No products in the cart.

News

‘Junior’s Law’ Shows How Supposedly ‘Good’ Intentions Open Door to Tyranny

‘Junior’s Law’ Shows How Supposedly ‘Good’ Intentions Open Door to Tyranny
Never let a crisis go to waste — or an outrageous tragedy enabled by collectivist policies to go unexploited. (Facebook)

“A new legislation inspired by the killing of Lesandro ‘Junior’ Guzman-Feliz was announced … with the aim of protecting children from gang and other forms of violence,” Pix 11 reported Thursday. “The proposed Safe Havens for Endangered Children legislations, also known as ‘Junior’s Law,’ would require that all small businesses be a safe haven for minors who are in danger or seek help. It was introduced by Sen. Luis Sepúlveda and Assemblyman Victor Pichardo.”

What does that mean? A Sepúlveda press release first makes it sound like they’ll be required to call police. But the devil is in the details and the mandates don’t stop there.

“A second piece of legislation would also require small businesses to keep first aid kits,” it orders. And there’s more:

“Depending on the situation, if a business with fewer than 50 employees fails to ‘provide a safe refuge for a child who had physical injury inflicted upon him or is in imminent danger of such injury until authorities arrive,’ the business would be subject to penalties to be determined by the commissioner of the state Office of Children and Family Services.”

“Penalties” means enforceable punishment for failure to do as ordered. Don’t pay whatever extortion they mandate and they send men with guns after you.

My first reaction was “Are they nuts?” but it doesn’t take much of an internet search to see the “public servants” behind this are career collectivists. Why would we expect political parasites hostile to the right to life and the defense of life to view property rights as an obstacle to their obsessive goal of controlling all?

Junior had been chased down by multiple knife and machete-wielding members of the Trinitarios gang and stabbed and slashed to death in a case of mistaken identity meets feral spawn of “refugees.” The owner of the Cruz and Chiky bodega may not have figured it would be in his best interests to offer “sanctuary” against murderous savages who slash and hack first and ask questions later, but the thing is – and Sepúlveda even admitted it in his presser, “[T]he bodega owner where the incident occurred DID try to help and did call 911 twice.”

So this whole “need” is ginned up and based on deception. That and it’s exploiting a brutal murder for political advantage and publicity.

“The Trinitarios or 3ni are a violent New York-based multinational organization composed of Dominican Americans,” the Wikipedia entry for these “vibrant” additions to domestic security reads. “Trinitario was established in 1989 within the New York State prison system and has since spilled into the streets, with chapters in all five boroughs of New York City.

“It is considered one of the fastest-growing gangs in New York, recruiting members from high schools local to the gang’s area of activity,” the entry continues. And it’s a cinch that “Patria” (“Fatherland”) their slogan refers to isn’t the one that took them in.

It would not be unfair to ask at this point exactly what the refugee crisis was that made admitting so many claiming a different Patria so vital “to secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

“Nearly all immigrants from the Dominican Republic obtain lawful permanent residence in the United States (also known as getting a ‘green card’) through family reunification, whereas very few come through employment channels,” the Migration Policy Institute reports.

And it’s no surprise their populations are focused in Democrat-controlled urban enclaves. They are more likely to have limited English proficiency than “overall” immigrant populations, lower educational and professional attainment, lower income and higher poverty rates, and significantly, considering the politics of where they live, a higher naturalization rate.

As we see increasingly with foreign populations being artificially infused into our culture for political ends, “laws” are being enacted that are antithetical to the vision of the Founders, with the new “Forms of government becom[ing] destructive of these ends.”

That anyone can be required to open up his property and offer “sanctuary” to anyone else means there really is no property. Dragooning everyone is the next “logical” step though, for those who have already demonstrated their sense of entitlement in dictating that policy for an entire city. And while it’s not exactly a Third Amendment violation, it’s not hard to find parallels when someone can be compelled to take in those the state orders them to.

What’s also not hard to see is the absurdity and downright evil of compelling people to put their lives in mortal danger of interposing themselves between victims and armed predators – particularly in New York City with its onerous citizen disarmament edicts.

The New York City Guns website details some the protracted and expensive steps just to “legally” get a handgun – forget permits to carry one unless you’re rich, famous or politically connected.

Does anyone care to speculate on the shopkeepers fate had he pulled the poor young man in and told the Trinitarios to go away? And why would citizens have a duty to try and save anyone when law enforcement does not?

Naturally the politicians that would require that are also totalitarians who believe in their government enforcers being the “Only Ones” that should be armed. And itonly stands to reason  they’re both big “immigration” (invasion) advocates.

Create the problem then exploit the predictable disaster to ratchet up control.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?

10

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

9 comments

  1. “ if a business with fewer than 50 employees fails to ‘provide a safe refuge for a child who had physical injury inflicted upon him or is in imminent danger of such injury until authorities arrive,’ the business would be subject to penalties”

    So if there are six small businesses on the street, and some kid gets brutalized on the sidewalk, how do they determine WHICH one “failed to provide a safe refuge?” Or do they just fine them all?

    Wow, I can see this one being litigated forever. This is what happens when idiots write laws.

  2. The most critical point to this fiasco is made at the end of the article. Why would citizens be made responsible for saving anyone when police are not? If this insanity is passed, I see a supreme court decision in It’s future.

  3. Need I say, once again, that the solution (or the direction in which a solution can be found) for ALL nonsense of this kind–as well as for neutralizing street gangs (among other criminal cartels)–is revitalization of the Militia? That’s the drum which has to be beaten.

  4. Allow me to make a suggestion that we here at Oath Keepers should be talking about constantly; revitalize “the Militia of the several States”.
    The Constitution reads, “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…” Our Law does not state that the Congress may unorganize, disarm, or leave the Militia undisciplined. I firmly believe that re-organizing Militia as the Founders recognized would solve many of our problems.
    This organization certainly has a large enough membership to demand a conference with the president and educate him on the law as applied to Militia.

  5. Talk about shanghai-ing citizen’s into being unpaid, untrained police. So, consider what if a gang, umm I mean, a small group of, say, 3 or more men, umm I mean, children, ‘appear’ to be under attack next to a small business? Would you be required to let them in, past any security – and perhaps rob you? I’ll bet the bad guys have already thought of this.

  6. This is the same state that voted in that Communist Cortez and her collective ideas! Do these people not understand what Communism is??? Only the top few have everything and the rest of us will either be in 4 categories: 1)working on the collective farms 2)working in the collective factories(both of these for the greater good of the Communist State and workers earning pennies on the dollar or whatever financial payment the Communist government might have)3) in prison 4)DEAD or killed because we didn’t agree with what the leaders were doing ….ie…Russia, China, NK, Cuba and the latest victim Venezuela where people are literally eating human beings and dogs and cats to stay alive!

  7. And exactly what are you supposed to use to protect these poor waifs? You can’t have a gun in NYC. unless …..

    Sounds more like an attack on small business (as collectivists are want to do) than anything like protection for gang members.

  8. This is absolute insanity. Why aren’t the damn cops out there fighting for these kids. That’s what they get paid for.

Leave a Reply