ALGANSEE TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Michigan State Police say that they are looking for two suspects in a home invasion in Branch County overnight, in which a third suspect was shot by a homeowner.
The incident happened about 12:30 a.m. Wednesday in the 1200 block of Burlew Road, according to police.
Police say that three suspect tried to break in the front door of a home and also broke several windows. The homeowners fired multiple shots from inside the home and the suspects fled in a dark green, full-size four-door sedan, that may have been a Mercury Marquis or a Ford Crown Victoria-style vehicle. The vehicle may have also had a loud exhaust system.
One of the suspects was dropped off at Promedica Coldwater Regional Hospital with a non-life threatening gunshot wound. The other two suspects did not stay at the hospital and left.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now Mr Hogggggg.
We got rid of the ammo log paperwork back in ’86. Even the ATF said it never made a difference. Little Debbie is virtue signalling to her constituents.
Wasserman Schultz said, “I really think it’s important to underscore that without bullets a gun is just a hunk of useless metal, and a would-be killer lacks the means to actually kill or maim.”
The Florida congresswoman called the ability to buy ammunition a “loophole” in gun control laws.
The Ammunition Background Check Act was introduced with 36 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
I can do maffs. That means 80% don’t
I'd like to thank Justice Stevens for reminding us that when gun control advocates assure us that they don't want to "repeal the Second Amendment," they're lying.
— Rebecca Mansour (@RAMansour) March 27, 2018
We live in a representative republic. A census is necessary to make sure there is adequate representation so each state has the correct number of Congressional Representatives, with a minimum of one.
In 2020, the Trump administration wants to add a citizenship question to the census. Since representation is for citizens, having the correct number of congresscritters should be for the citizens not the total population is important.
This is a tacit admission that California has more representatives than can be justified by the citizen population of the state, particularly in urban Democrat controlled areas. California Liberals can complain that flyover states have too much representation with two Senators, but they’ve been padding their House seats with illegals.
Some people predict that without illegal immigrants counted, California could lose three Congressional seats, and most if not all would be demoncrap.
California on Monday promised to sue the Trump administration over its decision to ask the 2020 census respondents if they are citizens of the United States.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the suit against the administration late Monday on Twitter, saying the measure would be unlawful.
The Commerce Department said in a statement that the citizenship question would be added in response to a request by the Justice Department made in December. The statement said that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross “has determined that reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census questionnaire is necessary to provide complete and accurate census block level data.”
Democrats have criticized the administration’s announcement, saying the inclusion of such a question amounts to an effort to intimidate immigrant communities and siphon money and electoral power away from them.
These teenagers acting as figureheads for a movement has not gone unnoticed. It’s a usual ploy by the anti-gunners to use a sympathetic person as cover.
Judge too harshly and you are attacking a kid who has balanced trauma with homework.
They are being used as human shields. They can dish out outlandish crap but can’t take it because they are over worked kids.
Most are, or will soon be, 18. That’s adult. They can vote, join the military and go overseas. They can even buy an AR-15. They’re not kids anymore.
Others get it as well. This is High Level sarcasm.
The national movement for gun control marches forward, and we brave, smart, altruistic students are at the forefront of the fight. We are diverse in our goals and our backgrounds. Some are content to call for stricter background checks, some want to go further and ban certain types of guns and rifles, some want to go all the way and see the Second Amendment totally repealed.
Let me be clear about my intentions here: I’m in the latter camp. I will not stop until your constitutionally guaranteed right to defend yourself has been stripped away.
Wait, whoa, bro, why are you attacking me? I’m just a kid! Geez, somebody’s touchy, lol!
Seriously, going after children like that? That’s just low.
Somebody’s a little insecure. Yeesh!
Anyway, yeah, so I think we should repeal the Second Amendment, and I demand you take me seriously as an adult participant in this national conversation. I know you personally didn’t do anything wrong, but I will fight tooth and nail to get your private property and right to defend yourself taken away as soon as humanly possible.
But don’t attack me at all—I’m just a 17-year-old kid, man!
Back in February, Delta Airlines discontinued the airfare discount for NRA members. They did this in the face of a campaign by gun control groups to get corporations to end any and all discounts for NRA members.Here is what they said at the time on their website in the way of explanation:
Delta’s decision reflects the airline’s neutral status in the current national debate over gun control amid recent school shootings. Out of respect for our customers and employees on both sides, Delta has taken this action to refrain from entering this debate and focus on its business. Delta continues to support the 2nd Amendment.
This is not the first time Delta has withdrawn support over a politically and emotionally charged issue. Last year, Delta withdrew its sponsorship of a theater that staged a graphic interpretation of “Julius Caesar” depicting the assassination of President Trump. Delta supports all of its customers but will not support organizations on any side of any highly charged political issue that divides our nation.
Caught in a maelstrom over his company’s decision to cut ties with the National Rifle Association, Delta Air Lines chief executive Ed Bastian said Friday that his intention had been to “remain neutral” and “remove Delta from this [gun control] debate.” Delta, he said, is now planning to end discounts “for any group of a politically divisive nature.”
“Our people and our customers have a wide range of views on how to increase safety in our schools and public places, and we are not taking sides,” he wrote. “Our objective in removing any implied affiliation with the NRA was to remove Delta from this debate.”
The key words you keep hearing from Delta are “neutral status”, “not taking sides”, and “refrain from entering this debate”. That was what Ed Bastian and Delta were saying at the beginning of the month.
Delta Air Lines has donated three round-trip charter flights that allowed hundreds of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students to participate in the “March for Our Lives” protest against gun violence in Washington.
Delta said the donation is “part of our commitment to supporting the communities we serve.”
Ed Bastian and Delta Air Lines must be suffering a bout of cognitive dissonance if they think ending a discount for NRA members and then giving three round-trip charter flights to students advocating gun control is neutrality. These actions are about the furthest thing from neutrality that I could imagine.
This is the kind of Court’Justice’ you get when those who have political views that don’t have the juice to make it through the legislative process attempt to run it through the judicial. The citizenry let this start back with Marbury v Madison by letting the Court get away with a powergrab. Just me, but I think it was purposeful by all the political powerful as they wanted a way to not just bypass the legislature, but to counteract a law they didn’t agree with. So, instead of a ‘neutral’ judiciary, we just have another group of politicians.
In his 2008 dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that the Second Amendment offers zero protection for what he called the “right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense.”
Writing in today’s New York Times, the retired justice reiterates that losing view. “For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment,” Stevens maintains, “it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation.” To clear the path for sweeping gun control restrictions now, Stevens advises, activists should turn their energies towards passing a “constitutional amendment” that would overturn Heller and “get rid of the Second Amendment.”
One problem with Stevens’ position is that he is dead wrong about the legal history. His preferred reading of the Second Amendment has never been “uniformly understood.”
An Uzbek jihadist group is protesting their designation as a terrorists by the State Department last week, saying in a statement that they were “surprised” to be branded as such.
On Thursday, the State Department announced the designation of Katibat al-Imam al-Bukhari (KIB) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, which imposes sanctions on foreign nationals determined to have committed or are likely to commit acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the United States. “This designation seeks to deny KIB the resources it needs to plan and carry out further terrorist attacks,” the State Department said. “Among other consequences, all of the group’s property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any transactions with the group.”
Katibat al-Imam al-Bukhari is the largest Uzbek fighting force in Syria. “The group has played a significant role in the fighting in northwestern Syria, fighting alongside groups including al-Nusrah Front – al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria and a State Department designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and SDGT group,” the announcement continued. “In April 2017, KIB published a video showing armed men taking part in clashes, and in December 2015 posted a video of a training camp for children, where children are taught to handle and fire weapons.”
Parents of a Texas high school student who was reported missing in late January had abused their daughter after she refused an arranged marriage, leading her to run away from home until she was found in mid-March, police said.
Maarib Al Hishmawi, 16, was reported missing on Jan. 30 after she was last seen leaving Taft High School in Bexar County. She was located in mid-March when she was taken in by an organization that cared for her after she ran away, KSAT reported.
Authorities on Friday said Al Hishmawi’s parents — Abdulah Fahmi Al Hishmawi, 34, and Hamdiyah Saha Al Hishmawi, 33 — had allegedly beaten their daughter with a broomstick and poured hot cooking oil on her when she refused to marry a man in another city. The parents reportedly agreed to the arranged marriage in exchange for $20,000.
“This young lady, at various times over that time period was subjected to some pretty bad abuse because she didn’t want to be married to this person,” Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar said on Friday, according to KSAT.
“Several times it was reported to us that this young lady was abused with hot cooking oil being thrown on her body. She was beat with broomsticks,” Salazar added. “At least one point, she was choked almost to the point of unconsciousness.”
The teenage girl and her five siblings, between the ages 5 and 15, were placed under Child Protective Services custody.
The parents face charges of continuous violence against a family member. They were taken into custody on Friday.
Police said the man who was arranged to be married to Al Hishmawi may also be charged in the case.
Americans, I’m watching the #GunControl protests from Italy. Take a European’s advice:
Last century our governments disarmed us. Now, in Germany & the UK they arrest you for Twitter & FB posts.
If the gov’t takes your 2nd Amendment, one day it’ll take your 1st.
— Redeemed Goddaughter (@XianCorleone) March 26, 2018
“but nobody wants to take you guns.”
Yup. We all know what it says. But then the coercives will say we’re “playing fast and loose with the second amendment” by reading it the way it was written.
And yes; the Bill of Rights is a “fast and loose” concept, if one chooses to see it that way.
The proper answer is;
You don’t like it? Tough. That’s exactly why it exists; so people who hate it can’t do anything about it. That’s the whole point.
At least this proposal has the virtue of theoretical compliance with the rule of law. It also has the folly of indulging in pure fantasy, but what else does a retired Supreme Court justice have to do with his time? John Paul Stevens expounds in today’s New York Times on the benefits of repealing the second protection of natural rights enshrined in the Constitution, at least as he sees them:
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
No one who followed Stevens’ career on the court would be surprised to see him endorse a repeal of the Second Amendment. Stevens was hostile to the idea that the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to bear arms, as he wrote in the dissent to Heller. Having lost that argument, the only appropriate legal remedy available to Stevens would be repealing the 2nd Amendment altogether, a process to which we’ll return in a moment. In fact, as Glenn Reynolds points out, Stevens’ argument here is a tacit admission that the Constitution largely bars sweeping gun control, a point that conservatives and personal-liberty advocates have maintained all along.
Stoneman Douglas students’ passion is not wisdom
All you needed to know about student activist David Hogg’s speech at the “March for Our Lives” in Washington, D.C., over the weekend was that he affixed a price tag on the microphone to symbolize how much National Rifle Association money Senator Marco Rubio took for the lives of students in Florida.
The stunt wasn’t out of place. Indeed, it perfectly encapsulated the braying spirit of the student gun-control advocacy in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting.
These young activists are making our public debate even more poisonous and less civil, and are doing it as teenagers. They are precocious that way.
The Stoneman Douglas students experienced a horrific trauma. No one can deny their grief or blame them for being impassioned. And allowance has to be made for the fact that they are teenagers, who universally believe that they know better than their hapless elders (Hogg says the problem is that their parents don’t know how to use a democracy).
Yet none of that excuses their scurrilous smears of the other side in the gun debate. The student activists presume that there is a ready solution to mass shootings that everyone knows, and the only reason why someone might not act on this universally accepted policy is malice or corruption. This makes the other side the equivalent of murderers.
So at the CNN forum, Stoneman Douglas student Cameron Kasky told Senator Rubio that looking at him is like looking down the barrel of the AR-15 held by the school shooter.
In a video interview with an outfit called The Outline, David Hogg said that the NRA and its supporters “want to keep killing our children.” Not that they inadvertently enable people who carry out school shootings via misconceived policy, but they themselves kill children and want to keep doing it.
Lest he be misunderstood, Hogg added, “they could have blood from children spattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they will still see those dollar signs.”
This is the thought, if you can call it that, behind the price tag at the “March for Our Lives,” which Stoneman Douglas students also wore around their necks. It said “$1.05,” purportedly the amount of support Rubio has gotten from the NRA over his career, $3.3 million, divided by the 3.1 million public and private students in Florida.
In accusing their opponents of being bought off, the students deny the sincerity and legitimacy of supporters of gun rights. They treat the Second Amendment as an inkblot on the Constitution and dismiss all counterarguments as transparent rationalizations. Not only is this a (appropriately) juvenile view of the gun debate that ignores Supreme Court jurisprudence, the genuine support of the NRA by millions of people, and the serious, practical objections to gun-control proposals, it removes all possibility of a middle ground.
He’s so stupid, he actually made the point that every gun rights advocate has. “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” Now Thomas Jefferson may not have said that, but no matter, it’s true, and it’s exactly what the controllers want.
As Twitchy reported earlier, actor and comedian Michael Ian Black wasn’t just reiterating on Sunday his belief that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced; he was also working on some sort of explanation of how private gun ownership creates slaves of those who are unarmed.
Actually I do like to see crap-for-brains on open display. These morons think they’re accomplishing something. And they are; They’re exposing how much crap they do have for brains. What an idiot.
Tucker: The problem with letting children write news stories https://t.co/AfEMir7xL6
— William Amos (@WilliamAmos) March 27, 2018
— Jane Snow (@JaneJSnow) March 27, 2018
This may be a good vehicle to sue the federal government (and thus – to the best of my reckoning – have to heard in the Supreme Court). With a careful and diligent attorney, like Alan Gura of Heller v DC fame, it’s possible we could get most if not all of the NFA ruled unconstitutional. First though, Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy need to retire and be replaced with the likes of Gorsuch and especially Thomas.
In 2010, 2012, and 2013, the Obama administration said bump stocks were legal. Last week the Trump administration said bump stocks are illegal. The law has not changed in the interim, but the political considerations have.
Bump stocks would still be legal if Trump had not instructed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ban them. None of those factors, of course, has anything to do with what the National Firearms Act (NFA) says about bump stocks, which would be the decisive consideration in an administration that cared about the rule of law and the separation of powers.
Once Trump announced his intention to ban bump stocks, there was no way that Sessions was going to study the matter and tell the president, “You know what? The Obama administration was right. These things are legal.” Having received his marching orders, Sessions had to rationalize the pre-ordained conclusion, and the result is the proposed regulation he issued on Friday, which strives mightily to make words mean something other than what they seem to mean.
A rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fit that definition, because it fires just one shot for each function of the trigger. Sessions tries to get around that obstacle by defining “a single function of the trigger” as “a single pull of the trigger” and defining pull to exclude what happens during bump fire. According to this account, when the trigger is activated by bumping against the trigger finger, that is not, contrary to logic and appearances, a “function of the trigger.”
Another problem for Sessions is that a rifle equipped with a bump stock does not operate “automatically,” since the shooter has to maintain “constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and constant rearward pressure on the device’s extension ledge with the shooter’s trigger finger,” as the proposed ban describes the technique. Sessions resolves that difficulty by treating the shooter as part of the rifle mechanism.
According to the regulation, “these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.” That gloss is accurate only if you ignore the role of the human who pushes the rifle forward to engage the trigger and if you insist that activating the trigger in that manner does not count as “physical manipulation of the trigger.” Sessions claims this counterintuitive perspective reflects “the best interpretation of the term ‘machinegun,'” by which he means the interpretation that facilitates the result demanded by his boss.
The question is not whether banning bump stocks is a good idea or whether it would save lives (although I am skeptical on both counts). The question is whether bump stocks are already banned. Although the Obama administration was much more supportive of gun control than the Trump administration, it repeatedly declared that bump stocks were legal, meaning that banning them would require a new act of Congress. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a dogged gun controller, agrees. This is one of the few gun-related questions on which Feinstein sees eye to eye with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), leader of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus. When you look at the law, you can see why: Only by stretching and distorting it can you achieve the end favored by the NRA, ordered by Trump, and finagled by Sessions
The Justice Department will accept comments on its proposed regulation until 90 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which does not seem to have happened yet. Assuming the ban is finalized, it will require all current owners of bump stocks to surrender or destroy them. Otherwise they will be guilty of possessing illegal machine guns, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Manufacturers and retailers, who relied on the Obama administration’s assurances that bump stocks were legal, also will have to destroy the products now that a different administration has decided to ban them by executive fiat.
Sessions presents himself as a law-and-order conservative, keen to enforce federal statutes and defend the Constitution, which includes respecting the separation of powers. It is hard to take that pose seriously after this shameful capitulation to presidential whims.
With his grades and no good outlook for a college education (not that that means much anymore) I’ll bet the little opportunistic SnowFlake saw a chance to make it on the celebrity circuit.
“Oh, wait a minute. We’re going about this all wrong. Perhaps this is Hogg interviewing for a “reporter” position with CNN and he knows exactly what skills they look for.”
UPDATE: This video shows Hogg apparently in a closet during the shooting:
His comments quoted below to CBS still don’t make sense. Did he leave campus and then violate the lockdown to enter campus and interview students? How did he get home and back? Some students were bussed to a nearby hotel as they were evacuated from campus. Is he talking about going there? This needs to be clarified.
UPDATE #2: This Vox article indicates that Hogg went back to the campus area at 6 pm and did not actually enter campus, but had his camera and interviewed people across the street from campus. Here’s his quote:
At 6 pm after the shooting, I took my camera, got on my bike. I rode in basically twilight. And I ride my bike three miles down winding sidewalks and find my way to the school, as I’ve done in previous years. All the while, I was making sure my camera bag didn’t rip open, because if you zip it a certain way, the camera falls out, and it would be destroyed.
Since the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, student David Hogg has been one of the most prominent voices calling for stricter gun control laws, including at this weekend’s “March For Our Lives” protests. But Hogg’s statements in a new CBS documentaryabout the shooting is casting doubt on Hogg’s original story that he was at school on the day of the shooting.
Sign in DC.
Well, the little Snowflakes have got the hypocrite part of being a proggie down pat.
On Friday, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School left-wing activist David Hogg complained that the school’s new policy of making students use only clear backpacks after spring break infringes on his “First Amendment rights.”
Grabien News reported “Hogg appeared Friday at a gun control forum with Axios’s Mike Allen,” where he launched into varying off-topic political tirades, advocating for far-left Democratic positions.
After attacking American’s Second Amendment rights for over a month, calling the NRA “child murderers,” Hogg complained about having to use clear backpacks at school.
Hogg claimed that the decision by Democratic Broward County officials violated his “First Amendment rights” as he also cited potential embarrassment for students going through “their menstrual cycle” because of their “tampons and stuff.”
“It’s unnecessary, it’s embarrassing for a lot of the students and it makes them feel isolated and separated from the rest of American school culture where they’re having essentially their First Amendment rights infringed upon because they can’t freely wear whatever backpack they want regardless of what it is,” Hogg said.
“It has to be a clear backpack,” Hogg continued. “What we should have is just more policies that make sure that these students are feeling safe and secure in their schools and not like they’re being fought against like it’s a prison.”
The usual ‘mile wide and an inch deep’
Around 200,000 people attended the March For Our Lives gun control event in Washington, D.C. Saturday afternoon, CBS News reported.
The number is well below the 500,000 number organizers of the event expected and 600,000 less than initially reported by many news outlets immediately following the celebrity-fueled march and rally. The march took place between noon and 3 p.m. on Pennsylvania Avenue between 3rd Street NW and 12th Street NW.
USA Today said Saturday the initially reported number of 800,000 marchers could “be the biggest single-day protest in D.C.’s history,” becoming a number that is larger than the 2017 Women’s March that brought 500,000 to the capitol.
America continues to mourn the 17 people killed in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida last month. There is an understandable emotional desire to “do something” in response – but without evaluating what the “something” will actually accomplish. This is the driving force behind the March for Our Lives taking place Saturday in Washington.
The motivations of many people taking part in the Washington event and other demonstrations around the country are sincere. But before we “do something,” we need to stop and think: what is the most sensible thing we should do? What will actually save lives and make us safer?
It’s important to understand that the debate isn’t between those who want to end violence and those who support gun rights. Both sides want to end violence. The debate is simply over how best to keep Americans safe.
Supporting gun control is now the “in thing.” Stars such as Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus tweet their support. Time and Teen Vogue magazines run cover stories glorifying people working to put stricter controls on guns and ban some weapons. The New England Patriots used their team plane to fly students and families from Parkland, Florida, to Washington for Saturday’s gun control rally.
You would be unlikely to know it from the media coverage of the Washington demonstration, but only 47 percent of Americans between 13 and 17 believe that more gun control could reduce mass public shootings.