Archive for July 12th, 2009

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A wake up call?

July 12, 2009

For several years I have posted on various forums, and blogs about the domestic violence law, and the abuse of that law. We were first informed of just how evil all men are, and were by Patricia Schroeder from Colorado. Men were / are Al Bundy’s at best and at worst, well, what ever could be dreamed up.

Then, as always, there have to be Supermen! They had to please, and be praised no matter the cost of dignity and honor. The two most famous have to be Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer. Both men of power, and as ruthless in their search for praise and recognition as any gunfighter in a fiction movie about the “wild west.” Both men have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Lautenberg sneaked through a law that bans people from exercising rights that are defined as unalienable for less than felonious acts, and Schumer keeps blocking the funding so that rights could be restored. That’s bad enough, but the original act of treason, by Lautenberg, was to implement ex post facto law. For those that don’t know what that means, the short version is changing the rules after the game is played.

Here’s one example of how this has played out that I have personal knowledge of. Around 1957, at Von’s Market in Oceanside California, my stepfather and mother got into an argument. No hitting or anything, just some pretty loud yelling about whether they were going to buy Olympia beer, or Lucky Lager… A policeman happened to be in the store, and cited them both for disturbing the peace. Not really a big deal? Well, they both paid a ten dollar fine, and? Other than the Marine Corps dishing out a punitive tour at Adak, Alaska, all was well. Or so we thought…

Comes the year 2002, and mom wanted to go bird shooting with the grand-kids and some friends. She goes to the local store, and buys a shotgun, a regular old used Remington 870. But? The sale gets blocked. Based upon domestic violence (that wasn’t) from 1957! Years before the law was enacted! That friends, is how the domestic violence ban works. It is immoral, and goes beyond the Constitution all the way back to the Magna Carta, and The Rights of Englishmen. Remember those? Those little things that led to the “shot that was heard around the world?”

Now folks, I’m just a dumb old retired Paramedic but even I was able to see just how these laws were applied in a sexist manner. Not to mention in an un-Constitutional manner on a day to day basis. Now it seems that after all these years a few other folks have figured out what I have been talking my head off about for years.

$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

By Carey Roberts
web posted July 6, 2009

Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn’t always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world’s first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.

When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters,” she would later reveal.

According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright  prevarications. The report, “Fifty Domestic Violence Myths,” is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, “domestic violence is all about power and control”? That’s code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men’s insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.

And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!

I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that’s what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”

Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the “VAWA Mafia” find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.

Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the “He had it coming” line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.

Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it “domestic violence.”

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications.  So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there’s not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That’s the biggest whopper  of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report.  As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, “You’re entitled to your own opinions; you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention. ESR

Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

SOURCE

Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress

July 12, 2009

Seems like there is an awful lot of misinformation going around the Internet lately concerning new gun laws that are, or are not on the table. This is a synopsis as of today from Gun Owners of America.

Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress

Gun Owners of America Analysis of Current Gun Bills


House:H.R. 17 (Bartlett): This bill would reaffirm the right to use firearms for self-defense and for defense of one’s home and family.

H.R. 45 (Rush):  This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed.  The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family.  The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25.  The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked.  Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license.  With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check.  In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense.  A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created.  Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.

H.R. 197 (Stearns):  This bill would establish national standards for concealed carry reciprocity, but would not protect residents of pro-gun states like Vermont and Alaska which do not require paper permits.

H.R. 256 (Jackson-Lee):  This bill would, among other things, impose a ten-year prison sentence (a life sentence if death or kidnapping results) for using a firearm to cause bodily injury on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

H.R. 257 (Jackson Lee):  This bill would take the already Byzantine restrictions on teaching your kids the responsible use of firearms and extend them from handguns to semi-autos; increase the age of applicability from 18 to 21; and increase potential penalties to up to 10 years in prison.

In addition, the bill prohibits unaccompanied minors from gun shows, and subjects parents to up to 3 years in prison for keeping an unloaded gun (with ammunition in the vicinity) if a jury finds that they disregarded a risk, that a kid (including a burglar) would get a hold of the gun and the unauthorized user causes injury.  This provision effectively eliminates having guns available for self defense.

H.R. 265 (Jackson-Lee):  This bill is intended to remove the disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine (perceived as a drug used more frequently by blacks) and powder cocaine (perceived as a drug used more frequently by whites).  The bill is, among other things, intended to relieve sentencing on the basis of the fact that crack cocaine was the drug involved, but increase sentencing on the basis of the fact that a weapon was “brandished.”

H.R. 442 (Rehberg):  This bill would provide amnesty for a veteran who acquired a “souvenir” (such as a machine gun) while serving overseas, so long as it is registered during a 90-day grace period.

H.R. 455 (Welch):  This bill would add the Missiquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system, and commission a study on, among other things, the possession of weapons on lands adjacent to the area.

H.R. 495 (Rodriguez, Teague, Engel, Reyes): This bill would authorize $15,000,000 for two years to the BATFE for the purpose of enhancing its project to thwart the transportation of firearms across the Mexican border.

H.R. 510 (Kind et al.):  This bill would provide that the manufacturer’s excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly.

H.R. 623 (Reyes):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 834 and H.R. 866.)

H.R. 642 (Flake):  This bill would provide that, except for overriding reasons such as national security or safety, public lands should be open to recreational shooting.  It would generally require that withdrawal of lands from recreational shooting be offset, and would require congressional committees to be notified in writing before such a withdrawal.

H.R. 673 (Filner, McHugh):  This bill would make changes in the federal employee retirement system with respect to certain law enforcement personnel.

H.R. 675 (Filner):  This bill would provide police, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement personnel in the Department of Defense with the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.

H.R. 808:  This bill would create a Department of Peace, which would be tasked with, among other things, analyzing policies with respect to “tools of violence, including handguns.”

H.R. 834 (Poe):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 623 and H.R. 866.)

H.R. 866 (Brady et al.):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 623 and H.R. 834.)

H.R. 1022 (Schiff and Bono Mack):  This is the 111th Congress’ incarnation of the “gang bill.”  It would, among other things, define a “criminal street gang” to include an informal group of five or more people (such as a family or business), each of whom has committed one or more “gang crimes” (such driving by a school with a gun in the car under 18 U.S.C. 922(q)), including a violent felony (such as defending your family against a criminal under circumstances in which a prosecutor feels you should have retreated).

H.R. 1048 (Sires, Hare, Wilson, Frank, Meek):  This bill would prohibit the HUD secretary from accepting any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement that requires registration of firearms or prohibits their possession for sport or self-defense.

H.R. 1074 (Scalise): This bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, provided that the laws of the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee are complied with, in addition to federal law.

H.R. 1448 (Rodriguez et al.):  Like H.R. 495, this bill would authorize $15,000,000 a year to send BATF agents to the Mexican border and to Mexico in connection with “Project Gunrunner.”  In addition, it would provide $9,500,000 a year to do things like trace firearms recovered in Mexico, presumably for the purpose of building a case for anti-gun legislation in the U.S.  It also contains $150,000,000 a year for other border security operations and $15,000,000 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

H.R. 1620 (Boozman):  This “Vermont-friendly” bill would authorize a person who can lawfully carry concealed in his state of residence — or has a concealed carry permit from any state — to carry a concealed firearm in all states.  Unlike some reciprocity bills, it allows non-permit states like Vermont to benefit from its provisions and does not set “national standards” for carrying firearms.

H.R. 1684 (Hastings):  This bill would codify the Bush Administration’s regulations concerning guns in National Parks.

H.R. 1913 (Conyers, Frank): This is the controversial House-passed Hate Crimes bill.  It would impose a 10-year prison sentence for a simple “attempt” to cause bodily injury if a firearm was involved.

H.R. 2159 (King of New York, Rangel, McCarthy, et al.): This bill would allow Eric Holder to declare any person a “prohibited person” (revoke licenses of, etc.) if he “suspects” that individual of aiding terrorism. Given recent disclosures that the government regards pro-lifers, pro-gun advocates, veterans, and other conservatives as potential terrorists, this has to be regarded with some alarm. This is particularly true because Holder is specifically authorized by the bill to withhold information concerning the basis for putting conservatives on his “enemies list.”

H.R. 2296 (King, Space): This is a reincarnation of a bill which contains a hodge-podge of relatively minor good things — and one really bad thing which was used to secure the cosponsorship of the Judiciary Committee Chairman on the Senate version of the bill.  The bad thing is that the bill would allow BATFE to impose, for the first time, civil penalties on federal firearms licensees. Civil penalties could easily put a small licensee out of business, but can be imposed without the burden of proof, disclosure requirements, and other protections accorded criminal defendants. And, although proponents argue that civil penalties will allow BATFE to impose penalties short of license revocation, there is no requirement that license revocations be reduced commensurately. While GOA has pushed other provisions in the bill tightening state-of-mind requirements and gun definitions, these are not enough to offset giving the BATFE a tool which has served as the central engine for expanding the power and jurisdiction of other agencies (like the SEC).

H.R. 2324 (Castle, McCarthy, et al.):  This bill is a reincarnation of the year-after-year effort to effectively ban gun shows by allowing them to be regulated and inspected to an unlimited extent.  In addition, any gun show sponsor would be subject to up to two years in prison if he failed to notify every single attendee of his responsibilities under the Brady Law.

H.R. 2401 (McCarthy): This bill is a reincarnation of legislation to make “prohibited persons” of everyone on an administration “terrorist watch list.”  Suffice it to say that:

  • there are virtually no guidelines to who can or can’t be placed on one of these lists, and they have prohibited boarding by people like Ted Kennedy;
  • it is impossible to find out why you are on the list and very difficult to get your name off.

Senate:

S. 160:  This is the Senate-passed bill to grant a voting representative for the District of Columbia in the House.  As a result of an amendment added on the Senate floor by Senator John Ensign, it would repeal the gun registration and microstamping provisions of D.C. law, and would bar the District from passing new anti-gun statutes.

S. 296 (Chambliss, Cornyn, Coburn, Isakson):  This bill would replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax.  Although the language is a little muddy, it appears that the 1934 National Firearms Act is retained.

S. 325 (Cochran):  The bill would allow pest control pyrotechnics to be exempted from the explosives provisions of Title 18.

S. 371 (Thune, Vitter):  This “Vermont-friendly” bill would authorize a person who can lawfully carry concealed in his state of residence — or has a concealed carry permit from any state — to carry a concealed firearm in all states.  Unlike some reciprocity bills, it allows non-permit states like Vermont to benefit from its provisions and does not set “national standards” for carrying firearms.

S. 556 (Vitter):  Current law allows long guns to be purchased in a face-to-face transaction with a gun dealer in a state outside the purchaser’s state of residence.  This bill:

* extends that law to all firearms;

* allows the gun to be purchased at a gun show; and

* rescinds provisions that allow the state of residence to reach into another state and prohibit a transaction which has nothing to do with its jurisdiction.

S. 632 (Baucus et al.):  This bill would provide that the manufacturer’s excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly.

S. 669 (Burr):  This bill would protect veterans by first requiring a finding by a judge or magistrate that an individual is mentally incompetent before his guns are taken away under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.  This would replace the current method, which has resulted in the disarmament of more than 100,000 veterans by government psychiatrists, who have issued opinions claiming that PTSD symptoms require a returning veteran to get help to manage his financial affairs.

S. 816 (Crapo):  This bill would codify the Bush Administration’s regulations concerning guns in National Parks.

S. 845 (Thune, Vitter):  This is the GOA-supported “Vermont-friendly” concealed carry reciprocity bill.

S. 941 (Crapo, Leahy): This is the Senate counterpart to H.R. 2296 and is a reincarnation of a bill which contains a hodge-podge of relatively minor good things — and one really bad thing which was used to secure the cosponsorship of Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy.  The bad thing is that the bill would allow BATFE to impose, for the first time, civil penalties on federal firearms licensees. Civil penalties could easily put a small licensee out of business, but can be imposed without the burden of proof, disclosure requirements, and other protections accorded criminal defendants. And, although proponents argue that civil penalties will allow BATFE to impose penalties short of license revocation, there is no requirement that license revocations be reduced commensurately — and it’s pretty clear (and GOA has in fact been told) that this anti-gun provision was added as an inducement for the support of Leahy and Obama. And, while GOA has pushed other provisions in the bill tightening state-of-mind requirements and gun definitions, these are not enough to offset giving the BATFE a tool which has served as the central engine for expanding the power and jurisdiction of other agencies (like the SEC).

S. 1317 (Lautenberg): This bill would allow the Attorney General to deny the purchase of a firearm pursuant to an Instantcheck (or a permit which would allow a person to by-pass the Instantcheck) if he “suspect[s]” that the person has been engaged in conduct “related to terrorism” and the Attorney General has a “reasonable belief” that the firearm might be used in connection with terrorism. The Attorney General is specifically permitted to withhold any information concerning his “reasonable belief.” Take into consideration, in evaluating the application of this bill, that DHS in 2009 circulated an advisory attempting to link mainline Second Amendment and pro-life groups to “terrorism” — and a number of recent newspaper commentaries have argued that groups like GOA and the NRA are, in some way, responsible for criminal acts recently committed in Pittsburgh and Wichita.

SOURCE