Friday, April 13, 2018

Nearsighted Tyrants And Gun Laws © 2018 Phillip Evans

Boulder Colorado City Photo of City Attorney Tom Carr

"If you could just refrain from laughing at me, that would be really great." - Boulder, Colorado City Photo of Attorney Tom Carr 

"So, I would view that, view both of those, as having pistol grips." - in reference to the screenshot below while discussing proposed ordinance 8245. He later back-pedals that statement.

Screenshot from: Boulder, Colorado City Council Meeting 04/05/2018

Atty. Carr might want to have the prescription on his glasses checked. I know something about that - I wear glasses. I couldn't tell you if a rifle had a pistol grip from over 25 feet away unless I had my glasses on. And he was wearing his in a City Council meeting when he made a fool of himself while looking at a presentation on the screen showing three rifles.

And what's with the obsession of a pistol grip? Small caliber rifles such as the AR-15 do not have much recoil and are easy to aim and fire without such extra grips. Atty. Carr's assertion that a pistol grip increases the rate of fire is another example of his stupidity. And as for barrel shrouds that keep your support hand from being burned, haven't they heard of gloves?

If the goal is disarmament of the citizenry, and if they can't (or don't have the guts) to do it all at once, they are left with nibbling around the edges with laws or ordinances which they perceive to either reduce a firearm's effectiveness or to ban certain models. 

Their hope is that they can do as much damage to the right to keep and bear arms as possible without waking up to torches and pitchforks in the middle of the night encouraging their hasty departure for the Canadian border.

The arrogance of those in government to presume they can ban this or ban that, even commonly owned firearms, and especially those arms with the capability that would be needed by a citizen militia to repel domestic or foreign tyranny, knows no bounds.

The business owner who later testified that the ordinance would have a "positive effect" is a groveling Red Coat lover and boot licker of the kind that actually did flee to Canada or Britain after the Colonies won their War of Independence. Now THAT had a positive effect on our nation which lasted for a while until they started coming back. 

I loved the citizen who testified that he would not obey any such "illegal" ordinance. Good for him! "We will not comply" is a message the tyrants need to hear and hear often. Tyrants are precisely the reason we have the Second Amendment in the first place.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Pennsylvania Schools: Mini-Bats In The Belfry? © 2018 Phillip Evans

Mini-Bat Safe Graphic Created From Public Domain Clip Art

Does working for a school district, or at least being in a position of authority in a school district automatically turn people into abject idiots such as Millcreek Township School District Superintendent William Hall, or is it something they work really hard at to become? Surely they must be putting forth effort at something, since apparently they don't have enough real work to do.

Or perhaps someone put some dope (or dopiness) in the water supply up there in Pennsylvania. No telling what those anti-liberty yankees up north are smoking or snorting in the privacy of their school offices. Please, don't move South!

Yeah, because schools are so awash in tax-payer money that they need $1,800 symbolic solutions. That'll show a school shooter they mean business.

Don't bring a bat to a gunfight. Especially don't bring a locked up baby bat to a gunfight. That could get you killed. Actually, it would be the stupidity of it that got you killed. Wait Mr. Shooter, let me just unlock my file cabinet here - now take that!

It just occurred to me they could use the bats to knock the rocks at a mass shooter. I hope when one of the PA school superintendents suggests this, he will give me credit for the idea.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Jury Nullification - Your Civic Duty © 2018 Phillip Evans

Do you think any of O.J. Simpson's murder trial jury members had any fear at all on whether to vote, "not guilty"? I don't believe so. They had more than one high-powered attorney tell them they could vote to acquit, and that's just what they did.

Chief Justice John Jay - Painting by John Trumball

Unfortunately, many citizens caught up in jury trials where a guilty decision could remove for life their right to keep and bear arms don't have that luxury. Their defense lawyers (often state-provided ones), have no interest in dragging out the trial, and no real guts to forcefully state their case, especially at closing arguments.

As a consequence, jury members will fear the judge (who is usually in bed, figuratively of course, with the prosecutor), believing that they must convict, and that is a fear I will explain right here and now you should never have in the courtroom or jury room, no matter how overbearing the judge may appear.

First of all, many judges that handle criminal cases, even though they may seem like nice people, are liars. Yes, that's a strong statement, but it's true, and I can prove it.

The next time you are seated on a jury, ask the judge if you have the right to nullify (vote "not guilty" even if everyone else votes "guilty") the verdict. Most likely, you will be lied to and told that you cannot. However, only ask that question if you really don't want to serve.

Here's the kicker: There are some states (I don't know how many), like my home state of Georgia, that actually has in its State Constitution the provision that jurors have the right to decide not only the facts of the case, but the law as well. Judges in Georgia do NOT inform jury members of this ever, which is a lie by omission.

"In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts."

If a defense attorney quoted that this right from the Georgia Constitution during closing arguments, he'd get a contempt of court order slapped against him, or at least a strong verbal lashing from the judge with a warning not to do it again.

Even in those states where this right is not spelled out, you still have the right to judge the law itself. There is no law which provides any penalties for any jury member voting his or her conscience.

This very right is what the First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, confirmed:

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. (emphasis mine)

In other words, let's say you agree with the prosecutor that the facts are true as presented, but you disagree with the law, that it is either too vague to apply justly, or is altogether an unjust law. Then it becomes your duty to confidently state, "not guilty", without hesitation.

Back in the 50's some cities in the South had ordinances that Blacks may only drink from the "colored-only" water fountains. Were a Black woman to appear in court on a charge of violating that ordinance, you could agree that she did it as to the facts, but you'd also have to agree that the law was wrong, and therefore vote to acquit.

Several years ago a judge lied to me during "voir dire", or jury selection. It was for a murder case. The judge told me I'd have to rule according to his judgement of what the law is, and he asked me if I could do that. Talk about jury intimidation!

You most likely will be asked that in open court as well, in front of friends, enemies, and who knows who else. Here's what to do:

Smile and say, "Yes, your honor, I can do that". You are not lying, you are merely assuming (but do not discuss this with the judge, just answer the question) that the judge agrees with ALL the law, including the U.S. Constitution. Then in your own mind, later give your "not guilty" verdict based on your understanding of the U.S. Constitution, which will be the correct one, if you view the Constitution as limiting the powers of government, rather than limiting the rights of citizens. How are you supposed to read the judge's mind? It is not your obligation to do so.

How are you to handle your fellow jury members that are all slobbering at the bit to convict a fellow citizen and send them away to prison so they can get home to dinner early? Here's how:

1. Talk slowly and take leisurely breaths. This helps you by keeping you calm and keeping your train of thought. 

2. If you are interrupted, stop talking and attentively listen. Then start back over again from the beginning of your point, going slowly. Eventually, they will get tired of interrupting you and let you finish your point.

3. Now, make your point. Here's how: "Ladies and gentlemen, I simply do not feel that the state has made its case, and therefore must respectively disagree and vote to acquit." 

4. Let the other jury members bring up points (you don't have to prove why you feel the way you do), and they will, to try and convince you otherwise. Listen without interrupting them, and slowly nod your head, pause, and then state, "Yes, you make some good points, but I'm not totally convinced by that evidence. I still have some reasonable doubt about that. After all, eyewitness may not lie, but they may not have seen things exactly as they may have thought to have seen them."

5. If your fellow jury members, the prosecutor, or the judge accuses you of pulling a "nullification stunt", look surprised and state, "I'm willing to discuss, deliberate, and debate this case as long as we need to in order to reach a unanimous verdict. I'm confident I can get everyone to come around to my point of view in order to reach a 'not guilty' verdict."

Do not shut down and refuse to participate. Be as slow and methodical as you wish, but prod on. If you refuse to deliberate, the judge will seize on the chance to replace you with an alternate juror ready to do his bidding to throw the defendant in jail or prison.

Friends, there is NO law anywhere in these United States of America where you can get in any trouble at all for giving a contrary verdict. You do not have to go along with the majority.

As long as you are In that jury box, you are equal in power to the judge himself. For if you don't give a guilty vote, he doesn't get to punish the state's prisoner, and the prisoner gets to go free, or at the very least gets another trial if there is a hung jury. Usually, the kinds of example cases I'm going to discuss below get thrown out at the first hung jury.

Case #1: A citizen in a store has an uncovered, holstered pistol on his hip and is talking to his friend. He tells his friend, "In this state you can carry openly without a license". A police officer happens to overhear that, and investigates finding that the citizen indeed does not have a license to carry. It turns out that carrying openly without a license in that state applies only to long guns, but not pistols, so the citizen gets arrested and charged with a weapons offence. He faces up to a year in jail (which will cost him his job and house, as his wife doesn't have employment, and he has three children to support), a $1000 fine, and he will be banned for 5 years from applying for a carry license.

Yes, the defendant made a mistake. Not everyone is a lawyer, but the prosecution and the judge will still wag their fingers and state that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You've got all the facts you need to convict, so convict him, right?

Well, there are a couple of other things to consider. Would the Founding Fathers who penned the Second Amendment protecting our right to keep and bear arms agree with that? Also, does a citizen who merely wants to not be killed by a criminal have to be put behind bars like a dangerous caged animal, lose his job, his house and possibly his marriage, just because the state has taken a Constitutional Right and turned it into a poll tax permission slip?

Are you folks getting the idea here? I certainly hope so! Vote "NOT GUILTY"!

Case #2: A 17 year old is caught shop-lifting a pack of gum, but because of a few prior petty non-violent crimes, he is looking at a sentence of one year and a day. Why is that significant? 

It's because there is a Federal Law which states if you are sentenced to more than one year whether or not you actually serve it all, it doesn't matter how petty the crime, you lose FOR LIFE your Second Amendment Rights. That's because under Federal Law {(18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(5)}, your misdemeanor crime is now a class E felony. 

Yes, the young man is an idiot, but one day he will be a contributing member of society (not guaranteed, but very possible) with a wife and children. Should he be banned from having the means to protect them from criminals? Banned for life for youthful mistakes, from ever possessing a firearm as an adult?

Case #3: A man is charged with domestic violence against his wife. He slapped her on the rear once during an argument causing no bruising or injury. He is charged with only a misdemeanor looking at only 30 days in jail at the most. However, a charge of domestic violence will disqualify him FOR LIFE under Federal Law from possessing a firearm due to the Lautenberg Amendment.

Case #4: A snitch reports on a man who has a few marijuana plants. The citizen gets his door busted in by police looking more like armored up soldiers, who find a pistol and a shotgun, along with the greenery. He now faces drug and weapons charges. Felonies that will put him away for 10 - 20 years in many states.

The judge acknowledges in court that the man grew the plants because he could not afford to go out of state to purchase cannabis oil for his sick son, who suffers seizures almost constantly without the drug. But helping a sick child is no excuse. The law is the law.

Really? By now I do hope you are thinking this thing through!

Case #5: A young lady who had been robbed and beaten twice before gets a gun, and gets a license to carry it. She drives to another state thinking they would honor her firearms license, you know, just like our drivers licenses are honored by other states. She ADMITS her gun is in her glove-box at a traffic stop and gets arrested for a FELONY facing years in prison. She was CONVICTED, but fortunately, the Governor gives her a pardon. This case example is a true story

I wonder if the judge even allowed evidence in the court that she had been robbed and beaten. Probably not. Know that as a juror, the judge will withhold ANY evidence he can that would make you sympathetic toward the defendant, unless he absolutely has to admit it as evidence directly linked to the "facts".

Let's do what we can to change laws that abuse people and treat them like cattle. But in the meantime, as long as laws like that are on the books, we do have a way to protect people.

Now I know that marijuana, or even gun ownership may not be your thing. But the point is to be a shield to your fellow citizens against the unlimited, tax-payer funded resources of the government. I know it's tempting to use that power to control others using the force of government and its armed agents, but often the consequences of doing so are unjust cruelty to others. We are our brothers and sisters keepers, after all.

Judges will lie to you and either imply or directly tell you they are the ones that rule the court, and that your only role is to rubber stamp a guilty verdict, as long as the facts show the defendant did it. 

However, you have the real power. And once you use the power of nullification (don't even whisper that word to anyone while waiting to be examined for your chance to be on a jury), it will feel so good putting the government in its place that you will want to do it again.

Do you want a smug judge to wave you away with his hand at the end of a trial because you obeyed his order to send your fellow citizen to jail? Imagine if you were that citizen. You would want at least one person to stand up for you, wouldn't you?

Remember, undercover government informants entrap citizens every single day using our tax money to fund their operations.

During the era of prohibition, thousands of cases were brought against adults for possessing, serving, or having an alcoholic drink. Yet comparatively, there were few convictions. Most juries simply voted to acquit even though the law said the defendants were guilty. The law was unjust and most everyone understood that. That led to the law being repealed.

The U.S. leads the world in prison population. We have more prisoners and a greater percentage of our population in prison than ANY other country. Even more than China, and China has three times our population! Please do your part to correct this horrendous en-cattlement of our people!

In many court cases, jury nullification is just as much a civic duty as voting. When you stand up and protect others, you are also laying the groundwork to stand up for and protect yourself. The old saying is usually true. What goes around, comes around. Let's circle the wagons and remind government that it is the servant of We The People, and not the other way around.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Pinocchio Syndrome © 2018 Phillip Evans

Photo of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz by Elena Schneider

She is also a liar when she says having a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds means you just want to kill a lot of people:

"The only purpose to having more than that is to kill as many people as possible." - DWS

So, I assume she now ensures that her security personnel never have more than 10 rounds in their firearm magazines, because you know, she wouldn't want them to just bust loose and kill as many people as possible, right?

My 9mm pistol magazines originally had a capacity of 17 rounds, but I added +2 extensions to them. Apparently, they now hold 10 "good" bullets, and 9 "evil" bullets.

Since I politely decline for DWS to speak for me, I will speak for myself and give my reason for having such "high capacity" magazines:

The reason I have them is so I won't have to stop to reload as much if I'm defending myself and my family from a violent attacker, especially multiple attackers, because stopping to reload could get us killed.

The police happen to know something about the dangers of reloading during a fire-fight, which is why they all have "high capacity" magazines. Why should the police get to defend themselves from criminals as they see best, but not us "regular" citizens? Are we guaranteed to need less bullets than the police when defending our lives? Or do our lives count less than those of the police?

Do Democrats and RINOs have some special powers of clairvoyance to know the number of rounds I'll need in my gun to defend against bad guys? If not, then they can stop with the "high capacity" ban crap. I want at least twice as many bullets in my guns as any bad guy trying to harm me and my family, and frankly it's none of their #%&* business.

Criminals would love for me to have as few bullets as possible, something they have in common with Democrats and RINOs.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz can shove her lies right back up from where they came from as far as I'm concerned. If she wants my ammo magazines that she does not approve of, let her suit up and come take them, if she dares.

Her scumbag lying and confiscation edicts are precisely why we have the Second Amendment in the first place. I look forward to the time when America comes to truly honor the U.S. Constitution again.

And when we do, let DWS and the others like her know that we have their names and will assist them with their flight reservations to their choice of Canada or Britain when we kick out the non-combatant tyrants. And we'll even let them take the clothes on their backs when they leave. 

Monday, April 9, 2018

Deerfield, Illinois Gun Confiscation © 2018 Phillip Evans

The main criteria under which the U.S. Government defines an "assault rifle", is "selective-fire", which means the capability of fully automatic fire.

However, Deerfield politicians know best how to define firearms, and if they wanted to define an "assault weapon" as anything with a barrel longer than 6", or anything that fires a round more powerful than a .38, what would stop them from doing it? Once they can redefine something, they can "update" their definition at any time to further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

For now, on their slippery slope journey, they are targeting those skeery looking rifles that look all "assaulty" to them. As well as those evil ammo magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, as opposed to the good magazines that hold 10 or less. In New York the good magazines only hold 7 rounds or less. Why can't "progressives" decide on a universal number for good magazines? With all those different numbers out there your good magazine from Deerfield will suddenly become evil if you bring it into New York.

Village idiots (from all villages around the country) ridicule gun owners always harping the same lie, "we don't want to take away your guns". If they told the truth here's what they'd really say:

"We don't want to take away your guns, except for the ones we don't approve you having, whether you already have them or not,  and that is subject to get more onerous as we go down that slippery slope of 'commonsense' gun ban edicts - the faster the better, just as much as we can get away with without you coming after us with torches and pitchforks in the middle of the night."

From the Deerfield ordinance:

“The possession, manufacture, and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield is not reasonably necessary to protect an individual’s right to self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” (emphasis mine)

Do they not understand that the purpose of a citizen militia is to repel tyranny, foreign or domestic? Will not tyrants have so-called "assault weapons"? It therefore seems logical that citizens will also need similar, effective weapons to repel them. Seems like even fully-automatic weapons would be the ticket for that.

But I suppose neutering your citizens by taking away most of their semi-automatic rifles will make them a "well-regulated" militia. By the way, if they did their history lessons, they'd know that "well-regulated" meant well-equipped and well-capable, not "well-infringed".

Some Facebook commentators had a few succinct words to say about it, calling the citizens there "free range prisoners", and "tax cattle".

And they certainly are if they turn in ANY of their lawfully purchased property. They should tell the Mayor exactly what they think about it:

Phone: 847-945-3545

Fortunately, Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit against them. But I don't know how far that will go with all the corrupt anti-Second Amendment judges in the wild.

Highland Park's "assault weapons" ban was upheld by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2015, and the U.S. Supreme Court bowed out and would not hear the case, which left the lower court's decision in place. Deerfield is within the 7th Circuit.

Illinois does have state preemption with regards to firearms, and while some municipalities had their infringements grandfathered in, no other local infringements were allowed. No new ordinances could be drafted putting in any infringements beyond what state law provided.

How has Deerfield Police Responded?

"We received multiple inquiries about the ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines passed by the Deerfield Village Board on April 2nd. The Village of Deerfield compiled a list of frequently asked questions relating to the ordinance. All current information, including FAQ, a press release and the ordinance can be found at the link below.
The Deerfield Police Department would like everyone to understand this ordinance will initially be enforced primarily through education and voluntary compliance. Any enforcement of this ordinance, including search or seizure to effect this ordinance, must comply with the requirements of State and Federal law. Members of the Department will not go “door to door” to ensure compliance.
Please contact the Village Manager’s office at 847-719-7400 with questions." (emphasis mine)

My response to them on their Facebook page is:

"And will you please tell us, Deerfield PD, just why you will not be going (yet) door to door to directly enforce the ordinance? Is it because it would not be a good idea to put an honest face on tyranny and wake a sleeping giant that responds properly with a vigorous revolt?

What happens when the initial enforcement via 'education and voluntary compliance' does not have enough people bending over and complying?

At what point do you take off the gloves and become oath-breakers?

You know, a patriotic response would have been to tell everyone you will NEVER use your guns to enforce ANY such city ordinance against peaceful citizens."

I'm not holding my breath on them giving a patriotic response. They do have to protect their jobs and tax-payer funded paychecks after all.

I wonder how would the Deerfield PD feel about a citizen militia dragging the Mayor and the other village idiot oath-breakers out on the lawn for a little tarring and feathering?

Every gun owner in Deerfield should start making a tally of their fine amount in the form of a bill each week, and mail a copy to the Mayor with a note asking her how they plan to collect.

Mayor Harriet Rosenthal
850 Waukegan Road
Second Floor
Deerfield, IL 60015

Perhaps that would show them that their ordinance, regardless of being on the books, is not worth the paper it's written on, as far as the liberty loving citizens of Deerfield, IL are concerned.