Of gilded tongues and pens....
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

01/09/2020, 17:41:59

Author Profile Mail author Edit


Gun rights related measure on Henderson Fiscal Court's agenda

Douglas White, Henderson Gleaner
9-11 minutes

HENDERSON, Ky. - After a handful of Kentucky counties have adopted "Second Amendment sanctuary" measures in response to gun law proposals in Kentucky and elsewhere, Henderson Fiscal Court is preparing to take a different tact on Tuesday.

Henderson County Judge-executive Brad Schneider said after talking with magistrates individually, the panel on Tuesday will consider a resolution "in support of Kentucky and United States Constitutional rights and rejecting an infringement of fundamental rights." (see sidebar for full text of resolution.)

Schneider said he and the magistrates have already taken an oath of office "and in that oath, we vow to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky."

He said their intention with the new resolution is to reaffirm their support for those guiding charters "and never pass any legislation at the local level that would run afoul of those documents. And we're going to urge the General Assembly to remember their similar oaths. And we will object in advance to any state or federal legislation that would be contrary to the rights conferred in the Kentucky and U.S. constitutions."

There is no mention of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the court's proposed resolution. "We don't single out any particular amendment," Schneider said.


That isn't enough for some, who have taken the Republican judge-executive to task on social media threads for not supporting Henderson as an outright "Second Amendment sanctuary."

A recent Facebook response to the judge's reasoning, for example, ended with one writer asking pointedly: "Bradley Schneider do you stand for or against Henderson County becoming 2A Sanctuary? A simple 'for' or 'against' answer is all I'm asking."

Lynn Julian, also writing on Facebook, replied to a Gleaner query with the following: 

"There are many of us who feel this (gun control measures) is an encroachment upon our Rights and our property. So much misinformation is given to the public by politicians ... Our founders felt very strongly about the issue of self protection as should we as well. And no one has the power or should have the power to limit or remove that."

The reasoning

Schneider said the court will take up the issue because "there were requests online hoping that Henderson County would do this and the number of those posts were growing. And a couple of those folks had contacted one of our magistrates (Tim Southard), wanting to know what we are going to do. In order to answer those, I had a conversation with that magistrate and individually with all of them to take the temperature, as it were, and I offered this idea of reaffirming our commitment to all of the Constitution."

He said it's not as simple as some of those advocating "sanctuary" resolutions want to believe.

"There were some things in those resolutions that gave me pause and gave other magistrates pause ... there was a sense that some of those resolutions went too far," Schneider said.

"In many of those examples that I saw, there were bullet points and paragraphs talking about a county vowing not to devote any of its resources to helping enforce any laws having to do with gun control that it considered to be unconstitutional."

The county judge said "you can't pick or choose" what laws to enforce or follow. "That's not how our state or country is run."

"We're a nation of law and order. I'm a law-and-order Republican ... At its core, are you going to declare that a community will pick and choose what laws to enforce?"

The other side of that coin, Schneider said, is "who judges in a county what state or federal proposed laws are unconstitutional? The answer is, there is no one and we shouldn't have anyone doing that. Because we have a system of checks and balances" that includes lawmakers and courts at both the state and federal levels.

"It's not up to counties or groups of people in counties to decide what is or isn't constitutional."

Tim Southard

"I'm a hunter. I own guns, and I'm not in favor of gun control," said Republican, NRA member and first-term magistrate Southard, who represents the southwestern portion of Henderson County. "But we have to do this at the state level, not at the county level."

He also said the court's resolution, which is up for consideration Tuesday, is an important symbol and gesture that he supports, but it's still just that.

"We can pass a resolution. But I don't want to give them a false sense of security. You know, we can pass whatever. But regardless of what we pass, it's what happens in Frankfort. We've taken an oath to enforce the law.

"I've encouraged everyone who's contacted me to make sure they stay in contact with their representatives and their senators and make sure they knew where they stood."

As for other counties (mostly in eastern Kentucky) that have passed "Second Amendment Sanctuary" proclamations, Southard said, "they're taking the easy road. The fiscal court and Brad (Schneider), we've taken some heat over what we've decided to do. But when it's all said and done, what we're doing is just as powerful as what they're doing.

"They're just caving to the pressure, and sometimes we just need to be real and tell them how it really is. And I feel like they're not doing that. I feel like they're misleading their people."

Where did this originate?

Several current events seem to have stirred the recent push for "2nd Amendment sanctuaries."

A so-called Red Flag law is likely to be voted on during the current Kentucky legislative session.

According to a Louisville Courier Journal story from Tuesday, Kentucky Senate Minority Leader Morgan McGarvey, D-Louisville, is working to draft the bill that would allow an individual’s firearms to be taken temporarily, at the least, if the person is deemed dangerous.

"Supporters say it could prevent suicides, domestic violence and mass shootings,"

 said the article. "Critics say it could infringe on Second Amendment rights."

Rep. Jeff Donohue, D-Fairdale, has also pre-filed Bill Request 354, which would ban the possession or transfer of assault weapons and requires current gun owners to register what the bill defines as assault weapons.

State Sen. Robby Mills of Henderson, is among those who have publicly said those types of efforts are unlikely to go anywhere in a "rural dominated, 2nd Amendment protecting Kentucky Legislature."

Meanwhile, in neighboring Virginia, a "super majority" of Democrats was recently elected to govern the state.

The governor and lawmakers there promised to take this opportunity to advance gun control measures, and in response a majority of Virginia counties outside of the Washington, D.C. metro area have pushed back by proclaiming themselves as "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" in much the same way that other large metro areas have announced their boundaries as "sanctuary cities" for undocumented immigrants.

Tuesday's court session

Tuesday's session of Henderson Fiscal Court begins at 9:30 a.m. on the third floor of the county courthouse building beside Central Park.

Judge-executive Schneider said there is no formal public hearing planned about the rights resolution, but he will allow people to address the court about this or other matters as is the usual practice.

But again, he stressed, "I think it's important to be consistent with what the Constitution says about how we determine and solidify our laws. The system of checks and balances ... declaring yourself exempt from those processes, even if it's just symbolic, I think is a bad message to send."

Proposed resolution coming before Henderson Fiscal Court ...


WHEREAS, each member of the Henderson County Fiscal Court has solemnly sworn a public oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; and

WHEREAS, it is the duty and obligation of the Henderson County Fiscal Court to support, uphold and defend the sanctity of the United States and Kentucky constitutions for the protection and welfare of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Henderson County Fiscal Court wishes to express its strong commitment to the rights of citizens of Henderson County enumerated in the United States and Kentucky constitutions; and

WHEREAS, the Henderson County Fiscal Court wishes to reaffirm unwavering support for the United States and Kentucky constitutions by objecting in advance to any federal or state legislation judged to be contrary to the rights conferred therein; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Henderson County Fiscal Court this 14th day of January, 2020 as follows:

1. That the Henderson County Fiscal Court reaffirms its Oath of Office to support the United States and Kentucky constitutions;

2. That the Henderson Fiscal Court shall hereby honor and uphold always the oath each individual member has duly taken to support the United States and Kentucky constitutions, and shall do so by pledging this day never to propose or pass local legislation contrary to or eroding those rights and fundamental principles granted and held within these instruments of freedom;

3. That the Henderson County Fiscal Court hereby acknowledges that the United States Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution are the highest laws of the land.

Barry Hirsh
All of this double-speak folderol dancing around the elephant in the room makes me nauseus. These constitutional officers' oath is to the federal constitution first, the state constitution second, and a distant third is the statutory law.

When a provision in a state constitution or statute runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution it is null and void, and when a statute runs afoul of the state and/or federal constitutions, it likewise is null and void.

A law that sits on the books for 10 years and is finally declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS always WAS unconstitutional, regardless of the whether the SCOTUS acknowledges it or not.

And the U.S. Constitution does NOT enumerate the power of any branch of government as the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, and that includes (conspicuously) the SCOTUS.

Government officials do not take an oath to the Supreme Court, they take an oath to the Constitution.

It's just that simple.

So, let's dispense with all the forked-tongue BS. You officials have the authority to reject unconstitutuional laws, and you can't hide behind the status quo.

SO DO IT, you cowards.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page
More from comments, and it is a DOOZY.
Re: Of gilded tongues and pens.... -- TEEBONE Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

01/09/2020, 18:09:10

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Gene Ralno
Clearly red flag laws have triggered the national movement for 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties. And we’re already witnessing a sea change in the sanctuary movement. I've always understood that these partisan and unconstitutional laws could be defeated by simply denying assistance to federal or state law enforcement.

The obvious reason is federal and state resources alone are woefully inadequate to enforce such things as red flag or magazine violations and could not begin to undertake such efforts without local law enforcement assistance. If deputizing hundreds of thousands to actively resist federal and state efforts is representative of the whole movement, it’s a single issue rebellion which could rapidly expand.

Hundreds of counties already have proclaimed sanctuary status and almost 70 percent of the counties nationwide are projected to declare allegiance to the Constitution and refusal to enforce laws that violate it. That would comprise 472 counties with only one murder per year plus 1,700 counties that have no murders at all. If that materializes, one desirable result would force federal and state enforcement to start with the 63 counties where half the nation’s murders occur.

This movement is understandable because the fact is, red flag laws were created to dilute power licensed to the psychiatric community. These laws transfer power to unqualified persons more obedient to democrats, e.g., local judges and crotchety old aunts. Due process requires reports from two psychiatrists, one from each side, legal representation, arraignment, indictment and trial by jury.

Nobody wants criminals to have firearms but to be taken seriously, if the accused is a danger to himself or others, he should be legally arrested. In other words, take the man but leave the guns. The line of inheritance codified in state laws determines the legal custodian of any property. Politicians on both sides who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws.

Their legacies will carry a Supreme Court scolding and perhaps be the landmark of their careers. Writers, politicians and demonstrators have been hoodwinked by Bloomberg's rhetoric and haven’t read his 2018 data. It reveals gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent.

None of this hysteria is justified. Since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent. It's bizarre that Bloomberg wants to change all that. Since 1999, the statistical probability of a student being killed in school, on any given day by a gun has been one in 614 million. Your odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 300 million. The chances of your child being kidnapped are about one in 300,000. Bloomberg says the nation is in crisis, suffering an epidemic. Folks, there is no crisis, no epidemic.

Shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the '90s. Fact is all but three mass shooters in recent history passed background checks. Two stole their rifles. The other one bought from a guy who assembled it from parts and sold it from home. Murders committed by all types of rifles combined, in 2018, dropped by 23.9 percent. According to the FBI, out of 14,123 homicides in 2018, only 297 (2.1%) were committed by rifles.

During that time, citizens were buying a record number of firearms. In 2018, more than 26 million requests were submitted to the National Instant Background System, a general indicator of firearms purchased. That number was exceeded only by 27.5 million in 2016 when purchasers were mortified that Hillary might be elected. Democrats want US citizens to believe making the U.S. safer for criminals will make it safer for their victims. Ask yourself, do you believe being disarmed makes you safer? What kind of political leader would disarm his people while howling about the peril they face?

These laws have not considered all the possible areas they might harm. For example, what if a crotchety old aunt complained about a blustery nephew who also is a Federal Firearms Licensee and established dealer? What if the nephew is a licensee who operates a pawn shop? What if the nephew stores a neighbor's firearms because his safe is large enough? What about a nephew whose firearms are stored somewhere else? And so on.

The Supreme Court isn't about to jeopardize its own reputation by reducing the ability of private citizens to defend themselves. It's especially important because currently, half the nation's murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Modified by TEEBONE at Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 22:21:14

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Since when do "Comments on Facebook" constitute a legal action to a court?
Re: More from comments, and it is a DOOZY. -- TEEBONE Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: Bartb ®

01/11/2020, 03:14:00

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
When they are overt, direct threats of imminent violence, I would presume.
Re: Since when do "Comments on Facebook" constitute a legal action to a court? -- Bartb Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

01/11/2020, 08:55:41

Author Profile Mail author Edit


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
BartBro - Case in point:
Re: When they are overt, direct threats of imminent violence, I would presume. -- TEEBONE Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

01/11/2020, 14:27:59

Author Profile Mail author Edit

'He Killed My Leader' - Florida Security Guard Arrested For Threatening to Kill President Trump in Retaliation For Soleimani

by Cristina Laila
2-3 minutes

‘He Killed My Leader’ – Florida Security Guard Arrested For Threatening to Kill President Trump in Retaliation For Soleimani

Cristina Laila January 9, 2020

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/AP20009666656491-748x420.jpg 748w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto;" />
Chauncy Devonte Lump

26-year-old Chauncy Devonte Lump was arrested for threatening to kill President Trump in retaliation for the drone strike that killed top Iran commander and terrorist Qassam Soleimani.

Lump, who lives in the Fort Lauderdale area, live-streamed the threatening 7-minute video on Facebook under the name “BlackMan vs. America”

Agents said Lump (Islamic convert?) wore a towel wrapped around his head and played Middle Eastern music while he threatened to kill Trump.

Lump also called Soleimani his “leader” and said that if he is unable to find Trump, he was “going to have to blow up Broward County.”

When confronted by authorities about the threatening video, Lump claimed he was ‘just joking,’ but the agents didn’t buy his bogus story.

Fox News reported:

Agent Lucas White wrote that shortly after Trump announced last week that a U.S. airstrike had killed Qassem Soleimani in Iraq in retaliation for plotting numerous terrorist attacks, Lump, under the name “BlackMan vs. America,” began livestreaming a seven-minute video on Facebook.

During that video, agents say Lump made several threats against the president – who was staying at his Mar-a-Lago club, less than an hour away – while periodically displaying a loaded AK-47 semi-automatic rifle.

Lump had white cream on his face, a towel wrapped like a turban on his head, an apparent shower curtain over his body and Middle Eastern music playing in the background, White wrote of the video that Facebook reported to the authorities on Friday.

Lump made several threats against the president, including: “He killed my leader, please tell me where is Donald Trump?” and “I need to find the Donald because if I don’t find him, I am going to have to blow up Broward County,” White wrote.

It is unclear where Lump worked as a security guard, but according to the affidavit filled out by agents, he had a concealed weapons permit.

Lump is currently in jail on $100,000 bond.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The arrest wasn't because he posted on Facebook, it was because he threatened the President.
Re: BartBro - Case in point: -- TEEBONE Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: Bartb ®

01/17/2020, 03:13:39

Author Profile Mail author Edit
He could have sent a letter to the local newspaper with the same result.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page

Forum     Back