On Christmas night, about five hours after taking photos with his wife and infant son, Corporal Ronil Singh of the Newman, CA Police Department was shot and killed while making a vehicle stop on a suspected drunk driver, who happened to be an illegal immigrant. Unless you live under a rock, none of that is news to you.
It will also come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying even the slimmest sliver of attention over the last few years, but Facebook management is extremely left biased, despite all their claims to the contrary. They are also very anti-law enforcement. I know, shocking…
I am a member of a group of people who all administer Facebook pages that are pro-law enforcement. Some are run by cops, some are former cops, some are spouses of cops and others are just LE supporters. We are all pretty accustomed to the one sided censorship from the fascists who run Facebook, so much so that most of us have second and third FB accounts we use to administrate our pages when we get banned by FB in their efforts to silence us. It just goes with the territory. We are essentially operating behind enemy lines on that platform.
Well, today one of the members of that group, a man that administrates the very large pro-LE page Enough Is Enough, was banned and his post was deleted because it was determined to be “hate speech.” What, you ask, was the horrible crime that he committed?
Well he dared share the following image with the following text accompanying it:
“Purely heartbreaking and sickening.”
The two images that follow are the messages that he received from Fascistbook when they silenced him.
Now, I am sitting here scratching my head trying to find anything hateful about what he said, or what in this image is hateful. Can someone help me out there, anyone?
The facts are the facts. Corporal Ronil Singh was born in Fiji, legally immigrated to the United States, worked his butt off to accomplish his goals, and became a cop where he protected and served the community he lived in. Alternately factual, the piece of shit that murdered Corpral Singh (who I will not name) was an illegal immigrant, with multiple prior arrests for drunk driving, and was a self admitted sureno gang member. He was in California due to the ridiculous “sanctuary state” laws enacted by leftist politicians. He was stopped for drunk driving by Corporal Singh and rather than go to jail yet again, he chose to murder Corporal Singh.
The differences between the two men could not be more stark.
One man’s life had honor and value. The other had neither.
Corporal Singh is not remotely the first cop to be killed by a man here illegally due to liberal policies. Sadly, he won’t be the last either.
But to the fascists at Facebook, facts are hate speech, which is why they continually silence those they politically disagree with.
Screw leftists and their censorship!
UPDATE: As of 10:30 PM last night (12-29-18), Facebook apparently partially pulled their heads out of their collective asses and admitted that the photo that they deemed to be a violation of their policy against hate speech was in fact NOT a violation of that policy. They notified the FB user of such, as you can see in the following screen shot of the message he received.
One would think that was the end of the story, but it is not, because Facebook…
As you can see above, they clearly admitted they were wrong, BUT the deleted post was never reinstated on their page AND the user who posted it still is banned for the remainder of his 30 day ban. Yes, you read that right. Even though Facebook now admits he did nothing wrong, he is still being blocked from using the service.
That is like, “Hey, sorry you were falsely convicted of murder, our bad. But yeah, you are still going to have to serve out that prison sentence though. Thanks for pointing out our error. Have a nice day.”
So I say again, screw leftists and their censorship!
My worst post-election fears are seemingly coming to fruition. California lawmakers, with no opposition, are off an running with their anti-gun agenda and are likely going to turn me into a felon within six months.
For those that do not follow California politics closely, let me explain. During the last election, Democrats managed to take a veto proof super majority in both the state Assembly and Senate, as well as putting Gun Grabbing Gavin Newsom in the Governor’s chair.
December 3rd was the first day back in session for the California state legislature. On that very first day back, three gun control bills were introduced.
AB 18 – Firearms Excise Tax – by Marc Levine (D) “This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that imposes an excise tax on the sales of handguns and semiautomatic rifles and would require the revenue collected from that tax to be used to fund grants through the CalVIP program.”
So the plan here is to tax the law abiding citizens as punishment for acts performed by criminals?
It is still very early in the life of this bill and at this date, they have not even set the proposed tax rate, but rest assured, CA lawmakers would never levy exorbitant taxes on the citizens without their consent. Oh, wait…
AB 61 – Gun Violence Restraining Orders – by Phil Ting (D)
California already has passed these very worrisome “gun violence restraining orders,” but current law apparently is too restrictive for lawmakers. Currently, only family members and law enforcement can file an ex parte (in other words, the accused is not even in court) petition to a court that enables law enforcement to forcibly remove guns from someone who legally owns them.
If you are a gun owner or a cop, or God forbid, a gun owner who is a cop, you are probably aware of the recent shooting in Maryland where cops went to a home to serve a gun violence restraining order and ended up shooting the gun owner. I am not faulting the cops in that situation because other than very generic information, I know nothing about the order or what occurred in that incident, but this is exactly the type of thing I predicted would happen when these laws started getting passed.
With all that in mind, apparently this is not good enough for the anti-gun liberal politicians in California because now that we have that law, it is time to start tweaking it to make it easier for just about anyone to go before a judge and get your guns taken away.
Here is the proposed change that this bill would enact. Bear in mind, currently only a family member or law enforcement can petition the court to have your guns removed.
“This bill would similarly authorize, an employer, a coworker, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order.”
So now your boss, a coworker, or anyone who knows you from college can request that the state take your guns away. Why stop there? Why not open that list up to friends, neighbors, persons who live in the same state, or anyone on the planet who might not want you to have a gun?
AB 12 – Firearms: Gun violence and mental health – by Jacqui Irwin (D) “This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to gun violence and mental health.”
This is a veritable Pandora’s box in the making, because this bill does not say anything specific. This was an “ooh, ooh, let me be the first to get an anti-gun bill on the books even though I have no specific issue to address or any plan on how to address it” bill.
The text of the bill is merely an emotion tugging, anti-gun screed that says nothing more than “guns are bad.”
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:
(a) On November 7, 2018, in the city of Thousand Oaks, a tragic and senseless act of gun violence at the Borderline Bar & Grill resulted in the deaths of 12 Californians, including Sergeant Ronald Lee Helus of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office.
(b) This act of gun violence injured many others who fled the Borderline Bar & Grill and has deeply impacted the surrounding community that is known for its safety and low level of violent crime.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to gun violence and mental health, in an effort to prevent future acts of gun violence in California.
I really have no idea what the purpose of this bill is, other than to get another anti-gun bill on the books as early as possible.
Which brings me back to where I started, life in California just got very scary for law abiding gun owners. Not only are all the same Democrats coming after us, but now there is no one in place to stop them.
Has Facebook figured out yet another way to censor pages with whom they disagree? Conservative leaning pages and pro-LE pages have often found themselves on the receiving end of what appears to be censorship by the Facebook overlords, but in most previous cases, it was pretty obvious. Facebook would artificially limit the reach of your posts, or they would deny you the ability to advertise by saying your content did not meet their criteria or that it violated some rule. Hell, most folks I know who run pro-LE pages, and I know quite a few, all have multiple Facebook accounts so that when Facebook bans one of their accounts, they can use another to run their page.
All of that is stuff we have been dealing with for years, but just recently I began getting comments and messages sent to my page all telling me essentially the same thing, whenever they click on a link to an article I’ve shared, or they click on a long post in order to continue reading it, Facebook shuts down. While some people say they only experience this when trying to visit my page (Deputy Matt & Others Who Serve) others have told me it happens to them on several conservative pages.
So, it appears to me that Facebook has found yet another way to secretly censor conservative and pro-LE pages. I fail to see any explanation that would adequately explain how an accidental glitch would ONLY effect certain pages and not others. Seems awfully intentional to me.
Why in the hell is my cell phone blowing up with text messages?
Shit, this many texts in this short a time, this can’t be good…
FUCK!!!! Gawd dammit, not again!!!! How in the hell is this possible?
Another coworker murdered while doing his job!
Just 18 days ago was the one year anniversary of Bob’s murder, and now, again, here I sit listening to the radio traffic from the scene of the murder of yet another coworker, while wearing a memorial T-shirt commemorating the loss of two other coworkers.
I sit here feeling helpless, useless, hopeless, occupied by my own depressing thoughts and memories, of the losses of so many other coworkers. Some I knew well, others I knew not at all.
Oh, how I long to be at the scene, to be involved in making this thing right in some small way. Because if I was there, busy, doing something, anything, I would not be sitting here, thinking about, remembering all the other times I have felt this indescribable, inexplicable feeling of loss.
This time, I did not even know the man. Despite that, despite not knowing him, he was my brother. He wore the same uniform as me, the same badge, swore the same oath to protect the same city as me.
I have since learned from coworkers who knew Mark Stasyuk that he was well liked, a hard worker, young, early in his career, new to patrol, and very sadly, just recently married. This is ripping my freaking heart out!
Most people who are not in this line of work would assume that not knowing the man would make this easier. They would be wrong. Honestly, it makes very little difference.
Knowing the officer killed is only a small part of the loss we feel. I cannot help but think about his partner and what she is going through right now. Even though they were both shot, she performed CPR on her mortally wounded partner. His poor family, who still does not even know, will soon receive the most devastating news a young wife could ever imagine receiving.
So here I sit, at home, listening to the radio, with a big drink, unsuccessfully trying to take the edge off, thinking about all of the other coworkers I have buried during my career. Cops I know from other agencies, some from other states even, doing what we all do when something like this happens, offering sincere condolences and offers to help in whatever manner they can. But in reality, there is nothing they can do. They can’t turn back time, they can’t bring the officer back, and as the days pass, most of us will process this loss in our own ways and we will be okay.
My biggest worry is his partner. I know her only slightly. She struck me as a very squared away young cop, the type who is going to second guess the holy hell out of herself. Nothing we can say will stop her from doing that, and none of the hypothetical scenarios she will run through in her head will change what happened.
I read the call they responded to. It is a call our agency goes to a dozen times a day. It was a call I have handled by myself, solo, more than once.
But it wasn’t. Because even though all the calls are similar, they are never exactly the same. In this case, the bad guy had a gun and he chose to do bad guy shit, and he shot both of the cops who were sent to deal with his dumb ass.
Even though I read the call, I did not look at any of the suspect information. I only know that the suspect was male, and that he is in custody.
I will however take a wild ass guess about some things we are likely to learn about the suspect. He will have prior arrests, probably lots of them. Many will be for less serious crimes, like trespassing or public intoxication, but then there will be others, crimes that used to be considered serious crimes, crimes that used to be felonies. I suspect we will find weapons charges, possibly even gun charges, and likely there will be assault charges. Probably even some convictions, even recent convictions.
His laundry list of charges (or those I suspect we will learn about), in any other SANE state would have had him currently residing in a government run, full service board and care home (prison). But here in California, where our insane liberal lawmakers and most of the Democrat party say it is mean to punish convicts for their crimes, so we just release them, because that is the “humanitarian” thing to do…
So, you ask, why do I guess we might hear all that about the suspect? Because that is what we always find out. History tells me those things. Hell, out of the last 15 cops shot and killed in California, that is the background of at least half of their murderers.
Add to that, current legislation that is being pushed by liberal politicians (Kevin McCarty and Shirley Weber) who want to make it even more difficult for cops to protect themselves in deadly force situations, because to them, cops are the bad guys.
The same liberal politicians who are responsible for the legislation that lead to Bob’s murder.
So here I sit, seriously considering walking in tomorrow and pulling the plug.
I’ve had it.
Fuck this state!
The people running this state value their elected positions, and the votes that keep them there, more than they do the citizens they represent or the cops who keep them all safe.
I’ve given this state enough of me. I’ve given it my best, for a long time, and I nearly have given it my life, on more than one occasion.
During my career, ten of my coworkers have given their lives for this county.
Of those ten, six were murdered.
And that is JUST my agency, during my career.
Yes, I realize there are many, many folks out there who support us. We see them after every single incident like this. We see their thin blue line flags and stickers. We know we have a lot of support.
But sadly, those who support us are outnumbered by those who vote for the politicians responsible for the legislation that is killing us.
I don’t know if I can continue doing this.
I’m sure I am not alone.
Rest in peace, Mark.
Thank you for your service.
Hopefully, for society’s sake, someone will have the watch from here.
I grew up in Sacramento, I still live in Northern California, and I have quite a few friends who work for the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, so I tend to stay abreast of things happening there. The current election cycle coming up has four candidates vying for the position of Sheriff, and of those four, there are only two real contenders. Bret Daniels, who runs every single time, is a former Sacramento deputy who got fired, whom I have written about in the past, and then there is Donna Cox, another former deputy who was a sergeant at the time she left the department and, at least from what I have heard via the rumor mill, left under somewhat bizarre circumstances. Neither of them have much support at all, and almost none from actual members of the department. That brings us to the two front runners, the current Sheriff, Scott Jones, and the primary contender, Milo Fitch.
As an oath keeping, pro-second amendment cop myself, Scott Jones definitely has done some things that I find very reassuring. One of his earliest campaign promises when he first ran for office was that he would make significant changes to the department’s concealed carry licensing program, and that is a promise he kept. In fact, that is one of the primary reasons that numerous California Democrat politicians have gone on the offensive against Jones and the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department. In fact, certain California lawmakers have singled out Jones and the department when discussing gun laws and concealed carry licensing. Also, Jones is also a strong vocal supporter of stricter immigration enforcement and he has even met with President Trump to discuss the matter which has only further angered the liberal left.
Beyond his pro-2A stance and his immigration policies, even according to the cop hating Sacramento Bee, crimes rates in Sacramento dropped under Sheriff Jones while the rest of the nation saw increases. In fact, a survey of Sacramento residents was conducted and 80% of the respondents were happy with their interactions with the Sheriff’s Department under Jones’ leadership. In fact, 200 jail inmates were surveyed and they also overwhelmingly had positive responses about the department. The only group who raised a stink about the results of that survey was Black Lives Matter, so that should tell you something right there.
The list of people endorsing Scott Jones for Sheriff is a quite impressive list of law enforcement labor organizations, current and former law enforcement professionals, including department heads, and many other groups and individuals.
Being friends with a number of people who work for Scott Jones, I conducted my own, very limited in scope survey. The overwhelming majority of them viewed Jones as a good leader. As is typical with ALL cops, they could all point to one or two things that they did not like, such as a new policy, or something that was said or done, but those same people said they definitely supported Jones, especially when compared to the other options available.
That brings us to Milo Fitch, Jones’ main competition in the race. Fitch, like all the others, previously worked for the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department. He had a long career that culminated with him in the rank of chief deputy, one of the highest ranks in the department, where he served under Sheriff Jones. However, his career ended very abruptly when an investigation was opened into some shady deals where he used his position to push policies that benefited a business owned and operated by a woman he was dating at the time, the very woman whom he has since married. Fitch, rather than ride out the investigation, chose to retire after serving only nine (9) months as a chief deputy. Had he stayed in his position for a mere three (3) months longer, his retirement would have seen nearly a $5000 per year increase. Instead, he up and bailed. What is that old saying, something about running being the international sign of guilt?
Going beyond the very questionable circumstances in which he left the department, considering some of Fitch’s policy ideas is a scary proposition, especially from a law and order point of view. Fitch makes it very clear where his priorities lie: pushing the Democrat party talking points. Milo is pushing for stronger gun control laws, you know, because of how lax current California gun laws are… He was a supporter of propositions 47 and 57, and supports further “criminal justice reform” while suggesting that different communities in Sacramento are treated differently by law enforcement (ie: racial bias, racism). He is also suggesting the current bail system needs reform, which the current Democrat plan is to eliminate bail altogether. Exactly none of those things are proposals that are supported by law enforcement, especially not line level working cops. In fact, that all seem to be nothing but liberal talking points.
In speaking to my friends who work for the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, several of them have told me that Fitch had a split reputation on the department. Some people had good feelings about him, while others referred to him as “Milo Snitch,” although none of the people I spoke to could tell me from what circumstances that nickname originated.
Nicknames aside, the position of Sheriff is not a popularity contest, and whether the cops on that department like the Sheriff or not does not necessarily indicate the type of job they will do as Sheriff, but it most definitely does make a difference when it comes to employee morale. If you want to know what type of influence employee morale plays in how well an agency functions, just look at the Sacramento Police Department over the last couple years. They have been in turmoil, but not because the employees are bad. In fact, it is quite the opposite, they have a large number of well educated, well trained excellent cops who are dedicated to keeping their city safe, but their leadership has been abysmal which has caused a mass exodus from that department leaving them in a large staffing shortage.
Speaking of what is happening to the Sacramento Police Department and their current turmoil, take a look at some of Fitch’s top supporters. It is a laundry list of liberal democrats from the Sacramento City government, including Mayor Darrell Steinberg, six (6) Sacramento City Councilmembers, anti-gun, anti-law enforcement CA Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, the cop hating Sacramento Bee, and a laundry list of other liberal democrats and leftist organizations.
One of those leftist organizations supporting FItch is named “Real Justice PAC” which is run by none other than the cop hater extraordinaire himself, Shaun King. King has a long history of fanning anti-law enforcement sentiment and stirring up angry folks to the point that they have rioted and destroyed their own city (ie: Ferguson). Most recently, in fact only a couple of days ago, King pushed a completely bogus narrative that caused not one, but two Texas Troopers to receive death threats from his followers. When body cam footage of the incident in question was released, King deleted his post and pretended nothing happened. About eight hours later, he published a blog post admitting the original incident did not happen like he had previously said, but he never once offered any sort of apology to the two cops whose lives he endangered. In fact, he did quite the opposite and tried to make himself out as the victim in the whole incident.
Here is Fitch posing with Shaun King at a recent event in Sacramento, hosted by King. But hey, don’t take my word for it, take Fitch’s.
What a great event yesterday, hosted by Shaun King and the Democratic Party of Sacramento County. I couldn’t be more inspired by the hundreds of people who showed up. We’re on the right side of history and together we can win.https://t.co/uefPxHP89qpic.twitter.com/dsoMNjiiOB
So, besides policies, departmental reputations, history of criminal or potentially criminal issues, and who they choose to hang out with, one other important factor to consider is from where these candidates are getting their money. In Jones’ case, the overwhelming majority of the money is coming from Sacramento residents, Sacramento business owners, and the Sacramento Deputy Sheriff’s Association (a good sign when the union supports the existing boss). Fitch on the other hand has received the vast majority of his money from two very liberal Bay Area / Silicon Valley billionaires (Kaitlyn J. Trigger Kreiger and Patty Quillin) and Shaun King’s Real Justice PAC.
Now, I cannot tell you who to vote for, but I can tell you that if I were a resident of Sacramento County, I know who would get my vote. It is clear to me that there is only one candidate who not only has Sacramento’s best interest at heart, but he also has Sacramento’s support, and that is Scott Jones.
Sadly, early this morning another f&*#ing nutjob with a gun went to a posted gun free zone and committed yet another mass shooting. This one took place in Antioch, TN, which is essentially a suburb of Nashville. A naked man with a rifle walked into a Waffle House and began shooting people(Note: As more info comes out, it appears he may have been wearing pants. Early reports had him nude). He managed to shoot a total of eight (8) people before a patron, a big damn hero, managed to wrestle the gun away from him. The naked suspect fled and is actively being hunted by my brothers and sisters in law enforcement as I type this. Four (4) of those innocent, random victims have since died from their wounds.
This tragic, yet potentially preventable incident, happened inside a Waffle House, which according to corporate policy is a posted Gun Free Zone. Also, thanks to Tennessee state law, unlike many other states, gun free zone stickers on private businesses carry the full weight of the law thus anyone who chooses to ignore that sign could be arrested for a gun crime.
Unfortunately for all those people inside that Waffle House, this incident is yet another perfect example of the complete and total failure of “Gun Free Zones.”
A sign in the parking lot, a sticker on the door, cannot, will not ever prevent someone intent on murdering people from entering the location to do so. Seriously, what sort of magical, childlike, fairyland thought process is required of someone to make that seem remotely plausible?
In reality, you know, the realm where we actually live, what those signs do is prevent law abiding people from carrying their guns, thus preventing them from protecting themselves and other people. The incident this morning is the absolute perfectly horrible example of that. You see, to most of us, a naked guy carrying a rifle is a HUGE warning sign. You see that coming towards you and you know something bad is about to happen. Had there been a concealed carrier inside this restaurant, they could have been ready before this nutbag got off a single shot. Potentially, they could have prevented the entire incident as this is one of those cases where one would not even need to hear a gunshot before you knew something bad was happening.
So let’s talk a bit about “Gun Free Zones” and their failures. Seems that every time we have a mass shooting, it is almost always in a gun free zone. According to the statistics, more than 98% of mass shootings in the US since 1950 have all taken place in “gun free zones.” This is a point that conservatives make repeatedly. In fact, President Trump has even talked about this glaring problem.
However, the rabidly anti-gun left argues this blatantly obvious fact with semantics. Take for instance this article from Mother Jones where they claim that mass shooters do not intentionally choose gun free zones as their targets. “There is zero evidence to support it.” The problem with Mark Follman’s entire basis of his article is, who cares why the suspect chose the gun free zone as his target? The fact is they killed people in a “gun free zone.” Who gives a rats ass what the crazy guy’s logic is, the statistically proven fact is that these cowardly mass shooters attack “gun free zones,” where law abiding people are prevented from defending themselves.
That line of thought is like saying back on September 11, 2001, we should have been more concerned about why terrorists attacked the United States rather than being concerned that they actually did. Who cares what their reasons were for attacking were. They brought the fight to our doorsteps. It was time to take it back to them.
I have also read other articles (sadly I am unable to locate any of them now) that examined a number of mass shootings and claimed that they did not occur in gun free zones, because the shooter was firing from a place that was not a gun free zone, while completely ignoring the fact that the victims were in a gun free zone and unable to fight back. One article specifically used the 2015 shooting at the Chattanooga Military Recruitment Center as an example for this argument, saying that, despite the recruitment center being a gun free zone, the fact that the shooter was on the street meant this was not a gun free zone shooting. This is yet another completely semantical argument. If the victims were prevented from carrying a gun due to the location being a gun free zone, does it matter where the shooter was?
Drawing on my cold war era childhood for this one, that would be like saying if Russia launched some ICBM’s toward the US, it was not an act of war because Russia was not on US soil when they did so. Who thinks like that?
Here is the thing, Gun Free Zones do not work. They do not keep anyone safe, and in fact, I would argue, and like it or not, the evidence supports my argument, gun free zones get more people killed. A “Gun Free Zone” sign no more prevents a person intent on killing from bringing in a gun than a speed limit sign prevents people from speeding. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or a fool.
For a guy who claims to support the 2nd amendment, Jim Cooper sure has a funny way of showing it. In fact, the language in AB 2497 tells me that Assemblymember Jim Cooper‘s claim is an outright lie.
Last legislative session (2015-2016) he authored a bill that addressed “ghost guns” requiring anyone who previously built one to apply for a serial number and requires anyone planning to build one to apply for the serial number before completing one. There were other requirements in it as well, but rest assured, the bill did nothing to stop criminals from getting “ghost guns” and only adds all sorts of additional hoops for law abiding gun owners to jump through.
Now, this session, he just gutted and amended a bill, AB 2497, one that originally was related to the Food and Agriculture code, but now specifically penalizes firearms owners and retailers who have “the privilege of selling firearms and ammunition” (direct quite from the language of the bill) in order to fund some school safety programs, programs that would benefit ALL of California, not just law abiding gun owners who are being tasked with funding it.
Sure seems like a long way from supporting the 2nd amendment to me. In fact, it seems much more like punishing people who dare to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.
To say I am disgusted by this is a colossal understatement! For a man who spent a long career in law enforcement, it saddens me to see him do astoundingly stupid shit like this. He damn well knows that the 99% of the people using guns to commit crimes are not buying them at retail stores. This bill does nothing to punish criminals, and absolutely, without a doubt, penalizes millions of law abiding Californians who have done nothing wrong.
(Disclaimer: The hypothetical that follows is absurd and is only used to show how stupid this proposed bill is. Anyone making racist comments based on this hypothetical, no matter their skin color, will be banned. I have zero tolerance for racists.)
Let’s take a moment and use the logic behind AB 2497 and apply it to a completely hypothetical bill. Say we propose a new bill aimed at lowering the overall murder rate, reducing jail and prison crowding, and to pay for damages caused by rioters (“protesters”). Since the vast majority of the participants of all the recent anti-cop riots across the entire country are members of this group, and since the overall jail/prison population consists of 40% of people who are members of this group, and since on average, 52% of all murders annually are committed by members of this same group, a group who only constitutes 13% of the US population, it only makes sense that we should tax that group specifically instead of passing the costs for that onto the whole of society, right? Therefore, I recommend that we levy additional taxes on all black Americans.
Makes sense, right? Of course it doesn’t! That is completely, utterly absurd, yet that is exactly the same logic that is behind AB 2497. FFS, stop writing stupid laws that punish law abiding people for the actions of criminals!
Of course, it still includes such noteworthy, super ultra deadly devices as a “barrel shroud” and the often used in crime “rocket launchers.” As a cop, it is very reassuring that they are finally addressing the huge increase in rocket launcher attacks…. — Deputy Matt (@BangSwitchMatt) March 4, 2018
And thank God they threw in the “threaded barrel” because damn, threaded barrels just make everything so much worse. I mean, those threads on the outside of the muzzle end of a barrel, you just don’t know what that does to the bullets as they come out… super deadly!
I’m glad to see our lawmakers are finally, again, doing the same exact thing that has previously proven to make no statistical difference, you know, for the children. What is that definition of insanity? — Deputy Matt (@BangSwitchMatt) March 4, 2018
Hows about you idiot lawmakers actually worry about doing something that will actually make a difference?
Outlawing guns is not going to make a difference. We know this because it has already been tried and did nothing.
Instead, why not try something thats been proven to work?
Secure our schools. Put armed guards on campus. Arm teachers and other staff. It works in Israel. It works in parts of our country. You know what doesn’t work? Gun bans. Columbine happened in 1999. Right in the middle of the last “assault weapon” ban. — Deputy Matt (@BangSwitchMatt) March 4, 2018
Let me start by saying something that I should not need to say, but thanks to those who seek to ban guns, doing so has become necessary lest I be accused of wanting more kids to die.
I abhor school shootings, mass shootings, and murder in general. I have spent my entire professional life fighting crime and doing everything I can to prevent instances like that from happening, and when they do, I have done my best to ensure that justice was served. I have personally had to inform people of the deaths of loved ones. I know the difficulty involved with these situations, much more so than most people. No one should ever have to deal with the loss of a loved one to murder, and most especially not the loss of a child.
Furthermore, I absolutely want to see these incidents decrease. In fact, not only has the general murder rate dropped over the last several decades, but despite what many think, the rate of these school shootings has been fairly flat over that same time frame, and schools are actually safer than they were 30 years ago. School shootings are in fact not becoming more frequent as many people think. It is just the media coverage of the incidents lasts much longer, thus the time between news stories has lessened giving the appearance of an increase.
Still, all of us, gun rights advocates such as myself and many of the people calling for more gun control, want the same thing. We want our kids to be safe in school, and we want to be safe in our work places. We want murder rates continue to decrease. We ALL want the same thing. Our disagreement is not in the goal, but rather it lies in how to get there.
Having spent more than 20 years in law enforcement, and having spent my entire life around guns, I have a fair amount more expertise in both subjects than many of those calling for legislation, no matter which side of the aisle they are on, so I would like to take a little time and address some of the specific proposals.
If you disagree with me, I strongly encourage you to call me out (in a polite, respectful manner) on the point with which you disagree so we can discuss it. Pointing fingers, accusatory comments and name calling do none of us any good, no matter which side is doing the pointing.
Universal Background Checks– You know, since “90% of Americans” want them. I keep hearing that number but I have no idea where they came up with it. In theory, I am all for universal background checks, but only in theory. In reality, there are problems.
First, what exactly is a “universal background check?” That innocuous term means that every transfer of every gun, whether it is sale by a licensed gun dealer to a customer, a private party sale to another private party, or a grandpa giving his grandson his old hunting rifle, must have a background check completed. This means that no matter what type of transfer it is, the involved parties must have a licensed gun dealer process the transaction. This is the case in California, where I live, right now. If my father (a law abiding American with no criminal history) wants to give me (a law abiding American who is an actively employed cop) a gun, we both have to go to a gun dealer, fill out the Form 4473, and pay a transfer fee. The cheapest fee in my area for completing this transaction that I have found is $75, some of which goes to the state because of the DROS fees that they charge dealers.
As a cop, I am all for anything we can do to make it harder for bad guys (legally prohibited persons, criminals, crazies, etc.) to get guns. I am willing to sacrifice an extra 10-30 minutes of my life to do so. Some would call this an infringement, and it is, but in my personal opinion, it is a very minor one that I am willing to deal with, IF this would work.
The problem is, universal background checks would not work. The ONLY way for “universal background checks” to work, the only way to possibly enforce them (in other words, to catch the people who are intent on selling guns to bad guys) is for the government to know and track every gun that every single person owns, in other words, a national gun registry. Without knowing who owns what, there is no way to say who sold what gun to whom. If you can’t say who sold what gun to whom, you have no way to ensure that all sales go through the “universal background checks.”
As a cop and as a person who is well aware of world history, I am vehemently opposed to any gun registry, let alone a national one. It is for that reason that I am absolutely opposed to the idea of mandatory “universal background checks” as they are being proposed.
I do have a proposal that would allow anyone who wants to ensure that they are not selling a gun to a prohibited person, but one that does not require a gun registry, nor would it even be possible to create a registry from the system. Since the previously proposed “universal background checks,” absent a national gun registry, would only be used by persons intent on obeying the law, my proposal would cover that same crowd but without forcing them to pay the state exorbitant fees nor would they be held hostage by gun dealers who are tired of processing gun transfers for people who aren’t buying anything from them. Why not have a publicly accessible website that a private person who is selling a gun to another private person could access and with a set amount of information (similar to what is on the form 4473) could run the person through the website, without supplying an information about what type of firearm is being sold or how many, and it would merely tell the seller whether or not the buyer can legally purchase a firearm. Am I missing a downside to this?
Raising Long Gun Purchase Age to 21 – To be frank, this is just plain stupid, and unconstitutional. Name me one other constitutionally protected right that you would even just slightly dream of making a legal adult wait three years before they could exercise it.
If an 18 year old is considered a legal adult, if they are old enough to serve in the military, to give their life for their country, if they are old enough to vote and determine who runs this country, then they are old enough to purchase a firearm. In fact, I would argue they are old enough to legally purchase a handgun as well as a rifle. Last I checked, the bill of rights did not include age exclusions.
Oddly enough, the political left has been talking about lowering the voting age to 16, but at the same time, they apparently think those very same people are not responsible enough to own a gun until they are 21? This makes absolutely zero sense, either you are a responsible adult or you aren’t.
“Bump Stock” Bans – Or more precisely, “rate of fire increasing product bans” are totally unjustified. One a$$hole in the history of ever misused a bump fire stock to commit violent crime. Many folks, including me, would argue, and can supply ample evidence, that a decent shooter could have inflicted as much, if not more damage with a bolt action rifle, while firing far fewer rounds, which would have made locating him even more difficult.
Prior to that incident in Las Vegas, no one other than gun people even knew what a bump stock was. As soon as word got out that the suspect had used one, the anti-gun movement had a new boogeyman, and the completely inaccurate information began to flow. People are under the misguided impression that bump stocks turn your gun into a full-auto making it more deadly, which they absolutely do not. In fact, I do not know a single firearms expert who would choose to employ one in a tactical situation over a standard semi-auto rifle otherwise equally equipped. They are nothing more than a gimmick, a novelty item, a range toy.
“(a) Prohibition.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person—
“(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun; or
“(2) to manufacture, possess, or transfer any such part or combination of parts that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
First problem is that a semi-auto weapon does not have a set rate of fire, so how can you possibly determine what constitutes increasing the fire rate? I am a well-trained, very practiced shooter and as such, my “rate of fire” is much faster than, say, my wife’s. That said, comparing me to a fast shooter, someone such as Jerry Miculek, makes me look like a slow novice. The rate of fire of a semi-auto weapon is solely a function of the shooter, not the weapon, and that is even true with weapons that are equipped with bump stocks. Second, the currently proposed legislation is so loosely worded that it can also be interpreted to include things such as a precision trigger, a short reset trigger, a muzzle brake or compensator, a recoil reducing stock, and just about anything that could conceivably be argued as a part that allows the shooter to fire their weapon faster.
I am absolutely opposed to the banning of bump stocks, but I do not speak for everyone. Sadly, many firearms owners are willing to sell them (and the people who own them) out to the anti-gunners, much like some hunters our there are willing to sell out AR-15’s and their owners. Just because you do not like or use a product is not a good reason to sell them out. What goes around, comes around. Next time it might be you, might not. But you can rest assured that eventually it will indeed be you. Besides, as we all acknowledge, banning bump stocks will accomplish absolutely nothing other than placating the anti-gunners, which will just give them more ammo the next time. “Banning bump stocks did nothing so now we must ban ___________.”
“Assault Weapons” Ban – Been there, done that. This is nothing new and has been rehashed multiple times since the national ban that was in place from 1994-2004 expired. That previous ban has been proven to be a failure at reducing the murder rate for a number of reasons, but the most important reason it did nothing is that “assault weapons” are statistically irrelevant when it comes to crime.
The category of “assault weapon” is on that is completely made up by politicians and anti-gunners. The things they chose that define what constitutes an “assault weapon” are nothing more than mostly cosmetic features that neither make a rifle more or less deadly than any other rifle. Fewer people die every year at the barrel of a rifle, which includes all “assault weapons”, than die to a suspect armed with only hands and feet (unarmed suspect).
California has had an “assault weapon” ban since before the 1994 national ban, but just a few days ago they proposed a revision to that ban. They now want to redefine the term “assault weapon” to include ALL semi-auto centerfire rifles that have a “detachable” magazine. I put detachable in quotes because last year, California saw fit to redefine that term to mean a magazine that can be removed without needing to disassemble the receiver. The proposed redefinition would essentially outlaw every single semi-auto centerfire rifle made, including your hunting rifle. Wake up Fudds (Fudd is a derogatory term for hunters who support “assault weapons” bans), your hunting rifle is about to become that thing you support banning.
I absolutely do not support an “assault weapons” ban. Evidence shows they are ineffective at lowering crime rates or murder rates, including school shootings, and as California is proving, it is just used as another incremental step to banning all firearms.
Magazine Capacity Limits – Pick your capacity, this is also nothing new. Magazine capacity bans have been in effect in many states for a very long time, and just like the “assault weapons” bans, they have proven ineffective at lowering murder rates and have failed to prevent mass shootings. In fact, the most deadly school shooting in American history was carried out using artificially limited capacity 10 round magazines.
Let me just say this, even if we were to assume that just because a law was passed limiting the magazine capacity to a set number, and assuming the suspect who plans on murdering people decides to obey that particular law, they will just buy as many magazines as they think they will need as they plan and prepare for their evil act. But you know who won’t have as many bullets as they want? The law abiding, concealed carrier who is now at a disadvantage by having their ammo carrying capability artificially limited. You just handicapped the good guy while doing nothing to stop the bad guy. Well played!
Arming Teachers – I am all for this, so long as the teacher is doing it voluntarily and can pass a standardized training requirement and meet a set qualification procedure. One of the truths about mass shootings is that the suspect keeps shooting until one of two things happen, they run out of bullets or they are engaged by an armed good guy. Why not put armed good guys in the schools?
The biggest negative I can see with this is if we tried to force, or even encourage teachers who were not fully mentally invested in this plan to participate. I’ve seen what happens with cop recruits (and coworkers) who do not fully invest themselves in firearms training. It creates, at the minimum, a not well trained person, and at worst, it creates an unsafe person who should not be handling a gun, let alone attempting to use one to protect kids at a school. The teachers would have to be mentally and physically prepared for this extra responsibility. If they are, then I fully support this.
I would take this one step beyond arming the teachers. This country has thousands upon thousands of military veterans in need of work, men and women who signed on the line to give their life for their country, and you damn well know they would do the same for our kids. The could fill all sorts of roles in the school beyond just being an armed deterrent. Schools employ all sorts of people aside from teachers and these vets could easily take on some of those other jobs. Hell, we could even help them to become teachers themselves if they so choose.
Conclusion – I do not remotely think that these proposals are the only options that exist. In fact, I would argue, as I did, that most of these proposals are a complete waste of time and would accomplish nothing, at least if the real goal is enhanced public safety. However, sadly, these are the proposals that not only receive the most public attention, but all the proposals (except for arming teachers) are the only proposals that are ever pushed by the anti-gun organizations or by most liberal politicians.
If I neglected to mention a proposal that is getting serious attention, please feel free to point that out to me. I freely admit I may have missed one as the proposals often sound like a broken record and I’ve become numb to the noise.
It has been a little more than a week since the horrific shooting in Parkland, FL and as more becomes known about what lead up to that shooting, it is proving itself to be a tragically perfect example of government’s total failure, in fact it’s inability to keep people safe. Getting beyond the mistakes that were made by multiple agencies on many levels, getting beyond the cowardice of one or more responding cops, we need to look at another aspect of this horrible incident. Since so many people from students to school administrators, to the Sheriff of Broward County, all the way up to lawmakers on the federal level are screaming for more gun control, let’s take a close look at the effect that existing gun policies played in this incident.
Since Sheriff Scott Israel has seen fit to very publicly scream for gun control himself, and done so in the most unprofessional manner I can imagine, ripping into people who disagrees with his point of view like an emotional teenager, all on national television, so I’ll start with him. Broward County Sheriff’s Office is a very large Sheriff’s department with, according to their website, more than 5,800 employees (includes sworn and non-sworn). Their annual budget is $730M. That is a very big local department by almost any standard.
Would it surprise you to find out that the Broward County Sheriff’s Office does not issue rifles to their patrol cops? It sure as hell surprised me! What year is this? In this day and age, it is practically criminal to not supply your street cops with a rifle. (Broward deputies can buy their own rifle if they desire, but the department does not issue them.)
I thought the North Hollywood Bank Robbery in 1997 taught us all that cops needed long guns? I would think that all of the recent mass shooting incidents that our news media sees fit to talk about 24/7 for weeks on end would have taught us all that. I would think that all of the changes in training and tactics for law enforcement over the last 20+ years would have taught us all that. But apparently none of that got through to Scott Israel, since he refuses to issue rifles to his street cops.
Now, before anyone jumps up and claims I have no idea what is involved in providing rifles to an entire department, let me assure you I do. I happen to work for a large agency, although not as large as Broward County, and I have worked in an administrative position on my department where my job was providing equipment for all of our patrol deputies. I understand perfectly the difficulties in providing equipment for a large agency. And yes, it is a much different beast than providing tools for a smaller agency. Buying 10 of something is much different than buying 500, or 1,000 of the same thing. I understand perfectly that there is a significant cost in trying to put a rifle in every patrol officer’s hands, EXCEPT THERE IS NOT! The Broward County Sheriff could get all the rifles they want from the Federal 1033 program for FREE! Zero, nada, nothing. Instead the man in charge, the man with whom the buck stops, Sheriff Scott Israel chose not to put rifles in the hands of his deputies, but why?
There is only one reason that can explain why Sheriff Israel would make the conscious decision to not issue rifles to his troops, and that is because Israel allowed his personal anti-gun agenda to cloud his judgement. His personal gun control ideals influenced how he equipped his cops, and those ideals kept the necessary tools out of the hands of the men and women who most desperately needed those tools last week.
Disturbingly, Sheriff Israel is not the only policy maker who allowed his feelings about guns to cloud his judgement. The school administration is also to blame. If you doubt a school administration would allow their personal opinions about firearms to influence their policy making, I have some bad news for you, and a bridge to sell you.
I spoke with a friend who works for one of the local agencies there in Florida and asked about why the school cops did not have rifles. Turns out, the school administrators and school board actively prevented the law enforcement officers who are assigned to the schools from having a rifle on campus. The local agencies approached the schools about placing gun safes in the school cop’s office, in which the cop could secure his rifle from his car, if he even had one, so it would be near him in the event of an emergency. The school district administration flat out refused to allow that. You know, because a cop carrying a rifle into an office and locking it up is super ultra mega scary and we cannot have high school kids seeing a cop carrying a long gun, or something like that.
So what that policy means in the real world is that the school cop responding to an incident on campus is required to assess the situation and determine if a rifle is needed, and make a choice on limited information: go to the scene or to my car and get my rifle. Most times that would mean going to the scene sans long gun, evaluating the situation and if a rifle is needed, returning to your car to get it, rather than just taking it from the office with you initially. How on Earth does that make sense to anyone? If schools had a firefighter located on campus, would they prevent them from having a fire extinguisher in their office?
Lastly, the delusional myth that calling anything a “gun free zone” somehow protects anyone is beyond me. How does anyone in their right mind think that putting a sign up is going to stop someone from doing something that they want to do, especially if what that person wants to do is already illegal? Do speed limit signs prevent speeding, anywhere, ever? Rather than declaring a location a “gun free zone,” why not instead enact laws that simultaneously, harshly punish people who illegally bring a gun onto a school campus, but that also allow people who have gone to all the trouble to obtain a concealed carry permit to have their firearm, including teachers and other school personnel if they so desire. Nationally, concealed carry license holders are the single most law abiding group of people there is, even more law abiding than law enforcement. Why would you intentionally prevent potential help from having the single most needed tool in a crisis situation where every second counts, and every second means another life lost? I cannot fathom the amount of delusion and denial that is necessary to not grasp this simple fact.
It is clear to me as a career cop that two factors combined together which allowed these horrible policies to be created. The first factor is a irrational dislike of firearms and the second is denial. The only way to explain a Sheriff refusing to give his patrol cops free rifles is his extreme anti-gun agenda, which he has espoused nearly non-stop since this incident. The only way to explain a school not wanting officers to have long guns available on campus is their dislike and/or fear of firearms. The other factor, denial, is also clear to anyone with law enforcement experience. These administrators, both the Sheriff and the school, were in denial that an incident like this tragic shooting could ever happen. It is clear from the policies they put in place. If they had faced the sad reality that something like this could happen, they would have issued the proper tools and would have established policies that helped first responders, not hindered them.
Sadly, this incident is chock full of screw ups, balls dropped, bad decision making, bad policy, and sadly, one or more cowardly cops who failed to do what we took an oath to do. There is much to be learned from this shooting. Two of the biggest takeaways in my opinion are 1) policies derived from anti-gun opinions do nothing to keep anyone safe, and 2) if you are counting on government to keep you safe, as much as the vast majority of cops really do try, you are betting on the wrong horse.