Implementation of Legislative Recommendations of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission: Requiring sheriffs to establish a school guardian program or contract with another sheriff’s office that has established a program under a certain condition;

The Senate has approved the bill with the lifting of a ban on volunteer teachers to become Guardians.

The votes were along party lines with the exception of… you guessed it! Senator Anitere Flores (R- Moms Demand). Even Senate President Galvano voted in favor of it and I think both term out next year.

What’s next? No idea.  I need to get me some classes on the procedures and magic chants that happen in the legislature. Does the House bill enter consideration? It has not moved since April 3. If it does not matter, then it should go to the Governor for signing.  If you have the answer, share it in the comments.

PS: and just when I was about to click on Publish, another update came in:

Message Received From Senate

According to the Senate Glossary, a message is

“Communication by one house to the other house concerning action taken on a bill. Each bill, and any amendments to it, is transmitted from one house to the other accompanied by a document (message) that states the action taken on the bill. The term “messages” is also used to describe the unit of the office of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House responsible for transmitting bills to the other house.”

Kind like an announcement saying: Hey people, we are done here!”

If there is one thing that racist Democrat elites hate, it is the idea of poor people, especially poor minorities enjoying equal rights.

Rights are something for the elite, not the dirt people who serve them.

This was always a principle of monarchies, which is one of the reasons why the Democrats want to make us more like Europe.  They want to codify their superiority into the law.

New Jersey is already one of the most gun unfriendly states in the union, but the Governor of New Jersey wants to make it even more unfriendly to poor people and minorities.

Why Having a Gun in New Jersey Could Soon Cost 20 Times as Much

Because New Jersey is run by Leftist Democrat assholes who hate guns and poor people who try to be self reliant.

The New York Times will take several pages to explain why that’s not so.

Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey wants to put the state at the forefront of a movement to raise fees on gun permits in order to expand efforts to tackle gun violence and reduce the flow of illegal firearms.

Which has NOTHING to do with legal gun permit owners.

Though New Jersey has strict gun control laws, its firearms fees have not changed since the mid-1960s, making it a bargain for gun owners. A firearm identification card costs $5, while a permit to own a firearm is $2. A permit to carry a gun costs $20.

Making people pay for a Constitutional right is wrong.  I had to pay $10 for a FOID in Illinois and I still think that was wrong.

New York City, which also has stringent gun laws, charges $340 to apply for a permit to own and carry a gun.

Because New York is tyrannical hellhole that is experience a declining population because of the high taxes, crumbling infrastructure, and streets filled with human shit, run by a mayor that wants to ban new skyscrapers and tax the old ones to death.  They should not be the model of how to do anything.

Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, has proposed fees that would be among the highest in the country. An identification card would cost $100, an owner’s permit would be $50 and a carry permit $400.

That’s right, $150 to just own a gun in your own home.

New Jersey has a $8.85 minimum wage, which will go to $15 in 2024.  So as of right now, it would take a working class person Almost 17 hours of pre-tax income for a permit.

That is more than two full days of pre-tax income to afford a Constitutional right.

That is a horseshit poll tax.

“There’s no war on responsible gun owners,” Mr. Murphy said in an interview. “We can support the efforts of the attorney general, state troopers, county and local law enforcement, to do the stuff we need to do: track crime, track gun violence, combat trafficking of illegal guns.

Bullshit.  How many permit holders are the ones engaged in violence and trafficking?  Almost none.  This is a war on legal gun owners.

“I was in Jersey City,” he said. “It’s at least $10 to get a dog license in Jersey City. It’s still $2 to get a permit to purchase a firearm in New Jersey.”

That $2 is $2 too much.

But gun owners’ groups say the governor is trying to use financial pressure to curtail their lawful rights.

Yes it is.

At least 12 states, including New York, Connecticut and Washington, have moved to increase fees and taxes on guns and ammunition since the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, according to a study by Southern Illinois University.

Though higher fees might discourage some people from buying firearms, gun control advocates and researchers said they were not certain that higher fees alone would reduce violence.

“Most crime guns in the Northeast are thought to come from the ‘iron pipeline’ from the South, and then they’re sold on the street,” said Daniel L. Feldman, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, referring to guns that are bought in states with looser restrictions and then sold illegally in states with tighter ones.

So the increase in fees won’t stop the crime and we know it, but New Jersey will move ahead with it anyway.

Because it’s not about crime.  It’s about stopping those poor people, especially poor brown people from having gun rights.

But gun control groups do support the idea of raising the cost of owning a firearm to pay for programs that would make it harder to use guns to commit crime.

And how does charging law abiding people make it harder to commit crime?

“We think it’s a smart way to legislate,” said Jonas Oransky, the legal director at Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group founded by Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor.

“We support strong data-driven intervention programs,’’ he added, “and think that it makes sense to fund them by raising revenue from gun purchasers.”

And the above data says that this is shit.

A leading gun rights group in the state has threatened to sue Mr. Murphy if his proposal becomes law, and the state’s hunting community is also lobbying against the proposal.

“It’s going to affect gun shops tremendously,” said Lisa Caso, who owns Caso’s Gun-A-Rama in Jersey City. “It’s going to deter a lot of people from buying permits. In our business, you have people coming in who barely have money to buy the most modestly priced guns, which are around $300.”

For New Jersey Democrats, that’s a feature not a bug.

Ms. Caso said some of her customers have told her that people are stocking up on permits now, worried about the possibility of higher fees.

“I think what Murphy would want to happen,” she said, “is for every gun shop in the state of New Jersey to just close.”

That is 100% accurate.

It’s not about crime.  It’s about keeping the poor in their place, which means not self reliant and without equal rights.

If they can’t ban gun ownership, they will make it prohibitively expensive for “undesirables” to get the permits for the rights.

If this passes, I hope it gets changed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

I’d like to see permits to own struck down nationwide.

I saw this last night and could not believe it.

Bernie Sanders says terrorists like the Boston Marathon bomber, rapists, and murderers should be able to vote from jail. pic.twitter.com/PL0fpMSGwo

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) April 23, 2019

And because Bernie said it, Kamala Harris (and soon the rest of the Democratic clown car) said it too.

https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1120522097808244738

You can tell just how extreme this postilion is when both Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon, very incredulously, ask Sander and Harris if they are sure that they want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be able to vote from prison.  Even CNN’s two most hackish hacks could tell this wasn’t going to go over well with Middle America.

Forget Tsarnaev for a second, here is the thoughts that came to my mind.

This same right would go to Nikolas Cruz and James Holmes.

Those mass shooters were the inspiration for gun control in Florida, Colorado, and other states.

So by the standards of Bernie and Harris (and soon the rest) a mass shooting is terrible enough that innocent, law abiding gun owners must be collectively punished with the revocation of their Constitutional rights, but the shooters themselves cannot be disenfranchised.

It really hammers home how much more they hate law abiding gun owners than Left leaning criminals.

Also, this paves the way for the Democrats to use violent, criminal thugs as political enforcers, as other Socialist dictators have done in the past.  Especially when combined with the Ban The Box Campaign to prohibit goverment and private employers from asking about criminal convictions on job applications.

Some radical Bernie Bro would no longer have any incentive not to go around smashing conservation skulls with bike locks.

So what if he goes to prison, he can still vote for Bernie from behind bars and Bernie will give him a job when he gets out.  So smash away to ensure a Bernie victory because a Bernie victory means committing a felony will have no long term repercussions.

The Republican with brain damage from a TBI will have to deal with that for the rest of his life, but that’s neither here nor there for Bernie.

It took me a while for my brain to distill this simple concept. I am sure somebody else had said something similar using different words.

If you ask Gun Owners what we should do to make progress regarding Gun Rights, 9 out of 10 answers will be stuff like “No compromise”, “Respect for the First and Second Amendment,” “elimination of NFA” and stuff like that.  Those are goals or general philosophical platitudes, but not strategy, not what needs to be done to win.

In a discussion in Facebook about the NRA lawsuit against Ackerman McQueen and the need for a new set of headliners, once again I saw the same generic philosophical stuff and I decided to add my ideas of what the NRA should do to face the new dangers:

1) We need financing. and I mean 9 figures worth. We are fighting against Big Capital now and we need the ammunition to do so.

2) We need nasty lawyers. We need effing buccaneers to go to court and suit the crap out of Chase and Cuomo and whomever is trying to screw us and make them bleed financially. Do keep the cool collected lawyer cats that will argue the fine points of the Constitution, but let us have a corps of assholes with legal yellow pads.

3) We need more and more effective lobbyists. Not quite “bucannerish” but I do want the best relentless suckers that will go to DC and make a pain of themselves till we win.

4) Teaching State Organizations to be also smart fighters. Train local lawyers to craft legislation and teach local people how to lobby effectively. We lost that or maybe we never did have it.  This is what Everytown is fighting now to great success and we should be copying and improving on the formula.

That is not a full list or perhaps even a smart one, but it is stuff that needs to be done and not talk about it.

If we keep the effort in the collegiate contemplative level, I fear we are headed for disaster.

Congressman Eric Swalwell is a coward.

He is the epitome of the internet tough guy who turns out to be a dickless coward when called out in real life.

Congressman Swalwell is going to make you turn in your assault rifles in some stupid buyback program.  If you don’t, he’s going to send his stooges to your house and arrest you.  If you put of a fight, he’ll nuke you.

What he won’t do is get on stage with Dana Loesch and debate her.

Here is a Twitter back-and-forth between Eric Swalwell and Dana Loesch the started because Eric Swalwell decided to channel AOC.

When a sitting member of Congress uses the “New X, who dis?” meme, you know that the point they are going to make is shallow and stupid.

Valid question.  I asked it before when I said Swalwell thought laws are magic.

Blwing up = two Tweets, because being a straight white man didn’t give him enough victim cred he had to Smollett* some Twitter abuse

*Smollett – verb, to fabricate a incident that makes the fabricator a victim for the purpose of sympathy and reward on social media.

That “I don’t aim down” is such horseshit, masquerading his cowardice as virtue.  Dana Loesch is an official NRA spokesperson.  Discussing policy and politics is her job.  Organizations of all types have spokespeople whose job it is to represent the organization’s positions publicly.  It is the antithesis of aiming down to debate the very person the organization taps to do the debating.

The like a true internet tough guy, he doubles down.

What fucking bullshit.

The President of an organization is chosen for his or her leadership skills.  That is different than debate skills, which is why spokespeople exist.

This is like saying “Adam Silver, Commissioner of the NBA is afraid to play me in one-on-one, and I won’t play LeBron James because that’s ‘aiming down.'”

Also, “unrestricted weaponry?” This guy is allergic to the truth.

Finally, Dana threw down the gauntlet.

We’ll he is.

That’s the simple answer.

He wants to make sure a debate never happens because his ideas are the gun grabbing equivalent of the Green New Deal, expensive, unpopular outside the extreme, and absolutely tyrannical.

This is internet tough guy bluster.

DHPP  – DEPARTAMENTO ESTADUAL DE HOMICÍDIOS E DE PROTEÇÃO À PESSOA or Department of Homicide and protection to persons, from Sao Paulo.

I have seen this video posted in other locations under the banner of Big Boys Rules like it is some great badge of honor to play stupid games as form of training, but apparently not cool to teach how to clear malfunctions fast.

And let’s face it, the guy was being an idiot on the woman who needs to be lauded for not putting one in his leg as payment for his behavior.

Bog Boy Rule is Safety First. The rest is ninja stuff.

I do believe that you get better training with swinger targets or clamshell targets. Or at least nobody leaves the range in an ambulance .

The Notre Dame fire only damaged the cathedral.  Fire damage is repairable, even to an ancient and historical building like Notre Dame.

More than one billion dollars has been raised to repair Notre Dame Cathedral.

It is one of the the most heavily documented buildings in the world.  There are actual 3-D Laser scans of every square inch of the building.

And keep in mind that construction of Notre Dame started in 1163 and ended in 1345.  The building is between 674 and 857 years old.

It has gone though the Napoleonic Wars, French Revolution, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, and WWII.

French Radicals during the French Revolution engaged in iconoclasm, and did severe damage to the Notre Dame Cathedral.

The Cathedral had fallen into disrepair, as just another old building in Europe, until the international success of Victor Hugo’s novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, revitalized French pride in the Cathedral and it was restored as a French monument.

The point is, the fire alone damaged Notre Dame, but it’s fine.  That can be fixed.

To truly destroy a great monument to Western Civilization, you need to unleash the progressives.

From Reuters:

As Notre-Dame money rolls in, some eyebrows raised over rush of funds

Pledged donations from French billionaires, companies and ordinary citizens for the restoration of fire-ravaged Notre-Dame cathedral are approaching 900 million euros after just two days, a reflection of the landmark’s resonance in the national psyche.

But the outpouring has prompted questions from charities, politicians and commentators about why some of the business donors have offered so much so quickly, including speculation about how they might benefit from tax breaks on the donations.

Forget fixing such as historically and culturally significant building as Notre Dame, we can’t let those rich people get their tax breaks.

This is the same attitude that made AOC and other NYC progressives drive off Amazon HQ2.  They just allow the creation of 25,000 new jobs, billions in tax revenue, and putting a major business in what is now an empty lot, if it causes a Billionaire to become just a little more rich.

If a Billionaire cured all cancer everywhere at the cost of paying no income tax ever again, these people would consider it a net loss for the world.  This is a political sickness.

Then again, this attitude stems from the same one that killed 100 Million people in the failed experiment of socialism.

People on social media, both in France and abroad, have expressed frustration that other disasters – from the Syrian and Iraq refugee crisis to the Grenfell Tower fire in London – have not received anything like the same degree of support.

What is Progressivism without oppression Olympics.  Notre Dame can’t be rebuilt after a tragedy like this because other damage done to other people under other circumstances hasn’t been equally fixed.

From The New York Times:

As Rich Lavish Cash on Notre-Dame, Many Ask: What About the Needy?

The pledges came in quick succession.

François-Henri Pinault, France’s second-richest man, put up an eye-popping 100 million euros to rebuild Notre-Dame, just as firefighters were dousing the last flames at the cathedral early Tuesday morning. Not to be outdone, Bernard Arnault, France’s wealthiest scion and a fierce rival to Mr. Pinault and to his father, François Pinault, upped the ante with a 200-million-euro gift a few hours later.

By Wednesday, the government had welcomed some 850 million euros — more than $960 million — offered in the patriotic name of salvaging the cultural treasure, as money from wealthy French families, French companies and international corporations poured in.

But the spectacle of billionaires trying to one-up one another quickly intensified resentments over inequality that have flared during the Yellow Vest movement, just as President Emmanuel Macron was looking to transform the calamity into a new era of national unity. There were accusations that the wildly rich were trying to wash their reputations during a time of national tragedy.

“If they’re able to give dozens of millions to rebuild Notre Dame,” he added, “they should stop telling us that there is no money to pay for social inequalities.”

Ollivier Pourriol, a French philosopher and novelist, summed up the sentiment more drolly.

Nothing like the resentment of the victim class.

The short answer is, what the Yellow Vests want is more of the socialism that has already done so much damage to the French economy.

What upsets the Yellow Vests (which is why the Right seems so attracted to them, even though they are a Leftist group) is money spent on Leftist projects for rich Leftist, like subsidizing solar energy and electric vehicles, and not cradle to grave social welfare policies.

So for the Yellow Vests to see money pour in to do anything but go to them is the zenith of the politics of envy.

From the New York Post:

Yellow vest protesters say Notre Dame donations better spent fighting poverty

Easter mass services have been moved to nearby St. Eustache and St. Sulpice, the latter of which was burned in a separate fire last month.

Some of the gilets jaunes (French for “yellow vests”) carried signs blasting wealthy donors who pledged money to rebuild the church, but have ignored France’s growing homelessness, they said.

“Millions for Notre Dame, what about for us, the poor?” one sign read, according to The Guardian.

“Everything for Notre Dame, nothing for Les Misérables,” another sign said, the paper reported.

The simple answer is “no, the money is not better spent on the poor.”

The issues in France are the same in Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco.  High tax and spend socialist or quasi-socialist, Leftist policies make the cost of living very expensive while driving down the economy.

The generous social welfare programs only subsidize the bad and destructive behavior of the poor and homeless, increasing the problem.

Just as we’ve seen in the US, if that billion was dumped into taking care of the homeless, it would just create more homeless and turn Paris into a bigger shit hole.

That billion is better spend paying people to restore Notre Dame and the surrounding areas.

But this greed, envy, and soak-the-rich class resentment wasn’t the worst thing published.  That dishonor goes to The Times.

Sharp British ideas for Notre Dame

The new spire on Notre Dame could be a “super-slender needle touching heaven’s clouds”, a minaret or a work of art composed entirely of light, according to some of Britain’s leading architects.

Minaret (/ˌmɪnəˈrɛt, ˈmɪnəˌrɛt/;[1] Persian: مأذنة‎ ma’thena, Azerbaijani: minarə, Turkish: minare[2]), from Arabic: منارة‎ manarah,[3] also known as Goldaste (Persian: گلدسته‎), is a type of tower typically found built into or adjacent to mosques.

Those woke motherfuckers in the UK want to build an Islamic spire on top of the Catholic Cathedral of Notre Dame.

I would rather it burn the rest of the way down and crumble into dust than to deface an 800 year old monument to French Catholicism by putting a fucking Minaret on top of it.  I can’t think of a better symbol of French subjugation to Islamic migration than that.

An international competition is to be held to find a replacement for the spire destroyed in the cathedral fire and British designers have been quick to respond with their ideas.

It gets better from there, these Progressives don’t want to rebuild it with historic accuracy.  History is racist and bigoted.

They want to find a intersectional architect to deface it with a glass ceiling, and probably a safe space and juice bar for tourists.  Turing it into a monument of secular Progressiveness.

That will truly ruin it.

The fire damaged the great Cathedral.

It takes the resentment and wokeness of the Progressive Left to hate the idea of people pledging their money to fix it and to propose repairs that disrespect the history of the building.

There is nothing that Progressives touch that isn’t ruined.

Fire damages but Progressives desecrate and destroy.