Big Dogs House

More Abuse of Our Rights by Cops

May 18, 2011 Political

It is bad enough that the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that people have no right to resist police officers who are breaking the law when trying to enter private residences, we now have a story of a gun owner being harassed and charged with a crime for legally carrying a gun. Mark Fiorino has a gun license and was openly carrying his handgun in Philadelphia when a rough and tough police officer confronted him.

The officer treated Fiorino like a child (“yo, junior, what are you doing?”) and ordered him to his knees. When Fiorino told the officer he had a license and that the law allows him to carry the weapon the officer used filthy language to indicate that if Fiorino moved he would be shot.

The officer told a law abiding citizen who was not causing any harm or posing a threat in any way that if he moved he would be shot. Other officers responding to the calls for backup wrestled Fiorino to the ground and cuffed him while throwing F bomb laced comments at him.

The officers were finally made aware that they could not arrest him because he was correct and they let him go.

The problem is that Fiorino recorded the incident on an audio device. Fiorino says he carries the device with him in case he ever has a confrontation that requires him to use his gun. He asserts that this will provide proof that he acted correctly if he ever has to use his gun.

After the incident Fiorino stewed over how he had been treated by the Nazi police officers in Philadelphia and he posted the audio to You Tube. This is where round two of police harassment began. The law in Philly (the city of brotherly love don’t you know) decided that Fiorino needed to be taught a lesson so they charged him with reckless endangerment. The rationale is that Fiorino could have been shot or the officers responding could have been hurt in an accident. This, of course, is all Fiorino’s fault and not the fault of the moron cops who did not know the law and who escalated the incident by treating Fiorino as a criminal and going all Dirty Harry on him.

To the cops in Philly, the average guy on the street is a punk who does not have a right to carry a gun. Only the thug cops can do that and they do not like it when someone horns in on that. They also do not like it when people demonstrate to the world that the cops in Philly are foul mouthed morons who treat the people for whom they work as criminals.

If anyone should be charged with a crime it is the police officers who abused and assaulted Fiorino.

Unfortunately, this will never happen because like in Indiana, the cops should never be confronted when they break the law. No, pursue it in court. Unfortunately, this incident could have resulted in addressing it at a funeral home because the mron cop made it clear he would shoot if Fiorino moved. The Gestapo at its best.

Maybe Fiorino should file a lawsuit for violation of his civil rights. He was assaulted and placed in custody by the police. I bet a couple of million dollars in a lawsuit will provide great relief.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: guns, lies, philadelphia thug cops, police abuse, Second Amendment

White House Looking For More Gun Control

Jan 27, 2011 Political

The Democrats do not like guns. Let me rephrase, liberals do not like guns in the hands of We The People. Some of them have armed guards and some have their own carry permits but they are not too keen on the rest of us having the ability to defend ourselves. Barack Obama is looking to introduce some kind of stricter gun laws but he avoided saying anything at the State of the Union because he did not want to appear as if he was trying to capitalize on the Tuscon shootings.

But that is what he will try to do. He and his gun grabbing friends (many of whom were upset he did not call for it in the SOTU) will try to make laws even more stringent and will try to infringe on our rights even more. They will claim that loopholes need to be closed to prevent people with mental disorders from getting guns.

The loophole that needs to be changed is the loophole in the office of the local sheriff in Tuscon. The gunman had many interactions with the law and gave a number of indications that he was mentally unstable but the local sheriff ignored all of that and allowed this unstable man to run free. A background check was done on him (contrary to claims from the left that background check is required on all regulated firearms) and since there was nothing negative, he was allowed to buy the gun. If the sheriff had taken the man into custody and had him undergo a psych evaluation (and he was diagnosed with a mental disorder) then he would have been in the database and unable to purchase the weapon.

The problem lies not in the laws but in the inept members of the sheriff’s department who did not do their jobs.

Not to mention that if he could not buy the gun legally he would have bought one illegally. A person who is determined to do harm will do harm and little things like the law will not get in the way. It is that simple.

We do not need more gun laws. We have about 20,000 of them now and they do not work because the criminals do not obey the law.

Gun control does not work because criminals will get guns. Gun control ONLY disarms honest, law abiding citizens and makes them prey for the criminal class.

But Obama and his gun grabbers do not care because they do not care about the Constitution, they do not care about our rights, and they want to disarm us so they can enslave us.

Obama has no use for guns but he has quite a large number of heavily armed people who can shoot any threat to him. He does not want you to have the same ability to protect yourself and your family.

So Obama will be looking to push more gun control and he will have lots of support from the gun grabbing left. Fortunately, the right is in charge of the House. But if he succeeds all he will do is make a bunch of law abiding citizens a criminal class because they will not turn over their guns.

I got an email from a friend with an essay entitled “The Gun Is Civilization (March 2007)”. It is widely attributed to Maj L. Caudill USMC but the actual author is Marko Kloos. (Big Dog salute to WT)

It is a well done piece that makes a lot of sense. Obama and his gun grabbing elities should read it.

In fact, most people would benefit from reading it.

Perhaps those in Congress who support our rights should read it into the record…

In any event, we will have a fight on our hands as the Obama freedom wrecking ball continues to smash away.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: gun control, liberals, Obama, Second Amendment, tuscon

What If Government Made You Buy This?

Jan 4, 2011 Political

The Republicans are set to introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare and its takeover of health care in this country. The measure will pass in the House but will not pass in the Senate but Republicans there plan on a roll call vote to get everyone on the record. Considering how voting for Obamacare ended the careers of many long time Democrats, some have to be worried about the vote (which might explain why so many Democrats and their allies in the media are saying how bad taking up repeal would be).

One of the things in the law that people oppose is the individual mandate which requires everyone to buy health care insurance. The Democrats have twisted and abused the Commerce Clause in order to force people to buy a product. This is unconstitutional and against what the Commerce Clause was intended for. I think the law will die in the courts as this mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

Without the money from those required to buy health care, the entire law unravels.

Democrats are lining up to tell us, once again, that it is perfectly legal for the government to force someone to buy something. I wonder though, how they would react if a future Congress and president enacted a law requiring everyone to buy a handgun.

I might have written about this before but I think it is worth mentioning again. Everyone is impacted by crime and people can be the targets of crime at anytime. Additionally, crime impacts commerce in this country as it costs us billions of dollars each year. The Constitution absolutely affirms our individual right to keep and bear arms. What would happen if a future Congress said that people were required to buy a handgun because deterring crime impacts commerce?

Can you imagine how the very Democrats who say it is perfectly legal to require people to buy health care insurance would react?

I know that many of them would be screaming about how it is unconstitutional and that the government does not have the right to force people to buy things, particularly a gun.

The government does not have the power to force anyone to buy anything.

And Democrats would soon realize that if people were required to buy handguns.

**This issue involves the federal government. At least one local jurisdiction has enacted a law requiring a gun to be kept in every house. Also, when we were founded all males between certain ages were required to have a firearm and ammunition in case the need to call the militia to service arose.

Related:
Two page repeal bill
Republicans move to repeal Obamacare
I am not the only one who had this thought

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: commerce clause, guns, health care, obamacare, Second Amendment

Mayor Daley Out Of Touch With The People

Jun 29, 2010 Political

Mayor Daley is not happy with the decision by the Supreme Court that says the Second Amendment applies to the states. He is an anti gun politician and he wants guns banned. He has no concern for the Constitution or for freedom. He only cares about power and how to get rich through Chicago corruption.

The people of Chicago see things a bit differently. They are happy with the decision. Some indicate that they have weapons to protect themselves even though the weapons are illegal (by virtue of the gun ban). People are willing to break the law to ensure their safety.

Daley cares not one bit and he vowed to enact a new law that will make it extremely difficult to own a gun. These tactics usually involve undue barriers that prevent people, particularly the poor, from getting weapons. The very same tactics that liberals used after slavery to terrorize the freemen.

Why should Daley care? He has armed guards to protect him.

At least the people get it. As one person puts it:

Another neighbor, 50-year-old Charlene Figgins, thinks Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is living in a different Chicago than she is and that he doesn’t understand the citizens’ need for protection.

She says it can take 30 minutes for police to respond to calls for help in her neighborhood. She says the mayor doesn’t have that problem. Chicago Tribune

Or as the bumper sticker says, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

9-1-1, government sponsored dial a prayer…

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: armed guards, chicago, daley, gun control, liberty, Second Amendment

Supreme Court Decides What We Already Knew

Jun 29, 2010 Political

The fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right is indisputable except to lefties who have trouble understanding what the words “The People” and “shall not be infringed” mean. These are the same folks who refuse to believe in individual rights even though the Founders clearly stated such in their writings.

The issue changed to one of applicability to the states once the left lost its battle against individual rights. Then the issue became, well sure it applied in DC but that is not a state. It does not apply to the states.

The SCOTUS cleared that all up today with a decision that overturned a lower court ruling and remanded the issue back. The SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states and that is because of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a long time the Fourteenth was not considered to apply to the states but that changed a half century or so ago and decisions have been reached that made the Bill of Rights (with exceptions to some portions) apply to the states. This idea is what allowed abortion to become legal and forced the states to comply. If the rights spelled out in the Constitution did not apply to the states then the Court could not have ruled that abortion was legal because it would be a federal, and only a federal, issue. This ignore the fact that abortion is not a right and is indicated only because it is “settled” law where the right was somehow found.

The Second was never considered though thinking people knew that it was included in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Which, as an aside, means the Arizona cannot violate Due Process since illegals are NOT citizens of the United States. But that is an issue for another time.

Interestingly but not surprising, gun grabbers are vowing to basically ignore the ruling issued today. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has vowed that his city will enact a new law soon that will prevent people from getting guns. This amounts to ignoring the law and is typical for Alinsky progressives. If the courts don’t rule your way then just ignore them. After all, this is what the Obama regime is doing with the drilling moratorium. They have vowed to ignore the court and issue a new moratorium.

How long will they do this before WE THE PEOPLE, decide to ignore the rules they come up with?

As for Daley, he is a first class slug and a hypocrite. While Daley does not believe that the people should be allowed to have guns, his aldermen are allowed to carry them. Richard Daley has about a dozen body guards on his detail and all of them are armed. Why is it that a person who works for the people of Chicago can have armed guards to protect him but will not allow the people to be armed to protect themselves.

No politician is any more important than the lowest in our society because even that person is the employer of the politician. I have little problem with presidents having armed security. Our enemies would love to attack a president and kill him. Other politicians are not that important and their demise would not cause turmoil in this country.

Think about it. If Richard Daley was killed by a would be criminal, would Chicago be in turmoil? No, they would replace him with another corrupt politician and keep on going. But Daley does not have to worry about that because he deems himself more important than the people who pay his salary. He is so against the people for whom he works that he will enact a law to keep people from getting guns because he knows better than our Founders, our Supreme Court and YOU.

Daley has no worries because his armed guards go with him even when he travels out of state. One of Daley’s armed guards caught an escaped criminal near the family vacation spot in Michigan while Hizzoner and the family were there. If you or I had been there we might well have been victims of the criminal.

I have a real problem with people like Daley, politicians who feel they are more important than the average folks and who deserve more protection. And the people are not even asking for taxpayer funded security. All we want is the ability to defend ourselves. This goes for people like Barack Obama who would love to ban guns and put more people in danger because average citizens are much more likely to be victims of crime than most politicians, particularly a president.

The Supreme Court put an end to the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states today and it should be as sacrosanct to liberals as the issue of abortion. If it is settled law then let it be settled and let the people have their guns.

The opinion is a good read and in it Justice Scalia excoriates Justice Stevens as well he should. Stevens (and Breyer) ignore US history and the words of the Founders in their opinion and rely on the actions of other nations as well as their liberal views. Even though the facts are completely spelled out with historical references as to what keeping and bearing arms meant (and still means), these two ignored the facts and presented the progressive view. Justices should provide a legal view, not a political one.

How nice for the dress down of Stevens to be in the record for all time and to be issued on his last day on the Court. As Scalia put it (after destroying Stevens’ arguments):

In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.

While today marks a victory for Americans and for freedom one thing is overshadowed. There are four Justices who voted against the Constitution and against the long history of this matter. They voted with the legacy of the Democrats in the south who made gun control laws that applied to blacks in order to control them.

These progressive liberals perpetuate that desire to enslave the citizenry in this nation. And this time they want to enslave all of us, regardless of color.

One last note. Any politician who is in favor of gun control and/or denies people the right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to own or carry a gun and should NOT receive armed guards.

If you believe that there should be NO guns then there can be none for you. That goes for Obama, Daley and all the other hypocrites who think they are more important than we who employ them.

UPDATE: After the Heller decision Mayor Daley predicted all hell would break loose. That has not happened and gun crime in DC has dropped to pre gun ban levels.

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: blacks, gun control, Obama, scalia, Second Amendment, slavery, stevens, supreme court, thomas