The “tolerant” left strike again.
From KATU: A woman said she was assaulted after she interjected into a conversation last month outside a D.C. restaurant to say she supports President Donald Trump, according to a police report.
The woman told D.C. police the assault took place around 1 a.m. on March 16 outside Surfside restaurant at 1800 N Street, NW. According to the police report, the woman, overhearing a conversation between two women and one man, brought herself into the discussion by saying, “I support Donald Trump.” The two women then assaulted her, she said, while the man tried to stop them.
D.C. police released video Monday of the two suspects. Included in the video shows one of the two suspects appear to strike someone filming her as the video image shakes once her hand appears to make contact with that person.
The woman then left and took herself to Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, where she called 911 and was interviewed. Police are calling the incident a felony assault.
Anyone with information on the suspects is asked to contact the Metropolitan Police Department at (202) 727-9099.
From CNN: Former FBI Director James Comey will teach a course on ethical leadership at William and Mary beginning in the fall, according to an article on the Virginia college’s website.
The course will meet primarily at the college’s Washington, DC, center and once at the campus in Williamsburg, Virginia. Comey will co-teach the course with Drew Stelljes, executive assistant professor of education and assistant vice president for student leadership, in fall 2018 and spring and summer 2019.
Comey, who graduated from the college in 1982, told the school he is “thrilled” at the chance to teach this course. “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth,” Comey says in the article. “Building and maintaining that kind of leadership, in both the private sector and government, is the challenge of our time.”
William and Mary’s president, Taylor Reveley, said in statement quoted in the article that Comey has been “deeply committed” to the college over the years. “He understands to the core of his being that our leaders must have an abiding commitment to ethical behavior and sacrificial service if we are to have good government.”
Comey led the FBI from 2013 until last year, when he was fired by President Donald Trump. Comey, as director, oversaw the investigation into whether Trump campaign members colluded with Russians who hacked the 2016 election.
If a gun grabber showed at least some interest in enforcing current gun laws, I might reevaluate their agenda. But they aren’t so I won’t.
From HuffPo: The gun control group led by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) is suing the Trump administration for failing to turn over documents that could show the National Rifle Association’s influence over President Donald Trump’s gun policies. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Tuesday in the the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The gun safety group is accusing ATF of refusing to respond to multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for documents relating to communications between administration officials and the NRA.
Specifically, Giffords’ group filed FOIA requests seeking any records relating to Trump administration policies on concealed carry reciprocity, gun silencers, bump stocks and assault weapon exports; evidence that Donald Trump Jr. improperly lobbied on behalf of gun manufacturing companies; communications between gun lobbying groups and senior administration officials following last month’s mass shooting in Las Vegas; and attempts by the NRA to review bump stock regulations in coordination with ATF.
HuffPost reached out to ATF for comment late Thursday afternoon. The person who answered the phone said nobody was available via email or phone to give a comment until Friday morning.
Trump’s firearms agenda is certainly proceeding along lines favored by the gun lobby.
In February, a leaked ATF document revealed a top official at the bureau urging a series of proposals that the NRA has long advocated. Last spring, the NRA sunk $1 million into helping Trump get Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch confirmed.
Last week, NBC obtained White House talking points being distributed to Trump allies on how to talk about the Las Vegas massacre. They sound a lot like the NRA’s talking points after mass shootings. “The Trump administration appears willing to let the National Rifle Association dictate its federal gun safety policy, which includes remaining silent on how to stem our nation’s gun violence epidemic,” said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Giffords Law Center. “Protecting the safety of Americans should be the top priority of any president. Unfortunately, gun lobby profits seem to be more important to President Trump.”
There have been 307 mass shootings in 2017, according to a New York Times tracker. Neither Congress nor Trump has taken any real action in response.
Dane Powell (left). Photo from NewObserverOnline.com
New reality for libtard butt hurt: Actions have consequences.
From NY Post: A Tampa man was sentenced to four months in jail Friday after participating in an inauguration day riot that injured six police officers and cost tens of thousands of dollars in damages in Washington D.C.
Dane Powell, 31, was captured on video carrying a black flag while throwing rocks and bricks at D.C. police officers and shattering store windows during the 30-minute riot that spanned 16 city blocks, prosecutors said. He was also dressed in black and had part of his face covered.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff said Powell was spotted in Logan Circle the day before President Trump’s inauguration with gas masks and carrying the same black flag seen in the video, the Tampa Bay Times reported. “He initiated violence,” Kerkhoff said. “He came to the District of Columbia to engage in violence by hiding his face, throwing rocks and running. He’s a violent coward.”
Kerkhoff called Powell “among the most violent” of the defendants that participated in the riot. “He was throwing rocks and bricks at windows where people, customers and children were inside,” she said. “He charged the police line with bricks.”
Powell asked Judge Lynne Leibovitz for “leniency” and asked for “forgiveness for anyone who was scared, hurt or felt threatened,” the Times reported.
Powell’s attorney Ashley Jones told the court her client, who spent nine years in the Army, did not travel to D.C. to riot, but to protest peacefully. She also blamed police officers for inciting violence. “Mr. Powell’s motivation was to protest the inauguration,” Jones said. “And during that protest he got carried away.”
According to the Tampa Bay Times, Powell pleaded guilty in July to assault on a police officer and inciting a riot, which are considered felony charges.
Authorities said 234 people were arrested during the riots and of those, 198 cases are pending.
From Fox News: Four former prison guards who were barred from carrying concealed guns despite a 2004 federal law that gave off-duty and retired law enforcement officers the right to pack heat won a landmark court victory on Thursday. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington D.C. Circuit held that the city’s Department of Corrections improperly barred the men from carrying concealed firearms, saying the 2004 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act guaranteed their right. The court rejected the city’s argument that the law does not apply to corrections officers because they lack arresting authority. “[Congress] left no discretion for a state to revise the historical record of an individual qualified law enforcement officer,” read the majority opinion.
The law was intended to improve response to threats in public as well as to allow current and former law enforcement officers with at least 10 years’ experience the ability to protect themselves from criminals they may have had past dealings with. Although plaintiffs Robert Smith, Ronald DuBerry, Harold Bennette and Maurice Curtis all said they regularly received threats from inmates they once guarded, their applications for concealed-carry licenses were denied. “I will not certify an application request for carrying a concealed weapon under LEOSA for retired employees, as corrections officers do not meet all of the required elements necessary.” Corrections Department Director Tom Faust said at the time.
It is not clear whether the decision will be appealed, but it makes clear for now that the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act must extend to retired and off-duty corrections officers as well as state and local police and federal agents.
Smith, who retired as a Corrections department firearms instructor, told the The Washington Times in 2014 that he was fired upon by men he suspects were former inmates as he took out the trash outside his home. “They remember you,” he said. The District of Columbia’s fight to leave former corrections officers unarmed shows how entrenched its opposition to guns is, according to John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.
“This case illustrates how extreme the District of Columbia’s opposition to concealed carry has been,” Lott said. “Here you have law enforcement who are offering to protect others for free, and the District has borne large legal costs to stop them from doing it.”
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Karen Henderson wrote that the federal law did not preclude state or local officials from determining who met the qualifications under the act.
“It makes perfect sense to likewise conclude that the Congress intended a state court to determine whether one of its retired law enforcement officers is “qualified,” that is, whether he possessed certain state law authority.”
Paying people not to commit crimes? Only the government can come up with that solution.
The District of Columbia lawmakers are looking for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders. (I think punishment is a great deterrent, but that’s just me.)
The AP reports that the D.C. Council voted unanimously last Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. Apparently this is already happening in other cities as it’s based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.
Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.
Of course the bill doesn’t specify the value of the stipends. Heaven forbid one actually write a comprehensive bill! Those participants in the California program receive up to $9,000 per year.
Democrat councilmember Kenyan McDuffie wrote the legislation. He said it was part of a comprehensive approach to reducing violent crimein the city, which experienced a 54 percent increase in homicides last year. Gee, I though their strict gun laws would have solved all the crime?
McDuffie argued that spending $9,000 a year in stipends “pales in comparison” to the cost of someone being victimized, along with the costs of incarcerating the offender. “I want to prevent violent crime – particularly gun violence – by addressing the root causes and creating opportunities for people, particularly those individuals who are at the highest risks of offending,” McDuffie, a former prosecutor, said in a letter to constituents last week.
The Mayor Muriel Bowser has not committed to funding the program. And how much will this cost? Apparently $4.9 million over four years, including $460,000 a year in stipend payments, according to the District’s independent chief financial officer. Without the mayor’s support, it would be up to the Council to find money for it through new taxes or cuts to existing programs. Participants in the program would remain anonymous. Its goal would be to recruit people who are at risk of violence but don’t have criminal cases pending.
The stats in the Richmond stipend program show that 79 percent of “fellows” participating in the program have not been suspected of involvement in any gun crimes since joining the program, and 84 percent have not been injured by gunfire, the program’s executive director, DeVone Boggan, said in a report to the Council. Richmond experienced a 77 percent drop in homicides between 2007, when the program was launched, and 2014. Here’s the kicker though: how much can be specifically attributed to the stipends is unclear.
The proposal in Washington has generated scant debate as lawmakers have focused on other crime-fighting tools included in the bill. Longtime civic activist Dorothy Brizill was the only person to testify against the stipend program at a lengthy hearing last fall, saying it would waste taxpayer dollars. “These incentive programs don’t work,” Brizill said.
Apparently we don’t need no Second Amendment…
A Washington Post poll found that 51% of D.C. residents said they would like to reinstate a ban on gun ownership in the city that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2008. And this comes even as D.C. has seen a 58 percent spike in homicides this year — almost all from gun violence.
On Friday, a federal appeals court will consider whether, in the absence of a ban, D.C. officials can continue to enforce certain restrictions on carrying firearms on the streets of the nation’s capital. This includes the requirement that a person state a “good reason” to obtain a concealed- carry permit. In May, I reported on how a judge ruled that a person no longer has to show a good reason to get a permit to carry concealed handguns outside their homes and businesses. This issue will be addressed again in court on Friday (requiring individuals to show “good reason to fear injury,” backed up by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks).
In September, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that D.C. cannot ban gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month or require owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also invalidated requirements that owners make a personal appearance to register a gun and pass a test about firearms laws.
The poll also found that reinstating a total ban on gun ownership is most popular among white residents (62 percent), particularly whites with college degrees (67 percent) and white women (65 percent). African Americans, particularly those living in areas of the city that have experienced a 50 percent increase in robberies at gunpoint this year, were also among the least supportive.
Well gals, guess you’ll just have to resort to urinating on a potential attacker (#LiberalTips2AvoidRape) while in D.C. That will do the trick, I’m sure! (obvious sarcasm)
Since when do criminals care about “reasonable restrictions”? Fox News: In a mixed decision, a federal appeals court on Friday struck down as unconstitutional several strict gun registration laws in the nation’s capital, but upheld other restrictions aimed at public safety.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the city cannot ban gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month or require owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also invalidated requirements that owners make a personal appearance to register a gun and pass a test about firearms laws.
But the court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring that so-called long guns — including rifles and shotguns — be registered along with handguns. The ruling also allows gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed, pay certain fees and complete a firearms safety training course.
In all, the court upheld six gun laws and struck down four.
The District of Columbia put the registration laws in place after a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down a 32-year-old handgun ban in the District of Columbia. The high court ruled in that case the Second Amendment protects handgun possession for self-defense in the home.
A federal judge had previously upheld all the new registration laws. District of Columbia officials argued that the laws were aimed at preserving gun owners’ constitutional rights while also protecting the community from gun violence.
But writing for the appeals court majority, Judge Douglas Ginsburg said some of the laws did not pass constitutional muster. He rejected, for example, the city’s argument that the one-pistol-per-month rule would reduce illegal trafficking in weapons. “The suggestion that a gun trafficker would bring fewer guns into the District because he could not register more than one per month there lacks the support of experience and of common sense,” Ginsburg said. Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Ronald Regan, was joined by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, named to the court President George H. W. Bush, dissented in part, saying she would have upheld all the registration laws. She said the majority should have shown more deference to public officials trying to create a workable firearms policy. Henderson noted that Washington is different from other jurisdictions given the “unique security risks” in a city filled with high-level government officials, diplomats, monuments and government buildings that ban guns.
Mayor Bowser (AP Photo)
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said she was not surprised by the decision after she was informed of the ruling during a radio interview. “Our gun laws have been under attack for many years,” Bowser said. “We obviously disagree.” Bowser, a Democrat, said the District of Columbia Council should be free to pass laws with “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership in their city. Only six states and the District require gun owners to register some or all firearms, according to the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The District is one of only a few places — including Hawaii and California — that also have registration requirements for rifles and shotguns.
Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA Law School, said that while the ruling may be a setback for the District it shows that courts are willing to uphold some restrictions on gun owners that enhance public safety. “This decision leaves little doubt that gun registration is constitutionally permissible,” Winkler said. “States that want to require gun owners to register their guns will be buoyed by this decision.” Winkler said it may be the final ruling on Washington’s gun laws because the Supreme Court has shown little interest in taking up gun cases over the past few years.
The latest lawsuit was brought by Dick Heller, the same man who challenged the city’s handgun ban and won before the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was the second time the appeals court had considered the registration laws. In 2011, the court upheld the constitutionality of the basic registration requirement for handguns, but sent the case back to a lower court so city officials could explain why the various other restrictions were necessary.
Washington Informer: A federal judge granted a 90-day stay Tuesday in a recent ruling that declared D.C.’s ban on citizens carrying handguns in public as unconstitutional, a delay welcomed by city officials and law enforcement who had scrambled to comply with the ruling.
D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan requested Monday to delay implementation to give the city council time to draft proper legislation to reflect the decision, which was issued Saturday by U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Scullin. Nathan’s request was granted Tuesday afternoon by Scullin. Meanwhile, police had began allowing people to carry registered handguns in public. D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has told her officers not to bother residents with legally registered handguns and tourists with handguns who are complying with their states gun laws. However, she mandated that possession of an unregistered firearm in public is a crime and that her officers should take appropriate action. Handguns were prohibited in the District for more than three decades before the Supreme Court nixed the ban in 2008. The Council then implemented strict rules for ownership and possession of handguns.
City officials quickly admonished the federal ruling, including Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), who said the city’s unique national security concerns calls for more restrictive gun laws than anywhere else in the nation.
“Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated by gunfire, at least five others have been shot at, including Ronald Reagan, who was seriously wounded in 1981,” Mendelson said. “Neither the Secret Service nor the Capitol Police will disclose all incidents where they have recovered firearms, but we do know that just two years ago someone hit the White House with gunfire, and there are frequent threats on the foreign diplomatic corps.” Former Council member Carol Schwartz, who is running for mayor as an independent, said strong gun laws are valued in the city. “Less than 25 years ago, we were called the ‘murder capital’ with 478 homicides in 1990,” Schwartz said. “We have come a long way in rectifying that situation. While our population has grown considerably since then, our homicides were reduced to 88 in 2012.”
Schwartz said that the stay gives the Council a chance to “write legislation that will pass constitutional standards while protecting D.C.’s sovereignty and our long-held desire and need to have strong gun control laws that protect our citizens and visitors.”
D.C. Council member Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), the Democratic nominee for mayor, said that she will work with her council colleagues to comply with Scullin’s decision and protect the city’s gun laws. “Public safety remains a top priority and I will continue to fight for laws that protect our residents, reduce violent crime and keep our city safe,” Bowser said.
Kitty litter much easier to recycle than politicians though...
DC Resident Fined Thousands For Not Recycling Cat Litter
Fox DC: It’s the law in D.C. – recycle or face a fine from the Department of Public Works. But is enforcement of the law going too far?
Dupont Circle resident Patricia White says she has been fined eight times for throwing homemade cat litter in her trash. The fines total $2,000.White says she shreds old newspaper and junk mail to use as cat litter. She believes she is helping the environment by reusing the paper and avoiding cat litter you will find in stores.
After being fined several times, White says she called the Department of Public Works (DPW) inspector who issued the tickets. According to White, the inspector admitted to digging through trash looking for violations. White even appealed the violations in D.C. court. Judge Audrey Jenkins agreed with the inspector after White explained the situation. FOX 5 tried to reach Judge Jenkins, but her office has declined to comment.
D.C. Council Member Jack Evans says DPW is going too far with its recycling enforcement. He demanded a meeting with DPW Director Bill Howland to discuss White’s case. White says she will continue to fight the citations and continue to dispose of her cat’s litter in the trash and not in the recycling bin.
The DC Department of Public Works made the following statement to clarify the purpose of its commercial recycling enforcement procedures: “The overall goal of recycling is to reduce the amount of waste that goes into landfills; therefore, DPW’s commercial recycling education and enforcement work is citywide. We do not enforce residential recycling, which is collected from single family homes and apartment buildings with no more than three living units. “DPW recycling investigators are looking for evidence of co-mingling of trash with recyclables. We are finding contamination of the recyclables that is clearly coming from someone who lives or works in the building or in the trained perspective of our investigators, the problem is ‘systemic’ where poor receptacle placement, labeling and/or education have contributed to obvious contamination. “We emphasize education and when that does not work, as shown by follow-up inspections, we will enforce the regulations. “An appeal process is available to property owners who believe a ticket has been issued unfairly.”
In an e-mail to FOX 5 regarding White’s situation, a spokesperson for the DC Department of Public Works said, “The ticket Ms. White is questioning was upheld November 21, 2011 by an Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings, based on evidence of items other than the shredded newspaper that showed comingled trash and recyclables.”
This is a priority in DC? According to Uniform Crime Report statistics compiled by the FBI, there were 1,437.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people reported in the District of Columbia in 2008. There were also 5,104.6 property crimes per 100,000 reported during the same period. Violent crime is still more than three times the national average of 454.5 reported offenses per 100,000 people in 2008.
DPW digging through trash? Wonder how much that position pays?
I know DPW is not responsible for dealing with crimes yet apparently not recycling cat litter is an offense worth monitoring.