Connect with us

Guns and Crime

California’s quest to empower criminals continues with elimination of bail



Californias quest to empower criminals continues with elimination of bail

California just eliminated bail. This is a measure designed to make things “fair” for those accused of crimes who do not have enough money to get bailed out. It’s being painted as part of the income equality movement (aka socialism) but it’s really an attempt to empower certain types of criminals, including illegal immigrants.

As Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review points out, California is becoming the perfect storm as a sanctuary state with far-left legal tendencies and now the elimination of means to detain alleged criminals.

Jerry Brown just abolished bail in California from the fact that abolishing bail violates our foundational principles of criminal justice and will generally harm public safety, it is particularly dangerous in California, more than in any other state. California is, by far, the state with the most illegal aliens – a whopping 2.6 million, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The state has a major problem with criminal aliens. Illegal aliens are the consummate flight risk, yet under this bill, many criminal aliens will be released immediately without bond. This is particularly problematic given that California is a sanctuary and the entire system – from the politicians and judges to the local law enforcement – are making a concerted effort to shield illegal aliens from ICE. Illegal aliens are essentially a protected class in California.

The law sets parameters which judges will use to determine whether or not someone must be detained until their trial. In theory, only the allegedly violent or those who are deemed flight risks will be detained while all others will be released. It’s pretty easy to make this sound reasonable to a liberal because it is being sold as a way for poor people to continue with their lives while still considered innocent until proven guilty.

There are three major problems to consider.

First, the track record of the vast majority of judges in the state is crystal clear: they won’t be holding anyone. Very few of them would risk detaining someone and getting backlash from the press, the community, and their colleagues unless someone was indisputably dangerous. This is doubly true for illegal immigrants who just need caring and understanding from society in order to become fruitful Americans… or so the narrative goes.

The second big problem is that the bail bond industry is itself an extremely important partner in the criminal justice system. They are taken for granted but they’re uniquely qualified and incentivized to get the accused to show up for their trials. A good bail bondsman is able to find those in flight better than even the police. They have fewer restrictions, open jurisdiction, and the singular purpose of getting people to the courtroom whether they want to go or not.

The last and most obvious problem with this law is that it takes away one of the few remaining advantages that ICE has in California. The sanctuary state makes it very difficult to capture and deport illegal aliens, but until now ICE was able to capture many of them going to court. With this law, the number of illegal immigrants willfully going to court to face trial will drop to virtually zero. They have no reason to risk capture, jail time, or deportation. With no property at risk or money to pay back, they’ll just continue staying here illegally. Why go to court at all?

As a California resident, I can say it’s becoming more and more difficult to protect my family. As a legal immigrant, I can say it’s a debacle that this state holds my status with such little regard when compared to those who circumvented the system and came here illegally. The absurd has become the norm in California when laws like this can be enacted so easily.

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS




Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.


Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don’t believe them



When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don't believe them

It’s a lie. Every time, it’s a lie. Most leftist gungrabbers will add a note at the end of their gungrabbing rhetoric by pretending to respect the 2nd Amendment. They want you to think they’re pushing “common sense” gun control, because who doesn’t like common sense?

There isn’t a lick of common sense in any gun control measure. Anything that could have been considered common sense gun control, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 that kept regulated interstate commerce to hamper mail-order gun purchases, have already been put in place. Anything going forward that appeals to common sense is unnecessary and damaging to the 2nd Amendment.

Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) once said he respects the 2nd Amendment.

“I support gun safety measures, and I’ll tell you, I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters, and I went hunting with my dad as a kid, and you know, I have deep respect for the Second Amendment and the culture of our country.”

His statements on Twitter yesterday said all we need to know.


Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Gun rights activists: Stop acting like we don’t hold every high ground



Gun rights activists Stop acting like we don't hold every high ground

Forgive me if I offend any of my fellow gun rights activists. It’s my intention to educate, not irritate. But I’ve become increasingly annoyed by arguments that play into the leftist agenda. We have the high ground. When you have the high ground, you don’t go down to the enemy’s level. We hold the high ground.

We hold the moral high ground. For every mass shooting incident that takes lives, there are dozens of stories that don’t get nearly the same attention but demonstrate how gun owners prevent crimes. They’re out there defending themselves and others from people who would do them harm.

We hold the intellectual high ground. Where do most gun crimes occur? Where gun laws are obtuse. Chicago is the shining example of how obtuse gun laws prevent citizens from defending themselves. How often do we see gun violence in gun free zones?

We hold the historical high ground. The first thing a government does before turning against its people is take away the people’s ability to defend their rights. One of the most common leftist arguments is that Americans have no reason to fear oppression from the government. This is a backwards argument as it has been shown on multiple occasions that the government was hampered from oppressing American citizens because of the presence of weapons. It’s naive to think the government would never try to oppress us. History shows they already have at times and certainly will again in the future.

We hold the constitutional high ground. This needs no explanation.

We hold the emotional high ground. This is hard for most to understand since it’s emotional responses to mass shooting that usually prompt calls for gun control. That’s exactly why we hold the emotional high ground. As long as we remain consistent and stop operating in the leftists’ emotional echo chambers, we can maintain control of the emotional argument. It’s easy for people to be affected by senseless violence, but that’s no reason to ignore common sense or logical discipline.

What gets to me is when gun rights activists start making arguments such as logistics. I cringe every time I see stats about how many AR rifles are owned. The argument that there are so many out there it would be impractical to take them away is ludicrous. It’s like saying, “You may be right to want to take away guns but it would be too hard.”

The push for gun control is gaining momentum. We cannot give the gungrabbers an inch. We don’t need to. Our arguments are righteous. The only way they’ll win is if we let them distract us and bring us down to fighting on their level.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report