Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Mitch wrote on Shot In The Dark about Rhode Island’s gun control recommendations.
The caption under the photo in the linked article Mitch linked to, shows the governor addressing a crowd just before signing legislation making it easier for police to remove guns from “violence prone individuals.” This looks like an area ripe for abuse.
Historically, a person convicted of a felony-level act of violence loses the right to a gun. But this law must go further, else there’s no need for a new law. Are we extending the sanction to conviction for a misdemeanor-level act of violence? Pushing? Shoving? Disturbing the Peace?
Do we even need a conviction? How about suspicion of having committed an act of violence? A dozen Democrats claim Justice Kavanaugh has been “credibly accused” of having committing an act of violence against Dr. Ford decades ago. Is that enough to deprive him of his guns?
Do we need a suspicion that a person has actually committed an act of violence? What if he’s only threatened an act of violence (“One of these days, Alice, bang, zoom, straight to the moon!”). What if he hasn’t threatened it, but has considered it (“Somebody ought to belt you in the mouth, but I won’t”)?
What if there’s no evidence that he’s never said or done anything to suggest he might become violent, but a woman in tears says she’s afraid he might become violent and hurt her children. That’s a common claim in custody battles. Once the court has made a finding the man is potentially dangerous, there’s no way he’s ever going to get custody of his kids. Is one party’s self-serving claim enough to deprive a man of his kids AND his guns?
What if someone finds out I’ve snorted derisively at the suggestion cross-dressers should be allowed to use the women’s bathroom – is that “violence” against the trans-gendered? Are my guns at risk?
Well, no, not right away. Not in this version of the statute. It’s like the seat-belt law – in the initial version, there’s no fine. Until next session, when it’s amended as part of the school funding bill so nobody can vote against it without being accused of hating children. Until the prosecutor decides to demand your guns for a parking ticket, the judge appointed by the liberal Democrat governor goes along with it, and the judges on the court of appeals appointed by the liberal Democrat governor declare it was a harmless error which should not be overturned. Next stop, Supreme Court, but how much lawyering can you afford?
Test cases are for other people.
And so will due process be, if the left has its way.
Angie Craig would seem to have been the first person in the world to have discovered an “NRA sharpshooter” who keeps his finger on the trigger while racking a round.
He also points the gun at his hand during the course of the commercial.
If you’re a non-shooter: “Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot” and “don’t point your gun at something you’re not willing to destroy, right now” are two of the inviolable rules of gun safety.
Anyone breaking those rules claiming to be a “sharpshooter” of any kind is a fraud and a liar. And so is any politician putting them out there.
If this guy is a credible voice for shooters, I’m a point guard on the Portland Trailblazers. And Angie Craig is, well, a businesswoman.
In fact, the guy in the ad is a known gun control activist – and if he was ever an NRA member, it was a long, long time ago. Judging by his grip, that was the last time he shot a firearm, too. The ad is playing to what we human rights activists call the “Fudds ” – hunters who figure, wrongly, that gun controllers will never come for their deer rifles and duck guns.
This ad – and Angie Craig – need to be mocked and taunted.
Pass the video around for suitable mocking and taunting.