Tuesday, April 1, 2014

The Hills Are Alive With The Sound Of Neale Osborn Ranting

A long one this week from Neale. First Mama Liberty, then Mad James Madison, a very incisive piece on Democrats, the Shotgun Shell Trial, and more on the Banana Republic formerly known as Connecticut. Then the color-blind cops of Nampa, idiot magazine-size-obsessed Colorado politicians, thillyneth from Than Franthithco, and the Ripley's Believe It Or Not fact that while you don't need an I. D. to vote for Obama, you do need one to get his Obamacare. More on Leland Yee-ikes!, kleptocracy cum procrustocracy, locking guns and everything else up, the Gunny, states opting out of tyranny, and Henry St. George Tucker. Finally, as you have noticed, it's my custom to illustrate all of Neale's pieces with an animated gif of one or more cute anime girls with guns. I still can't find any fresh ones, so this week I have an animated girl with a gun (thanks to Vulture of Critique) up there at the top, and here, the cute non-animated anime girl with a gun.



Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 3-30-2014
by Neale Osborn


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

It's not FROM the pen of Mama Liberty, but it's passed on BY her... [Link]
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare... It would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider."
—James Madison, Speaking in the House of Representatives, 1792
I guess James Madison wasn't as bad as some have claimed over the years.... NOT that I'm a huge fan of his!
This was posted to NewsVine by SteveH. I liked it so much, I am shamelessly posting it to this rant. HOWEVER, if you wish to comment about it and you are a Viner, make your comments at the [Link]
#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd. #9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't. #8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would. #7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it. #6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that get police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion. #5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy. #4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it. #3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit. #2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters. ...
And the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers or fish in those other countries.
I add another reason to vote Democrat—I leave it to you, dear reader, to decide it's place in the lineup—I vote Democrat because then I can ban the very things I deal in, thus increasing my profit margin when I then break my own laws and continue my dealings.
The interviewer is not very articulate, but he sure got an honest answer from the anti-Constitutional Democrat, now didn't he? [Link]That's right, Mr. Democrat—tell the constituents to go fuck themselves. It is my hope that it is YOU who has fucked himself... right out of an elected office.
Remember Mark Witaschek? The DC man arrested for "unregistered ammo" for possessing a misfired shotgun shell, cleaning kit, and bullets for a blackpowder firearm? Well, the cocksuckers convicted him. [Link] Un-fucking-believable.
On March 26th Mark Witaschek's trial over his possession of a shotgun shell in his Washington, D.C., home took a turn, and he was found guilty of "attempted possession of unlawful ammunition" over 25 muzzleloader bullets which were also in his house—these are lead and copper bullets without primers


According to The Washington Times, Judge Robert Morin ruled on the muzzleloader bullets when the prosecution team could not figure out how to open the shotgun shell to see if there "was powder inside." Morin shook the shell and listened to it and "said he could not hear any gunpowder."Concerning the muzzleloader bullets, Morin said, "I am persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow-point. They are not musket balls."
Morin "sentenced Mr. Witaschek to time served, a $50 fine, and required him to enroll with the Metropolitan Police Department's firearm offenders' registry within 48 hours."
Mark—copy Connecticut and New Jersey gun owners. "I will not comply!" This is absolutely unacceptable. He has lost a Constitutional right because of anti-Constitutional laws, a brain dead judge, and head-hunting cops. In the capital of the land of the formerly free and the home of the no longer brave.
Coming soon to a town near YOU!! [Link] This crap should scare the hell out of ALL of us, and piss us off, as well. Police are getting farther and farther away from any semblance of Constitutionality. The suspect is black. The occupants are white. Right there, the moment the cops saw white faces rather than black ones, they had a huge clue they were in the wrong house. Instead, they did the following:

David was seized and shackled. Connie and Aaron were also dragged from their home. Neighbors who were drawn by the commotion poked their heads out and were ordered to go back into their rooms.
But wait! There's more!

At the request of the neighboring Nampa Police Department, which received the tip, a tactical team from the Caldwell Police Department conducted what they call a "welfare check" that was actually a guns-drawn, no-knock, SWAT-style raid. The Caldwell PD claimed knowledge of "the presence of guns at the premises"—which, according to the standard "threat matrix," supposedly justifies a paramilitary assault.
Although the officers claim they were dealing with a "homicide in progress," Police audio of the incident documents that the officers didn't know the specific apartment number—which means that the door-kick on the Johnsons' home—which could easily have resulted in a homicide—was the product of a whimsical guess.
Gerst is a young black man. The police had his description, but they didn't have his address. David Johnson is a middle-aged white man. This distinction was so obvious that it wouldn't have been missed even by the typical police officer within a few seconds of the door breach. 


If the police had knocked on the door and announced their presence—as they are required to do, by law, unless there is evidence of imminent danger to an innocent person—they wouldn't have terrorized an innocent family in a near-midnight raid, nor would they have inflicted significant and expensive damage to the property of an economically marginal household.Furthermore, if the warrantless, no-knock raid was supposedly justified for "tactical" reasons, by hitting the wrong apartment door the cops surrendered the element of surprise.
In the legal response filed on behalf of its local enforcement caste, the City of Caldwell denies that the unlawful attack on the Johnsons' home inflicted "damages" to their property, or violated their rights in any way. Because this near-midnight raid was carried out according to established "policies and procedures," the City insists, the assailants are swaddled in the impenetrable cloak of "qualified immunity."
These Gestapo tactics make me sick. If Writs of Assistance were enough to trigger 1776, what the fuck does this type of action merit? These wrong address, no-knock warrants terrorize, injure, and kill dozens every year. And decent, law abiding citizens who kill one of these invading terrorists wind up charged with murder of a cop, while if a cop kills the homeowner during one of these raids they have "qualified immunity".
It's sure nice to see that my birth-state still gives forth people with the balls to live by their principles. [Link]

According to GunsSaveLives.net, Colandro said a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds would impact law-abiding citizens—rather than criminals—because it would turn "one million law-abiding, tax-paying citizens into criminals" if signed into law.
He then called lawmakers' attention to Connecticut, and said, "One million gun owners in New Jersey are also going to say, like our brothers and sisters in the north, that 'we will not comply.' And I can tell you here and now, 'I will not comply.'"
He added: "You can write these laws against us tax-paying, law-abiding citizens, but we're not going to follow them."
I sure hope he follows through....
For the last few weeks, I have been singing the praises (well, sorta) of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite their refusal to go far enough, they HAVE overthrown several key components of Kahleefourneeyah's CCW laws, including throwing out the requirement to show you have a "legitimate need" for a carry permit. Today, they showed they have not lost their anti-Constitutional anti-gun chops.[Link]

On March 25th the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a San Francisco law that requires "handgun owners to keep their weapons locked up or on their person when they are at home." The court also upheld a ban on the sale of hollow-point ammunition within city limits.
However, "San Francisco residents can still obtain them outside the city limits and bring them back [into the city] with them."
According to The Wall Street Journal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the requirement to keep a gun locked up was not onerous because "a modern gun safe may be opened quickly. Thus, even when a handgun is secured, it may be readily accessed in case of an emergency."
Regarding the prohibition of the sale of hollow-point ammunition within city limits, the court upheld it because it "affects only the sale of hollow-point ammunition, [but] San Franciscans are still free to use and possess hollow-point bullets within city limits."
Isn't it nice to know some things haven't changed? (sarcasm, don'tcha know?)
Let us revisit ID for a wee bit. But first, a disclaimer—I do not support the entire concept of government issued ID. I do not have ANY DESIRE whatsoever to "prove" my right to engage in business dealings, operate a motor vehicle, buy, carry, or possess a firearm, open a bank account, or get married. There is one, and only one, place I feel I need to prove who I am, and that's before I vote. Otherwise, who I am and what I am doing is none of the government's business. Now, to the fun. Obama and his merry band of anti-Constitutionalists have been screaming to high heaven that requiring ID in order to vote is racist, un-American, and un-Constitutional, because it is somehow a poll tax to require a $10 piece of plastic in order to vote. It's just "too hard" for minorities to get an ID, so requiring one disenfranchises the poor little poor people. Guess what? Obamacare requires you to present photo ID in order to get your "free" Obamacare. [Link]

I just returned from two doctor visits for a checkup and a follow-up test. These were my first doctor visits since Obamacare took effect. Guess what both medical offices asked me for before any doctor could see me or any medical test could be done?
Official government-issued photo ID.
You cannot see a doctor or receive your free Obamacare without ID to prove it's really you. A health insurance card won't do the trick, simply because the medical office needs to prove you are in fact the person whose name is on the insurance card.
I questioned the nurses at both offices. They verified no one can collect their "free" Obamacare services from any doctor without showing ID. And since everyone is now required to have health insurance (or is given free insurance), the government is requiring that everyone have a photo ID.
Does that make Obama and the Democrats racists? No, what it makes them is hypocrites who are in total fear of fair elections that they know they have no chance of winning—no chance, that is, unless they cheat. Don't look now, but Obamacare just opened the door for voter ID.
This is where the younger generation screams, "Busted!"
Let's take the hypocrisy a step further. Every single Democratic voter must be lining up to get his photo ID so he can get his free Obamacare. So the argument that poor and minority Democrat voters don't have ID, or shouldn't be "burdened" to get it, is out the window.
I think this is where the younger generation screams, "Double busted."
Now, whether Wayne is a reputable or reliable source in your opinion is moot. I, too went to the doctor today. I've been using this doctor for 5 years, the practice as a whole for 30. I was required to show "valid photo ID" to get my care, even though my insurance is NOT through an Obamacare website, subsidy, grant, or government agency. When I asked Lisa (who I have known for 10 years now) why I had to do this her answer was "These new rules caused by Obamacare. I have to photocopy the ID and keep a copy in your file. Then, from now on, we are supposed to check your ID every visit, and verify that it is the same as last time, or see what may have changed, and why."
Ahhh, DiFi is at it again. [Link] Constitutional law. It bans weapons that are not nazis running around Idaho shouting "White Power!". It's about citizens, armed and willing to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic, and in extremis, defend this country against the government. In addition, isn't it funny that she's against people importing "military style" weapons. I guess she doesn't care about....
Fellow San Franciscan Democrat, State Senator Leland Yee, arrested by the FBI for agreeing to smuggle in and sell fully-automatic M16s, AK47s, and man-portable missiles. [Link] [Link]

Senator Yee often used the used car salesman's trick of selling appearance rather than performance. To the public, Yee sold the flat black of a plastic rifle as being "a military style weapon". Yee knew better. To the FBI buyer, Senator Yee was precise when he asked and guaranteed delivery of fully automatic weapons along with shoulder fired missiles. Yee sold public safety to the public media while seeking to privately profit from public violence. Stated simply, Yee sought to disarm ordinary citizens while he funneled guns to criminals.
Another fucking hypocrite Democrat. Now, let me be blunt—I do not support, endorse, or agree with the NFA '34 (which created the entire "Class Three" concept of firearms) or any other gun control law Victim Disarmament Laws. I do not have a problem with civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons, silencers, sawed off shotguns, or other "destructive devices". Just as I support the free enterprise system known as drug dealing, I support ANY civilian who chooses to break the laws about full automatic weaponry. But do NOT spend your time passing ever-more draconian laws prohibiting something while using those laws to drive up the price of YOUR business selling that something. I also note that he never actually imported ANYTHING. Now, the corruption charges are enough to oust the bastard....
Please, my friends, keep up the good work of pointing out mistakes. I'm only human, after all! Sooo, to the reason for that comment. Last week, I included the following line—

Well, excuse me, but if the person is not adjudicated mentally incompetent, WHAT FUCKING RIGHT DOES THE STATE HAVE TO STEAL CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY?
My new friend, John L, took me (gently) to task. He said the following-

Enjoyed your rant at http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2014/tle763-20140323-06.html, but did you go far enough when you said, "Well, excuse me, but if the person is not adjudicated mentally incompetent, WHAT FUCKING RIGHT DOES THE STATE HAVE TO STEAL CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY?" I'm very worried that the government will adjudicate as "mentally incompetent" anyone who, for example, thinks that guns should be used, in extreme circumstances, to defend basic rights which statutory law has abandoned.
I would rather live in a society in which nobody has the authority to disarm anyone for being mentally deficient, with all its attendant risks, than to live in one in which that label can be applied, with all its implications, by untrustworthy men (i.e., human beings).JdL
I was not clear enough, nor did I take into account the current mandated thinking of Obamacare-compliant doctors that gun ownership is a health problem, that firearms ownership is a sign of possible paranoia, and that having served in a war zone is a sign of mental illness. Once these things are taken into account, I recant my former statement, and amend it thus.
Well, excuse me, but unless a person has been committed to an insane asylum for life, what fucking right does the government have to take away his Constitutionally protected private property? In addition, is it the government's right even then? No, the MOST the government should be permitted to do (and I don't really agree even with granting it this much power) is to take them away from his/her immediate control, and surrender them to their guardian/custodian.
I tire of repeating myself, but it seems that once again, I must. The title of the linked article is wrong. [Link] "Gun Owners: 'Will Not Comply' with Unreasonable Registration" There is NO such thing as a "reasonable restriction" on a right that "Shall not be Infringed". I am sick and fucking tired of lying assholes trying to claim that there is somehow a reasonable restriction on enumerated rights. The fact that certain morons have tolerated them does not make them reasonable. It IS your right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And if it causes harm to anyone and there is NOT a fire, your ass is sued into bankruptcy. But it is STILL your right. As to "Well Regulated", well, I have an answer to that, too. Two of them, in fact. First, "Well regulated" meant, in the parlance of the times, well trained and in good working order, NOT licensed and controlled when dealing with militias, especially since one of the two militias (the irregular militia) was trained (or regulated) solely on an individual basis. Second, the whole "militia has been replaced by the National Guard, so you have no individual right to own and carry weapons is shot down two ways—first, by the phrase "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed" specifically states it is an individual right, not a collective right superseded by the formation of a National Guard. Second, if this were the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then the following: A well-trained orchestra, being necessary to the artistic life of a free state, the right of the people to own and play musical instruments shall not be infringed means that only members of the state orchestra can own and play a flute.That being said, I like the solidarity being shown by gun owners across the country.
Mike, this is a good start, but it doesn't go far enough. [Link]


Pro-gun legislation which would allow "teachers, parents, and school visitors to have guns concealed and locked in their cars in school parking lots" is awaiting Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's (R) signature.
"Wait a minute Mr. Liberal Psychopath, I need to run to the car to get my gun so I can protect the kids!" isn't good enough. And yes, I meant it—almost every single mass shooter has been a Democrat or at least liberal leaning nutcase.
I'm gonna have to re-think my stance on the Ninth Circuit CoA. Three excellent decisions on the 2nd Amendmentin as many months.[Link] Hawaii, watch out!

With the case Baker v. Kealoha (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014), the Ninth Circuit ruled that Hawaii's restrictions were just like San Diego County's and the rules would have to be reworked to conform to earlier court decisions.
Law professor Eugene Volokh notes that gun rights advocates cannot start celebrating just yet because various cases are still making their way through the courts and these decisions could be overturned. But he also says that the law has been moving in the direction of expanding Second Amendment rights, not restricting them, so the "writing is on the wall" for gun control fanatics.
From Volokh's lips to the court's ears.
Many people send me links to many things, but one of my best link-sources is Gene, also known as "The Gunny". He got me hooked on DC Clothesline, Freedom Outpost, and a host other sites. He sends me links every day to articles I might find interesting, and many of them wind up here. So, while I also find a lot of these links in my own cruising through these sites, Gunny's input tells me I'm reading the right ones (and sometimes, missing the good ones!) Semper Fi, Gunny! And many thanks, as well. If any of you have similar sources, pass'em on!!!
Last summer, at the county fair, I caught flack from passers-by for expressing my disgust at the county sheriff's new toy—a matte-black Hummer with a pintle-mount for a machine-gun or other military equipment. The stormtroopers manning the vehicle, proudly displayed at the county fairgrounds, were decked out in black paramilitary coveralls, tactical holsters, and had face-obscuring "riot masks" hung on hooks. And apparently, many communities around the country are starting to agree with me. [Link]

While some communities have welcomed such acquisitions amid increased concern over mass shootings, others have balked at the idea. As RT reported last year, residents in Salinas, Californiaflooded the Facebook page of their local police department after it obtained a heavily armored vehicle capable of withstanding rifle fire and minefield explosions.
"That vehicle is made for war," mentioned one commenter at the time. "Do not use my safety to justify that vehicle," another one wrote. "The Salinas Police Department is just a bunch of cowards that want to use that vehicle as intimidation and to terrorize the citizens of this city."
That's exactly what these military vehicles are used for. Terrorization.
Idaho's governor signs bill telling the federal government they'll get no help in Idaho enforcing federal anti-Constitutional laws. [Link]

"Protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens' rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho."
It also criminalizes any action by employees of the state that violate the legislation:

"Any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state..."
Hear Hear!!!! May this be the first of many to come....

The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations—constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone. According to that doctrine: "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program...such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."
"Don't Tread On Me" indeed!
And finally, our Quote of the Week—
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
—Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England.

So I end this rant with the thanks I send out to those of you who responded with kind thoughts over the death of Gracie. Not one person, no matter how much I have fought with them, no matter how vitriolic our contacts usually are, said anything other than some variation on "I'm so sorry for that loss. I hope your family is well." Yes, we are, and little Chewie, the pup who rescued us, is fitting right in.
Good night, Gracie. :(

1 comment:

  1. I abso-fucking-lutely approve that video! I'm Neale Osborn, and now, I love Julie even more!

    ReplyDelete