Category Archives: gun control

NRA may lose tax-exempt status due to internal corruption

A long article by Mike Spies, “Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A.,” in The New Yorker, April 17, 2019, describes the National Rifles Association (NRA) as being in serious trouble.

The Hill reports that the New Yorker article led gun-control group Everytown For Gun Safety (EFGS) to file an IRS complaint on April 19, claiming that the NRA is in violation of tax laws on charitable organizations and should be investigated. As EFGS says in a letter attached to their complaint:

The NRA is a purported charity and exempt from federal tax under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and we write today to alert you to what we believe are activities that clearly fall outside of the NRA’s charitable purpose and mission. We call on the IRS to commence an investigation into whether (i) the NRA has violated the federal laws governing 501(c)(4) charitable organizations, and (ii) if so, consider what remedies are warranted, including potential revocation of the NRA’s 501(c)(4) status.

For his New Yorker article, Mike Spies conducted interviews and obtained the NRA’s federal tax forms, charity records, contracts, corporate filings, and internal communications. Although the “vast majority” of contributions to the NRA come from “millions of small individual donors”, what Spies uncovered is an organization of secrecy, corruption, and grossly overpaid executives. Memos by a senior NRA employee describe a workplace distinguished by secrecy, self-dealing, and greed, whose leaders have encouraged disastrous business ventures and questionable partnerships, while marginalizing those who object.

Spies’ article, “Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A.,” begins with an admission by NRA top executive Wayne LaPierre that the organization is “troubled”. Here are the signs of financial trouble:

  • In recent years, the NRA has run annual deficits of as much as $40 million.
  • A financial audit from 2017 revealed that the NRA had nearly reached the limit of a $25 million line of credit.
  • According to minutes of a meeting of the NRA board’s finance committee in December 1996, “the NRA has been technically insolvent for several years” and “has incurred substantial debt.”

To raise money, the NRA:

  • Raised its dues for the second time in two years.
  • Liquidated more than $2 million from an investment fund.
  • Borrowed almost $4 million from its officers’ life-insurance policies, while the costs of insurance increased by 341% from 2018 to 2019.
  • Tapped another $4 million from its affiliated charitable foundation.

To cut costs, the NRA:

  • Eliminated free coffee and water coolers at its headquarters.
  • Froze its employees’ pension plan.
  • Reduced spending on its avowed core mission of gun education, safety, and training to less than 10% of its total budget.

The source of the NRA’s insolvency is a small group of executives, contractors and vendors who “extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from the nonprofit’s budget, through gratuitous payments, sweetheart deals, and opaque financial arrangements“.

The small elite group who’s bleeding the NRA dry includes:

  1. LaPierre, who earns more than $1 million a year.
  2. Dana Loesch, NRA spokesperson and former Breitbart News editor, who earned close to $1 million in at least one year.
  3. Oliver North, NRA president and former Iran-Contra operative, is paid roughly $1 million a year.
  4. Kyle Weaver, former executive director of NRA’s general operations who was fired in the fall of 2016, nevertheless was paid $720,000 for that year. State filings show Weaver also received $150,000 upon his exit, and continued to be paid through 2018, receiving “a final lump sum” this past January.
  5. Weaver’s successor, Josh Powell, was paid nearly $800,000 in 2017. Powell came to the NRA after running two clothing catalogues that catered to men who enjoy adventure, venison, and fine wine. He was sued at least 20 times by businesses that had worked with him, for unpaid bills amounting to more than $400,000. In December, 2018, Powell was moved out of the job of executive director of general operations, and was “promoted” to the NRA’s legal team as  a “senior strategist” although he is not an attorney.
  6. Mike Marcellin was a senior NRA employee for almost 23 years who oversaw the NRA’s relationship with Lockton Affinity, an insurance administrator that worked on Carry Guard and other NRA-branded insurance products. Iin 2016, Marcellin retired from the NRA and started a private consultancy. Although he had worked only the first few weeks of January, the NRA paid him a full year’s salary — nearly $630,000, mostly in the form of a bonus. During the same year, Lockton paid him about $450,000. No one was aware that Marcellin was receiving income from both organizations—a situation that should have been disclosed on the NRA’s 2016 tax filings.
  7. Curiously, North and Loesch technically are not employed by the NRA, but are paid by Oklahoma-based public-relations firm Ackerman McQueen, which has shaped the NRA’s public identity for more than 30 years, wields great influence over the NRA’s initiatives, and is involved with nearly all of the group’s divisions. In 2017, according to tax filings, the NRA paid Ackerman McQueen and its affiliates $40.9 million, or about 12% of the NRA’s total expenses that year.

The NRA and Ackerman McQueen have become so intertwined that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. Top officials and staff move freely between the two organizations. For instance, Ackerman has worked closely with LaPierre’s wife, Susan, who maintains an Ackerman e-mail address and was briefly employed there in the mid-1990s.

Many NRA employees have long suspected Ackerman of inflating the cost of the services it provides. Aaron Davis, a former special-education teacher from rural South Carolina who spent a decade working in the NRA’s fund-raising department, told The New Yorker: “Most staffers think that Ackerman is too expensive. They think they’re just using the N.R.A. to make a massive profit.”

On April 12, the NRA sued Ackerman McQueen, claiming that the PR firm has denied the NRA access to basic business records, including the terms of Oliver North’s contract, and blaming Ackerman for the NRA’s financial insolvency.

Marc Owens, who was head of the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees tax-exempt enterprises for 10 years, recently reviewed the NRA’s records, said:

“The litany of red flags is just extraordinary. The materials reflect one of the broadest arrays of likely transgressions that I’ve ever seen. There is a tremendous range of what appears to be the misuse of assets for the benefit of certain venders and people in control. Those facts, if confirmed, could lead to the revocation of the N.R.A.’s tax-exempt status.

Without its tax-exempt status, the NRA likely will not survive.

H/t truckjunkie and Guns & Gadgets

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Sandy Hook: The curious case of Danbury Hospital’s premature Facebook message, 48 mins. before police received 911 call

This post was first published more than a year ago, but it warrants a re-publishing because the San Francisco-based Archive.org (aka Internet Archive Wayback Machine) refuses to archive the post.

There are so many oddities and anomalies about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on the morning of December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut, in which, we are told, 20 first-grade students and 6 adults were killed. The authorities have not made even the slightest effort to address these anomalies, nor have the corporate media shown even the slightest curiosity in investigating these oddities.

This is about one of those oddities: The fact that Danbury Hospital posted on its Facebook page a message of sympathy about the shooting and an offer to assist 48 minutes before Newtown police received the 911 call about a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES). Danbury Hospital in Danbury, CT, is the nearest hospital to Newtown, just 12 miles down the road from SHES.

According to the Newtown police’s timeline of the mass shooting on the morning of December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut:

  • 9:35:39 – First 911 call to Newtown Police Department is received.
  • 9:36:06 – Newtown Police Department dispatcher broadcasts that there is a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
  • 9:37:38 – Connecticut State Police are dispatched to Sandy Hook Elementary School for active shooter.
  • 9:38:50 – Connecticut State Police are informed that Sandy Hook Elementary School is in lockdown.
  • 9:39:00 – First Newtown police officer arrives behind Sandy Hook Elementary School on Crestwood Road.
  • 9:40:03 – Last gunshot is heard. This is believed to be the final suicide shot from the shooter in classroom 10.
  • 9:42:39 – Newtown officer calls out the license plate of the shooter’s car.
  • 9:44:47 – Newtown officers enter Sandy Hook Elementary School.
  • 9:46:23 – Connecticut State Police arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
  • 9:46:48 – Connecticut State Police enter Sandy Hook Elementary School

On December 14, 2012, at 8:47 ammore than 48 minutes before police, at 9:35 am, received the first 911 call from SHES — Danbury Hospital posted this message on Facebook:

We are here to care for any victims and their families in any way they need us. Our hearts and prayers are extended to anyone involved in this terrible tragedy. To date, three patients have been transported to Danbury Hospital from the scene.

Out of abundance of caution and not because of any direct threat Danbury Hospital is under lockdown. This allows us simply to focus on the important work at hand.

We will keep you apprised of any additional information as details are confirmed.

Below is a screenshot of Danbury Hospital’s Facebook page (source: Wolfgang Halbig):

Here’s a screenshot of Halbig’s email that he bcc’d FOTM on February 17, 2018 (I redacted his email address):

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Sandy Hook: Why are there 4 versions of Noah Pozner’s death certificate?

This is a reblog of the April 17, 2019 post on Huntingfororcs blog (https://wordpress.com/posts/huntingfororcs.wordpress.com), which is archived here and here, and republished on James Fetzer‘s and other blogs, including DC Clothesline, to which Lenny Pozner’s HONR Network has issued a takedown demand — although everything in the post is factual and in the public record.

Note to Fellowship of the Minds‘ host-server: The images of documents published in this post are all in the public record, i.e., in the public domain. This post, therefore, cannot be construed in any way as a “harassment” of anyone. Those public documents published in this post are:

~

Lenny Pozner, father of Noah, a victim of the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, is suing Professor James Fetzer.

Central to the lawsuit is Noah Pozner’s death certificate.

In the United States, a standard model death certificate was developed around 1910, in the interest of uniformity and consistency in record keeping. As Lawrence K. Altman, M.D., wrote in the New York Times on July 1, 2013:

Before 1900, the United States lagged behind European countries in developing a centralized death registration system. By 1910, the country had developed a standard model death certificate, Dr. Randy Hanzlick wrote in a 1996 history of death registration for The Journal of Forensic Sciences.

Lenny’s lawsuit claims that Fetzer has “defamed” Lenny by asserting in books and his blog that Noah’s death certificate, which Fetzer had received from an individual named Kelley Watt who claims her source to be Lenny himself, is fraudulent. In the lawsuit, Lenny provides an image of what he claims to be Noah’s real “official” death certificate — Attachment A on page 15 in Pozner v. Fetzer Civil Complaint & Demand For Jury Trial, filed on November 27, 2018, at the Circuit Court of Dane County, Wisconsin.

We will number the Fetzer-Watt document as Death Certificate #1, which is Exhibit A on page 4 of Fetzer’s Request For Admissions, filed on January 24, 2019, at the Circuit Court of Dane County, Wisconsin. We will number the image that Lenny provided as Noah’s “official” death certificate as Death Certificate #2.

Death Certificate #1:

Below is a screen shot of Death Certificate #1 — Noah’s death certificate that Fetzer had received from Watt, who in turn had received it from Lenny Pozner himself. Note the following:

  • The top right box (circled pink) for the death certificate’s State File Number is blank.
  • The words in three boxes are blacked out: two side-by-side boxes for the name and location of the cemetery, and a box in the lower right labeled “Social Security Number” of the decedent, Noah.
  • There is no seal of the State of Connecticut at the bottom of the certificate.

Kelley Watt has provided Fetzer with an affidavit stating that the source of Death Certificate #1, Exhibit A in Fetzer’s Request For Admissions, is Lenny Pozner himself. That then leads to this question: How did Lenny get hold of Noah’s death certificate BEFORE it received a file number and BEFORE the State of Connecticut certified the certificate with its seal? 

Death Certificate #2:

Below is a screen shot of a strangely blurry death certificate of Noah which Lenny claims to be the “official” death certificate, which is Attachment A in Pozner v. Fetzer Civil Complaint & Demand For Jury Trial. Note the following:

  • There is a handwritten State File Number 2012-07-078033 in the top right box. But the words in the other boxes, except for signatures, are typewritten.
  • The lower left box for the decedent’s (Noah’s) Social Security Number, which was blacked out in Death Certificate #1, is blank.
  • There is the seal of the State of Connecticut at the bottom of the certificate.

Death Certificates #3 and #4:

Curiously, there are at least two other online versions of Noah’s death certificates, identified as Exhibits C and D on pages 6 and 7 in Fetzer’s Request For Admissions. We will call them Death Certificate #3 and Death Certificate #4.

June 10, 2017 post on the blog, SandyHookFacts.com, has two images of Noah’s death certificate:

(1) A “parent copy” that was released by Lenny Pozner in 2014, which is identical to the Death Certificate #1 that Kelley Watt gave Fetzer. We will call this “parent copy” Death Certificate #3.

Below is a screenshot of Death Certificate #3. Note the following:

  • Like Death Certificate #1, the box for State File Number is blank.
  • Like Death Certificate #1, the box for Social Security Number is blacked out.
  • Like Death Certificate #1, there is no certified seal of the State of Connecticut at the bottom of the certificate.

(2) The same source, SandyHookFacts.com, also published another version of Noah’s death certificate, which the blog calls a “public” copy that is a “Certified Death Certificate” obtained in 2016 from Newtown Town Clerk, which “was released on video by SandyHookFact.com” — “the premeir release of this document by blog.” We will call this “public copy” Death Certificate #4.

Below is a screenshot of Death Certificate #4. Note the following:

  • In the box for State File Number is a partial printed number 0243. Recall that the handwritten State File Number in Death Certificate #2 is 2012-07-078033.
  • Boxes 54-58 and the box for Social Security Number that are in Death Certificates #1, #2 and #3 are missing.
  • Nor does Death Certificate #4 have the seal of the State of Connecticut at the bottom, which is also missing in Death Certificates #1 and #3.

Death Certificate #5:

Then there is Death Certificate #5, Noah Pozner’s definitive, official death certificate, certified by the State of Connecticut and issued by the Registrar of Vital Records Elizabeth Frugale on March 20, 2019. In most U.S. states, including Connecticut, death and birth certificates are considered public records. Anyone can obtain a certified copy of any Connecticut death certificate by going to:

https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Vital-Records/State-Vital-Records-Office–Home

We will call this Death Certificate #5. Below is a screenshot of the scan of this officially certified death certificate of Noah Pozner. Note the following:

  • Like Death Certificate #2, and unlike Death Certificates #1, #3 and #4, the top right box has a handwritten State File Number 2012-07-078033.
  • The bottom right box for Noah’s Social Security Number is blank, but the blankness appears to be a result of erasure (or “whiteout”). The printed words “Social Security” of “Social Security Number” and a little bit of the bottom line are also erased.

To conclude, there are at least four different versions of Noah Pozner’s death certificate:

(1) Certificates #1 (Fetzer’s copy of the death certificate obtained from Kelley Watt) and #3 (death certificate posted on SandyHookFacts.com) appear to be identical and share these characteristics:

  • A blank State File Number box.
  • Three boxes are blacked out: two side-by-side boxes for the name and location of the cemetery, and a box in the lower right labeled “Social Security Number” of the decedent, Noah.
  • No seal of the State of Connecticut at the bottom of the certificate.

(2) Certificate #2, Attachment A in Pozner v. Fetzer Civil Complaint & Demand For Jury Trial, which Lenny Pozner claims to be Noah’s “official” death certificate, has the following characteristics:

  • Unlike Death Certificates #1 and #3, there is a handwritten State File Number 2012-07-078033 in the top right box.
  • The lower right box for the decedent’s (Noah’s) Social Security Number, which was blacked out in Death Certificates #1 and #3, is blank.
  • Unlike Death Certificates #1 and #3, there is the seal of the State of Connecticut at the bottom of this certificate.

(3) Certificate #4, which SandyHookFacts.com claims to be a “public” copy of a “Certified Death Certificate” obtained in 2016 from Newtown Town Clerk, has the following characteristics:

  • There is a partial printed, not handwritten, number 0243 in the box for State File Number, which is completely different from the handwritten State File Number 2012-07-078033 in Death Certificate #2.
  • Boxes 54-58 and the box for Social Security Number that are in Death Certificates #1, #2 and #3 are missing.
  • Like Death Certificates #1 and #3, there is no seal of the State of Connecticut at the bottom, although SandyHookFacts.com says Death Certificate #4 is a “Certified Death Certificate”.

(4) Death Certificate #5, the official certified copy of the death certificate issued by the State of Connecticut on March 20, 2019, with the following characteristics:

  • Like Death Certificate #2, but unlike Death Certificates #1, #3 and #4, the top right box has a handwritten State File Number 2012-07-078033.
  • Unlike Death Certificate #2, instead of being blacked out, the box for Noah’s Social Security Number is blank, but the blankness appears to be a result of erasure (or “whiteout”).

One last curiosity:

Note that both Death Certificates #2 and #5 have a handwritten State File Number 2012-07-078033, but the words in the other boxes (except for signatures) are all typed.

Below is a screen shot of the certified death certificate of X, a man who died in New Haven, Connecticut on November 6, 2017, which was issued on March 20, 2019. X’s name and the names of his relatives (Boxes 18-22) are blacked out in the interest of privacy. Note that the State File Number 2017 07027410 of X’s certified death certificate is printed, not handwritten as in Noah’s certified death certificate (#5).

To conclude:

Assuming that Death Certificate #5, the certified copy of Noah Pozner’s death certificate that was issued by the State of Connecticut’s Registrar of Vital Records Elizabeth Frugale on March 20, 2019, is the “real” death certificate, since it differs from Death Certificates (DC) #1, #2, #3, and #4, that would make those four death certificates fraudulent — including the Fetzer-Watt copy (DC #1), the subject of Lenny Pozner’s lawsuit against James Fetzer, as well as the death certificate Lenny claims to be Noah’s “official” death certificate (DC #2) which he included in Civil Complaint & Demand For Jury Trial as Attachment A.

~

See also:

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Chase Bank says they won’t do business with Trump supporters in Project Veritas undercover audio

In China, the Communist Party government keeps a “social credit” score on each citizen for reward/punishment. Depending on the score, citizens may find themselves unable to travel on plane or train.

Here in the United States, some privately-owned businesses — including banks — are doing that. Below are examples of politicized businesses that are actively against the Second Amendment and discriminate against gun-owners:

Chase Bank is going after conservatives and Trump supporters by closing their accounts.

Chase Bank is one of the Big Four banks in the United States, with more than 5,100 branches and 16,000 ATMs. (The other three big banks are Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.) Known as Chase Manhattan Bank until 2000 when it merged with multinational banking and financial services holding company J.P. Morgan & Co. Headquartered in Manhattan, NYC, Chase Bank is the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.

On February 26, 2019, I reported on Chase Bank denying service to four conservatives & Trump supporters: Joe Biggs, Laura Loomer, Martina Markova, and Enrique Tarrio. This post is a follow-up on the case of Enrique Tarrio, a Cuban-black who is the chairman of a fraternal organization called Proud Boys, slimed by Wikipedia as “a far-right neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence.”

As reported by Big Leaque Politics, Tarrio received a letter from Chase Bank, dated February 4, 2019, that “After careful consideration, we have determined that we can no longer support your banking account(s) and will be closing it on April 01, 2019.” The letter came days after Chase Bank’s payment processor, Chase Paymentech, de-platformed Tarrio on 1776.shop — a website he runs that allows groups and charities to sell merchandise and raise money for causes. The website is most known for selling the “Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong” shirts which Stone was wearing during the late-night arrest at his home.

Tarrio says that before Chase terminated his account, he had asked the bank why, but phone operators for Chase were unable to explain why his business account was being terminated.

Two days ago, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released an undercover video of conversations with Chase Bank professionals discussing the closure of Tarrio’s account.

As described by Project Veritas, “Multiple Chase account and bank managers were unable to assist Tarrio, saying that inquiries regarding the closure of his business account would have to be directed to the ‘executive office.’” Chase banker Marcel Smith said the bank typically gives its customers a reason for account closures: “I see nothing that indicates any reason why the account should be closed, I don’t see any outstanding transactions or anything ridiculous. I’ve never seen them not give a response to someone whose account they had closed.”

An analyst from the Chase executive office, Nora, told Tarrio that his account was being closed for various clerical issues. But Tarrio, in a phone conversation with Nora which was published by Project Veritas, made clear there were no “clerical issues”.

But a Project Veritas (PV) undercover audio of a conversation with a Chase Corporate Global Media Relations employee reveals that Chase Bank does make political judgments about their customers:

PV JOURNALIST: I don’t want to do business with anyone who does business with Steve Bannon, or any of these alt right people, and that’s just one of my prerequisites.

CHASE: Right, right. As far as I’m concerned, we’re not connected with Steve Bannon.

JOURNALIST: Do you have standards in place that would preempt such relationship with anyone, um of Steve Bannon’s.–

CHASE: Oh definitely. Definitely, definitely.

JOURNALIST: That’s what I’m calling to inquire about. Tell me more.

CHASE: Right so I mean, Chase is not involved with any like, you know, alt right people or anything. I really can’t name names but it’s basically like we don’t get involved with any of that…

JOURNALIST: … I don’t expect for you guys, I’m not talking about who you guys give money to –

CHASE: No, just any business relationships, period.

JOURNALIST: Really? Okay… So I mean on my end I’m talking about people like Trump supporters for instance. The MAGA, whatever – make, whatever the hell they, those types of people, I mean individuals.

CHASE: Right, right. I know what you mean, but like I said the call is being recorded, monitored, so I can’t get too political. And say I don’t support these people, or this, but you know, any kind of business entity, people like that, no moral character or anything like that, the bank usually doesn’t get involved with that.

After Project Veritas released the undercover audio, Chase Bank issued a denial:

“We do not close accounts due to political affiliation. Despite what was described in the video, that was NOT someone from Global Corporate Media Relations.”

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe observes:

“Are there unwritten Chase policies that Mr. Tarrio and others were in breach of? ‘Debanking’ appears to be a new frontier in American politics.”

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Maryland students outraged after gun raffle held to pay for graduation party

From MyFoxChicago: Students at Brunswick High School in Maryland are upset that a raffle for guns was used to support a party for the graduating seniors.

The Frederick News-Post reports the Safe and Sane program at Brunswick High School raffled off guns in February. Tickets were $20 each for prizes that included hunting rifles and shotguns.

Chasidy Plunkard is a volunteer parent coordinator who organized the raffle. She says volunteers sold about 250 of the 1,000 available tickets. Seven winning tickets were selected.

Safe and Sane sponsors an alcohol-free party after graduation for high school seniors. Students said the decision to hold the raffle while promoting safety was counterintuitive.

Plunkard says the fundraiser was handled legally, including not selling tickets to people under 18 years old and requiring background checks.

According to the article from the Frederick News-Post, kids don’t want guns associated with schools. From their article:

“I understand that not all guns kill people,” Donoghue said. “And I understand that the raffle may have had background checks in place. But I think just the idea of selling weapons when you’re talking about high schoolers and you’re talking about high schooler safety is ridiculous and is completely ignoring the bigger picture.

Abigail Rohmiller, a junior, said she was concerned with the fundraiser because it associates guns with her school. The association is troubling to her given the number of high-profile school shootings, such as the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in February 2018, she said.

“At the same time we’re having to go through active shooter drills in school, we’re selling guns to raise money,” Rohmiller said. “What’s the message here? … There are tons of different ways to fundraise, and I don’t think we need to bring deadly weapons into the mix.”

Shall we talk about the bigger picture?

FACT: There were MUTIPLE system failures which led to the Parkland shooting: Broward Coward’s failure to properly respond, failing radio system, mismanagement of school safety funds, and – most noticeably – allowing the shooter to get away with criminal activities. Had those criminal activities been reported, he would not have been allowed to legally purchase a gun.

FACT: Many shootings have been committed by kids under 18 – also known as prohibited possessors.

FACT: Firearms are not allowed on school properties.

FACT: Mass public shootings keep occurring in gun-free zones: 97.8% of attacks since 1950. (Data from the Crime Prevention Research Center.)

I understand why kids may be concerned that guns are associated with schools. The main reason for that is because criminals do not follow the law. And that progressives do not want to face reality.

Maybe if school resource officers and teachers were armed, criminals would think twice about committing a school shooting as they would associate schools with guns that are used for safety, protection and self defense.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Californians react with derision to presidential aspirant Eric ‘we’ll nuke you’ Swalwell and impeach Trump plan

Rep. Eric Swalwell, 38, is a California Demonrat who represents the 15th congressional district in the San Francisco Bay Area.

On April 8, 2019, Swalwell joined the growing list of hate-America freaks and communists who’ve announced their candidacy for the 2020 Demonrat presidential nomination. Swalwell fittingly chose as the venue to make his announcement, the late-night talk-show of another Demonrat, Stephen Colbert.

Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2012, Swalwell is a strong supporter of abortion and LGBTs. He is also not just an advocate of gun control, he wants government to confiscate whatever guns we have and if we resist, the government would “nuke” us.

As I’d posted last November, Swalwell wrote in a USA Today op/ed, “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” that he and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists, and urged that all “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” be outlawed and confiscated.

Responding to Swalwell’s gun ban and confiscation proposal, former InfoWars reporter Joe Biggs @Rambobiggs tweeted:

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

To which Swalwell tweeted this threat, which he later said was “sarcasm”:

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

On January 4, 2019, on syndicated radio’s “Hugh Hewitt Show,” Swalwell cautioned his fellow House Demonrats against voting to impeach President  Trump, saying he thinks it is “bad for democracy.” Instead of impeaching without an “airtight case,” Swalwell said his hope is that Trump is voted out at the ballot box. (Breitbart)

In response, Demonrat billionaire Tom Steyer (see “Tom Steyer: The man behind the $20M impeach Trump campaign and his strange ‘walnut sauce’ email“) announced he will be hosting a “Need to Impeach Town Hall” at the Casa Real at Ruby Hill Winery in Pleasanton, CA, on April 23. Steyer said the town hall is intended to urge Swalwell to push to start House impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

The news article of the town hall on Patch elicited an unprecedented (for Patch) number of comments, nearly all of which are from Swalwell’s 15th congressional district, which covers most of eastern Alameda County including Castro Valley, Dublin, the northern part of Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, Sunol, Union City, and parts of Contra Costa County, including San Ramon and a portion of Danville.

Here are the comments:

Bobbi Fleckman, Castro Valley: “MAGA! TRUMP 2020!! Swalwell, you are nothing but an embarrassment. You and your anti-American, progressive socialist cronies have ruined CA.”

Anneke, Castro Valley: “Why doesn’t Swalwell save his breath and time and do something that actually benefits the people in Alameda County? Why doesn’t he help solve our homelessness issues? Help with the high cost of housing? Help us get money to repair our roads and freeways? Why? Because it’s much easier to get in front of a microphone or on TV and bloviate against Trump than it is to actually solve some problems.”

Mark, Danville: “I read the headline and thought it was about impeaching Swalwell… was going to sign up.”

Rick, Danville: “Steyer and Swalwell – two guys who have never done anything that requires courage. Two lost, sorry souls craving attention.”

Bret, Dublin: “Was very happy to see the responses here. This is an absolute joke. Steyer must have money to burn, because this will amount to exactly zero. Swalwell continues to be an embarrassment to himself and D15. On a positive note, if he jumps on board with this whack job, it will destroy his chances of winning the Dem spot for 2020.”

Joanne Duncan, Livermore: “Would love to see Maga hats there! What a croc!”

Tina Brown, Livermore: “I will not be there! I love My President!”

Virginia Edwards, Livermore: “MAGA~Trump in 2020!!!”

J Cota, Livermore: “who is this Tom Steyer billionaire socialist who wants to keep minions under him and his SF cartel … We LOVE our President! I’ll be there PROTESTING your socialist indoctrination along with my Patriot friends!! #MAGA”

Karin Smith, Livermore: “This is the dumbest thing ever. Honestly, I think Swalwell should just resign for considering something so stupid. Get over it, people. You’re acting like children. Boo hoo. We had to deal with 8 years of obama. I’m not even a big fan of Trump, but I sure do like my pocket book right now–much better than how obama destroyed the economy. GROW UP!!”

Rolland, Pleasanton: “We need to Impeach Eric, He has done nothing but cause problems.very dumb.”

Bruce Brogden, Pleasanton: “Yes, I agree impeach Swalwell. I voted for Trump and will again. He is not impeachable. Beside impeaching a president does not remove him from office (i.e. Bill Clinton). It only limits their power. I also don’t think The Patch should be used to advertise tyranny.”

Bruce Brogden, Pleasanton: “Anther reason to not buy or patronize Ruby Hill Winery.”

Christopher F., Pleasanton: “Welcome to obscurity party for Eric Swalwell, sponsored by Ruby Hill ‘Whinery.'”

Trooper2, Pleasanton: “Outside Alameda County no one has even heard of him and he says the stupidest things just for the publicity. Hope you are reading these comments Mr Swalwell!”

Kelly Gamble, San Ramon: “More idiocy. Vote Conservative! Save our country!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸”

Kevin Christopher, San Ramon: “Nice to see our Representative using his time on important issues. Go back to work like the people that you serve”

Dave Fllcek, San Ramon: “Hey Swalwell, stop crying about Trump and move on. The person you should be trying to impeach is your own Governor Newsom! TRUMP 2020!!!!”

Carol Rossi, San Ramon: “Eric is Nancy’s poodle. She says sit and stay and he piddles on the floor. What are we impeaching Mr. Trump for? Saving us from Hillary and her socialist ambitions?”

And one comment from outside Swalwell’s 15th congressional district — in Berkeley!:

Richard Royal, Berkeley: “Is this guy *honestly* this stupid?”

Not a single comment favors Swalwell or the impeach Trump campaign, which leads me to wonder how Swalwell ever got elected in the first place.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

NRA sues Pittsburg over new gun ban law

The Pittsburg, PA mayor and city council have used the October 2018 mass shooting at Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill as justification for imposing a nearly total ban on firearms within the city limits.  The ban, signed into law yesterday (April 10), would prohibit the use of any semi-automatic firearm that could accept a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. The new law uses the term “military style weapons” in the ban. However, the restrictions on magazine capacity would also ban the use of most common semi-auto handguns within city limits.

The National Rifle Association wasted no time yesterday  filling a lawsuit against the city.  From The Tribune-Review, Greensburg, PA:

The National Rifle Association and its supporters wasted no time yesterday (April 10) suing Pittsburgh, the City Council and Mayor Bill Peduto following the mayor’s signing of three bills restricting the use of “military style” weapons from within city limits.

Four city residents with assistance from the NRA filed the lawsuit in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, less then three hours after the mayor signed the gun ordinances into law. Other local gun owners vowed to file criminal charges  against the mayor and council.

Peduto anticipated the legal challenges. He announced that that the city would be represented at no cost in the civil suit by by a legal team from the nonprofit gun control organization Everytown for Gun Safety, founded and funded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

He said he and six council members who voted in favor of the ban have also retained an attorney for criminal defense. He would not name the attorney.

“The very concept that the state could create a law that would say that elected officials who challenge the validity of that law would somehow be held to criminal charges goes against everything and every proactive step forward that this country has taken,” Peduto said. “What we’re going to do is we’re going to overturn this law.”

Laurence J. Anderson, Scott Miller, Robert R. Opdyke and Michael A. Whitehouse contend in the lawsuit that the city is violating a state law prohibiting municipalities from regulating firearms by banning the use of weapons with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The suit contends that guns come standard with magazines of that size.

They are seeking a permanent injunction to stop the city from enforcing the ban, which takes effect in 60 days, and reimbursement for legal fees.

“Pittsburgh’s ban on carrying loaded standard capacity magazines in public has a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ exercise of their right under Pennsylvania law to possess these magazines and to carry them in public for self defense,” the lawsuit said.

The mayor signed the bills in his conference room surrounded by supporters of the ban, including survivors and relatives of those killed during the October mass shooting at Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill. The observers gave Peduto a standing ovation.

“We’re still hurting,” said Lynette Lederman, former president of the Tree of Life congregation, and a staffer for City Councilman Corey O’Connor. “The personal trauma that me as former president of Tree of Life and my friends and the leadership of Tree of Life has experienced has kind of reached a watershed moment today. I’m very proud of Mayor Peduto.”

O’Connor and Councilwoman Erika Strassburger, who represent Squirrel Hill and proposed the bills, described Tree of Life as a “tipping point” in discussions over how to stop gun violence in the city.

The legislation consists of three bills. One would ban the possession and use of certain semiautomatic weapons, including “assault rifles.” A second would ban ammunition and accessories, such as large capacity magazines. A third bill, dubbed “extreme risk protection,” would permit courts to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed to be a public threat and impose penalties on an adult who allows a child to access a gun illegally.

City residents who currently own guns and accessories outlined in the bills would be grandfathered. Violators would face a civil penalty that carries a $1,000 fine, or up to 90 days in prison, for each offense.

Council approved the bills last week in a 6-3 vote. Three council members – Darlene Harris, Theresa Kail-Smith and Anthony Coghill – who voted against the legislation, were noticeably absent during the signing ceremony.

O’Connor said council is prepared for the court battle.

“I think everybody here said basically bring it on because we’re doing the right thing,” he said. “We’re willing to fight for our residents and I don’t think anybody is going to stop us.

~ Grif

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Gun control, Chiraq style: 6 shot at baby shower (including 2 kids); witnesses not cooperating with investigators

From MyFoxChicago: (Sun-Times Media Wire) – At least six people were wounded, including an 8-year-old boy and a 10-year-old girl, in a shooting Saturday evening on the South Side that happened while a family was celebrating the upcoming birth of a child.

Gunfire erupted at 6:21 p.m. at a gathering in the 6300 block of South Seeley in the Englewood neighborhood, according to Chicago police. Two men in dark clothing approached the family gathering and opened fire before fleeing on foot, police said.

Both children were taken to Comer Children’s Hospital where their conditions are critical but stable, authorities said. The boy was struck in his back and chest, and the girl was shot in her shin, police said.

A 29-year-old woman was shot in her shoulder and chest, while a 42-year-old man was shot twice in his hip, police said. They were taken to Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where the woman was in critical condition, and the man’s condition was stabilized.

The gunfire also hit a 23-year-old man in his foot and a 28-year-old man in the shoulder, police said. They were both taken to Holy Cross Hospital, where their conditions were stabilized. The older man was later transferred to Mount Sinai Hospital.

Witnesses were not cooperating with investigators, but based on the victim’s profiles police believe the shooting may have been in retaliation from an earlier incident in the neighborhood, police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. Detectives were reviewing footage from nearby surveillance cameras but had little physical evidence to work with at the scene.

The family was celebrating the upcoming birth of a child, authorities said.

The mother and grandmother of the wounded 8-year-old boy were seen waiting outside Comer, both of them visibly distressed. The mother, whose shirt was stained with blood, was crying out for her child. “He’s just a baby, he’s just a baby,” the mother said, as tears flowed down her face. The grandmother told reporters the boy was in surgery.

Meanwhile, in another shooting, a 13-year-old boy was seriously wounded about 8:20 p.m. in the 1200 block of West 73rd. Two males ran out of a vacant lot and fired shots into a car where the boy was sitting, striking him in the hip, police said. The car drove to 69th and Racine where paramedics were called. The boy’s condition was stabilized at Comer.

Speaking to reporters outside Comer, community activist Andrew Holmes called for prayers for the young victims and urged any witnesses to talk to police. “We’re starting the spring and summer off wrong,” Holmes said.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Ohio considers approving “constitutional carry”

 

Ohio is set to become the 17th state to approve “constitutional carry,” a law that would allow all law-abiding Ohioans to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a permit — a measure that Republican Gov. Mike DeWine supports. If approved, Ohio would become the 17th state to approve connotational carry.

On Tuesday, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed into law Senate Bill 150, making Kentucky the 16th state to allow “constitutional carry.” The Kentacky law states that “Persons age twenty-one (21) or older, and otherwise able to lawfully possess a firearm, may carry concealed firearms or other concealed deadly weapons without a license in the same locations as persons with valid licenses issued under KRS 237.110.”

Ohio House Bill 174 was introduced Wednesday by GOP Reps. Ron Hood of Ashville and Tom Brinkman of Cincinnati. The measure immediately attracted 27 co-sponsors from among the 61 majority House Republicans. Hood and Brinkman have introduced the same legislation for years without winning passage. Prospects for approval now, however, prospects for passage seem favorable. Almost half of Ohio House Republicans are pushing for passage of this bill.

Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners, posted a YouTube video featuring comments from Hood and Brinkman after the bill was filed in the clerk’s office.

“Gun owners are law-abiding citizens who follow the rules, and we need to let them be able to protect themselves. That’s what this is all about,” Brinkman said, noting that sixteen states now permit the carrying of weapons without permits.

The proposed Ohio bill would permit anyone age 21 or over, who is not disqualified by federal law due to a felony conviction or other offense from obtaining a weapon, to carry a hidden gun — without obtaining a concealed-carry permit. The bill also would repeal a current requirement that concealed-carry owners notify police officers they are carrying a gun when stopped. It also would authorize the expungement of the misdemeanor offense of anyone previously convicted of failing to inform an officer that he or she had a gun.

Currently, Ohioans can only carry a concealed weapon after obtaining a $67 permit from a county sheriff upon passing a criminal background check and completing eight hours of training by a certified instructor, including two hours of range time and live-fire training.

DeWine press secretary Dan Tierney said of the bill: “Gov. DeWine supports protecting Ohioans’ Second Amendment rights. We are reviewing the recently introduced proposal and look forward to following its movement through the legislative process.”

The legislation would not be restricted to handguns — it also would allow Ohioans to conceal and carry long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Ohioans already are allowed to openly carry firearms without a permit.

Democrats, predictably, are taking a stand against the measure. Rep. David Leland, D-Columbus, lamented what he portrayed as the Republicans’ obsession with guns when issues such as health care and education demand legislative attention.

“It’s going the exact opposite direction of what most people want,” he said of the bill. “If more guns make more people safer, we would be the safest country in the world. Yet, our gun violence exceeds most every other country on this planet.

Dorr, in an email to supports, countered Leland, saying, “We already know there will be efforts by anti-gun Democrats and Rino-Republicans to block, stop and KILL Constitutional Carry. And as we saw last General Assembly, there’s always a lily-white coward willing to cut a deal and water down these pro-gun bills.”

The Republican state representatives co-sponsoring the constitutional carry bill are Niraj Antani of Miamisburg; Brian Baldridge of Winchester; John Becker of Union Township in Clermont County; Louis Blessing III of Cincinnati; Speaker Pro Tem Jim Butler of Oakwood; Sara Carruthers of Hamilton; Jon Cross of Kenton; Bill Dean of Xenia; Kris Jordan of Delaware; Candice Keller of Middletown; Kyle Koehler of Springfield, and George Lang of West Chester.

Also, Scott Lipps of Franklin; Susan Manchester of Waynesfield; Don Manning of New Middletown; Riordan McClain of Upper Sandusky; Derek Merrin of Monclova Township in Lucas County; Jena Powell of Arcanum; Craig Riedel of Defiance; Mark Romanchuk of Ontario near Mansfield; Tim Schaffer of Lancaster; former Speaker Ryan Smith of Bidwell; Todd Smith of Farmersville; Nino Vitale of Urbana; Scott Wiggam of Wooster; Shane Wilkin of Hillsboro; and Paul Zeltwanger of Mason.

Before the 19th century, there were no state laws regulating the carrying of firearms or other weapons by law-abiding residents. Then, states began to restrict the carrying of firearms and require a permit for those who wanted to exercise their right under the Second Amendment to “keep and bear arms,” ignoring the fact that that right “shall not be infringed.” By the 20th century, the only state that did not pass laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms was Vermont.

The constitutional-carry movement began to gain ground in 2003, when Governor Frank Murkowski of Alaska signed House Bill 102 into law. That law marked the first time a state rescinded its laws requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon. No other state followed suit until 2010, when Arizona passed Senate Bill 1108.

The trend began to catch on, slowly at first, then picking up the pace more recently, with Wyoming (2011), Kansas (2015), Maine (2015), Mississippi (2016), Idaho (2016), Missouri (2016), West Virginia (2016), New Hampshire (2017), North Dakota (2017), Arkansas (2018), Oklahoma (2019), South Dakota (2019), and now Kentucky passing constitutional carry in one form or another.

Many of those states have kept concealed-carry permits on the menu to allow residents who wish to do so to take advantage of reciprocal agreements with other states, allowing them to carry concealed weapons when they travel to those states.

The path to constitutional carry has not been an easy journey in every case. For instance, in Mississippi, the implementation was incremental. The initial law passed in 2013 allowed for “a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver carried in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case.” That was expanded in 2016 to include holsters (whether worn on the belt or shoulder) and sheathes.

The passage of constitutional carry in Arkansas could best be described as evolutionary. In August 2013, Arkansas enacted Act 746, making two important changes to the existing law, which previously prohibited “carrying a weapon … with a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person” and allowed an exception if the person carrying the weapon was “on a journey.”

Those changes were (1) the term “journey” — which had had previously not been defined — was at long last defined as “travel beyond the county in which a person lives” and (2) the addition of the phrase “attempt to unlawfully” to the existing statute, making it read that the law prohibited “carrying a weapon … with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.”

That seemed to make the law say that unless a person was carrying the weapon for the purpose of carrying out a crime, it was lawful to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. But, as the well-known saying goes, the law is an ass. In July of 2013, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued an opinion stating that Act 746 did not authorize open carry. To add to the confusion, current Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge disagreed. Rutledge issued a statement in August 2015 saying that it would be within the law to open carry a weapon under Act 746 as long as there is no intent to unlawfully use the weapon.

The issue was finally settled in an Arkansas Court of Appeals ruling in August 2018, when the court declared that carrying a concealed weapon is not — in and of itself — a crime. That court decision ended the debate, allowing Act 746 to mean that Arkansas allows for constitutional carry.

In 2013, Utah’s legislature passed constitutional carry, only to have it vetoed by Republican Governor Gary Herbert. Though the law had passed with a two-thirds majority in both houses, Herbert’s veto was not overturned, and residents of Utah are not afforded the “privilege” to exercise their right under the Second Amendment to “keep and bear arms” in a concealed manner without first asking the state’s permission.

One element that seems important in the growing trend toward constitutional carry is the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case. Though the Heller ruling did leave open the idea that some controls over the right to keep and bear arms could be enacted by state and local governments, the court’s interpretation of the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment were further explained in light of Heller in the 2010 Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago. The court ruled that the Second Amendment is “fully incorporated” and the “right to keep and bear arms” is not “watered down,” but “fully applicable.” The court went on to rule that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments from passing laws that restrict the “individual” and “fundamental” right to “keep and bear arms” in “self defense.”

As the trend hopefully continues to grow and more and more states remove the shackles that have bound the hands of the law-abiding, America may see a return to the time before the passage of restrictive anti-gun laws of the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps, in our lifetimes, we will see the right to keep and bear arms no longer infringed.

~ Grif

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Missouri bill will ban all federal gun-control laws

I thank God that our Founding Fathers, whose greatest fear was a tyrannical government, had the wisdom and foresight to institute curbs on government power in the form of numerous checks and balances.

One of those checks is the creation of a federal republic, in which the constituent geographic states have their separate powers — a founding principle that is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which spells out the powers of the constituent (geographical) states and of the people.

Unlike centralized polities like the UK and China wherein the central or national government holds all power, and whatever powers regional/local governments have are delegated to them, in a federation the powers of regional/local governments are not derived from the central government and, therefore, cannot be taken away by the central government. In the U.S. federal republic, as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, it is the American people who grant separate powers to the federal government in Washington, D.C., and to the 50 state governments.

There is a bill in the Missouri state legislature (General Assembly) which, if passed, will ban all federal gun-control laws by preventing all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses and bans.

Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Pogue (R), 37, a Christian and a contractor/carpenter by profession, and co-sponsored by 4 other Republican representatives, House Bill 786: Second Amendment Preservation Act was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 31, 2019.

HB 786’s companion bill in the state Senate is SB 367, which was introduced by Sen. Eric Burlison (R) on February 7, 2019.

HB 786 begins with a powerful ringing reiteration of states’ rights and the limits on the federal government’s power which moved me to tears. The entire bill deserves your reading, and should be recommended to the legislatures of the other 49 states.

HB 786 states:

2. The general assembly finds and declares that:

(1) The general assembly of the state of Missouri is firmly resolved to support and defend the United States Constitution against every aggression, whether foreign or domestic, and is duty bound to oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of the Union of the States because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the nation’s existence and the public happiness;

(2) Acting through the United States Constitution, the people of the several states created the federal government to be their agent in the exercise of a few defined powers, while reserving to the state governments the power to legislate on matters which concern the lives, liberties, and properties of citizens in the ordinary course of affairs;

(3) The limitation of the federal government’s power is affirmed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the United States Constitution is reserved to the states respectively or to the people themselves;

(4) If the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the United States Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force;

(5) The several states of the United States of America respect the proper role of the federal government but reject the proposition that such respect requires unlimited submission. If the government, created by a compact among the states, was the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the states through the United States Constitution, the federal government’s discretion, and not the United States Constitution, would necessarily become the measure of those powers. To the contrary, as in all other cases of compacts among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as to if infractions of the compact have occurred, as well as to determine the mode and measure of redress. Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made under the powers granted in the United States Constitution, such supremacy does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri; such statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and disciplining militia forces actively employed in the service of the United States Armed Forces;

(6) The people of the several states have given Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states”, but “regulating commerce” does not include the power to limit citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in defense of their families, neighbors, persons, or property, or to dictate as to what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding Missourians may buy, sell, exchange, or otherwise possess within the borders of this state;

(7) The people of the several states have also granted Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the United States Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof”. These constitutional provisions merely identify the means by which the federal government may execute its limited powers and shall not to be so construed to grant unlimited power because to do so would be to destroy the carefully constructed equilibrium between the federal and state governments. Consequently, the general assembly rejects any claim that the taxing and spending powers of Congress can be used to diminish in any way the right of the people to keep and bear arms;

(8) The people of Missouri have vested the general assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within the borders of this state, subject only to the limits imposed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Missouri Constitution; and

(9) The general assembly of the state of Missouri strongly promotes responsible gun ownership, including parental supervision of minors in the proper use, storage, and ownership of all firearms, the prompt reporting of stolen firearms, and the proper enforcement of all state gun laws. The general assembly of the state of Missouri hereby condemns any unlawful transfer of firearms and the use of any firearm in any criminal or unlawful activity.

1.420. The following federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations shall be considered infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri, within the borders of this state including, but not limited to:

(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories,or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(3) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories,or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

1.430. All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, regardless if enacted before or after the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

1.440. It shall be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of this state and to protect these rights from the infringements defined under section 1.420.

1.450. No person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have the authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as defined under section 1.410.

1.460. 1. Any entity or person who knowingly, as defined under section 562.016, violates section 1.450 or otherwise knowingly deprives a citizen of Missouri of the rights or privileges ensured by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri, while acting under the color of any state or federal law, shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

2. In such actions, the court may award the prevailing party, other than the state of Missouri or any political subdivision of the state, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

3. Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.

1.470. 1. Any person while acting as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the government of the United States, or while otherwise acting under the color of federal law while within the borders of this state, who knowingly, as defined under section 562.016:

(1) Enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements identified in section 1.410; or

(2) Gives material aid and support to the efforts of others who enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements identified in section 1.410 shall be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.

2. Neither the state nor any political subdivision of the state shall employ as a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers any person who is ineligible to serve in such capacity under this section.

3. Any person residing in or conducting business in a jurisdiction who believes that a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers of such jurisdiction has taken action that would render that person ineligible under this section to serve in such capacity shall have standing to pursue an action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court of the county in which the action allegedly occurred, or in the circuit court of Cole County, with respect to the employment eligibility of the law enforcement officer or the supervisor of law enforcement officers under this section.

4. If a court determines that a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers has taken any action that would render him or her ineligible to serve in that capacity under this section:

(1) The law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers shall immediately be terminated from his or her position; and

(2) The jurisdiction that had employed the ineligible law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers shall be required to pay the court costs and attorney’s fees associated with the declaratory judgment action that resulted in the finding of ineligibility.

5. Nothing in this section shall preclude a person’s right of appeal or remediation, as provided under chapter 590.

1.480. For the purposes of sections 1.410 to 1.485, the term “law-abiding citizen” shall mean a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm and shall not be construed to include anyone who is not legally present in the United States or the state of Missouri.

1.485. If any provision of sections 1.410 to 1.485 or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such determination shall not affect the provisions or applications ofsections1 .410 to 1.485, which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and the provisions of sections 1.410 to 1.485 are severable.

Republicans control both the Senate and House of Representatives of the Missouri General Assembly, so HB 786 stands a good chance to pass:

  • 24 Republicans vs. 10 Democrats in the Senate.
  • 116 Republicans vs. 47 Democrats in the House of Representatives.

According to Max Headroom of The Sentinel, a former version of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, SB 613, was passed by the state legislature in 2014, but vetoed by then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Demonrat.

Headroom notes that the current Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 786, SB 367) faces heavy opposition from two surprising groups:

  1. Missouri’s law enforcement community, “which should be no surprise, as Missouri law enforcement agencies raked in $34,462,153 in forfeitures from 2001 to 2008, according to a report by the Institute of Justice.”
  2. The National Rifles Association (NRA) because anti-gun Sen. Jamilah Nasheed had tried to sneak language into SB 367 that would require gun owners to report a stolen firearm to police no more than 72 hours after the discovery of the theft, or face a $1,000 fine and a misdemeanor charge. However, the stolen firearm reporting clause was removed from the actual text of the bill.

See also “Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons”.

H/t truckjunkie

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0