California’s AB5 Leaves Women Business Owners Reeling

Sometimes I wonder if I should have a ‘?’ after Unintended Consequences, because my cynical side makes me think that this is not a bug, but a feature.

Aimee Benavides has built a thriving career as a translator and interpreter while homeschooling her nine-year-old daughter, who has autism, and 11-year-old son, who is heavily involved in STEM enrichment classes. What makes it all possible is the home-based business she started in 2010, after leaving a full-time job in the court system.

It isn’t easy to juggle it all. Sometimes she starts work at 5:30 am to get her work done—or brings her son to the school board meetings where she takes on evening projects. “The times I don’t take my son with me, they ask, ‘How is your son?’” she says.

Still, Benavides would not trade the flexibility of self-employment for a traditional job. Benavides’ business allows her and her husband, an IT professional, to afford the cost of living in Fresno, Calif., while still permitting them to manage their family responsibilities.

Benavides is one of a number of self-employed women in California who are speaking out in opposition to AB5, a union-backed law aimed at preventing misclassification of gig workers that took effect on January 1. The law presumes that every worker in the state—except those on a list of exempted industries, such as physicians, accountants, architects and engineers—is an employee.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), the bill’s sponsor, tweeted yesterday that under the law “if you are a true independent proprietor, you can still operate as one.”

She pointed to a test that allows sole proprietors, partnerships, LLCs, LLPs and corporations to operate legally in California if they meet 12 criteria—such as being free from the direction and control of the client, providing services directly to the client and not the client’s customers and being customarily engaged in the same type of work they are doing for the client—and pass another multi-point test, known as Borello.

However, many independent workers in California say AB5’s complexity has scared away their clients, who are afraid of getting hit with fines by the state if they misinterpret it. Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2020 budget includes about $20 million for enforcement.

Gun Control Advocates Ignore the Data On Reciprocity

So much of the gun control debate is about things that might go wrong. Democrats, who just took control of the Virginia state legislature, are about to pass a law that will dramatically limit the ability of people with concealed handgun permits from other states to carry in Virginia. There haven’t been any problems with these permit holders, but that doesn’t matter for gun control advocates.

Currently, Virginia recognizes concealed handgun permits issued by all other states. Out-of-state permit holders can carry in Virginia as long as they follow local laws and carry photo identification.

The current rules came about in 2016 because Virginia’s Attorney General Mark Herring, a staunch gun control advocate, announced that he was going only to recognize the permits issued from five other states. Republicans who then controlled the state legislature fought back and took away Herring’s authority. The new proposed law will again give Herring control over whether permit holders from other states can carry.

It’s not easy for a truck driver to avoid troublesome state and city gun laws as he drives across the country with valuable merchandise. He can quickly run into trouble in “may issue” states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, or California, which give out few permits and require applicants to demonstrate sufficient “need.” Or imagine a single woman driving across state lines at night, hoping that her car won’t break down along the highway.

If state Democrats and Henning get their way, criminals will only need to look for an out of state license plates to know who to attack.

For most of the country, reciprocity is already a fact of life. The average state allows people with concealed handgun permits from 32 other states to travel freely. But the seven “may issue” states and D.C. pull down that average; only one of those seven states, Delaware, recognizes permits from any other state. These “may issue” states only give out permits to people who provide local public officials with a good reason for being able to defend themselves.

There’s no good reason not to issue permits much more generously. Permit holders are extremely law-abiding, losing their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates of thousandths or tens of thousandths of one percentage point.

Police rarely commit crimes, and they are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at about one-twentieth as frequently as the general population. But permit holders are even more law-abiding, facing a conviction rate that is just one-tenth as often.

Some say that we should just rely on the police to protect us. But, unlike Michael Bloomberg, whose huge campaign donations made a big difference in Democrats taking control of Virginia, very few of us have trained security details. What happens when no one is there to help?

Washington State gun bills:

Specifically for or our readers in Washington state and anyone else interested. The link above is to the state legislature database where the bill number can be entered to see the whole enchilada.

HB 2555 By Representative Goodman
Concerning background check requirements for firearms classified as other under federal firearms laws.

HB 2569 By Representatives Wylie, Cody, Gregerson, Pollet and Tarleton
Authorizing pretrial detention for certain offenses involving firearms.

SB 6288 By Senators Dhingra, Pedersen, Frockt, Carlyle, Wilson, C., Kuderer Das Creating the Washington office of firearm violence prevention.

SB 6289 By Senators Dhingra, Kuderer, Lovelett, Darneille, Carlyle, Wilson, C. and Das Concerning the restoration of the right to possess a firearm.

HB 2467 By Representatives Hansen, Irwin, Griffey, Barkis and Wylie
Establishing a centralized single point of contact background check system for firearms transfers.
Referred to Committee on CIVIL RIGHTS & JUDICIARY.

HB 2411 By Representatives Orwall, Kilduff, Gildon, Leavitt, Paul, Cody, Davis, Pollet, Goodman, Wylie and Doglio Preventing suicide.

HB 2473 By Representatives Goodman and Wylie
Concerning domestic violence.
Referred to Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY

HB 2202 By Representative Klippert
Exempting law enforcement from firearm safety training requirements for
semiautomatic assault rifle purchases or transfers.

HB 2305 By Representative Doglio
Concerning firearms laws concerning persons subject to vulnerable adult protection orders.

House Bills In Committee

Bill Flags Title Status Veto Date Original
Sponsor

HB 1022 Docs Pistol sales database H Civil R & Judi 01/14/2019 Walsh
HB 1024 Docs f Firearm owners database H Civil R & Judi 01/14/2019 Walsh
HB 1038 Docs Firearms/school employees H Civil R & Judi 01/14/2019 Walsh
SHB 1068 Docs d High capacity magazines H Civil R & Judi 01/13/2020 Valdez
HB 1073 Docs fd# Undetectable firearms H Civil R & Judi 01/14/2019 Valdez
HB 1097 Docs Firearms/health information H Civil R & Judi 01/14/2019 Walsh
HB 1098 Docs Unsafe storage of firearms H Civil R & Judi 01/14/2019 Walsh
HB 1203 Docs Lost or stolen firearms H Civil R & Judi 01/16/2019 Doglio
HB 1286 Docs fd# Assault weapons ban H Civil R & Judi 01/18/2019 Peterson
HB 1315 Docs f Concealed pistol training H Civil R & Judi 01/18/2019 Lovick
HB 1319 Docs Firearm open carry/local gov H Civil R & Judi 01/18/2019 Wylie
HB 1346 Docs f Lead exposure in youth H Civil R & Judi 01/18/2019 Pollet
HB 1374 Docs Local gov firearm regulation H Civil R & Judi 01/21/2019 Macri
HB 1439 Docs Concealed firearm permission H Civil R & Judi 01/22/2019 Doglio
HB 1464 Docs fd# Concealed pistol licenses H Civil R & Judi 01/22/2019 Goodman
HB 1511 Docs Firearm training/private H Civil R & Judi 01/23/2019 Klippert
HB 1530 Docs f# Weapons in certain locations H Civil R & Judi 01/23/2019 Davis
HB 1541 Docs Weapon possession/orders H Civil R & Judi 01/23/2019 Jinkins
HB 1671 Docs Confiscated firearm disposal H Civil R & Judi 01/28/2019 Dolan
HB 1763 Docs Active shooter event/schools H Civil R & Judi 01/30/2019 Young
HB 1774 Docs Extreme risk protect. orders H Civil R & Judi 01/30/2019 Jinkins
HB 1814 Docs Involuntary treatment act H Civil R & Judi 01/31/2019 Orwall
HB 2124 Docs CPL/firearm possession H Civil R & Judi 02/25/2019 Dufault
HB 2196 Docs ERPO issuance & enforcement H Civil R & Judi 01/13/2020 Walsh
HB 2202 Docs Law enf./firearm training H Civil R & Judi 01/13/2020 Klippert
HB 2223 Docs Firearm prohibit. liability H Civil R & Judi 01/13/2020 Walsh
HB 2240 Docs d High capacity magazines H Civil R & Judi 01/13/2020 Valdez
HB 2241 Docs e Assault weapons H Civil R & Judi 01/13/2020 Peterson
HB 2301 Docs Competency to stand trial H Civil R & Judi 01/13/2020 Kilduff
HB 2305 Docs Vulnerable adults/firearms H Civil R & Judi 01/13/2020 Doglio
HB 2467 Docs Firearm background checks H Civil R & Judi 01/14/2020 Hansen
HB 2519 Docs d Ammunition H Civil R & Judi 01/15/2020 Walen
HB 2555 Docs Other firearms/background H Civil R & Judi 01/15/2020 Goodman
HB 2571 Docs d Fish and wildlife violations H Civil R & Judi 01/15/2020 Goodman

Bills Out of Committee

SHB 1010 Docs Forfeited firearms/WSP H Rules C 03/21/2019 Senn
HB 1047 Docs Limited jdx. court comm’rs H Rules C 03/21/2019 Jinkins
HB 1149 Docs Sex. assault protect. orders C 258 L 19 05/07/2019 Jinkins
EHB 1465 Docs af# Pistol sales or transfers C 244 L 19 05/07/2019 Goodman
HB 1589 Docs f Correctional emps/firearms C 231 L 19 04/30/2019 Chapman
SHB 1648 Docs f Suicide awareness & prevent. H Approps 02/22/2019 Orwall
SHB 1739 Docs afd# Firearms/undetectable, etc. C 243 L 19 05/07/2019 Valdez
HB 1934 Docs f# Pistol license/armed forces C 135 L 19 04/24/2019 Caldier
SHB 1949 Docs f Firearm background checks C 35 L 19 04/17/2019 Hansen
ESSB 5027 Docs a Extreme risk protect. orders C 246 L 19 05/07/2019 Frockt
SB 5083 Docs Indian tribe records C 39 L 19 04/17/2019 McCoy
SB 5205 Docs af Incomp. for trial/firearms C 248 L 19 05/07/2019 Dhingra
SB 5508 Docs afd# Concealed pistol licenses C 249 L 19 05/07/2019 Fortunato
SB 5551 Docs af# Courthouse dog assistance C 398 L 19 05/13/2019 Dhingra
SSB 5560 Docs af# Elected officials/disputes C 463 L 19 05/21/2019 Padden
E2SSB 5720 Docs f# Involuntary treatment act S 3rd Reading 01/13/2020 Dhingra
SB 5782 Docs Spring blade knives S Rules 3 04/28/2019 Zeiger

How a Democratic Governor and the Mainstream Media Tried to Delegitimize a Civil Rights Rally Before It Even Started.

By now you’ve heard that Virginia’s Democratic Governor Ralph Northam has declared a “state of emergency” and banned the possession of firearms in downtown Richmond where a massive gun rights rally is set to take place on January 20th.

Northam has been threatening the move for days, and it culminates what has been the worst slander against lawful gun owners in recent memory. Gov. Northam and his allies in the media have conflated white supremacists with legitimate peaceful protesters, and Northam’s executive order confirms that slander in the minds of the public: gun owners are dangerous, and their presence in the capital necessitates a state of emergency.

Northam probably knows more about white supremacy than I do, given his history, but this is starting to get ridiculous.

The Governor

Virginia’s intelligence officials may have picked up evidence that extremists are planning violence on January 20th, but you wouldn’t know it from Northam’s order.

He beings by alluding to the far-right white supremacist rally that took place in Charlottesville in August of 2017. This has become a theme in the media coverage of this event and in the governor’s statements. If you weren’t paying attention, you’d think the upcoming rally was about guns and white supremacism.

In the next paragraph, he gives Virginians his justification for declaring a state of emergency. He says, “Credible intelligence gathered by Virginia’s law enforcement agencies indicates that tens of thousands of advocates plan to converge on Capitol Square for events culminating on January 20, 2020.”

No offense to Virginia’s law enforcement agencies, but a groundhog with an internet connection could have figured that one out. You don’t need “credible evidence” to determine that a massive rally is about to take place in Richmond.

Northam continues: “Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth, may be armed, and have as their purpose not peaceful assembly but violence, rioting, and insurrection.”

Notice he switches from “credible intelligence” to “available information” when describing the threat from out-of-state “demonstrators.” Also, notice the vagueness of the term “substantial number.” How many is that? 10? 100? 10,000? Is the Galactic Empire descending on Richmond, Gov. Northam?

The Virginia Citizens Defense League is confused as well. The gun-rights group responsible for organizing the rally noted in an email to supporters that “neither the Governor nor any of his law enforcement has informed VCDL of any of these alleged threats.” Whatever threats the governor’s team has discovered, they haven’t bothered to tell the organization in the best position to keep the rally peaceful.

I’m old enough to remember when Democrats complained for two solid weeks about how President Trump’s drone strike on Qasem Soleimani was ill-advised because the White House couldn’t publicly name a specific, “imminent” attack. Maybe it’s just me, but I think the standard of evidence required for vaporizing a terrorist should be lower than the evidence required from delegitimizing a civil rights protest. The same Democrats who cried for proof of specific threats to kill a bona fide terrorist are happy to intimidate gun owners on what appears to be far less evidence.

Anyway, that’s it. Those two sentences are Northam’s justification for his executive order.

It’s entirely possible that Virginia’s finest have, in fact, discovered a plot to sow violence and “insurrection” on Monday. But does anyone think those individuals will pack up their swastikas and their Lugers and go home just because Northam banned lawful gun owners from carrying firearms? This is a microcosm of the entire gun rights debate over the last 50 years, and Northam’s massive gun-free zone could very well endanger those who seek to demonstrate peacefully. Honestly, you could cut this irony with a knife.

Northam, in short, has made it clear that the right to peaceful protest is sacred to every group except Second Amendment supporters. Women’s rights leaders associated with open anti-Semites were allowed to descend on the nation’s capital during the Women’s March without so much as a peep from mainstream politicians or state governors. But when gun owners rise up peacefully to make their displeasure heard, their efforts are cast as racist and violent.

One hundred years ago today, Prohibition began.

And thus began “The Roaring Twenties” where organized crime literally made millions while becoming entrenched in America and we’re still dealing with the consequences of the ‘good intentions’ of the prohibitionists.

Exactly a century ago today, Americans ushered in Prohibition.

A hundred years ago on Thursday, many Americans toasted their last legal toast at their favorite tavern, stocked up on their favorite brands, or, in the case of Charlotte Hennessey Smith, silent film actress and mother to famed actress Mary Pickford, bought out an entire liquor store.

Prohibition was ushered in on midnight Jan. 17, 1920. And as most people know, it wasn’t exactly followed so strictly.

 

 

FISA Court Selects Lawyer Who Vehemently Denied FBI Misled FISA To Oversee FBI Reforms.

Looks like a brazen attempt at a cover-up with a upraised middle finger pointed right at us.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has triggered a wave of condemnations over the selection of David Kris, to oversee reforms of the FBI FISA process. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) presiding Judge James Boasberg, left, appointed Kris, a lawyer that the Washington Post describes as “highly controversial.

Critics have objected that Kris writes for Lawfare, a legal site widely criticized by conservative lawyers for its left-oriented, anti-Trump positions, as well as shows like Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. That objection strikes me as attenuated and unfair. The more serious allegations however is that Kris was one of the most public advocates for rejecting allegations of FBI abuse. In a city where you can throw a stick and hit ten lawyers, FISC went to someone who insisted that allegations of abuse were nonsense and should be rejected. If the court was seeking to assure the public, it has added a new controversy for those who see a “deep state” response to reforms.

Kris served under the Obama Administration and was assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s National Security Division. He served as an associate deputy attorney general under George W. Bush from 2000 to 2003.

Kris  was one of the loudest critics of the Nunes memo which mirrored some of the findings of the Inspector General’s report: “The Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.” He specifically denied the claim that he FBI misled the court about Christopher Steele – a claim that has now been proven to be true.

Kris also maintained that “These applications already substantially undermine the president’s narrative and that of his proxies, and it seems to me very likely that if we get below the tip of the iceberg and into the submerged parts and more is revealed, it’s going to get worse, not better. And it would potentially be dangerous to disclose additional information because some of this relates to ongoing investigations.”

He has also been a prominent critic of President Trump, claiming on Twitter that the “walls” were “closing in” on the President.

Amid the Trump-Russia investigation, Kris had written that Republicans had “falsely accused” the FBI of misleading the FISC in its wiretap applications to spy on the Trump campaign. He stated that “an allegation that was all but debunked by the special counsel’s report and the inspector general’s report,” the Daily Caller noted.

Brookings Institution, which supports LawFare, has been font for experts declaring proven crimes and impeachable acts by Trump. I have often disagreed with the analysis offered by Brookings experts in these controversies. Yet, while I strongly disagree with a great deal of Kris’ analysis, much of that analysis is substantive and interesting. However, there are also these troubling and sweeping statements on the very merits of the dispute over FISA. I was particularly concerned with a March 1, 2018 essay for Lawfare, where Kris dismisses questions raised over the handling of the Carter Page investigation. I have written about the problems in that investigation, including a recent column where I called for an apology for Page over his abuse in the FISA system. Kris was one of those assuring the public that Page was clearly a legitimate target: “It’s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to conclude he was a Russian agent.” Those abuses (long denied by Kris) are at the heart of the reforms.

Given those positions, it is curious that Judge James Boasberg thought that he was the best lawyer to assure the public that reforms would be faithfully and thoroughly carried out.

Virginia Bill Aims to Shut Down NRA Headquarters Range

Virginia House Bill no. 567, prefiled on 6 January, 2020, and offered on 8 January, 2020, seems aimed particularly at the NRA headquarters range at 11250 Waples Mill Rd. in Fairfax, Virginia. HB 567 contains a number of provisions that single out the NRA HQ range from nearly all others. Here are the provisions of the bill:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2 as follows:

§ 18.2-511.2. Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in private buildings; exceptions; penalty.

A. As used in this section, “indoor shooting range” means any fully enclosed or indoor area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, or black powder or any other similar sport shooting.

B. It is unlawful to operate an indoor shooting range in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or the federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers, as defined in § 9.1-101, or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user’s name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user’s identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card.

C. Any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.

The NRA HQ range is located in the NRA HQ building in Fairfax, Virginia.

  • It is indoors.
  • It is privately owned.
  • More than 50 employees work in the building.
  • It is open to the public.

Only one of the other indoor ranges found, in a quick survey of Virginia indoor ranges, were in buildings over two stories tall. The Colonial Shooting Acadamy, in Richmond, Virginia, is a three-story facility. It has a few more than 50 employees working in its building. It is the biggest indoor range in Virginia. The owners would like to expand and hire more employees. This bill would make expansion impossible. Large indoor urban ranges have been expanding across the country. The trend was arguably started with the Scottsdale Gun Club in Arizona.

Full disclosure, Terry Schmidt is my second cousin. He and his wife Nadine conceived of the Scottsdale gun club and now own majority interests and manage the concern. Terry credits me with planting the seed of his lifelong fascination and career with firearms.

Many small businesses have less than 50 employees to avoid burdensome federal regulations that apply to businesses that have over 50 employees. It is a large range, indeed, which would employ over 50 people in one building.

The bill would likely face challenges under both the Virginia State Constitution and the federal Constitution under the Second Amendment.

The Seventh Circuit has ruled the availability of gun ranges, to serve the public, is protected to some extent, by the Second Amendment.

It seems unlikely the proposed Virginia law would meet the requirements to pass muster under the Second Amendment. What rationale would require the limitation of gun ranges to buildings that employ less than 50 people?

Governments have deep pockets to defend against lawsuits. They are spending other people’s money.

The lawsuits required to defend against the host of laws infringing on the Second Amendment in Virginia will be costly. They will not be funded by tax dollars, but by private individuals.

The individuals may band together into groups or organizations to fund the lawsuits, but the money will not be taken from other people by force, as is tax money.

NJ gave Texas church gunman plea deal that wiped out gun felony’

After seeing so many of these plea bargains letting criminals free to commit more crime, that wouldn’t have happened because they still would have been behind bars, it makes the conspiracy theory that it’s a plan not seem all that off the wall anymore.

ELIZABETH — The gunman who killed two congregants at a Texas church last month had been charged years earlier with a felony gun offense in New Jersey, where prosecutors later downgraded the crime to a low-level misdemeanor that had nothing to do with firearms.

Since the Dec. 29 shootout at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, much has come out about Keith Thomas Kinnunen’s criminal record, which seems to follow a pattern: He would get charged with serious, sometimes violent crimes, which later were pleaded down to less-consequential offenses.

Despite Kinnunen’s history of mental illness — including a 2012 judge’s order declaring him unfit to stand trial — it does not appear his plea deals were enough to trigger legal provisions limiting gun ownership, which would apply in cases involving domestic violence and felonies.

Linden police arrested Kinnunen in Sept. 12, 2016, after finding him with a 12-gauge shotgun, the same kind he used last month in the Texas church. Linden police said Kinnunen, who had been riding a bicycle near the Phillips 66 refinery, told them he was homeless and was taking photos of “interesting sites.”

He was charged with unlawful possession of a rifle/shotgun, a third-degree indictable crime that in other states would be called a felony.

In January 2017, he accepted a plea deal finding him guilty of criminal trespass, a low-level misdemeanor that state law classifies as a petty disorderly persons offense.

As part of the deal, a Superior Court judge in July 2017 sentenced him to 303 days of time served at Union County Jail and ordered him to forfeit his weapon.

A spokesman for the Union County Prosecutor’s Office last week defended the deal as “fully reasonable and legally appropriate.”

“The assistant prosecutor assigned to this case consulted with a member of the Union County Police Department Ballistics Unit, who determined that because the recovered weapon was missing a fundamental component, it was inoperable under the definition outlined in the applicable statute,” the spokesman for the office said in a written statement.

In Oklahoma in 2011, Kinnunen was charged with felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after attacking the owner of a doughnut shop. He was also charged with arson in a separate offense in which he was accused of starting a fire at a cotton field with flaming tampons. Police also said that he forced his underage to throw around a flaming football.

An Oklahoma judge in 2012 ruled him mentally incompetent to stand trial and committed him to a psychiatric facility. A year later, he pleaded guilty after the charges were downgraded to misdemeanors.

In 2012, an ex-wife in Oklahoma filed for a protective order that described him as “a violent, paranoid person with a long line of assault and battery w/ and without firearms.”

Another ex-wife told The Associated Press that they divorced in 2011 after he got “more and more” into drugs that “messed with his head.”

In 2008, he was charged with aggravated assault in Texas. The charged was later downgraded to misdemeanor deadly conduct.

On Dec. 29, Kinnunen walked into the packed White Settlement church wearing a fake beard and wig and opened fire, killing 67-year-old Richard White and 64-year-old Anton “Tony” Wallace. Kinnunen was then killed by a single shot by security volunteer Jack Wilson.

The motive for the attack was unclear. The church had previously helped feed the shooter. The pastor told The Associated Press that Kinnunen was angry when the congregation declined to give him money.

 

The Supreme Court’s Failure to Defend Heller Has Created The Situation in Virginia

Why does it seem that liberal extremists are pursuing new infringements on gun rights seemingly unchecked? Why do we have an escalated situation in Virginia where liberal politicians seek to further infringe the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, threatening imprisonment and even violence against Constitutional gun owners who have committed no crimes?

This is due to a failure of our system of checks and balances. Due to a failure of the courts to deal with a barrage of important Second Amendment cases over the last ten years, we are perilously off balance.

In 2008, we had the epic Heller decision, and the subsequent McDonald decision in 2010, which applied Heller to the states. In the more than 10 years since those decisions were handed down, we have seen relentless encroachments on Second Amendment rights by extreme anti-rights fanatics.

When will it ever end? When will the Supreme Court make it end?

The response by gun rights supporters to these continued, ongoing infringements has been appropriate: seek redress using the three branches of government. Specifically, file lawsuit after lawsuit begging the Judiciary to enforce Heller’s holdings on concepts like individual rights and common-use.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary has repeatedly ignored these petitions for redress—a complete and dangerous failure to enforce the provisions enumerated in the Heller decision. The results have been a painful, unconstitutional existence for those of us in states like New Jersey and, most recently, it has brought Virginia to the edge of chaos.

This judicial hibernation, combined with the limitless funding of special interest groups and individuals like gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg’s funding of Moms Demand Action and Everytown, has resulted in a highly explosive situation.

Since 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States has declined the opportunity to grant several petitions for certiorari.

In 2014, the Court denied the petition in a New Jersey case asking the critical question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies outside the home. See Drake v. Filko. In 2017, the petition for cert was denied in Peruta v. San Diego.

These denials have resulted in terrible consequences. They have provided liberal, anti-gun rights extremists an unfettered highway to infringement.

On the micro level, in the repeated failure to act swiftly in upholding the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court itself has placed citizens like New Jerseyians (who are automatically denied a right to carry) in danger of criminal activity and terror, such as we saw in the recent Texas church shooting.

The Court’s failure to act has also placed us in danger on the macro level, such as in Virginia where politicians have threatened to use the National Guard against the state’s citizens and to jail those who have committed no crimes.

The Court must act soon. It is abundantly clear, despite a dearth of reporting by the mainstream media, that complete civilian disarmament is the end goal. Americans will not allow them to succeed.

Inconvenient Truths About Guns and Gun Control

Politicians and journalists often portray fiction as fact. It is easy to be opinionated, but hard to be informed. This came to mind as I listened to Virginia Democrats tell us we’d be safer if we were disarmed. What is the truth about gun-control laws? What politicians says a law will do might have nothing to do with what the law actually does. Lives are at stake when gun-control laws fail. Saying that the next gun-control law is necessary to stop violent crime admits that the 23 thousand firearms regulations already on the books didn’t work as advertised. It is a rare politician who admits how limited the government really is when it comes to public safety.

Fortunately, we’ve lived with firearms for several hundred years. We know some things that work. Here are a few inconvenient truths I’ve found after a few decades of study.

Inconvenient Truth: Most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders. Unfortunately, restrictions on firearms have not reduced the rate of suicide. Fortunately, informed gun owners are reaching out to other gun owners who are dealing with mental illness. Mental health treatment works. We’re changing the gun culture for the better, no thanks to the politicians.

Inconvenient Truth: Most murders with a firearm in the United States are committed by members of criminal gangs. The police know who most of these murderers are. Gun-control laws that restrict the actions of honest gun owners have not changed the actions of known criminals. Most of the young people shot with guns are gang members who were shot by other gang members. Unfortunately, some of the victims are also innocent bystanders or victims of crime. Disarming the innocent victims doesn’t stop the criminals.

Inconvenient Truth: Background checks don’t reduce the rate of violent crime. Criminals don’t buy their guns at gun shops or gun shows. Criminals get their guns the same way they get their drugs; they get them illegally from other criminals. (By the way, there is no gun-show loophole. Every law that applies outside a gun show also applies inside a gun show.)

Inconvenient Truth: Honest gun owners do not cause crime. In fact, licensed concealed carry holders are both more law-abiding and more accurate with their guns than the police. Civilians with a permit to carry a gun in public are the most law-abiding group that sociologists can find.

Inconvenient Truth: Civilian gun ownership is the most cost-effective way to reduce violent crime.

Inconvenient Truth: Owning a gun does not make you more likely to be a victim of violent crime. It is true that people who live in high-crime areas are more likely to want a firearm for personal protection. People tend to be more sensitive about personal safety when someone they know have been victims of violent crime. Gun ownership is often a response to criminal violence rather than the cause of it.

Inconvenient Truth: Criminals don’t often take  a person’s gun and hurt them with it. There are more examples of victims disarming criminals than of criminals disarming victims.

Inconvenient Truth:  A sexual assault almost never becomes a rape if the victim is armed. The armed victim is such an uninviting target that the attacker usually runs away once he sees that the victim is armed.

Inconvenient Truth: Criminals don’t fight fair. There are usually several criminals attacking a single victim. We civilians are the first victims of crime. Police are our backup and usually arrive after the fight is over.

Here is one last inconvenient truth: Politicians often exempt themselves from the laws they pass. Some politicians own guns. They must think guns are useful. Some politicians have armed security. They must think guns make them safer. If politicians don’t live by the gun regulations they want for us, then the politicians don’t believe in gun-control.

I agree with what these gun-control politicians do even if I disagree with what they say, and that is the truth.

The world isn’t safe. If you don’t believe me, then ask a policeman who deals with criminals every day. The policeman wants a firearm because he lives in a dangerous world. Unfortunately, the average criminal will victimize over 20 civilians before the policeman catches him. That is why you and I need a firearm too. We have to protect ourself and our loved ones until the police arrive, and we only call the police after we’ve been attacked. There is no doubt that self-defense is inconvenient, but I’d rather be inconvenienced now than be a helpless victim later. To make matters worse, you don’t get to pick when you might be attacked. ;-(

Trump Issues Fewest Regs in 44 Years, Three Years Running

The Trump administration, under orders to slash Obama-era regulations, has also issued the fewest new rules since the government began counting them in 1975.

For a third year, Trump’s administration has broken the record for issuing the fewest regulations and rules, a radical departure from the eight years of former President Barack Obama.

According to Clyde Wayne Crews, the regulation expert and policy vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Federal Register published 2,964 final rules.

Homeland Security Chief Orders Review Of State Laws Allowing Driver’s Licenses For Illegal Aliens

Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ordered a review of state laws that allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and restrict data sharing with federal immigration authorities.

Wolf on Tuesday ordered all of the components of DHS to conduct a department-wide review of the state laws to determine how they affect their day-to-day operations, according to a memo obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The DHS chief’s directive indicates he is prepared to take aim against the state laws.

“Accordingly, I am instructing each operational component to conduct an assessment of the impact of these laws, so that the Department is prepared to deal with and counter these impacts as we protect the homeland,” Wolf’s memo read.

The memo follows implementation of New York’s “Green Light” law, and passage of a similar bill in New Jersey in December. Both laws not only allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, but also restrict DMV data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.

In New York, in particular, numerous county clerks have expressed reservation over the fact that illegal aliens can obtain a driver’s license with foreign documentation — arguing that such a policy paves the way for voter fraud, identity theft, and even terrorism. DHS had already voiced its opposition to a provision in the New York law that prohibits Homeland security Investigations, a division of ICE, from accessing DMV information — even if the agency is investigating serious crimes.

“Laws like New York’s greenlight law have dangerous consequences that have far reaches beyond the DMV,” DHS spokeswomen Heather Swift said Tuesday. “These types of laws make it easier for terrorists and criminals to obtain fraudulent documents and also prevent DHS investigators from accessing important records that help take down child pornography and human trafficking rings and combat everything from terrorism to drug smuggling.”

Suspect Involved in Fatal Texas Church Shooting Identified as Keith Thomas Kinnunen:

And there you have it folks. A felon, who from his record should have been behind bars with a long time yet to go before release, is the deadhead. When you see so many times that these people have been through the criminal ‘justice’ system time and again and are still set free, it makes the idea that it’s part of a plan seem all the more plausible.

The suspect involved in a fatal shooting at a Dallas-area church on Sunday was identified by officials as 43-year-old Keith Thomas Kinnunen, it was reported.

Law enforcement sources told local station KXAS Channel 5 that Kinnunen was the shooter. He had a criminal record in Tarrant County, including aggravated assault and theft of property charges.

Kinnunen was fatally shot by an armed member of the church’s security team in an incident that was captured on a church live stream. He stood up from the audience in the West Freeway Church of Christ at about 10:50 a.m. Sunday morning, went to a corner of the Church after saying something to someone there, and then pulled out a shotgun from his coat and opened fire, according to footage obtained by Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The footage showed Kinnunen apparently wearing a hooded jacket and holding a shotgun.

In 2016, he told police in Linden, New Jersey, that he was homeless and was traveling from Texas to take photos. He was arrested in September of that year when police found him with a shotgun, the paper reported.

The report stated that Kinnunen was also arrested in 2008 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Fort Worth. According to KXAS, he was charged with theft in 2013.

Gun Rights Groups Hit Back After VA AG Says Second Amendment Sanctuaries Have ‘No Legal Effect’

The Virginia Defense League and Gun Owners of America, the gun rights group that is spearheading the Second Amendment sanctuary movement in the commonwealth, responded to Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s statement that called the sanctuary resolution as having “no legal effect.”

The VDL and GOA sent a letter to their supporters and urged them to resist any unconstitutional gun control law the General Assembly passes in the new session next year.

“It is apparent that AG Herring and Governor Ralph Northam believe that Virginia localities have a duty to actively assist the Commonwealth in the enforcement of any law enacted by the General Assembly. These officials appear to believe that such blind obedience is required irrespective of whether a law violates the U.S. Constitution, the Virginia Constitution, or is manifestly destructive of the preexisting rights of the People of Virginia,” the groups wrote. “This radical view is demonstrably false, and ignores the significance of the fact that local officials are required by law to take an oath to support the federal and state constitutions above the laws enacted by the General Assembly.”

The VDL and GOA said Governor Ralph Northam and Herring are wrong in their assessment counties must always implement laws passed since they “have taken exactly the opposite legal position” when it came to sanctuary status for illegal immigrants.

Northam vetoed two bills in March that would have banned localities from becoming sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants and would have required law enforcement agency to notify federal authorities if they had illegal immigrants in their custody.

“The safety of our communities requires that all people, whether they are documented or not, feel comfortable, supported and protected by our public safety agencies,” Northam said at the time.

“Thus, three times in three consecutive years (2017, 2018, and 2019), Governor Northam used his office to support the right of Virginia’s localities to declare themselves sanctuary cities and counties, refusing to help with the enforcement of federal immigration laws, based on mere policy differences with those federal laws,” the gun rights group said.

The VDL and GOA stated there is nothing new with people not obeying illegal and unauthorized government acts, adding, “If necessary, the lower authority may even actively resist the superior authority, since the higher authority is acting illegitimately and unconstitutionally, and without legal authority.”

An overwhelming number of counties in Virginia have declared themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries, promising to not enforce any gun law deemed as unconstitutional.

A few Virginia sheriffs voiced their support for counties becoming gun sanctuaries to Townhall, giving the movement critical backing.

“I am in favor of the Second Amendment Sanctuary. I believe we need to send a message to Richmond that our citizens will take a stance. My deputies and I take an oath to uphold the Constitution and that’s what we will do,” said Rappahannock County Sheriff Connie Compton.

Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities For The Win.

It’s glorious how the normal people of Virginia are rising up to reject Governor Blackface … or is it Governor KKK-klothes? He can’t seem to remember which one he was in the photo, meaning he had probably donned both creepy get-ups at some point. Yay, our Democrat betters! In any case, the people are telling him, “No, we’re not letting you goose-stepping Bloomberg bots take our guns,” and it is especially glorious that the means to make this righteous commitment is a new, and not garbage, sanctuary movement.

I’ve always been an advocate of playing by the left’s new rules, and this is a great opportunity to new rules the libs good and hard. We got your sanctuary right here, pinkos.

See, the left decided that Virginia, whose northern reaches are now full of government workers and other garbage people, needed to turn blue. With tons of lib donor money and the aid of a typically inept state GOP (I know those feel here in California), they managed to just barely grab control of both houses of the legislature. With Governor Byrd-Jolson in charge, they immediately promised to do away with the Second Amendment. They announced that they were going to confiscate the citizens’ scary guns and do all sorts of other things to show those disobedient, probably Jesus-loving rubes who was boss.

Except, as Chairman Mao – who you think these dorks would appreciate more – pointed out, power grows from the barrel of a gun, not out of a mean tweet.

Instantly, everyone outside the garbage counties locked and loaded their freedom and so the Second Amendment sanctuary movement began. County after county, and many cities, all committed to resisting if the state tried enforcing unconstitutional gun laws against normal citizens. And it was beautiful. The Dems wet themselves.

Remember, these normals won’t hurt anyone who doesn’t mess with them. They work, raise children, pray, and they keep guns for the defense of themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. They didn’t get the memo that said they were supposed to just roll over and become subjects instead of citizens.

After all, Virginians aren’t Canadians.

Spokesperson: Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam Has ‘No Plans to Call in National Guard’

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) has no plans to use the National Guard against residents in Second Amendment sanctuary counties, according to a spokesperson.
The Los Angeles Times quoted Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky saying, “[Northam has] absolutely no plans to call in the National Guard.”

The clarification of Northam’s position comes after Rep. Donald McEachin (D-VA) suggested the governor use the National Guard to force compliance with any newly passed gun controls.

The Washington Examiner quoted McEachin saying, “I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law. That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”

Northam’s decision not to call in the National Guard at this time also follows Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins’ vow to “deputize thousands” to defend gun rights.

Jenkins said:

Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. “Red Flag” laws without due process will create enormous conflict as well.

America has more guns than citizens and murder has long been illegal. At best, the proposed gun restrictions will disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense and possibly cause a criminal to choose another tool for evil.

Jenkins added, “If necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”

1775…again?

When people desperately trying to avoid a fight are left no choice but to fight, they are often the fiercest fighters imaginable.

The reason being an explosion of righteous anger – of berserker fury – directed at the bullies who will not leave them be.

Governor “Coonman” Northam of Virginia is such a bully.

He intends to rescind the current, ancient and long-acknowledged legal right of Virginians who aren’t criminals to possess more than single shot rifles and pistols – by criminalizing anyone who does possess them. These newly minted “criminals” will then be required to turn in their formerly legal firearms to the government or be subject to Hut! Hut! Hutting! by armed government workers sent by the Coonman to enforce his criminal acts.

This is a recipe for 1775.

Another bully – Thomas Gage, the British military governor of Massachusetts – attempted a “Coonman” in that year, which lit the fuse of what became the Revolutionary War. He sent armed government workers – Redcoats – to confiscate the weapons of the colonists – who had finally had their fill of being bullied. These long-ago AGWs eventually gunned down several colonists on the village green at Lexington.

Word of the massacre spread and the people rose in response, fighting back with whatever means available, harrying the column of armed government workers as it made its way back toward Boston, some 18 miles away.

The fury incited by that long-ago “Coonman” was subsequently described by himself:

“These people show a spirit and conduct against us they never showed against the French . . . They are now spirited up by a rage and enthusiasm as great as ever people were possessed of and you must proceed in earnest or give the business up. A small body acting in one spot will not avail, you must have large armies making diversions on different sides, to divide their force. The loss we have sustained is greater than we can bear. Small armies cannot afford such losses, especially when the advantage gained tends to do little more than the gaining of a post.”

Eight years later, those furious colonists finally succeeded in getting the bullies off their backs – permanently.

They probably never imagined that homegrown bullies even worse than “Coonman” Gage would eventually arise to torment them.

The current “Coonman” may not realize just how very tired the people are of being bullied – and how willing they are to fight, if a fight is forced upon them.

The “Coonman” feels confident. He has the full weight and force of the government and all its means at his disposal. He has legions of armed government workers available to enforce his writ.

But he hasn’t got the fury – and that is something he ought to reckon with, before it it is too late.

If this thing starts, it will not end until one or the other side is no longer capable of fighting. It will be no-quarter-given. It will be awful.

But it will be righteous.

And it may be necessary.