#such as convicted felons not being able to own firearms | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

masterofd1saster · 2 years ago

Text

CJ current events 22nov22

What’s the worst that could happen?

Washington, D.C., wants to lower the maximum sentences for criminals and make life easier for criminals who illegally own guns.

The D.C. Council unanimously approved changes to the city’s criminal code, which would reduce maximum sentences for burglaries, carjackings, and robberies. It would also reduce penalties for illegal gun possession, including for carrying a pistol without a license and for being a felon in possession of a firearm.***

Meanwhile, as of September, there were 330 reported carjackings in the city, up 23% compared to last year. D.C. residents risk having their car stolen simply by loading or unloading groceries. Carjackings have been rising in the city since 2019, and it isn’t just their cars that are at risk. Washington Commanders rookie running back Brian Robinson was shot twice in an attempted carjacking in August, and a Pakistani immigrant was killed in 2021 when two carjackers flipped his vehicle.

The lower penalties for illegal possession also come as the city has failed to get its homicide issue under control. In 2021, the city hit 200 homicides in November, the most in the city since 2003. This year, the city hit 100 homicides in June, the fastest it had hit that mark since 2003. Homicides have increased every year in Washington, D.C., since 2017.*** https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dc-wants-to-lower-sentences-for-carjackers-and-felons

***

The Pennsylvania GOP-controlled House impeached Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner on Wednesday over allegations that his policies led to a spike in the city's violent crime.

Pennsylvania Republicans filed articles of impeachment against Krasner on Oct. 27 for "negligence of duty." Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff said that, under Krasner, there have been almost 1,000 homicides in Philadelphia in the last 22 months, as well as "over 1,000 carjackings since the beginning of the year," according to the Philadelphia Tribune.

The House voted to impeach Krasner 107-85. The vote will now go to the Senate, where critics need a two-thirds majority to convict Krasner. However, Republicans hold only a slight majority, so it is unclear whether they will be able to get the votes needed to oust the Philadelphia district attorney.*** https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pennsylvania-house-impeaches-philadelphia-da-larry-krasner

***

Nellie Bowles makes a good point about political privilege

→ Can Dems handle investigating FTX? The crypto wunderkind Sam Bankman-Fried seems like he’d be in a lot of trouble right now. It sure looks like he was running one of the largest financial scams in history, with his cryptocurrency “bank” at one point valued at $32 billion and Bankman-Fried on his way to being “the world’s first trillionaire,” according to the investment firm Sequoia Capital. But Bankman-Fried was also one of the largest donors to the Democratic party, second only to George Soros this past cycle. And so the touch from media and regulatory bodies has been extraordinarily, hilariously soft. SEC chair Gary Gensler, a former campaign finance chair for Hillary Clinton, has long been cozy with Bankman-Fried, helping his business grow (when you give that much money, it’s only fair to get a little something back). From Fortune magazine: “Cop-on-the-beat Gensler not only failed to spot the crime—he appeared set to go along with a legislative strategy that would have given SBF a regulatory moat and made him king of the U.S. crypto market.”

It’s a family operation. Bankman-Fried’s parents are Stanford Law School professors and deeply involved with Democratic party leadership. His mother, Barbara Fried, has helped raise tens of millions for Democrats through her PAC, Mind the Gap. His father, Joseph Bankman, helped draft tax legislation for Elizabeth Warren.

So the media has decided for now that the young Bankman-Fried was just a goofy overextended do-gooder. As the NYT put it this week: “His ambitions exceeded his grasp” and he was just super “overextended.” Same thing happens when I make too many work commitments—I end up in the Bahamas with a billion dollars. SBF is still on the line-up to speak at an upcoming NYT event with Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury.

The man who cleaned up Enron—John Ray III—has been dragged back in now to clean up FTX. And here’s what he said in bankruptcy filings: “Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here. From compromised systems integrity and faulty regulatory oversight abroad, to the concentration of control in the hands of a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals, this situation is unprecedented.”

(Enron lost its shareholders $74 billion.)

For his part, Bankman-Fried is being pretty honest about who he is, which is a con artist. A Vox reporter had this exchange with the crypto mogul:

Never trust a grown man who writes “hehe.”

You’d think after saying something like that, the gloves would come off. Nope! The Vox reporter goes with the same old line that Bankman-Fried was just in over his head: “Why didn’t Bankman-Fried realize what was happening until it was too late?” she asks. That’s a question I’m sure his defense lawyer will use a lot. The poor child had no idea what was happening, your honor. This gentle, credulous treatment is 100% unrelated to the fact that Bankman-Fried has funded that very Vox vertical, a collaboration the company says is “on pause.” Ok.

Just in case, though, Vox is being sure to distance Democrats from Bankman-Fried with another article, headlined: “The impact of Sam Bankman-Fried’s support for Democrats is massively overstated.” See, it’s not such a big deal to be the party’s second largest donor who just spent $36 million supporting Dems in the midterms.

Last note on this is to point out that his mom, Barbara, is a major ethicist at Stanford who doesn’t believe in free will, personal responsibility, or blame, which is very much the mom you want in this situation. “The philosophy of personal responsibility has ruined criminal justice and economic policy. It’s time to move past blame,” Barbara wrote in the Boston Review.

Anyway, once you know this man is a complete scammer, this video interview is so much funnier: https://youtu.be/HPM6rf0-e6M

***

Couldn’t resist

***

Why isn’t this an ACLU case?

WILMINGTON, Del.—A lawsuit against Wilmington, Delaware’s abusive towing scheme will move forward after a federal district court ruled against the city’s attempt to dismiss the case. In September 2021, two victims of Wilmington’s tow-and-impound racket, Ameera Shaheed and Earl Dickerson, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), filed a lawsuit seeking to bring an end to Wilmington’s unconstitutional impound system.

“This is a great decision, and we can’t wait to get the city and the towing companies under oath at deposition,” said IJ Attorney Will Aronin. “Wilmington empowered these companies to keep and scrap thousands of cars in exchange for running the city’s impound program. That’s unconstitutional and today’s victory brings us one huge step closer to shutting the system down for good.”

Wilmington contracts out its municipal impound system to private towing companies and funds the whole system by letting these companies wrongfully take and keep people’s cars. The city pays these companies nothing for their services, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The price of Wilmington’s “cost-free” impound services falls squarely on vehicle owners in Wilmington, who are at risk of losing their cars to an impound system that profits off scrapping the cars they tow.

U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly determined that “Wilmington can’t have it both ways.” Either the victims have an argument that taking the whole value of their car for simple parking tickets is an excessive fine, or the owners have a claim that the city is taking property from them without compensation since their tickets don’t rise to the value of the cars. While the city recently announced reforms to make the towing program less abusive, these fundamental problems remain.

The city ticketed Ameera’s legally parked car six times in nine days. While her appeal of the wrongly issued tickets was pending, the city towed her car and demanded payment in full. When Ameera, a disabled grandmother of three, could not afford to pay the more than $300 in tickets within 30 days, First State Towing scrapped her car. Though Ameera’s lost car was worth over $4,000, Wilmington still demands payment and has actually increased what she owes with added penalties to $580. *** https://ij.org/press-release/wilmington-residents-win-first-round-of-lawsuit-challenging-citys-unconstitutional-impound-racket/

Would you tow her car?

***

PD’s specifically mentioned

Colorado’s Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules or Colo. RPCs) impose the duties of competence, diligence, communication, and appropriate supervision. These duties affirmatively require lawyers to manage their workload to ensure proper client representation. Lawyers who manage or supervise lawyers – whether in a private law firm or other comparable setting1 – are also obligated to make reasonable efforts to ensure that subordinates’ workloads are suitably controlled*** https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/11.07.22/FINAL Opinion 146 - duty of workload opinion(7184264.1).pdf

***

BJS publishes Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2020

***

California eliminates jaywalking tickets unless it would make a collision likely.

California joins Virginia, Massachusetts, Nevada, Philadelphia, and Kansas City, Missouri, which have also recently reformed their jaywalking laws and enforcement practices.***

So, why is there a push to relax jaywalking laws now? One of the main motivations driving changes to these laws is the desire to reduce racial profiling. For example, Black people make up about 9% of the population in Los Angeles, yet they receive about one-third of all jaywalking tickets in the city over the past decade.*** https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/will-jaywalking-reforms-make-you-safer/

***

Sam Bankman-Fraud sniffs, “amateur!”

An Ohio man was arrested today on criminal charges related to his alleged involvement in a cryptocurrency investment fraud scheme that raised at least $10 million from investors.

According to court documents, Rathnakishore Giri, 27, of New Albany, allegedly misled investors by fraudulently promoting himself as an expert cryptocurrency trader, with a specialty in trading Bitcoin derivatives. As alleged in the indictment, Giri falsely promised investors that he would generate lucrative returns with no risk to their principal investment amount, which he guaranteed to return. In reality, Giri often allegedly used money provided by new investors to repay old investors – a hallmark of a Ponzi scheme. In addition, Giri allegedly had a record of investment failures, including a long history of losing investors’ principal investments, and misled investors about reasons for delays when they sought to cash out their investments or otherwise obtain the return of their “guaranteed” principal.*** https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/investment-manager-arrested-10-million-cryptocurrency-ponzi-scheme

***

America’s crime problem & the opportunity theory

Was Linwood Scott a motivated offender?

Was Margaret Mills Smith a suitable victim?

Was there a capable guardian?

*** On March 18, 1994, a stranger broke into then-19-year-old Margaret Mills Smith’s home on Stockton Road in the middle of the night and sexually assaulted her. The rapist entered the home via Smith’s two-year-old daughter’s bedroom window. Smith says her little girl saw the rapist.***

Evidence showed the suspect cut telephone lines and unscrewed porch and living room lightbulbs.

He surveyed the kitchen, picked up a butcher knife, and approached the 19-year-old who was awakened when the suspect put the knife’s blade on her neck.

After the attack, Smith says the rapist offered a cruel gesture and haunting comments.

The last thing he said to me before he left that night, he put me back in bed and pulled the blanket up to my neck as if he were tucking me in. He put the butcher knife up to my throat and said ‘You owe me your life.‘

Year after year the case remained unsolved. In 2019, after seeing news reports about untested rape kits, Smith called on Norfolk police to reopen her case.

In a matter of weeks, the decades-old cold case was solved, leading to the arrest of Linwood Scott as he was about to be released from prison on an unrelated conviction. Scott was incarcerated outside Richmond — just days away from finishing a 15-year sentence for burglary.*** https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/norfolk/man-convicted-in-1994-norfolk-rape-case-awaits-sentencing/

***

$18k

Prosecutors have dismissed charges against four Marines who were accused of rocking a gondola at the San Diego Zoo, causing the ride to fail and stranding more than 100 passengers in the air for two-plus hours.

The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office dismissed the case “in the interest of justice,” Tanya Sierra, a spokeswoman for the office, told Marine Corps Times.

“After a negotiated agreement, we agreed to dismiss the case after 6 months of no new violations of the law and full payment of restitution,” Sierra wrote in a statement to Marine Corps Times.

She noted that the defendants have paid $18,260 in restitution to the San Diego Zoo.

The Marines had faced up to three years in prison on felony vandalism charges.

Sgt. Jacob Dean Bauer, Cpl. Brandon Gregory Cook, Lance Cpl. Brayden Stone Posey and Lance Cpl. Marquette Alexander Williams were arrested on Jan. 29 for allegedly stalling the San Diego Zoo’s Skyfari Aerial Tram.*** https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2022/11/16/charges-dropped-against-marines-arrested-for-san-diego-zoo-ride-halt/

***

Melroy Cort case

Charges against an Etna area Marine veteran in a wheelchair were dropped this week after a social media video of his encounter with policer went viral.

Originally posted on Monday by a Virginia man via TikTok, U.S. Marine Cpl. Melroy Cort is shown being detained by Licking County Sheriff's Office Deputy Alexander Caldwell after he was accused of assaulting police officers, who were called to the scene for a dispute over a damaged fence. Pataskala Division of Police Officers Johnnessa Justice and Zack Sarver were also on site for the incident that occurred on Oct. 21.

Cort lost both his legs and suffered permanent damage to his right hand, as well as a traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress, four months into his deployment to Iraq in 2005.

Licking County Sheriff Randy Thorp said their administrative team reviewed over three hours of body camera footage from the call and subsequent arrest.***

A court entry filed by Assistant Law Director Amy Davison on Wednesday moved to dismiss the charges filed against Cort, citing "conflicting surveys done since the filing of this charge and has led to a property line dispute." Davison said the issue is now a civil matter. Licking County Municipal Court Judge David Stansbury subsequently dismissed the charges. *** https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/news/local/2022/11/18/charges-dismissed-against-etna-area-marine-veteran-from-viral-video/69653599007/

***

Tragedy of violent crime

Family members are mourning the ambush-shooting death of a man killed just nine months after his brother was also slain.

Brandon Carpenter, a 28-year-old father of four, died Tuesday just after he left his longtime barber shop. Police say more than 20 shots were unleashed on him from at least two shooters.

His brother, 26-year-old Joshua Carpenter, was shot to death Feb. 21 near an apartment building in the 1700 block of 33rd Street North.***

Family members are mourning the ambush-shooting death of a man killed just nine months after his brother was also slain.

Brandon Carpenter, a 28-year-old father of four, died Tuesday just after he left his longtime barber shop. Police say more than 20 shots were unleashed on him from at least two shooters.

His brother, 26-year-old Joshua Carpenter, was shot to death Feb. 21 near an apartment building in the 1700 block of 33rd Street North.

“We miss our brothers,’’ said Demitri Carpenter, the oldest of the three brothers. They also have three sisters.***

Brandon was disabled, in part from a shooting in 2016 in which he was struck multiple times.

“He couldn’t work because he couldn’t stand on his feet for long periods of time,’’ Demitri said.*** https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2022/11/2-brothers-both-fatally-shot-in-9-months-birmingham-is-plagued-by-a-dark-cloud.html

***

Pretty good George Will column

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/18/democracy-needs-east-cleveland-gadfly/

***

Shooter is in custody

Five people were killed and more than a dozen others were injured in a shooting at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado, officials said.

The venue, Club Q, in Colorado Springs, described the shooting as a "hate attack," saying it was "devastated by the senseless attack on our community." At least 18 people were injured, officials said.*** https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-18-injured-shooting-colorado-club-officials/story

If you want to know about the dirtbag

Anderson Lee Aldrich is the 22-year-old shooter. Arrested for bomb threat June 2021? His dad is a Trumpkin? https://heavy.com/news/anderson-lee-aldrich/

***

Some big money names

A federal judge has ordered documents related to deceased convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his associates to be unsealed.

In a decision on Friday, Judge Loretta Preska ruled several documents filed in a defamation case against ex-Epstein handler and lover Ghislaine Maxwell to be released amid objections they would harm the reputations of the people named in the documents.

Preska determined public interest outweighed the privacy rights of the eight "John Does" named in the documents, referred to as Does 12, 28, 97, 107, 144, 147, 171 and 183.*** https://www.foxnews.com/world/jeffrey-epstein-documents-unsealed-jugde-orders

*** Tues

Good

***On December 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear arguments about whether this arrangement is constitutional. In Consumers’ Research v. FCC , petitioners argue that Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which establishes the modern universal service program, is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the FCC. They also argue that the agency’s decision to outsource management of the program to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is an unconstitutional delegation of power to a private entity. If successful, the suit will rein in an increasingly unstable program and prompt Congress to put its universal service initiatives on firmer legal ground with more accountability.

The petitioners’ argument is quite simple. Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides that “all legislative Powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” including the “Power To lay and collect Taxes . . . to pay the Debts . . . of the United States.” But with regard to the USF, Section 254 delegates that power instead to the executive branch. The FCC, not Congress, makes important policy judgments about what programs should be established under universal service and, more importantly, how to raise revenue to fund those programs. As a result, Congress has unconstitutionally delegated the legislative power to the FCC in violation of the separation of powers.*** https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/fifth-circuit-hear-long-overdue-constitutional-challenge-universal-service-fund

***

Maybe if you cut back on virtue signaling you could cut down on crime....

司法部長梅裏克·加蘭發佈一份備忘錄以改善英语能力有限人士獲得服務的機會11/21/2022 12:00 AM EST 司法部今天發佈一份備忘錄，要求聯邦機構審查其提供的語言支援操作和政策，以便加強聯邦政府與英語能力有限人士的接觸。Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Issues Memorandum to Improve Access to Services for People with Limited Proficiency in English11/21/2022 12:00 AM EST The Justice Department issued a memorandum today requesting that federal agencies review their language access practices and policies to strengthen the federal government’s engagement with individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP).Tổng Chưởng Lý Merrick Garland đưa ra bản ghi nhớ nhằm cải thiện việc tiếp cận các dịch vụ cho những người có trình độ Anh ngữ hạn chế11/21/2022 12:00 AM EST Bộ Tư pháp hôm nay đã đưa ra một bản ghi nhớ yêu cầu các cơ quan liên bang xem lại việc thực hành và các chính sách tiếp cận ngôn ngữ của họ để tăng cường sự tương tác của chính phủ liên bang với những người có trình độ Anh ngữ hạn chế (LEP).***

I think I also saw some Tagalog, some Hongul, and maybe some Arabic?

***

FLINT, Mich. (WJRT) - A Flint man made a surprise discovery of military grade explosives concealed in a car door over the weekend.

Flint Police Chief Terence Green said a homeowner who lives on the city's north side found C4 explosives stashed in the door almost by accident on Saturday.

The man, who was not identified, traveled about 40 miles to a salvage yard in Capac to purchase a vehicle door. He was attempting to install the door Saturday, when he found the explosives hidden inside.*** https://www.abc12.com/news/local/flint-man-discovers-military-grade-explosives-concealed-in-a-car-door/article_68f410b6-69f1-11ed-97db-ebf763b55e4d.html

***

Good

One year after gangs of thieves looted Western Pacific trains leaving Los Angeles, a police task force has brought down two cartels that stole $18 million in high-priced goods and sold them through online marketplaces.

It was a familiar sight to see tracks leaving the Port of Los Angeles littered with boxes and debris during late 2021, the result of burglars who rifled through slow-moving trains loaded with goods. The items were destined for stores across the nation that had been decimated by the pandemic and awaited new goods.***

The Train Burglary Task Force, headed by the Los Angeles Police Department, has arrested 91 people and served 49 search warrants over the past several months, bringing the number of thefts down to almost zero. Six more arrest warrants are going out this week, said LAPD Detective Joe Chavez, who heads the task force.“

We’ve had probably 100 calls reporting thefts per day [last year], and now it’s down to nothing,” he said. “Now they are seeing thefts in other areas but not Los Angeles. They don’t come here.”*** https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/police-bust-los-angeles-train-cargo-theft-rings

***

Good 2

A federal task force has brought down the largest fentanyl drug lab in history by using undercover agents who ferreted out the operator selling on the dark web from his home in Los Angeles, authorities said Monday.

The Drug Enforcement Agency, FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office, and others described in a press conference how they worked to bring down dark web kingpin Christopher Hampton, 36, who created his own manufacturing and distribution business selling more than a million fentanyl and methamphetamine pills.*** https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-task-force-indicts-dark-web-fentanyl-kingpin

0 notes

rametarin · 4 years ago

Text

What the war on drugs can teach us about gun control

Consider that for the last 40 years, we’ve been in a culture as well as a physical war with illegal drug sales and narcotics sales. It was thought that the way to curb their illegitimate use and the harm that does, the only way to do so was A.) regulate B.) punish people SEVERELY when caught and convicted for use C.) Punish people SEVERELY!!! for distributing and dealing.

What happened?

The illegal narcotics market never stopped, didn’t even feel a dent. More people got jailed and died in prison. More people overdosed in the shadow of society because they wanted to use drugs and accepted the risks to use them illegally, even if it meant death.

The war on drugs did not shrink drug use. D.A.R.E had the opposite of the intended effect, or its effect was so negligible that all it did was slow the magnitude growth.

All the War on Drugs really did was make illegal narcotics less safe, increase business, increase the profitability of the venture, and serve as a lifeline for everybody from the Russian, to Mexican, to Chinese mobs.

Despite the lingering dangers of being caught using, the bankrupting effects of getting caught up in addiction and dependence for decades, the life threatening and destroying effects of addiction, the hollowing out of families fortunes, people still wind up using drugs.

People can still attain drugs.

Despite how many years you can get sent away to prison for their sale, distribution, possession and consumption, people still use drugs.

The War on Drugs didn’t work, because regulating by punishing law abiding people, making it harder for them to operate in a world designed as a playpen to handle those that abuse drugs, doesn’t work. The war on drugs didn’t work, because government cannot be everywhere and govern everyone in their personal lives. And it’s folly and draconian and authoritarian to try.

Now, a similar thing occurs when you talk about the War on Guns.

Those that wish to do harm with firearms, already do harm with firearms. Legal regulations do not stop it. Because the vast majority of people that commit crime with hot guns that aren’t even stolen from gun stores, get them illicitly. To where stronger LEGAL barriers in the way of when maniacs try to go through legal channels to get them for their rampages serve as near to no barrier at all.

We know this, because while some troubled white boy off his medication and raised in single mother houses get the most press for shooting people, the vast majority of shootings occur between black narco-gangs in urban areas. To where every year, if we get 400 people dead by rifles, that’s peanuts compared to the 8-9 thousand caused by handguns. And most of those are from illegal handguns. Between felons, whom by LAW, shouldn’t have access to firearms in the first place. So sayeth the government.

But again, the War on Drugs and contraband and the war on guns via gun control have been DISMAL failures. Law abiding citizens don’t kill people nor do they want to.

Suppressors? Machine guns? The criminal element don’t even use those. Not because they fear reprisal by the government, or multi-million dollar operations of illegal narcotics make it hard to get guys that can smith guns just for the narco-gangs. They don’t use them, because they’re otherwise worthless and impractical save as cover fire or aesthetics. It serves absolutely no one to make those illegal for any reasons. They save no lives by being illegal and a felony for a law abiding citizen to possess. And if a person conspiring to commit a crime pleases, they could illegally mod or get it illegally modded to be a full-auto, anyway.

They’re analog devices. That means they’re practically tinker toys compared to the sophistry of manufacturing narcotics. Machine guns being illegal helps absolutely nobody be safe or secure from anything, whatsoever. The illusion that them being illegal will somehow protect you is not too different from the illusion putting chips in automobiles so nobody can ever go over 80 miles an hour on national roads ever again will somehow prevent fatal crashes.

It might feel good. That thin veneer of security and satisfaction as you support the passing of, “common sense reform” this, and “reasonable gun control” that. But the truth is, if you’re in favor of gun control, then you’re probably just the leftist equivalent of the Law&Order republicans that thought harsher criminal sentencing and steeper penalties for trafficing and dealing would clean out the gene pool of “certain problemed communities.” And the problem would fix itself within 20 years, as people were removed from the conversation and prevented from having kids.

But banning ‘armor piercing’ rounds does nothing. Banning bump stocks does nothing. Banning butt stocks does nothing. Banning rifles over a certain size does nothing. Banning shotguns under a certain size does nothing. Banning magazine and clips of certain ammo sizes, does nothing. Banning colors, banning materials, banning styles, banning aesthetics, does nothing.

Because you’re trying to whittle whittle whittle until you can get around that constitutional right that says an individual over the age of 21 shall be permitted legal right to a firearm, and the state cannot infringe upon it. That’s ultimately what it boils down to.

People can defend their property, people can defend their family, people can defend their community, people can defend their country, with legal access to open and concealed carry firearms. What can you do with legal narcotics? Get high. The absolute necessity of being able to use firearms outweighs the risks of an individual and the harm they could do with those firearms.

If you so much as entertain the idea that the way to win the war on drugs is to end the war on selling and distribution and instead go to the psychological roots of why people abuse and how to get them clean in the first place, then you cannot philosophically, logically, morally, support gun control laws. Because the same issues that drive a person into a self-destructive spiral of narcotics abuse are often the same issues that drive people to shooting rampages.

Even that nonsense about possession of firearms contributing to murders from domestic fights is just malarky designed to allow the government to constitutionally neuter private individuals if their estranged and ex-wives decide to get revenge on their beau by declaring them a danger.

We don’t need national serial registries owned by the government, we don’t need bans on machine guns, ammunition types, barrel lengths, or styles.

Outside a person being deemed incompetent in their mental state as determined by their psychologists and psychiatrists, and the mental health instituitions being able to privately post your mental health information for relevant bureaus or businesses that deal in things like firearms or automobiles, there’s absolutely no reason why firearms should be illegal for anybody but felons. And it is way too easy to get technically ruined by even simple firearms federal laws.

2 notes · View notes

prorevenge · 6 years ago

Text

My friend's ex-wife gets his family's business shut down and burns their lives to the ground (not what you may think)

Sorry for the somewhat misleading title, but I couldn't resist.

This story isn't about me but two people I'm friends with. We'll call one Rae and one Justin. I'm posting this with Justin's permission, and he'll probably be reading the thread.

Pretty quickly after they moved, they decided to get amicably divorced, since they never wanted to be married anyway. They still lived together for a while, and basically became something between platonic roommates and each other's only family. Over time, they started dating other people. Some partners were scared off by the weird relationship between them, but most got it, and understood that Justin and Rae had basically bonded though mutual trauma. I also met both of them during this time, and we became close friends.

This whole time, both their families and other members of their community were relentlessly harassing them. People were showing up at their house at all hours, and they had reason to believe people were trying to steal their identities over the years, though they'd fortunately both put a freeze on their credit, so nothing ever came of it.

Then Justin had a bad accident. A really bad accident. He was on his bike and a car blew through a stop sign without slowing down and plowed right into him. He had to be rushed to the hospital and landed in the ICU. Rae was his emergency contact, and I was with her and some other friends when she got the call. I immediately drove her to the hospital with a couple of other people, and she was melting down (understandably). The hospital staff wouldn't let us all in when we got there, but they let Rae in. She came out periodically to let us know what was going on. Justin wasn't unconscious, but he was totally out of it and didn't seem to know she was there, probably from the painkillers, but she was convinced he had permanent dehabilitating brain damage and basically the group of us were just soothing her and reassuring her it would be fine. A friend of ours who worked at the hospital as an MRI tech was also stopping by when she could on her breaks and calming down Rae. We'd been there all night and part of the day at this point, and the medical staff was giving us reason to be hopeful.

But things got worse. To this day, no one knows how they found out, but 14 hours after Justin's accident, his parents, uncles, and grandfather showed up. They immediately had all of us removed from the ICU, Rae included. Unfortunately, as his ex-wife, she was no longer his legal next-of-kin and had no rights against his blood family.

At this point, she was absolutely hysterical and inconsolable. She was convinced Justin's family would hurt him. I'm ashamed to say all three of us that were there with her thought she was overreacting. We all knew Rae and Justin had left a fucked-up situation, but it wasn't like his own family would do anything to impede his recovery. She was getting angry with us for trying to calm her down, and tried to explain that according to their religion, she and Justin deserved punishment from God, and only the greatest suffering could prompt repenting and redemption. She said their families embraced this thinking and wanted them to suffer, because it would prove that they did the wrong thing by leaving, and suffering would drive them back to the fold. She said as long as Justin was with his family, he wouldn't be safe.

Our friend who worked for the hospital came and found Rae at that point. She made Rae swear up and down she wouldn't tell anyone she told her this, because she could get in deep trouble for releasing privileged information to someone unauthorized, but she'd caught wind that Justin's parents were aggressively demanding the hospital release him into their care, and they were involving lawyers. The hospital was currently refusing, because Justin wasn't stable enough to leave, but our friend warned Rae that as soon as Justin got to be stable, or the lawyers scared the hospital enough, it's possible the parents would be able to take Justin.

This shocked the rest of us. Realizing his parents were not only willing to remove Justin from the hospital that had saved his life in the condition he was still in, but were actively trying to do it made us really "get" for the first time why Rae was going out of her head with fear.

At this point, Rae snapped into do-or-die mode. Convinced that Justin was about to literally die if she didn't act, she decided she would do everything in her power to start a fire at home so that Justin's family would want to run back to put it out. And this wasn't too hard, because she had a lot of dirt on the whole community she came from. Like a madwoman, she started blowing the whistle all over Justin's family. She called the IRS's fraud hotline and detailed all the ways that the family business was committing tax fraud. She submitted an ATF tip about how that same family business was illegally selling firearms without a license and without following any of the proper protocols, and was knowingly selling guns to convicted felons. She reported one of Justin's uncles for owning several guns as a convicted felon. She also reported Justin's mom's unlicensed day care "business," which was apparently extremely shady, including having over 30 children packed into one house, with Justin's mom as the only adult and many of the childcare duties being farmed out to Justin's 12- and 14-year-old sisters. She called CPS on Justin's uncles and his parents for keeping their children out of school, and for physical abuse in one uncle's case. In all of these reports, she provided extensive details.

She finished her calls and emails, and then she waited. We all waited for several hours, and nothing happened. Then, miraculously, Justin become lucid enough to understand what was going on and make his own decisions, and he kicked his family out again. From there began a slow but steady path to recovery.

In all the relief and excitement to see Justin on the mend, we'd almost forgotten about Rae's campaign of desperation, until a couple of weeks later, when the screaming voicemails started pouring in to both of them. First, the business was being investigated by the IRS, then it was being investigated for illegal firearms dealing. Then the daycare was getting investigated. At first, Rae felt a little guilty, but then she was like, "You know what? No regrets. They would have killed Justin."

From what they've been able piece together in the year and a half since this happened, the business has gone under, and the daycare is shuttered. The uncle is six months into a new five-year prison sentence for firearm possession. CPS investigated, which scared the shit out of the family, but nothing really came of it, which is especially sad in the case of the cousins being physically abused. That said, the parents are now too scared to keep the kids home from school, and with the unlicensed daycare shut down, the mom's not exploiting her daughters' labor anyway, so she has no incentive to keep them home. So Justin's little siblings are at least getting their education.

Justin and Rae are both happy and thriving. Justin unfortunately will never fully recover from the accident. He has some permanent neurological damage that results in tremors. But he's pumped to be alive, he can work a full-time job, he can still be pretty physically active, and as far as I'm concerned, he wins.

TL;DR: Kooky abusive family tries to remove my friend from critical medical care because reasons (??), and his ex-wife hits the panic button that burns their lives to the ground.

(source) story by (/u/Throwawayallaway4)

#prorevenge #by /u/Throwawayallaway4 #pro revenge #revenge stories #pro revenge stories #pro #revenge #last10

893 notes · View notes

neonowner5-blog · 4 years ago

Text

The Fbi Needs Representatives

The changes, which took effect in October 2018, prompted a rise in requests to seal records, with state authorities processing an average of 7,000 monthly. The overhaul approved by the Legislature as well as Baker in 2018 was suggested to aid people proceed with their lives. Urrutia informs me concerning a 96-year-old man who obtained robbed and also beaten nearly to fatality in his own residence; the gun trace that Urrutia did on the swiped gun is what broke the instance as well as how they caught the enemy. He informs me about an 8-year-old woman who obtained eliminated, as well as a. university woman who got raped, and in both cases the weapon trace Urrutia did fixed the criminal activity. Yet Toby Hoover, executive supervisor of the Ohio Coalition Versus Weapon Violence, contended that the general public was safer without guns in the hands of people that have dedicated severe criminal offenses. A state agency recognizes individuals that have actually become ineligible to possess firearms and also state regulation gives guidelines to verify that such individuals have given up any type of firearms in their possession. Access to guns is restricted for at least a temporary duration after an individual has been founded guilty of fierce, firearm-related, and various other significant felonies and also violations, including domestic violence offenses and also despise criminal activities. At a minimum, gun qualification criteria are at least as extensive as government legislation, to permit state and also neighborhood resources to aid in application and enforcement. https://trello.com/c/M1wYQCIn/2-delaware-background-check-top-ct-search-options -six states prohibit people from accessing weapons for a short-term duration after they have been settled or founded guilty of particular offenses as juveniles.

youtube

New Jersey generally restricts firearm accessibility after an individual has actually been convicted of a violation culpable by greater than 6 months jail time. Several states likewise restrict weapon access after an individual has actually been founded guilty of particular other misdemeanor offenses, typically consisting of wider classifications of firearm-related or fierce criminal offenses. However, federal law simply gives a floor, and has noteworthy gaps that allow some individuals who have actually shown significant danger aspects for future physical violence or self-harm to legally get and also have guns. Giffords Law Center has 25 years of experience battling for the regulations, plans, and also programs verified to conserve lives from gun physical violence. " There were a lot of people who we felt should be able to obtain their gun legal rights restored who could not," said Alan M. Gottlieb, owner of the Second Amendment Structure, that was active in the initiative. Although it attracted little notification at the time, the regulations additionally consisted of an expansion of what had actually been extremely restricted qualification for reconstruction of firearms legal rights. Erik Zettergren initially shed his gun rights in 1987 as a result of a felony conviction for dealing marijuana. A decade later on, the cops went to his house after being called by his ex-wife as well as uncovered a cache of weapons. He was founded guilty of one more felony, illegal belongings of a gun. Just a handful of region staffs in Ohio claimed they might track these cases, producing records on several loads remediations. They included people who had actually been founded guilty of first-degree murder, volunteer homicide, villainous attack and sexual battery. For his part, Mr. Holisky took papers from the plea contract in his attack case, in which the prosecutor in surrounding St. Louis Area concurred not to oppose the remediation of his guns rights. 2 Democratic lawmakers looked for to impose a life time firearms restriction on violent offenders, although they wrapped up that for their expenses to have any kind of chance of passing, they would likewise need to establish a procedure that held out a hope of eventual reconstruction. They were incapable, however, to obtain their bills with the Legislature. One research, released in the American Journal of Public Wellness in 1999, found that rejecting handgun acquisitions to felons cut their threat of devoting new gun or terrible criminal activities by 20 to 30 percent. Researches on the effect of weapon constraints mainly sustain disallowing lawbreakers from possessing weapons. A spokesperson for the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Solution decreased to say what's triggering the hold-up or when the procedure might get underway however stated the agency is "dealing with the state to assist in the sealing of records at the state's demand." Back in the work areas, I rest with an ATF expert named Daniel Urrutia. It permits an individual's criminal record to be wiped clean offered the infraction took place before their 21st birthday and they have actually avoided of problem. " The state and FBI have actually been extremely close-mouthed concerning it," he included. " They keep claiming they're servicing requirements for processing records, however they have actually been incredibly obscure." Lawyers who deal with clients attempting to seal their documents say the process is stalled and also they can't get the answer. He tells these stories carefully, describing why he looked one location, as opposed to one more, and also just how vital these options were, as well as exactly how he agonized over them, and somewhere in the middle of the tales, his eyes well up. In the beginning I believe he's obtained allergic reactions or something-- he is not a person you think of weeping. To browse the millions of records they have on data, tracers have to scroll through miles of old microfilm. The dealer, who likewise has to maintain such records, goes through the same rigmarole the importer or supplier did, and also he gives you the name of the gun shop that ordered it from him. Gun importers are certified by the ATF, and also they have to maintain documents of sales and also acquisitions. So the importer has to go through all his weapon documents as well as find that certain Taurus PT 92 keeping that specific serial number, locate what batch it was in, as well as inform you what wholesaler it went to. The substantial bulk of the gun documents linking a weapon to its proprietor are maintained back at the different accredited dealers, the Walmarts, Bob's Gun Shops, and also Guns R Us shops dotting America's landscape. Anybody may look for the VAF, yet it is developed for firearm purchasers that think they are legally permitted to acquire guns, but they have been denied more than when or regularly experience delays in their purchases. Purchasers sometimes locate themselves experiencing delays or denials in firearms acquisitions because of a past misdemeanor charge or due to the fact that a disqualified individual has a comparable name. The EEOC also advises thinking about private conditions as well as context around a candidate's rap sheet.

#delaware background check #delaware #background check

1 note · View note

laundryandtaxes · 6 years ago

Note

Sorry if you already talked about this but I saw you talking about gun controls and how making them more expensive is a bad idea wich I think I agree with. But i was wondering what you think we should do to control guns and mass shootings? Mandatory background checks on all sales?

"Mass shootings" and "gun violence" are very distinct issues with very distinct solutions.

The enactings of mass shootings only have a few things in common. They are often committed by men with documented histories of violence against women. They are often committed in places with large gatherings of presumably unarmed people.

1. Solution number one would be to federally standardize definitions of domestic abuse. People with domestic abuse convictions are already legally barred from firearms ownership under federal law and have been for my entire lifetime. People saying otherwise are uninformed. BUT that definition is fairly strict, and does not always cover partners who do not live with the people they abuse. Get rid of that distinction (sometimes called the boyfriend loophole) and create a solid appeals process for those convicted. Federally prioritize domestic violence, maybe through allocation of funds. I hate the idea of giving cops literally any money, but for the most part they'll do whatever you'll pay them to do and you can turn their head in any particular direction with funding.

2. Make the ATF actually do its job. Anytime someone becomes a prohibited person (a felon - which is bullshit bc not all felonies are violent but ANYWAY- or convicted of a DV offense, etc) that person, if records are properly updated, is prevented from buying firearms at any store in the country. But nobody knocks on doors to remove the firearms of people who've just become prohibited persons. Whatever is in the house stays there. I think that's dumb as shit- in the case of the Aurora warehouse shooting that just happened this was a guy state police knew was not able to own guns, but nobody wanted to put a body on his doorstep to remove them. I think the definition of prohibited persons should be tightly narrowed to only include violent crime and domestic violence offenses, so that people aren't getting their guns confiscated over theft or license plate issues or other nonviolent offenses, and I think every single prohibited person should be able to appeal and regain their firearms rights. In the Aurora case, Illinois state police didn't want to risk sending a person or unit in. Fair enough. But people ended up dead because of that.

3. I think there is a case to be made that universal background checks COULD help here, to prevent people who can't buy guns at stores from just buying one from other citizens. But the reduction in deaths I think you could expect to see from UBC implementation would be really minimal, if anything- most mass shooters have either stolen or legally purchased their firearms after passing background checks. I suppose that, if the DV changes I talked about were implemented, more would be prohibited persons and would turn to the private market. I do not believe there is any way to ensure that background checks catch every single potential murderer and firmly do not believe the FBI (which runs the bg check electronically) should have any access to mental health records without a warrant.

For general violence, we already know exactly what reduces violence, and I do think it needs to be discussed not as gun violence but general violence, because that allows us to implement things we know work for violence overall. Guns aren't magic. They're just tools that can be used to commit violence. We know that giving people jobs (yes I am suggesting just giving, like candy) reduces their likelihood of engaging in violence of any kind. We know that poverty increases violence. All we need to do to drastically cut homicides is spend some money to lift people into more stable and I think that, over time, cultures that encourage or revel in violence will follow suit simply because those who did not grow up in violence are less likely to enact it.

Things I do not even kind of support:

-Bans on "assault weapons." The term means nothing but any semi automatic rifle, meaning any rifle that fires one round each time you pull the trigger. Those kinds of rifles can look like this

or like this

(those are all mine!) but they operate using 100 year old technology that is no different in concept from how a standard Glock pistol works. Pull the trigger, it goes bang. Pull it again, it goes bang again. Rifles in this category are excellent for any number of things and completely suitable for self defense. An AR-15 style firearm is my bedside/ home defense gun.

Even if this wasn't all true, consider this. AR-15s contribute REMARKABLY little to overall gun deaths in this country. We are talking a drop in the bucket- we are talking 322 people killed with rifles of ANY kind in 2012. Out of 13,000ish annual murders, that is remarkably small. So small that you are about 15 times MORE likely to be stabbed or bludgeoned to death (I'm linking the FBI numbers here directly) than killed with a rifle of any kind.

-Magazine capacity limits. They don't even make sense on their face. First of all it only takes on bullet to kill one person- is 10 deaths an acceptable number? Second of all, I am a relatively untrained shooter and fully self taught, and it takes me less than 2 seconds to drop an empty magazine from a rifle, load a new one, and fire another round. The California response to this is, well, make it harder to reload. Third of all, if I have a right to self defense with a firearm, then I have the right for that firearm to be functional, and MOST handgun malfunctions (talking in the context of concealed carry here) are due to magazine malfunctions. If I ever have to draw my handgun in defense of my life, I should be able to quickly fix any malfunctions. To put it simply, I believe I have the right not to be cobbled unduly in my own self defense. Fourth of all, considering that cops generally stand outside mass shootings waiting for things to die down (remember Pulse? Or Parkland?) the idea that the 2 seconds it takes to change magazines saves lives during assaults strikes me as ridiculous.

This notion that we can just get rid of the bad guns and keep the safe guns and all be safe is nonsense. Any gun can kill someone with one well-placed shot. Any person who owns a gun owns the means to do absolutely horrible violence to other people. These are things you have to reckon with in a society where private gun ownership is a right. I also think we need to be realistic about how low we can get our numbers. Let us assume that all 14,000ish people who were killed with firearms in the US in 2017 (to get that to work, organize results by year, then in the cause of death area click "injury intent and mechanism" and scroll in the box on the right to find FIREARMS) were killed using different firearms, so no mass shootings or double homicides, etc. Divide that by the sheer MASSIVE number of citizen owned guns in the country (a LOW estimate is 350 MILLION) and you're looking at .004% of all guns being used in murders. That alone should put this notion that the US is so astoundingly dangerous into context. For a nation with this many guns, and this level of easy access to guns, to have less than 15,000 murders using them per year should tell us that the very very vast majority of firearms owners are not harming anyone and therefore it literally only makes sense to tailor solutions to problems in a way that at least seems like it would work.

Few clarifying points here.

To be clear, I understand that the pro gun control instinct is to compare the US not to Brazil BEFORE lessening its guns laws (it still has stricter gun laws and a homicide rate a good 4 times higher than ours last I checked) but to the UK or Australia, etc, and not to compare homicides per firearm, but homicides using firearms per capita. This is nonsense because the number of firearms in those countries doesn't even come sort of close to the number here, and that number will not decrease but will only increase over time given the continuation of the 2nd Amendment as currently understood. Secondly, none of those countries have a right to firearms ownership and therefore many attempted solutions enacted there are literally not legally allowable here, just as total bans on private ownership of handguns except for competitors. Thirdly, the ownership of firearms themselves per capita does not come close in any of those countries to that here. I'm not denying that more guns probably means more deaths when comparing countries, though it does noy seem to mean more deaths between states in the US.

Another clarifying note, you will notice I am talking about homicides and cutting out suicides entirely. This is for two reasons. First of all I know absolutely nothing about suicide prevention from a policy perspective and don't even pretend to. If you have any good sources there I would love to check them out. Secondly, it allows me to talk about "gun violence," as in the use of firearms to commit violence between different individuals, more clearly. Thirdly, the very vast majority of the most popular gun control measures don't even claim to impact suicide rates because most gun control groups use those deaths (which comprise 66% of all deaths by firearm in the country, almost every single year) to pad their numbers while not actually talking about suicide as a phenomenon.

I hope this clarifies some things for you and if you have any questions please feel free to ask. I also typed this at 4 am after work so please excuse typos. I also hope that you understand I've picked sources supporting my argument because that's how arguments are supported, not because I'm not open to looking at all into opposing viewpoints.

68 notes · View notes

itsahmed4455 · 6 years ago

Text

Introduction

Technology has made rapid strides in the past few decades and these technological changes have brought new inventions and products into our lives. Internet is now ubiquitous. Medical science has made it possible for heart and kidneys to be transplanted but that is not all; it may even be possible to transplant brain from one individual to the other. These changes make it possible to not only change human body, but also the possibilities of life extension are boundless. Automobile companies are coming up with technology that will make it possible for driverless cars to be introduced to our roads as soon as in the next 5 years. These changes in technology also bring fear and apprehension in the minds of many people of the kind that are usually related to panic about new technology or techno-panic as it is called. This kind of techno-panic is not a new phenomenon as whenever a new technology has been introduced, it has raised concerns and even fears about the social changes that such technology may bring. In this anthology, such technologies or new changes are discussed along with the concerns that such technologies inspire in people. This anthology notes the scope of these new technologies in terms of what can be done and what kind of concerns are raised by these new technologies.

Topics

I. Techno-Panic through History

Techno-panic is related to paranoia and fear in response to new technology. Thierer (2012) says that such paranoia is caused in humans because we are naturally risk adverse and not good judges of risks. We have a survival instinct and the awareness of our poor comparative risk analysis skills, due to which many of us easily give into techno-panics. Techno-panic is a phenomenon that can be seen at every point of important technological inventions throughout history. Recent techno-panic can be seen in context of Internet (Thierer, 2012). Although, history shows that most techno panics are temporary and humans generally adapt to the new technology in time; there is always a short-term danger of policymakers adopting measures to control the technology and this may lead to restriction or arrest of the technological development (Thierer, 2012). There is also the possibility of rising tensions in the society due to the panic (Thierer, 2012).

As we saw in the module related to Techno-Panic, and discussed in the class discussions, Techno-panic is nothing new. However, the ubiquitous nature of Internet has led to greater fear among people, especially in terms of social effects, such as threat to minors from paedophiles and cyberporn, and general impacts from fake news (Herrman, 2017 ). Concerns about technology’s impact on society were also seen when the printing press was first invented (Wirtz, 2017). When the printing press was

invented by Johannes Gutenberg, many monks were laid off work as Bible was begun to be printed in the press (Wirtz, 2017). This led to the moral panic regarding impact of the invention on those involved in the industry (Wirtz, 2017). It was also thought that too much information would have a negative impact on the society, which may not be capable of processing such information (Wirtz, 2017). Similar concerns are seen today with regard to information technology, in what is being seen as a ‘threat inflation’ (Thierer, 2013). However, as technology becomes mainstream the fears are set aside and the society accepts new technology.

II. The Future of the Body

With the immense development of medical science, there is now technology and science, which will possibly allow transplant of head in human beings. The protocol developed by Sergio Canavero is possibly one step further in that direction (Canavero, 2013). As per this protocol, the surgeon is to sever the spinal cords of the the recipient (person with diseased body) and the donor (brain dead person with a healthy brain and head) and then fuse the recipient head with the body of the donor (Canavero, 2013).Needless to say, there are ethical as well as medical issues that are involved in such a procedure. Some critics have gone to say that such procedures are impossible because the human body will not accept such transplants even with heavy doses of immunosuppressants for suppressing the immune system to make sure that the transplant is not rejected by the body (Pultarova, 2017). However, even if the head transplant procedure has not become a reality, the discussion on it does beg the question as to the future of the human body. Another issue that has come up for discussion in this context is that of chip in the body (Clapperton, 2018). On the plus side, chip in the body can be a useful passive devise that can help the wearer to keep track of his vital signs and receive medical treatment if needed (Clapperton, 2018). Microchips are already being used in pets, which allows them to be tracked by their humans if they are lost (Savini, 2018). With technology becoming smaller and smaller, it is now possible that many humans too will get chips imbedded so that technology becomes a part of their skin (Savini, 2018). In fact, there are already people who have chosen to do so as part of their employment (Clapperton, 2018). As we discussed in the class, this new technology can be very useful in saving lives, but there are fears in this area as well. While the fears are justified, the scientists will find a way to make things work, and like other technological innovations, this innovation will also be helpful for the society.

III. Intelligent Systems

Once upon a time, the thought that there could be cars that can drive without a human driver was unthought of. However, with recent change and development in technology, the possibility that we could soon see driverless cars is not so remote anymore. Automobile makers, Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes, are already playing with the technology for making driverless cars and Tesla has tested its driverless Autopilot system already (Moldrich & Woollaston, 2018). One may wonder how it is possible for a machine to drive on the road, but it is possible with the help of sensors which interact with the external environment, making it possible for the car to drive autonomously (Moldrich & Woollaston, 2018).

It is estimated that by 2012, there will be more than 100,000 autonomous vehicles used around the world (Naughton, 2018). This does raise some ethical concerns, predominantly in the area of human safety, however, Automakers have argued that the use of driverless cars will lead to a sharp reduction in highway deaths(Naughton, 2018). Another concern is in the area of employment as driverless cars would threaten the existence of repair shops, trucking companies and car dealerships (Gross, 2018). However, the advertising industry may flourish as the aesthetics of driverless cars may involve bigger backseats with entertainment centres that allow the backseat audience time to catch their shows in the car(Gross, 2018). As debated in the class discussions, there is a possibility of major social change with the advent of the driverless cares. However, law will also have to respond to the possibilities of different legal issues that are involved in accidents involving driverless cars, as the concept of liability may be different with respect to these cars (Calo, 2018). In the US, with the further evolution of common law of torts, it is possible that the American courts will adapt to the legal issues involved in driverless car, as they have already done with many other technological inventions such as robots (Calo, 2018).

IV. Making and Things

3D printing has now made it possible for people to make 3D guns, and a settlement between gun-rights activists and the government allows gun-rights activists to post 3D printable gun plans online (Williams, 2018). In 2013, Cody Wilson had posted plans for a 3D printed handgun that he called "The Liberator", which led to the lawsuit regarding the legality of such plans (Williams, 2018). In class discussions highlighted the problem with such guns is that these are do-it-yourself firearms and they will not have serial numbers, making them untraceable. On the other hand, some experts have rubbished the claims that guns can be made with the help of 3D printed plans (Tynan, 2018). Nevertheless, these guns do pose ethical and legal concerns that need to be taken seriously. 3D printing will allow people to make plastic weapons, that may not be detected in the airports metal detectors (Tynan, 2018). Another problem is that there may be people who are prevented from legally owning a gun, but such people may be able to circumvent such restrictions by printing these plans and making their own untraceable weapons (Tynan, 2018). Thus, convicted felons as well as the mentally ill, who are not legally permitted to own weapons, may gain access to weapons, making gun control laws useless (Tynan, 2018). 3D technology is not limited to gun making; it can be used for other purposes, such as, food making (Wiggers, 2017). 3D printing innovations have now made it possible for people to print and cook foods on a mass scale (Wiggers, 2017). With the advent of this technology, we are seeing commercial kitchens, bakeries, and confectionaries employing 3D food printers for making foods and saving time and effort (Wiggers, 2017). While ethical concerns do not affect food printing, the articles and class discussions highlighted definite concerns with respect to medicine printing. While medicine printing may cut down on wait time at the pharmacies, it could also pave the way for people to synthesize dangerous drugs or intoxicant drugs from their homes (Service, 2018). Yet another development in this area is the ability to print human organs. These organs can be used to save many human lives (Meghna, 2018). While this technology is still in the nascent stage, but in future it will be used to create viable human organs.

V. Cyborgs and Bioart

Cyborgs have now become a reality with the advent of the technology that combines medical science with cybernetics and allows the embedding of cybernetic characteristics in human beings (Towers-Clark, 2018). In this sense, cyborgs are simply people who have certain cybernetically enhanced qualities (Towers-Clark, 2018). Cyborgs, such as those seen in sci-fi movies, are somehow terrifying to human beings (Fratto, 2018). It has been argued that humans beings with their extensive use of smartphones, have basically become cyborgs too (Fratto, 2018). There is a concern that cyborgs will take over our lives as human beings because if they have artificial intelligence, they are capable of doing everything that we can. This means that they can also do our jobs and do them better because of artificial intelligence (Fratto, 2018). There are ethical concern that are involved in the use of artificial intelligence.

Bioart can be very useful for the purpose of improving the quality of life for those who are afflicted with certain disabilities, which comes in the way of their enjoying life at the fullest (Nelson, 2013). An example can be seen in the case of Neil Harbisson, who was born with achromatopsia (extreme colorblindness), but is now able to experience colors, due to specialized electronic eye, also called eyeborg, which allows him to perceive colors (Nelson, 2013). By being equipped with such bioart, people can also become like cyborgs. However, human cyborgs present issues with the law, as seen in the case of Meow Meow, who installed a travel chip into his hand (Ustik, 2018). Another issue that comes up in this context of conflict between cyborgs and the law and ethics, is that enhancement technology with implants can extend life past natural terms, and also make cybernetically enhanced individuals who are better than others at athletics, or certain jobs (Ustik, 2018). The emerging theme in the class discussions was that while some of the peers were exited about the technology, others had their doubts. While both sides have valid concerns, the benefits of this technology has to be weighed against the negatives effects; and only if the benefits are more than the harms, the technology should be adopted. As some peers commented that negatives effects needs to be mitigated effectively so that most benefit can be reaped from this technological innovation.

Conclusion

Any new technology introduced into this world will come with a set of ethical concerns and potential legal issues or concerns. However, as the history of techno-panic shows us, it is not appropriate to shoot down ideas on new technologies, simply because there are concerns about the way the technology may lead to certain social changes. It is however important to raise such concerns and even address them in order to make sure that new technologies do not have adverse social effects. A discussion or debate on ethical concerns involving new technologies also helps to find solutions or responses for such adverse effects and for that reason, such discussions are important, and must be encouraged. That being said, techno-panic should be avoided because these may lead to arresting development or change, when such change may actually be welcome and good for human society in general. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that discussions on new technology and the ethical issues posed by these do not become oppressive to inventors and those who may have new ideas for future technology. As such, a balance needs to be drawn between being circumspect about new technology and being encouraging of inventors.

References

Calo, R. (2018). Is the Law Ready for Driverless Cars? Law and Technology, 61(5), 34-36.

Canavero, S. (2013). HEAVEN: The head anastomosis venture Project outline for the first human head transplantation with spinal linkage (GEMINI). Surgical neurology international, 4(1), S335–342.

Clapperton, G. (2018, July 16). Would You Let Your Boss Put a Chip in Your Body? A small number of employees are agreeing to subcutaneous implants — and the idea is spreading.Retrieved December 2018, from Medium: https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/would-you-let-your-boss-put-a-chip-in-your-body-83f9c8fe631c

Fratto, N. (2018, July 17). I’m a Cyborg; You’re a Cyborg.Retrieved December 2018, from Hackernoon: https://hackernoon.com/im-a-cyborg-you-re-a-cyborg-f54ec6349a45

Gross, T. (2018, December 10). The Revolution Will Be Driverless: Autonomous Cars Usher In Big Changes.Retrieved December 2018, from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/675254096/the-revolution-will-be-driverless-autonomous-cars-usher-in-big-changes

Herrman, J. (2017 , Dec. 5). The Return of the Techno-Moral Panic.Retrieved December 2018, from NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/magazine/the-return-of-the-techno-moral-panic.html

Meghna. (2018, 11 July). Rapid 3D Printing Of High-Res, Viable Human Organs Possible. Retrieved from https://www.evolving-science.com/bioengineering/3d-human-organs-00719

Moldrich, C., & Woollaston, V. (2018, October 18). Driverless cars of the future: How far away are we from autonomous cars?Retrieved December 2018, from Alphr: https://www.alphr.com/cars/1001329/driverless-cars-of-the-future-how-far-away-are-we-from-autonomous-cars

Naughton, K. (2018, October 26). Driverless Cars.Retrieved December 2018, from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/driverless-cars

Nelson, B. (2013, April 25). 7 real-life human cyborgs See how bionic technology has enhanced people's lives with everything from robotic limbs to electronic eyes.Retrieved December 2018, from MNN: https://www.mnn.com/leaderboard/stories/7-real-life-human-cyborgs

Pultarova, T. (2017, November 20). Why Human Head Transplants Will Never Work.Retrieved from www.livescience.com/: https://www.livescience.com/60987-human-head-transplants-will-never-work.html

Savini, L. (2018, March 26). Human Microchipping Is Here, and It’s About to Rock Your Skin’s World Soon it will open your front door, start your car, and provide your entire medical history.Retrieved December 2018, from Allure: https://www.allure.com/story/rfdi-microchip-implant-in-skin

Service, R. (2018, January 18). You could soon be manufacturing your own drugs—thanks to 3D printing.Retrieved December 2018, from Science Mag: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/you-could-soon-be-manufacturing-your-own-drugs-thanks-3d-printing

Thierer, A. (2012, March 4). The Six Things that Drive "Technopanics".Retrieved December 2018, from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/03/04/the-six-things-that-drive-technopanics/#3256d7aa70b0

Thierer, A. (2013). Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle. The Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 14(1), 309-386.

Towers-Clark, C. (2018, October 1). Cyborgs Are Here And You'd Better Get Used To It.Retrieved December 2018, from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestowersclark/2018/10/01/cyborgs-are-here-and-youd-better-get-used-to-it/#526b48ad746a

Tynan, D. (2018, August 20). 'I wouldn't waste my time': firearms experts dismiss flimsy 3D-printed guns.Retrieved December 2018, from Guarfian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/31/3d-printed-guns-danger-problems-plastic

Ustik, G. (2018, October 30). Real-life cyborgs are fighting for their rights with art.Retrieved December 2018, from NextWeb: https://thenextweb.com/tnw-answers/2018/10/03/real-life-cyborgs-are-fighting-for-their-rights-with-art/

Wiggers, K. (2017, April 18). From pixels to plate, food has become 3D printing’s delicious new frontier.Retrieved December 2018, from Digital Trends: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/3d-food-printers-how-they-could-change-what-you-eat/

Williams, D. (2018, July 20). Americans can legally download 3-D printed guns starting next month.Retrieved December 2018, from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/19/us/3d-printed-gun-settlement-trnd/index.html

Wirtz, B. (2017, October 17). Today's Techno-Panic Would Have Killed the Printing Press .Retrieved December 2018, from Fee.org: https://fee.org/articles/todays-techno-panic-would-have-killed-the-printing-press/

===========

Links for easy readability

Techno-Panic through History

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/03/04/the-six-things-that-drive-technopanics/#3256d7aa70b0

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/magazine/the-return-of-the-techno-moral-panic.html

https://fee.org/articles/todays-techno-panic-would-have-killed-the-printing-press/

The Future of the Body

https://www.livescience.com/60987-human-head-transplants-will-never-work.html

https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/would-you-let-your-boss-put-a-chip-in-your-body-83f9c8fe631c

https://www.allure.com/story/rfdi-microchip-implant-in-skin

Intelligent Systems

https://www.alphr.com/cars/1001329/driverless-cars-of-the-future-how-far-away-are-we-from-autonomous-cars

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/driverless-cars

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/675254096/the-revolution-will-be-driverless-autonomous-cars-usher-in-big-changes

Making and Things

https://www.evolving-science.com/bioengineering/3d-human-organs-00719

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/19/us/3d-printed-gun-settlement-trnd/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/31/3d-printed-guns-danger-problems-plastic

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/3d-food-printers-how-they-could-change-what-you-eat/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/you-could-soon-be-manufacturing-your-own-drugs-thanks-3d-printing

Cyborgs and Bioart

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestowersclark/2018/10/01/cyborgs-are-here-and-youd-better-get-used-to-it/#526b48ad746a

https://hackernoon.com/im-a-cyborg-you-re-a-cyborg-f54ec6349a45

https://www.mnn.com/leaderboard/stories/7-real-life-human-cyborgs

https://thenextweb.com/tnw-answers/2018/10/03/real-life-cyborgs-are-fighting-for-their-rights-with-art/

1 note · View note

thelegendofclarke · 7 years ago

Text

gunlovinhillbilly replied to your post

Opinion of a learned blogger yet not that of an experienced blogger. An overwhelming majority of legal firearms owners have not and will not ever commit crimes. An overwhelming majority of firearms crimes are committed by those that are prevented by law from possessing them. No worries though, they will hire someone that passed the bar exam to get them a light prison sentence….. then will commit more crimes when released. Kinda makes you wonder which is worse.

WOW! Where to even START?!?

An overwhelming majority of legal firearms owners have not and will not ever commit crimes. An overwhelming majority of firearms crimes are committed by those that are prevented by law from possessing them.

You know, my favorite thing about this kind of argument is that it inherently undermines itself. It’s great! You are straight up admitting that firearms are a problem and that our current (nonexistent) gun control measures do nothing to stop them. You are basically saying “we have a problem and our current preventative measures are insufficient so we should just continue to do nothing.” It’s completely illogical, it makes no sense.

If illegal firearm ownership and crime is a problem, shouldn’t we be doing more to prevent people who use them improperly from being able to get their hands on them? Oh naaahhh that would make WAY too much sense. And also, for the record, basically everyone and their mom over the age of 18 is eligible to buy a gun. In some states even convicted felons can own guns. The problem with our current gun control laws and legal restrictive measures is basically that there are none.

No worries though, they will hire someone that passed the bar exam to get them a light prison sentence….. then will commit more crimes when released.

Ok, my dude, listen… Lawyers do more to protect peoples’ constitutional rights in ONE DAY than you will in your entire, ignorant, pathetic little existence.

They make sure an accused individual’s 5th Amendment (No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …) and 14th Amendment ([N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …) Due Process and Equal Protection rights are respected:

Indictment by a grand jury for capital crimes

Right against double jeopardy

Right against self incrimination

the right to have their guilt proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the prosecution

the right to Brady disclosures (requires a criminal conviction to be reversed if the government withholds exculpatory or impeachmentmaterial, within the government’s possession, from the defendant, and there is a reasonable probability that, if such material had been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different)

the right of Mental Competence (a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial)

protection from prosecutorial misconduct

protection from selective prosecution on invidious bases

the right to jury pools and venires represent a “fair cross section” of the community

protection from the discriminatory use of jury peremptory challenges

They are also responsible for ensuring an accused individual’s 6th Amendment rights (Most commonly referred to as The Rights of the Accused? You might have heard of them?) aren’t violated:

the right to an attorney

the right to a speedy trial

the right to a public trial

the right to be tried by an impartial jury of their peers

the right to notice of accusation (the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him by an indictment that alleges all the elements of the crime to such a degree of precision that it would allow the accused to assert double jeopardy if the same charges are brought up in subsequent prosecution.)

the chance to confront witnesses against them (aka the right to cross examine witnesses against them and challenge their credibility in court)

the right to compulsory process (aka the right to call witnesses in their favor; and if such witnesses refuse to testify, the right to request the power of the court to compel them to do so)

the right to effective assistance of counsel

Also, during the pre-trial process or in the case that an accused individual is in fact convicted, lawyers make sure that their punishment does not violate the 8th Amendment:

the right against excessive bail

the right against excessive fines

the right against cruel and unusual punishment

the right to receive a punishment that is not unconstitutionally excessive and is proportionate to the seriousness of their crime

Also during the pre-trial process, attorneys are tasked with making sure that the government did not violate the accused’s 4th amendment rights while building the case against them. The rights in the 4th Amendment govern over shit that happens before an attorney even started working, or possibly before they even knew about, a case; and yet they are still responsible for them. These constitutional rights guarantee that people be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” include:

protection from unsearchable searches

protection from unreasonable seizures

protection from arrest without probable cause

protection from warrantless searches or seizures

guarantee that any warrant issued is supported by probable cause

protection from evidence obtained through a violation of the 4th Amendment being used against them in court (the Exclusionary Rule)

It’s a defense attorney’s literal job to make sure that the government and the protection did theirs. If we are going to deprive another human being of their property, their liberty, or especially their life, then the government better damn well prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So don’t talk to me about not knowing or respecting peoples’ constitutional rights pal. Don’t even try it.

Also, in regards to your claim that criminals “then will commit more crimes when released,”

You are actually right there… It is literally the only thing you said that was even close to being somewhat correct.

Recidivism rates in the U.S. are in fact staggeringly high… A recent Bureau of Justice Statistic study reported that Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6%) of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7%) were arrested by the end of the first year. However, this has next to nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with the state of our prison system.

Prisons in the U.S. are woefully under funded, under staffed, and under resourced. A vast majority of prisoners never receive any kind of rehabilitation, recovery, reintegration, or or re-entry assistance before they are basically just shoved out the door and back into the world with the general population. It’s yet another example of the U.S.’s “lets continue to do nothing about this problem” strategy. Addicts who are arrested for drug crimes receive slightly less than zero therapy or drug rehabilitation assistance while they are in jail. They are not taught and do not learn ANY mechanisms to deal with their addiction and then people are ASTOUNDED when they fall off the wagon again when they are arrested. It makes literally no sense.

Kinda makes you wonder which is worse.

Nah… If you aren’t a completely ignorant idiot sandwich with your head shoved so far up your ass you could lick your own colon, it really shouldn’t.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

#also i think we should all take a moment to acknowledge #that i didn't say a WORD about this url #it literally took ALL my willpower #i'm not saying i deserve a metal #but there should really be some kind of fancy certificate or something #oh and also... as always...#KISS MY LIBERAL SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE TUMBLERINA ASS!#gunlovinhillbilly #alys replies #long post #gun mention tw #gun control tw #american politics tw #gun tw #law stuff #law tag

20 notes · View notes

techcrunchappcom · 4 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://techcrunchapp.com/how-republican-senators-account-for-the-trump-presidency-the-new-yorker/

How Republican Senators Account for the Trump Presidency - The New Yorker

If you’re interested in how Republican politicians are talking about Donald Trump in the end phase of his first term and perhaps his Presidency, one good place to look is to the campaigns of the ten Republican senators who are least likely to be reëlected—most of whom represent states that the President won comfortably four years ago. Judging from current polling in those politicians’ races, the Democrats may well gain control of the Senate: they need to pick up only two or three of the vulnerable Republican seats, in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Alaska, and Georgia (where two Republican seats are being tightly contested). In the past week, I watched eight of those senators’ debates, which had a throwback tinge to them: the television graphics were boxy and dated, the questions excellent, and the candidates nimbler than you might expect. Politicians are charming people who have been operating under a spell of charmlessness for a decade, roughly since Mitch McConnell made it obvious that he was on a mission to thwart the Obama Administration and a mood of wartime enmity suffused the capital. But the more consequential anachronism of those Senate debates came from the Republican senators themselves, who generally acted as if Donald Trump were not the President and his policies were not the bedrocks of their party—as if, once he leaves office, the dials could be turned back to their 2011 settings and the decade could begin again.

The 2020 drumbeat, for Republicans, has been to warn of an ascendent socialism. “You put Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden in charge of Washington, you’ll see a federal takeover of the health-care system,” Steve Daines, of Montana, said, in a recent debate against his Democratic opponent, Governor Steve Bullock. But you don’t hear much about immigration, or trade, or any of the other issues that have defined Trump’s Presidency. The longer I watched the Senate debates, the more I found myself rewinding the footage to scan through the Republican candidates’ responses. Surely they’d mentioned the President, and somehow I’d missed it? But often they just hadn’t. In late September, Joni Ernst, the Republican senator from Iowa, made it through an hour-long debate with her Democratic challenger, a real-estate executive named Theresa Greenfield, without mentioning Trump by name. When asked directly about the Times revelations that the President, while living a billionaire’s life, had paid just seven hundred and fifty dollars to the federal government in annual income taxes, Ernst redirected. “Many years ago, I echoed the call for the President to release his tax returns,” she said. “But, bottom line, we would love to see lower taxes for everybody, including all of our hardworking Americans.”

I was watching on YouTube, and in the comments alongside the debate I could see the essentially erratic character of 2020 politics unfolding: viewers were talking about Hunter Biden or “Putin’s puppet” (Hillary Clinton’s most lasting epithet for the President), or exclaiming “TRUMP TRAIN!” On Twitter the Ernst-Greenfield debate didn’t register, which has fit the pattern; the Senate debates have been noticed only when someone declared them a rout. But what I saw in the sedate PBS studio where the Ernst-Greenfield debate was held, with Iowa’s veteran political columnist David Yepsen at the helm, was two capable candidates calmly advancing the basic positions of their parties: taxes should be higher, or lower; billionaires should get a smaller share of the spoils, or about the same amount; the Supreme Court was bound to dissolve Roe v. Wade, or it wasn’t. No one owned anyone. Beneath the madness of Presidential politics, the parties were moving at their usual rate, that of tectonic plates, and the only reasonable posture was to sit at your listening station like a geologist, headphones securely over your ears, waiting for the infinitesimal movement of a needle.

Now and then, there was some movement. I’d been particularly interested to watch John Cornyn, the three-term senator from Texas. A sixty-eight-year-old former judge with a long face and a formal manner, Cornyn is Mitch McConnell’s No. 2 and arguably the closest thing the Republican Party has to a tectonic plate. He had seemed to luck out when Beto O’Rourke declined to challenge him, leaving him with a little-known opponent, a former military-helicopter pilot named M. J. Hegar. But Hegar turned out to be effective. When, in an October 9th debate, Cornyn accused Hegar of “tacitly” endorsing police defunding, she spat out, “I never do anything tacitly—I’m not a tacit person,” and then kept muttering about it under her breath. She’s charming! Cornyn can be charming, too, in a courtly way, but he couldn’t quite get around to it because of all the time he had to spend furrowing his brow and reassuring Texans that things were not quite as bad as they appeared.

Midway through the debate, Cornyn got a simple, telling question from the moderator, the excellent Gromer Jeffers, of the Dallas Morning News: Could he name a single way in which he had positively affected the lives of ordinary Texans, in his eighteen years in the Senate? Cornyn nodded his long face, and told a story about the aftermath of a mass shooting, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in 2017, when an Air Force veteran, who should have been prohibited from owning firearms because of a domestic-violence-related bad-conduct discharge, entered a church and killed twenty-six people. Cornyn said, “It occurred because someone who should never have been able to get their hands on a firearm, a convicted felon, was able to bypass the background-check system because the Air Force had not uploaded those names.” Cornyn recounted that, four days after the shooting, he introduced a bill that passed with bipartisan majorities, which closed a loophole in gun background checks. Cornyn said that “the Attorney General has now made the point in just six months; six million more people’s names are on the background-check system” to keep arms out of the hands of “dangerous criminals.” A bell rang, signalling that Cornyn’s time had expired; it had the feeling of a record scratch. Wait, what? One of the half-dozen most powerful Republicans in the country, a staunch ally of the National Rifle Association, was being asked to describe how he had improved the lives of ordinary people in the most powerful conservative state in the country, and his best case was that he had strengthened background checks? What had he been doing all this time? Maybe that was the trouble. The Senate’s agenda, focussed on mollifying Trump and confirming judges and cutting taxes for the highest earners, didn’t offer much to, as Jeffers had put it, “ordinary Texans.”

For five years, Republicans have been wearily answering (or, more often, dodging) the question of whether they support President Trump. But in this election they are being asked a deeper question, too, about what they have actually delivered during this decade of steady conservative ascendance. Across the debates, I could hear the backbeat of “Montana values” and “Arizona values” and the regular cymbal crash of “conservative judges,” but there was no melody. After watching Cornyn and Hegar’s debate, I clicked over to a recent Cornyn ad on YouTube. It features a middle-aged schoolteacher, with blond hair and caring eyes, passing out papers to students while praising the senator for having helped to deliver federal funds to public schools so that they could reopen safely. Cornyn then appears, nodding thoughtfully, with a mask emblazoned with the Texas state flag covering the lower half of his face. Texas is changing, in ways that Cornyn is wise to genuflect toward, and this election has the look of a blue wave. But, at the end of four years of largely unchecked conservative political power, Cornyn has neither a Trumpian case to make for his own reëlection nor a more traditional conservative one. The background checks, the money for schools—he was simply arguing for the reliability of a longtime incumbent.

The most touted contest right now, and among the best-funded, is taking place in South Carolina, where the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is in a close race with Jaime Harrison, the forty-four-year-old associate chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In the last quarter, Harrison raised fifty-seven million dollars, mostly from liberals outside the state; with Kelly and Sara Gideon, in Maine, he is one of three Democratic candidates this cycle to raise more money in a quarter than anyone running for the Senate ever had before. Like Graham, Harrison is an obviously talented politician—he is especially good at concisely telling the stories of ordinary South Carolinians, some from his own family, and using them to point out how little Republican representatives have done to help them. But the candidates’ lone debate, on October 3rd, was most interesting because Graham, unlike most other members of his party, did not run from the President. “I think President Trump has done a good job. He rebuilt our military, he’s cut our taxes, he’s getting trade deals, he’s securing our border,” Graham said, and then tacked on the Party line. “This race is about capitalism versus socialism, conservative judges versus liberal judges, law and order versus chaos.”

The trouble for Graham was that Harrison kept also making the debate about South Carolina, and about how little Republicans had done to help alleviate suffering there, from the disastrous response to the coronavirus to the ideological refusal to accept the Obama Administration’s offer to expand Medicaid in the state. Graham countered by insisting that he knew suffering: his relatives, he kept emphasizing, worked in the textile mills. “I get it. We’re all one car wreck away from needing help,” Graham said. Many Republican incumbents have expressed worry about lockdowns suppressing the economy; Graham mentioned other side effects of the pandemic, too: “Alcoholism is up. Domestic violence.” He did not win the debate, but he also sounded like he wasn’t pretending.

Graham is in many ways a signal figure of the Republican Party, because, rather than represent a single faction, he has, at different times, represented all of them. From shortly after his election to the Senate, in 2002, he was mainly known as John McCain’s plainspoken sidekick, and joined McCain as part of the Gang of Eight pushing for immigration reform in 2012, telling his party’s Convention that year that “we’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” But, after Trump’s election, Graham became a prominent backer of the President’s agenda, a transformation that culminated in a fiery partisan display during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. As Jess Bidgood put it recently in a sharp profile of Graham in the Boston Globe, “the story of Graham’s vulnerability in a state he has represented in Congress since 1995 begins not with the left but with his persistent problems on the right—which he attempted to tamp down once and for all through his alliance with Trump.”

Even if you could somehow exclude Trump, and the complications of making alliances with him, the Party’s future no longer looks much like its past. Those Republicans who seem most likely to run for President in 2024—among them Tom Cotton, Nikki Haley, Josh Hawley, and Marco Rubio—have all oriented themselves to a party that is now dominated by white voters without college degrees, and by what Hawley has described as anti-cosmopolitanism. If one of these politicians does end up leading the Party, then it will have something to do with how establishment conservatives used their power during the Trump era: to impose tax cuts that exacerbated inequality and weakened the economy, and to undermine a health-care policy that Americans increasingly support and rely on. That has left the Republicans—even the Party’s central politicians—without much to brag about after years in charge. Once again, Gromer Jeffers, the journalist who moderated the Texas debate, saw it clearly. He put up a graphic from a recent poll of the state in which a strikingly large proportion of respondents had no opinion about Cornyn whatsoever. Jeffers asked the senator, “Why is it that nearly a quarter of Texans don’t know your name?”

Read More About the 2020 Election

#account #presidency #republican #senators #trump #Politics

0 notes

marymosley · 4 years ago

Text

Militias in North Carolina

In May of this year I wrote a blog post about protesters and demonstrators carrying firearms at their events. In the months since that post, a variation of that conduct has begun happening more frequently: armed militias showing up at other groups’ events, either as supporters or as opponents. The recent events in Kenosha have brought renewed media attention to this issue, but incidents involving armed militias have occurred all across the country this summer (see a few examples here, here, here, and here).

Lately I’ve been asked if these types of private militias are legal in North Carolina, and if so, whether they are permitted to “deploy” to protests as participants or security? This post provides a summary of the relevant statutes and the criminal offenses that may apply.

Is This Happening in North Carolina?

I don’t have first-hand knowledge about the movement, but in 2019 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that militias and related anti-government groups in the U.S. numbered well into the hundreds, including 20 groups operating in North Carolina. A surge of militia activity back in the 1990’s was followed by a decline over the next couple decades, but the number of militias appears to be rising again this year in reaction to the “threads of the modern American experience that for months have been pulled with increasing tension,” as Chris Tyner eloquently put it in last week’s News Roundup.

Social media companies like Facebook have begun disabling the pages of militia groups, making it more difficult to accurately estimate their current numbers. But privately run websites like this one still advertise more than 20 active North Carolina-based militias, with participation ranging from a single person up to 40 members, and this militia group claims its membership has risen “to over a few hundred members through-out the state.” Whether this phenomenon will taper off or continue to grow remains to be seen, but since this is probably an unfamiliar area of law for most practitioners, a brief primer seemed overdue.

Organized and Unorganized Militias

The North Carolina militia statutes are found in Chapter 127A, and they provide for two different types of state militias: organized and unorganized. The organized militia is composed of the state’s National Guard (Army and Air), along with a naval militia and certain historic military commands. G.S. 127A-3, 4, 6. The organized militia also includes the “state defense militia,” a counterpart to the state’s National Guard that is not subject to being called into federal service. See G.S. 127A-5. The predecessor to the state defense militia was active from 1941-1947, and it was reactivated from 1988-1996 when Guard troops were deployed to the Persian Gulf, but the force is suspended and inactive at this time.

G.S. 127A-7 addresses the state’s other military force, known as the “unorganized militia.” If you are not familiar with this force, you may be surprised to learn that if you over age 17 and not a convicted felon, you are probably already a member of it:

The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

Id. Proponents of private militias often cite this statute as support for the claim that their activities are not only lawful, but also their patriotic duty. However, the remainder of Chapter 127A strictly limits the formation and operation of such groups.

Control of the Unorganized Militia

First, and most importantly, the fact that nearly all adult citizens of the state are members-in-waiting of the unorganized militia does not authorize them to self-mobilize or engage in the type of activities typically performed by law enforcement agencies and military units. The Governor is the commander in chief of all militia units, both organized and unorganized, and only he or she has the power “to call out the militia to execute the laws, secure the safety of persons and property, suppress riots or insurrections, repel invasions and provide disaster relief.” G.S. 127A-16. See also G.S. 127A-17 (Governor prescribes regulations for both organized and unorganized militia); G.S. 127A-87 (“The commander in chief may at any time…order out the whole or any part of the unorganized militia”).

Furthermore, the statutes make clear that the unorganized militia is the state’s defensive force of last resort. It may only be activated after the Governor has already called out the National Guard and any other organized militias and found that “the number available is insufficient” for the task, in which case “the Governor shall then order out any part of the unorganized militia that the Governor may deem necessary.” G.S. 127A-87; G.S. 127A-97 (“in all cases the North Carolina National Guard and naval militia as provided for in this Chapter shall be first ordered into service”). In the unlikely event that the unorganized militia is actually needed, the Governor may call up a sufficient force either by volunteer or by draft, and attach them to units of the Guard or other organized militias “as may be best for service.” G.S. 127A-88.

In short, the idea of private citizens banding together to create their own military unit may work in the movies, but it is not permitted under North Carolina law.

What Are the Crimes?

Very few appellate cases have analyzed Chapter 127A, and the limited cases we do have primarily address civil issues such as retirement benefits eligibility for Guard members. See, e.g., Baccus v. N.C. Dept. of Crime Control and Public Safety, 195 N.C. App. 1 (2009). As a result, we do not yet have a body of case law that clearly draws a line between what constitutes a “militia” as opposed to, let’s say, a group of individuals who happen to be engaging in firearms practice, group exercise, and political discussion. Judges, juries, and appellate courts will have to chart that course in the years ahead, but in the meantime there are two approaches for situations where criminal charges may be warranted.

1. Statutory Militia Offenses:

G.S. 127A-151 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person to form a military company, act as a military officer, or drill or parade with such a group without authorization from the Governor as outlined in the statutes above:

If any person shall organize a military company, or drill or parade under arms as a military body, except under the militia laws and regulations of the State, or shall exercise or attempt to exercise the power or authority of a military officer in this State, without holding a commission from the Governor, the person shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Id. If the status of the person or group is sufficiently clear from the facts (e.g., self-identified as a militia, wearing uniforms or insignia, parading under arms, established chain of command, attempting to exercise military authority), this charge may be appropriate. Chapter 127A contains additional related offenses, such as unlawfully placing a person’s name on a militia muster roll (G.S. 127A-152, Class 1 misdemeanor) and violating the regulations regarding wearing a military uniform (G.S. 127A-153, “punished in like manner and to the extent prescribed by Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice”), but applying those offenses to a militia that was not lawfully formed in the first place could be problematic.

2. Unlawful Assembly and Other Crimes:

In situations where armed individuals show up to assist or interfere with a protest, but claim they are acting on their own and deny being members of a militia group, it may be harder to decide if they are in violation of G.S. 127A-151. Even if those individuals are not in violation of the anti-militia statute, they may be committing the common law offense of Unlawful Assembly:

The common law crime of unlawful assembly, which is a component element of common law riot, contains the following elements: (1) the participation of three or more persons; (2) a common intent to attain a purpose which will interfere with the rights of others by committing disorderly acts; and (3) a purpose to commit acts in such manner as would cause firm persons to apprehend a breach of peace.

State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392 (1975). See State v. Leary, 264 N.C. 51 (1965); State v. Cole, 249 N.C. 733 (1959). Pursuant to G.S. 14-3(a), a conviction for this common law offense is punished as a Class 1 misdemeanor. Obviously this offense presents the challenge of proving that the suspects had the intent to commit a qualifying disorderly act; but if the evidence supports that element, this option has the benefit of allowing law enforcement to intervene before the intended crime actually occurs.

Alternatively, as discussed in the earlier post on G.S. 14-277.2, bringing a firearm to a protest or demonstration is a crime in itself, and any number of other criminal offenses can occur at these events just as they would anywhere else (assault, trespassing, vandalism, disorderly conduct, riot, armed to the terror of the public, etc.) and be charged accordingly. Additionally, given that issues of race have been a significant factor in many recent demonstrations, charging agencies might also consider whether the sentencing enhancement for an offense “committed because of the victim’s race, color, religion, nationality, or country of origin” is applicable. See G.S. 14-3(c).

Constitutional Challenges to Anti-Militia Statutes?

Turning back to the anti-militia statutes themselves, particularly since many militias pledge loyalty to the Constitution to the exclusion of any other laws, the next question is whether these statutes violate the participants’ First or Second Amendment rights? Again, militia-specific case law is sparse in North Carolina, but the available precedent strongly suggests that neither amendment protects organizing or acting as a private militia.

The First Amendment certainly protects freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, but that protection usually does not cover non-expressive conduct, speech that is plainly likely to incite violence, or assembling for criminal purposes; therefore, the activities typically engaged in by private militias will not fall under the amendment’s protection. See, e.g., Vietnamese Fishermen’s Association v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 543 F. Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982) (interpreting a comparable anti-militia statute in Texas, and referencing G.S. 15A-151). The court in Vietnamese Fishermen’s Association affirmed an injunction issued under the anti-militia statute to prohibit the activities of the “Texas Emergency Reserve,” a branch of the KKK who “associated as a military company or organization and have paraded in public with firearms within cities or towns of this State,” concluding that it did not violate the group’s First Amendment rights for the reasons listed above. Id.

Similarly, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and even addresses the need for a “well regulated militia,” but the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that this protection does not extend to bearing arms in the service of an unlawful, private militia. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (“the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade ‘bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.’ […] This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups”); quoting Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). It’s true that North Carolina courts may interpret the corresponding state constitutional right more broadly, but the bearing of arms by an illegal militia group likely falls outside the scope of cases in which our state courts have chosen to make such a departure. Cf. Britt v. State, 363 N.C. 546 (2009) (validating an as-applied constitutional challenge to law prohibiting possession of firearms by a convicted felon, where the petitioner “affirmatively demonstrated that he is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety”).

I sincerely hope that no readers of this blog will find a need to return to this post in the future, but if the situation does arise it may serve as a useful resource for quick reference. Stay safe.

The post Militias in North Carolina appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law.

Militias in North Carolina published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

neonowner5-blog · 4 years ago

Text

The Fbi Requirements Agents

The changes, which took effect in October 2018, triggered a rise in requests to secure documents, with state officials refining approximately 7,000 each month. The overhaul authorized by the Legislature and also Baker in 2018 was indicated to help individuals move on with their lives. Urrutia tells me about a 96-year-old guy who got robbed as well as defeated nearly to death in his own house; the weapon trace that Urrutia did on the swiped gun is what damaged the situation as well as how they captured the opponent. He tells me about an 8-year-old lady who obtained killed, and a. college girl that got raped, and also in both cases the gun trace Urrutia did resolved the criminal offense. But Toby Hoover, executive supervisor of the Ohio Union Against Weapon Violence, contended that the general public was safer without guns in the hands of individuals who have dedicated serious crimes. A state company determines people who have actually ended up being disqualified to possess weapons and state legislation gives standard operating procedures to confirm that such individuals have actually relinquished any type of guns in their possession. Accessibility to guns is limited for at least a short-lived period after an individual has been founded guilty of fierce, firearm-related, and other serious felonies and also violations, consisting of domestic physical violence offenses as well as hate criminal activities. At https://medium.com/@effort4win/delaware-background-check-state-de-record-finder-solutions-5f3b36e29b7f , weapon qualification criteria are at least as substantial as federal regulation, to allow state and also regional resources to assist in implementation and also enforcement. Twenty-six states prohibit individuals from accessing guns for a momentary duration after they have actually been settled or convicted of certain offenses as juveniles. New Jersey generally forbids firearm access after an individual has been convicted of an offense punishable by greater than six months jail time. Several states additionally restrict weapon gain access to after a person has been convicted of particular other offense offenses, commonly consisting of broader categories of firearm-related or violent criminal offenses. However, federal regulation simply gives a flooring, and also has noteworthy gaps that allow some individuals that have shown significant threat elements for future violence or self-harm to lawfully acquire as well as have weapons. Giffords Regulation Center has 25 years of experience fighting for the programs, policies, and laws shown to conserve lives from gun physical violence. " There were a lot of individuals who we really felt need to be able to obtain their gun civil liberties recovered that might not," said Alan M. Gottlieb, owner of the Second Change Structure, that was active in the effort. Although it drew little notice at the time, the regulation also consisted of an expansion of what had been very restricted eligibility for remediation of guns rights. Erik Zettergren originally lost his gun rights in 1987 as a result of a felony sentence for dealing marijuana. A decade later, the police mosted likely to his home after being called by his ex-wife and uncovered a cache of guns. He was founded guilty of an additional felony, unlawful possession of a firearm. Only a handful of county clerks in Ohio said they might track these instances, generating records on numerous lots repairs. They included people who had actually been founded guilty of first-degree murder, voluntary murder, felonious assault and also sex-related battery. For his component, Mr. Holisky took files from the plea agreement in his attack case, in which the district attorney in neighboring St. Louis Region concurred not to oppose the remediation of his weapons civil liberties. 2 Democratic legislators sought to enforce a life time firearms ban on violent felons, although they wrapped up that for their expenses to have any type of possibility of passing, they would likewise need to set up a process that held up a hope of eventual remediation. They were unable, nonetheless, to obtain their expenses with the Legislature. One research study, released in the American Journal of Public Health in 1999, discovered that rejecting hand gun acquisitions to offenders cut their danger of devoting new gun or fierce crimes by 20 to 30 percent. Studies on the effect of gun constraints mainly support disallowing felons from having guns.

youtube

A spokesperson for the FBI's Crook Justice Details Service declined to claim what's causing the hold-up or when the process might obtain underway yet stated the agency is "working with the state to assist in the sealing of documents at the state's request." Back in the work areas, I sit with an ATF professional named Daniel Urrutia. state of delaware background check state police permits a person's rap sheet to be wiped clean given the crime occurred prior to their 21st birthday celebration and also they have actually stayed out of trouble. " The state as well as FBI have actually been very close-mouthed concerning it," he added. " They maintain claiming they're dealing with specifications for handling records, yet they have actually been exceptionally vague." Lawyers who collaborate with clients attempting to seal their documents state the process is delayed and also they can not get the answer. He informs these stories in detail, clarifying why he browsed one location, as opposed to an additional, and just how essential these choices were, and exactly how he agonized over them, and also someplace in the middle of the stories, his eyes well up. In the beginning I assume he's got allergies or something-- he is not an individual you think of weeping. To look the millions of documents they have on documents, tracers must scroll with miles of old microfilm. The wholesaler, who also has to keep such records, undergoes the very same rigmarole the importer or producer did, as well as he offers you the name of the weapon store that bought it from him. Weapon importers are certified by the ATF, as well as they have to maintain records of sales and also procurements. So the importer needs to go via all his gun documents and discover that specific Taurus PT 92 with that specific identification number, find what batch it was in, and tell you what wholesaler it went to. The large bulk of the gun records connecting a gun to its owner are kept back at the numerous qualified dealers, the Walmarts, Bob's Gun Shops, and Guns R United States shops dotting America's landscape. Anyone may apply for the VAF, however it is created for weapon purchasers that think they are lawfully enabled to buy firearms, however they have actually been rejected more than when or frequently experience hold-ups in their purchases. Since of a previous misdemeanor cost or because a disqualified person has a comparable name, purchasers often discover themselves experiencing hold-ups or rejections in weapons purchases. The EEOC also advises taking into consideration private situations and also context around a prospect's rap sheet.

#delaware background check #delaware #background check

0 notes

mayarosa47 · 5 years ago

Text

Modern Firearms Curios Relics And Antiques

A regulation implementing federal firearms laws, 27 CFR §478.11, defines Curio or Relic (CFR) firearms as those which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as CFR items, 478.11 specifies that firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

• Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas of such firearms; • Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, state, or federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and

• Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event.

How to Legally Own an Antique Firearm

Gun laws in Utah, differ drastically from state to state, and laws regarding antique firearms are no exception. Even if you’re only a collector with no intent to ever fire the weapon, you may have to fire the same rules and regulations you would for more modern firearms. While most states provide exceptions from various licensing requirements for antique firearms, what is considered an “antique” may vary extensively. If you want to legally own an antique firearm, the law in the state where you live and plan to store the weapon is the most important. • Check your state law: Since gun laws vary significantly from state to state, it’s important to check the laws of the state in which you live before you buy an antique firearm. If you move to another state, don’t assume the laws are the same and you can continue to legally own an antique firearm just because you legally owned it somewhere else. For example, anyone convicted of a felony is prohibited from buying a firearm. However, this prohibition doesn’t apply to many antique firearms. The types of guns included, however, depend on state law. Muzzle-loading rifles, shotguns, and pistols that use black powder rather than fixed ammunition generally can be purchased by felons. However, if the weapons are converted so that they can fire fixed ammunition, they may not be allowed. Additionally, many states have additional regulations regarding characteristics such as flintlocks, barrel length, and who may own them. • Evaluate the “antique firearms” exception: Most states exempt antique firearms from the general licensing and ownership requirements to legally own modern firearms. However, each state applies this exception in different ways, and may define “antique firearm” differently. Under federal law, an antique firearm is any firearm produced before 1898. The federal definition also includes replicas, which means the firearm may have been manufactured recently, but if it was manufactured to exactly duplicate a firearm produced before 1898, it is still considered an antique firearm. Most states use the same definition as federal law. However, some states include newer firearms as well. In these states, a firearm is considered an antique if it was manufactured more than 50 years ago and is not still being manufactured. With these relatively newer weapons that are still considered antiques, there may be additional restrictions on their ownership. Typically that depends on the type of ammunition they use. • Contact an expert: If you’re unsure about how the exception applies, of if you are eligible to purchase or own an antique firearm legally, speaking to someone such as a federal firearms licensee can help you understand the law. The state government agency that regulates firearms typically will be your most reliable source. You can identify this agency by searching on the internet or asking a licensed gun dealer near you. If you don’t feel comfortable calling up the state agency, a licensed gun dealer near you usually can give you full information about the laws in your state. You also may be able to find out about your ability to legally own an antique firearm by talking to an attorney, such as a criminal defense attorney. If you’ve been convicted of a felony, this may be your best resource.

• Apply for a state license: Typically, you don’t need a license to buy or own an antique firearm. However, not being licensed limits your ability to use or transport your gun, and you may not be able to sell it to others. A state license generally is a “license to carry,” meaning you need the license if, for example, you want to take your antique firearm to a local shooting range and fire it. However, before you rely on this you should check to make sure that your antique firearm falls within the licensing exemption, which may differ from the purchase or possession exemption. When you buy your antique firearm, think about the reason for your purchase and what you anticipate doing with it. If you’re a collector who intends to hang it on your wall or display it in a case, and knows you’re never going to attempt to fire it, you shouldn’t need a license in most states. • Consider getting a curios and relics (C&R) license: If you want to collect antique firearms and plan on buying and selling them on a regular basis, a curios and relics license will allow you to do that more efficiently. A C&R license is a type of federal firearms license (FFL) that allows you to buy and sell antique firearms directly without having to go through a licensed dealer. The license is issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). You can download a copy of the application from the ATF’s website. A C&R license allows you to buy and sell antique firearms, including any firearm that is at least 50 years old or that has historical or collectible significance. Once you get your license, you must keep records of each firearm you buy or sell, including the make, model, serial number, and type of firearm. You also must record the name and address (or FFL number) of the buyer or seller of the weapon.

Buying or Selling Antique Firearms

• Buy only from reputable dealers: You can find numerous antique firearms available online, at pawn shops, or in other locations. However, without knowing the dealer’s reputation you can’t be sure that you’re actually getting what you’ve paid for. If you have a C&R license, you’ll have to get details about the person from whom you’re buying the firearm for your records. However, apart from that information, you should be able to find out basic information about the reputation of this particular seller before you buy an antique firearm from them. While this isn’t necessarily a legal consideration, it can be if someone sells you a firearm claiming that it is an antique, when it really isn’t particularly if you don’t have a license to buy or possess modern firearms.

• Get an independent appraisal: If you’re a collector, or if you’re concerned about the collectible or historical value of a particular antique firearm, an independent appraisal can let you know what you’re getting and how much it’s worth. Who you contact for an appraisal depends on the type of firearm you’re purchasing. If you’re only concerned about the age of the weapon, you want to find an antique firearms expert. Your local gun dealer may be able to point you to someone who specializes in dating antique firearms. If the antique firearm is alleged to have particular historical significance, you will want to have it evaluated by a museum curator or historian who specializes in that particular period of time or type of weaponry.

• Review transport laws: State and federal laws cover the shipping or transport of firearms from one state to another, and from another country into the United States. Even if your seller is located in the same state as you, your state may have specific legal requirements for transporting the weapon. If you have a C&R license, you don’t have to worry about transport restrictions if you’re buying and selling within your own state. However, to transport an antique firearm across state lines, you typically must use a federal firearms licensee within the state where the firearm is located. That licensee can then transfer the firearm to you, or to a federal firearms licensee in your state to deliver to you. If you want to import an antique firearm (or ammunition) from another country, this also must be done by a registered firearm dealer. The ATF provides forms which must be completed prior to making an international purchase or sale and transfer. Visit the ATF website to download those documents. If the firearm you wish to transport is more than 100 years old, it is eligible for duty-free transport internationally. However, you must be able to provide proof of age.

• Work with a federal firearms licensee: When selling one of your antique firearms, you typically must go through a federal firearms licensee to complete the transfer. In some states, you may be allowed to make the sale at a local law enforcement agency. States have different laws regarding private sales between two private individuals. Many states require you to complete the sale using a federal firearms licensee, but some do not. For example, suppose you see an antique firearm on an online auction site that you want to purchase. Your state law controls how the final transfer of the weapon can be made. Generally it can’t simply be shipped to you. Instead, you must meet with the seller in person to take possession of the antique firearm. Talk to a gun dealer in your area or contact the state agency that regulates and enforces state gun laws to learn if you must use a federal firearms licensee to complete private transactions.

Keeping Antique Firearms

• Store your firearms appropriately: Each state has specific laws regarding the storage of firearms, whether antique or modern. Some cities have their own gun laws as well, which may further restrict how you can store your antique firearms. In some states, antique firearms are not exempted from state storage laws. However, others carve out an exemption for antiques being displayed for collection purposes, provided they are not loaded. Generally, you should avoid keeping even antique firearms where children can reach them or take them down to play with them. Keep in mind that children are naturally curious, and will want to inspect anything within their reach. Check legal requirements if you need to move your weapon. All states have requirements for the safe transportation of a weapon. Even if you move, or are taking your antique firearm out of state yourself, there may be restrictions on how you can transport your weapon across state lines. If you’re transporting your antique firearms because you’re moving to another state, make sure they’re secured properly and safely, and are not loaded while they are being transported. In some instances, particularly if you don’t have a license yourself, you may be required to ship your antique firearm to a federal firearms licensee. They will return the weapon to you when you arrive at your destination. When you’re travelling between states, more than one state’s laws may come into play.

If you don’t want to go through the hassle of trying to analyze the gun laws of several states, it may be easiest to arrange for your antique firearm to be shipped to a federal firearms licensee so you can pick it up when you arrive at your destination. Use federal firearms licensees for transfers. If you give or loan your antique firearm to anyone else, you typically must go through a federal firearms licensee – even if it isn’t a sell and no money is exchanging hands. This typically will not apply if you have a C&R license – in that case you can complete the transfer yourself. However, if the person to whom you’re transferring the firearm is not licensed, you may need to find a federal firearms licensee to receive the firearm for them. For example, suppose you have an antique firearm and you want to give it to your nephew, who has recently started collecting antique firearms. Even though no money is changing hands, you may need to go through a federal firearms licensee if you don’t have a license yourself. However, if you do have a license, you should be able to complete the transfer on your own. Contact a gun dealer near you if you are unsure whether you can transfer your antique firearm to someone else. They will let you know what your state law allows.

• Keep your antique firearms unloaded: Many state laws do not allow antique firearms to be stored loaded. Particularly if the gun uses black powder, these weapons are highly volatile and dangerous if they’re loaded but not fired. In some states and cities, any ammunition you own must be kept in a separate, locked container from the antique firearm itself. Keep in mind that the idea that collectors typically don’t intend to use antique firearms in the same way or for the same purposes people have modern firearms is part of the reason for the exemption from various licensing requirements. States that allow gun owners to keep loaded weapons for self-defense purposes typically do not allow muzzle-loaded weapons that use black powder for ammunition to be kept loaded. You should only “load” a black-powder weapon if you intend to fire it immediately. If your muzzle-loaded weapon has been converted so that it can fire standard bullets, it may not be considered an antique firearm as a result of that modification.

Modern Firearms

“Modern firearms” are those manufactured after 1898 which do not use black powder or fixed cartridges. Most are match, wheel-lock, flintlock, or percussion cap models. Since most firearms of this era were not date stamped, proof marks from the manufacturer are the most common way age is established. Proof marks vary greatly in shape, detail, and specificity. Modern firearms can roughly be divided into three different categories: handguns, rifles, and shotguns. “Handguns” or “pistols” include revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, and single shot pistols. The main distinction between a handgun and a rifle or shotgun is not the ammunition or overall length but rather the design of the firearm to be fired from the hand rather than from the shoulder.

Rifles are defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(7) as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.” Shotguns are defined as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.” The primary difference between a rifle and shotgun is the use of rifled vs. smooth bore. A rifled barrel allows for much greater accuracy and range while a smooth bore allows for multiple projectiles useful for activities such as bird hunting or shooting moving targets. Rifles and shotguns employ numerous loading methods including: semi-automatic; pump; lever; bolt; etc.

“Curios and relics” “have special value to collectors because they possess some qualities not ordinarily associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:” non-replicas manufactured at least fifty years prior to the present date; b) be certified by the curator of a municipal, state, or federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; or ) any other firearm which derives a substantial portion of its monetary value from its novelty, bizarreness, or because it is associated with some historical person, period, or event. A special curios and collector’s license is available from the ATF to allow a person to acquire such firearms (only such firearms) in interstate commerce. “Transfers of curio or relic firearms by licensed collectors are not subject to the requirements of the Brady law [nor must a FFL use a form 4473]. It is, however, unlawful to transfer a firearm to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is a felon or is within any other category of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms.”

“Antique” firearms are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16) as: any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph if such replica is not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center-fire fixed ammunition, or ( uses rim fire or conventional center-fire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

Firearms Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help with regarding the ATV, guns, or firearms in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

ATV Accident Lawyer Woods Cross Utah

Protect Your Lien Rights With The Utah State Construction Registry

Distracted Driving

Is Filing Bankruptcy Better Than Just Not Paying Your Creditors Back?

Reclaim Your Financial Freedom

Can You Get A Loan Modification More Than Once?

from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/modern-firearms-curios-relics-and-antiques/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah - Blog http://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.weebly.com/blog/modern-firearms-curios-relics-and-antiques

0 notes

divorcelawyergunnisonutah · 5 years ago

Text

Modern Firearms Curios Relics And Antiques

youtube

How to Legally Own an Antique Firearm

youtube

Buying or Selling Antique Firearms

youtube

Keeping Antique Firearms

youtube

Modern Firearms

Firearms Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help with regarding the ATV, guns, or firearms in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

ATV Accident Lawyer Woods Cross Utah

Protect Your Lien Rights With The Utah State Construction Registry

Distracted Driving

Is Filing Bankruptcy Better Than Just Not Paying Your Creditors Back?

Reclaim Your Financial Freedom

Can You Get A Loan Modification More Than Once?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/modern-firearms-curios-relics-and-antiques/

0 notes

asafeatherwould · 5 years ago

Text

Modern Firearms Curios Relics And Antiques

youtube

How to Legally Own an Antique Firearm

youtube

Buying or Selling Antique Firearms

youtube

Keeping Antique Firearms

youtube

Modern Firearms

Firearms Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help with regarding the ATV, guns, or firearms in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

ATV Accident Lawyer Woods Cross Utah

Protect Your Lien Rights With The Utah State Construction Registry

Distracted Driving

Is Filing Bankruptcy Better Than Just Not Paying Your Creditors Back?

Reclaim Your Financial Freedom

Can You Get A Loan Modification More Than Once?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/modern-firearms-curios-relics-and-antiques/

0 notes

michaeljames1221 · 5 years ago

Text

Modern Firearms Curios Relics And Antiques

youtube

How to Legally Own an Antique Firearm

youtube

Buying or Selling Antique Firearms

youtube

Keeping Antique Firearms

youtube

Modern Firearms

Firearms Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help with regarding the ATV, guns, or firearms in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

ATV Accident Lawyer Woods Cross Utah

Protect Your Lien Rights With The Utah State Construction Registry

Distracted Driving

Is Filing Bankruptcy Better Than Just Not Paying Your Creditors Back?

Reclaim Your Financial Freedom

Can You Get A Loan Modification More Than Once?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/modern-firearms-curios-relics-and-antiques/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah https://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.wordpress.com/2020/05/17/modern-firearms-curios-relics-and-antiques/

0 notes

advertphoto · 5 years ago

Text

Modern Firearms Curios Relics And Antiques

youtube

How to Legally Own an Antique Firearm

youtube

Buying or Selling Antique Firearms

youtube

Keeping Antique Firearms

youtube

Modern Firearms

Firearms Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help with regarding the ATV, guns, or firearms in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

ATV Accident Lawyer Woods Cross Utah

Protect Your Lien Rights With The Utah State Construction Registry

Distracted Driving

Is Filing Bankruptcy Better Than Just Not Paying Your Creditors Back?

Reclaim Your Financial Freedom

Can You Get A Loan Modification More Than Once?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/modern-firearms-curios-relics-and-antiques/

0 notes