Texas Governor Declares Invasion at Border, Invokes Constitutional Powers in Historic Action

Frustrated by an unending crisis fueled by drug and human trafficking at the southern border, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday declared his state was under an invasion and invoked special powers granted under the U.S. and Texas constitutions.

Abbott’s decision came after three dozen counties in his state passed resolutions calling for the dramatic action. The Republican governor said the declaration allows him to send National Guard troops to the border, treat drug cartels as terrorist organizations and build his own border wall separate of the federal government

Abbott wrote in a letter to county officials the invocation of the constitutional powers was authorized by an executive order he signed back in July. His tweet Tuesday was the first time he publicly claimed he was invoking the invasion clauses of the U.S. and state constitutions.

Abbott previously garnered national headlines by busing thousands of illegal migrants to blue cities such as Chicago, New York and Washington D.C. But his new action Tuesday marked a major escalation that carries both political and legal consequences.

Abbott said his executive order had allowed him to:

  • Deploy the National Guard to the border to repel illegal immigrants, and the Texas Department of Public Safety to arrest and return illegal entrants to their home countries;
  • Build a border wall in multiple counties;
  • Deploy gun boats to secure the border;
  • Designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations;
  • Enter into a compact with other states to secure the border;
  • Enter into agreements with foreign powers to enhance border security;
  • And provide resources for border counties to increase their efforts to respond to the border invasion.

More Oregon sheriffs vow not to enforce high capacity gun magazine ban if Measure 114 passes

PORTLAND Ore. (KPTV) – At least two more Oregon sheriffs have said they do not intend to enforce Measure 114 if it passes and becomes law.

Michelle Duncan, the sheriff of Linn County, announced on the organization’s Facebook page on November 9, the day following Election Day, that she would not enforce the magazine capacity limit.

“Unfortunately, we are seeing the passage of Ballot Measure 114, which creates a required permitting system in order to purchase firearms AND bans gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This is a terrible law for gunowners, crime victims, and public safety,” wrote Sheriff Duncan on Wednesday. “I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits.”

FOX 12 visited Linn County on Thursday and talked to a pawn shop owner who said people had been coming in regularly to buy magazines and guns, anxious about what comes next.

A spokesperson for the city of Albany, which is in Linn County, told FOX 12 it will follow the law but understand the measure will likely be challenged in court.

Later the same day on Nov. 9, Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen posted to Facebook to agree with Sheriff Duncan.
“I agree 100% with Sheriff Duncan! This is an infringement on our constitutional rights and will not be enforced by my office! This is an infringement on our constitutional rights and will not be enforced by my office. This measure will only harm law abiding gun owners and result in wasted time with additional redundant background checks.”

Other news outlets have reported that Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe also intends not to enforce the ban. But FOX 12 has not been able to independently verify that.

As of Friday afternoon, Ballot Measure 114 was learning slightly toward passing with 32,089 more yes votes than no votes. The Associated Press estimates 85% of the ballots in Oregon have been counted.

Oregon sheriff says she won’t enforce magazine ban

While the outcome of Oregon Measure 114 is still technically up in the air, it looks like the gun control ballot measure will pass by a narrow margin.  With about three-quarters of the estimated vote already counted the magazine ban and permit-to-purchase laws are ahead 50.8-49.2, but most of the remaining ballots are expected to come from Multnomah and Washington counties, where support for Measure 114 is running high.

Once the election results are certified, which will likely be next week, the measure has 30 days before it takes effect. Linn County Sheriff Michelle Duncan, however, says she has no plans to enforce the ban on magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.

“Unfortunately, we are seeing the passage of Ballot Measure 114,” Duncan said in the release on social media, “which creates a required permitting system in order to purchase firearms AND bans gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This is a terrible law for gunowners, crime victims, and public safety.”

The Sheriff continued, “I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits.”

Duncan stated the measure is “poorly written” and that Linn County Sheriff’s Office will work to find “the best course of action to take on permitting.”

“I want to ensure anything we do or don’t do will not hinder gunowners’ rights to purchase firearms, intentionally or unintentionally.”

Duncan went on to tell residents that she’s hopeful a lawsuit will be filed immediately following the certification of the results; a hope that other sheriffs have expressed as well. Otherwise, as Klamath County Sheriff Chris Kraber warns, gun sales in the state could soon stop completely.

Many questions have arisen as to what will happen to the rights of gun owners in Oregon if it passes. Myself, and other Sheriffs, often rely on the analysis of our legal advisor(s) through our Oregon State Sheriffs Association. Having reviewed the BM 114 and the legal analysis received, the following opinion is my understanding of the likely next steps in the unfortunate event it passes. For the record, I believe BM 114 to be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to possess firearms.

  • If passed it will take effect “30 days after passing.”
  • Firearms dealers will have “180 days” to dispose of large capacity magazines.
  • Firearms dealers will not be able to sell a firearm to anyone without a permit; since the permit system does not exist, all legal firearms sales in the State of Oregon will stop until a permit system is established. Because of this, there is a strong likelihood a federal judge will “stay” the measure until a permit process is established or the constitutionality of the measure is decided in what will likely be a court challenge.
  • Court challenges often take years. One such challenge is underway on a California magazine ban that was sent back to the 9th Circuit Court by the US Supreme Court for reconsideration due to a recent Supreme Court decision in the NY Rifle v. Bruen case.
  • If a court challenge occurs and BM 114 is determined to be unconstitutional it will then likely be reviewed by the 9th Circuit Court.
  • If you currently own magazines capable of holding more than “10” rounds, you should document that you have them in your possession before this measure can take place due proving they weren’t purchased after the ballot measure passed. (i.e. a dated picture)

None of these possible outcomes effects our current Concealed Handgun Licensing program provided by the Sheriff’s office. Many questions will likely come up in the next few weeks and I will keep you apprised of them.

Funny how the group behind Measure 114 never explained to voters exactly what would happen if their gun laws actually passed. Their well-funded campaign promised “safe schools and communities” if Measure 114 was approved, but Lift Every Voice Oregon didn’t say anything about Oregonians being unable to purchase a gun at all while the state writes the particulars of the permit-to-purchase system. Based on the tight election results, Measure 114 isn’t a particularly popular measure, and I suspect that the chaotic rollout to come is going to leave many voters with buyers remorse.

Continue reading “”

Sheriff Judd isn’t a perfect Sheriff, but he’s pretty darn close

Sheriff defends Stand Your Ground law following arrests

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has been met with controversy for quite some time. A lot of people don’t really understand what’s covered under the law and what isn’t.

The problem is that a lot of those who don’t understand it like to talk about the law as if they do. That leads to a lot of confusion.

And I can’t help but think that’s part of what happened in this case:

A Florida sheriff is justifying his encouragement of residents to shoot intruders “like grated cheese” after two men were charged with opening fire at a woman who they thought was trying to burglarize their home.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said in an interview with the The Orlando Sentinel published Tuesday that he stood by urging his constituents to use lethal force to defend their homes in the wake of Hurricane Ian. Other Florida officials have offered similar advice to residents. But Judd said two of his constituents took it too far…

Two weeks later, Judd announced at an October 17 news conference that Winter Haven resident Gino  Colonacosta, 73, and his 15-year-old son Rocky Colonacosta had been charged with attempted murder, accused of firing seven times at a woman parked outside their home.

Sheriff Judd went on to explain that the two didn’t understand the Stand Your Ground law, which is completely accurate.

The law in question makes it so you don’t have to retreat if faced with a threat to your life. What it doesn’t do is allow you to shoot someone who is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time but no threat to you.

This whole thing started because some medication was misdelivered. The two accused then reportedly freaked because their Ring doorbell told them someone was there, so they started hunting the intruder, then saw the victim sitting in her car and opened fire. Thankfully, they missed her.

Look, people, here’s how it goes. If someone illegally enters your home when you’re there, that’s usually a safe use of the Stand Your Ground law. If someone threatens you with a weapon, that falls under it, too.

What doesn’t, however, is freaking out because your doorbell tells you someone is outside, so you start blasting the first person you see.

Further, someone sitting in their car and doing nothing is. Not. A. Threat.

If they’re trying to run over you? Sure. If they’re just sitting there? Nope.

Can it be suspicious? Absolutely, especially if they just sit there. After all, they might be casing your house or another for robbery. If they’re just hanging there, call the police and let them investigate.

But they could also be a private investigator checking out one of your neighbors. They could be stopped to make a phone call or check their phone for something. They might be waiting for someone and just got the address wrong.

There are a thousand good, lawful reasons to sit in your car outside of a home. None of them warrant shooting at the driver and trying to use a Stand Your Ground defense.

“I’m scared” or, “I thought they were up to no good” isn’t covered under the law. It’s not about your impressions of the situation so much as what any reasonable person would believe.

No one is going to look at this situation and assume that the person in the car means anyone harm based on the facts as we know them.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law isn’t to blame for this. People not understanding the law is, though.

Northwest Body Counts Suggest Time for Change on Gun Control Is Here

It is familiar political ground in the Pacific Northwest, with rising homicide numbers providing strong evidence that gun controls in Washington have been an abject failure.

Seattle has recorded its 52nd homicide, and with two full months remaining in the year, there is no doubt the number will eventually exceed the 53 recorded two years ago. The city, as previously reported, is headquarters to the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group Alliance for Gun Responsibility. The organization has bankrolled two restrictive gun control initiatives since 2014, making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights while demonstrably not accomplishing the promise of reduced gun-related violence and murder.

Down the road 175 miles, Portland is the tarnished gem of Oregon, with more than 80 slayings so far this year and an outlook for hitting a new record. It is against this backdrop Beaver State anti-gunners hope to pass next week a restrictive gun control measure—Ballot Measure 114—that will require a permit to purchase a firearm and add more restrictions including a training requirement.

At least one county sheriff—Brad Lohrey of Sherman County—told Fox News, “It is impossible for us to do what they’re asking us to do.”

In decades past, Seattle and Portland were known as laid-back growing metropolises, with far left politics and lots of tourist attractions. Nowadays, both cities are experiencing drug and gang epidemics, and crime is spiking because police manpower is down.

There may be change coming, in both states. Oregon appears on track to elect the first Republican governor in a generation. In Washington, there could be changes in the legislature and some changes in congressional representation as well. With changes in people, there will be changes in policy, but it all depends upon a strong turnout of gun owners and conservative voters across both states.

Gun politics is playing out in other regions. The Des Moines Register is editorializing against a proposed state constitutional amendment affirming the right to keep and bear arms. Iowa is one of a handful of states without such an amendment, and gun owners are seeking to change that.

But the newspaper is dead set against protecting the right at the state level, continuing a trend where the media uses the First Amendment to throttle the Second. It excoriates the June Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen for opening the door to both legal challenges and court corrections of infringements on the right to be armed. This suggests anti-gunners still haven’t accepted the explanation in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion that the Second Amendment must be treated like all other rights.

For decades, gun control proponents have had it their way, with incremental imposition of restrictions on gun owners. Violent crime is increasing, not decreasing. Election Day could change that pattern, with a new Congress and power shifts at the state level, rejection of Oregon’s ballot measure and adoption of Iowa’s proposed amendment. At least, that is the perspective of Second Amendment activists who are hoping for a strong turnout of “gun voters” Nov. 8.

Well, maybe because demoncraps like criminals?

NY Gov. Hochul Doesn’t Know Why Putting Criminals in Jail is ‘So Important’ to Challenger Lee Zeldin.

In the race for governor of New York, Republican Lee Zeldin has been hammering Democrat Kathy Hochul on crime and it has been working.

Last night, during their only debate, Zeldin kept up the pressure on this issue and it led to one of those definitive debate moments that people remember.

This is when Hochul lost the debate. The New York Post reports:

‘Don’t know why that’s so important’: Hochul baffled when Zeldin talks jailing criminals during NY gov debate

Gov. Kathy Hochul stunningly said she didn’t know why it’s “so important” to lock up criminals when confronted by Republican challenger Lee Zeldin over the state’s controversial bail reform law during their first and only debate Tuesday night.

Zeldin, who’s pledged to declare a crime emergency and suspend cashless bail if elected, brought up the issue midway through the televised face-off.

“My opponent thinks that right now there’s a polio emergency going on but there’s not a crime emergency — different priorities than I’m hearing from people right now,” the outgoing congressman from Long Island said.

“They’re not being represented from this governor — who still, to this moment…hasn’t talked about locking up anyone committing any crimes.”

Hochul responded by saying, “Anyone who commits a crime, under our laws, especially with the changes we made to bail, has consequences.

“I don’t know why that’s so important to you,” the incumbent Democrat added. “All I know is that we could do more.”

Here’s the video

Continue reading “”

BARR: Hate Unconstitutional Gun Control? Make Friends With Your Sheriff

A number of sheriffs in upstate New York are declaring that their officers will not prioritize or “aggressively enforce” the state’s recently enacted, highly restrictive gun control law. These elected sheriffs have concluded quite correctly that the state’s new law is at odds with both the Constitution of the United States and with the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared New York’s previous and long-standing gun control law – the Sullivan Act – unconstitutional.

The sheriffs’ actions have rekindled a recurring debate about the powers of the more than three thousand local sheriffs serving in every state except Alaska and Connecticut.

The United States has had elected sheriffs long before there was a “United States of America,” with the first one taking office in Virginia in 1652. Police departments, on the other hand, are a relatively new phenomenon. The first municipal police department was not established until 1838 in Boston, Massachusetts.

Unlike most county sheriffs, who hold their positions under their state constitutions, police chiefs answer only to local office holders who appointed them, not to the voters. It is this distinction that has caused a number of sheriffs in “Blue States” to earn the ire of the Left.

Two factors have exacerbated this enmity in recent years – increasingly restrictive gun control measures and abusive COVID mandates by Blue State governors and legislatures. Sheriffs who decline to prioritize enforcing such laws find themselves increasingly maligned by the Left, notwithstanding the fact that they are carrying out their sworn duty to support the federal and state constitutions, and in accord with the wishes of the voters they represent.

Consider Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who declared in 2021 that he would not force officers under his command to be vaccinated against COVID, as mandated by that county’s liberal Board of Supervisors.

Even more vexing to liberals, however, is the number of sheriffs who in recent years have refused to enforce what they consider unconstitutional infringements on the rights of citizens in their jurisdictions to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the face of Blue State gun control laws.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) berates these sheriffs who follow the Constitution of the United States as “radicalized” officials who do not themselves understand the Constitution. The recently discredited SPLC simply cannot bring itself to accept that elected law enforcement officials should be permitted to resist such government overreach.

However, these “constitutional sheriffs” are not alone in their views. Since the Supreme Court’s seminal Bruen decision in June that tossed New York’s Sullivan Act, similarly restrictive laws in other states have fallen. Even more to the point, some of the very restrictions in the legislation signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul just days after the Supreme Court rendered its opinion, as part of her attempt to undercut the High Court’s directive, were blocked last week by a federal judge in New York City.

With state and federal courts seeming to agree with sheriffs who decline to vigorously enforce laws they view as inconsistent with their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, especially as related to Second Amendment rights of citizens in their jurisdictions, it is becoming increasingly difficult for their detractors on the Left to argue with a straight face that the sheriffs are the outliers.

Three years ago, the gun control group founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — “Everytown for Gun Safety” — published a paper highly critical of sheriffs who declined to prioritize the gun control measures the organization championed. The title of the piece was, When Sheriffs Refuse to Follow the Law.

It is, however, becoming increasingly clear to citizens across the country that it is liberal, anti-gun public officials like Hochul who are not following the law, and that it is constitutional sheriffs who are the ones following it.

As the Election Nears and With Bruen Now the Law, Reality Begins to Dawn on the Gun Control Community

Susan Liebell, a political science professor at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, said that gun control provisions with large amounts of popular support are unlikely to advance in the current political environment.

“The way this should play out politically is that senators and representatives would be punished in elections because they don’t support the kind of gun safety laws that Americans want,” Liebell said. “However, there’s no evidence that Americans are willing to vote on gun safety the way they’re willing to vote on the economy.”

Liebell also pointed out that the conservative legal movement spent much of the last four decades building the Supreme Court majority that led to the Bruen decision, one that is not likely to go away anytime soon.

“We’re not really talking about history, we’re not really talking about the original interpretation of the Second Amendment, we’re talking about the number of votes that you have on the Supreme Court,” Liebell said.

Biden’s move on pot has Second Amendment ramifications

President Joe Biden is no friend of gun owners. What’s more, is that he doesn’t seem interested in even trying to pretend he is, what with his anti-gun rhetoric time and time again.

So if he does something that could potentially benefit the Second Amendment crowd, it’s only by accident.

And that’s likely what’s happening with his latest move, where he announced taking steps toward changing how the government views marijuana.

President Joe Biden on Thursday announced executive actions that would pardon thousands of people with prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession.

Biden then called on governors to follow suit with state offenses for simple marijuana possession, saying that “just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.”

The president also directed U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and Attorney General Merrick Garland to review how marijuana is classified under federal law as a Schedule I drug, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s most dangerous classification that includes substances like heroin and LSD.

Biden’s executive order to pardon simple possession includes the District of Columbia as well as people convicted in the federal court system.

Now, simple marijuana possession isn’t necessarily something that will preclude anyone from owning a gun. The pardons aren’t likely to make a big difference toward gun ownership.

But the potential reclassification of marijuana is.

As we’ve noted, people who use marijuana in accordance with the laws of their state are still legally prohibited from even owning a gun. It’s what led Florida Ag Commissioner Nikki Fried to file a lawsuit. She’s no friend of gun owners either, but she is very much in the pro-legalization effort, so this ties into that.

Now, understand that what Biden is doing here is a political stunt. Democrats aren’t doing as well in the polls as the president would like, so he’s making a big splash with something that polls pretty well. This is an attempt to garner support for Democrats.

However, that doesn’t mean gun owners won’t benefit.

After all, there’s nothing in the Second Amendment that says gun rights can be removed from someone for getting a prescription. Nothing in that whole “shall not be infringed” thing is followed up with “unless they use this one substance that only makes them a threat to the snack aisle at the nearest curb store.”

Yet federal law actually does. It doesn’t differentiate between heroin or cocaine and marijuana.

Hell, you can still own a gun if you’re prescribed Fentanyl, which is the drug of choice in the whole opioid epidemic, but not pot.

Biden’s move is, for once, welcome.

The problem, however, is that it’s directing people to just look at rescheduling marijuana. It doesn’t actually do anything. Considering how the Department of Justice has tried to defend the prohibition in the Florida lawsuit–which included using blatantly racist laws of the past, it should be noted–I won’t hold out much hope that it will actually happen.

Yet if it does, suddenly an untold number of Americans who would like to own a gun and use the marijuana their doctor prescribed will be able to lawfully do so. They won’t have to worry about being arrested for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

And if Biden is able to deliver this, it’ll be a rare moment of this anti-un White House benefitting gun owners, even if it’s only by accident.

Honestly, considering the way things have gone over the last year at the federal level, I’m willing to take what wins I can get.

It’s also blatant vote pandering a month from midterm elections that looks to rake the demoncraps over the coals.

Biden Pardons Thousands Convicted of Marijuana Possession Under Federal Law
The move represents a fundamental change in America’s response to a drug that has been at the center of a clash between culture and policing for more than a half-century.

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday pardoned thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession under federal law and said his administration would review whether marijuana should still be in the same legal category as drugs like heroin and LSD.

The pardons will clear everyone convicted on federal charges of simple possession since it became a crime in the 1970s. Officials said full data was not available but noted that about 6,500 people were convicted of simple possession between 1992 and 2021, not counting legal permanent residents. The pardons will also affect people who were convicted under District of Columbia drug laws; officials estimated that number to be in the thousands.

The pardons will not apply to people convicted of selling or distributing marijuana. And officials said there are no people now serving time in federal prisons solely for marijuana possession. But the move will help remove obstacles for people trying to get a job, find housing, apply to college or get federal benefits.

Mr. Biden urged governors to follow his lead for people convicted on state charges of simple possession, who vastly outnumber those charged under federal laws.

Still, the president’s actions — which come about a month before the midterm elections and could help energize Democratic supporters — represent a fundamental change in America’s response to a drug that has been at the center of a clash between culture and policing for more than a half-century.

Continue reading “”

Get the Word Out About Kyle’s Law

A prosecutor who uses his or her authority to virtue signal to the public to advance his or her political career is more dangerous to society than all but the most violent criminals.

Insurance will cover many forms of property crimes, and you can legally use deadly force against somebody who menaces you with death or serious bodily injury.

A prosecutor, though, can bankrupt most people by filing unfounded criminal charges against them, ruin their lives with prison time and criminal records. Unless the case is particularly egregious like that of Mike Nifong (D-NC), or with crooked judges like Mark Ciavarella (D-PA, a.k.a., federal inmate #15008-067) or Mike Conahan (D-PA, home arrest), there is little or no recourse against these “jurists.”

To put this in perspective, Pennsylvania attorney Frank Fina was suspended from the practice of law for his role in convicting Penn State President Graham Spanier of putting children at risk. Pennsylvania’s current Attorney General, and gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro (D-PA), worked hard to reinstate Spanier’s conviction while tweeting that Spanier had been told that Jerry Sandusky was sexually assaulting children on the Penn State campus. The witness, Mike McQueary, testified, however, under oath, that he did not see Sandusky do anything he deemed reportable to police while his father and a family friend, both of whom are mandated by law to report abuse, did not encourage him to report to child protective authorities whatever he thought he might have possibly heard.

I believe that Shapiro, like Scott Harshbarger (D-MA) and Martha Coakley (D-MA) who ruined the lives of the Amiraults, used his position to “virtue signal” his concern for the children prior to the election. The latter is my perception of Shapiro, Harshbarger, and Coakley rather than a statement of fact because I cannot read their minds.

Kyle’s Law

Attorney Andrew Branca, whose opinions often appear on William Jacobson’s blog Legal Insurrection, has proposed what he calls Kyle’s Law due to what he and I both regard as a politically motivated prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse for what was obviously self-defense.

“Too often, rogue prosecutors bring felony criminal charges against people who were clearly doing nothing more than defending themselves, their families, or others from violent criminal attack. …The only motivation of the prosecutor is personal aggrandizement and political capital.” Kyle’s Law would sanction not only the jurisdiction but also the prosecutor who brings a junk case, to be defined as one in which the prosecutor lacks even preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did anything wrong.

The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct state meanwhile, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous…” and also “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause…” and probable cause requires a “reasonable belief” that the defendant has committed a crime.

If, for example, a video of a self-defense shooting shows clearly that the person who was shot initiated a deadly confrontation, perpetuated it by not allowing the subject of their attack to retreat in complete safety, and menaced the shooter with immediate deadly force, as did all three of Rittenhouse’s assailants, that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of the shooter that the shooting was justified. If we look within the four corners of the charges against Rittenhouse, the prosecutors did not contest this version of the events.  Joseph Rosenbaum initiated a confrontation in which he attempted to strong-arm rob Rittenhouse (a violent felony by itself) of a firearm he could have turned against Rittenhouse on the spot and also one which, as a convicted felon, it was unlawful for Rosenbaum to handle. Anthony Huber the domestic abuser was a member of a mob (which constitutes disparity of force and therefore deadly force) that pursued Rittenhouse while yelling violent threats, thus putting Rittenhouse in reasonable fear for his life and denying him the opportunity to retreat in complete safety. He then menaced and struck Rittenhouse with a deadly contact weapon when Rittenhouse was on the ground. The third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, pursued Rittenhouse with a drawn handgun, which again constituted an implied threat, along with the immediate means of carrying it out.

Another example would be, for example, if a politically ambitious prosecutor had tried to show his “woke” credentials by charging the officer who shot Hakim Littleton even though the latter was on bodycam video firing a handgun at the head of another officer at roughly three paces. It was fortunate that Littleton was a bad shot or it would have been “end of watch” for that officer or, as Black Lives Matter and Antifa would put it, he would have “oinked his last.” This did not, however, happen because the local prosecutors saw the open and shut case of self-defense.

Poster Children for Kyle’s Law

  • The Amiraults were convicted on the basis of “evidence” that included, among other things, accusations that one of them sexually assaulted a boy with a butcher knife that somehow left no injuries, along with a “secret room” and a “magic room” that were never found.
  • Police officer Grant Snowden was railroaded to prison on the watch of Janet Reno (D-FL).
  • Police officer Garrett Rolfe was charged with murder for shooting Rayshard Brooks after Brooks took an officer’s Taser, which the prosecutor stipulated is a deadly weapon under Georgia law, and discharged it at the officers. The charges were finally dropped but should have never been filed.
  • Nikolas Fernandez was charged with felony assault for shooting Daniel Gregory, who reached through the window of Fernandez’s car to punch him. Gregory even admitted openly, “I catch him, I punch him in the face.” He claims that he was trying to stop Fernandez from running over “demonstrators” but the video shows clearly that Fernandez had come to almost a complete stop by the time Gregory reached into his car. Note also the barrier that another “demonstrator” shoves in front of the car which a reasonable person would construe as a prelude to a carjacking or Reginald Denny-style beating.
  • Here is a long list of wrongful convictions in the United States, some of which involved willful prosecutorial misconduct and/or misconduct by rogue police officers eager to get convictions no matter what.
  • Prosecutors should not be afraid to do their jobs just as police officers should not be afraid to do their jobs. Kneeling on a helpless suspect’s neck as Derek Chauvin was convicted of doing is not, however, a police officer’s job, and Chauvin is now in prison as a result. Junk prosecutions whose sole identifiable purpose, at least from the perspective of a reasonable person, noting that nobody can read the prosecutor’s mind, is to advance a prosecutor’s legal and/or political career, should similarly bring the consequences recommended in Kyle’s Law and maybe professional disciplinary action as well.

Gun control not a “resource” to stop mass shootings

If the idea of being involved in a mass shooting, even if that involvement is just knowing one of the victims, is a personal nightmare of yours, you’re probably right to be concerned. They’re awful and the pain of having someone taken from your life like that hurts beyond words.

Believe me, I know.

In North Carolina, a sheriff decided to stop playing around and decided school resource officers will have AR-15s to use to protect students and staff. To say some don’t like that is an understatement.

In the Charlotte Observer, one columnist put his opposition into words.

Madison County, one county over from where I live in Asheville, garnered national headlines recently with an announcement that every school in the N.C. county will be outfitted with AR-15s this school year.

This initiative embodies how many on the right today bend over backward to suggest anything but gun control as the salve for gun violence.

Madison County Sheriff Buddy Harwood wrote on Facebook, “to exhaust every resource we’ve got to ensure that our kids are safe, that when they go to school, they can learn…and they can go the playground and play, and not worry about some thug who’s going to come out onto the playground and open up on them with some type of AR-15, shotgun, pistol, whatever.”

Only Harwood didn’t exhaust every resource. If he’d done that, he would’ve been advocating for meaningful gun control — a shooter can’t open fire with an AR-15 if they can’t purchase one.

Well, that last paragraph is possibly one of the dumbest ever written in the English language.

First, understand that there are an estimated 20 million or more AR-15s currently in circulation. Does the author think that a new law will magically make them unobtainable for the average citizen? I’m sorry, that ship has long since set sail.

Further, it’s not like the AR-15 is the only weapon used to commit a mass shooting. In fact, handguns are far more commonly used for such horrific acts.

Yet an AR-15 would allow deputies to engage handgun-armed would-be mass shooters at greater range, meaning they could save lives that much sooner without having to close to handgun range. Or, if such a killer has a rifle of some type, he can at least meet them on equal ground.

Moving on…

Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994, outlawing AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. As reported by NPR, mass shootings were down in the decade that followed, compared to the decade before (1984-1994) and the one after (2004-2014). Assault weapon bans work.

Except the study referenced used an odd definition of “mass shooting;” one that also happened to reduce tilt the findings more in the favor of the desired outcome. That NPR didn’t critically look at that study isn’t overly surprising.

But the author is starting to approach his point:

Harwood represents a bigger problem: the refusal of law enforcement in North Carolina to lead the gun control conversation.

There we go.

The problem is that Harwood and other North Carolina law enforcement officials aren’t pushing his preferred politics. Yet there are valid reasons for this.

For one, Harwood is an elected official, which means his politics are more likely to reflect the beliefs of his constituents. He’s not going to push a “gun control conversation” in a pro-gun county unless he’s looking to retire without having to announce it.

Second, it wasn’t that long ago when people like the author were screaming about defunding the police, and now they’re upset that the cops don’t seem to be on their side?

The truth of the matter is that a lot of law enforcement see what happens when good people are disarmed. They can’t stop criminals from getting guns, regardless of the laws on the books. They’ve seen how those laws completely fail every time they arrest a known felon and find a firearm on them. So, they often come to recognize that gun control isn’t going to do the trick.

They fail to push the author’s agenda simply because they know it to be a complete failure of an idea.

Putting AR-15 in the hands of school resource officers isn’t just a good idea, it’s the only sane one.

FBI, R.I.P.?

The FBI is dissolving before our eyes into a rogue security service akin to those in Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

Take the FBI’s deliberately asymmetrical application of the law. This week the bureau surprise-raided the home of former President Donald Trump — an historical first.

A massive phalanx of FBI agents swooped into the Trump residence while he was not home, to confiscate his personal property, safe, and records. All of this was over an archival dispute of presidential papers common to many former presidents. Agents swarmed the entire house, including the wardrobe closet of the former first lady.

Note we are less than 90 days out from a midterm election, and this was not just a raid, but a political act.

The Democratic Party is anticipated to suffer historical losses. Trump was on the verge of announcing his 2024 presidential candidacy. In many polls, he remains the Republican front-runner for the nomination — and well ahead of incumbent President Joe Biden in a putative 2024 rematch.

In 2016 then FBI Director James Comey announced that candidate Hillary Clinton was guilty of destroying subpoenaed emails — a likely felony pertaining to her tenure as secretary of state. Yet he all but pledged that she would not be prosecuted given her status as a presidential candidate.

As far as targeting presidential candidates, Trump was impeached in 2020 ostensibly for delaying military aid to Ukraine by asking Ukrainian officials to investigate more fully the clearly corrupt Biden family — given Joe Biden at the time was a likely possible presidential opponent in 2020.

The FBI has devolved into a personal retrieval service for the incorrigible Biden family. It suppressed, for political purposes, information surrounding Hunter Biden’s missing laptop on the eve of the 2020 election.

Previously, the FBI never pursued Hunter’s fraudulently registered firearm, his mysterious foreign income, his felonious crack cocaine use, or his regular employment of foreign prostitutes.

Yet in a pre-dawn raid just before the 2020 election, the FBI targeted the home of journalist James O’Keefe on grounds that someone had passed to him the lost and lurid diary of Ashley Biden, Biden’s wayward daughter.

At various times, in Stasi-style the FBI has publicly shackled Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro, swarmed the office of Trump’s legal counsel Rudy Giuliani, and sent a SWAT team to surround the house of Trump ally Roger Stone. Meanwhile, terrorists and cartels walk with impunity across an open border.

FBI Director Christopher Wray last week cut short his evasive testimony before Congress. He claimed he had to leave for a critical appointment — only to use his FBI Gulfstream luxury jet to fly to his favorite vacation spot in the Adirondacks.

Wray took over from disgraced interim FBI Director Andrew McCabe. The latter admitted lying repeatedly to federal investigators and signed off on a fraudulent FBI FISA application. He faced zero legal consequences.

McCabe, remember, was also the point man in the softball Hillary Clinton email investigation — while his wife was a political candidate and recipient of thousands of dollars from a political action committee with close ties to the Clinton family.

McCabe took over from disgraced FBI Director James Comey. On 245 occasions, Comey claimed under oath before the House Intelligence Committee that he had no memory or knowledge of key questions concerning his tenure. With impunity, he leaked confidential FBI memos to the media.

Comey took over from Director Robert Mueller. Implausibly, Mueller swore under oath that he had no knowledge, either of the Steele dossier or of Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned Christopher Steele to compile the dossier. But those were the very twin catalysts that had prompted his entire special investigation into the Russian collusion hoax.

FBI legal counsel Kevin Clinesmith was convicted of a felony for altering an FBI warrant request to spy on an innocent Carter Page.

The FBI, by Comey’s own public boasts, bragged how it caught National Security Advisor designate General Michael Flynn in its Crossfire Hurricane Russian collusion hoax.

As special counsel, Mueller then fired two of his top investigators — Lisa Page and Peter Strzok — for improper personal and professional behavior. He then staggered their releases to mask their collaborative wrongdoing.

Mueller’s team deleted critical cell phone evidence under subpoena that might well have revealed systemic FBI-related bias.

The FBI interferes with and warps national elections. It hires complete frauds as informants who are far worse than its targets. It humiliates or exempts government and elected officials based on their politics. It violates the civil liberties of individual American citizens.

The FBI’s highest officials now routinely mislead Congress. They have erased or altered court and subpoenaed evidence. They illegally leak confidential material to the media. And they have lied under oath to federal investigators.

The agency has become dangerous to Americans and an existential threat to their democracy and rule of law. The FBI should be dispersing its investigatory responsibilities to other government investigative agencies that have not yet lost the public’s trust.

Missouri Attorney General Condemns FBI’s Illegal Attempts to Harvest Concealed Carry Permit Information from Missouri Sheriffs

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Today, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they cease their attempts to illegally obtain information from local sheriffs on Missourians who have concealed carry permits. Missouri law specifically prohibits the sharing of information on concealed carry permit holders to any entity – local, state, federal, or otherwise.

“The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.”

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office became aware that the FBI is planning to travel to Missouri in August to do “audits” at sheriff departments across the state, which would include harvesting information on those who have legally obtained a concealed carry permit. The letter states, “It has come to my attention that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has informed several Missouri county sheriffs that they will be showing up in August to ‘audit’ CCW permit holder records. The FBI states that, ‘The audit includes an onsite review of your Concealed Carry Weapons Permits…’ Let me be perfectly clear. Allowing federal agents from the FBI to have access to records of Missourians who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon violates Missouri law and infringes on our Second Amendment rights.”

Missouri law states, “Information retained in the concealed carry permit system under this subsection shall not be distributed to any federal, state, or private entities . . . .” § 571.101.9(2), RSMo.

At the end of the letter, Attorney General Schmitt promises to use the full power of his Office to stop the FBI’s attempts to obtain information on Missouri concealed carry weapons permit holders.

The full letter can be found here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2022-7-13-ltr-fbi.pdf?sfvrsn=5fbbdf7_2

STOP! OR I’LL SAY STOP AGAIN!

Chicago cops barred from chasing people on foot who run away.

The Chicago Police Department has unveiled a new policy prohibiting its officers from chasing people on foot simply because they run away, or because they have committed minor offenses.

The policy, which was introduced Tuesday, also encourages cops to “consider alternatives” to pursuing someone who “is visibly armed with a firearm.”

Under the policy, officers may give chase if they believe a person is committing or is about to commit a felony, a Class A misdemeanor such as domestic battery, or a serious traffic offense that could risk injuring others, such as drunken driving or street racing.

Perhaps most significantly, the new policy makes clear that the days of officers giving chase just because someone tries to get away from them are over.

“People may avoid contact with a member for many reasons other than involvement in criminal activity,” the policy states.

The long-awaited foot chase ban is expected to go into effect by the end of the summer, after the city’s 11,900 uniformed cops receive training.

The policy prohibits officers from chasing people on foot simply because they run away.

The new policy comes more than a year after two foot pursuits ended with cops fatally shooting 13-year-old Adam Toledo and 22-year-old Anthony Alvarez in separate March 2021 incidents.

Toledo and Alvarez, who were armed when they ran from police in separate March 2021 pursuits, were not mentioned in the news release announcing the policy or the policy itself.

Toledo was shot in the chest after dropping a gun and raising his hands, and Alvarez was shot in the back while brandishing a gun.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot demanded that the department create an interim policy after the March 2021 shootings and the county’s top prosecutor harshly criticized police over the Alvarez pursuit.

Continue reading “”

¿Protocolo “Z”? ¡Grupos de Autodefensas para tu y mi!


BLUF
Whether intended or not, the implicit message of Z protocol seems like a dangerous one: Deal with it on your own.

The police aren’t coming, but now in Seattle, they have a name for that

It’s well known that Seattle police are struggling to respond to 911 calls in a speedy manner. But the notion that “the cops aren’t coming” has become such a routine of city life that they’ve created a new way of tracking their nonresponsiveness.

It’s called the “Z protocol.”

I don’t know why they picked the letter “Z.” Maybe because it’s the last stop, the end of the road?

The new “Z-protocol criteria” for 911 calls were described at a recent Seattle City Council public safety meeting. Basically when you call 911, you are ranked as high priority for police response if there’s violence occurring, or if there’s an imminent threat of violence or property damage. Lower-priority calls are also dispatched, but if the police are too busy, these calls can be put into a triage queue for a supervisor to look at later.

A “supervisor will look at the notes on the call and make a decision whether the call will get a response,” a council analyst explained at the meeting. “Or whether the call will be cleared with what they call a ‘Z-disposition action.’

Z-disposition, the analyst summarized, refers to “all calls that are essentially not answered by SPD due to a lack of resources.”

Continue reading “”

When even one of the proggiest, leftist cities in the U.S. finally has had enough of their own medicine……..


Voters oust Chesa Boudin as district attorney in San Francisco

San Francisco voters fired their headline-grabbing reformist district attorney Tuesday, NBC News Projects, after rising crime rates proved intolerable even for the famously progressive city.

Chesa Boudin, the son of left-wing radicals who was elected on a Black Lives Matter-aligned platform to reform the criminal justice system, faced a successful recall effort as voters grew frustrated with the perception that his office is not willing to do much about crime.

The outcome was rebuke of the left as Democrats retreat from calls to defund the police in the face of polls nationally showing growing concern about public safety, especially from people of color.

Mayor London Breed will appoint a temporary successor to fill the DA’s office — formerly occupied by Vice President Kamala Harris — until an election can be held…………….

Juror Perspective from the Kyle Rittenhouse Self Defense Trial ~ VIDEO

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse was covered extensively on AmmoLand News by this correspondent. During the coverage, Kevin Mathewson of the Kenosha County Eye provided wonderful insight.  Six months after the trial, Kevin Mathewson interviewed one of the jurors who was on the Rittenhouse Jury.

As many may remember, the jury found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, because he was acting in justified self-defense.

Kevin Mathewson has graciously allowed this correspondent to use his article at AmmoLand News.  The insight shows the basic structure of the jury system works as it should when populated by people who believe in doing the correct thing with honor. Quotes from the Kenosha County Eye are in italics. From the Eye:

Continue reading “”

BLUF
“Instead of leading to a ‘Wild West’ atmosphere or blood running in the streets, licensed concealed carry by law-abiding citizens helps reduce crime, and assists police officers.”

Who Would Have Guessed, Gun Control Failed in 1881 Also

An article for Smithsonian magazine (Matt Jancer, Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West), reviews the ordinances of Tombstone, Arizona, and other frontier towns in the 1880s, observing that the gun control laws of the time were imposed at the local level and that bearing arms was a “heavily regulated business.”

The notorious Gunfight at the O.K Corral arose, it seems, because “Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, [was] having a gun control problem.”

Tombstone (with a population that hovered around 3,500) had enacted Ordinance No. 9, effective April 1881, to prohibit carrying any deadly weapon within city limits “without first obtaining a permit in writing.” Later that year, lawman Earp’s brothers had charged one Isaac (“Ike”) Clanton with violating the ordinance in the context of escalating animosity between Clanton, the Earps, and Holliday. Clanton’s rifle was seized, and a judge fined him $25 and another $2.50 in court costs. The sheriff later intervened to disarm Clanton’s associates, but after several demands failed to convince them to surrender their firearms. Soon after, the Earp-Holliday group converged on the Clanton-McLaurys, with Wyatt Earp allegedly declaring, “I want your guns.” A contemporary newspaper called what followed “one of the crimson days in the annals of Tombstone, a day when blood flowed as water, and human life was held as a shuttlecock.”

Tombstone of the 1880s is a peculiar model for those who today agitate for greater local authority to restrict or ban firearms.

Ike Clanton survived to file first-degree murder charges against the Earps and Holliday, claiming they had acted with criminal haste in precipitating the confrontation to kill their personal enemies. The court ruling in the preliminary hearing dismissed the charges but determined that Virgil Earp, “as chief of police” who relied on the assistance of his brother and Holliday to arrest and disarm the Clantons and McLaurys, “committed an injudicious and censurable act… and … acted incautiously and without due circumspection;” however, this was not criminally culpable given the state of affairs “incident to a frontier country,” “the supposed prevalence of bad, desperate and reckless men,” and the specific threats that had been made against the Earps.

The ordinance, in this case at least, proved to be almost entirely ineffective. As recounted in the court decision, Sheriff Behan had “demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and … they ‘demurred,’ as he said, and did not do it.”

More significantly, modern jurisprudence on the Second Amendment confirms that, subject to limited exceptions, the right of responsible citizens to carry common firearms beyond the home, “even in populated areas, even without special need, falls within the Amendment’s coverage, indeed within its core.” The ruling, Wrenn v. District of Columbia (2017), arose out of a challenge to the District of Columbia’s concealed carry law, which restricted licenses to applicants who could satisfy a “good reason” requirement, as defined in the law (living or working in a high-crime area, for example, did not qualify). The District justified this scheme by claiming that the Second Amendment did not protect carrying in densely-populated or urban areas like Washington, D.C.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
I don’t think we have anywhere near enough information to judge what actually happened and what the police did right or wrong. Inflammatory videos tell only a tiny part of the story, and I don’t rely on them for an understanding of what actually happened except in regard to the tiny part they are telling. In this case, we know that desperate parents were angry at what they perceived as police inaction, and the police restrained some of them. The rest will emerge as time goes on – but for many people, the takeaway will be “the police are awful and they didn’t care.”
That is by no means clear right now.

On that report that police in Uvalde were just standing around

Here’s the story as it now stands. I caution everyone to ask questions, though, before jumping to conclusions.

For example:

Video emerging online from Tuesday’s schoolchildren massacre in Uvalde, Texas shows local police more concerned with stopping parents than stopping the killer…

Here are my questions in response to that sentence:

–Were these all the police that were at the school at the time, or were there other police in the building trying to get in and who were communicating with those outside? Were these police we see in the video stationed outside in case the killer ran out and tried to escape, or in case he had an accomplice?

–Were the killings of children and students still going on, or were they over by this time? Were there cameras in the classroom or halls? Were police inside the building aware of what was going on at that point?

–What would have happened if the parents were let in and they ended up being killed as well? Was that not very much a concern of the police – sort of like the way firefighters restrain parents from running back into a badly burning building?

Continue reading “”