Wednesday, October 31, 2012
NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
OFF THE WIRE
http://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4
The video you will see on this web site is horrifying. The crimes committed against law-abiding gun owners are beyond comprehension. The arrogance of anti-gun politicians and government officials and their hate of freedom will churn your stomach.
The law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution. If ONE local mayor or police chief can decide what the Second Amendment means, it opens the door to tyranny—where ANY mayor or police chief can say what the Second Amendment means.
You've seen this brand of abuse of freedom in the history books—in the pages about days of gun confiscations leading to the terror of Stalin, Mao and Hitler. But you'd never in a million years think it could happen in America.
Well, it can and it did. And it will happen again unless we take action today.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Superintendent P. Eddie Compass unleashed a wave of confiscations with these chilling words:
"No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."
Thousands of firearms were then confiscated from law-abiding gun owners. The police gave no paperwork or receipts for those guns. They just stormed in and seized them.
With your help we're going to make the first time in New Orleans the LAST time in America. Thank you!
Now, one year later, these crimes against gun owners have snowballed into a far greater threat to our freedoms.
Even though NRA secured a court order demanding their immediate and unconditional return, almost every single confiscated firearm remains locked in government trailers.
With the stroke of a pen, Mayor Nagin and Police Superintendent Compass are getting away with "murder"—a savaging of the second, fourth and fourteenth amendments of our Constitution. And they have put America on notice that they're going to keep seizing lawfully owned guns under any pretense.
New Orleans gun owners are showing up at these trailers, with serial numbers of their firearms, expecting Mayor Nagin and his band of anti-gunners to respect the Federal courts.
They are met by stony-eyed bureaucrats who say serial numbers aren't enough—and that gun owners now need PROOF OF PURCHASE of these firearms.
How many of those gun owners do you think had original receipts for those firearms? And even if they did, how many do you think could find those receipts in the wreckage of a hurricane?
Many of these firearms were passed down from father to son, generation to generation. Some are precious heirlooms. Some are collector's pieces won in our wars. And they were all lawfully owned and they must be returned to their owners.
With your help we're going to make the first time in New Orleans the LAST time in America. Thank you!
http://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4
The video you will see on this web site is horrifying. The crimes committed against law-abiding gun owners are beyond comprehension. The arrogance of anti-gun politicians and government officials and their hate of freedom will churn your stomach.
The law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution. If ONE local mayor or police chief can decide what the Second Amendment means, it opens the door to tyranny—where ANY mayor or police chief can say what the Second Amendment means.
You've seen this brand of abuse of freedom in the history books—in the pages about days of gun confiscations leading to the terror of Stalin, Mao and Hitler. But you'd never in a million years think it could happen in America.
Well, it can and it did. And it will happen again unless we take action today.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Superintendent P. Eddie Compass unleashed a wave of confiscations with these chilling words:
"No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."
Thousands of firearms were then confiscated from law-abiding gun owners. The police gave no paperwork or receipts for those guns. They just stormed in and seized them.
With your help we're going to make the first time in New Orleans the LAST time in America. Thank you!
Now, one year later, these crimes against gun owners have snowballed into a far greater threat to our freedoms.
Even though NRA secured a court order demanding their immediate and unconditional return, almost every single confiscated firearm remains locked in government trailers.
With the stroke of a pen, Mayor Nagin and Police Superintendent Compass are getting away with "murder"—a savaging of the second, fourth and fourteenth amendments of our Constitution. And they have put America on notice that they're going to keep seizing lawfully owned guns under any pretense.
New Orleans gun owners are showing up at these trailers, with serial numbers of their firearms, expecting Mayor Nagin and his band of anti-gunners to respect the Federal courts.
They are met by stony-eyed bureaucrats who say serial numbers aren't enough—and that gun owners now need PROOF OF PURCHASE of these firearms.
How many of those gun owners do you think had original receipts for those firearms? And even if they did, how many do you think could find those receipts in the wreckage of a hurricane?
Many of these firearms were passed down from father to son, generation to generation. Some are precious heirlooms. Some are collector's pieces won in our wars. And they were all lawfully owned and they must be returned to their owners.
With your help we're going to make the first time in New Orleans the LAST time in America. Thank you!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
CA - Rapist Detective Takes The Easy Way Out
OFF THE WIRE
By Andrew Khouri
A 26-year-old rape victim stood before a subdued San Bernardino County
courtroom Friday, and read a carefully drafted statement addressed to the former
Westminster police detective who kidnapped and raped her two years earlier.
“I forgive you,” she said, choking up.
But Anthony Orban, 33, was not there. Hours before, at 2:49 a.m., Orban was found unresponsive in his cell at the Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department said. He was declared dead at the scene.
His attorney, James Blatt, said he was informed that Orban hanged himself. The Sheriff’s Department declined to reveal details of Orban’s death, which was under investigation.
The rape victim told the court she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder for two years and lost four months of her life to shock. She criticized Orban for failing to take responsibility for his actions, alluding to his claims that he suffered a blackout allegedly induced by the antidepressant Zoloft.
FOR THE RECORD:
Zoloft rape case: An article in the Oct. 27 LATExtra section about the death of a former Westminster police detective convicted of kidnapping and rape said that California law considers an alcohol-induced blackout voluntary intoxication, “which does meet the criteria for legal insanity.” The sentence should have said that voluntary intoxication does not meet the criteria.
“While I was trying to get past my rage and shame and feelings of worthlessness, you maintained that you weren’t responsible for your actions,” she read.
Orban had testified that he had no recollection of abducting the waitress from the Ontario Mills Mall, then raping her near a Fontana self-storage lot in April 2010.
Zoloft, the Iraq War veteran said, triggered hallucinations and suicidal and homicidal fantasies in the days leading up to the attack.
Experts for both sides agreed during the trial that Orban suffered some form of blackout during the attack. But clinical psychologist Craig Rath, a witness called by the prosecution, testified that it had more to due with alcohol. On the day of the attack, Orban and a friend ordered eight margaritas and two pitchers of beer while barhopping, according to evidence presented at trial.
“He was not insane,” Rath testified during the sanity phase of the trial. “He understood the nature and quality of his acts and could distinguish between right and wrong.”
California law considers alcohol-induced blackout voluntary intoxication, which does meet the criteria for legal insanity.
Jurors convicted Orban of kidnapping, rape and multiple counts of sexual assault. He could have faced a sentence of more than 200 years, but his sentencing was on hold while a judge looked into allegations of juror misconduct.
Superior Court Judge Shahla S. Sabet told the court Friday that she had been prepared declare no jury misconduct took place, reject a motion for a new trial and sentence Orban to 82 years to life in prison, then tack on an additional 95 years.
After court, Blatt said he and his client had no prior knowledge that Sabet was prepared to deny a motion for a new trial. Orban, Blatt said, nonetheless had a feeling it was coming and that he would spend the rest of his life in prison as a convicted sex offender and a former police officer. Blatt said he last spoke to Orban about a month ago.
“All of us knew” suicide “was a possibility,” Blatt told reporters outside court. “But when it happens it is a shock.”
Retired Salvation Army Maj. Bill Nottle said he saw Orban on Thursday afternoon. He said his demeanor was what he had come to understand as normal: “very tired” due to what his actions and trial imposed upon his family.
After the victim spoke, Blatt told her and the court that the Orban family is “truly sorry” for their relative’s actions and that they have been praying for her. Blatt added that Orban had expressed to him his “great remorse and shame for his actions.”
Outside court, Deputy Dist. Atty. Debbie Ploghaus said that Orban took the “easy way out,” and made the day in court about him, when it should have belonged to the victim, who was scheduled to read her statement.
Standing in front of a group of reporters on the second floor of the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse, the rape victim said she felt sorry for Orban’s family after hearing the news, but also that “it felt good” to express her feelings and forgive Orban.
Still, she yearned for more.
“I really wanted to tell him myself,” she said calmly. “That would have been the ultimate closure.”
“I forgive you,” she said, choking up.
But Anthony Orban, 33, was not there. Hours before, at 2:49 a.m., Orban was found unresponsive in his cell at the Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department said. He was declared dead at the scene.
His attorney, James Blatt, said he was informed that Orban hanged himself. The Sheriff’s Department declined to reveal details of Orban’s death, which was under investigation.
The rape victim told the court she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder for two years and lost four months of her life to shock. She criticized Orban for failing to take responsibility for his actions, alluding to his claims that he suffered a blackout allegedly induced by the antidepressant Zoloft.
FOR THE RECORD:
Zoloft rape case: An article in the Oct. 27 LATExtra section about the death of a former Westminster police detective convicted of kidnapping and rape said that California law considers an alcohol-induced blackout voluntary intoxication, “which does meet the criteria for legal insanity.” The sentence should have said that voluntary intoxication does not meet the criteria.
“While I was trying to get past my rage and shame and feelings of worthlessness, you maintained that you weren’t responsible for your actions,” she read.
Orban had testified that he had no recollection of abducting the waitress from the Ontario Mills Mall, then raping her near a Fontana self-storage lot in April 2010.
Zoloft, the Iraq War veteran said, triggered hallucinations and suicidal and homicidal fantasies in the days leading up to the attack.
Experts for both sides agreed during the trial that Orban suffered some form of blackout during the attack. But clinical psychologist Craig Rath, a witness called by the prosecution, testified that it had more to due with alcohol. On the day of the attack, Orban and a friend ordered eight margaritas and two pitchers of beer while barhopping, according to evidence presented at trial.
“He was not insane,” Rath testified during the sanity phase of the trial. “He understood the nature and quality of his acts and could distinguish between right and wrong.”
California law considers alcohol-induced blackout voluntary intoxication, which does meet the criteria for legal insanity.
Jurors convicted Orban of kidnapping, rape and multiple counts of sexual assault. He could have faced a sentence of more than 200 years, but his sentencing was on hold while a judge looked into allegations of juror misconduct.
Superior Court Judge Shahla S. Sabet told the court Friday that she had been prepared declare no jury misconduct took place, reject a motion for a new trial and sentence Orban to 82 years to life in prison, then tack on an additional 95 years.
After court, Blatt said he and his client had no prior knowledge that Sabet was prepared to deny a motion for a new trial. Orban, Blatt said, nonetheless had a feeling it was coming and that he would spend the rest of his life in prison as a convicted sex offender and a former police officer. Blatt said he last spoke to Orban about a month ago.
“All of us knew” suicide “was a possibility,” Blatt told reporters outside court. “But when it happens it is a shock.”
Retired Salvation Army Maj. Bill Nottle said he saw Orban on Thursday afternoon. He said his demeanor was what he had come to understand as normal: “very tired” due to what his actions and trial imposed upon his family.
After the victim spoke, Blatt told her and the court that the Orban family is “truly sorry” for their relative’s actions and that they have been praying for her. Blatt added that Orban had expressed to him his “great remorse and shame for his actions.”
Outside court, Deputy Dist. Atty. Debbie Ploghaus said that Orban took the “easy way out,” and made the day in court about him, when it should have belonged to the victim, who was scheduled to read her statement.
Standing in front of a group of reporters on the second floor of the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse, the rape victim said she felt sorry for Orban’s family after hearing the news, but also that “it felt good” to express her feelings and forgive Orban.
Still, she yearned for more.
“I really wanted to tell him myself,” she said calmly. “That would have been the ultimate closure.”
Seattle Police Now Have Drones Flying
OFF THE WIRE
It is ridiculous to see the out of control Seattle Police Department now
wants to play with flying drones and spend, spend, spend your tax dollars.
There seems to be no limit for police to spend and splurge on creating their own little army and airforce just so they can feel good and important
commanding their fleet.
Nothing is too expensive to acquire. It is about time that citizens demand accountability and transparency in
having a right to inspect and control the ever growing skyhigh police budget.
It is a good thing that some people in Seattle are not putting up with this and demanding answers and some common sense from officials.
Here is the RT article:
Seattle Police Plan to Deploy Spy Drones
26 October, 2012
The rainy skies of Seattle are likely to soon be a whole lot drearier. The FAA has approved the local police department to start using surveillance drones for law enforcement, but protesters are making it clear that they’re willing to put up a fight.
The Seattle Police Department displayed a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on Thursday that they intend on using soon to monitor criminal activity across the city, but opponents of drone use came out in droves to protest the proposed plans.
The SPD is one of the only law enforcement agencies given the go-ahead by the Federal Administration Agency to show officers the ins-and-outs of UAVs, and the department hopes that soon they will be able to save lives and make the city more secure by actually deploying drones across town.
So far the department has already outlined an operations manual that they hope they’ll have a chance to adhere to soon, describing in detail how they hope to install an unmanned aerial system across the city to help photograph crime scenes, conduct search and rescue missions, monitor traffic accidents and even aid with natural disaster responses. Putting an extra set of police eyes — remote-controlled ones, at that — has put a fair share of Seattle residents ill at ease, though.
“We are not going to tolerate this in our city. This is unacceptable,” anti-drone advocate Emma Kaplan told Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh at Thursday’s unveiling.
The Seattle Times says another protester in attendance, identified as General Malaise, said, “We don’t trust you with the weapons you do have,” let alone new ones that are still being developed.
According to the paper, Thursday’s community meeting held to identify the public opinion of the program “was taken over by protesters,” leaving McDonagh with only a small chunk of time to talk about his plans.
The city says they have no intent on using UAVs for any unlawful surveillance purposes, but the bad rap drones have received as of late — made only worse with military versions of the drones overseas executing as many as hundreds of civilians in recent years — has left Seattle residents saying they have good reason to oppose domestic use.
Even if unarmed, drones are a cause of big concern for some. The Seattle Police Department says they have every intent “to make reasonable effort to not invade a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” and that never will any police drones “supersede the issuance of a warrant when needed.”
“UAS operators and observers will ensure and will be held accountable for ensuring that operations of the UAS intrude to a minimal extent upon the citizens of Seattle,” the drafted operations manual reads.
As the technology is still being tested, though, opponents say it’s not clear what the department could be able to get away with.
“The ways that they say they can use the drones is too broad,” ACLU of Washington Deputy Director Jennifer Shaw tells the Seattle Times. “They have a list of different emergencies and then a catchall phrase saying the drones can also be used in other situations if they get permission.”
Even what isn’t outline, she says, could eventually be added.
“So long as it is a policy, it can be changed. An ordinance cannot be changed at will and is the only way we can be sure there is meaningful input,” she said.
Earlier this month, the Sherriff of Alameda County, California asked the US Department of Homeland Security for as much as $100,000 in funding so he could add a drone to his own department’s arsenal. Sherriff Greg Ahern told NBC News that UAVs are “Very valuable to any tactical officer,” because they could aid in identifying everything from how a suspect is dressed to what avenues of escape are possible.
Submitted by Accountability
What are your thoughts on the Seattle Police Department having drones? What about the police department in your town?
There seems to be no limit for police to spend and splurge on creating their own little army and airforce just so they can feel good and important
commanding their fleet.
Nothing is too expensive to acquire. It is about time that citizens demand accountability and transparency in
having a right to inspect and control the ever growing skyhigh police budget.
It is a good thing that some people in Seattle are not putting up with this and demanding answers and some common sense from officials.
Here is the RT article:
Seattle Police Plan to Deploy Spy Drones
26 October, 2012
The rainy skies of Seattle are likely to soon be a whole lot drearier. The FAA has approved the local police department to start using surveillance drones for law enforcement, but protesters are making it clear that they’re willing to put up a fight.
The Seattle Police Department displayed a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on Thursday that they intend on using soon to monitor criminal activity across the city, but opponents of drone use came out in droves to protest the proposed plans.
The SPD is one of the only law enforcement agencies given the go-ahead by the Federal Administration Agency to show officers the ins-and-outs of UAVs, and the department hopes that soon they will be able to save lives and make the city more secure by actually deploying drones across town.
So far the department has already outlined an operations manual that they hope they’ll have a chance to adhere to soon, describing in detail how they hope to install an unmanned aerial system across the city to help photograph crime scenes, conduct search and rescue missions, monitor traffic accidents and even aid with natural disaster responses. Putting an extra set of police eyes — remote-controlled ones, at that — has put a fair share of Seattle residents ill at ease, though.
“We are not going to tolerate this in our city. This is unacceptable,” anti-drone advocate Emma Kaplan told Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh at Thursday’s unveiling.
The Seattle Times says another protester in attendance, identified as General Malaise, said, “We don’t trust you with the weapons you do have,” let alone new ones that are still being developed.
According to the paper, Thursday’s community meeting held to identify the public opinion of the program “was taken over by protesters,” leaving McDonagh with only a small chunk of time to talk about his plans.
The city says they have no intent on using UAVs for any unlawful surveillance purposes, but the bad rap drones have received as of late — made only worse with military versions of the drones overseas executing as many as hundreds of civilians in recent years — has left Seattle residents saying they have good reason to oppose domestic use.
Even if unarmed, drones are a cause of big concern for some. The Seattle Police Department says they have every intent “to make reasonable effort to not invade a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” and that never will any police drones “supersede the issuance of a warrant when needed.”
“UAS operators and observers will ensure and will be held accountable for ensuring that operations of the UAS intrude to a minimal extent upon the citizens of Seattle,” the drafted operations manual reads.
As the technology is still being tested, though, opponents say it’s not clear what the department could be able to get away with.
“The ways that they say they can use the drones is too broad,” ACLU of Washington Deputy Director Jennifer Shaw tells the Seattle Times. “They have a list of different emergencies and then a catchall phrase saying the drones can also be used in other situations if they get permission.”
Even what isn’t outline, she says, could eventually be added.
“So long as it is a policy, it can be changed. An ordinance cannot be changed at will and is the only way we can be sure there is meaningful input,” she said.
Earlier this month, the Sherriff of Alameda County, California asked the US Department of Homeland Security for as much as $100,000 in funding so he could add a drone to his own department’s arsenal. Sherriff Greg Ahern told NBC News that UAVs are “Very valuable to any tactical officer,” because they could aid in identifying everything from how a suspect is dressed to what avenues of escape are possible.
Submitted by Accountability
What are your thoughts on the Seattle Police Department having drones? What about the police department in your town?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
