Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Sunday, 21 April 2019

Once Upon a Time, I Proposed a Skit . . . .

Filed under: Dark Side, entertainment, Humor, Media, Politics, Principles, Viewing — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:54 AM (08:54)

Back in the 1990s, a few of us Old Drunken Old Irrvelivent types were talking about potential skits for our public-access television presence (The Weekly Sedition, New Mexico’s Consumer Advocate, etc.).

One of the ideas that I came up with was to have two people sitting side by side at a table or desk, wearing black BDU-type shirts, black balaclava-type face masks, and black K-pot-type helmets. Something like this (minus the embroidery, web gear, weapons and chest plate) —

On the front of one of the helmets, there would be painted a rather conspicuous donkey. On the other, an elephant.

While sitting there on camera, our two TV stars would crack jokes and reminisce about how much fun it was to go after church groups, people wanting to be left alone, gun show promoters, and other “undesirables,” using lethal force, explosives, armored vehicles, and airstrikes, etc.

Such a skit might be considered “tasteless” (especially by the “You can’t say that!” crowd), but seriously, folks? How can signing off on such behavior, even implicitly, in the most roundabout fashion, be considered “tasteful” ?


NOTES

  1. Published in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,017: Sunday, 21 April 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Gab / Liberty.Me / Minds / Twitter / VK

Advertisements

Tuesday, 16 April 2019

One Way to Take Care of Non-Responsive Public Officials

Filed under: Humor, Principles — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:35 AM (00:35)


Sunday, 14 April 2019

Random Shots for Sunday, 14 April 2019

Filed under: Random Shots — mikewb1971 @ 11:59 PM (23:59)

Today in history

LISTENING / READING / WATCHING

  1. ABQReport from Dennis Domrzalski — APD’s Chief’s OT is policing for the rich; the rest of us be damned by Dan Klein
  2. Society of RockMichael Anthony Confirms The Inevitable After Months Of Speculation Surrounding Van Halen
  3. The Daily CallerHere Are The Eight Republicans Who Voted For House Democrats’ Gun Control Bill by William Davis
  4. CommentaryPete Buttigieg: Tortured Libertarian by Noah Rothman
  5. OverkillThe Grinding Wheel
  6. Military Arms Channel (MAC) [YouTube] — FS2000 – Bullpups Part II
  7. Taofledermaus [YouTube] — HPC’s Amazing TOILET PAPER MISSILES – Over 1000 MPH
  8. Thoisoi2 – Chemical Experiments! [YouTube] — Oxygen – The MOST ABUNDANT Element On EARTH!

Tuesday, 9 April 2019

Second Amendment Sanctuary County Status for Bernalillo County

Filed under: Correspondence, Politics, Principles, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:25 PM (18:25)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Debbie O’Malley <District1@bernco.gov>, Steven Michael Quezada <District2@bernco.gov>, Maggie Hart Stebbins <District3@bernco.gov>, Lonnie C. Talbert <District4@bernco.gov>, Charlene Pyskoty <District5@bernco.gov>
BCC: [7 x others]
Date: Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 6:11 PM
Subject: Second Amendment Sanctuary County Status for Bernalillo County

Dear County Commissioners,

I support the Second Amendment, but . . . .

But even if it were repealed tomorrow, by unanimous vote of the full U.S. House, the full U.S. Senate, and all fifty State Legislatures, the pre-existing, civil, human right to own and carry weapons for defense of self, family and community doesn’t go away one bit.

To those proposing restrictions upon the private-sector civilian ownership and carrying of weapons:

Look, no one is trying to take your government away. We just want to have an honest, open, adult conversation about common-sense restrictions on government. If we can save just one child from government violence, it will worth it.

I am writing in support of Bernalillo County joining the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that is here in New Mexico, and in other states around the nation.

As for the sheriffs and county commissions that have already signed on, they aren’t the lawbreakers as they have been smeared as in the media.

Rather, the public officials who use their offices to promote and promulgate victim disarmament legislation such as SB 8[1] are the true lawbreakers.

Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico[2] reads as follows:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Maybe I missed the amendment to the State Constitution that repealed Article II, Section 6? I don’t remember seeing such an amendment on the ballot during the 2018 election, much less passing with any majority of votes cast. Nor do I remember seeing such a repeal on the ballot in any previous election.

Since Article II, Section 6 is still on the books as a valid part of the State Constitution, I encourage and implore the County Commission to “get right” with the law as it’s currently written, as opposed to doing end runs around the Constitutional bits with which they personally disagree.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

Sincerely,

Mike Blessing,
Resident and Taxpayer of Bernalillo County since 1994

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should — you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer — what’s the question?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. New Mexico Legislature page: “2019 Regular Session – SB 8”
  2. New Mexico Compilation Commission — Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico

NOTES

  1. Published in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,016: Sunday, 7 April 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress

Sunday, 7 April 2019

Balderas and Lujan-Grisham, Not Sheriffs, the True Lawbreakers

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:30 PM (18:30)

Recently, Attorney General Hector Balderas sent a letter to 26 county sheriffs stating that, “As law enforcement officials . . . we do not have the freedom to pick and choose which state laws we enforce,” in reference to the “universal background checks” mandated by the newly-passed Senate Bill 8.[1],[2]

So why is that Balderas is himself choosing to ignore existing State law, specifically Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico:[3]

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Maybe I missed the amendment to the State Constitution that repealed Article II, Section 6? I don’t remember seeing such an amendment on the ballot during the 2018 election.

Never mind that actual criminals and terrorists won’t bother at all to go through a background check through a federally-licensed dealer, as mandated by SB 8. They’ll steal them, or get someone else to buy them, or whatever. You see, they have discovered this massive loophole in SB 8 (and other such laws) called “breaking the law.”

Balderas also said that “the taxpayers of your city or county assume the financial risk of your decision to impose your personal views over the law.”

How much liability will Balderas, Lujan-Grisham, or the legislators who pushed SB 8 assume should someone denied a firearm under color of SB 8 be injured or killed after the fact, say by a deranged ex-spouse?

Most likely they will assume zero liability (don’t bother trying to sue them on this — they will invoke “sovereign immunity”[4]) and skate away from any responsibility. After all, it wasn’t one of the Political Class that was killed or maimed, so who cares, right?


As published in the Albuquerque Journal

Gun law ignores Constitution

RECENTLY, ATTORNEY General Hector Balderas sent a letter to 26 county sheriffs stating that, “As law enforcement officials . . . we do not have the freedom to pick and choose which state laws we enforce,” in reference to the “universal background checks” mandated by the newly-passed Senate Bill 8.

So why is that Balderas is himself choosing to ignore existing State law, specifically Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

I don’t remember seeing amendment to the State Constitution that repealed Article II, Section 6 such an amendment on the ballot during the 2018 election. Maybe I missed it?

Never mind that actual criminals and terrorists won’t bother at all to go through a background check through a federally-licensed dealer, as mandated by SB 8. They’ll steal them, or get someone else to buy them, or whatever. You see, they have discovered this massive loophole in SB 8 (and other such laws) called “breaking the law.”

Balderas also said that “the taxpayers of your city or county assume the financial risk of your decision to impose your personal views over the law.”

How much liability will Balderas, (Gov. Michelle) Lujan-Grisham, or the legislators who pushed SB 8 assume should someone denied a firearm under color of SB 8 be injured or killed after the fact, say by a deranged ex-spouse?

Most likely they will assume zero liability — If you sue them on this as they deserve, they’ll invoke “sovereign immunity” — and avoid any responsibility. After all, it wasn’t one of the political class that was killed or maimed, so who cares, right?

MIKE BLESSING
Albuquerque


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Albuquerque Journal — Friday, 5 April 2019: AG directs sheriffs, chiefs to enforce gun law by Dan McKay and Dan Boyd, Journal Capitol Bureau
  2. New Mexico Legislature page: “2019 Regular Session – SB 8” [“SB” = “Senate Bill” MWB]
  3. New Mexico Compilation Commission — Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico
  4. The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 23, 1 March 1997 – Down By Law by Victor Milán

NOTES

  1. Published in
    1. The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,015 – 7 April 2019
    2. Albuquerque JournalSaturday, 13 April 2019, p.A13, Opinion – Letters to the Editor: “Gun law ignores Constitution”
  2. Reposted –
    1. The Weekly SeditionWordPress

Re: Balderas and Lujan-Grisham, Not Sheriffs, the True Lawbreakers

Filed under: Correspondence, Media, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 9:29 AM (09:29)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 7:38 AM, nobody wrote:

Mike,

It’s worse than that, neither MLG nor Balderas have a bond so they are NOT governor and attorney general, respectively.

Dana Majewski

Dana —

Thank you for your input.

I fully support ejecting both Baldy and Loogie-Gruesome from their present offices, and barring them from being seated in any other office.

Still, I recommend reading Down By Law, by the late, great Victor Milán before filing any litigation.

https://ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970301-07.html


Thursday, 4 April 2019

Quote of the Day for Thursday, 4 April 2019

Filed under: Life, Quote of the Day — mikewb1971 @ 7:28 PM (19:28)

“It is better the be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.”
Christopher Dangerfield


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Gab / Liberty.Me / Minds / VK

Sunday, 3 February 2019

Stupor Bowl Sundae #53

Filed under: entertainment, Events, Humor, Life — Tags: , — mikewb1971 @ 7:39 PM (19:39)

H/T Veterans Party of New Mexico

I missed the StuporBowl Sundae Feetball Shoot, hosted by Sam Damewood, but we can always set up something similar for next year.

H/T Ish Calleros


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Friendica / Gab / Minds / Oneway / Twitter / VK
    2. Darth Mike Facebook page
    3. KCUF Media Facebook page

Saturday, 2 February 2019

Random Shots for Saturday, 2 February 2019

Filed under: Random Shots — mikewb1971 @ 11:59 PM (23:59)

Today in history

COMMENTS I’VE POSTED

  1. Posted to Facebook here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

    FINALLY, someone at the LNC *ACTUALLY* *GETS* *IT*.

    Caryn Ann Harlos
    Friday, February 1, 2019 at 4:16 AM

    Buried in a sub-thread:

    And I’ve warmed up to Weld. He’s a nice guy. A nice guy who assured me he understood what we believe and ten minutes later got up and said college should be “free.”

    That’s a betrayal and either a blatant F you at what we believe or an unbelievable lack of awareness of how utterly anti-Libertarian that position is.

    I won’t ignore that like we ignored Gary’s bake the cake bullshit.

    I submit as an LNC we were absolutely derelict in what we allowed to go unchallenged. I didn’t and would not support disqualification. But what we did was cowardly capitulation and I regret it.

    I thought it was the right thing at the time. It wasn’t. I apologize to anyone I let down by not insisting we clarify that shit.

    I’ve learned a lot since then. Liberty does not belong to the fearful, the kowtowing, or the cowardly.

    We shut our mouths and shat on the SoP because we – like each and every time – thought this was different. We’d finally get in debates. We’d get that 5% so we could get the statist blood money and further disgrace our principles.

    How’d that go? Won’t get fooled again. Not this girl. I’ll abide by the delegate’s decisions but my higher duty is to the SoP and I will keep faith to that duty by opposing such candidates pre nomination and not keeping my mouth shut if antiLiberty nonsense is spread on the back of OUR ballot access.

    You can take that straight to the bank.

    We’ve lost our way and I will not be complicit.

LISTENING / READING / WATCHING

  1. nmpolitics.net — Finding clarity about America in the desert by Heath Haussamen
  2. Armageddon’s Song, Volume 3: Fight Through by Andy Farman
  3. Ozzy OsbournePrince of Darkness
  4. The Punisher
  5. Titan Comics — Warhammer 40,000: Deathwatch

Thursday, 24 January 2019

Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:47 PM (18:47)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson (D-24), Representative Andrea Romero (D-46), Representative Candy Spence Ezzell (R-58), Representative Angelica Rubio (D-35), Representative Gregg Schmedes (R-22) [1]
CC: Representative Antonio Maestas (D-16) [2], Representative Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-13), Representative Debra M. Sariñana (D-21), Representative Miguel P. Garcia (D-14), Representative Joy Garratt (D-29), Representative Daymon Ely (D-23), Representative Deborah A. Armstrong (D-17), Representative Linda M. Trujillo (D-48)
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2019, 12:00 PM MST
Subject: Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Honored Members of the Committee:

First, I am writing to say that some of the legislation under consideration by the committee is not properly labelled as “gun control.” Gun control constitutes the safe, proficient, and proper use of a firearm — the four safety rules, stance, grip, sight alignment and picture, breathing, trigger operation, target selection, etc.

Rather, the legislation in question (HB 8, HB 40, HB 83, HB 87, HB 130) is more properly called “victim disarmament,” in that the people most likely to be affected by it are the people who have the most reason to own and carry firearms for self-defense — the little old lady or the paraplegic who lives alone in a bad neighborhood, the five-foot-nothing 100-pound woman being stalked by a six-foot 200-pound deranged ex-boyfriend.

The bad people (the criminals, terrorists, and violence-inclined mental defectives) whom the proponents of this legislation say will be disarmed by it most likely will not be affected in the least. If they want access to a firearm, they will have it, by hook or by crook.

You see, the bad guys have found this massive loophole in the existing restrictions on private civilians’ rights to own and carry weapons called “breaking the law.”

There are already 20,000 to 25,000 existing restrictions upon the pre-existing individual, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons, which are supposed to be guaranteed against State infringement by the Second Amendment and Article 2, Section 6 of the State Constitution. None of these anti-liberty statutes has stopped a bad guy from obtaining a firearm when they want it.

Laws already exist that prohibit felons, domestic abusers, foreign terrorists, incurable drug abusers and alcoholics, and mental defectives from obtaining, owning or carrying firearms.

Laws already exist that prohibit the use of firearms (and other objects) to harm other people (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.).

I think it’s safe to say that all these laws have done is keep honest people honest, the same way locks on doors do.

Those who propose further infringements upon individual liberty aren’t truly looking to improve the human condition at all, but seeking more power over others for whatever reasons. No good will come from these infringements — no good has ever come from these sorts of laws, and no good ever will.

Specifically —

House Bill 8[3], so-called “universal background check” legislation sponsored by Representative Debra Sarinana, would ban all private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals. Gun owners will be forced to pay undetermined fees and obtain government approval before selling firearms to family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers, or fellow hunters, competitive shooters and gun club members. This proposal will have no impact on crime and is unenforceable without gun registration. [4]

House Bill 40[5], by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require criminal records checks on private firearms sales at gun shows — a perennial target of the gun control crowd, even though studies show that these events are not a source of crime guns.[6]

House Bill 83[7], extreme risk protection order or “red flag” legislation sponsored by Representative Damon Ely, would authorize the seizure of firearms and ammunition from individuals without due process. Unchallenged statements made by a petitioner before a judge, alleging that someone is a danger to themselves or others in an ex parte proceeding — prior to any formal court hearing at which the respondent can be represented by counsel and present counter evidence — would be sufficient for law enforcement to enter that person’s home and confiscate their private property.[8]

House Bill 87[9] by Representative Deborah Armstrong expands the state’s “prohibited person” firearm law by purportedly incorporating federal firearm disqualifications. The bill would prohibit individuals convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanor crimes or who are subject to a domestic violence protective order from purchasing or possessing a firearm, with violations being a criminal offense. However, the bill goes beyond the prohibited categories in federal law in several significant ways. The state law definition of “household member” — unlike federal law — specifically includes a person who is or has been a continuing personal relationship, which applies to dating or intimate partners who have never lived together. The bill would include, as firearm-prohibiting offenses, nonviolent misdemeanors with no physical contact between the parties (like harassment by telephone or email, or criminal damage to the property or jointly owned property of a “household member”). Unlike federal law, this bill would require anyone subject to a protective order to surrender any firearms they own, possess, or control to law enforcement within 48 hours of the order. Not only does this bill impose a mandatory surrender, it authorizes law enforcement to seize any guns that are in plain sight or are discovered pursuant to a lawful search. Similar legislation had passed the Legislature in 2017 but was vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez. Significantly, the 2017 legislation contained other options for affected parties to comply with the firearm surrender requirement, including storing their guns with licensed firearm dealers, or transferring the guns to a qualified third party. These key alternatives are not contained in this bill.[10]

House Bill 130[11], sponsored by Representative Linda Trujillo, would make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if a child gains unsupervised access to an unsecured firearm. New Mexico already has a first degree felony child abuse statute on the books to hold adults accountable for putting children’s lives or health at risk in any manner. The tools exist to charge and prosecute parents or guardians in appropriate cases. Education is the key to protecting gun owners and their kids, not a state mandate on how one stores a firearm in his or her home.[12]

If you truly want to stop violent crime and terrorism, find out what motivates criminals and terrorists to hurt others, and address those concerns.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee — The committee in which this legislation is sitting at present.
  2. I presently reside in House District 16, of which Antonio “Moe” Maestas is the present State Representative.
  3. HB 8 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR FIREARM SALES, sponsored by Debra M. Sariñana and Patricia Roybal Caballero
  4. NMSSA commentary about HB 8
  5. HB 40 BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS, sponsored by Miguel P. Garcia
  6. NMSSA commentary about HB 40
  7. HB 83 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT, sponsored by Daymon Ely and Joy Garratt
  8. NMSSA commentary about HB 83
  9. HB 87 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & FIREARM POSSESSION, sponsored by Deborah A. Armstrong
  10. NMSSA commentary about HB 87
  11. HB 130 ADDITIONAL FIREARM CRIMES & PENALTIES, sponsored by Linda M. Trujillo
  12. NMSSA commentary about HB 130

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,005, 27 January 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Twitter / VK
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    3. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    4. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    5. KCUF Media Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    7. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    8. Vote the Air Facebook page
    9. Wood Chipper Facebook page
    10. A Bias Toward Liberty Facebook group
    11. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    12. Gun Owners of New Mexico Facebook group
    13. Independent Insights Facebook group
    14. New Mexico Gun Rights Facebook group
    15. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    16. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    17. Pink Pistols – Albuquerque Facebook group
    18. Sons and Daughters of Liberty New Mexico Facebook group

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: