More on "Red Flag" Laws...

I note that, in my last entry, I did not elabourate upon what I thought would constitute an "ideal" "Red Flag Law."  Please allow me to now correct that oversight.  Here - in no particular order - are the points I think an "ideal" "Red Flag Law" should cover and/or entail:

(Nota Bene: "Petitioner" is the party seeking the order, "Respondent" is the party against whom the Order is sought.)

- No anonymous reporting.  You will be able to face your accuser in open court, just like in any other criminal matter (if you stand to lose property and/or rights, it's a criminal matter.)  Failure of the Petitioner to show up in court constitutes immediate dismissal of the Order with prejudice.  Failure of Respondent to appear in Court shall result in the granting of the Order for a period of six months.

- Summons for such hearings are to be delivered personally by police or deputy Sheriffs by hand to Petitioner and respondent.  A signed receipt is to be obtained.  This is to stave off complaints of "I never got notice!"  "Substitute Service" is disallowed - service may only be upon named parties.

- The "default" position on this shall be "No ORder Granted/Continued."  A position to maintain the order must be articulated in order to grant or continue the order.  Failure to do so results in dissolution of the order.

- Storage of any property seized under such an order shall be under proper conditions as to prevent deterioration and the owners shall not be charged storage fees.  Failure to return property in the condition as it was when it was seized shall require the immediate replacement of such property or restitution of the value of collector items which may not be replaced.  "Sentimental value" for heirloom firearms shall be considered when calculating restitution.

- No property is to be seizeduntil an order is granted.

- No order is to be granted until a hearing is held.

- The judge shall be accompanied on the bench by a clinical psychologist (doctoral-level) or psychiatrist, whose opinion shall be consulted, heard, and considered toward issuance or dismissal of such Orders.

- A credible fear must be articulated and assessed against Petitioner by Respondent in order for an Order to be put in place.

- Any "frivolous" accusations in an attempt to obtain Orders are to be penalized by the payment of all court costs by the Petitioner, a fine from the Petitioner to the Court, and a fine from the Petitioner to the respondent.  Such fines are not to be lower than one thousand dollars ($1,000) each, and not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) each.  In the event of a conflict in payment, the Respondent shall be paid his fine first, then the Court costs, then the Court's fine.

- If an Order is granted, part and parcel of that order shall be an immediate psychological evaluation to determine if Respondent presents an immediate or imminent danger to himself or others.  This may or may not require a 96-hour hold, at the Court's discretion.  Nota Bene: Respondent's workplace may not discriminate or retaliate against Respondent as a result of a 96-hour hold, if such is deemed to be necessary.  such evaluation may also be conducted on an outpatient basis, and may be scheduled around the Respondent's work schedule in such cases.  If the Respondent is found to present no risk to himself or others, the Order is to be lifted and considered frivolous, and handled as in the previous point.

- Any Order granted under such measure shall be in force for not more than 365 days, at which time it is either renewed or dismissed.  The original Petitioner must return to court, with respondent, and articulate a continuing credible fear in order to continue the order.  Failure of Petitioner to appear in court will see the Order dismissed with prejudice in absentia.  Failure of Respondent to appear in court shall constitute automatic renewal of Order in absentia.

- Orders granted under this measure shall be in force for not less than 90 days.

- When any such order previously granted is lifted, any property previously seized has not more than one week to be returned in the condition as seized.

- Any property seized shall be photographed for record, with a copy of the photographs saved with the case file, a copy of the photographs saved with the property seized, and a copy of the photographs given to Respondent for his records.  Such photographs are to be consulted when property is returned to assess its condition.  Such photographs shall include "boresight" imagery of the barrel bore and chamber, and images of the open fire control mechanism (where such may be readily accessed.)  All photographs shall be stored for record on fixed digital media - CD-roM for maximum compatibility.  Multiple discs may be used, if required.  Images to be stored in uncompressed format as individual files.  Original data card to be set as "read-only" physically and in software and retained in the file along with the digital media copy.  Files may be renamed (on original card, prior to making optical media) to reflect the firearm they pertain to - listing by serial number should be sufficient.

- Upon return of property, Respondent is allowed one day per five firearms (or fraction thereof) returned to make a claim for damages in storage.  This is to allow time for detailed inspection of returned property.
- Any ammunition seized is to be returned (in serviceable condition) or replaced anew.

- Any NFA items shall have particular care taken.  Any pre-1986 NFA firearm that has a post-1986 replacement, if damaged beyond utility, is to have a new replacement issued and a new entry for it entered into the NFRTR.

That's what I can think of at the moment.  Discuss.

JDK

- CCW is to be suspended while such Orders are in effect.  Upon expiration or termination of such Orders, CCW shall be reinstated with balance of original term allowed.  CCW may be renewed as per normal.

GVROs and UBCs...

Things have been hectic lately - but I never did promise regular updates, did I?

GVRO = Gun Violence Restraining Order, a/k/a Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO,) or, colloquially, "Red Flag Law."

UBC = Universal Background Checks.  Also going under "Enhanced Background Checks."

I shall deal with the latter point first.

Of course, it's the left pushing for UBCs so hard - there are currently two House bills pushing this (H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112.)  H.R. 8 Forces all firearm transactions to go through an FFL, with all such transfers occurring as if the FFL had sold the firearm through inventory (id est, the sale is also logged and tracked.)  H.R. 1112 looks as if it redefines "mental illness" (expands it somewhat,) and there are mention of 3-, 10-, 25-, and 30-day periods I haven't managed to decipher yet (I hate reading laws.  Why can't they write them clearly and logically?)

In any case, the key fact here is that the sale is recorded - therefore, it's backdoor registration of firearms (assuming one were to always comply with the law as passed, if/when passed.  I foresee a good deal of civil disobedience, myself.)  Understandably, this has firearm owners upset - we don't like being registered, and filed, and all that rot.  As said in the intro to The Prisoner - "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!"

How would I have done UBC?
- NICS is now open to citizens to use, with applications for Android, *nix, Windoze, and iOS.
- No firearm information is entered into NICS.
- NICS searches are triggered by taking a picture or a scan of the individual's ID and a picture of his face (NICS compares the two.)  No firearm information is entered.
- NICS replies with an upcheck or a downcheck, and a confirmation number.  Either way, the number gets recorded by the (potential/erstwhile) seller.
- If the sale goes through, the seller writes out a receipt for the buyer (describing the firearm and recording the NICS check number) and keeps a copy for his own records.
- NICS records the fact that there was a check, and that the check was a PASS or a FAIL.  In order to prevent confusion, two different formats are used for the "PASS" and "FAIL" numbers.  Again, no firearm information is recorded in NICS.  Upon the death of the seller, his sale records are to be treated as the "bound book" kept by FFLs - they get sent in to F Troop (so they can screw up their records.)

I think that's fair.  Now, on to "Red Flag" Laws...

I think the biggest problem that I have with this idea is the fact that the order is granted in an ex parte hearing (you have no idea that the hearing is happening until the cops come around to serve the order on you, and they can do it at any time of the day, and it can be a "no-knock" order,) you are "guilty until proven innocent," you do not get the opportunity to face your accuser (so you can pull their case apart,) and no medical or psychological professional need be involved (which is interesting - because wouldn't you need a psychological diagnosis to determine that someone is a danger to himself or others?)

Oh - and the way these laws are being written, just about anybody can dob you in.  Cops, co-workers, that blind date you didn't get along with very well last night, your kids' teachers, &c, &c.  Some are written so broadly that your liberal neighbour three doors down can SWAT you, just because he doesn't like firearms (and therefore, doesn't like you.)

This turns the idea of "Due Process" on its head, and reverses the basic underpinning of our judicial system - "innocent until proven guilty" becomes "guilty until proven innocent."  Yep - you have to prove you are stable and no risk - to someone who is not a medical professional, and who may have his own agenda (read, you're not going to win this one.)  You can fight this for a year or so, while your collection is in storage (that you often have to pay for,) and usually not stored very well, so everything can rust in peace.

This is assuming that you don't get killed in the course of serving the warrant - which has already happened. (https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-anne-arundel-county/)  And, while I can't find any links offhand, I do remember reading of at least one governor (Colorado?) saying that the purpose of the law wasn't "public safety" - it was "getting guns off the street."

Sounds like an admission of guilt, to me.

I'm just tired of the rampant hoplophobia* of the Left.  If they have such problems with the state of civil rights in the United States, then they're perfectly welcome to pack up and blow - I'm certainly not keeping them here!  There are places they could move to where their wishes have already come true.

And leave the rest of us - who don't have hoplophobia - alone.

*Hoplophobia is the unreasonable and unremitting fear of inanimate objects, typically firearms.  Believed to be coined by COL Jeff Cooper, USMC (ret)

Is it worth killing someone for?

Ok, I know, I've been away for a while.  Can we just say I've had an awful lot happening around here, and leave it at that?  I never promised regular updates, that was in the very first post...

Anyhow, here's something I'd planned on sending to my Congresscritters (all of them - at all levels) and I think it makes for a good post here as well.  Let me know what you think.

-----     BEGIN     -----

Is this worth killing someone for?

              Before you propose a new measure, or a new law, that’s a question you should be asking yourself.  Is what you’re proposing worth killing someone over?

              Why?  Because that is what can happen.  It’s not guaranteed to happen, but it’s possible.  Id est:

-          Someone doesn’t wear their seat belt

-          Officer Law sees this.

-          Officer Law pulls the wayward citizen over to cite him

-          Citizen refuses citation, chucks it back out through the window.  Officer Law puts it back in citizen’s hand.

-          Rinse, repeat.  Officer Law gets frustrated with this, and decides it’s time to remove citizen from his vehicle.

-          Enforcement for not wearing a seat belt has now risen to the point of battery.

-          Citizen, not liking being treated this way, keeps trying to get out of Officer Law’s grip and restraint, trying to free himself.  Battery continues.

-          Officer Law finally gets citizen proned out on the pavement, kneeling on his upper back, and finally trying to get cuffs on his hands.  Battery continues.

-          Forgot to mention – citizen is asthmatic.  So, not only have we triggered an attack with all this rough handling (over a law where the only person being endangered is the citizen himself,) but we are now compressing his chest and making it difficult for him to get a lungful of air.  Enforcement has now risen to the point of attempted manslaughter.

-          Officer Law does not listen to citizen’s pleas for air (it’s happened in actual fact,) and maintains pressure on the citizen’s back until a backup officer arrives so he can have help handling this man.  Breathing stops.  Enforcement has now elevated to the point of manslaughter in fact.  Call the coroner, write the report.

Now, do you honestly think that someone not wearing his seat belt (just an example, mind) was worth getting killed over?  How about that fellow – Eric Garner? – in New York selling single smokes, and pretty much this happened to him.  Was “selling singles” worth killing a man over?  I am highly inclined to think not.

Every new regulation, every new measure, every new law that you propose, you should be asking yourself that question – is this worth killing someone over?  My own past experience notwithstanding, death is permanent.   You’ve ended a life – and for what?  Six bucks’ worth of smokes?  Not wearing a seat belt?  Someone who just got through a gnarly day, and now he’s being pestered for a taillamp being out (as opposed to simply being told such on the loud-hailer, which is how these things used to be handled.)

If you think that such minor infractions are worth killing over, you have a seriously skewed sense of priorities, and I question your ability to serve in elected office.

-----     END     -----

There's a comments section here, so let me know what you think!

Thoughts on Gun Control...

Sadly, the idea has been around for far too long...

While doing research on another topic, I had occasion to go through the database of US Patent filings at patents.google.com.  Me being me, I ended up going in several directions at once, and a couple of those directions meant using search terms that had to do with either "micro-stamping" or "smart guns," as generally used by gun-grabbers.  Turns out the first idea has been around for far longer than we thought - the first patent I've found for it was filed in 1924, and granted in 1927!

Anyhow, you can find these at patents.google.com, if you're interested enough to go through these on your own.  I just want to present the list so you know what you're looking for:
"Micro-Stamping," US Patent Issued
- 1,650,908 "Method & Apparatus for Identifying Ammunition" (Ramsey)
- 4,035,942 "Bullet Identification" (Wiczer)
- 4,150,624 "Bullet Identification Means" (Hammond)
- 4,175,346 "Firearm and Bullet Identification" (Zemsky)
- 4,222,330 "Magnetically Tagging Ammunition" (General Electric)
- 5,406,068 "Authorization Card for Purchase of Ammunition and Method of Using" (Nusbaum)
- 5,554,841 "Article Marker and Decoding Method" (Lynn LTD)
- 5,646,365 "Bullet Identification" (Collier)
- 5,685,100 "Bullet Cartridge Casing Identification System" (Atchison)
- 5,698,816 "Identifiable Bullet and Method of Manufacturing Same" (Boeing)
- 5,758,446 "Fired Bullet Identification System" (Atchison)
- 6,209,459B1 "Method for Etching Characters on Bullets and Bullets Made By the Method" (Blount)
- 6,293,204B1 "Code-Labeled Ammunition" (Regen)
- 6,462,302B1 "Rifled Weapon Barrel Engraver and Scanner" (Bar Code Bullet Industries)
- 6,779,716B1 "Rifled Weapon Engraver & Scanner" (Grow)
- 7,240,619B2 "Identifiable Bullet Which Is Unduplicatable" (Kinoshita)
- 7,533,614 "Memory Enhanced Ammunition Cartridge and Method of making and Using the Same" (Reich)
- 8,607,707B1 "Identifiable Ammunition and Related Methods" (Arnon, et al)
- 9,052,176B1 "Shell Casing Marker" (Stefano)
- 9,266,370 "DNA Marking of Previously Undistinguished Items for Traceability" (APDN, Inc)
- 9,908,321B1 Systems and Methods for Identifying Cartridge Cases Based on Ink Marking" (Kalvani IP Holdings)
(Submitted & Documented, not yet Granted)
- 2001-0027619 "Firearm with Identifiable Ejecta" (Randall, et al)
- 2001-0039690 "Firearm with Redundantly-Identifiable Projectiles" (Randall & Randall)
- 2002-0007580 "Shotgun with Automatically Marked Ejecta" (Randall & Randall)
- 2002-0174784A1 "Tagging of Bullets with Luminescent Materials" (Lowden, et al)
- 2002-0178959A1 "Ammunition Tracking System" (Rennard)
- 2003-0217665A1 "Ammunition Tracking System" (Rennard)
- 2004-0027630 "Method and Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0200108A1 "Firearm ID System & Method for Forensic Purposes" (Doiron, et al)
- 2004-0217273A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0220883A1 "Ammunition Cartridge Identification System and Method" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0227001A1 "Gun Identification Kit" (Lightfoot, et al)
- 2005-0005806A1 "Apparatus & Method for Identifying Ammunition" (Mace)
- 2005-0027630A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2005-0045056A1 "Serial PIN-Numbering, or Coding of Bullets, Bullet Casings, and Other Projectiles as an Improvement for the Use of Ammunition" (Ositadinma)
- 2005-02141203A1 "Method & Apparatus for Cartridge Identification Imprinting in Difficult Contexts by Recess Protected Indicia" (Lizotte, et al)
- 2006-0174531A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte, et al)
- 2008-0184873A1 "Process for Manufacturing Trackable Ammunition" (CBC)
-*2010-0295717A1 "Weapon Detection & Elimination System" (Rourk)
- 2012-0300065A1 "Optical Device for Measuring and Identifying Cylindrical Surfaces by Deflectometry Applied to Ballistic Identification (Willemann, et al)
-*2014-0083318A1 "Radio-Controlled Ammmunition" (Alcatel Lucent)
- 2014-0272097A1 "DNA Marking of Previously Undistinguished Items for Traceability" (Applied DNA Sciences)
-*2015-0007741A1 "Remotely Detectable Ammunition" (Nath & Nath)
- 2016-0216087A1 "Method & Device for Marking Ammunition for Identification or Tracking" (SICPA Holding SA)
- 2016-0257132A1 "Method & Device for Marking Ammunition for Identification or Tracking" (SICPA Holding SA)
-*2017-0160065A1 "Remotely Detectable Ammunition" (Nath, Nath, & Nath)
- 2017-0221115A1 "System for Tagging & Tracking Ammunition (Jarvis)

"Smart" Guns - Patents Issued
- 5,177,318 - Device for Identifying and Checking Ammunition of Auto-Loading Firearm and Process for Implementation (Mechanique Creusot-Loire)
- 5,915,936 "Firearm with Identification Safety System" (Brentzel)
-*6,283,034B1 "Remotely Armed Ammunition" (Miles, Jr)
-*6,735,897B1 "Fire Control Authorization System for a Firearm" (Schmitter, et al)
(Submitted & Documented, not yet Granted)
- 2002-0112390 "Automatic Weapon User ID & Safety Module" (Harling, et al)
- 2013-0019510A1 "Firearm Locking System" (Kemmerer, et al)

I know, it's a bit of a long list.  That's exactly my point - people keep trying to find a way to effectively disable firearms.  The ones I've starred should be particularly worrisome - either on Constitutional grounds (2015-0007741A1, Remotely Detectable Ammunition is an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, and possibly the Fifth,) or because your sidearm or rifle can be disabled without your knowledge (everything else starred.)  Whether the firearm is disabled or the ammunition doesn't effectively matter - either way, it won't fire.  However, if the firearm contains the disabling mechanism, it will drive up the price, but you only pay it once.  If the ammunition contains the disabler, then it drives up the price of the ammunition that you'll pay every single time you buy ammunition!

Nevermind that they'll spend the first 5-10 years it's on the market "ironing the bugs out" of "smart" guns (and they'll never be able to deal with batteries going flat - what do you do then?  Especially for a sidearm that lives on standby?) and I'm sure "smart" ammo will take even longer (miniaturized electronics.)  And who know what's going to power the ammo, or what form those batteries will take (or how much ballistic energy will be lost as a result.)  And then there's this little gem:

- 5,773,748 "Limited-Life Cartridge Primers" (Makowiecki, et al,)

which is exactly what it says on the tin.  And the inventor comes right out and says that the whole entire purpose is control of ammunition supply!  Sure, he says it's supposed to slow down violence from gangs and "subversives," but aren't those of us who are taking exception to the direction our government is taking labelled "subversive?"

The "limited life" of primers is given as being between 6 and 60 months, dependent upon storage temperature (ranging 0-50C)  Now yes, one should rotate their stocks of ammunition, but how many people in hot climates would not have been told about this (I'm willing to bet it would have been slipped it without us being told, if it hasn't already...?) and find out that their stored ammo is N/F and NG?

So-called "smart" guns would be something we'd have to be told about (new ones would be fairly obvious, and we'd be largely mandated to retrofit what we've got.)  "Smart" ammo?  We may or may not be told about it - the first indication may be if you're too close to a "Gun-Free Zone" and try to stop something, and find out your sidearm doesn't go bang! like it's supposed to.  Limited-life primers?  I can damn near guarantee you that we won't get told about that little "feature" being added to our ammo, and we won't find out until we run headfirst into it...

Feel free to look up the patents if you like, and please let me know if you find any I haven't gotten listed!

And, as always: Discuss.

Just a couple of passing thoughts...

-  "Sedition" - Rebelling against lawful authority.  What if the authority you're rebelling against is unlawful?

-  "Treason" - Giving aid & comfort to the enemy.  Generally assumed to be an enemy of the government.  But, what if the enemy is the government?

-  "Overthrow" - To depose or remove from authority by force.  I've been accused before of wanting to "overthrow" government, so let me go on record here:

I do not want to overthrow the government

I want to reboot the government

When you come right down to it - for all its flaws (to which I am not blind,) we did start out with a pretty damned good system of governance.  "A Republic, sir, if you can keep it."  Unfortunately, we're losing our Republic.  Government is taking more & more control - not only of us, but of the actions of the Several States - and if the new Democrats have their way, we'll be transformed into the USSA (with a new revolution to soon follow.  Socialist/communist governments don't last very long...)  Activist judges are ruling by diktat from the bench (creating law, vice interpreting it,) and Congress is beginning to ignore its own rules (remember the whole Obamacare flap?  Remember the "penalty/fee/tax/individual mandate/what-the-Hell-ever-it's-called" for not having coverage?  That's a tax measure.  Recall your high school Civics - tax measures are only supposed to originate in the House.  This one originated in the Senate, and it should have been struck on that measure alone!)

Just a couple of thoughts, at 0330 this fine morning.  Watch your six, and keep your powder dry.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!

Negotiations and Firearms in Government...

Here we go again, kids - both sides are calling for "negotiation" in upcoming firearms law, although....:
     D) Looking to get as much out of us as they can get away with, and whittle away at our rights with the biggest tool they'll let us use (they'd prefer a chainsaw, but holding them down to just a hatchet is hard enough work...)
     R) Mainly doing damage control against Democrat "whittling" and to see to the battle wounds after with beer & pretzels, or booze & sammiches."Victories" against democrats merely mean losing as little as possible and getting them to leave us alone for the next couple of years.  (Nota Bebe: While I use the collective pronoun "we," this in't to align myself with the Republicans.  I typically vote for them as the "least of the bad" in the field for the position.  I don't even agree with the Libertarians - I think they've gone soft over the last decade or so.  And the Libertarians are the closest party to my own beliefs and principles.

     However, let's float this idea out:

            1) Agree among ALL sides involved that the firearm bill will contain provisions and content that strictly happens to deal with firearms, ammunition, firearm rights, CCW reciprocity, and the like.

            2) No side may move to take something without giving something in return.  No side may not give something without expecting something to be given back in return.  Maybe the first time it can be a gift - but after that, gifts become an exchange.  When one side "takes" from another, the other side replies with what it wants to "take" in return.

          3)  BATF(E) - "F Troop", after the old television show - is to be eliminated forthwith.  Their convictions are to be re-examined, especially where evidence was "found too easily" or "just perfect" or any other way that indicated it could have been planted; or that Technical Branch had to take some extraordinary effort to expose evidence (taking extraordinary effort to remove a barrel extension off of a semi-auto M4 clone, say, by throwing a six-foot long Stilson wrench on it and having a couple of guys hand off of the end of the thing and bounce, while another guy heads up the junction with a torch.  Honestly - if it takes that much effort to undo, then it's really damned unlikely that anyone in his garage can do it alone without wrecking something, y'know?)  Therefore, F Troop can and should be disbanded.  I propose the following:

          - Technical Branch personnel find civilian jobs.
          - Alcohol Branch people go to the FDA, but with a few changes:

                  -- No more going about armed.  Tax men don't need firearms.  Full Stop.  (This also includes the IRS and, while we're about it, any Cabinet/department personnel.)  If they want to carry off-duty, they can get a local CCW and go through the same process a local civilian does (including supplying a demonstrable need, if you're in a "may issue" state.  "I am a government official" in any permutation or variation is not proof of a demonstrable need...
               -- Taxes on booze to be halved, the FDA doesn't need to make as much money off of booze.
              -- The primary function of the alcohol agent is to spot-check purity of product in the field, make sure that it is not contaminated, no unusual sediment concentration, entrained parasites, &c, &c.  Since he's testing liquids, he can remove product from the shelves - he itemizes what he removes on a list, the store owner/manager gets a copy, the agent keeps a copy, and two copies go up the chain to where they can get signed off and a cheque issued (one stays with the signateur, one with the chequebook.)
               -- As long as he's checking fluids for purity, don't forget to check things like bottled water (recall those "glass worms" found in Nestle's bottle water last month?  Be nice to catch that before they get too far...)

               -- Tobacco agents can move over to FDA to monitor tobacco - similarly unarmed.  Tobacco's purpose - assessment of purity and lack of harmful contamination - may be expanded to include cannabis when that finally gets decriminalized - at a Federal level (something like 2/3 or so of the states have already decriminalized it medically, and half or better either have already approved or are about (likely) to approve it for recreational use.  However you personally fall on the issue, the next  step is to have either officially-run dispensaries or privately-run dispensaries with a reasonable "Commissar's Share," which can be (pardon my phrasing) God-damned well PUT into a counter-addiction programme.  I find it poetic that recreational use of a drug would quell hardcore dependence on a drug.

      -  Firearms guys?  They get pulled off the streets - they've proven themselves incapable of working them in a fair & impartial manner.  Give 'em all a transfer and a reduction in grade - to records, or admin, or something like that: and make sure a "Burn Notice" goes out to all police departments in the nation showing the faces of the men who want to take street jobs and do so as sworn officers, over the message "DO NOT HIRE THESE MEN - PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNSTABLE."  (Which would not be slanderous or libelous in damned near all cases, from what I've seen of them.  The rank-and-file and higher-higher are both nuts.  Same direction; different paths.)

     They can work in Records, they can work in Environmental Services, they can work Building Services. 

      The Firearms Museum may be transferred to the Smithsonian

      - Explosives guys?  Gotta have your head screwed on a bit better to deal with live explosives.  Let them take laterals into PDs that may have EOD/Bomb Squad openings, but there probably won't be enough to take all of them.  Younger fellows can thinking about enlisting and going EOD - they're half-trained already, so banger school shouldn't be too difficult for them.

(If this isn't timely, my apologies - I just found this in a browser tab, I thought I'd already posted it, and found I didn't.  Oops.  Still, worth discussing, I think...)

Violence in movies? Let's see what we can do about that...

     This is a copy of a letter that I will be sending to all three of my Congresscritters, as a proposal for helping to kerb mass shootings by going after the genesis of impulses for such.  We can all agree that there is much violence in Hollywood movies, right?  So, instead of banning firearms outright (which the Left seems bent on doing,) let's ban violence in movies outright!  Spread the word, feel free to use this letter as a template.  Let's BURY  Congress in letters like this, make them sit up and take notice!

     I'll be posting this in parallel on Facebook as well.  Let's spread this idea far & wide, everyone.

     (I know I've been away for a minute or two - I figure this is a good "welcome back" post.  I hope to be back, now that life has settled down a bit for me...)

Jon

Jon D. Kelley

(address redacted)

JonDKelley@gmail.com

13MAR2018

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

331 Hart Senate office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

Senator Feinstein;

              I note, with no small dismay, that you are continuing in your efforts to ban firearms, in an effort to curb violent actions.  If you’ll excuse the phrase, I believe you’re putting the cart before the horse.

              A firearm is about as likely to take independent action as your average brick.  It’s not going to jump up and shoot up a school or a mall by itself, it takes a person with malice in their heart to pick it up and do that.  We need to address the people, not the firearms.  I’d like to suggest the following, in an effort to curb violent impulses:

              Knowing that there are many violent movies and movies with violent actions coming out of Hollywood, we should:

-          Ban the use of firearms in movies (including muzzleloading firearms)

-          Ban the scripting of violent actions and/or incidents in movies

-          Ban the showing of people being shot, beaten, thrown off buildings, run over with vehicles, or otherwise damaged and/or killed

-          The most violent act that may be shown on screen would be throwing bits of sponge or wads of paper at each other, and perhaps trading harsh language.

I think you can agree that this is indeed a difficult problem that we face – however, I haven’t seen a proposal to deal with the genesis of violent impulses in an effort to slow down or halt mass shooting incidents.  I think you’ll find that this is a reasonable approach to the problem – and more likely to have an effect than simply banning the use of an inanimate object…

              I am at liberty to discuss this idea further, if you so desire.

Yours,

Jon D. Kelley

San Jose, CA

JonDKelley@gmail.com