Category: Stupid O’ The Day

It’s one thing to use these systems in K-12 schools, where firearms are generally prohibited, but what happens when these systems are rolled out in places where we can exercise our Second Amendment rights? Even if AI successfully determines someone has a pistol, it can’t know whether or not someone is lawfully carrying. Suspicion of carrying a firearm alone shouldn’t be reason enough to stop and search someone, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, especially in places where concealed carry licensees are uncommon.

Superintendent Defends Detection System That Misidentified Bag of Chips for a Gun

Superintendent Dr. Myriam Rogers defended Baltimore County’s AI detection system after it misidentified a bag of chips for a gun, resulting in a 16-year-old being ordered to the ground at gunpoint.

WMAR reported 16-year-old Taki Allen was waiting outside his school after football practice. While waiting, he ate a bag of Doritos then stuffed the empty bag into his pocket.

In about 20 minutes police arrived on scene in response to a warning sent by the school’s AI detection system.

Allen said, “Police showed up, like eight cop cars, and then they all came out with guns pointed at me talking about getting on the ground. I was putting my hands up like, ‘what’s going on?’ He told me to get on my knees and arrested me and put me in cuffs.”

The detection system misidentified the empty bag, labeling it a gun instead.

Superintendent Rogers defended the system: “The program is based on human verification and in this case the program did what it was supposed to do which was to signal an alert and for humans to take a look to find out if there was cause for concern in that moment.”

Tech Crunch noted the system alert had actually been canceled upon review, but the principal reported the alert to the school resource officer because she had not learned of the cancellation. The resource officer subsequently called local police.

So Red Flag Laws Didn’t Fail in Minneapolis, People Did?

Minnesota passed a red flag law in 2023. It went into effect in 2024.

Despite that, no red flag order was sought for the 23-year-old who decided to seek out a gun-free zone and shoot through the windows, killing two children and injuring so many more.

It’s pretty clear that the red flag law that was sold as a way to stop attacks like this from happening failed.

But it seems that rather than acknowledge this, the media is more interested in spinning this as a failure of people to notice the problem.

Police say that an emergency risk protection order was not sought for the suspect, nor did this person have a criminal record. Shortly before the attack, the shooter posted on social media a diary and a manifesto that indicated hate and the potential for violence.

The chorus of concern after the shooting serves as a reminder not only that Americans aren’t powerless in the face of pervasive gun violence, but also that red flag laws are only effective when people speak up. For many here, there is a sense that there may have been missed clues that could have been used to disarm the person under the new law. The investigation is ongoing.

“A crisis was enough to push them over the edge,” says Chris Carita, a former police officer and a senior trainer at 97Percent, a nonprofit that helps law enforcement use what are commonly referred to as red flag laws. “They didn’t get the help they needed or the intervention that they needed.”

The philosophical core of the laws is that they exhibit not only concern for public safety but also empathy for people in distress who may be leaving clues of potential deadly intent.

“It’s an individual tool that people and families can use, but the bigger and more challenging task is making sure that folks understand it and know how to use it,” says Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman.

It’s funny how the red flag law is supposed to be the savior, but when it fails, no one who supported it ever steps back and thinks, “Oh, wait, maybe this law wasn’t quite what I thought it was.”

Oh no, the problem is that the people in the killer’s life completely failed to recognize the problem and take this particular action, which isn’t actually needed since existing laws could do far more.

Of course, despite what the Christian Science Monitor might claim, 97Percent isn’t a nonprofit that helps law enforcement. I mean, they might do some of that, but what they actually are is a gun control group that pushes an anti-gun agenda and pretends they’re really just a centrist organization looking for some common ground on guns. We’ve talked about them before. We’ve talked about them a lot.

That’s important because this is someone who works for an organization with a vested interest in defending this particular law rather than acknowledging that the laws don’t work as advertised.

“But the problem is still the people!” someone might exclaim, which I find funny, because we say the same thing about guns and they reject that out of hand.

The difference is that me having a gun doesn’t impact anyone else except for me and my family.

Their red flag law can impact everyone.

And the fact that they don’t even work just makes it that much worse.

Why Does a Pro-2A Lawmaker Want Tennessee to Appeal Ruling Striking Down Gun Control Laws?

Earlier this week we reported on a significant win for gun owners in Tennessee, where a three-judge panel ruled that two of the state’s gun laws violate the Second Amendment as well as the state’s constitution. So why is a lawmaker who boasts of being a Second Amendment supporter now asking the state’s attorney general and governor to keep defending the law by appealing the decision?
The challenge, brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and three members of the Tennessee Firearms Association, was successfully litigated by Tennessee Firearms Association head John Harris, who persuaded the panel in Gibson County Chancery Court that the the state’s “intent to go armed” statute and ban on concealed carry in parks do not fit within the national tradition of gun ownership.
Both of these laws blatantly infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but the “intent to go armed” statute is particularly egregious, since it allows police to have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed if they see a person carrying a firearm, even on the premises of their own home.
That reasonable cause justifies an officer in stopping, detaining, questioning, charging or arresting the individual for that crime. The statutes do provide certain affirmative defenses, such as the individual had a handgun permit or that they were in their own home, but those defenses do not shield the individual from being stopped, questioned or arrested. Indeed, Tennessee law currently puts the burden on the individual to raise and demonstrate those defenses at trial.
Republican Rep. Chris Todd praised the panel’s ruling, calling it “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written opinions I’ve seen.” Yet Todd is also calling on Gov. Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti to appeal the Chancery Court decision and continue defending the statutes.
In a statement, Todd argues that an an appellate court would affirm the decision, which in turn “would give the outcome even greater weight by making it a binding precedent in Tennessee and serving as a reference point for similar cases nationwide.”
Todd’s statement brought a rebuke by state Senator Brent Taylor, who urged Lee and Skrmetti to not appeal the panel’s decision, and the Tennessee Firearms Association took a similar dim view of the representative’s request, arguing that an appeal could delay the effectiveness of the ruling “perhaps by years”, as well as “risking that the court might reverse the ruling on technical grounds that avoided the constitutional challenge.”
One must wonder whether Rep. Todd was being “coached” perhaps by other Legislators or advocates who actually oppose the ruling since the law is quite clear that if litigation can be resolved on technical issues that completely avoid a constitutional challenge to a statute (e.g., standing, mootness, etc.) that the court is required to dispose of the case whenever possible without striking down a blatantly unconstitutional statute. See, for example, Tennessee Supreme Court ruling Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995).
Todd’s position is essentially to let the courts throw out these laws, while Taylor’s argument is that by dropping any appeal the state legislature can take action to repeal the laws.

Todd is correct that a Chancery Court ruling aren’t generally binding precedent that’s applicable throughout the entire state, but I think Taylor has the stronger argument here. The state mustered no real evidence to support the idea that either statute fits within the national (or state) tradition of keeping and bearing arms, and continuing to defend them in court would be a waste of time and taxpayer money in addition to risking the panel’s decision being reversed on some kind of technical grounds.

The legislature is tasked with making laws, as well as repealing them, and full repeal would be the quickest and easiest way to remove these infringements from the books. I’d like to see both Lee and Skrmetti announce that no appeal will be made and publicly ask lawmakers to address the issue by repealing the statutes in accordance with the court’s decision.

I know nothing about Rep. Todd, so I’ll take his stated support for the Second Amendment at face value. Even if he has the best of intentions with his proposal, though, it still sounds like a bad strategy to me, and he should be working to convince his colleagues to back repeal bills instead of trying to convince the governor and AG to continue defending the indefensible.

Dan Burmawi

Right after 9/11, while the dust of Ground Zero was still settling, a proposal emerged to build an Islamic mosque and community center just steps away from where nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered by jihadists.

It was called Park51. It was a test to see if the West would tolerate symbolic victory on the site of its own defeat. It was about watching how far Islam could push.

Now, nearly 25 years later, a candidate, shaped by the same worldview that killed 3000 Americans that day, just won a Democratic primary in New York.

This is the consequence of a society that has become so obsessed with appearing color-blind that it has gone morally blind.

Islamic jihad is not like you. It does not apologize when caught, it doubles down. The moment you give it room, it plants a flag.

Park51 was not the last attempt. It was one of many. Today, the battleground is no longer symbolic, it’s political. And New York just opened the door.

San Francisco students can graduate with FAILING grades under new ‘Grading for Equity’ guidelines

On Tuesday, the San Francisco public school district announced a new grading policy that will allow students to graduate classes with a score as low as 21 percent. The “Grading for Equity” method eliminates homework and weekly test scores from a student’s final semester grade.

Instead, there will be one test at the end of each semester to decide if a student has passed the class. The final exam can be retaken several times, The Voice San Francisco reported.

Maria Su, the Superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District, enacted the new guidelines without seeking approval from the board, according to the nonprofit. The changes will impact 10,000 students across 14 high schools in California’s Bay Area.

Students may submit assignments late, fail to attend class, or choose not to attend at all without consequence to their academic performance. As of current, receiving an A requires a minimum score of 90 percent, while a D is set at 61 percent. Under the new scale, a student can obtain an A with a score as low as 80 percent, typically a B- and a D with a score as low as 21 percent, which is otherwise known as an F.

Educators, students, and parents have expressed concerns regarding the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative, particularly how it would impact academic standards and college readiness, Newsweek reported. The San Francisco school district’s experiment comes in spite of President Donald Trump’s executive order signed in January that eliminated DEI programs in federal taxpayer-funded institutions.

Supporters of the policy argue that by reducing the emphasis on behavior-based penalties like missing or late assignments, it more accurately reflects a student’s learning, while critics believe it would hurt students who are already on pace for college placement.

Obama Judge Goes Full Theater Kid, Declares It ‘Unconstitutional’ for Trump to Pull Security Clearances

As lower and district court judges continue to one-up each other with absurd usurpations of clearly stated executive authority, another contender has entered the ring.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled on Friday night that the President of the United States does not have the power to pull government security clearances from Perkins Coie, a private law firm. Yeah, that would be the same Perkins Coie that worked with Democrats to gin up the Russian collusion hoax. 

In her order, Howell decided that quoting Shakespeare was appropriate. I guess our judiciary is full of theater kids.

“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,’” Howell wrote in the 102-page order on Friday. 

Howell alleges that the Trump administration violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, with her basic argument being that the executive order in question amounted to illegal coercion. In arguably politicized fashion, she went on to express animosity toward the law firms that cut deals with the administration to keep their clearances.

All of this will undoubtedly and justifiably seem ridiculous to onlookers, regardless of what legal arguments may or may not actually exist. Control over security clearances is a vested power in the executive branch, and if the president decides he doesn’t want a law firm that literally targeted him on behalf of Hillary Clinton to have access to classified materials within his administration, one would think he should be able to do so.

Continue reading “”

Looks like ‘Stop Drop & Roll’ didn’t cut it for the jihadi.
Orange car in the lower right center

CBS Environmental Journo Slams Trump EPA: We Have ‘Less Than 10 Years’ to Save Planet.

During the “By the Way” segment on Friday’s CBS Mornings Plus, CBS environmental correspondent David Schechter decried the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin by giving away the game on the climate alarmists by reupping a line that’s been deployed for at least five decades, which is we have “less than ten years” to save Earth from climate change.

Co-host Adriana Diaz twice teased his appearance and spelled doom about what deregulation at the EPA would mean, ominously wondering “what” the “big changes at the EPA” “could cost you” as the “administration…mak[es] good on the President’s campaign promise to roll back climate protections.”

 

With the liberal media, any and all regulations are nearly always seen as a benefit and for our own good, not a hassle.

“[O]ne of the things the EPA will now, ‘reconsider’ is what its press release calls a burdensome greenhouse gas reporting program where thousands of companies have to submit their emissions levels. Zeldin said the agency would try to undo a total of 31 environmental regulations from rules governing wastewater to emission standards. The Trump administration has also…revealed plans to shut down the EPA’s Environmental Justice Division,” she added.

Schechter came out swinging with the apocalyptic analysis that Zeldin has changed “the way we interface with the environment” as the EPA has decided it has “nothing” to do with “the environment or ensuring “we have clean air and…clean water.”

He continued with the claim Zeldin doesn’t want to “talk about the environment and why we need to keep it clean and why climate change has become such an existential threat with increased floods and fires and droughts and how the EPA has a role in trying to make sure that we control that and contain that.”

Moments later, he dropped the tiresome claim about having less than a decade or we’re goners:

I think the biggest risk is that we have a small window to deal with climate change, really. It’s getting smaller and smaller, less than 10 years, to sort of level out and reduce our emissions and we had and have currently a lot of rules that deal with that. To throw those all out would undo a lot of progress that’s been made to try to reach these new standards for our country and for the world. And we will lose our opportunity to really get ahead of this problem or even stay current with the problem.

Co-host Tony Dokoupil next summarized Zeldin’s view of the EPA as “if companies save money by not having to report a bunch of things that are a waste of time, they can take that saved money and make the energy process cleaner.”

Schechter was obviously not having it because, you can’t trust non-governmental parties to behave (click “expand”):

SCHECHTER: I don’t know if, I guess if that’s your reading of that claim, I think that’s an interesting way to look at it. You know, companies, corporations, many of them do, do the right thing and do spend a lot of time on their environmental issues and reporting and things like that, but, you know, the government’s job is to set a level playing field, if that’s how you view the government’s job, to set a level playing field with regulations so that everyone is following the same rules. Some companies do get in trouble when they get ahead of their competitors and they have rules that are maybe more stringent than what their competitors have. And then the market kind of catches up to them and they take a lot of criticism for being too far ahead of the pack. So, you know, having stoplights and roads and, you know, rules of the road, is what keeps everybody sort of moving in the same direction. That’s the idea of the EPA. That’s the power of the EPA. And to say we care about the earth and we care about clean water, that’s what we’re going to do, is one thing, but to look at what they did and want to cut 31 important regulations is really what you should be looking at.

DOKOUPIL: It’s interesting. Yeah, but this is the claim from the EPA press release. Hundreds of millions of dollars saved could better be used, “to improve and upgrade environmental controls to have a noticeable impact and improvement on the environment.” We’ll see what happens.

DIAZ: Yeah.

SCHECHTER: Yeah.

DIAZ: And if companies take it upon themselves to try to make that environmental improvement without the regulations.

This Friday segment actually capped three days of rage at CBS.

Rolling back to Thursday, senior White House and campaign correspondent Ed O’Keefe appeared on both CBS Mornings and the Plus editions to say the EPA will now be “rolling back…regulations” that said “greenhouse gasses are bad for public health[.]”

And, on Tuesday, CBS Evening News co-anchor Maurice DuBois said the agency was doing away with red tape “aimed at protecting public health and fighting climate change.”

Co-anchor John Dickerson commiserated with former Obama EPA official Matthew Tejada a half-hour later on CBS Evening Plus.

Tejada went full doomsday and fearmongerer by saying Zeldin’s announcement was “taking us back to the 1960s, from before the times when we had regulations that actually cleaned up our water, protect people from across our country, from cancer-causing agents in our air, actually cleaning up legacy contamination sites that people had been living on top of for generations.”

 

 

Tejada further vented the Trump administration will “tak[e] us back to that time when we didn’t have regulation” in which Americans won’t be “healthier” as they’re purposefully “allowing polluting industries” to “hav[e] absolutely unfettered ability to pour their pollution into our communities[.]”

Always a pompous partisan, Dickerson invited Tejada to go further (click “expand”):

DICKERSON: And Matthew, one of the announcements today said the agency is, quote, “reconsidering the 2009 engagement finding.” Help us understand what that means.

TEJADA: Yeah, that was the endangerment finding. That was the finding that basically unlocked the authorities of the Environmental Protection Agency and our federal government to start combating climate change. We have seen repeatedly how our climate is changing on a regular basis and having devastating consequences, not just in our country, but across the world, how it is causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every single year. They’re taking us back to not even square one, to the one decision that allowed us to start to make the slightest progress that was then supercharged during the last administration through the Inflation Reduction Act, another regulatory progress that we made recently. It is taking us back in time, just like all these other decisions are taking us way back to an era when we were suffering from pollution in every part of this country.

DICKERSON: And let me ask you now, finally, Matthew, about the environmental justice offices. Remind us about — define environmental justice for us and what you think will now happen as a result of these policies.

TEJADA: So environmental justice has worked for decades to make sure that every part of our country, especially those parts of our country that have not had the power to keep pollution out of their community and to bring in the positives of a clean environment, of green space, of natural resources. Those are black and brown communities. Those are indigenous communities. Those are low-income white communities. Those communities that have not had a power to actually be protected from environmental pollution. The environmental justice program at EPA worked every single day to make sure that those communities felt heard by their government and to bring their voices back into government to make it respond and serve those people too. And they are gutting that program today as we speak.

To see the relevant CBS transcripts, click here (for March 12’s CBS Evening News Plus) and here (for March 14’s CBS Mornings Plus).

Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva dead at 77. “Grijalva, D-Ariz., died of lung cancer-related issues on Thursday