So, ballistic ‘forensics’, like a lot of forensics is a ‘by guess, best estimate’ of something, and again confirms that the politics of the police department, the prosecuting attorney, and of you and your ‘status in society’, are a major factor in the decision making process of whether or not you get charged.


Why a High-Ranking FBI Attorney Is Pushing ‘Unbelievable’ Junk Science on Guns

Late last year, a forensic firearms analyst in Wisconsin emailed a remarkable document to more than 200 of her colleagues across the country. It was a handout from an online lecture given by Jim Agar, the assistant general counsel for the FBI Crime Lab.

For years, forensic firearms analysts have claimed the ability to examine the marks on a bullet found at a crime scene and match it to the gun that fired it—to the exclusion of all other guns. It can be powerfully persuasive to juries. But over the last decade or so, some scientists have cast doubt on the claim.

Forensic firearms analysis falls into a subcategory of forensics colloquially known as “pattern matching.” In these specialties, an analyst looks at a piece of evidence from a crime scene and compares it with a piece of evidence associated with a suspect.

The most damning criticism of the field came in a 2016 report by the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, or PCAST, which found that “firearms analysis currently falls short of the criteria for foundational validity,” and that the studies the field’s practitioners often cite to support their work are poorly designed and “seriously underestimate the false positive rate.”

After decades of deferring to these forensic analysts, a handful of judges started to heed the warnings from scientists, and have put limits on what some forensic witnesses can say in court. Those decisions have sparked a defensive backlash in the forensics community, along with rebukes from law enforcement officials and prosecutors.

Agar’s document is part of that backlash. In the two-page handout, Agar instructs firearms analysts on how to circumvent judges’ restrictions on unscientific testimony. He even suggests dialogue for prosecutors and analysts to recite if challenged. Most controversially, Agar advises analysts to tell judges that any effort to restrict their testimony to claims backed by scientific research is tantamount to asking them to commit perjury.

Agar’s document was so volatile, it was upbraided by the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC). That agency—the only one of its kind—was formed in the wake of revelations that bogus expert testimony likely caused the state to convict and execute an innocent man, and is tasked with ensuring that expert testimony given in Texas courtrooms is scientifically valid. The TFSC called Agar’s advice to firearm analysts “irredeemably faulty,” and stated that it “runs counter to core principles in science.”

“This is just really unbelievable,” Ellen Yaroshefsky, a professor of legal ethics at Hofstra University, told The Daily Beast after reviewing Agar’s memo. “He’s encouraging false testimony and he’s undermining respect for the judiciary. I mean, he’s saying that if a judge says you can’t give unscientific testimony, you’re being forced to commit perjury? It’s just absurd.”

A Short History of FBI Forensic Blunders

Continue reading “”

No-knock warrants and the Second Amendment

The police shooting death of 22-year old Amir Locke, a legal gun owner and concealed carry holder killed during the execution of a no-knock warrant in Minneapolis last week, has prompted protests and a renewed debate about the use of no-knock warrants.

One of those critical of the practice; Bryan Strawser, chairman of the MN Gun Owners Caucus, who joins today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to talk about the Locke case and the dangers presented by no-knock warrants to both legal gun owners and law enforcement.

The 2A group was quick to criticize the incident on social media after the story broke last Friday, and Strawser says he and other members got plenty of flack from folks accusing them of “go[ing] full BLM and Antifa” for the organization’s initial statement, which read as follows:

While many facts remain unknown at this time, information indicates that Amir Locke was a law-abiding citizen who was lawfully in possession of a firearm when he was shot and killed by Minneapolis Police on the morning of February 2nd.

“As seen in the body-worn camera video released by Minneapolis Police, Mr. Locke appears to be sleeping on the couch during the execution of a no-knock warrant, “ stated Bryan Strawser, Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

“He is awoken with a confusing array of commands coming from multiple officers who are pointing lights and firearms at him.”

“Mr. Locke did what many of us might do in the same confusing circumstances, he reached for a legal means of self-defense while he sought to understand what was happening, “ added Rob Doar, Senior VP, Governmental Affairs.

Mr. Locke was not a suspect in the crime for which the warrant was issued and was not named at all in the search warrant.

“The tragic circumstances of Mr. Locke’s death were completely avoidable, “ stated Doar. “It’s yet another example where a no-knock warrant has resulted in the death of an innocent person.

In this case, as in others, the public should expect and receive full transparency and accountability from law enforcement agencies that serve and protect our local communities.”

“Amir Locke, a lawful gun owner, should still be alive, “ added Strawser. “Black men, like all citizens, have a right to keep and bear arms. Black men, like all citizens, have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure.”

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus expects a transparent and independent investigation into the circumstances of this tragic incident.

Interestingly, Strawser says that as far as he can tell, not one of the criticisms or pieces of hate mail that the group’s received since last Friday has come from a current or former member or anyone who’s ever contributed money to the organization’s 2A efforts. That suggests to me that concern over no-knock warrants isn’t limited to “woke” gun owners or those on the left, but is something that many conservative gun owners may be uneasy with as well.

Continue reading “”

Law enforcement going after criminals?
What an unusual and innovative concept!  Whoda Thunkit?


U.S. Marshal questions measure aimed at banning ghost guns in Maryland

Veteran crime fighters are questioning the impact of a measure aimed at banning the purchase and possession of ghost guns in Maryland.

Its a key component of a crime package introduced by Democratic lawmakers who have twice failed to approve a crime package proposed by the Governor.

However, the impact of the proposed ghost gun ban is being questioned by those on the front lines of the crime war.

“If you eliminated all ghost guns you’re still going to have a big crime problem,” said U.S. Marshal Johnny Hughes.

The homemade guns are untraceable and undetectable.

Police seized more than 300 on the streets of Baltimore last year. 11% of those guns were linked to actual crimes.

Hughes believes the only action which will have an impact on the city’s soaring homicide rate, is focusing on the users of illegal guns instead of the guns themselves.

“The gun doesn’t shoot people, it’s the violent offender pulling the trigger who we need to go after,” said Hughes.

Missouri Supreme Court hears arguments on ‘Second Amendment Act’

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday about the constitutionality of a gun law with $50,000 penalties for local law enforcement if they enforce federal laws.

Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed HB 85, called the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” into law last June. The law prohibits state and local cooperation with federal officials to enforce any laws, rules, orders or actions violating the Second Amendment rights of Missourians. It also creates civil liability and monetary damages of $50,000 per occurrence when the law is violated.

Any entity or person who knowingly acts under any federal or state law to deprive a Missouri citizen of their rights or privileges ensured by the federal and state constitution to keep any bear arms must be liable, according to the law. In addition to the monetary damages, attorney fees and costs may be awarded. The employer of the individual found liable is responsible for paying the damages, attorney’s fees and court costs of litigation.

The City of St. Louis, St. Louis County and Jackson County sued the state, seeking a declaration the law is unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the act. The Attorney General’s office successfully defended the law against a lawsuit brought by the city and counties at the circuit court level. Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green ruled the city and counties could get legal clarification surrounding the law from at least two pending cases working through the court system.

Robert Dierker, the associate counselor for the City of St. Louis who represented the city and counties before the Missouri Supreme Court, argued the law lacks clarity and simplicity.

“We have what is really an unintelligible statute,” Dierker told the court. “I think that any fair reading of the statute leaves a person of ordinary understanding completely lost as to what federal laws and regulations are forbidden and what are to be enforced.”

Dierker’s co-counsel, Jeffrey Sandberg of the appellate staff of the U.S. Department of Justice, said state and local law enforcement are unsure if they can cooperate with federal law enforcement on cases involving firearms.

“We are running into problems where there are people who want to cooperate but they are mindful they’re making on-the-spot judgments about what might potentially put their agencies budget at risk,” Sandberg told the justices. “They’re fearing $50,000 penalties. You might have the Missouri State Highway patrol stop a federal fugitive who’s just passing through Missouri and has no connection to the state, but let’s that person go in a traffic stop because he fears the potential consequences to his agency of that traffic stop. That’s what we’re dealing with here.”

Solicitor General John Sauer argued the cities could attain a ruling in the matter through as many as five Second Amendment Preservation Act lawsuits filed at the circuit court level. He countered the opposition’s claim that the law violated the federal supremacy clause. In a written brief, the Attorney General’s office stated the law doesn’t conflict with any federal statute.

Why do you think I call them Bureaucraps?


ATF Actions Show Selective and Inconsistent Rules and Enforcement

It figures the self-styled “experts” misspelled “identifying.” This piece of self-promoting propaganda deserves a “5 Fast Facts” rebuttal, starting with “Unconstitutional, but there’s not a damn thing your ‘representatives’ intend to do about it.” (ATF/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- With anticipated ATF raids over reports on a purported ATF email concerning forced reset triggers, with similar concerns arising from ATF actions on stabilizing braces, with renewed expectations om the classification of Shockwave-type firearms, and with the hysterical reclassification of “bump stock” type devices as machineguns, one thing is clear: These attacks on the right to keep and bear arms have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with an ATF being pressed by higher-ups to pile on infringements through “rule” changes.

The inconsistency of those rules is another story some of us have been following for years.

In 2005, the Congressional Research Service published a memorandum regarding ATF firearms testing procedures. Among other things, it revealed that the ATF has “over 300 cubic feet of classification letters stored in file cabinets.” The Bureau hasn’t scanned any of these documents into a searchable database to assure consistency of interpretation, to identify and resolve regulatory conflicts. The extent to which this inconsistency has grown and compounded in intervening years is unknown and unknowable without a major organization and review effort, which ain’t gonna happen.

Continue reading “”

“Safe streets worker” (replacing police) gunned down in Baltimore.

During the course of the madness that promoted “defunding” or abolishing the police, there was an emphasis placed on replacing police in some circumstances with “community safety” workers who would supposedly act as unarmed “violence interrupters” and reduce the number of lethal use of force incidents by police officers. In Baltimore, Maryland’s violent gang territories, an existing organization known as the “Safe Streets Program” gained a lot of attention and municipal support in this effort. The goal of the program is to deploy former gang members (or “former”) into areas controlled by the gangs to negotiate nonviolent resolutions to conflicts. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with other proposed “violence interruption” programs in major cities, sending someone with a clipboard out to resolve a beef between gang members isn’t always effective. That was sadly this case this week when one of Baltimore’s Safe Streets workers was shot to death along with several other people on the East side of Charm City. (Baltimore Sun)

A quadruple shooting in East Baltimore on Wednesday night left three people dead, including a Safe Streets worker, and one person injured, police said. Three others were injured in separate shootings in West and South Baltimore.

At about 7:25 p.m., Eastern District patrol officers responded to a ShotSpotter alert in the 2400 block of E. Monument St. Once there, officers located four men suffering from apparent gunshot wounds.

A 28-year-old man was pronounced dead on the scene. Medics transported three other victims to area hospitals, where a 24-year-old man and another man were also pronounced dead.

Continue reading “”

In other words, SloJoe’s cabinet devised a fraudulent plan to invent an issue to give federal law enforcement a purported reason to come down on political enemies.
If that isn’t ‘Banana Republic’ style, IDK what is.


BLUF:
“Attorney General Merrick Garland unequivocally stated that he based his memo on the NSBA’s letter – which in turn, mobilized the FBI and US Attorneys,” Neily added. “If Secretary Cardona was truly involved in this ugly episode, it is a significant breach of public trust, and he should be held accountable.”

Education Secretary Cardona solicited NSBA letter comparing protesting parents to domestic terrorists: email

 Education Secretary Miguel Cardona solicited the much-criticized letter from the National School Boards Association that compared protesting parents to domestic terrorists, according to an email exchange reviewed by Fox News.

The email exchange indicates Cardona was more involved with the letter’s creation than previously known.

President Biden’s Department of Justice relied on the NSBA letter, which suggested using the Patriot Act against parents, in creating its own memo directing the FBI to mobilize in support of local education officials.

In the Oct. 5 email, NSBA Secretary-Treasurer Kristi Swett recounted that NSBA interim CEO Chip Slaven “told the officers he was writing a letter to provide information to the White House, from a request by Secretary Cardona.”

Continue reading “”

Another one of the anti-american goobermint officials that George Soros donated millions to their election campaign. And the economic rule that you get more of what you subsidize – in this case violent crime – is going to kick New Yorkers in the seat of the pants, and I hope good and hard.


Manhattan DA to stop seeking prison sentences in slew of criminal cases

Who needs soft-on-crime judges when the district attorney doesn’t even want to lock up the bad guys?

Manhattan’s new DA has ordered his prosecutors to stop seeking prison sentences for hordes of criminals and to downgrade felony charges in cases including armed robberies and drug dealing, according to a set of progressive policies made public Tuesday.

In his first memo to staff on Monday, Alvin Bragg said his office “will not seek a carceral sentence” except with homicides and a handful of other cases, including domestic violence felonies, some sex crimes and public corruption.

Alvin Bragg.

 

 

 

 

 

“This rule may be excepted only in extraordinary circumstances based on a holistic analysis of the facts, criminal history, victim’s input (particularly in cases of violence or trauma), and any other information available,” the memo reads.

Continue reading “”

It appears that West -By God- Virginia has a Second Amendment Protection Act law not unlike Missouri and a few other states.


AG offers guidance on handling gun law conflicts

CHARLESTON — A state law passed early in 2021 regarding federal gun laws now has related policy guidelines.

House Bill 2694 stipulates that state gun laws will trump federal gun laws and no West Virginia law enforcement agency on any level “shall participate in enforcement efforts focused on federal gun control measures when those laws conflict with state laws regarding firearms.”

“The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution,” Attorney General Morrisey said Thursday when announcing the guidelines. “Yet, there is a deep concern on the part of many Americans that the federal government will try to encroach on our Constitutional rights through presidential executive orders or through acts of Congress. The publication of this guidance will help our state’s law enforcement understand what they can and cannot do in this respect under West Virginia statute.”

Morrisey said enforcement of federal firearms laws is a federal responsibility, not the responsibility of West Virginia law enforcement agencies when federal gun laws are in conflict with state Code.

For example, he said, a West Virginia state or local law enforcement agency, department or officer “may not assist federal authorities in executing an arrest warrant just for violation of federal gun laws when the person to be arrested may lawfully possess such firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition under state law.”

The new law also provides that no member of state or local law enforcement may be required to act in a law enforcement capacity to enforce a federal statute, executive order, agency order, rule or regulation determined by the West Virginia Attorney General to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights, Morrisey said.

Law enforcement officers are also protected and cannot be terminated or decertified for refusing to enforce a “federal statute, executive order, agency order, rule or regulation determined by the West Virginia Attorney General to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights.”

“This guidance from the Attorney General on HB 2694 will help protect West Virginia from new federal gun control schemes, and ensure our law enforcement officers are immune from retaliation for defending the Second Amendment rights of all West Virginians,” Kevin Patrick, vice president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, said in the announcement.

West Virginia Sheriffs Association Executive Director Rodney Miller said the move is fully supported.

“Law enforcement across West Virginia wholeheartedly supports the Second Amendment and lawful possession of firearms by our citizens and are happy to have joined the Legislature, the Attorney General and concerned gun groups in this effort to ensure that responsible firearm ownership is defended without question,” he said. “We, as citizens of this state, are concerned with overreach that could deny all of us the ability to lawfully possess firearms and utilize them as proud Mountaineers have always done responsibly.”

The policy guidance is posted on the Attorney General’s website (https://bit.ly/3zagUlE) and is being sent to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Washington State Democrats  demoncraps! Push Bill Reducing Penalties for Drive-By Shootings

Washington state Reps. Tarra Simmons (D) and David Hackney (D) are pushing legislation to remove drive-by shootings from the list of crimes that elevate first degree to murder to a higher degree of murder carrying a mandatory life sentence.

FOX News reports that “drive-by shootings were added to the list of aggravating factors for murder charges in 1995.” At the time, drive-by shootings were one of a number of crimes that would elevate charges and Simmons and Hackney are now working to remove such shootings from the list.

The 1995 language that Simmons and Hackney want to specifically strike from the aggravating factors list says: “The murder was committed during the course of or as a result of a shooting where the discharge of the firearm… is either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm.”

Simmons says she believes the language surrounding drive-by shootings “was targeted at gangs that were predominantly young and Black.”

She added, “I believe in a society that believes in the power of redemption. Murder is murder no matter where the bullet comes from but locking young people up and throwing away the key is not the answer.”

Simmons points to Kimonti Carter as a example of why she wants to remove drive-by shootings from the aggravating factors list. Carter was convicted in a drive-by shooting that left two people dead in 1997. He received a 777-year sentence and Simmons said, “If he had been standing outside of the vehicle at the time, he would’ve faced 240-320 months in prison. Instead, he was sentenced to life in prison with no opportunity for parole because of this law.”

770 KTTH points out that Simmons and Hackney’s pushed to strike drive-by shootings from the aggravating factors list is posited as a pursuit of “racial equity in the criminal legal system.”

On July 22, 2021, KIRO 7 noted a surge of gun violence in Seattle and quoted Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diazwas saying, “We’ve seen more than a 100% increase in drive-by shootings this year alone.”

As Biden’s Border Crisis Rages, Armed Texans Arrive to Round Up Illegal Aliens

A new Texas law is attracting armed groups with body armor, long guns and high tech drones to the border.

Some local officials are welcoming them, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The new law allows migrants to be arrested for trespassing. The armed groups intend to find the illegals and deliver them to law enforcement officials for arrest.

The Kinney County sheriff has been working with these groups for months. Former Border Patrol Agent Brad Coe has been on the lookout for help in deterring illegal immigration. “The whole premise is if [migrants] know they’ll be arrested, they’ll go somewhere else,” Coe said.

Continue reading “”

What you subsidize, you get more of……….
And to paraphrase Mencken, you’re apt to get it good and hard.


Brutal, brazen crimes shake L.A., leaving city at a crossroads.

rews of burglars publicly smashing their way into Los Angeles’ most exclusive stores. Robbers following their victims, including a star of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” and a BET host, to their residences. And this week, the fatal shooting of 81-year-old Jacqueline Avant, an admired philanthropist and wife of music legend Clarence Avant, in her Beverly Hills home.

After two years of rising violent crime in Los Angeles, these incidents have sparked a national conversation and led to local concern about both the crimes themselves and where the outrage over the violence will lead.

“The fact that this has happened, her being shot and killed in her own home, after giving, sharing, and caring for 81 years has shaken the laws of the Universe,” declared Oprah Winfrey, expressing her grief over Avant’s killing to her 43 million Twitter followers. “The world is upside down.”

While overall city crime rates remain far below records set during the notorious gang wars of the 1990s, violent crime has jumped sharply in L.A., as it has in other cities. Much of the violence has occurred in poor communities and among vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, and receives little attention.

However, since the start of the pandemic and more rapidly in recent months, crime has crept up in wealthier enclaves and thrust its way to the center of public discourse in L.A. — against a backdrop of COVID-19 angst, evolving political perceptions of what role police and prosecutors should play in society and, now, a holiday season upon which brick-and-mortar retailers are relying to stay afloat.

Some wonder if this could be a turning point for California, which for decades has been at the center of the movement for criminal justice reform, rolling back tough sentencing laws and reducing prison populations.

Polls in 2020 showed that California voters largely support many of these measures, and both San Francisco and Los Angeles have elected district attorneys with strong reform agendas. However, those concerned about crime and those who believe liberal policies have contributed to its rise have grown more vocal.

It is a discourse defined by glaring differences of opinion and, at times, a yawning disconnect between the perception of local crime and the reality on the ground.

Continue reading “”

I don’t think it was ‘vague’ Wisconsin law on self defense as much as it was an unscrupulous prosecutor with a political agenda.


Vague self-defense laws put people like Rittenhouse in lifelong debt

Last month, then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder charges in the deaths of two men and wounding of a third during last year’s riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The incident, and the subsequent trial, became the latest flashpoint in the cultural battle raging across the United States.

The incident exposed how painfully ambiguous many state’s self-defense laws are. Most states have laws allowing guns to be carried. Gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But the law places an unreasonable burden on individuals in regards to when self-defense is legally justified and when it is not.

I believe, and I think most people would agree, that the best response to a personal safety threat is to call law enforcement. But what happens when police are unavailable or cannot arrive in the urgent timeframe required and an individual’s life is at imminent risk?

In the Rittenhouse case, civil order had broken down in the streets of Kenosha. Law enforcement could not be reasonably depended on to respond to threats to physical safety. Whether Mr. Rittenhouse exercised poor judgment in going into this scenario is a fair question. What is factual is it was his community, and he chose to help protect a business and provide medical attention to those in need. It was also factually determined Mr. Rittenhouse was in legal possession of the long-barreled rifle.

Under these circumstances raises the question of was Mr. Rittenhouse legally justified to shoot Joseph Rosenbaum after he had threatened to kill him earlier, chased him across the parking lot and attempted to take his firearm? The prosecution said no but watching the multiple video recordings of the incident made it very clear Mr. Rittenhouse’s attempt to flee Mr. Rosenbaum had failed and he had very limited options at the moment of the shooting.

This begs the question, if a person is legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm for defense how can an individual know when using deadly force is justifiable in incidents which unfold in only moments? I want to believe a person should know the difference if they choose to carry. Mr. Rittenhouse unquestionably initially attempted to flee from Mr. Rosenbaum rather than use deadly force. Yet, he was still arrested and charged with murder. If that is not the line, exactly where is it?

Continue reading “”

Governor Parson can be as ‘open to adjustments’ as he wants, but that counts for little as the legislature passes changes to laws, not him.


Police Propose Changes To Missouri’s 2A Preservation Act

Even before Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act took effect, there were a lot of grumbles from some law enforcement in the state who felt that the new law was going to set them up to be sued if they cooperated with federal agents in taking down criminal suspects who might be armed with a gun. SAPA, as it’s commonly called, not only prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with the feds in enforcing any unconstitutional gun control laws, but provides an avenue by which officers can be individually sued for doing so.

Since SAPA took effect back in September, a handful of agencies have suspended all cooperation with federal authorities for fear of running afoul of the law. The law was also the subject of litigation by the city of St. Louis and a couple of counties, but a judge rejected a request to block the law from taking force. And while I don’t believe that the law as written should stop police from working with their federal counterparts, and plenty of agencies continue to do so, the Missouri Police Chiefs Association is now officially asking lawmakers to make some changes.

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Star, the MPCA proposes specifying that the law would only apply to new federal gun restrictions approved after this past August, and that it doesn’t apply to suspects whom police encounter committing a crime.

It also proposes clarifying which weapons-related federal crimes local police are allowed to help enforce. The current law allows them to help enforce gun restrictions that are similar to those in Missouri law, as long as those charges are “merely ancillary” to another criminal charge — wording that police groups have called vague.

“It is our desire to protect the rights of ALL Missourians while protecting officers from frivolous civil litigation related to the continued joint endeavors with our federal partners,” the association wrote. “We look forward to working with you and your fellow lawmakers to address some clarifications in the law and eliminate those unintended consequences without derailing the intent of SAPA.”

MPCA director Robert Shockey, who is Arnold police chief, declined to be interviewed about the requests.

I haven’t seen a copy of the letter, so I can only base my opinion off of the report by the Kansas City Star, but the first two requests don’t seem to be unreasonable. I do have some concerns about the MPCA wanting to “clarify” which gun-related federal crimes can be enforced by law enforcement, though. First, if SAPA is only going to apply to federal gun laws that were passed after August of 2021, then there’s no need to clarify anything. Beyond that, though, does the phrase “merely ancillary” really need clarification? If an agency is cooperating with, say, a federal drug task force and a gun is discovered in the course of that drug investigation, then the gun charge is an ancillary one. If the feds are going after someone specifically for violating a new federal gun control law or regulation that isn’t mirrored in Missouri state law, local police can’t help. It’s really not that complicated.

Even if some of these complaints by police are overstated, I expect that they’re finding some receptive ears among lawmakers. SAPA original sponsor Rep. Jared Taylor has said he’s not in favor of any changes, but Gov. Mike Parson has indicated that he’s open to “adjustments” if necessary.

I don’t think there’s any chance of the law being repealed outright, but whether or not the changes would make the law better or merely water it down is going to be the topic of much debate in Jefferson City in the months ahead, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see at least some minor revisions agreed to next session.

This has been known to be the case – nationwide – for several years. A very small percentage of a certain demographic commits the vast majority of crimes and murders. Black males in the 15 to 35 years of age range, involved in the illicit drug trade that already have long criminal records whether or not they’re a member of a gang.


Nearly half of Columbus’ homicides in a nine-month stretch of 2020 involved a very small number of very violent individuals

Whenever crime is in the headlines, we find anti-Second Amendment politicians directly responsible for addressing crime in their cities running to the microphone to blame the existence of firearms. The truth is, as gun owners already know, the problem is people, not the gun.

A team of researchers with the National Network for Safe Communities (NNSC) recently worked with the Columbus Division of Police to review 107 homicides between January and September of last year in an effort to pin down who is driving the city’s lethal violence.

The Columbus Dispatch gave details from the study:

They found that about 480 total members of 17 gangs — roughly 0.05% of the city’s population — were confirmed or suspected to be involved in 46% of the homicides, either as victims, perpetrators or both.

Dispatch writer Theodore Decker goes on to dispute Mayor Andrew J. Ginther’s assertion, upon the release of the report, that “the violence we’re seeing today is different.”

The mayor talked about this as though it were unplowed ground. He said that in response, the city is assessing existing anti-violence strategies and beefing up newer efforts to target that core group of individuals who are most at risk of being victims or perpetrators of violence.

That is a valid approach, but it is not a new one. Criminologists have recommended variations of this strategy for many years, and in Columbus, some of them were rebuffed by city leaders nearly 10 years ago.

Columbus, like other cities, has seen a sharp rise in homicidal violence both this year and last. But the trend is not entirely unprecedented.

If the current pace keeps up, we are certain to surpass last year’s record 175 homicides. Should we reach 200, which looks likely the way things are going, the per capita breakdown would come close to 22 homicides per every 100,000 people.

We hit that same rate in 1991. While 139 homicides occurred that year, the city was much smaller. In that sense, the current level of violence is not unheard of.

And to suggest the violence today is inherently different, as the mayor would have us believe, contradicts much of the report.

In addition to the information — it was not a revelation — that much of the violence is driven by a very limited pool of violent actors, the study found that homicides often were tangled up in petty beefs and interpersonal disputes.

That also is not new.

In more than half of the killings, the victim and suspect knew each other. They are overwhelmingly male.

Not new.

Also not new, Decker says, were many of the names on the list of 17 gangs, some of which have been known for decades:

“The violence we’re seeing today is different, and so we need a new plan,” the mayor said on Tuesday.

No, the violence isn’t different. But clearly we do need a new plan. And as for Step 1, perhaps we could be direct and honest about the history and nature of the problem.

The Columus Dispatch and Decker don’t have a stellar track record when it comes to accurate reporting on firearms legislation and Second Amendment issues, but this article calls a spade a spade, and I am thankful for it.

Question O’ The Day:
If the prosecutors had no qualms about being *this* unethical on a case they knew was going to be broadcast live nationwide, just how far have they gone in cases that have never had this amount of publicity?
And that brings up a question about all prosecutors.


How Unethical Were the Prosecutors Trying to Put Kyle Rittenhouse in Prison? Let Us Count the Ways…

There is so much misinformation about what happened the night Kyle Rittenhouse fired his weapon at four — yes, four — attackers that it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with the prosecutors who promulgated and, indeed, created some of the slanders against the then-17-year-old. In the end, prosecutors Thomas Binger and Jim Kraus could not back up their lies with evidence in a courtroom and a jury saw right through them, thank God.

To put it succinctly, Thomas Binger and Jim Kraus left a skid mark on the robes of justice. They put a Kraus-sized turd on Lady Justice’s scale. And they almost put an 18-year-old in prison because he fought for his life and took out three of their “heroes,” as Binger called them.

Americans, already disgusted by the FBI, manufactured Trump Russia scandals, and counterintelligence investigations into concerned parents like they’re members of Al Qaeda, closely watched this case and were repulsed by the chicanery used to prosecute Rittenhouse.

They’re supposed to be the justice guys, right?

It’s a wonder that Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all counts.

You can blame Leftist propagandists or your laziness if you believed that Rittenhouse’s assailants were black, or that his gun was illegal, or that he brought it “across state lines,” or that he was a “chaos tourist” and a “vigilante.”

But there’s a special Mike Nifong-sized ring of hell for prosecutors who introduce these slanders into a courtroom, knowing that their subterfuge might put a kid away for the rest of his life.

Thomas Binger and Jim Kraus did this in many ways, by invoking lies — that they knew were lies — into pre-trial bail hearings, motions, and then ultimately into the courtroom itself in the trial. All of these lies were dutifully transcribed by friendly journalists. Indeed, as I reported at PJ Media, prosecutors never went back to revise or revisit the plethora of charges brought against Rittenhouse to test against the truth. If the mob believed ’em, they stayed in the charging documents.

Well, Binger and Kraus, you two are to blame for nearly black-pilling the rest of America who still had hope in the justice system after the FBI and the DOJ scandals.

You had a chance to do a clean trial.      You chose poorly.

Let’s go over just a few of the things these weasels did to Kyle Rittenhouse.

Continue reading “”

Off-duty officer fatally shoots man kills suspect linked to 3 shootings in Baltimore

BALTIMORE (WBAL) – An off-duty police sergeant from Baltimore is being praised for his bravery after he fatally shot a gunman linked to three shootings that left two people dead and another hospitalized.

While an off-duty Baltimore City police sergeant was getting a haircut, a suspect opened fire in a barbershop on O’Donnell Street shortly after 3 p.m. Saturday. A barber was shot and killed, according to Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison.

The sergeant, who was in plain clothes but armed, pulled his gun out and shot the suspect, who died at the scene. Harrison praised the sergeant for showing “great bravery.”

Others, including Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, say the sergeant protected the others in the barbershop and could have saved even more lives.

“We don’t know what would have happened if he was not able to respond in that way and how many more incidents could’ve happened tonight in Baltimore City,” Scott said.

Police say the suspected gunman is connected to at least two other shootings earlier Saturday afternoon.

The first happened shortly after 2 p.m. Police say a 37-year-old man was hospitalized in critical condition after he was shot multiple times. He was reportedly involved in some sort of argument with the suspect.

Police say the suspect then got in his car and showed up 15 minutes later at a barbershop on Eastern Avenue, where he got into an argument with another man. That victim died after being shot multiple times.

“You hear us talk about this time and time again: petty, mindless, stupid disputes ending up with people losing their lives, and we have to be understanding of that and, again, grateful that our officer was here,” Scott said.

Harrison did not go into specifics on how detectives were able to determine the shootings are connected or a possible motive.


Fort Smith man fatally shot at Scott County home

State police are investigating after a Fort Smith man was fatally shot Thursday night inside a Scott County home, authorities said.

Deputies responded to an armed disturbance at 3220 Yearling Ridge Road, south of Boles, shortly after 11 p.m., according to a news release from Arkansas State Police.

James Simmons Jr., 34, was shot inside the residence, and transported to Mercy Hospital Waldron, where he was pronounced dead, authorities said.

Simmons had left the area of the residence when deputies arrived, state police spokesperson Bill Sadler said in an email.

No law enforcement were involved in the shooting, Sadler added.

State police special agents questioned the homeowner about the shooting, the release states. Authorities said no arrests in connection with the shooting have been made.

An investigative case file will be sent to the Scott County prosecuting attorney’s office to determine whether criminal charges should be filed, the release states.

This is what you get when corrupt politicians place other corrupt politicians in positions of power as federal bureaucraps. Politicized law enforcement, which is always a prelude to tyranny.


The FBI Raid of Project Veritas Turns Into a Massive Scandal After Privileged Communications Are Leaked.

As RedState reported, Project Veritas has found itself in the crosshairs of the FBI recently. That began with a raid on the homes of several of its journalists under the guise of looking for Ashley Biden’s diary. Apparently, a stolen diary is now in the purview of federal authorities. Will they be investigating bike thefts next?

But what was so disturbing, besides the raids happening in the first place, was how quickly The New York Times knew about them. While O’Keefe was asked by the FBI to keep quiet, the Times knew within hours, pointing to a leaker within the bureau.

But while the Department of Justice requested us to not disclose the existence of the subpoena, something very unusual happened. Within an hour of one of our reporters’ homes being secretly raided by the FBI, The New York Times, who we are currently suing for defamation, contacted the Project Veritas reporter for comment. We do not know how The New York Times was aware of the execution of a search warrant at our reporter’s home, or the subject matter of the search warrant, as a Grand Jury investigation is secret.

Days later, O’Keefe would have his home raided as well, and sure enough, the Times once again knew it about it before anyone else. Are you noticing a pattern? Because it’s about to become as obvious as a neon sign.

Two days ago, a court ordered the FBI to stop extracting data from O’Keefe’s phones, which had apparently been seized. Again, all of this is being done under the allegation that…a diary was stolen. But then last night, things boiled over into outright scandal. The Times suddenly started publishing privileged communications between Project Veritas and its legal team. Those messages apparently came from one of O’Keefe’s phones.

Yes, you read that right. Project Veritas had recently sued The New York Times over an unrelated matter, and now the Times has Project Veritas’ privileged communications that reveal their legal strategies. Given the circumstances, there could only be one logical source for that information — the FBI.

This is absolutely scandalous, though nothing is really surprising anymore when dealing with the FBI. It appears that a major newspaper has colluded with the federal government to target an investigative reporting outlet. Of course, there are still more dots to connect, but if there’s some other explanation, I’m not seeing it. The pretense of the original raid simply made no sense (really, a diary?), and the Times has been getting leaks from the bureau every step of the way in order to target Project Veritas.

If this isn’t a coordinated political hit job on a journalistic organization, then what is it? So many lines have now been crossed that it’s hard to keep up with them all. Worse, what can Project Veritas even do about it? The Biden-run DOJ is not going to investigate these leaks, and the damage has already been done. The Times now has possession of these privileged communications even as they are being sued by Project Veritas. Think about how absurd that is.

Let this serve as another example of why the FBI doesn’t need to just be reprimanded, but that it needs to be disbanded. The organization simply can not be trusted to uphold the rights of American citizens any longer, a reality that is borne out by its own politicized actions.

Seems even Seattle libs can only stand so much from their antifagoons


One Year After ‘CHAZ’, Republican Ann Davison Wins Seattle City Attorney.

Republican Ann Davison was elected City Attorney of Seattle on Tuesday, a rare Republican win in the liberal city — just over a year after parts of it were taken over by left-wing activists in the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ).

The Seattle Times reported:

Republican Ann Davison held a strong 58% to 41% lead in the race for Seattle city attorney, with returns Tuesday showing voters rejecting the brash language of her police abolitionist opponent, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, in favor of Davison’s law-and-order stance.

No race in Tuesday’s city election was more fraught with the potential for unpredictable consequences than the race for Seattle’s official lawyer, who traditionally has prosecuted minor crimes and provided legal advice and defense for the city and its employees, including police.

Local NBC affiliate King 5 reported Davison as saying that “the City Attorney’s Office is not for setting policy or a ‘place for radical agenda’,” but rather “a place to provide impartial advice to those elected to create policy and to maintain laws so there is public safety.”

Portland’s ‘Gun Violence Task Force‘, previously the ‘Gang Enforcement Team’ is shut down….. gang crime “skyrockets”

‘Duh’


‘Where are we headed?’ Portland’s record-setting year for murder fuels search for answers

PORTLAND, Ore. – Pastor J.W. Matt Hennessee, a longtime local anti-gun violence advocate, never expected to lose his own child to the bullets he has tried to stop for almost four decades.

So when he got a call on May 13, letting him know that his stepson Jalon Yoakum, 33, was the latest victim in an onslaught of violent crime, Hennessee felt numb.

“This isn’t something where I’m new to the table,” said Hennessee, 62, who has battled gun violence in Portland for 40 years. “But I hadn’t worried about it, hadn’t thought about it, and when that call came …”

His voice trailed off.

“It’s not going away,” Hennessee said. “Jalon was victim No. 31 and there’s been (36) more from May to October. Where are we headed?”

Crime is up all over the country, and has been since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. But there is a a certain sad irony in Portland, long considered a safe, desirable place to live. Already, the city has tallied 67 homicides for 2021, breaking a 34-year-old record of 66. Last year, 55 homicides was a 26-year high in the city.

The numbers alone are troubling, but even more worrisome when compared with other similarly sized cities, where violent crime numbers are considerably less, including Seattle and Boston. In Portland, long considered a liberal stronghold in America, some community leaders and officers feel that police defunding efforts in summer 2020 may have backfired, at least somewhat. With fewer officers on the street, violence has escalated significantly.

City defunds shooting prevention team

Portland’s gun violence problems can be traced back, at least partially, to the killing of George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd’s murder, at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer, sparked a nationwide racial reckoning as hundreds of thousands took to the streets.

Continue reading “”