Archive for February, 2015

Via Daniel J. Kov, dkov@thedailyjournal.com

A felony gun charge against a Port Elizabeth resident arrested by police last year for possessing an unloaded antique weapon has been dismissed by the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office, according to a news release issued Wednesday.

Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae announced in the release that the state will exercise “prosecutorial discretion to dismiss” the second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon charge against Gordon N. Van Gilder.

“Accordingly, the public should be forewarned about the prescriptions against possessing a firearm — even an antique — in a vehicle,” she continued.

Webb-McRae declined to comment further on the dismissal.

Van Gilder’s Eatontown attorney Evan Nappen said he was delighted to hear charges were dropped.

The attorney learned of the dismissal while in an interview with The Daily Journal.

“That is very good,” he said while reading the news release over the phone. “I commend the prosecutor for exercising her dis

cretion accordingly.”

If convicted of the second-degree charge, Van Gilder could have faced a maximum of 10 years behind bars

The charge also carried a minimum 3.5-year sentence that could have seriously jeopardized Van Gilder’s public school pension, his right to vote and his reputation in the community, Nappen said.

“I’m very appreciative that they exercised their discretion here and did the right thing,” Nappen said.

Nappen said his client will follow up on trying to retrieve the centuries-old “Queen Anne” flintlock antique pistol now in custody of the county.

“It’s a valuable collector’s item,” he said.

The dismissal comes after a two-week long public outcry against state and law enforcement officials, with many charging that officials overstepped in their pursuit of charges against the elderly man over an unloaded antique weapon.

Van Gilder, a 72-year-old former educator at Millville Senior High School, was arrested at his Port Elizabeth home by members of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department on Nov. 21, 2014.

The arrest came a day after he and 22-year-old Adam Puttergill were stopped in their Toyota Tacoma by Sheriff’s Department officers in a Millville neighborhood.

The two said they were in the process of returning to their Port Elizabeth home after visiting a Vineland pawn shop, at which Van Gilder purchased the 300-year-old flintlock pistol.

Puttergill was acting as the driver for Van Gilder, who suffers severe arthritis, he said.

He also lives with Van Gilder, who informally adopted him about a decade ago.

Cumberland County Sheriff Robert Austino later said his officers pulled the two over because they were in a suspicious neighborhood known for illegal drug activity.

While talking to the two, officers at the scene discovered empty heroin bags and a broken scale used for measuring drugs, Austino said.

The discovery prompted a full search of the vehicle and officers also found Van Gilder’s 300-year-old flintlock pistol wrapped in cloth inside the glove compartment.

Puttergill was taken into custody on an outstanding Vineland Municipal Court contempt warrant, he told The Daily Journal last week.

He also was charged with possessing two prescription pills that were not in their pharmacy container. The drug charge has since been handled by Puttergill’s attorney in Millville Municipal Court, resulting in a conditional discharge of the charge.

While Van Gilder was let go at the scene, Sheriff’s Officers returned to his home the next day and arrested and booked the 72-year-old on the unlawful weapons charge for his unregistered gun.

The incident quickly went on to attract state and national attention following revelation of the arrest by The Daily Journal last week.

Nappen and other public supporters of Van Gilder accused the Sheriff’s Department of a “smear campaign” for charging the elderly man with what they view as an egregious and overstepping charge.

The incident even spurred at least two New Jersey lawmakers to introduce bills that would provide state judges with sentencing discretion in such future cases involving those charged with unlawful weapons possession.

A bill sponsored by state Sen. Jeff Van Drew and Assemblyman Bob Andrzejczak, whose district includes Millville, would further revise the Graves Act, allowing courts to permit a person convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm admittance to pretrial intervention or supervisory treatment if they had no known association with a criminal street gang and no criminal convictions.

165 114 LINKEDIN 2 COMMENTMORE

From Cato at Liberty

“A country that spoke itself into existence with assertions of the rights to life, liberty, and property can ill afford yet another government agency with the power to seize your property without so much as a criminal charge.”

A quick glance at the Federal Register (Vol. 80, No. 37, p. 9987-88) today reveals that Attorney General Eric Holder, who earned cautious praise last month for a small reform to the federal equitable sharing program, has now delegated authority to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to seize and “administratively forfeit” property involved in suspected drug offenses.  Holder temporarily delegated this authority to the ATF on a trial basis in 2013, and today made the delegation permanent while lauding the ATF for seizing more than $19.3 million from Americans during the trial period.

Historically, when the ATF uncovered contraband subject to forfeiture under drug statutes, it was required to either refer the property to the DEA for administrative forfeiture proceedings or to a U.S. Attorney in order to initiate a judicial forfeiture action.  Under today’s change, the ATF will now be authorized to seize property related to alleged drug offenses and initiate administrative forfeiture proceedings all on its own.

The DOJ claims this rule change doesn’t affect individual rights (and was thus exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act) and that the change is simply an effort to streamline the federal government’s forfeiture process.  Those who now stand more likely to have their property taken without even a criminal charge may beg to differ.

Further, the department claims that forcing the ATF to go through a judicial process in order to seize property requires too much time and money.  Whereas an “uncontested administrative forfeiture can be perfected in 60-90 days for minimal cost […] the costs associated with judicial forfeiture can amount to hundreds or thousands of dollars and the judicial process generally can take anywhere from 6 months to years.”  In other words, affording judicial process to Americans suspected of engaging in criminal activity takes too long and costs too much.

Note that the above quote speaks of an “uncontested” forfeiture.  This refers to a situation in which the property owner fails to engage the byzantine process for recovering their property. Defenders of civil asset forfeiture often claim that such failures to contest amount to admissions of guilt, but there is substantial evidence that many victims of civil asset forfeiture simply lack the time, resources, and legal knowledge to fight the bottomless resources of government to get their property back.  This is especially true when it comes to the War on Drugs, within which the bulk of civil forfeiture targets are poor, lack legal education, and lack access to attorneys and other avenues to vindicate their rights.  There are also troubling examples of the government simply never initiating proceedings against the stolen property and thus never giving the owners a chance to “contest” anything at all.

At a time when Attorney General Holder himself has acknowledged the need for asset forfeiture reform, the authorization to take the property of American citizens should be shrinking, not expanding. A country that spoke itself into existence with assertions of the rights to life, liberty, and property can ill afford yet another government agency with the power to seize your property without so much as a criminal charge.

From : http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/new-bill-gives-the-attorney-general-the-power-to-block-gun-sales-to-suspected-terrorists/

Feinstein’s new bill-(link at end of article) sure looks a lot like this bill did…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr720/text

And this one…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2159/text

More than two dozen Democrats in the House and Senate — and one Republican — want to give the U.S. attorney general the power to block the sale of guns and explosives to known terrorists, and also to anyone who is “appropriately suspected” of being a terrorist.

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act was introduced this week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). They say it makes no sense that people on the terrorist watch list are prohibited from boarding airplanes in the United States, but are still free to buy guns and explosives.

Supporters of a new bill say known or suspected terrorists shouldn’t have access to guns in the United States.

“Federal law already prohibits nine categories of dangerous persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, including the mentally ill and criminals,” said King. “Yet, after almost 14 years, we still allow suspected terrorists the ability to purchase firearms. It’s time for common sense to prevail before it’s too late.”

Feinstein and King noted that according to GAO, people on the terrorist watch list who tried to buy a weapon in 2013 and 2014 were successful about 93 percent of the time.

But it seems unlikely that a GOP-led House and Senate will agree to give the attorney general the power to stop gun sales, especially with President Barack Obama still in office for the next two years.

Under the bill, the attorney general would be able to stop the transfer of a gun or explosive to a “known or suspected” terrorist if it’s possible the person might use the firearm in connection with terrorism. The bill language says the attorney general can stop the transfer if he or she “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

Sales could be blocked to anyone known to be involved in terrorist activities, or anyone who is “appropriately suspected.” That term is used throughout the bill but is never defined, and would likely be a cause for alarm by defenders of the Second Amendment who might worry about giving the attorney general too much discretion in deciding who is “appropriately suspected” of terrorism.

One example of how that authority could be abused was revealed last week, when it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security had produced an intelligence assessment that focuses on terrorist attacks from right-wing groups interested in defending themselves from the federal government. That led to more criticism that the Obama administration is not worried enough about radical Islamic terrorist threats, and is overly worried about right-wing groups.

The legislation would keep current provisions of the law that allow people who are blocked from buying a gun or an explosive to know why he or she was denied, and to challenge that decision at the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit if needed.

The Senate bill is cosponsored by 11 Democrats, and the House bill is cosponsored by 14 Democrats — King is the only Republican on the bill.

Read the bill @ http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=e0e0dab0-d7d7-4dca-83da-7b68f5be2b47

Geheime Staatspolizei Briefer

Posted: February 26, 2015 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized
When it’s not making us take our shoes off, it’s trampling our civil liberties and ‘building’ centers that don’t exist. Enough already.
Are you nervous, America?

If nothing happens before Friday, the mighty Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—every bit as much a WTF legacy of George W. Bush as those surreal White House Christmas videos that featured Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson talking to Barney “the First Dog” like the Son of Sam killer—will lose its funding due to a budget fight between congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama.

And when DHS funding ends, then…well, nothing much, actually, it turns out.

Without funding, about 30,000 “non-essential” DHS employees will be told not to show up for work. The other 210,000 or so workers who are considered “essential” and “exempt” will still have to punch the clock, although most of them won’t get paid until after the budget stalemate is ended. Not optimal, but not the worst outcome, either.

DHS oversees almost two dozen agencies and groups, including the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Patrol, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), immigration processing and enforcement, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the brave folks responsible for an endless series of junk-touching, drug-stealing, and kiddie-porn scandals.

Given all those fearsome responsibilities, you’d figure Barack Obama would be sweating gravy over even a partial shutdown of DHS. Instead, last week he stressed not the “security” part of the department’s functioning, but all the dollars its workers spend in a congressional district near you. After noting that most DHS employees would be working for IOUs during a funding freeze, he said: “These are folks, who if they don’t have a paycheck, are not going to be able to spend that money in your states. It will have a direct impact on your economy.” That’s about as open an admission that federal employment is essentially a form of workfare as you’re likely to hear. Only later in his comments did Obama get around to the idea that these same workers also, you know, keep us safe from the odd underwear bomber and all those undocumented Mexicans we hire to cook our food and clean our houses.

Unsurprisingly, Obama didn’t mention the Secret Service, which is supposed to protect the president but has lately been way too busy opening White House doors for knife-wielding psychos and cheating whores down South America way to focus on its core businesses.

My God, where have our priorities as a nation gone? Come Friday, Pocatello is a sitting duck.

Even Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, couldn’t muster much in the way of if-then fearmongering. Earlier this month, Johnson trotted out a parade of horribles that was about as scary as a late-night rerun of Plan 9 From Outer Space. Without uninterrupted funding, warned the secretary, some of the “government activities vital to homeland security and public safety” that might be affected included “new communications equipment for over 80 public safety agencies in the Los Angeles area to replace aging and incompatible radio systems,” “fifteen mobile command centers for possible catastrophic incidents in the state of Kentucky,” and “bomb squads in the state of Idaho.” My God, where have our priorities as a nation gone? Come Friday, Pocatello is a sitting duck.

The current funding situation is the product of an impasse stemming from Obama’s executive action, issued last November, temporarily expanding the number of illegal immigrants protected from deportation proceedings. The Migration Policy Institute figures about 3.7 million illegals (out of a total of around 11 million) would be protected by the action. That move didn’t sit well with Republicans in Congress, who passed a continuing resolution that pointedly left out full funding for DHS until this year, when they would control majorities in the House and the Senate.

How any of this will play out is anybody’s guess, especially since a federal judge in Texas has at least temporarily blocked Obama’s plan and it’s far from clear that the administration’s legal appeals will prove successful.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has tried his damnedest to force reluctant Democrats to vote yes or no on the president’s immigration action before any sort of DHS funding bill hits the floor. Perhaps mindful of those “fifteen mobile command centers” for Kentucky hanging in the balance, it seems as if McConnell has “thrown in the towel” on the cause even if House Republicans are ready to hang tough.

Such hijinks may well be smart—or dumb—politics, but they distract from a far more important and serious question: Why do we even have a Department of Homeland Security in the first place?

Created in 2002 in the mad crush of panic, paranoia, and patriotic pants-wetting after the 9/11 attacks, DHS has always been a stupid idea. Even at the time, creating a new cabinet-level department responsible for 22 different agencies and services was suspect. Exactly how was adding a new layer of bureaucracy supposed to make us safer (and that’s leaving aside the question of just what the hell “homeland security” actually means)? DHS leaders answer to no fewer than 90 congressional committees and subcommittees that oversee the department’s various functions. Good luck with all that.

But don’t feel sorry for the shmoes running DHS. Over the last decade, the budget for DHS has doubled (to $54 billion in 2014) even as its reputation for general mismanagement, wasteful spending, and civil liberties abuses flourishes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) routinely lists DHS on its “high risk” list of badly run outfits and surveys of federal workers have concluded “that DHS is the worst department to work for in the government,” writes Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. He also notes, a “Washington Post investigation found that many DHS employees say they have ‘a dysfunctional work environment’ with ‘abysmal morale.’” Somewhere, the Postmaster General is pumping his fist.

It only gets worse when you look at the sheer amount of junk DHS spends money on. The Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), for instance, built 21 homes for agents in a remote part of Arizona. The price tag was $680,000 per house in a part of the country where the average home sold for less than $90,000. When the TSA isn’t hiring defrocked, child-molesting priests, Edwards notes that it is shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars on radiation detectors for cargo containers that don’t work and full-body airport scanners without bothering to “perform a cost-benefit analysis…before rolling them out nationwide.”

And while the spooks at the National Security Agency and other intelligence and law-enforcement agencies get most of the ink when it comes to imperiling civil liberties, DHS is more than holding its own. It administers “fusion centers,” which pull together all sorts of legal, semi-legal, and flatly illegal surveillance methods of citizens by state and local police.

A 2012 investigation by the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs found that fusion centers trafficked in “oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely [information, while] sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections.” The material collected was “more often than not unrelated to terrorism.” On the upside, as my Reason colleague Jesse Walker noted, the report found “some of the fusion centers touted by the Department of Homeland Security do not, in fact, exist.”

With all this in mind, it would be better for Congress and the president to focus less on two-bit political wrangling over this or that part of DHS funding and more on heaving the whole department into the dustbin. From a politician’s point of view, that might indeed mean fewer dollars being spent in your state right now, but you’d also be repaid in full with votes of grateful citizens from all over the place.

Setting the state up for massive gun owner civil disobedience along the lines of what has occurred in California and is currently happening in New York and Connecticut, Democrat State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins filed the Firearms Registration Act with the Secretary of State on Friday. The act was then presented for first reading and referred to the Democrat-dominated Assignments Committee.

Is Democrat Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins ready to enforce her demands against gun owners who will not comply?

Collins’ measure “[p]rovides that every person in the State must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses in accordance with the Act,” the official synopsis declares. It also “[p]rovides that a person shall not purchase or possess ammunition within this State without having first obtained a registration certificate identifying a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition, or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm under the Act and that the application is pending.”

In addition, it requires “the Department of State Police must complete a background check of any person who applies for: (1) a registration certificate for a firearm that was lawfully owned or possessed on the effective date of the Act, was brought into the State by a new resident, or was acquired by operation of law upon the death of the former owner; or (2) a renewal of a registration certificate unless, within 12 months of the date the renewal application is submitted, the applicant passed a background check conducted by the Department in connection with the applicant’s acquisition of another firearm.”

Ominously, it also “Provides that it is a Class 2 felony to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to another person without complying with the registration requirement of the Firearms Registration Act.” That can get someone three to seven years, a punishment equivalent to that people who intentionally transmit HIV are sentenced to.

This new batch of proposed infringements is in addition to requirements already imposed by Illinois State Law requiring gun owners to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card to purchase firearms and ammunition. In fact, it’s an in-your-face to gun owners from an avowed gun hater.

Collins is a former CBS-TV in Chicago “news” editor with credentials from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, among other credentials from “progressive” academia. Fittingly, she was a “2001 Legislative Fellow for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.” She was also endorsed by the Brady campaign at the same time it threw its weight behind (former?) “gun communist” Bobby Rush and future felons (and prohibited persons) Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Rod Blagojevich.

When she joined rabidly anti-gun “priest” Mike “Snuffy” Pfleger for a media blood dance, they were strangely silent on the fact that the ones doing the killings in Chicago are exempt from gun registration schemes they would impose on the law-abiding. That’s because in Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that requiring felons to register guns violated Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Collins knows this, of course, as do all gun-grabbers who would require registration, which is a prerequisite for confiscation. That increasing numbers of gun owners know that and have defiantly told those enacting such Intolerable Acts to get bent is not lost on impotent and enraged state monopoly of violence cultists, who vent their fury by demanding others employ that violence to bend the “scofflaws” to their will.

Whether or not Collins’ latest deliberate act of spitting on freedom stands a chance of being enacted remains to be seen. Regardless, a critical mass of gun owners will not let that alter their resolve to hold fast to their rights and to not back up another inch. There’s a new paradigm, with a growing number of determined citizens recognizing what colleague Mike Vanderboegh has identified as two countries sharing the same territory, and where his fundamental question “Do the people serve the government or does the government serve the people?” has yet to be ultimately tested in our time.

Whether or not it is tested depends on how far domestic enemies with “appetites for the liberty and property” of others are willing to press those they would compel obedience from. If they’re not willing to enforce against all, it will show a self-defeating weakness in the Chicago machine, and encourage other gun owners to join in and spread mass defiance even further. And if they are, we’ll all get an unequivocal answer to that question.

http://www.examiner.com/article/illinois-democrat-s-firearms-registration-act-may-test-new-paradigm?CID=examiner_alerts_article

By Michael Snyder

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner?  Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order?  Do you believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that we are living in the “end times” or do you ever visit alternative news websites (such as this one)?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a “potential terrorist” according to official U.S. government documents.

At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly.  The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists.  But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens.

And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay.  So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke.  The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them.  And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with.  In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.

We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history.  You can now be considered a “potential terrorist” just because of your religious or political beliefs.  Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.

Please pray for the United States of America.  We definitely need it.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-72-types-of-americans-that-are.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+DougRossJournal+%28Doug+Ross+@+Journal%29

From-The Burning Platform

Guest Post by John W. Whitehead

The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—are being choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.

Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.

For example, David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found. During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, during which a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.

Close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath. These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. However, because they cannot be used as the basis for arrest, breathalyzer tests are still required. And for those who refuse to submit to a breathalyzer, there are forced blood draws. One such person is Michael Chorosky, who was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government.

Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now the police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone. That’s what is called an end-run around the law, and we’re seeing more and more of these take place under the rubric of “safety.”

The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns. When faced with a request for a DNA sample by police during a mandatory roadblock, most participants understandably fail to appreciate the “voluntary” nature of such a request. Unfortunately, in at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime. The remaining states collect DNA on conviction. All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government. Indeed, the United States has the largest DNA database in the world, CODIS, which is managed by the FBI and is growing at an alarming rate.

Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste.

Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan.

As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.”

As these police practices and data collections become more widespread and routine, there will be no one who is spared from the indignity of DNA sampling, blood draws, and roadside strip and/or rectal or vaginal searches, whether or not they’ve done anything wrong. We’re little more than economic units, branded like cattle, marked for easy identification, and then assured that it’s all for our “benefit,” to weed us out from the “real” criminals, and help the police keep our communities “safe” and secure.

What a bunch of hokum. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, these databases, forced extractions and searches are not for our benefit. They will not keep us safe. What they will do is keep us mapped, trapped, targeted and controlled.

Moreover, what if you don’t want to be forced to trust the government with your most intimate information? What if you don’t trust the government to look out for your best interests in the first place? How do you protect yourself against having your blood forcibly drawn, your DNA extracted, your biometrics scanned and the most intimate details of who you are—your biological footprint—uploaded into a government database?

What recourse do you have when that information, taken against your will, is shared, stolen, sold or compromised, as it inevitably will be in this age of hackers? We know that databases can be compromised. We’ve seen it happen to databases kept by health care companies, motor vehicle agencies, financial institutions, retailers and intelligence agencies such as the NSA. In fact, 2014 was dubbed the Year of the Hack in light of the fact that over a billion personal data records were breached, leaving those unlucky enough to have their data stolen vulnerable to identity theft, credit card fraud and all manner of criminal activities carried out in their names.

Banks now offer services —for a fee—to help you in the event that your credit card information is compromised and stolen. You can also pay for services to protect against identity theft in the likely event that your social security information is compromised and misused. But what happens when your DNA profile is compromised? And how do you defend yourself against charges of criminal wrongdoing in the face of erroneous technological evidence—DNA, biometrics, etc., are not infallible—that place you at the scene of a crime you didn’t commit?

“Identity theft could lead to the opening of new fraudulent credit accounts, creating false identities for criminal enterprises, or a host of other serious crimes,” said Jason Hart, vice president of cloud services, identity and data protection at the digital security company Gemalto. “As data breaches become more personal, we’re starting to see that the universe of risk exposure for the average person is expanding.”

It’s not just yourself you have to worry about, either. It’s also anyone related to you—who can be connected by DNA. These genetic fingerprints, as they’re called, do more than just single out a person. They also show who you’re related to and how. As the Associated Press reports, “DNA samples that can help solve robberies and murders could also, in theory, be used to track down our relatives, scan us for susceptibility to disease, or monitor our movements.”

Capitalizing on this, police in California, Colorado, Virginia and Texas use DNA found at crime scenes to identify and target family members for possible clues to a suspect’s whereabouts. Who will protect your family from being singled out for “special treatment” simply because they’re related to you? As biomedical researcher Yaniv Erlich warns, “If it’s not regulated and the police can do whatever they want … they can use your DNA to infer things about your health, your ancestry, whether your kids are your kids.”

These are just a few of the questions we should be asking before these technologies and programs become too entrenched and irreversible.

While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy on a cellular level. Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking.

Once again, technology has outdistanced both our understanding of it and our ability to adequately manage the consequences of unleashing it on an unsuspecting populace. As for all of those databases being sold to you for your safety and benefit, whether or not they’re actually effective in catching criminals, you can be assured that they will definitely be snatching up innocent citizens, as well.

In the end, what all of this amounts to is a carefully crafted campaign designed to give the government access to and control over what it really wants: you.

Law & Disorder / Civilization & Discontents

FedEx won’t ship the box that makes homemade metal semi-automatic rifles

“I’ll have to smuggle the damn thing out of my own city,” Cody Wilson tells Ars.

Defense Distributed, the group that pioneered 3D printed firearms in 2013, informed its customers on Tuesday that FedEx has refused to ship the company’s latest product, a computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) mill—dubbed the “Ghost Gunner.”“I’ve got an account with another courier, but FedEx is bewildering because the reason I started with them in the first place was their [National Rifle Association] advantage program,” the company’s founder, Cody Wilson, told Ars by text message.

FedEx did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment, but spokesman Scott Fiedler told Wired on Tuesday:

This device is capable of manufacturing firearms, and potentially by private individuals. We are uncertain at this time whether this device is a regulated commodity by local, state or federal governments. As such, to ensure we comply with the applicable law and regulations, FedEx declined to ship this device until we know more about how it will be regulated.

The United States Postal Service, UPS, and DHL did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

However, unfinished lower receivers for AR-15 semi-automatic rifles are routinely shipped nationwide, as are CNC mills.

The AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 military assault rifle, is designed to be modular, meaning it can be assembled from different receivers, barrels, buttstocks, and other components, each with its own characteristics.

Under American federal law, the lower receiver part of a firearm is the crucial part that contains all of the gun’s operating parts, including the trigger group and the magazine port. (In short, the lower is what’s defined as the firearm itself.) The Ghost Gunner is designed to take an unfinished receiver (sometimes dubbed an “80 percent” lower) and finish the job.

As a result, Wilson added, FedEx will almost certainly lose his business.

“The thing is I bet UPS will blackball me as well and I’ll have to smuggle the damn thing out of my own city,” he wrote, adding that to date he has sold “around 1,200” of the devices, and that he “can’t keep up with demand.”

Even at the introductory price of $1,200 (which has since been raised to $1,500), that would mean that Defense Distributed has taken in over $800,000 in revenue in just a few months. (Not all of the sold mills have been fully paid beyond an initial deposit.) The site reports the Ghost Gunner is backordered until Q2 2015.

“I will find another way”

As Ars reported previously, the Ghost Gunner, which first debuted in October 2014, can complete an unfinished lower receiver for an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in around an hour. While designed to mill an AR-15 lower, the CNC could theoretically mill anything of a similar size.Now, the total cost of a semi-finished lower, a parts kit, an upper, a magazine, and the Ghost Gunner ($1,500) is around $2,300—not a significant savings over buying the whole thing lock, stock, and barrel. However, many hobbyists are excited at the opportunity, particularly given the fact that it makes such weapons effectively anonymous and untraceable.

The Ghost Gunner makes home gunsmithing faster, cheaper, and more portable than ever before.

In the Tuesday e-mail to supporters, Wilson elaborated:

Now FedEx has told me that they will NOT ship my product at all, and though they will not give me a reason in writing, they have told Wired.com that it is because my machine allows an individual to make a gun.

I will find another way to ship the machine. I emailed today because I feel you should know that FedEx is uncomfortable with the constitutionally protected right to make a rifle free from government surveillance. They may cater to the firearms industry, but they have a specific antipathy to the non-commercial acquisition of firearms.

When is a gun not a gun?

With a semi-finished lower, a parts kit, an upper, and a magazine, Wilson previously told Ars that anyone can hook up the mill to their computer and have a gun ready to fire in a short period of time.”Our gold standard is: you’re going to finish it in an hour,” he said.

The United States Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 allows anyone to manufacture their own firearm without a license, but manufacturing such weaponry for sale or transfer does require a federal license.

As a way to get around that law, manufacturers can make a product that isn’t technically a gun, but gets as close to the line as possible. The Ghost Gunner CNC mill requires that the buyer provide their own semi-finished lower, which is sometimes dubbed an “80 percent lower.”

“The term 80 percent receiver comes from the seller, that’s not a term that we use,” a spokesman from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) told Ars last year.

“That’s a term from the seller or creator of the device that it’s 80 percent of a finished receiver, therefore it is legal. That’s not a determination we make.”

In short, in the ATF’s view, either something is a firearm or it isn’t—and if it isn’t, it can be sold without restriction.

But in January 2015, the agency released ATF Rule 2015-1 and clarified that a gunsmith or machine shop cannot use its tool to refine an 80 percent to make it a suitable firearm, but the ruling does not affect CNCs owned by individuals.

“Nothing in this ruling affects the ability of individuals to make their own firearms for personal use, as allowed by law,” Ginger Colbrun, an ATF spokeswoman, told Ars by e-mail on Tuesday.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/fedex-wont-ship-the-box-that-makes-homemade-metal-semi-automatic-rifles/

A remarkable report from Spencer Ackerman at The Guardian has revealed in detail the existence of an interrogation facility used by Chicago police to detain and hold people in secret. The report describes how police have used a “nondescript warehouse” to keep detainees out of booking databases, beat prisoners, shackle them for “prolonged periods,” and keep them from legal counsel for up to 24 hours — including even children as young as 15.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because the US has used similar facilities around the world since 9/11 in its prosecution of the “war on terror.” CIA “black sites” around the world have been used to secretly detain, interrogate, and torture alleged enemies of state. Use of these sites for “extraordinary rendition” is one of the darkest aspects of the US war on terror, and has been the target of criticism from a broad spectrum of observers.

America has entered a period of constitutional horror

Unlike the CIA’s black sites, The Guardian reports that the Chicago facility targets people who aren’t suspected of terror-related activities; the site is reportedly shared by anti-gang and anti-drug police units.

In one instance, The Guardian reports, 12 people who were protesting a Nato summit in 2012 were taken to the warehouse. One man, Jacob Church, says he was cuffed to a bench for around 17 hours and interrogated without receiving Miranda rights. “Essentially, I wasn’t allowed to make contact with anybody,” Church told The Guardian. “I had essentially figured, ‘all right, well, they disappeared us and so we’re probably never going to see the light of day again.'” An attorney who eventually gained access to the facility reportedly had to talk to Church through a “floor-to-ceiling chain-link metal cage.” But most attorneys, The Guardian notes, have been completely turned away from the site.

One detainee, John Hubbard, died in the facility, The Guardian reports. At the time, The Chicago Tribune unceremoniously reported the event under the headline “man in custody found unresponsive, dies.”

“That scares the hell out of me.”

The Guardian‘s report lands in the wake of a national conversation that began last year about police militarization in the US. Last August, the world witnessed a shocking display of force against residents of Ferguson, Missouri, who assembled to protest the killing of an unarmed teenager. Police in military battle dress rolled armored vehicles with sonic weapons down suburban streets, pointed sniper rifles at peaceful protesters, assaulted and harassed journalists, and unilaterally heightened tensions for dubious reasons. Police militarization and brutality have, of course, been an issue before Ferguson — just ask the participants of Occupy Wall Street.

As The Guardian’s report demonstrates, it’s not just weapons from the war on terror that are flowing to police departments across the country: it’s tactics and attitudes, too. “I’ve never known of any kind of organized, secret place where they go and just hold somebody before booking for hours and hours and hours,” retired DC homicide detective James Trainum told The Guardian. “That scares the hell out of me that that even exists or might exist.”