Dave Hernandez 
Member since May 10, 2013


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Links to Me

Recent Comments

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

Correct, we will not back down from a horribly crafted law that focuses on firearm confiscation instead of addressing the problem. Even many local governments and law enforcement are adamantly against this bill.

Let's be clear: There have been laws on the books for decades which allow for firearms to be removed from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. The problem has been that these laws have not been properly used.

This bill is being pushed by Michael Bloomberg. It is nearly the exact same verbiage as suggested in the suggested firearm law proposals pushed to all states by his advocasy groups like MAIG and Everytown as well as the Giffords group which he heavily contributes to. This is the same guy who tried to ban Big Gulps and to have salt shakers removed from resturant tables. That kind of authoritarian, totalitarian government we don't need.

This bill is very similar to one used in California where it has seen multiple abuses and even resulted in the death of an innocent person. It makes it extremely difficult to get your property back if you are cleared. It puts an undue burnden on the accused to prove they should not be prohibited and can cost innocent people many thousands of dollars that many cannot afford. The average defense against such an accusation will cost between about $6000 to over $10,000.

Thanks to the dumb Universal Background Check law, no longer can a temproarily prohibited person simply give temporary possession of their firearms to a friend or trusted agent for safe keeping until they can legally get them back. Instead they have to either give them to police, who are not equipped for this, or thay have to "transfer" the firearm to an FFL (AKA dealer). The latter means the FFL OWNS the firearm and can do anything they want with it. So what is really being mandated is that the person give the firearms to the police or sell them, even though they might be cleared to get them back in the future.

The bill suspends due process until after the fact under the guise of an emergency. It also completely ignores the actual problem -- the person's mental health. The Sonnenberg Amandment is an attempt to fix that.

So no, we won't back down. We have already begun looking at the recall process and will challange the law in court.

IT IS A BAD LAW

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 03/23/2019 at 2:04 PM

Re: “Order to remove hijab at Fort Carson spurs controversy, but versions of story differ

If the hair is in a bun, the bulge is clearly visible even with a hijab on.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 03/16/2019 at 6:09 PM

Re: “Politics, politics, and more politics from this week's inbox

"Why hasnt putting a few satellites with heat detecting cameras, and other detection devices directly over the border to monitor all activity been offered as a solution? " -- Mark Stahl

Umm.... Hello! Thermal and other cameras, drones, intrusion detection systems have all been done for years, decades even. What you are missing is that there are three things that are needed, Manpower, Technology, and Barriers. You have to have all three to truly be effective.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 03/16/2019 at 4:03 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

Jillian Freeland, like so many others who get hung up on the words "well regulated", failed basic English. The rule of modifiers is that they modify an adjacent word. Those two words only modify the word "militia", not "the right", not "to keep and bear arms", etc.

If I write, "The yellow car stopped at the stop sign", I am not saying the stop sign was yellow, yet that is essentially what folks like Jillian are trying to do when they try to apply "well regulated" to any word(s) other than "militia".

As for due process, while it is true that in extreme cases due process can be delayed, in this situation the existing laws already provided for a mechanism to deal with this situation -- just people refused to use it. The correct thing to do would be to make it more feasible to use the existing mechanisms and to address the mental health issue, not pass yet another gun control law. Especially not a gun control law with as many problems and potential for abuse (as we have seen happen in California and elsewhere) as the Bloomberg backed Red Flag bill. This has even resulted in the death of an innocent man when police raided his house.

Another huge issue with the bill is that it shifts an onus to the firearm owners to prove that they are not a danger, which means they have to go to court, get expert testimony, hire a lawyer, etc. All that takes money. In this case we are probably looking at around $6000 to $10,000 just for a basic defense against the claims. In California's experience with this law, perfectly sane people have lost their firearms permanently simply because they could not afford decent legal defense.

More problems with the law are that there are only two ways to temporarily hand over your firearms: To the police, who are not set up to deal with this, or to "transfer" them to an FFL (AKA dealer). The problem there is that the word "transfer" means that legally the FFL becomes the owner of the firearm and can do anything they darn well please with it, including selling or destroying it when they should be simply storing it so the owner can get it back later. No longer can firearms be given to a trusted person for storage, that is not allowed by the bill and was effectively prohibited by the Universal Background Check law.

Additionally, if a person temporarily gives up possession of their firearms and later is permanently prohibited from owning them, legally they must be given the opportunity to sell their property; however, the bill makes no provisions for this.

Bottom line, the bill as written is horrible and fails to address the problem. But, that is what you get when firearm laws are being peddled by a guy notorious for banning Big Gulps in NYC.

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 03/16/2019 at 1:51 PM

Re: “CSPD loses dozens of officers, struggles to hire replacements

As a person "of color", I have no problems with our cops and have not had a lot of problems in most places (except California). In Colorado I have always been treated politely in any contacts. Of course I don't disobey the cops, I don't get belligerent with the cops physically or verbally, I don't give the cops any reason to think I am threatening them, I don't demand under the color of law that they do things, and I don't pretend that my contact with them is a court of law.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 02/25/2019 at 2:33 PM

Re: “Why not let the rich pay more?

Sorry Jim Hightower,

Post WWII growth had more to do with our industrial capacity and its pivot from supplying the war effort to supplying the open market. It had very little to do with tax rates, which simply line the government coffers and don't really do a lot for stimulating the economy except through an always growing goverment putting out ever increasing contracts. The Reagan era tax cuts were intended as a way to starve the government into becoming leaner and more efficient.

Posted by Dave Hernandez on 02/15/2019 at 2:48 PM

Re: “A controversial movement is afoot to elect presidents by popular vote

This National Popular Vote is essentially doubling down on the policy that created the problem in the first place -- the winner take all policy used in most states.

Because of the winner take all policy, which is a state policy and not part of the Electoral College, a candidate need only win a plurality (IOW the largest amount of the vote as opposed to a majority) in 11 states and not a single vote anywhere else to win the election.

What this NPV movement does is "upsize" this same policy.

What SHOULD happen is that each state divide its votes according to how their residents voted. Keeping in mind that we get one electoral vote for each seat we have in the House of Representatives and one for each seat we have in the Senate -- in our case that is 7 + 2 for 9 votes. So there are a couple methods to assigned the electoral votes.

The first is to assign the all the state's votes proportionally based on the entire votes of the state, let's say Candidate A gets 4 votes, B gets 3 votes and C gets 2 votes.

The second method is to assign the electoral votes based on who won each congressional district. Since we have 7 districts, that would leave 2 votes that would be assigned either on proportionality or by the state legislature (remember that the seats in the Senate are really supposed to represent the state, not the individuals).

Either of these two methods, if enacted by each of the states, would actually solve the problem instead of doubling down on the mistake. Whereas the NPV essentially means Colorado's votes don't really count. Everyone in the state could vote for Candidate A, but if the national popular vote is for Candidate B, our electoral votes go to B even though that is not who we voted for.

The bottom line is the NPV is absolutely wrong headed and is being pushed by the super sized states. If it gets to the point of taking effect, it will be immediately challanged in multiple courts.

The correct fix is not the NPV, it is to do away with state winner take all policies.

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 02/06/2019 at 12:56 PM

All Comments »


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation