Herschel: A Glimpse Into FUSA’s Future

And its present, for those gunowners mired behind Communist lines.

“Shall not be infringed”, my ass.

9 responses to “Herschel: A Glimpse Into FUSA’s Future

  1. Thanks for the post, important read. If you travel through NY state you will see folks with “Ban NY Safe Act” signs on their lawns. This is why. The globalists play the long game and we need to as well. Else our children will perish.

  2. Cat’s breakfast.
    Without any defense of the indefensible actions in this case, the article is all over the map.

    1) The original incident was a simple error. It shouldn’t have happened, but it was made in good faith, not maliciously. It was already redressed when he got his guns back. Before you shit yourself in response, read on.
    2) The original error was made by a private entity. Redress for that is called a civil suit. Whoever conflated the victim’s name with the information of a mental patient should be sued, both for the actual damages pursuant to being misidentified, and the legal and court costs of regaining his property improperly confiscated, and for punitive damages for being so recklessly and maliciously incompetent as to make the error in the first place, and subject the victim to all the subsequent trouble and damage to his rights and reputation. Cases settled in seven or eight digits and more are the only thing large corporations, like hospitals, pay attention to, and correct. I hope he makes it hurt. In NFY, there should only be about 500,000 lawyers happy to take that case on a contingency fee for 1/3 of the final settlement.
    3) The state of NY, and the local agency involved in the fiasco, owns this for not doing anything to perform due diligence in insuring the victim was correctly identified. The slightest attempt to do so before serving papers would have raised the point that the man they were sent after was not the one they were supposed to go after.
    The double injustice is that there was, potentially, a mental case with guns that they were busy not going after, because they’re lazy and sloppy.
    Once again, civil lawsuits are the only thing that gets their attention.
    4) The law itself is a violation of the Bill of Rights (and probably the NY State Constitution as well), and should be challenged by the victim in stae and federal courts. (He can use the proceeds from the civil cases to pay the freight on this, but the NRA and every gun rights org. in NFY should be signing up to assist the case and fund the suits.)
    Had the victim in this incident even been the right guy, a certified nut job in prior legal possession of firearms, he should have been given a court date to examine the order, before allowing the government to attempt to deprive him of his property. That’s how the game is supposed to be played, going back a five or ten centuries of common law, regarding due process. The SAFE Act horseshit should be declared unconstitutional on that basis alone.

    Certainly not as satisfying as shooting down the first two assholes in your driveway from the get-go, but better for your long-term life prospects, and it also has the added benefit of preventing the inevitable next 500 similar mistakes.

    5) The article going into the invalidity of removing guns from crazy people to prevent suicide has nothing to do with anything, including the price of tea in China. People who are certified as batshit crazy shouldn’t have guns for the same reason babies shouldn’t be given live hand grenades. Period. Full stop. The fact that they can still figure out a way to off themselves without a firearm is a problem for train companies, people who don’t put safety fences along the tops of multi-story parking structures, etc., as well as the nutjob’s next of kin, and not otherwise of any concern to me, nor the law, let alone justifying it.
    If a state’s mission in passing laws is to prevent suicide, then the obvious solution is to tell the ACLU to fuck itself, and start throwing whackjob lunatics back into nuthouses where they belong, like we used to do for decades, before nutjobs got to free-range all over society, and decent folks had to pack heat everywhere and lock themselves into a mini-fortress at night.
    For a bonus, with that approach, “homelessness” would virtually disappear in fifty states, overnight.
    Agitate for a return to that level of common sense, and I’ll subscribe to your newsletter and cheer your parade.

    • DWEEZIL THE WEASEL

      Point #3: States fail to conduct due diligence all the time. Look how many search warrants have been served on wrong houses, with all of the attendant murder and vandalism by thugs and thugettes with badges. Simple stupidity and laziness, which are the hallmark of a lot of cops.
      The sad thing is that the prosecutors and courts will back them up instead of making them pay both criminally and civilly for their incompetence and sloth. This is because prosecutors and judges must stand for election and re-election and need the support of police unions. Crimes of omission and just as lethal as crimes of commission. As the meltdown continues this will get worse.

    • Oh yeah, you wanted facts to dispute your tripe.

      “1) The original incident was a simple error. It shouldn’t have happened, but it was made in good faith, not maliciously.”

      Irrelevant. We are what we do, not what we intend to do.

      “2) The original error was made by a private entity.”

      False. With extrordinarily rare exception, there is no such thing as a “private entity” in the health care industry today. Gee, I guess that would include you. Things are what they are, not what fiction writers call them.

      “3) The state of NY, and the local agency involved in the fiasco, owns this for not doing anything to perform due diligence…”

      Technically true, but it does bring up the question of why you’d want the liberty of free people to rest on the due diligence of tyrants. Pretty sure that makes them not-free. Go ahead…explain why a man should want HIS freedom to rest on the “due diligence” of rotten bureaucrats. Should go over well here, lol.

      “4) The law itself is a violation of the Bill of Rights (and probably the NY State Constitution as well), and should be challenged by the victim in stae and federal courts.”

      What a putz, but at least you intimate the folly of Rule of Law. So a violation of the Highest Law should be determined by something derivative to it. That logic couldn’t even work in fiction.

      “5) The article going into the invalidity of removing guns from crazy people to prevent suicide has nothing to do with anything,”

      It has everything to do with everything, especially in the USA where batshit crazy people are free to be armed BY LAW. But suddenly the law doesn’t matter to you. That’s alright, it doesn’t matter to me either.

      And who do you propose should do this? Who should PAY for it? Who should run it? Lemme guess…you should be on the committee, right?

      So there are your facts, but IMO readers should look at the message in general…more rulers, more bureaucrats, more caged people, fewer arms for citizens and yet another sinkhole into which to pour our production. All so that some nutcase’s feelz should be relaxed. Ring any bells?

      IOW see the philosophy of it and then ask yourself this—“Is that really what I want?”

    • Do you read English or just pretend to?

      The article specifically addresses all of the things you brought up before you posed them as objections, almost as if I anticipated the objections of the progressives, huh?

      First of all, the only correct thing you wrote in your entire response is that this could have been done better, to wit, independent or double verification of the SS# before it was submitted. But they didn’t, and they won’t, no matter how many lawsuits you file. They’ll just put their lawyers on it, and the poor schmuck who was abused through this process will get nothing except a big lawyer bill. Only the lawyers will get rich. Or else, the taxpayers will fund it since the woman was acting as an organ of the state obeying state statutes. And she was an organ of the state no matter what you said. Nothing you have said disproves it.

      Then you proceeded to extend your missive by telling us that none of the stuff about psychological “disorders” or suicide matters to the conversation, and since it doesn’t matter to the conversation to anyone you addressed it in full by telling us that no one who is a “lunatic” or “bat shit crazy” should be allowed to have guns, and advocating an expansion of mental hospitals (one of the pieces of the Holy grail for the progressives and eugenicists).
      The fact that there is no clinical definition of “lunatic” or “bat shit crazy” doesn’t matter to you. You just threw those words out without knowing anything about what they might mean or not mean. And you didn’t read the linked articles at all, you know, those articles where mental health professional after mental health professional tells us that mental maladies have nothing whatsoever to do with propensity to violence, and access to firearms has nothing to do with success at suicide.

      And yet you persisted in those issues which you said don’t matter to anyone. But your rejoinder failed because you self-identified as a believer in neighborhood witchdoctors, aka, mental health professionals. Do you also have a totem pole in your basement and throw chicken bones over your shoulder while muttering incantations at the moon gods?

      Even when the pagans tell you they can’t help you with your project to prevent “bat shit crazy people” from having guns, you persisted in your pagan project of doctoring other men. You don’t even object, per se, to the existence of the SAFE act, just that the woman in the hospital put the wrong SS# in the ledger.

      Massive fail. Complete and total disaster. Not my article, but your response to it. You learned nothing about yourself. That’s why I wrote it – so that men learn something about themselves. I learned all I need to know about you. You’re a pagan who believes in witchdoctors. You didn’t think one bit through the article, so you missed out completely and absolutely.

    • wendystringer48088

      @Aesop Thank you for your warm and reassuring words. They calmed me down a bit. However, I still find myself upset over reading this, and would like to share my thoughts:

      Just two days ago we were making fun of some 23 year old transgender twatwaffle who tweeted out their opinion that the mass confiscation of weapons would be ‘uneventful’. And we all had a fun time spelling out everything that was incorrect with that line of thought.

      And now today I read this story of a gun confiscation that happened because of the NY SAFE act.

      “…the deputies produced an official document demanding that Hall, a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran who is a retired pipefitter, turn over his guns to them on the spot. On the document Hall said he was described as “mentally defective.””

      The article, and the commentary afterward by Herschel Smith, was hard for me to read, but eventually I made it all the way through. It is well worth reading and taking in the whole thing.

      Selected quote that reflects my take-away from this:

      “Those LEOs will confiscate guns just like the LEOs in this report. Don’t doubt it for one minute. Be prepared. And … you are in danger of being judged mentally incompetent. There are thousands of Soldiers and Marines who served faithfully who are in the NICS today because someone said they have PTSD.

      His guns were confiscated. He got them back only with some effort and some good forture after hiring a lawyer and using his time and energy to get affidavits from local hospitals and…

      “Eventually, his lawyer convinced a judge that authorities had him confused with someone else who had sought care and that his weapons should never have been seized.”

      This story just bothers me. A lot. Because it shows how easy it can happen. And that it did happen and does happen. And saying it is likely not going to happen to any one person somehow does not make me feel much better.

  3. Aesop, I simply don’t agree with your overview. This should have never happened. The confiscation of weapons is a tool used by the anti gun left.

    Oregon just passed a simlar law, in which ANYBODY, can make that complaint against anyone. Without Probable cause, or investigation. Simply show up take the guns, and the Onious is on the accused.

    This isn’t innocent until proven guilty, this is guilty until you prove your innocent. That’s fucked up.

    That a sympathetic judge helped the guy get his shit back, is further proof of the problem. Those guns were seized unlawfully, under an administrative law, not a criminal law.

    To not call this what it is, is bullshit.

    This is back door gun control. The clue is in fact zero accountability for those making these complaints.

    Dirk

  4. Randolph Scott

    There is a a way to fix this. Make sure that someone does NOT go home safe.

  5. wendystringer48088

    @Dirk
    “Oregon just passed a simlar law, in which ANYBODY, can make that complaint against anyone. Without Probable cause, or investigation. Simply show up take the guns, and the Onious is on the accused.”

    Wow. I just had to check that out. Sadly, sure enough…

    http://www.guns.com/2017/07/07/oregon-gun-confiscation-bill-creeps-past-legislature/

    “The Oregon House gave a slim nod to gun control legislation on Thursday that would establish extreme risk protection orders, forcing subjects to surrender their firearms.”

    The measure, SB 719A, will allow police, or a member of a subject’s family or household, to file a petition with the court which could lead to an order prohibiting firearms possession if it is believed they pose an imminent risk to themselves or others.”

    “Now a vindictive family or household member has the power to have your rights and property stolen from you simply because they chose to make an accusation against you,”