Category: Politics

 

Colorado Democrats’ gun reform agenda is latest COVID casualty

Colorado House Rep. Tom Sullivan had a gun bill drafted and ready to introduce before the 2020 legislative session even started in January.

But now, his legislation requiring lost or stolen firearms to be reported is headed toward the chopping block, along with nearly 300 other bills claimed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Sullivan, an Aurora Democrat, isn’t giving up on House Bill 1356 or another bill on secure storage of guns because he made a promise to his supporters that he would get them through this year. But he also sees the writing on the wall. With only three weeks to get a budget and essential bills passed, Colorado House Democratic leaders say there isn’t time to debate changes to gun laws this year.

“I had said at the beginning of the session that the session would be a failure if I couldn’t get a single Republican to vote on either of the two bills,” Sullivan said. “It would be more of a failure if I don’t even get either of those bills to see the light of day.”

Sullivan’s bill would have required individuals to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement within 48 hours. The first offense would draw a fine and the second a misdemeanor………….

The gun loss or theft bill, along with the gun storage bill, House Bill 1355, were assigned to the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee where they are expected to be postponed indefinitely, or killed.

The secure storage bill would make unlawfully storing a firearm a misdemeanor. This would apply to guns stored where a minor can access them without permission from their parent and those stored in the residence of a person who isn’t allowed to have a firearm.

The Real Dangers of So Called ‘Tough On Crime Bills’

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Recently, GOA has been asked about bills such as H.R. 2837 that purport to “get tough on crime” by authorizing extended terms of imprisonment for offenses that involve firearms; irrespective of whether or not the offense was violent or possessory in nature. Gun Owners of America (GOA) has opposed bills of this sort for decades because they violate the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

However, what is truly unfortunate, is that some firearms owners think this type of legislation might be a good idea.

Many gun owners who diligently follow this issue, probably remember “Project Exile” which began in Richmond, Virginia in the mid-1990s with the stated goal of prosecuting those who commit “gun crimes” in Federal Court instead of the state court. The potential penalties for violating Federal law are generally harsher than state penalties.

Some gun owners reflexively supported “Project Exile” because after all, it was going after criminals — or was it?

There is now a new and updated “Project Exile” called “Project Guardian” and based on press releases issued by the US Department of Justice — “Project Guardian” is being used across the country. It is essentially the same anti-gun program with a catchy new name.

GOA’s long-standing position is that most people who were prosecuted under “Project Exile” were not violent criminals, but people who were caught up in the bureaucratic maze of anti-gun laws which are, at their core, unconstitutional intrusions on freedom. These programs significantly increase the likelihood that an otherwise law-abiding person will go to federal prison for committing a victimless, non-violent, technical violation of the law. And in many cases, gun owners will be confused because the technical “crimes” that gun owners will violate are actually legal activity in many states and at the federal level.

For example, carrying a gun without a license is perfectly lawful in seventeen states and under federal law. Possession of a magazine that holds more than ten cartridges is perfectly lawful in a majority of states and under federal law, as is the possession of “hollow-point ammunition,” which is perfectly lawful under federal law and in every state except New Jersey.

All of this begs the question: Are those convicted of violating these laws truly felons or are they victims of anti-gun, unconstitutional intrusions on freedom by states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other freedom-hating locales?

What about someone who is charged with dealing guns without a license? It is undisputed that individuals are free to sell-off their private property — including firearms. However, ATF has for decades, refused to say how many guns sold in private transactions constitute dealing without a license. How can an honest person follow the law if the enforcers of the law refuse to provide guidance?

H.R. 2837 even included this language, which seems to go after violent criminals but could also ensnare law-abiding gun owners in a trap:

“any group of convictions for which a court referred to in section 922(g)(1) imposed in the same proceeding or in consolidated proceedings a total term of imprisonment not less than 10 years, regardless of how many years of that total term the defendant served in custody.”

Many of the offenses described above carry a prison term of fewer than 10 years, but due to the language in the above example, it provides anti-gun judges with an incentive to impose consecutive, rather than concurrent sentences for possessing more than one magazine or hollow point cartridge. These offenses are strictly possessory offenses, meaning there was no violence and no victim other than the sensibilities of the leftists who enacted and enforce these laws.

Finally, this article would not be complete if I didn’t mention the case of Bruce Abramski, Jr. whose “straw purchase” conviction was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. What is particularly galling about this case is that Mr. Abramski purchased a firearm and passed the background check. Then because his uncle, Angel Alvarez, was a resident of a different state, Mr. Abramski, complied with federal law and turned the pistol over to a Pennsylvania FFL for ultimate transfer to Mr. Alvarez, who also passed a background check. If this were a true “straw purchase” Mr. Abramski would have merely handed the pistol over to Mr. Alvarez. The government’s position was that the transaction was a straw purchase because Mr. Alvarez paid for the gun. Yes, Mr. Alvarez did pay for the gun, but as the late Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent:

“The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it—especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused.”

Prior to the Abramski case, it was widely understood that a “straw purchase” only occurred when a person who was legally eligible to purchase a firearm did so and then turned the firearm over to someone who was prohibited from owning arms. That did not happen in the Abramski case.

When considering issues that can cause Americans to lose their freedom it is important to understand that there are two types of laws. Those which are malum in se refer to acts that are evil and wrong in and of themselves. Murder, rape, and assault are all examples of conduct that is malum in se. Other laws are malum prohibitum which means they criminalize victimless conduct that a legislator or bureaucrat dislikes. These include activities such as carrying a gun without a license, possessing hollow-point ammunition, possessing a magazine which holds more than a predetermined number of cartridges or even helping a relative — who is not a prohibited person, to obtain a handgun.

Gun owners and legislators need to be very careful when they say, “just enforce the existing laws” because in many cases, the existing laws were vigorously opposed by gun owners when they were moving through the legislative process. Only later, after they have been in effect for a few years, they are used as the vehicle to unconstitutionally disarm American Citizens in the name of “getting tough on crime”. This is exactly what happened in the Abramski case and will continue to happen if gun owners don’t stop asking for existing laws to be enforced.

Gun owners should instead demand that unconstitutional laws be erased from the statute books. Gun Owners of America will continue to be a leader and push for repeal of unconstitutional laws and the defeat of bills which treat firearms, rather than predatory criminals as the problem.

Texas Supreme Court: Lack of immunity to COVID-19 alone not enough to vote by mail
A federal appeals court is also considering the issue.

AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that lack of immunity to COVID-19 alone is not a physical disability that qualifies people to vote by mail.

The ruling is a victory for Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has argued that only a physical illness or disability that prevents voters from going to the polls should qualify people to vote by mail. It is a loss for the Texas Democratic Party and voting rights groups who had pushed for expanded mail voting during the coronavirus pandemic and had won temporary victories in lower courts.

The question of expanded mail voting is also being fought in federal courts, where an appeals court is considering whether to stay an order by a district judge that allowed those who lack immunity to COVID-19 to vote by mail.

The two cases are playing out at the same time and the legal battle is expected to continue as both sides argue about how to safely conduct the upcoming primary runoffs scheduled for July 14. Early voting in those elections begins June 29.

*Gasp* Horrors! Permitless Concealed Carry for Tennessee.

Tennessee lawmakers consider bills lifting Second Amendment restrictions

NASHVILLE, Tenn.–Several bills under consideration in the Tennessee General Assembly aim expanding certain Second Amendment rights.

At the top of the list on Wednesday is HB 2661, a bill which allows a person to carry a handgun in a concealed manner without the need for a concealed carry permit.

Under the bill, a person who legally owns a firearm could conceal carry the weapon, even at parks, venues of higher education, and other areas where concealed carry permit holders are allowed to carry.

Governor Bill Lee has previously supported legislation supporting concealed carry without a permit, stating in February he supported protecting the right of Tennesseans to bear arms.

“The Second Amendment is clear and concise and secures the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms,” Lee said. “I am pleased to announce Constitutional Carry legislation today that will protect the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans, while also stiffening penalties on criminals who steal or illegally possess firearms.”

Other bills being considered by committees in the Tennessee General Assembly are HB2536, which allows for civil suits to be filed against a person or government which “infringes upon a person’s right to bear arms” and requires the person or entity to “be liable for actual statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs.”

HB2298 and HB2102 also pertain to the Second Amendment, although they each focus on the ability of those with concealed handgun carry permits to carry at higher education campuses and public parks in the state.

Of course, they’re ‘wary’. But any crims out there to take on the police aren’t going to care about a piddly permit law anyway.

Law enforcement wary of proposed bill for people to carry a handgun without a permit

……… yesterday, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings and the Shelby County Crime Commission addressed this bill at the general assembly.

“With masks and guns, it almost would appear to be the wild wild west, and I definitely do not want that Memphis, and I don’t want that for the state of Tennessee,” Rallings said.

Rallings spoke out against a bill that would allow open and concealed carrying of a handgun for people 21 and older without a permit outside their home or personal property.

“Do you think if this legislation is passed that it would endanger the lives of the men and women on your force,” said Representative Bo Mitchell, Nashville.

“Yes,” Rallings said.

The bill passed 16 to 7 and will advance to the house finance committee.

It would also increase the crime of theft of a firearm from a misdemeanor to a felony.

This reduces municipal power to make places ‘gun free zones’

Louisiana House Bill 140

Louisiana-2020-HB140-Engrossed.pdf

Present law limits a political subdivision’s authority to enact certain ordinances or regulations involving firearms. In this regard, present law prohibits a governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation,license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.

However, present law further provides that this provision of present law does not apply to the authority of political subdivisions to prohibit the possession of a weapon or firearm in certain commercial establishments and public buildings.

Proposed law removes this exception from present law, prohibiting any governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the possession of a weapon or firearm in certain commercial establishments and public buildings.

 

Hobie must have rocked the vote there.

VA Democrat City Councils Flip to GOP in Response to Northam Gun Control

The city councils in Staunton and Waynesboro, Virginia, flipped from Democrat to Republican on Tuesday, as voters rejected Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D) gun control agenda.

Bearing Arms reported: “With little fanfare and almost no national attention, Virginians headed to the polls in local elections on Tuesday, and there was a stunning upset in one city that’s been dominated by Democrats in recent elections. Control of the Staunton City Council flipped from blue to red after a surge in turnout among Republican voters.”

Scumbaggery is just barely able to describe this.

The Obamagate Scandal Just Got Even Dirtier
Obama’s FBI Offered To Pay Christopher Steele To Dig Up Dirt on Mike Flynn.

British spy Christopher Steele was offered money by Obama’s FBI to dig up dirt on Michael Flynn. The proposal came in the weeks before the 2016 election. This offer hasn’t received any press until now and was first reported by The Daily Caller. “The inspector general’s report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to pay Steele ‘significantly’ to collect intelligence from three separate ‘buckets’ that the bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane, its counterintelligence probe of four Trump campaign associates.”

BI agents also wanted contact with “any individuals or sub sources” whom Steele could provide to “serve as cooperating witnesses to assist in identifying persons involved in the Trump campaign-Russian relationship.”

The Obama administration never had any empirical evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to testimony from top Obama officials

The revelation adds a new layer of intrigue to the Obamagate scandal. Recently released documents show that Steele “peddled an unfounded rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the United Kingdom.” Prior to this revelation, it was not known that Steele had investigated Mike Flynn. Steele, who used to work for MI6, the United Kingdom’s foreign intelligence service, was previously only known to have focused on Donald Trump, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen.

No Big Deal, Just Mueller’s Main Prosecutor — Actually, The Guy Who Ran the Whole Show — Headlining a Fundraiser for Joe Biden

13 Angry Democrats.

And 13 politically active Democrats, too!

A friend suggests that Andrew Weissman is taking this breathtakingly inappropriate action because he fears possible prosecution and wants to let half the jury pool know he’s on their side.

Supreme Court blocks House Dems’ efforts to get Mueller grand-jury info released

The Supreme Court temporarily denied a motion Wednesday from House Democrats to obtain grand-jury testimony and other documents from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation as they conduct what they’ve referred to as an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” into President Trump.

The court’s order kept undisclosed details from the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election out of the Democrats’ hands until at least early summer. Democrats have until June 1 to brief the court about whether the full case should be heard.

The Democrats had told the court Monday they were in an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” while arguing that Mueller’s now-completed Russia probe needed to be turned over as a result.

The [House Judiciary] Committee’s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial,” the Democrats told the nine justices. “If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles adopted by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”

They were seeking testimony, transcripts and exhibits to look into the possible influence over decisions made in the prosecutions of longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Stone was sentenced to three years in prison for obstructing Congress and other charges. The Justice Department moved to drop its case against Flynn after serious questions were raised about the nature of the investigation that led to his guilty plea of lying to the FBI.

The Trump administration has been reluctant to turn over further documents related to Mueller’s probe to House Democrats. DOJ officials said they turned over all relevant information, citing grand-jury rules for not providing unredacted material.

The agency argued that federal guidelines protected the secrecy of grand-jury materials and that the exception allowing the disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding” didn’t apply, especially given Trump’s acquittal by the Senate in an impeachment trial earlier this year.

Democrats said the preliminary impeachment hearings in the House constituted a pending judicial proceeding.

Trump pulls ATF nominee from consideration after GOP senators expressed frustration over gun answers

The White House announced that it was withdrawing Chuck Canterbury from being the nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

The withdrawal was announced to Congress on Tuesday. Canterbury is the former president of the Fraternal Order of Police and was nominated by the president to head the ATF last year. During his confirmation hearing last July, Canterbury upset some Republican lawmakers for being evasive about his answers on gun control.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham had called the vote on Canterbury’s nomination “very problematic,” according to the Washington Times. “I’ll have that up to them, but I think that one will be a problem,” the South Carolina Republican said.

During his hearing, Canterbury was repeatedly asked about his personal views on major gun control issues, but he only responded by saying he couldn’t express views outside the Fraternal Order of Police’s positions.

“I like straight answers, and you are being evasive,” GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told Canterbury. “You have been nominated to run ATF. I think every member of this panel, both my Democratic friends and Republican friends who have feelings about the Second Amendment, are entitled to know both morally and legally what you believe.”

Flashback:
“I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today. And let’s back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign. Nothing of the sort occurred, and we have heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI, who also pointed out that no president, no White House can order the surveillance of another American citizen.”

EXPLOSIVE RICE MEMO DECLASSIFIED

We have known for more than two years that, on the day of President Trump’s inauguration and just minutes before she left the White House for the last time, Susan Rice, then President Obama’s National Security Adviser, wrote a memo to herself about “Russia.” Specifically, she documented the fact, presumably for her later protection should the matter become public, that on January 5, 2017, President Obama had directed her to lie to her incoming counterpart, General Michael Flynn, about the Russia investigation that was then ongoing, in which General Flynn himself was, unbeknownst to him, one of the targets. This deception violated all historic norms, but it was vital if the Obama holdovers (James Comey et al.) were to be able to continue their “Russia investigation,” a bare pretext for unraveling Trump’s presidency, post-inauguration.

I wrote about Rice’s memo here. At that time, one key paragraph had been redacted from the memo. This is the text of the memo as we knew it two years ago:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC [intelligence community] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

Next comes the redacted paragraph, which was classified. It has now been declassified by Acting DNI Richard Grenell, in response to a request from Senators Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham:

Director Comey affirmed that he is processing “by the book” as it relates to law enforcement. From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied “potentially.” He added that he has no indication that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that “the level of communication is unusual.”

The memo concludes, as previously disclosed:

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

What is the significance of the newly-declassified paragraph? Several things stand out.

1) Rice fingered Comey as the person who supplied the basis for lying to her successor.

2) Note that Comey distinguished between the FBI’s law enforcement investigation and a separate “national security perspective.” It has been widely pointed out that Comey’s FBI carried out a criminal investigation against Trump and his associates in the guise of a national security investigation. They are quite different things, but Comey improperly merged the two. You can see the “national security perspective” offered as a distinct rationale in January 2017.

3) The stated grounds for lying to General Flynn were ridiculously weak. Comey claims that Flynn “is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.” How frequently? We have all heard about one telephone conversation. How many others were there? We don’t know. Comey admits, in any case, that Flynn hadn’t said anything untoward to the Ambassador, just as it was later admitted that in the one conversation that has been the subject of public focus, Flynn did nothing wrong. Nonetheless, because Comey claimed “the level of communication [was] unusual,” Obama’s officials should take the step–unprecedented, as far as I know–of lying to a new administration’s incoming national security staff.

4) Lying about what? Rice’s memo is notably discreet here. She refers twice to “information…as it relates to Russia.” What does she mean? Information about our military dispositions vis-a-vis the Russians, on the ground that Flynn might pass them on to the Russian Ambassador? Of course not. No doubt Flynn was filled in on all such matters, with no faux concern that he might traitorously pass them on to the Russians. No: Rice’s “Russia” means the “Russia investigation,” in all of its permutations, which now stands revealed as the Obama administration’s effort first to guarantee Hillary Clinton’s election, and, failing that, to disable the new Trump administration before it could get off the ground.

Rice foresaw that despite the Obama holdovers’ best efforts, the truth about their “Russia investigation” could come to light someday. If that happened, she wanted it to be on record that President Obama had authorized her to lie, on advice from James Comey. This is not surprising, but it fills an important gap in our understanding of the corruption of the Obama administration.

“Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime,” 

Okay. here’s my take on that crap-for-brains statement. Barr is simply another gubbermint minion trying to hold things together so the high level bureaucraps, and the president, can do what they want, when they want to do it in the future as they’ve done in the past.
He sort of reminds me of the civil servants in the English TV comedy ‘Yes Minister’ who feel their burden is to protect the status quo of the corrupt power acquired by gubbermint from a clueless executive.
If a former president could be prosecuted for what he did while in office, he believes the nation would see nothing but a never ending series of such when the presidency changed parties. He considers what Obammy did merely a bit more ‘over the top’ than what he’s previous seen, and probably considers the current uproar just standard operational political grandstanding.
He might be right about the latter, but then again, he might be wrong.

The problem with all this is, reverse the players and does anyone really believe that an AG Holder or Lynch wouldn’t prosecute the dickens out of Trump?

Trump’s attorney general dismisses possibility of ‘Obamagate’ investigations
William Barr says review of origins of Russia inquiry highly unlikely to lead to criminal investigation of Obama and Biden

As Donald Trump continued to propagate his “Obamagate” pseudo-scandal on Monday, the US attorney general, William Barr, said he did not expect a justice department review of the FBI’s handling of 2016 election interference to lead to the criminal investigation of Barack Obama or Joe Biden.

“As to President Obama and vice-president Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr said.

He was referring to federal prosecutor John Durham, who is reviewing the origins of the investigation of Russia’s 2016 election interference which expanded to include links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

“Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime,” Barr said.

With Biden the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in November, and leading in most polls, Trump has repeatedly referred to a supposed scandal he calls “Obamagate”, saying without evidence that his predecessor and his vice-president were tied to what he claims was “the biggest political crime in American history, by far!”

Without identifying who he was talking about, Barr said on Monday: “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”

When you have nothing else better to do. At least this might keep them so occupied they don’t pass any legislation.

House Dems Tell Supreme Court They’re Looking To Impeach Trump Again.

Just when you thought it was safe to turn on your TV set, House Democrats want to bring you a rehash of an old TV show; Russiagate Impeachment Two-American people zero. House Democrats are suing the DOJ to get their hands on all the redacted Grand Jury material from the Robert Mueller investigation. The DOJ is asking for a stay of the Democratic demand until the full case can be argued and decided. impeach Trump again.

On 5/18, the Democrats gave the Supreme Court their reasons for wanting to get their grubby hands on the ordinarily secretive Grand Jury testimony.

House Democrats told the Supreme Court (see below) on Monday that they are again in the midst of an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” as part of their “weighty constitutional responsibility” – and, the Democrats argued, redacted grand-jury material from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s now-completed Russia probe must be turned over as a result.

Per their argument embedded below, the Dems are worried that if a stay is granted, they won’t be able to impeach Trump before their terms run out:

If DOJ’s request for a stay is granted, DOJ need not file its certiorari petition until August 2020,1 and therefore this Court likely would not determine whether to grant or deny that petition until at least October 2020. This substantial delay will seriously endanger the Committee’s ability to complete its impeachment investigation during the current Congress –which ends not long thereafter on January 3, 2021

Obviously, they don’t care about this country if they want to put us through another bogus impeachment. The DOJ argues that the Dems already made America suffer through an impeachment.

There is no merit to DOJ’s additional argument that the Committee no longer has a particularized need for the requested grand-jury material because the President was impeached and acquitted on separate Articles of Impeachment several months ago. The Committee’s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial. The Committee “has continued and will  continue those investigations consistent with its own prior statements respecting their importance and purposes.” The withheld material remains central to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the President’s conduct. If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles adopted by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.

So what they are saying is so far they have nothing on the President, so they want to go fishing. They also mention that they wish to investigate Barr’s decisions regarding Roger Stone and General Flynn. I can’t wait to see that hearing. Barr will eviscerate Nadler to the point that his staple will fall out, and Nadler will blow up and fly like one of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade Balloons.

Robert Mueller, who is no supporter of President Trump, found no evidence supporting theories that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 election. In fact, recent reports suggest that John Brennan hid documents indicating that Putin wanted Hillary to win.

This Democratic Party suit is just their latest attempt to slander President Trump and possibly push him out of office in the 2020 election or before.  Sadly, they don’t have a real track record to run on, or care about the American people.

O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A     Oklahoma!!!!     O. K. !

Steagall Wins Passage of Nation’s First Anti-Red Flag Bill

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Jay Steagall, R-Yukon, on Friday won passage of the nation’s first anti-red flag bill in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a vote of 77-14.

Senate Bill 1081, The Anti-Red Flag Act, authored in the state Senate by Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, formerly won passage in that chamber with a vote of 34-9. It now moves to the governor for his consideration to be signed into law.

“This bill would stop any action from the federal government or even from local or state authorities that would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens,” Steagall said.

Steagall said the measure is necessary as a growing number of states have adopted such laws and federal legislative proposals have offered grants to compel states, counties or municipalities to enact policies that would allow a court or other entity to confiscate firearms or restrict gun access to otherwise law-abiding citizens deemed to be an imminent danger.

“People already endure background checks, age regulations and other measures that serve as a check on whether they are deemed eligible to own or operate a firearm,” Steagall said. “Giving the government even more power over this decision is a flagrant violation of several rights guaranteed us under the United States Constitution. I find it impossible for any red-flag law to respect due process or the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I have taken the oath to protect our Constitution seven times throughout my 22 years of service and nine deployments in the military, an oath that I take very seriously. I will not stand idly by and let this freedom be stripped from us.”

Besides getting rid of people in his administration he has good reason to distrust (Obama appointees, and to point out Obama and Clinton did exactly the same thing, but simply on their first day in office) I said it quite awhile ago; Trump is trolling the demoncraps with these dismissals of people who serve at his pleasure.
He’s got them figured out and knows just how, and when, to push their buttons to make them pull their hair and scream. And they can’t help but respond in hysterics, which is exactly what he wants them to do. It’s not something new for him for from what I can tell, he developed this into a fine art during his years in the construction business.

Heads Exploding in Washington as Trump Fires State Department IG

Donald Trump sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi informing her that he was firing state department inspector general Steve Linick.

The president told Pelosi he “no longer” had the “fullest confidence” in Linick and promised to send a nominee to the Hill shortly. Later, the state department announced that Amb. Stephen Akard, a career foreign service officer, would run the inspector general’s office. Akard was chief of staff for the Indiana Economic Development Corporation under then-governor Pence.

Linick was appointed in 2013 by President Obama and angered Trump by having a role in the impeachment drama. He was also said to be investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for alleged misuse of a political appointee to perform personal tasks for him and Mrs. Pompeo.

Naturally, Democrats’ heads were exploding all over the Hill.

Politico:

“The president’s late-night, weekend firing of the State Department inspector general has accelerated his dangerous pattern of retaliation against the patriotic public servants charged with conducting oversight on behalf of the American people,” Pelosi said in an statement. “Inspector General Linick was punished for honorably performing his duty to protect the Constitution and our national security, as required by the law and by his oath.”

Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, called Linick’s dismissal an “outrageous act of a president trying to protect one of his most loyal supporters, the secretary of State, from accountability.”

The Truth About 3-D Printed Guns and Criminal Gun Usage

Gun control activists have found a new target to go after: 3-D printed guns.

Why? It’s an easy scapegoat to lay blame on, just like every proposed gun control policy mulled before Congress and state legislatures.

This effort is attributed to two things: the reintroduction of Senator Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) “Untraceable Firearms Act,” and a recent ‘60 Minutes’ CBS report claiming criminals overwhelmingly prefer them when committing crimes. The former, if passed, would ban the manufacture and sale of “ghost guns.”

Giffords, a gun control organization operated by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), just launched a campaign against these firearms. Unsurprisingly, the organization and its senior policy advisor, David Chipman, are spreading misinformation about them.

In a recent blog post titled Ghost Guns Are Specifically Designed for Criminals, the retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) special agent claimed, “These days, we’re seeing an alarming new trend among criminals and firearm traffickers: ghost guns. Not enough people are talking about this growing threat, and that’s got to change.”

He added,“Why do criminals love ghost guns? That’s a no-brainer. It makes their jobs easier.”

Congressional Democrats, Giffords, and ‘60 Minutes’ are intentionally deceiving the public about 3-D guns. Let’s explore the facts about them and their alleged primary use in gun crimes.

No Evidence 3-D Guns Predominantly Used in Crime

While “ghost guns” were recently trafficked and used in last year’s Saugus school shooting, there’s no evidence suggesting they’re a criminal’s to-go gun.

For example, a January 2019 survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found criminals didn’t readily use “ghost guns” in perpetrated crimes. The survey, Source And Use Of Firearms Involved In Crimes: Survey Of Prison Inmates, 2016, concluded of the 287,400 prisoners surveyed who possessed guns during their offense 56 percent had stolen them, 6 percent had found the firearms at the scene of the crime, 43 percent obtained it from the black market or illegal means while 25 percent were gifted the guns by family members or friends. A mere 7 percent of respondents surveyed had purchased guns from federal firearms license dealers (FFL).

According to a 2016 Chicago Inmate Survey of Gun Access and Use (CIS) from University of Chicago Crime Lab, Windy City criminals primarily obtained firearms from strangers (34.4%), theft (31.7%), friends/family (26.7%), gangs (22.6%), straw purchases (20.8%), and on the street (19.7%).

Even the ATF officer featured in the ‘60 Minutes’ special, Thomas Chittum, couldn’t say the number of “ghost guns” used in crimes. In fact, he admitted they constitute a minority of guns involved:

Bill Whitaker:  How many of these guns are on the streets, you have no idea?

Thomas Chittum: Uh, no, I have no idea.

Bill Whitaker: And how many crimes are being committed by these guns, you have no idea?

Thomas Chittum: Well, not with precision. They still represent a minority of the firearms that are being used in crimes. But we do see that they’re increasing significantly and rapidly.

3D Printed Guns are Already Highly-Regulated

‘60 Minutes’ also claimed, “…federal gun law only regulates a part, called a frame or a lower receiver.”

That’s simply incorrect.

In order to manufacture and sell these custom built firearms, one must obtain a special license from the ATF. Their website states, “Any person “engaged in the business” as a manufacturer must obtain a license from ATF.”

Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski tweeted this in response to the CBS report, “To be clear, it is currently not legal for prohibited persons (like convicted felons) to build their own firearms. Nor is it legal to sell guns you’ve manufactured yourself unless you have a license. It is legal for the law-abiding people to build their own guns for personal use.”

Law-Abiding Americans Have Been Building Guns Since USA’s Inception

The concept of custom-building firearms, most recently with popular semi-automatic Armalite Rifles (AR-15s), isn’t new. In fact, people have been designing and modifying firearms for personal use essentially since our nation’s inception.

Per ATF rules, “An individual may generally make a firearm for personal use.”

Criminals using “ghost guns” in crimes are generally prohibited possessors who shouldn’t be in possession of them in the first place. How does regulating these firearms in question, which already have strident restrictions placed on them, any further deter criminals? It won’t.

3-D Printed Technology is Expensive and Not Easy to Acquire

It’s very hard for individuals—let alone criminals—to obtain 3-D printed guns. They don’t come cheap nor are they easy to procure and possess.

In an op-ed for 3DPrint.com, a self-described leading authority on 3-D printed technology, Scott J. Gruenald wrote, “…making a 3D printed gun is not easy, it is not quick, it is not cheap and it does not result in especially dangerous or deadly weapons. Not only is it cheaper to just buy a real gun in the United States, but it is also probably a lot faster to go buy one, even with any state-mandated waiting periods.”

Conclusion

Criminals will use whatever tool is at their disposal—be it a 3-D printed AR-15, handgun, or knife—to inflict pain onto their victims. Unfortunately for gun controllers, none of their beloved laws or bills have deterred criminals from committing ghastly acts. In fact, they have invited more crime.

It’s time for our opponents finally to get serious about tackling criminal misuse of firearms, not scapegoat 3D printed firearms.

BLOOMBERG LOOKS TO BUY MORE SEATS

Gun control politicians just can’t seem to wean themselves off their addiction to Bloomberg money.

Everytown for Gun Safety, which is funded by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, announced it will spend $13 million to flip federal and state level election seats currently held by pro-Second Amendment policymakers in Texas and Arizona. Brady Campaign’s Brady PAC announced it will sink funds into the effort, at a half a million dollars.

It’s Bloomberg’s continued effort to campaign to bring the New York-style gun control agenda he adores to every state. He did it in Virginia and he’s looking to repeat. If gun control isn’t passed, he’ll just buy the legislatures.

Bloomberg is only living up to his word. He admitted as much during a presidential townhall, that he bought congressional seats in 2018. The failed 2020 Democratic presidential candidate has demonstrated his hypocrisy on Second Amendment rights and who deserves them. Voters demonstrably rejected him, but he’s not going away.

Bloomberg and his pet project gun control groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action pledged to spend millions to help ensure former Vice President Joe Biden leads the most antigun presidential ticket in history, hoping to flip state legislatures along the way.

Shiny Lone Star
Voters in the Lone Star state heard an earful of the Bloomberg groups’ antigun narrative before and roundly rejected it. Texans approve of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and another popular statewide elected, Attorney General Ken Paxton, when they came through for thousands of Texas small businesses and employees. Gov. Abbott deemed firearm retailers “essential” during the coronavirus pandemic, allowing them to stay open for business. AG Paxton prevented counties and cities from enacting their own restrictions on gun stores.

Don’t forget former Texas U.S. Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s (D-Texas) disastrous failures running for the U.S. Senate in 2018 on a gun confiscation platform against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). He crashed and burned only to turn his efforts to the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. His gun-grabbing pronouncements fell flat nationally, but impressed presumed Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Flipping the Lone Star state will be a tall order for Bloomberg and his buddies.

Arizona Closer, And President Trump Helps Gun Owners
Also on Everytown’s radar is Arizona, where the group has earmarked $5 million. The Republican-controlled state legislatures are both closer in margins than Texas, with pro-Second Amendment legislators holding a two-seat advantage in the state House of Representatives and a four-seat advantage in the state Senate.

Signs point to a tough reelection ahead for Republican U.S. Sen Martha McSally against Democratic challenger Mark Kelly, husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), co-Founder of Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, another gun control group. Voters will undoubtedly be fired up and President Donald J. Trump carried the Grand Canyon state by four points in 2016. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey isn’t on the ballot, remaining in office past November in case a veto check is needed ahead.

Trying to Pull a 2019 Virginia
The gun control groups are trying to replicate the playbook from Virginia last year, where the off-year elections swung the Commonwealth’s legislature to Democrat majorities for the first time in two decades. Bloomberg dumped $2.5 million in that effort. The result was a wave of gun control policies signed by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam. But positive signs showed for pro-Second Amendment voters for elections ahead as tens of thousands of lawful gun owners peacefully protested the legislature’s overreach at the capitol in Richmond. Courts ruled Gov. Northam overstepped his authority by closing some firearm businesses.

No one knows how 2020 will shake out with former Vice President Joe Biden likely leading the most antigun ticket in history. But Virginia’s 2019 elections did not see President Trump on the ballot and he’s been a staunch Second Amendment supporter and stood by firearm retailers and workers throughout the coronavirus pandemic. He will be a loud supportive voice ahead.

One thing’s certain, voters are tuning in and hundreds of thousands are now first-time firearm owners. NSSF launched the #GUNVOTE online resource so voters know exactly where candidates stand on firearm issues and what they’ve said in the past. It’s a valuable resource for Americans to make sure they don’t risk their rights at the ballot box.

‘Rules for Thee, but Not For Me’ corrupt demoncrap elitism strikes again.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker acknowledges family members have been in Florida and Wisconsin during coronavirus shutdown

Gov. J.B. Pritzker for the first time Friday acknowledged his wife and daughter were in Florida before Illinois’ statewide stay-at-home order took effect in March and just recently returned to Chicago.

He said he was being “very private and very reserved” about his family “because there are threats to my safety and to their safety.

“You have seen that there are people that stand outside the Thompson Center and stand outside the Capitol in Springfield, holding, I mean, hateful signs that reference me personally and that suggest, if not say, but suggest the potential for violence,” he said.

On April 29, Pritzker testily responded to a question about a Patch.com report that his wife and family had gone to Florida amid the governor’s stay-at-home orders.

“My official duties have nothing to do with my family. So, I’m not going to answer that question. It’s inappropriate and I find it reprehensible,” he said of stories about his family.

That response prompted an outcry from Republican and right-leaning groups that the Democratic governor’s own wife wasn’t heeding the mandates of Pritzker’s stay-at-home order, though Pritzker never imposed an outright travel ban for residents.

“If his family can’t even heed the guidance of his own stay at home order, how does he expect Illinois voters to do the same?” said a May 4 email from the Republican National Committee with the subject line: “Governor Pritzker can’t take the heat.”

Pritzker said on Friday he hoped that an unnamed Republican super political action committee “that’s pushing stories like this about my family, would stop doing it because they are putting my children and family in danger.”

But he also acknowledged his family had only recently left Florida, where they had been staying since at least early March, before his stay-at-home order was issued. He owns an equestrian farm there.