Monday, July 21, 2014

GUNS: Sale/Transfer Records = Registration = Confiscation

What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun confiscation?

Let's stick to fairly recent examples, say the last 25 years. Anywhere in the world. Are there any?

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?

Let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.

Guns: Sale/Transfer Records +

Sunday, July 13, 2014

J. Pawlak's Professional Qualifications


RELEVANT EDUCATION: BS (Psychology), 1964l Twenty-plus graduate credits in Social Work; Six credits in “Police Law” at a Technical College.

RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT: With Wisconsin's Department Of Corrections; Full-time from July 1, 1964 to September 1, 1998; One-year, part-time and as a “Limited Term Employee, after that.

Clients” & Locations: Adults and juveniles; Males and females; In institutions and with “Probation & Parole” services; In urban (Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties), suburban and rural areas.

Types Of Direct Service Duties: As a “Social Worker 1-3” (With functional title of “Probation & Parole Agent” when so assigned) I provided the following services: Preparation of “Pre-Sentence Investigations” (For the courts) and other social history reports; Direct counseling of “clients”; Referrals to appropriate internal and external education, counseling and other services; “Working” with the agents of such programs as to each “client's” needs; Investigation an actions taken upon reports of violations of probation/parole rules; Reports to the Parole Board (And its juvenile program equivalent);Etc..

Supervisory & Staff Duties: For some years I supervised a unit of 6-8 “Probation & Parole Agents”. I was also a “Social Service Specialist-1”, a “gofer”-plus position.
These duties included: The direct supervision, including audits and performance reports, of “Probation & Parole Agents”; More such audits in my staff position; Performing evaluations of contracted agencies; Assisting in the preparation of the (Then) Bureau Of Probation & Parole budget for eventual submission to the Legislature; Conducting “Preliminary Hearings” as to recommendation for the revocation of probation/parole; One instance of conducting a hearing (On a Mafia connected inmate as to an alleged violation of institutional rules); Sitting-in with “Program Review Committees” (As member and observer) and observing Parole Commission hearings;

Special Note On “Victims”: The preparation of “Pre-Sentence Investigations” required many, in-depth, interviews with the victims of crimes (Or, in the case of homicides and young victims of sexual offenders) their families.
Other such contacts were occasionally had as to claims for restitution or as to violations of probation/parole.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

The Bill Of Rights. Religion & Intent

1. The original intent of the "separation clause" was to prevent only the new Federal government from establishing a national sect/religion (As was the Church of England in the UK, the Lutheran Churches in parts of Western Europe, the Catholic Church in other parts of Europe, the Orthodox Churches in the East and, for that matter, various forms of Islam where such ruled). In fact, some of the Several States maintained "official churches" into the 1830s, and that without SCOTUS intervening.
2. President Thomas Jefferson addressed all matters of considering the Constitution as being best considered in the light of the intent of its authors (A).
3.  The current misunderstanding of that clause was written down by a Justice who was an active member of the KKK and who held a life-long hatred of the most orthodox of Christian Churches being the Catholic Church is based on one private letter of President Jefferson and was/is opposed to the intent of the Founders and two-hundred years of honoring the Judeo-Christian base of our exceptional nation.
 4. Such persons are attempting to unconstitutionally suppress orthodox Christianity and Judaism in favor of establishing  the "Religion Of Atheism" (B) as the "national religion" in violation of the First Amendment
A.   "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed." [Please specially note that the term "trying" was used as in "boiling down" something (eg Whale blubber or the Constitution) to obtain what the actors wish (eg Whale oil or perverse decisions by judges "making law from the bench")]
B.  James J. Kaufman VS Gary R. McCaughtey, et. al.; 7th US Court Of Appeals #04-1914;
Decided Aug. 19, 2005

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Federal Study On Guns & Victims

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: “Consistently Lower Injury Rates Among Gun Using Crime Victims”

Mac Slavo
June 27th, 2013

Text Box:

Though statistics prove time and again that disarming a free people leads to more violent crime and the potential for mass government democide, it hasn’t stopped President Barrack Obama and his Congressional entourage from doing everything in their power to make it more difficult for Americans to legally own firearms.
Citing the Sandy Hook mass shooting last year, democrats on the hill have claimed that we must restrict gun ownership and strip the Second Amendment for the safety of our children and the general public.
But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence suggests what many self defense gun proponents have been saying for years. The report, ordered under one of President Obama’s 23 Executive Orders signed in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.”
To the surprise of the authors and those who would no doubt have used the report to further restrict access to personal defense firearms, the study found that gun ownership actually saves lives and those who have a firearm at their disposal improve their chances of survival and reduce their chance of injury in the event they are confronted by a violent criminal:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year……
The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive use of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self protective strategies.

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Supporting Islam = Treason

I have elected to apply the "KISS Principle" to this matter.
1. Treason, under our Constitution, is limited to waging war against the USA (Which includes adhering-to or supporting those who are active in such acts).
2. Islam has been in a state of self-declared war against all non-Muslims for 1400-years.
3. Islam requires all of its adult male members to either be personally involved in such warfare
(Jihad) or to "support it with all their wealth".
4, Much (Most?) of all contributions to "Islamic Charities" ends up, as the Koran commands (Please see #3 above) in the hands of terrorists whose program includes attacks on the USA.
5. No believing Muslim will publicly condemn or deny those parts of the Koran or other Islamic teachings which call for such wars---Including against the non-Muslim citizens of and lawful visitors to the USA.
6. B. H. Obama and his Administration support CAIR and other terrorist, Islamic, organizations AND attack the critics of that criminal ideology.


Wednesday, June 25, 2014


It appears that too many judges (Especially those in SCOTUS) are like editorial writers, they do not seem bound by facts in inflicting their opinions on others.

As to guns and SCOTUS (And, other courts-of-appeal) I cannot but wonder if:
  1. The facts of the views of the Founders as to arms-and-citizens have ever been
    directly addressed to them in cases as pertain to the Second Amendment;
  2. If the meaning, to those patriots, of the term “shall not be infringed” has likewise been put before them in such cases;
  3. The recent historical evidence that those who won our nation's freedom did use “blunderbusses” (ie The short barreled shotguns of that era), making such military weapons as should be available to the common, law abiding, citizen; And,
  4. In more recent years, has some presentation been made of the scientific evidence  that an armed citizenry is both useful in suppressing crime and in reducing injuries or great-bodily-harm to them by criminal attacks?

Monday, June 23, 2014

Questons For Judicial Nominees

With the recent announcement of two  SCOTUS decisions this week directly impacting on The Bill Of Rights I again must strongly demand that the US Senators, holding “confirmation hearings” for nominees (Without regard to Party affiliations) to all  Federal judicial positions ask those persons the following questions.
1. “Do you agree or disagree with President Thomas Jefferson’s position on the interpretation of the Constitution being: 'On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' . In either case, why?”
2. “Do you agree or disagree with the position that the intent of the authors of the First Amendment to the Constitution was to keep only the new national government from establishing a national church as was the case in England and most of the world?”
3. “Are you aware that the draft  of Thomas Jefferson's famous 'Separation Letter' confirmed that intent?"
4. “Are you aware that some of the original States kept, without constitutional challenges, official churches into the 1820s?”
Are you aware that Justice Hugo Black, the author of the currently followed ruling on 'church and state', was a member of the KKK and a particular hater of the oldest of the Christian Churches?”
6. “With regard to the Second Amendment to the
Constitution, what is your view of the meaning of its 'shall not be infringed' clause?”
 7. “Is your view consistent with the meaning as understood by the authors of that provision as illustrated by such quotes as: (By President Jefferson) "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms", "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government
"; (From President Washington) "The very atmosphere of firearms any where and every where restrains evil interference---They deserve a place of honor with all that is good", "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance, they are the peoples' liberty teeth";"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.";   "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."; (From revolutionary Samuel Adams) "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."; (George Mason)“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials”; (Tench Coxe; Member of The Continental Congress and, later, constitutional scholar and author)Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.” ; “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms:. [Emphasis added as to some items above.]
8. "Have there been, in the last 20-years, US Judges who were tyrants and remained 'on the bench'?"
9.  "Article-II, Section-4 of the Constitution provides for the removal of Federal officers. It does not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate to obtain a conviction. With the 2013 changes in the Senate Rules, is it your view that there is/is-not a constitutional bar to conviction upon a simple majority of the Senate?"

The same questions might well be asked of any future nominees for the position of Attorney General, Solicitor General and their assistants/deputies as require Senate confirmation---Without regard to Party!