Month: September 2006

The Mist from the RCOB™ is Getting Darker.

KevinLeave a comment

Two associated stories for your revision, one state-level, one federal. The state-level one:

Man arrested for ‘stealing’ own car

Stephen Janis, The Examiner
Aug 21, 2006 2:00 AM

BALTIMORE – Baltimore City police have a new crime on the books: Stealing your own car.

Just ask Keith Spence, a Baltimore City resident who was arrested when he was driving home from work in a car he bought with a tax refund.

“I couldn’t believe it was happening,” Spence said.

Spence, 28, said city police pulled him over in his 1993 red Cadillac Elderado(sic) coupe for a cracked rear window in February. Four officers dragged Spence and his two passengers from the car and said they were under arrest for stealing it, he said.

“I was listening to the radio from the back seat of the police car. It said a gray Cadillac sedan was stolen; mine is a red coupe. I guess the officer must have been color blind,” he said.

A photo of Mr. Spence with the title to his Cadillac:

Was the officer colorblind? Oh, the irony!

“I tried to tell them it was my car, but they wouldn’t listen.”

Spence and his two friends were arrested, and the car was impounded. Charged with one count of motor vehicle theft, Spence represented himself in court in June.

“I owned the car — I knew it wasn’t stolen,” he said.

Even though Spence had the title proving he owned the car, he said he was cleared of the charges because of the testimony of the owner of the stolen car.

“The whole courtroom fell out — even the judge laughed,” Spence told The Examiner.

Still, police sold Spence’s car at auction two months before his day in court.

Now Spence is without the car it took him a year to buy, and his lawyer, Roland Brown, said he is preparing to sue the city.

I damn well hope so. I hope he gets a brand-new Escalade out of it.

“Not only did the police violate my client’s constitutional rights by selling his car before the trial, but the case demonstrates that young black males in this city are blindly targeted by the Baltimore City police,” he said.

Brown said the case also points out problems with the city’s management of stolen vehicles. “You have to question why a stolen car would be sold at all,” he said.

Because the peons have no recourse?

(Appropriately named) Police spokesman Matt Jablow said police are investigating the incident.

“We’re looking into the circumstances surrounding why the car was sold,” Jablow said.

Spence said he only wants the Cadillac he worked so hard to buy.

“I loved that car.”

Are you pissed off yet? Wait till you read this one. A while back the BATF and other multiple-letter bureaus raided KT Ordnance. I believe Say Uncle has been on top of this story, but I found the current news at The Freeholder.

Here’s the latest update:

An Open Letter from KT Ordnance

August 24, 2006

As you know I had been raided by the ATF, FBI, and Canadian ATF back on June 7, 2006.

The Asset Forfeiture & Seized Property Branch of the BATFE has now contacted me. I have to date not been charged or arrested for anything. They sent this letter out on August 4 2006; I received it on August 22 2006. They gave me 20 days from date on the letter (not the date I received it) to file grievance (sent by certified, return receipt).

They obviously used the U.S. Postal Service

I also have to put up a 10% bond for the assets value (they valued the items at $11,350.00) just for the privilege of attempting to get the items back. They claim in the forfeiture letter that these items where “used or acquired in violation of federal law”, yet I’ve not been charged with violating any law.

Notice the “Disposal” afforded BATFE with no conviction or arrest.

(b) Disposal
In the case of the forfeiture of any firearm by reason of a violation of this chapter, no notice of public sale shall be required; no such firearm shall be sold at a public sale; if such firearm is forfeited for a violation of this chapter and there is no remission or mitigation of forfeiture thereof, it shall be delivered by the Secretary to the Administrator of General Services, General Services Administration, who may order such firearm destroyed or may sell it to any State, or possession, or political subdivision thereof, or at the request of the Secretary, may authorize its retention for official use of the Treasury Department, or may transfer it without charge to any executive department or independent establishment of the Government for use by it.

It seems they want to keep them for there own use, as some are desirable. I cannot help but think that these will end up in some politician’s private collection. You may view the items in question here: http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/showcase.php . The two items are the two 1911, 45 Cal pistols in the first three pictures (Abigail & Elizabeth). And there are others not pictured. All this with no charges filed, no arrest, and no conviction. I call this theft.

So do I

They can come in, steal your property, show no I.D., use a warrant that is so secret that the Sheriff could not see it, charge you with no crime, and then tell you, “we are keeping your property, and we will give/sell it to whomever we want.” If they do charge me (up to 5 years from now), and I win, will I get back my property that they sold/gave away to someone 5 years earlier? What do you think?

Well, Mr. Spence isn’t getting his car back, is he? At least he was charged first.

With the vague description of the items seized, it seems that they added items that are not mine, but who can tell with a description of “rifle” no serial number(s), no caliber, or any other descriptive markings (they did list the s/n’s for the two 1911’s). How do I know that they even are mine? Yet I must pay them 10% of the value just to find out. And they decide the value.

Cay you say, “racketeering” boys and girls?

This is a rogue agency, and must be stopped. I also feel that there may be a connection between the fact that I support JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) and GOA (Gun Owner of America), who are both actively trying to disband the BATFE. (see JPFO’s “The Gang” documentary)

Richard Celata

All emphasis in both stories are mine.

Remember when I wrote Pressing the “Reset” Button? I said at that time:

I think a lot of people are getting fed up with ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives. With our ever-shrinking individual rights. More than one of Jay’s respondents noted the apathy of the majority, though, and I agree. Government interferes lightly on a wholesale basis, but it does its really offensive intrusions strictly retail. So long as the majority gets its bread and circuses, it will remain content.

But not everyone.

—

I think more and more individuals will be pressing the “RESET” button in the future.

I understand the futility of the act, but I can also certainly understand the urge.

UPDATE: Oh, for Christ’s SAKE!

SEX OFFENDERS
Plan gains to publicly identify accused
Ohio panel backs registry proposal

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS – An Ohio legislative panel yesterday rubber-stamped an unprecedented process that would allow sex offenders to be publicly identified and tracked even if they’ve never been charged with a crime.

No one in attendance voiced opposition to rules submitted by Attorney General Jim Petro’s office to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, consisting of members of the Ohio House and Senate.

Excuse me, but if “they’ve never been charged with a crime” how the FUCK can they be identified as “sex offenders”?

Look, I hate child molesters with a passion. I think that when they’re caught they should be hung from gibbets and left to rot as an example to others who “can’t control their impulses” to try a little harder, but there is such a thing as “due process of law” and “jury of their peers,” and that’s what’s being thrown out the window here.

Of course it’s for “public safety.”

It always is.

KevinLeave a comment

Could it Be?.

Could it be that the population of Albion is finally waking up?

Concern as gun numbers soar in Suffolk

30 August 2006 | 11:58
DANIELLE NUTTALL

ANTI-GUN campaigners voiced their concern last night after figures showed the number of legally owned guns in Suffolk had soared by 40% in five years.

Color me dumbstruck.

Since December 2001, 2,530 additional firearms have been licensed in the county – making a total of 9,003 at the end of March.

But the figure is expected to be even greater next year as officers have already authorised a further 1,671 firearms, which are yet to be acquired.

Halleluja!

The large increase has alarmed anti-gun charity International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which called for tighter checks on those seeking permission to possess large numbers of guns.

Read: “DENY THE PERMITS!!! FOR ANY REASON, OR NO REASON AT ALL!!!”

Firearms are defined as lethal barrelled weapons of any description from which shots, bullets or other missiles can be discharged. Most approved rifles are designed for target shooting, hunting or vermin control.

Shotguns are covered by separate certificates but figures released by Suffolk Constabulary show there are now 41,848 legally owned in the county – an increase of 2% since 2001.

Even better – they’re buying rifles!

A spokesman for IANSA said: “It’s totally possible every single rifle has been carefully justified. But guns can end up being used illegally. Our concern is not that they are going to be used in gun grime in the sense of muggings in the street, but rather more likely seeing an increase in fatalities in domestic violence as mostly men obtain guns.

No, the concern is that law-abiding people will be armed – period. This makes the one-worlders wet their pants, because as David Hardy illustrates, to them a “right” is “what you may ask the government to do for you.”

“Guns are meant to be locked in a cabinet but there are plenty of stories of police going to a home and finding the gun unlocked and out. Simply because you have a safe doesn’t mean you’re actually storing it and they can potentially be stolen and find their way on the illegal market.”

No, guns are meant to be used. Locking them in a cabinet to secure them when they aren’t being used is a nice idea, but it is not the intent of their design.

Richard Kennett, Suffolk Constabulary’s firearm services manager, said the force carried out stringent checks on anyone wishing to legally own a gun.

He said: “Suffolk is a very rural county with large numbers of farming communities. Firearms and shotguns are not only used in agriculture but also in pursuit of country sports and by members of target shooting clubs. These sports appear to be becoming increasingly popular.

ABOUT BLOODY TIME!

“Anyone who has a firearm or shotgun is carefully vetted by the police and has to give good reason to possess each and every firearm and satisfy stringent safe keeping requirements before a licence is issued.”

Which is what the gun grabbers here continually tell us is “all they want.” But it’s not. They want us disarmed.

All of us.

While the number of actual firearms licensed has risen sharply in the last five years, other figures suggest the cause of this is mainly due to people owning more than one gun – rather than vast numbers of new people owning a weapon.

Always a grey cloud to go with that silver lining. That sounds much like what’s happening here, but perhaps these people can introduce others to shooting? (One can hope.)

A single firearms certificate can relate to more than one firearm, and the number of such certificates on issue by police in Suffolk has increased by just 5% since December 2001 – from 3,393 to 3,572 at the end of March this year.

Damn. I knew it was too good to be true…

The number of shotgun certificates granted has fallen from 17,048 at the end of 2001 to 16,648.

Shit.

Last night Liz Mort, eastern region spokeswoman for the Countryside Alliance, said shooting sports had become increasing popular, as had game consumption, which probably explained the increase in gun ownership.

I’d like to think so, but only a 5% increase in five years?

“Shooting sports are very popular. There are a lot of very well-run shooting clubs and shooting schools in Suffolk and all over East Anglia,” she said.

“Shotguns particularly are used by farmers in keeping down populations of pests. Obviously, game keepers and farmers use them for foxes, especially now there is a ban on hunting.

“Shooting sports are very popular” compared to what, I wonder? As to fox hunting being banned, well, no, not exactly. There’s a ban on hunting them with dogs while chasing them on horseback. Shooting them is still A-OK, as Mr. Free Market has been reminding us.

“A gun is a very important part of a farmer’s equipment. There are more illegal guns held within the M25 than the whole of the British Armed Forces.

The M25 is a highway that rings the city of London. An astute and most probably accurate observation by Ms. Mort. Not that IANSA gives a damn about that.

“Getting a gun illegally has never been easier. People who want to use them illegally do not get them registered. I think the police enforce the rules absolutely correctly.”

Well, I think the police shouldn’t be enforcing them against law-abiding citizens at all, but I’m a gun-nut Yank.

The spokesman for IANSA has called on the Government to bring forward the creation of a national register listing the details of all those who own a gun.

Which is, of course, the inevitable “next step,” since all the previous steps have been completely USELESS at the claimed aim of reducing “gun crime” and extremely effective at disarming the majority of the law-abiding public. Of course the NEXT step will be to ban anything that goes “BANG!” since banning full-auto weapons, short-barrelled shotguns, semi-auto rifles, pump-action shotguns, and all handguns hasn’t had any noticeable effect on violent crime committed with firearms in the UK.

“If you report a stolen car immediately, and it runs through a red light, they have the licence plate immediately and can trace it back within 10 seconds. It’s a bit crazy we have much better registration for cars than guns,” he said.

But if you run through a red light in your personal vehicle, they don’t take your driver’s license and your car, do they? And any other vehicle you might own. Hmmm? If someone steals your car, the police don’t come confiscate any other vehicle you may possess, and prohibit you from every owning or operating another, do they?

The guns versus cars comparison doesn’t work, but it keeps getting brought up.

He also said lessons could be learnt from the Canadian government which had made it a requirement for police to contact the partners or former partners of gun owners to provide a reference.

So a jilted former lover can deny someone the right to self-protection. Then again, we have that here with the Lautenberg Amendment. That means that abused spouses have to depend on useless restraining orders.

“It does flag up the possibility the person is not suitable to own a gun,” he said.

Isn’t this known as “prior restraint”?

“People feel rifles are not quite so dangerous in terms of crime but in fact it’s not a reason for not applying the strongest measures possible for the benefit of public safety.”

Ah, yes, “public safety.”

They know so much about “public safety” over in Old Blighty. I got my hopes up for no good reason.

Again.