You’ve heard it before…. “We have to close the ‘gun show loophole.'”
Now despite the fact that according the US Justice Department that most guns used in crimes are not obtained illegally or through gun shows, it is a mantra of those who wish to deprive law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves that the “gun show loophole” is problem.
How much of a problem?
Steven Crowder goes looking to buy a gun at gun shows, pawn shops and gun stores. The result won’t surprise supporters of the Second Amendment and law abiding citizens. It will, however, be another inconvenient fact that anti gun factions will try to dismiss and explain away.
Buzz words like the “gun show loophole” seem to be all the rage these days. But is there any truth to it at all? Does the myth hold water? We go undercover to find out…
Yesterday we posted about the Brevard County Resolution put forth by Commissioner Fisher that effectively eliminated the rights of people to seek redress from the government. It also effectively told people to sit down and shut up.
The resolution was supported by Commissioners Anderson and Barfield.
At the end of our post, we said that we would put forth ideas to fight this nonsense which is what this post is about.
First, tell your friends. There is a tendency to only get involved when there are issues that affect someone or with they agree or disagree, but this issue cuts across all ideological, political, racial, and economic lines. Whether you agree with Fisher on funding issues or with Infantini, it doesn’t matter.
This resolution took a shot not just at Infantini, but every citizen in Brevard County. Fisher, Barfield, and Anderson have said your voice will only heard on certain issues and be silenced on others.
That cannot be allowed to stand.
If these three men can silence people on one issue, they can silence people on all issues.
That is why this is important.
So, what to do about it?
I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.
Apparently, some members of the Brevard County Commission have never heard that sentiment.
This past Tuesday, Commissioner Fisher introduced a resolution which read, in part:
1. Until otherwise directed by majority vote of the County Commission, the County Manager is hereby directed not to place any item on the County Commission agenda that addresses the funding, defunding or dissolution of CRAs or other tax increment funded entity, or the discontinuation of economic development incentives including cash grants and ad valorem tax exemptions, whether the agenda item is sponsored or requested by a member of the County Commission, a private citizen or any other person.
According to the Florida Today:
County commissioners decided Tuesday to hold off on making any budget changes aimed at finding more money to pay for road repairs — at least until after they hold another workshop on the issue.
But, just before the meeting was about to end, Commissioner Robin Fisher handed out a resolution to other commissioners that wasn’t on the agenda, and asked the other commissioners to vote on it.
Fisher’s proposal directs the county manager not to place any items proposed by commissioners or members of the public on the commission agenda in the future, if the items are related to funding, defunding or dissolution of community redevelopment agencies and similar entities, until at least three of the five commissioners vote to do so. Fisher’s resolution also covers items related to discontinuation of economic development incentive programs for expanding businesses.
Community redevelopment agencies target a portion of new property tax revenue from construction within the CRA’s district to projects in the district, rather than the money going into the county’s general fund.
Commissioners approved Fisher’s proposal by a 3-2 vote.
Commissioner Trudie Infantini felt the action was directed at her, since she had put two items on Tuesday’s commission agenda related to dissolving or defunding community redevelopment agencies and to dissolution of the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency, and another item on cash incentive grants to new and expanding businesses. Earlier in the meeting, she had agreed to defer discussion of her items until the March 31 workshop.
“I think it’s illegal to stifle my ability to put items on the agenda,” Infantini said.
Fisher said he was tired of continued discussion about finding things to cut, when he believes the county has a revenue problem, and that its current budget already is tight. He said he also is tired of some commissioners trying to reconsider decisions that the commission already had made.
“Once the play has been called, you run the play and make it successful,” said Fisher, a former college and pro football player. “I don’t want to argue about it anymore.”
There is a lot of back story to this resolution and it starts with Fisher. According to Infantini, the resolution was distributed minuted before the meeting began. This meant that the resolution was not on the agenda and the public never saw it coming. Furthermore, the resolution was raised by Fisher after public comments so no one could express displeasure with the resolution.
It is clear that a low of time and effort went into these changes, but we always worry that when something this huge is dumped onto people, there is a chance that something will be missed or buried. (Remember “we have to pass the bill to see what is in it?”)
Both kids are smart, intelligent, funny and well behaved. Nether has been in serious trouble in their entire school careers so it was a surprise when the mother got notices from her daughters’ respective private schools that both of the kids had gotten into trouble.
The eldest daughter got in trouble for wearing a hoodie to school. On a day where it was cold, windy and snowing, she put on a hoodie underneath her jacket and drove to school. She got out of her truck, put the hood up because of the snow and the wind, went inside the school, took off her jacket and the hoodie and put them in her locker.
But someone had seen her with the hoodie on and reported her to a teacher who reported her to the principal who sent out a notice to the mother that her daughter was having a “level 1 disciplinary violation” placed in her academic record and that the mother needed to acknowledge that she had been notified.
The mother called the school and talked to the principal who told her that there was no wearing of hoodies during school. The mother said “school hadn’t started as the bell had not rung.”
The mother then asked the principal the reason for the ban and was told that hoodies had been associated with some bad actions around the country so the school, along with other public schools, had banned them. The mother asked “why do bad actions apply to my daughter’s warmth? She hadn’t done anything. By that logic, people shouldn’t drive because there are people who drink and drive and cause accidents.”
The principal was frustrated and said, “we want to be able to see kids faces in case there is trouble.”
Back in the day, yoyo’s were a fad that caught on in schools we attended. People did tricks, but nothing like this kid below.
Best comment from the video:
Zach does tricks that even the string ends up confused.
The New York bill is proposed by Assemblyman Matthew Titone (D-Staten Island), who justifies the need for the “backdoor” thusly:
Recent technological advances have the potential to greatly embolden online criminals, providing new methods for abusers to avoid detection. The United States Attorney General, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and others have severely criticized the efforts
of smartphone manufacturers to keep evidence immune from lawful process. Criticism, however, is not enough.
Smartphone companies benefit immeasurably from the laws protecting intellectual property, as well as from extensive federal regulation. There is no reason criminals should also benefit, and they will, as people will be defrauded or threatened, and terrorists will use these encrypted devices to plot their next attack over FaceTime. The safety of the citizenry calls for a legislative solution, and a solution is easily at hand. Enacting this bill would penalize those who would sell smartphones that are beyond the reach of law enforcement. If enacted, this bill would provide a significant deterrent to such sellers, and therefore would discourage the companies from continuing to provide such smartphone software.
The logic there is somewhat stunning. Basically, the Assemblyman is saying that because companies spend time, money and effort to develop something that customers want, the government should have the right to control that intellectual property.
Secondly, people have used codes for thousands of years. No one ever proposed that people had to allow the government the keys to the encryption. Not once. Not ever.
California Assemblyman Jim Cooper has proposed a similar bill in California: