children? How about lawmakers actually address the problem of crime in the state? That would be a refreshing change.

Lest I forget… the California DOJ approves of guns via a very expensive testing procedure that gun manufacturers must pay for, and must also provide every variation (even if the variation is color,) of gun for testing.

If a manufacturer chooses not to provide a weapon and pay a fee, then the California DOJ will say that gun can’t be sold in California. The funny thing is that the California DOJ will drop guns from the approved list after that gun may have been approved for several years. Does that mean anyone owning such a gun is now in possession of an illegal firearm? Is that otherwise law abiding citizen committing a felony?

The fact is, there are some guns which are family heirlooms (think grandpa’s gun). Others that were gifts. All legally owned, and handed down father to son, or brother to brother. California, wants all of these guns to be subject to registration and investigation. How does California deal with these guns, many of which were likely never approved for sale by the California DOJ ?

While California dilly dallies around investigating, those weapons are supposed to be handed to a licensed gun dealer for a fee until California “approves”. Which means, that those guns are now not under the physical control of the owners. Should the gun go missing, and be used in a crime… The owner of record is still responsible even though the gun in question, wasn’t in their possession due to California’s regulations.

It doesn’t matter to the California legislature, that the guns may have been sitting in a law abiding citizen’s safe for a decade or more and haven’t been used in some horrendous mass shooting.

Various gun owners associations have repeatedly pointed out that such a gun registry doesn’t help Law Enforcement, nor does it make law abiding citizens safer. Law abiding citizens aren’t the folks engaging in the rampant gun violence plaguing California. Criminals are responsible for the gun violence. Guess what? They’re probably not buying their guns legally!

What such a registry does, is allow weaponization of various police agencies. It provides unscrupulous politicians an avenue of retaliation against those who might speak in opposition to them.

Or, as in this latest data breach…

The California DOJ has exposed the names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, home phone, and other personal data to anyone who might wish to engage in identity theft, target certain judges, citizens, or law enforcement personnel, or who might be looking for a target of opportunity to steal guns.

Great job California DOJ! Well Done! Instead of insuring the safety of law abiding citizens… You’ve painted a target on their backs!

On the plus side… You’ve destroyed any credibility of a gun registry!

Posted on

Good God! Please make them shut up!

I’m totally sick of the Abortion shit!

Although there have been some headlines that have made me laugh.

Sex Strike! Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling

As if a man would want to have sex with this one…

She looks like she stepped off the set of John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars

Then there’s this one.

Not at all a flattering angle.

The general consensus among lots of Men seems to be; “Your Terms are acceptable”

Women, really need to realize, Men don’t need them to pleasure ourselves. We might prefer to have a woman in our beds. But if the pain in the ass level is too high, we’ll find alternatives.

One need only look at the sex toy industry, or even a single online catalog and you’ll find there are a multitude of very pleasurable substitutes that cost less than Dinner and Drinks on one date.

All of the above are reviewed at GQ The Best Sex Toys for Men

The beauty of some of these toys is that they’re easily cleanable, or in some cases entirely disposable. Oh… Don’t forget a decent lubricant!

Then there’s Pink.

Who is she? Why Should I care? I don’t think I’ve ever heard any of her music, and see zero need to do so now.

Then there’s this one from Elizabeth Warren…

Biden Needs to Make ‘Federal Lands in Place Where Abortions Can Occur’

When I read this one, I pictured this

We know how the US Government is about reservations…

Then there’s this from AOC

AOC: Arkansas abortion ban ‘will kill people’

That title was provocative enough that I pulled up the video. She does justify her statement somewhat.

All that being said…

Nowhere in the constitution does it say, “Sure, hack up that baby growing inside you, then scoop the pieces out of your womb.”

Abortion is not birth control it’s fucking murder. I don’t give a runny shit how you try to sanitize it.

I’m in favor of abortion in the case of rape. No question about it. A man who rapes a woman doesn’t deserve to reproduce, ever! Further I’d say castrate the fucker, cut ‘em off sack and all, when he’s caught.

Don’t bother with a nice clean surgery center, a decent knife, and four stout men. (Two to hold his legs open, one to pin him down, and one to wield the knife! As you can tell, I don’t have any mercy for rape.) That alone would have a chilling effect on rapists across the country.

I’m in favor of abortions in the case of incest. Our species shouldn’t be weakening itself by narrowing genetic diversity. Just look at the Royals of Europe.

I’m in favor of abortions in the case of mother’s life versus continuing the pregnancy.

What I’m not in favor of is abortion just because the couple, (Yes, the Man and the Woman) were too stupid, or too lazy, to avail themselves of the myriad options available to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

Abortion, generally speaking is not about women’s health it’s about covering up that the couple was irresponsible.

It’s about a woman taking the rights of a man too. There are some men, who want children, and who may only have one time in their lives when they can father them.

The implied message of Abortion is that men can always father children. Who cares if half a dozen of their potential offspring are murdered before they have a child?

That’s not always the case. Lower male fertility rate statistics show it clearly.

How many men find out too late that they’re functionally sterile because of pollution, hormones or chemicals, in the water, or other factors?

How many men look back on their girlfriends or fiancé’s who got abortions and wish they’d had the joy of holding their child in their arms?

I’ll grant you there may not be a huge preponderance. I’m willing to bet there are men jerking off into cups at fertility clinics for sperm counts, while their wife waits in the lounge, who wish they’d had a say when their ex-girlfriend took off to an abortion clinic.

My view will not be popular. Fine. It’s the way I see it. You don’t have to agree, just as I don’t have to agree that rampant abortion is just hunky dory, or empowering.

This SCOTUS ruling doesn’t ban abortion. All it does, is say that abortion is not enshrined in the Constitution. It kicks the issue back to the states for their legislatures to decide.

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. That’s it, they’re not supposed to legislate from the bench. Congress makes the Laws.

And yes, theoretically this could reverse Gay marriage. It could also theoretically reverse rulings on inter-racial marriage.

I don’t think it will.

There’s a difference between marriage and abortion.

Marriage is about pursuing individual happiness, and living the life you choose to live, with the partner of your choice. Both parties enter into a marriage with open eyes and are presumably adults exercising their rights to live in freedom.

I hold that neither the State or Federal government has any say in the matter. Marriage is essentially a contract.

That laws and rulings had to be made to limit State and Federal interference in the lives of citizens regarding who they could marry, speaks volumes about the level of control the State and Federal governments unconstitutionally exercised.

Abortion fundamentally denies the right of an unborn child to life. This violates one of the first principals enumerated in The Declaration of Independence.

Looking at it this way, by extension, the unborn child could be protected by The Constitution. A case could be made, that the SCOTUS should stand to give voice to citizens who cannot yet speak for themselves.

The SCOTUS didn’t go that far. I think it would have make an interesting and compelling case…

If they had, then abortions in cases of rape, or incest would have to be denied too.

Reading through The Constitution, there are references to being “Born”. This implies a live birth, and could be construed to mean that an unborn child is not yet protected by The Constitution.

I could see this view too, and wouldn’t be surprised to find this was the reason SCOTUS enabled abortion in 1973. Using this line of reasoning, the woman’s rights would in fact supersede the rights of the unborn child.

This brings the whole issue to the question of, “When does life begin?”

For the founders, life began at birth. The squalling child drinking in those first deep breaths. They knew that a life was growing inside a pregnant woman. But for them the fruition of that growing life was birth.

Our technology has given us deeper insight.

If we could show The Founding Fathers images from inside the womb, if we could show them that still growing babies look human and react if they feel threatened or pain. I’m confident that they’d go back and revise The Constitution to include unborn children.

Some politicians say, “It’s just a clump of cells…” That is true at first. But once those clumps of cells differentiate into brain, heart, eyes, and take on a human appearance. It’s a human being in my book.

I’m confident that The Founding Fathers would be horrified by what the abortion industry has done.

I sure as hell am.

To all those politicians from other countries voicing their opinions about the SCOTUS decision…

Shut the Hell up!

This is our country. Our Constitution.

You have Zero say in how we govern ourselves.

Your input is neither requested or desired.

Posted on

Well, I watched the Biden Speech

I really don’t like The President.

However, I found that I leaned toward several of the points that he made.

I’m still processing on the points, Here’s a list of what I mostly agree with.

Shootings

The shootings must stop.

An animal that walks into a school or a store and just opens fire, is to my mind rabid. As such, they deserve nothing but to be put down as you would a rabid animal. No mercy, no negotiation.

Something that I have noticed is that these animals always seem to go for “soft” targets. Whether that is a school, a church, a bar, or a shopping center. One thing these venues have in common is that they are almost always a Gun Free Zone.

A notable exception was the church in TX where one of the parishioners dropped a shooter on a sunny Sunday morning.

More Gun Control Laws

I’m not sure that more gun control laws will prevent these kinds of shootings. The so-called “Expanded” background checks I think are toothless.

I can say from experience that the “Gun Show” loopholes are largely red herrings. I’ve never been to a gun show that was “Cash & Carry”. If you purchase a gun at a gun show, you still have to pass the background checks and the gun must be shipped to a licensed federal firearms dealer. The purchaser can pick it up after providing appropriate documentation, and paying a handling fee. The same is true of Online Sales.

Mental Health

Mental Health Care must be expanded. I honestly don’t care how that is done, but I believe it must be done.

Red Flag Laws

I’m ambivalent about red flag laws. I can see the point and their usefulness. Alternatively, I’ve read horror stories where an aggrieved party abused the law to settle a score.

There’s one story that pops to mind where in a bitter divorce, the wife activated the Red Flag law. Her husband’s collection of rare and antique guns was taken, then the guns “disappeared” from police custody. The collection was worth north of 100,000 dollars. The wife demanded her half of the cash even though the guns were gone and therefore couldn’t be sold for profit. Depending on the Red Flag law, it’s possible to misuse it in a way similar to “Swatting”.

Age Limits

I’m not sure about the age limits on gun purchases. I do applaud The President’s speechwriter for addressing the military versus non-military aspects of 18 year olds purchasing guns. Yes, we send 18 year olds to fight in wars and kill people. Then those young people come home and can’t buy a beer. I’ve always found that to be wrong. On the other hand if the drinking age is 21, then I can see the gun purchase age being 21 as well. It is for handguns in most places.

And yet, we still have the weekly Chicago teenage shooting fest. This tends to imply, that criminals will be criminals regardless of the law or their age.

I completely disagree with laws similar to the California law that proposed making it illegal to hand a weapon registered to you, to another person, or member of your family. That disrupts a father being able to take his sons hunting, or to a shooting range. It also creates a complication if, for example, you’re at a range with a buddy and would like to try out his new Glock to see if you’d like it. (I don’t know if that idiotic law passed or not in California. I’ll have to look it up.)

Gun Safety

The President mentioned trigger locks, and safe storage of weapons. I can see that. (Although trigger locks can be defeated fairly easily.) The problem I have with so called “safe storage” is that a gun locked in a safe is no damn good if someone kicks your door down in the middle of the night.

Now you know why I sleep with a baseball bat at hand and some kind of knife nearby as well. Just as with a gun, I hope I’ll never have to use either of them. (Then again, caving someone’s skull in or gutting them wouldn’t disturb the neighbors like a gunshot would.)

High Capacity Magazines

The President referenced High Capacity Magazines again. This time he defined what he meant by high capacity. I lean toward agreeing, that 30 or 40 round magazines are high capacity. I’m not sure why someone would want that kind of capacity. I don’t know enough about that particular subject to intelligently comment.

I’ve been looking a Henry Lever action rifles for hunting. Most of them, top out at 10 round capacities. Several of them top out at seven rounds. These seem like reasonable maximums if you’re hunting.

I remember being told once, (discussing the model 1911 pistol,) that if you couldn’t hit what you were aiming at with seven rounds, you probably couldn’t hit it with 70. In my family, we were taught it was a very bad thing to waste ammunition. So I might be biased about the number of rounds necessary.

Other things said

One thing I noticed in comments that popped up after The President’s speech was that a lot of people were just badmouthing The President based on some of his comments earlier in the week. He said things like he wanted to ban 9mm.

Because of his earlier statements, people heard what they wanted to hear in his address Thursday.

In this post, I’m trying to maintain focus on what he said in his speech.

If in fact some of the legislation his party is proposing contains bans on 9mm, or AR-15 rifle mechanisms then I’ll have to re-evaluate.

9mm is one of the most common calibers on the market today. Most law enforcement use them and honestly if The President did actually ban that caliber, it would create chaos.

Law enforcement goes through a lot of testing before they approve a particular gun and / or caliber for their use. Having to resupply every police force in the country would impose a large financial burden on police budgets nationwide. Including The President’s own security forces. I tend to think The President misspoke earlier in the week referencing 9mm.

Size wise, a 9mm slug isn’t terribly different from a .38 so I’m really not sure why The President spoke about 9mm at all.

Then again, time will tell.