Every law-abiding citizen should have one, or two, or three, or more!
Every law-abiding citizen should have one, or two, or three, or more!
Guns, what guns?
From Fox News: A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Florida doctors can talk to patients about gun safety, declaring a law aimed at restricting such discussions a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law does not trespass on patients’ Second Amendment rights to own guns and noted a patient who doesn’t want to be questioned about that can easily find another doctor.
“The Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms does not preclude questions about, commentary on, or criticism for the exercise of that right,” wrote Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan (appointed by Obama and born in Cuba) in one of two majority opinions covering 90 pages. “There is no actual conflict between the First Amendment rights of doctors and medical professionals and the Second Amendment rights of patients.”
Circuit Judge William Pryor, who was a finalist in President Donald Trump’s search for a Supreme Court nominee, said in a separate concurring opinion that the First Amendment must protect all points of view.
“The promise of free speech is that even when one holds an unpopular point of view, the state cannot stifle it,” he wrote. “The price Americans pay for this freedom is that the rule remains unchanged regardless of who is in the majority.”
The law was passed in 2011 and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott with strong support from the National Rifle Association. It was the only one of its kind in the nation, although similar laws have been considered in other states.
Supporters in the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature insisted it was necessary because doctors were overstepping their bounds and pushing an anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment agenda.
The law was challenged almost immediately by thousands of physicians, medical organizations and other groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union as a violation of free speech in what became known as the “Docs v. Glocks” case. A legal battle has raged in the courts since then, with several conflicting opinions issued.
“We are thrilled that the court has finally put to bed the nonsensical and dangerous idea that a doctor speaking with a patient about gun safety somehow threatens the right to own a gun,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.
The 11th Circuit noted that Florida lawmakers appeared to base the law on “six anecdotes” about physicians’ discussions of guns in their examination rooms and little other concrete evidence that there is an actual problem. And doctors who violated the law could face professional discipline, a fine or possibly loss of their medical licenses.
“There was no evidence whatsoever before the Florida Legislature that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients’ firearms or otherwise infringed on patients’ Second Amendment rights,” Jordan wrote for the court.
The NRA and Florida attorneys had argued that under the law doctors could ask about firearms if the questions were relevant to a patient’s health or safety, or someone else’s safety, and that the law was aimed at eliminating harassment of gun owners. But the 11th Circuit said there was no evidence of harassment or improper disclosure of gun ownership in health records, as law supporters also claimed.
“There is nothing in the record suggesting that patients who are bothered or offended by such questions are psychologically unable to choose another medical provider, just as they are permitted to do if their doctor asks too many questions about private matters like sexual activity, alcohol consumption, or drug use,” the court ruled.
The ruling did determine that some parts of the law could remain on the books, such as provisions allowing patients to decline to answer questions about guns and prohibiting health insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing premiums for people who lawfully own guns.
The case will return to U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke in Miami for a ruling that follows the 11th Circuit’s direction. The case could, however, also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Paging the good mayor, those who voted for him and #BLM. “Crickets.”
From MyFoxChicago: An 11-year-old girl was shot in the head Saturday night in the Parkway Gardens neighborhood on the South Side.
The girl was sitting in the rear seat of a vehicle about 7:40 p.m. in the 6500 block of South King Drive when gunfire was heard and she was discovered with a gunshot wound to her head, Chicago Police said. She was taken to Comer Children’s Hospital in critical condition, police said. No one was in custody as Area Central detectives investigate.
Also Saturday night, a 12-year-old girl was shot and critically wounded in West Englewood. She was playing with friends about 7:15 p.m. outside in the 1900 block of West 57th Street when gunfire erupted and she was shot in the head, according to Chicago Police.
The girl, who was not thought to be the intended target of the shooting, was taken in critical condition to Stroger Hospital. Police initially said the victim was a woman, between 35 and 40 years old. No one was in custody as Area South detectives investigate.
The girls were among 18 shot in Chicago over the weekend, including three fatally. During the second weekend of February 2016, which was Presidents Day weekend, six people were killed and 19 wounded in shootings.
So far in 2017, 313 people have been shot in Chicago, according to Sun-Times records. At least ten of the victims have been children under the age of 14.
I dare any of the proggies freaking out over Trump’s temporary immigration ban take a lovely vacation to Germany.
A website calling itself Migrant Fright was discreetly selling what it describes as first-class quality goods so that its customers can avoid ‘annoying bureaucratic hurdles or annoying paperwork’. The website has since been closed down, but Germans who have already received the weapons in the post, are practicing firing the guns in their back gardens in preparation for potentially aiming it at a prospective terrorist.
The now-defunct website, seen by MailOnline, carried a mission statement that read: ‘Protect yourself and your family. We offer first-class quality goods, discreetly sent, at a fair price. Without annoying bureaucratic hurdles or annoying paperwork. Simply order, pay conveniently and receive the delivery. Simple, fast and discreet – that is the motto of Migrantenschreck.’
Various packages were available to customers, ranging from €7.99 to €799, and includes guns, grenades and ammunition.
Professionals, including doctors, were getting the deadly weapons delivered to their workplaces, according to Sued Deutsche. Undercover reporters from the paper tracked the guns to a doctor’s address to quiz him over his purchase.
The now-armed physician claims not to have a problem with protecting his family, but has an interest in weapons. He has been practicing firing his gun in his garden, and said the noise was deafening. ‘I think the rate of crime increases with the influx of foreigners,’ he told Sued Deutsche.
‘People from other countries, of course, have different ideas about how to behave in society. The uncontrolled immigration is a problem, we need a 180-degree rotation.’
It is understood the weapons were being bought legally in Hungary and shipped to Germany, which is illegal. Many of the customers are thought to be unaware they had broken any laws.
Germany was rocked by terror last year, heaping pressure on chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door immigration policy. A bloody week of violence that rocked Germany began on July 18 when Pakistani teenager Riaz Khan Ahmadzai, 17, posing as an Afghan refugee, hacked at passengers on a train in Wurzburg with an axe, wounding five. He was shot dead by police.
Four days later mentally unstable German-Iranian teenager Ali Sonboly shot nine people dead during a rampage through a shopping centre in Munich before taking his own life. Sonboly claimed he was taking revenge for being bullied at school with no political motive to the murderous rampage.
Earlier that month, a suspected ISIS airport bomb plotter hanged himself in a German prison after being arrested following a manhunt. Syrian national Jaber al-Bakr, 22, was found dead in his cell in Leipzig, eastern Germany on Wednesday evening – having reportedly used his own t-shirt – and was taken away overnight. He was detained on Sunday after three days on the run following a tip-off that he may have been looking to team up with associates in Leipzig.
Al-Bakr had built ‘a virtual bomb-making lab’ in a flat in Chemnitz and was thought to have planned an attack against either one of Berlin’s two airports or a transport hub in his home state of Saxony, security sources said. Chemnitz was on lockdown for hours when police raided his flat but failed to seize him before he was captured by fellow Syrian nationals who tied him up and handed him over to the authorities.
And on Monday, December 19, Tunisian ISIS fanatic Anis Amri hijacked a 35-tonne truck and ploughed it into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 people.
From Campus Reform: Student senators at Texas State University recently introduced a bill that would place a permanent ban on “safe spaces,” but are facing predictably intense criticism over the “detrimental” legislation.
According to a copy of the bill obtained by Campus Reform, its passage would result in a ban on “all safe spaces and equivalent spaces,” and promote a campus where students can “be open to other concepts without ‘trigger warnings.’”
“It has become a nationwide trend for colleges to allow students to escape from views and concepts that might be deemed controversial, dangerous, or offensive,” the resolution argues, explaining that “upon graduating, students will experience views that differ from their own and will not be able to retreat to safe spaces.”
The bill, set to be voted on Monday night, is facing strident opposition from left-leaning organizations and students, including a candidate for the school’s Student Body President, who shamed the sponsors of the resolution for their “detrimental piece of legislation.”
“Not only is this detrimental to the social safety of many groups here at Texas State, but a clear obstruction of our core values as a university,” Russell Boyd wrote in a statement. “As representatives of the student body, it is imperative that the student government take into account the many students that will be greatly impacted by this detrimental piece of legislation.”
Meanwhile, the school’s Pan African Action Committee also rebuked the controversial bill, publicly reprimanding one of its four cosponsors, Student Senator Alex Sherman.
“Underdeveloped and undefined, this senator has administered a relatively weak challenge to the diverse student body of Texas State,” the group protested in a statement on its Facebook page, arguing that “a school with such a diverse population deserves not fewer but more ‘safe spaces’ to facilitate dialogue and education about the communities Alex Sherman is clearly detached from.”
Another group of students, identifying themselves simply as “the student organizers” who recently circulated a sanctuary campus petition, have now drafted a letter that urges students to “testify in opposition to the bill” Monday evening, and vote for candidates who support their movement.
“Our student government has many members that scoff at the idea of helping minorities and the [sanctuary campus] petition itself,” the letter contends, noting that “allies to the petition feel like they have a target on their backs,” and once again singling out Sherman for his support of abolishing safe spaces.
While Sherman has been repeatedly, and almost exclusively, called out by his peers, the primary author of the resolution is actually Student Senator Mason McKie, who told Campus Reform that he was not “surprised by the negative reactions” to his bill, since “colleges across the country have been experiencing similar reactions when conservative views are brought to the table.”
“This piece of legislation isn’t just important for my campus, but it could be a cornerstone for many more things to come,” he continued. “Students have the right to freely express themselves. College is a time to be open to new ideas and learn from others that might not necessarily agree with you.”
On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s Executive Order on the temporary immigration ban. The judge, appointed by George W. Bush, said the state of Washington proved that the local economy and citizens have suffered “irreparable harm” and an injunction should be applied.
This same judge presided over a case of overseeing the reform of the Seattle Police Department due to allegations of excessive force and “biased policing.” According to Wikipedia, Judge Robart presided over a 2012 consent decree requiring the Seattle Police Department to address federal allegations of police bias. During the hearing, he declared “black lives matter.” See the video below.
The judge ultimately sided against the Seattle Police Department. According to the Seattle Times, Robart ended the hearing with deeply personal remarks, in which he noted a statistic that showed, nationally, 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population.
“Black lives matter,” he said, drawing a startled, audible reaction in a courtroom listening to the words coming from a federal judge sitting on the bench. Read all about the Seattle Police Department case at the Seattle Times here.
Appears the good judge is nothing more than an activist judge. Just what the libtards needed to stick it to Trump.