Murphy just made N.J.’s gun laws even tougher

New Jersey’s already strict firearm laws got even tougher Tuesday as Gov. Phil Murphy signed four new gun control bills into law — including one designed to make personalized “smart guns” more easily available in the state.

The laws expand the list of crimes that bar someone from owning a gun in New Jersey, attempt to curtail gun trafficking from other states, and aim to prevent suicides.

The most notable measure (S101) focuses on “smart guns,” which can be fired only by their designated owners. They are designed to be safer than typical handguns, using fingerprint and other identification technology to prevent accidental shootings. For instance, they could keep children from firing their parents’ guns.

But officials say a 2002 New Jersey law has helped keep smart guns off the market. The law mandated that dealers in the Garden State could sell only smart guns once they became marketable anywhere in the country.

That, Murphy said, created a loophole that slowed the production of smart guns because it allowed the gun lobby to put an “enormous amount of pressure” manufacturers not to conduct research and development on the weapons.

The new law aims to close that loophole. It requires every gun retailer in the Garden State to sell at least one smart gun.

It also creates a commission that will approve and maintain a roster of smart guns that can be sold.

The law doesn’t kick in for retailers until the commission is formed and members vote on new rules for smart guns, according to the governor’s office. The commission has at least six months to be formed.

  • Add convictions of crimes such as carjacking or making terroristic threats to the list of crimes that ban people from buying firearms in the state (S3897).
  • Make it a third-degree crime for people who aren’t allowed to have a gun who attempt to obtain one (A4449).
  • Encourage firearm retail dealers and operators of firing ranges in the state to attend a suicide prevention course (A3896).

NICS firearm background checks surpass 2 million every month for first 6 months of 2019

JAN  -2,165,094
FEB  -2,053,886
MAR -2,644,851
APR  -2,334,249
MAY -2,349,309
JUN   -2,312,309

Except for February and March (yes March with that 2.6 mil mark!), each month set a new record for that month and to date, it appears 2019 will be a new record year too.
Trump Slump’? Pffft.
Now, you just know that all these people are buying guns just to get ready to turn them in.


Flip-Floppin’ away
Flip-Floppin’ A-waaay.
The nearer a definite answer
The more they start Flip-Floppin’ away.

Even the owner of SB Tactical (the prime originator of arm brace) had said on multiple previous occasions that a pistol OAL was measured with the folding arm brace extended.
To me, this is ATF exerting their normal bureaucrap power to mess around around with the citizenry.
Easy solution? Don’t put a vertical foregrip on a “pistol”. As far as I know, one of the angled jobs, like from MagPul, or even a forward bipod are still okay.

Late yesterday, I received an email from an individual containing a letter from ATF which was a response to a correspondence requesting the correct method to “measure a firearm with a ‘stabilizing brace’ and folding adaptor.” It was explained that the correspondence was sent in the form of an email over a year ago and that the person had received a response via email shortly after it was sent. This letter was unsolicited and came over a year after the original request and response.

In the letter, ATF states that “[Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch] FTISB has previously determined that ‘stabilizing braces’ may be assembled on firearms as accessories…In contrast to stocks on rifles or shotguns…’stabilizing braces’ are merely accessories and not relevant to the classification of a ‘pistol’ under the statutory definition. That is, a folding stock on a rifle or shotgun is included in overall length measurements because the firearm must be ‘designed or redesigned….and intended to be fired from the shoulder‘ to be so classified. The stock is therefore an essential element in the statutory definition.”

Based on the letter, ATF is taking the position that because a stabilizing brace is not an integral part of the firearm, it is not relevant to the overall length measurement. Why does this matter? A number of individuals have been building AR pistols or other similar pistols that have utilized a stabilizing brace. Some have opted to add a vertical foregrip. However, based on this interpretation, those people may find that they have manufactured an “AOW”, which is subject to the restrictions of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”).

To fully understand, it is important to look at the definitions. The term “any other weapon” is defined to include

…any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosiveSuch term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore… (emphasis added).

The term pistol is defined as

A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand… (emphasis added).

ATF has taken the position that once a vertical foregrip has been added to a firearm, it is no longer designed to be fired when held in one hand, removing it from the definition of a pistol, even though ATF previously lost this argument before the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001).

Further, ATF has consistently held that the overall length of 26 inches is the breaking point for concealability. Put another way, if the firearm has an overall length of less than 26 inches, it places it into a category of arms that could be considered to be regulated by the NFA depending on their other characteristics. If it has an overall length greater than 26 inches, it could remove it from those class of firearms, again, depending on their characteristics.

For this particular example, if the pistol has an overall length greater than 26 inches, it is not generally considered concealable for the purposes of the AOW definition (if there was evidence that it were concealed by a person, it could still be considered an AOW). By adding a foregrip to it (per ATF’s current position), it becomes a “firearm” since it is no longer designed to be fired when held in one hand. If the overall length was less than 26 inches, and a foregrip were added, it would be classified as an AOW.

In its letter, ATF specifies that

[m]akers also create an artificial overall length measurement by attaching a folding stabilizing brace. Such a measurement would be problematic because the firearm could avoid classification as an “AOW,” yet retain the concealability and remain fully functional. Measuring a folding (or telescoping) stabilizing brace would therefore undermine the comprehensive statutory and regulatory design of the GCA and NFA.…The measurement of a folding or collapsible stabilizing brace in the overall length of a firearm creates an artificial overall length that would permit a maker to avoid classification as an NFA “firearm” without a viable design purpose or legal justification.

It goes on to say that even stationary braces cannot be included in the overall length measurement, but the receiver extension can be.

Based on this letter, it is safe to say that ATF is taking the position that firearms equipped with stabilizing braces need to have their overall length measured with the brace folded or to the end of the receiver extension if the brace is stationary and non-adjustable. Adding a vertical foregrip to a firearm that has an overall length of less than 26 inches results in the making of an AOW, which is subject to the National Firearms Act.

If you or someone you know has questions regarding the measuring of a firearm with a stabilizing brace, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

Concealed Carry Hits New High in Evergreen State

Washington State’s CCW permit procedure is one of the easiest I’ve had to ‘endure’. Waaaay back when Ich Bin was a private soldier and first stationed at Fort Lewis, I decided to get one. The folks at the Pierce County Sheriffs Office were quite helpful and the application form even had a attached post card so they could mail me that the permit was ready to pick up.

There are now more active concealed pistol licenses in Washington State than ever before, according to new data from the state Department of Licensing, showing more than 5,000 additional CPLs issued in June and more than 13,750 since Jan. 1, going along with the growing national trend toward more concealed carry.

There are now more than 622,000 CPL holders in the state, a new record.

And that apparently is just fine with the nation’s police chiefs, according to data from annual surveys conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. In the most recent survey results available, from the 2017 questionnaire, just over 85 percent of responding top cops answered affirmatively to the question, “Does your department support nationwide recognition of state issued concealed weapon permits?”

That same survey revealed that more than 88.5 percent of respondents think it’s okay for “any vetted citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense?”

NACOP survey results over the past few years have been pretty consistent. The 2017 effort was the 30th annual survey, and results from the 2018 survey are not yet posted on the group’s website.
At the end of May, there were 616,698 active licenses in Washington, and the monthly average is somewhere around 2,200-2,300.

Washington gun law restrictions effective July 1 despite controversy

The author neglects to mention that now in Washington state, all semi-auto rifles will be classed as ‘semi-automatic assault rifles’ (yep that includes your Ruger 10/22 and Marlin Model 60 .22 rifles) .
This is what you get when TPTB violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government and let the mob vote on individual rights.

WASHINGTON – New provisions from the voter-approved gun control measure Initiative 1639 will go into effect on Monday, July 1 across the State of Washington.

An added age restriction on purchasing semi-automatic assault rifles took effect at the beginning of this year. Although, a portion that adds tougher background checks and a requirement for gun owners to secure their firearms or risk being held legally responsible if their firearm is used to commit a crime if stolen will soon go into law.

I-1639 arrives to curb gun violence keep the chance of a mass shooting to a minimum after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, killing 17 students and faculty.

Washington State voters approved the initiative in November of last year by an extensive margin, but opponents say the measure violates the second amendment of young adults and unjustly punishes law-abiding firearm owners.

A federal U.S. District Judge in Tacoma recently denied a motion by defendants to dismiss a lawsuit challenging I-1639.

The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed the lawsuit and are joined by two gun dealers, one in Spokane and the other in Clark County, plus four young adults who are directly affected by provisions of the initiative.

Grant County Sheriff Tom Jones says his office will not be enforcing Initiative 1639, joining other sheriffs across the state.

“I agree with my other county sheriff colleagues,” Jones said. “I am instructing my deputies not to enforce Initiative 1639 in Grant County while the constitutional validity remains in argument at the federal courts level. I swore an oath to defend our citizens and their constitutionally protected rights. I do not believe the popular vote overrules that.”

At least eight other sheriffs in the state have said they will not enforce the law, including Adams, Benton, Franklin, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Stevens, Wahkiakum and Yakima counties.

Chelan County Sheriff Brian Burnett says he doesn’t feel he has the right to stand up as Sheriff and say that the initiative is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court: Bad Day for Everyone, Especially Roberts

Just me, but keeping the drawing of district boundaries left to the state legislatures is ever so much more so worse for the demoncraps than not being able to ask for citizenship on a census form.


Today the Supreme Court issued two major opinions with profound implications for American politics. It blocked, for now, adding a question about citizenship on the 2020 Census in Department of Commerce vs. New York. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court permanently killed off allowing federal courts to decide that a legislative map gave one side too much of a partisan advantage.

It was a bad day for the right, a very bad day for the left, and an extremely bad day for Chief Justice John Roberts.

First, the very bad day for the left. For years, the institutional left has been trying to strip state legislatures of power and give it to federal courts. They wanted federal judges to have the power to say that a given legislative map helped one political party too much. For example, if a state voted 52 percent to 48 percent, then state and congressional legislative lines should apportion power in roughly the same percentages. If they didn’t, federal courts should get to decide the legislative lines.

Giving federal courts the power to rule on partisan imbalances in legislative lines has been a top priority of Democrats and leftist process hounds for years. Why? Because the vast majority of America, when considered state by state, leans right and elects Republicans to majorities in state legislatures. They wanted federal judges in those states to blunt the power of state legislatures.

Today the Supreme Court drove a final stake through the heart of partisan gerrymandering cases. They are done, dead, RIP. Consider this their obituary.

The Court ruled that these are political questions, that the Constitution vests power in state legislatures to draw their own lines and to set the rules of line drawing. Power should reside with the people, not federal courts with life tenure.

That makes it a very, very bad day for funders who had poured millions of dollars into the left’s efforts to have federal courts erode decisions made by Republican state legislatures.

But in another decision, it was a bad day for the right and those who want to collect data on how many aliens are in the United States. The Court blocked, for now, the proposed citizenship question on the 2020 Census.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote along with the four liberal justices. Writing for the Court, Roberts agreed that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross had the power and authority to add the question, but something just didn’t smell right.

Over the last few weeks, the ACLU has bombarded the Court with letters, missives, complaints, and self-proclaimed bombshells containing conspiracy theories on the “real” origins of the Census question. It’s not as bad as O.J.’s quest for the real killer, but it’s close.

Naturally the compliant leftist media at CNN and the Washington Post has had an endless parade of stories. See, they know who still takes the mainstream media seriously, and today they won five votes to block the question.

It’s a shame that five votes validated these extracurricular mob tactics after the briefing was complete. It provides a roadmap for future last-minute efforts to influence the Supreme Court. One suspects Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown or Chief Justice Edith Jones would not have sided with the left to block the Census question. Whether or not the citizenship question can still be added to the Census before the printer needs the final proofs remains to be seen.

America’s First Third-World State.

If someone predicted half a century ago that a Los Angeles police station or indeed L.A. City Hall would be in danger of periodic, flea-borne infectious typhus outbreaks, he would have been considered unhinged. After all, the city that gave us the modern freeway system is not supposed to resemble Justinian’s sixth-century Constantinople. Yet typhus, along with outbreaks of infectious hepatitis A, are in the news on California streets.

The sidewalks of the state’s major cities are homes to piles of used needles, feces, and refuse. Hygienists warn that permissive municipal governments are setting the stage — through spiking populations of history’s banes of fleas, lice, and rats — for possible dark-age outbreaks of plague or worse.

High tech does its part not to clean the streets but to create defecation apps that electronically warn tourists and hoi polloi how to avoid walking blindly into piles of sidewalk excrement.

In Californian logic, public defecation butts up against progressive tolerance, so it is exempt from the law. Yet for a suburbanite to build a patio without a permit, for example, costs one dearly in fines. Indeed, a new patio without a permit can be deemed more dangerous to the public health than piles of excrement in the public workplace.

Washington’s I-1639’s Implementation A Total Train Wreck

When Washington state voters passed I-1639, we knew it would be a train wreck in the making. The law tried to do too many things and, as a result, would do none of them particularly well.

Along the way, there were warning signs that those who wrote the initiative didn’t know what the hell they were doing.

However, it now seems that the law is more of a train wreck than initially thought.

“I1639 is just a few weeks away, and the state finally released their new Firearm Transfer Application. To say we’re frustrated is an understatement.
It demonstrates a clear lack of leadership from the FBI, WA AG’s office, and/or the WA DOL,” writes Talos Tactical, a Washington state gun store on their Facebook page.

In the post, Talos outlines a number of issues stemming from the implementation of I-1639.

One of the major issues? The background check system seems to be completely screwed up.

“The FBI says we can no longer do instant checks on semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and frames/receivers,” they note. “They need to be submitted to local law enforcement.”

In theory, that shouldn’t be a huge issue. A slow one, of course, but not a big deal, right? Well, it is. You see, there is no database or anything gun stores can consult to meet the requirement. “The state says we need to fill out their transfer form and physically mail it to the law enforcement agency. The agency is supposed to do the background check, and then physically mail it back. It cannot be done in less than 30 days (per an official release by King County). At 30 days, the paperwork expires. So either nobody will get their guns, or everybody will and we won’t find out until later whether they legally should have,” the Facebook post notes.

Of course, there’s a whole lot more. I highly advise you to read the entire thing. In truth, a whole lot is going on with these forms, none of it good. You’ll want to see all the ways this situation is completely jacked up.

There’s virtually nothing about I-1639 that tolerable to most gun owners, yet a handful of urban areas saddled the rest of the state with this draconian nonsense.

It’s only a miracle I’ve been able to hold onto my belief that I should never ascribe to malice that which can be easily explained as incompetence. If you want to ban guns without banning guns, creating a byzantine labyrinth of regulations that no one can comply with would be one hell of a way to do it, and that’s what we’re looking at here.

However, I still hold to my belief. This isn’t an effort to ban guns without banning them–though I’m quite sure those who supported this measure would be OK with that outcome–but is instead proof that the “brains” behind this were on a scale somewhere between a salad bar and a sea sponge.


What is social justice?

The deepest blue cities — San Francisco, New York, San Jose, Los Angeles and Boston — may be ruled by social justice activists but, according to Pew research, suffer the largest gaps between the bottom and top quintiles. Long-standing minority communities like Albina in Portland are disappearing as 10,000 of the 38,000 residents have been pushed out of the historic African-American section. San Francisco’s African-American black population is roughly half that of the 1970s, constituting less than 5 percent of the city’s population. More than half of the Bay Area’s lower-income communities, notes a recent UC Berkeley study, are in danger of mass displacement.

A direct result of climate policies, high energy prices place enormous burdens on California’s working-class families, particularly in the less temperate interior. These policies also discourage growth of manufacturing and other blue-collar industries that long incubated opportunities for working people. As the state’s manufacturing sector has stagnated last year while industrial jobs expanded 14 percent in neighboring Arizona, 5 percent in Nevada and by 3 percent in arch-rival Texas.

Regulations in California have also slowed construction growth, and left employment considerably below the industry’s 2007 numbers. Residential sales have dropped statewide, and California’s rate of new housing permits has fallen behind the national average, making construction workers’ economic prospects even dimmer.

The diminishing prospects in these blue collar industries, as well as high housing costs, may do much to explain why so many minorities, and immigrants, are increasingly migrating away from multi-culturally correct regions like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco for less regulated, far less woke places like Phoenix, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, Atlanta and Las Vegas.

Trump to Move USDA Personnel From D.C. To Where Food Grows

And from what I’ve heard, the bureaucraps are none too happy.

D.C. is the ultimate big government town. Food doesn’t grow there. A swamp does.

The USDA, under Trump, is trying to actually move personnel closer to where food does grow.

Employees at USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) intend to move from Washington, D.C. to an unspecified area in the Kansas City region by the end of 2019, the Washington Post reports.

California ammo buyers are making a run on gun shops ahead of a new state law, which on July 1 will require buyers of bullets to show identification and undergo a background check to screen out felons and people with illegal firearms.
In a state with the toughest gun laws in the nation, Gov. Gavin Newsom and some other leaders see restricting ammunition sales as a necessary next step in reducing gun tragedies.
Newsom included restrictions on bullets in Proposition 63, his statewide initiative that was approved by voters in 2016 and that helped raise his profile for his run for governor.

New York City Landmarks Historic Bookstore The Strand Over Owner’s Objections.

pleasure derived by someone from another person’s misfortune.

Couldn’t be more entertained watching a leftist’s leftist getting it kicked up between her shoulder blades by another leftist politician.

New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Committee (LPC) just wouldn’t take no for an answer. The group has conferred landmark status on the 119-year-old building at 826 Broadway, which has housed The Strand Bookstore since 1956. The owners of The Strand bought the building in the late 1990s and the third-generation owner of the store, Nancy Bass Wyden, opposed the action, telling Reason earlier this year:

The Strand is not going anywhere. There’s no need to protect it. Our family’s been a great steward of the building. Landmarking would add another component of government. You add bureaucracy, you add committees, you add people having opinions about what we should do inside the store as well as outside the store. And that does not allow me the flexibility to change with the retail book environment and to serve our customers.

Bass Wyden (who is married to Sen. Ron Wyden, the [leftist .ed]Democrat from Oregon) presented 11,000 signatures to the LPC in hopes of dissuading landmark status. Such popular support for what is generally considered New York’s best bookstore cut no mustard.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Signs Bill Declaring Children’s Lemonade Stands Legal

Great news, children of Texas: Your unlicensed lemonade stands soon won’t be criminal enterprises.

Gov. Greg Abbott late Monday signed a bill that prohibits cities and neighborhood associations from enacting rules that block or regulate children trying to sell nonalcoholic drinks like lemonade on private property. The law targets local health codes and neighborhood rules that intentionally or unintentionally ban the stands or require permits for them to operate.

Support for such a law in Texas began to grow in 2015, when police in the East Texas town of Overton reportedly shut down a lemonade stand by two young siblings who were trying to earn money to buy a Father’s Day present.

Virginia Beach shooting victim considered taking gun to work over concerns about colleague, lawyer says


Kate Nixon had considered taking a gun to work on May 31, the day a co-worker killed her and 11 others in the country’s deadliest mass shooting this year, a family attorney said on a radio show Monday.

The public utilities engineer was concerned about DeWayne Craddock “as well as one other person,” said Kevin Martingayle, an attorney working with Nixon’s family. So on the night of May 30, Nixon had discussed with her husband, Jason, “whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag,” Martingayle said. She decided against it because of a city policy that prevents employees from bringing weapons to work.

The next day, Craddock, who had worked as a city public utilities engineer for nine years, used a .45-caliber handgun with a legally purchased silencer to fire at colleagues in Building 2 of the city’s Municipal Center in Princess Anne.

On Monday, Martingayle revealed the detail about Nixon’s worries on WHRV’s “HearSay with Cathy Lewis” radio show.

“The night before it happened they had that discussion,” he said on the show. “There was obviously something big going on.”

California sees surge in ammo sales ahead of new gun regulations


California ammunition providers are seeing a spike in sales ahead of a new state law that will clamp down on individuals trying to buy ammo.

Proposition 63, which Gov. Gavin Newsom made a cornerstone of his campaign, was approved by voters in 2016 is slated to go into effect July 1.

“From San Bernardino to Ventura to Poway, too many Californians have already died from gun violence,” Newsom said last week. “I championed Prop. 63 because it is beyond time that we take common sense actions such as these to keep deadly ammo out of the wrong hands and protect our communities.”

The law will create more restrictions on ammo buyers by forcing them to buy face-to-face from licensed dealers, rather than the internet, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Alabama Lab Owner Arrested for Falsifying Results of Drug Tests Used to Medically Kidnap Children

Local media in Alabama are reporting that Brandy Murrah, owner of A&J Lab Collections in Ozark, Alabama, has turned herself in to local police over charges that she falsified paternity tests and drug test screenings in child custody cases.

Dale County District Attorney Kirke Adams has stated that Murrah’s actions may have resulted in a potential “tidal wave” of DHR cases where children were removed from their parents based on false evidence from her lab.

Dale County District Attorney Kirke Adams said Monday that if the allegations against Murrah are true, it could mean that parents were denied custody based on falsified drug screen results.

Sometimes, you just have to use what you have on hand as opposed to waiting for the blasted ATF paperwork to come through. AK has a suppressor bought and paid for, but the transfer form is in Bureaucrap hell.

A few days ago, AK and I hied away to the country house of a good friend (who just happens to have a range just almost out the back door) to work out what ammo his various Ruger .22 pistols will function with. I had made a short video, but the camera on the Iphone I have makes such large files, I actually couldn’t text or email it anywhere. I’ve since been able to work that problem out, but I’d already deleted it. Gumbles and sotto voce curses, hi-tech strikes again.

The only suppressor I had that would easily fit was an old SWD M11/9 purchased at the same time the M11/9 submachinegun was introduced in the early 80s. The Ingram derived micro subgun is long gone elsewhere, but the suppressor still serves a place in inventory at the Schloss Fortis armory.
I had since sent it off to Bowers Group who offers a retrofit of these obsolete suppressors to modern internals. As Paul can attest, it suppresses an UZI just fine.

So, we wind up winning the ludicrous award for the most hideously over engineered silenced .22 pistols on the planet. And my oh my, were they quiet when shooting subsonic ammo.

One thing we did discover; Cheap bulkpak .22 ammo is cheap for a reason. AK had brought along a box of Remington Thunderbolt, to use for magazine reliability testing, and it quickly turned out to  be the worst ammo I’ve run across in a long time. The bullets started keyholing at even close range after just a few shots. Later, using my borescope, we could see that the bullets had so completely leaded the bores that most of the rifling was filled in!
Not good.

But, as I’ve pointed out before:
The worst day shooting is better than the best day working. 

We now return you to our regular programming, already in progress.

AG Barr on FBI “Spygate” Explanations: “Inadequate” and “Don’t Hang Together”…

Fox News correspondent Bill Hemmer interviewed U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr in El Salvador during a visit to address the crisis on the U.S-Mexico border, MS-13, drug trafficking and human trafficking.

During the interview Bill Hemmer asked about AG Barr’s ongoing review of DOJ and FBI activity during the 2016 election.

BARR: “I’ve been trying to get answers to the questions and I’ve found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate and some of the explanations I’ve gotten don’t hang together, in a sense I have more questions today than when I first started.”

HEMMER: “What doesn’t hang together?”

BARR: “Some of the explanations of what occurred.”

HEMMER: “Why does that matter?”

BARR: “People have to find out what the government was doing during that period. If we’re worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason we should be worried about whether government officials abuse their power and put their thumb on the scale.”

 Prosecutor to examine Russia probe origins.

Attorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was “lawful and appropriate,” a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press on Monday.

Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to conduct the inquiry, the person said. The person could not discuss the matter publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Durham’s appointment comes about a month after Barr told members of Congress he believed “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016.

Idaho Repeals Its Regulatory Code

Something rather remarkable just happened in Idaho. The state legislature opted to—in essence—repeal the entire state regulatory code. The cause may have been dysfunction across legislative chambers, but the result is serendipitous. A new governor is presented with an unprecedented opportunity to repeal an outdated and burdensome regulatory code and replace it with a more streamlined and sensible set of rules. Other states should be paying close attention.

The situation came about due to the somewhat unconventional nature of Idaho’s regulatory process. Each year, the state’s entire existing body of regulations expires unless reauthorized for an additional year by the legislature. In most years, reauthorization happens smoothly, but not this year.

Instead, the legislature wrapped up an acrimonious session in April without passing a rule-reauthorization bill. As a result, come July 1, some 8,200 pages of regulations containing 736 chapters of state rules will expire. Any rules the governor opts to keep will have to be implemented as emergency regulations, and the legislature will consider them anew when it returns next January.

The 5 Questions Everyone Should Ask About Single-Payer Health Care

With Sen. Bernie Sanders introducing a new “Medicare for All” bill this month and several other Democratic presidential candidates co-sponsoring it, health care is once again a top campaign issue. The Democratic Party’s Socialist wing has hijacked the health care debate, and a closer examination of Medicare for All reveals its grim prognosis.

This plan is co-sponsored by four other senators running for president: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker. It represents a radical change in how Americans pay for and receive health care. Medicare for All ends private health care insurance, granting the federal government total control. Employer-based health care will disappear.

Ironically, Medicare will also vanish as it is rolled into this massive new program. The plan’s authors have attempted to disguise this fact by calling it Medicare for All, but that is one gigantic lie. They claim you will be able to visit any doctor or hospital, get care whenever you want, and not need to worry about cost, because everything will be covered.

1. How will we pay for this?

No one has specifically answered this question, but everyone’s taxes will increase — and possibly even double.

2. Will Medicare for All be free for patients?

There is no such thing as “free” health care. Confiscating the wealth of all millionaires and billionaires wouldn’t even come close to paying for this plan. The only way to make it work is by limiting the demand.

3. What happens to seniors who currently have Medicare?

Despite the intriguing sound of Medicare for All, this plan is just the opposite — Medicare for None. The $700 billion from the current annual Medicare budget will be redirected, and seniors’ benefits will change. Bureaucrats will make decisions regarding who receives treatments, something that also happens in England.

4. If I am unhappy with Medicare for All, can’t I just get care elsewhere?

No. This plan outlaws all private health care. So, if you had to wait six months for an operation in America, your only other option would be leaving the country.

5. At least I can still see my doctor, right?

Doubtful. Your doctor might not be around to take care of you. More than 50% of the doctors in this country are over 55 years old. This plan would slash physician reimbursement. Many older doctors will not tolerate that outcome, choosing instead to leave medicine altogether.


Washington’s Dirty Little Secret: No One Is Running the Show.

One of the hardest lessons for young, idealistic, and educated people to learn when they come to Washington — and some never learn it — is that nobody is running things. Sure, they know how to hold a press conference or write a law or conduct a study. But no person or group of people has the power to impose their will on society. There are just too many chefs making the soup.

After Barack Obama got his stimulus passed on the promise that there were millions of “shovel-ready jobs,” the stimulation never quite materialized as planned, and the shovels tended to stay in the shed. Obama later insisted that the theory behind the stimulus was right, but “the problem is that spending it out takes a long time, because there’s really nothing — there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

Colorado enacts ‘red flag’ law to seize guns from those deemed dangerous, prompting backlash.

Makes it harder to get the guns back than to take them in the first place. “Due Process” my ass.

Colorado’s law, approved by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, allows family, household members or law enforcement to petition a court to have guns seized or surrendered based on a showing that someone poses a danger under the “preponderance of the evidence,” a civil standard which means that the defendant is more likely than not to be a threat.

“In other words, there is just over a 50/50 chance of accuracy,” van Beek wrote, noting that someone’s guns could be seized even without a mental health professional making a determination of any kind. “Like the flip of a coin. Couldn’t that apply to just about anything a person does?”

A subsequent court hearing could extend a gun seizure up to 364 days, and gun owners can only retain their guns if they meet a burden of demonstrating by “clear and convincing evidence” — a much higher standard — that they are not in fact a threat. Gun owners, van Beek said, are “guilty until proven innocent” under this framework.

All the Progressive Plotters

I think if the demoncraps and anti-Trumpers who went along with this are not taken so heavily to task and figuratively tarred and feathered for these shenanigans so that no one will even think of doing it again, we will rue the day. If these crap-for-brains tactics stand, one day , when a REAL tyrant comes to office and uses the weaponized bureaucracy  given him by vindictive petty politicians “it won’t  be pretty” barely applies

Right after the 2016 election, Green Party candidate Jill Stein—cheered on by Hillary Clinton dead-enders—sued in three states to recount votes and thereby overturn Donald Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. Before the quixotic effort imploded, Stein was praised as an iconic progressive social justice warrior who might stop the hated Trump from even entering the White House.

When that did not work, B-list Hollywood celebrities mobilized, with television and radio commercials, to shame electors in Trump-won states into not voting for the president-elect during the official Electoral College balloting in December 2016. Their idea was that select morally superior electors should reject their constitutional directives and throw the election into the House of Representatives where even more morally superior NeverTrump Republicans might join with even much more morally superior Democrats to find the perfect morally superior NeverTrump alternative.

When that did not work, more than 60 Democratic House members voted to bring up Trump’s impeachment for vote. Trump had only been in office a few weeks. Then San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer toured the country and lavished millions on advertisements demanding Trump’s removal by impeachment—and was sorely disappointed when he discovered that billion-dollar-fueled virtue-signaling proved utterly bankrupt virtue-signaling.

When that did not work, during the president’s first year in office, the Democrats and the media at various times sought to invoke the 25th Amendment, claiming Trump was so mentally or physically impaired that he was not able to carry out the duties of president.

At one point, congressional Democrats called Yale University psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee to testify that Trump was unfit to continue.
In fact, to prove her credentials, Lee edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump that offered arguments from 27 psychiatrists and other mental health experts.
In May 2017, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein met secretly in efforts to poll Trump cabinet members to discover whether they could find a majority to remove Trump from office—again on grounds that he was mentally unbalanced. According to McCabe, Rosenstein offered to wear a wire, in some sort of bizarre comic coup attempt to catch Trump off-guard in a confidential conversation.

When that did not work…………………..

Will the Left nod and keep still, if Republicans attempt to remove an elected Democratic President before his tenure is up? Are appeals to impeachment, the 25th Amendment, the Emoluments Clause, the Logan Act, and a Special Counsel the now normal cargo of political opposition to any future elected president?

Is it now permissible in 2020 for Trump’s FBI director to insert an informant into the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee?
If Joe Biden is the 2020 nominee, will the Trump Justice Department seek FISA warrants to monitor the communications of Biden’s campaign team—in worries that Biden son’s business practices in the Ukraine had earlier compromised Biden who had intervened on his behalf by threatening to cut off aid to Ukraine?
Will they investigate Biden’s propensity to hug and kiss under-aged girls?
Will Trump’s CIA director contact foreign nationals to aid in spying on Biden’s aides?
Will National Security Advisor John Bolton request that the names of surveilled Biden campaign officials become unmasked as a way of having them leaked to the media?
Will Trump hire a British ex-spy to gather together rumors and gossip about Biden’s previous overseas trips and foreign contacts, especially in the Ukraine, and then see them seeded among the Trump CIA, FBI, Justice Department, and State Department?

Is that the sort of country we have now?

America over the last half century had been nursed on the dogma that the Left was the guarantor of civil liberties. That was the old message of the battles supposedly waged on our behalf by the ACLU, the free-speech areas on campuses, and the Earl Warren Court.

Not now………………….

The final irony? If the CIA, FBI, and DOJ have gone the banana republic way of Lois Lerner’s IRS and shredded the Constitution, they still failed to remove Donald Trump.

Trump still stands. In Nietzschean fashion what did not kill him apparently only made him stronger.