Category: Law & Order

Soros-backed prosecutor Kimberly Gardner resigns from St. Louis office amid scandal

A scandal-ridden prosecutor backed by billionaire George Soros announced she is resigning as the Missouri attorney general moved to have her forcibly removed from her office.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, the city’s top prosecutor, confirmed her resignation in a letter just days after she defiantly declared “I ain’t leaving.”

Both Republicans and Democrats across Missouri have demanded her resignation for years, accusing her office of dysfunction and mishandling cases.

Her resignation is effective June 1.

Earlier this year, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey had filed a petition quo warranto to forcibly remove Gardner from her office over repeated instances where her office allegedly failed to enforce the law.

Bailey told Fox News that nearly 12,000 criminal cases have been dismissed under Gardner.

He also says more than 9,000 cases have been tossed just before going to trial, forcing judges to dismiss more than 2,000 cases due to what Bailey described as a failure to provide defendants with evidence and speedy trials.

Despite her resignation, Bailey said he still intends to move forward in his effort to remove Gardner from office.

“There is absolutely no reason for the circuit attorney to remain in office until June 1,” Bailey told Fox News in a statement. “We remain undeterred with our legal quest to forcibly remove her from office. Every day she remains puts the city of St. Louis in more danger. How many victims will there be between now and June 1? How many defendants will have their constitutional rights violated? How many cases will continue to go unprosecuted?”

Gardner refused to step down for months, blasting Bailey’s efforts a political “witch hunt” and a form of “voter suppression,” according to Fox. Gardner, the first Black female prosecutor in the city, has also accused her critics of racism and sexism.

In February, Missouri house members passed a bill that would give the governor the ability to strip the authority of any elected prosecutor to handle violent crime cases.

The bill initially targeted Gardner, but was later amended to extend to any elected prosecutors across the state following concerns singling out one prosecutor would be unconstitutional, according to the Missouri Independent.

“The most recent bill is part of a coordinated, long-standing strategy to undermine me and my efforts to make the City of St. Louis safer and fairer. Since day one of my tenure as Circuit Attorney, I have experienced attacks on my reforms, on my judgment, my integrity, on my prosecutorial discretion, on my responsibility to direct the limited resources of this office and more,” Gardner wrote in her resignation letter.

“ … I cannot be the final Circuit Attorney ever to be elected in St. Louis. You must be able to have a voice in your criminal justice system. And we must allow our office to continue to operate.

“The most powerful weapon I have to fight back against these outsiders stealing your voices and your rights is to step back. I took this job to serve the people of the City of St. Louis, and that’s still my North Star,” she wrote.

Gardner is additionally facing two contempt of court cases against her after no one from her team showed up for several high-profile prosecutions, including a murder.

Judge Michael Noble announced last week he would appoint a special prosecutor to build the a case against Gardner.

“It appears that Ms. Gardner has complete indifference and a conscious disregard for the judicial process,” Noble said, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Gardner’s office resembled a “rudderless ship of chaos,” he added.

It’s unclear if the contempt hearings will be dropped.

Several assistant prosecutors recently left Garner’s long understaffed office, according to Fox News. Her dysfunctional office had been long-plagued with personnel issues and low morale.

In her resignation letter, Gardner claimed her office faced an “onslaught” of records requests “that no office in the country could reasonably fulfill” as well as “attacks on our hard-working line attorneys designed to demoralize these public servants.

“There is no sign that the onslaught would stop for as long as I am in office,” she said.

Gardner was among the first prosecutors Democratic mega-donor Soros bankrolled in 2016 and then again during her 2020 re-election campaign, where she received 60 percent of the vote.

The controversial attorney announced last month that she will be running for a third term despite the backlash against her.

When You Don’t Police Crime, Civilians Will

This week, the media found its latest iteration of its favorite narrative: white man harms black man.

That iteration featured a 24-year-old white Marine from Queens attempting to suppress a 30-year-old homeless, psychotic black man, Jordan Neely, via use of a suppression hold. Neely was apparently threatening people on the subway when the Marine took him down from behind, keeping him in the suppression hold for 15 minutes; Neely died shortly thereafter.

The extraordinarily inflammatory and insipid Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., immediately rushed to Twitter in order to gin up outrage: “Jordan Neely was murdered. But bc Jordan was houseless and crying for food in a time when the city is raising rents and stripping services to militarize itself while many in power demonize the poor, the murderer gets protected w/ passive headlines + no charges. It’s disgusting.”

Meanwhile, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine tweeted, “I saw Jordan Neely perform his Michael Jackson routine many times on the A train. He always made people smile. Our broken mental health system failed him. He deserved help, not to die in a chokehold on the floor of the subway.”

So, who was Neely? A career criminal. He wasn’t just shouting threats at passengers—he had been arrested more than 40 times in the past. Those arrests ranged from drugs to disorderly conduct to fare beating. When he died, he carried an outstanding warrant for assaulting a 67-year-old woman. A bevy of people apparently report that he had attempted to shove people onto subway tracks more than once.

Why was Neely out on the streets? It was clear to everyone that he was a mentally ill psychotic man with a serious drug record, a rap sheet longer than the phone book, and an alleged history of violent incidents. The answer is that the city of New York has decided no longer to prosecute crime. To do so might raise the unpalatable spectacle of racial disparity in crime statistics—and it is apparently more important to preserve egalitarianism in arrest statistics than to take active threats off the streets.

The consequences of such idiocy are dire, for both the general public and for people like Neely. How long can the authorities in New York expect everyday citizens to experience hostile and violent encounters before taking action?

Commentator Toure tweeted, “It is normal to see loud, disturbing mental breakdowns on the NYC subway. I’m not defending that; I’m saying it’s a regular occurrence. What’s not normal is to murder people having loud, disturbing mental breakdowns.”

But short of prophecy, how can those watching such a breakdown, complete with threats against others, know who is harmless and who isn’t? Normally such questions are outsourced to law enforcement. When law enforcement is prevented from doing its job, crime rises—and citizens are forced to engage in acts of self-defense.

All of this would be perfectly obvious were Neely white and the Marine black in this case; then, the media and political class would declare the Marine a hero for protecting others on the subway car. But the narrative must be preserved—the lie that crime by minority members must be ignored for the greater good of society, lest response to such crime facilitate systemic racism.

Often, it’s innocent victims who pay the price. In the case of Jordan Neely, it was the criminal himself, who never would have died were the system rational enough to have policed him decently years ago.

Suspect In Texas Massacre Arrested After Days-Long Manhunt

Law enforcement agents arrested a person believed to be responsible for killing five of his neighbors with a rifle in their Texas home. A person believed to be Francisco Oropesa, 38, was apprehended in Cut and Shoot, Texas, according to multiple reports.

Oropesa is and illegal alien who has been deported multiple times.

Officials said they’re awaiting fingerprints to confirm the person arrested is Oropesa, who has been taken to the Montgomery County Jail and charged with first-degree murder.

The FBI, and others, had offered a $80,000 reward for information. It was unclear if the apprehension was based off a tip form the public.

The incident occurred four days ago when Oropesa went to the Trails End area home in Cleveland, approximately 45 miles north of Houston, and opened fire, according to the San Jacinto County Sheriff’s Office.

Oropesa allegedly opened fire on neighbors after one complained that shots coming from his adjacent property were keeping an infant from sleeping.

 

This merely follows Federal Law.
What I always find interesting is that some law that benefits the people, like permitless or shall issue concealed carry, always takes months to become effective, but any criminal law that can be used against a citizen is always effective immediately.

New Indiana law redefines ‘machine gun’ to include conversion switches

A new state law makes it illegal for Hoosiers to attach to their firearms a “switch,” or any similar device, that enables fully automatic shooting with a single pull of the trigger.

Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb approved the revised state definition of “machine gun” in House Enrolled Act 1365 on Thursday after the legislation was endorsed 71-23 by the Republican-controlled House and 45-4 in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Rep. Kendell Culp, R-Rensselaer, and Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, are the only Northwest Indiana lawmakers to not support the proposal.

The statute took effect upon the governor signing it into law.

Advocates for the measure said the plastic switches, also known as Glock switches, are being purchased or 3-D printed throughout the state and increasingly used to convert regular guns into machine guns — with deadly consequences.

“It’s very difficult to control a firearm with one of these devices attached to it. So our constituents’ homes, businesses, cars and our constituents themselves are being caught in the crossfire,” said sponsor Rep. Mitch Gore, D-Indianapolis.

“These devices allow shooters to fire off dozens of rounds in just a matter of seconds. When police respond to these shootings, they are quite literally being outgunned.”

The mere possession of a switch already was illegal under federal law. The new Indiana law ensures that any person with a switch attached to their gun is subject to a variety of state penalty enhancements for the possession or use of a machine gun.

“As a career law enforcement officer and a representative of a district that has seen several instances of gun violence, I know this bill will save the lives of citizens and cops alike and make our streets safer for Hoosier families,” Gore said.

In a statement, Gore thanked his Statehouse colleagues, especially the strong Second Amendment supporters, for recognizing the importance of holding accountable people who illegally convert their standard firearms into machine guns.

“The significance of passing a piece of bipartisan gun legislation in Indiana is not lost on me,” he said. “I also want to thank Governor Holcomb for signing this bill and helping the General Assembly keep families safe while respecting Hoosiers and their constitutional rights.”

Additional supporters include the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council.

Second Amendment Scholar Challenges Gun Control Narrative, Says It Increases Racial Bias In Criminal Justice

By Leo Wolfson, State Politics Reporter

An African American Second Amendment scholar is bringing a perspective challenging many of the mainstream narratives that firearms increase crime in America. Instead, he believes gun control laws exacerbate racial bias in the criminal justice system.

“We need to take a harder look at those programs, rather than pursuing what we call the modern orthodoxy,” said Nicholas Johnson at the University of Wyoming’s Firearm Research Center on Thursday night. “The community would be better if we took a case-by-case policy look. We need a hard-look approach that is pursued with rigor.”

He questions gun control laws from a perspective he acknowledges many will find uncomfortable, showing a connection to racial and criminal justice questions. He said those who believe bias pervades the criminal justice system should also be opposed to the modern gun control movements, where he says the same biases translate into gun law enforcement.

In his “A Race-Sensitive Hard Look at Firearms and the Black Community” presentation, Johnson explains that studies show many of the same laws leading to disproportionate incarceration of African Americans and other minorities are interconnected with gun control laws that Democrats and many of the same people impacted by the policies support.

“The conservative tough on crime policies cross paths with the liberal paths to solve gun control at all costs,” he said. “Conservatives and liberal progressives have tried to outdo each other to be progressively punitive.”

The Fordham University School of Law professor wants lawmakers to consider firearms regulation from a new lens.

Continue reading “”

Man killed in a deputy-involved shooting in Greene County, Mo.

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3) -A man is dead after a shooting involving Greene County Sheriff’s Deputies Friday morning. The deputies were called to a convenience store in the 5000 block of West Sunshine west of the Springfield city limits at 8:13 a.m. after a clerk identified a woman involved in a previous theft.

The woman ran across the road to an abandoned house. The deputies went to check the house and encountered the woman. She came out at 8:35 a.m. and was taken into custody.

The deputies then found a man who was holding a gun to his head. Sheriff Jim Arnott said the man told deputies “to shoot me, I’m not going back.” The deputies shot the man after he lunged at them. Arnott said the deputies administered first aid, but the man died.

Arnott said it is not known if the man shot at deputies. The sheriff’s critical investigative team which consists of the Christian, Greene, Lawrence and Webster County Sheriff’s Offices is now investigating. The two deputies are on administrative leave which is standard protocol when they are involved in a shooting.

“The deputies are obviously upset, shaken but they are not wounded. The sad news is they had to take a life,” said Arnott.

Arnott said a nearby neighbor stopped and said they had items stolen and the neighbor believes those items are inside the house. “I would assume that we will recover some stolen property,” said Arnott.

The names of the man and the woman haven’t been released.

Open that box………………..
(and I figure they probably have more substantial charges…. and evidence)

At least two Republican DAs want to prosecute the Bidens.

WASHINGTON — At least two local GOP prosecutors are looking at ways to charge President Biden and his family amid Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed Wednesday.

“I had two calls yesterday, one from a county attorney in Kentucky and one from a county attorney in Tennessee,” Comer (R-Ky.) told “Fox & Friends.” “They were Republican, obviously, both states are heavily Republican. They want to know if there are ways they can go after the Bidens now.”

Comer is leading a House Republican investigation into Joe Biden’s role in his family’s international business dealings in countries such as China and Ukraine. The lawmaker’s staff recently reviewed Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks to the Treasury Department regarding possible criminal activity by the Biden family.

There are a number of possible legal theories under which President Biden and his relatives could face non-federal criminal charges — after Bragg, a Democrat, unfurled a novel legal theory Tuesday to charge Trump, who is the leading candidate to run against Biden in the 2024 election.

President Biden is already under federal investigation by special counsel Robert Hur for his alleged mishandling of classified documents dating to his vice presidency and Senate tenure. Biden also repeatedly involved himself in his son Hunter and brother James’ foreign business relations during and after his eight years as vice president — which are also a focus of a federal criminal investigation into Hunter Biden.

The first son, 53, has for years been under investigation by the US Attorney’s Office in Delaware for tax fraud, money laundering, illegal foreign lobbying and lying about his drug use on a gun purchase form. Hunter wrote in communications retrieved from his former laptop that he handed over as much as “half” of his income to his father. The FBI has been in possession of the laptop since December 2019.

Republican legal activists last week told The Post they expect Republican prosecutors to target the Bidens after Bragg made history by bringing the first-ever criminal case against a former president — perhaps by citing uncharged federal offenses, as Bragg did.

“You can be sure that there are prosecutors across Florida and Texas right now who are looking for a state law hook into the Biden family,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “And if they’re not, they’re not doing their jobs.”

Mike Davis, a former chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee and president of the Article III Project, floated legal theories for possible prosecutions.

“I think our Republican AGs and DAs should get creative,” Davis said.

“You just need probable cause. A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. We just saw that in New York. And the Bidens actually committed real crimes. These are real crimes that the Bidens committed. There is smoking-gun evidence that the Bidens were corruptly and illegally on Chinese and Ukrainian oligarchs’ payrolls.”

Davis pointed to Hunter and James Biden’s partnership with CEFC China Energy in 2017 and 2018, which also allegedly involved Joe Biden, as potential grounds for charges.

An October 2017 email from first son Hunter Biden’s laptop identifies Joe Biden as a participant in a call about Chinese energy company CEFC’s attempt to purchase US natural gas — an effort that appears to have had corporate links to both Louisiana and Texas. A May 2017 email referred to the “big guy” getting a 10% cut in the business partnership, and Joe Biden allegedly met with one of his son’s partners the same month.

“I understand the Bidens may have had some oil and gas deals that deal with Texas. I think maybe Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton should start looking at this long and hard … and Louisiana with [Republican state Attorney General Jeff] Landry,” Davis told The Post. “Paxton and Landry, they need to look at this. And if you can find a conspiracy and any of the overt acts of a conspiracy are committed in any of those states, you can bring charges.”

Hunter and James Biden ultimately received at least $4.8 million in 2017 and 2018 from CEFC — a since-defunct arm of Beijing’s foreign-influence “Belt and Road” initiative — according to a Washington Post review of laptop records.

Joe Biden also met as vice president with his relatives’ associates from Mexico, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine — and Hunter’s boss from a different Chinese business venture called BHR Partners, which was formed in 2013 within weeks of Hunter Biden joining his father aboard Air Force Two for an official trip to Beijing.

Davis added that Republican prosecutors should review whether their jurisdictions have “long-arm” corruption statutes and whether the Bidens might owe state taxes for work performed within their borders.

“If you are making money in a state and you’re liable for state taxes, you’re not paying them — sure [that’s illegal],” he said. “These Republican state attorneys general and Republican DAs and Republican prosecutors need to make sure that any and all allegations against the Bidens get a full and fair consideration.”

Bragg on Tuesday charged Trump, 76, with 34 felonies for allegedly falsifying business records by not accurately describing hush-money payments to women alleging affairs in 2016. That charge ordinarily would be a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations, but Bragg elevated the counts to felonies by alleging the infraction occurred to conceal federal campaign finance violations.

Federal candidates are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on their own campaigns, but then-Trump fixer Michael Cohen would have exceeded the federal contribution limit if he used his own money to pay $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels and $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal, whose story was purchased by the National Enquirer in a “catch and kill” contract.

Cohen in 2018 pleaded guilty to unrelated tax evasion charges and to making unlawful campaign contributions by brokering the payments. Trump at the time said Cohen was admitting to non-existent crimes to get lesser punishment for his other offenses.

Bragg said at a press conference Tuesday that he was prosecuting Trump because “we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct” — even though the progressive prosecutor has downgraded more than half of felony cases in New York to misdemeanors.

The Justice Department previously chose not to prosecute Trump on the campaign finance charge following its failure in 2012 to convict former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), who used more than $1 million in donor money to conceal his relationship and love child with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter.

Trump could face additional criminal charges in three other investigations — one in Georgia into his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and two federal probes overseen by special counsel Jack Smith: one into Trump’s actions ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and another into his handling of classified records after leaving office.

Under Bruen’s “Text/History/Tradition” standard, I’m not the only one who thinks this is will be ripe for being ruled unconstitutional

Encounter with Yuma Police Officer and the Hughes Amendment

Normally, I make appearances on the Russ Clark Show, a local radio show with a national audience, once a week in the studio. One morning, after finishing the drive-time radio show, I walked out to my vehicle, ready to take on the rest of the day. As I approached my vehicle, I saw a Yuma City Police vehicle approaching in the parking lot of the radio station.

I opened my vehicle door and reached inside for a camera, as I thought pictures of such a police car might be useful for future articles. As I was half inside the vehicle, I noticed the police car pull up in front of me with the window rolled down. The officer said, “Are you Mr. Weingarten?” I said I was.

The Hughes Amendment was passed under dubious circumstances as part of the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986.  Second Amendment supporters, particularly in the NRA, had been working for years to reform the more odious overreach of the 1968 Gun Control Act. The leadership in the Congress, controlled by Democrats, was opposed, even though a majority of the Congress was willing to vote in the reforms.

The NRA was able to invoke a seldom used rule, a discharge petition. If a majority of House members would sign a petition to bring the reform bill to a vote, the leadership could be overruled.

Police who know of the Hughes Amendment are deep into the gun culture.

The Hughes Amendment has been interpreted to forbid sales of full-auto firearms to ordinary citizens if the firearms did not have a tax stamp prior to 1986, with some relatively minor and expensive exceptions (such as a license to manufacture).

I told the officer I was aware of the Hughes Amendment. I had listened to the original, crucial, and seeming underhanded vote in the House, and I would probably discuss it on the radio at some time.  It appears the vote was done legally if done with a dubious voice vote. Here is a video of the debate and the Amendment:

The officer assured me many officers were strong proponents of the Second Amendment and hated seeing infringements such as the Hughes Amendment.

Several police officers have communicated similar comments. They are a minority of officers, but they are not irrelevant. Some officers have complained of being used as political props during debates about Second Amendment issues, for example, being ordered to attend City Council meetings as a show of support when restrictive gun measures are being debated.

They are usually required, by their jobs, not to voice political opinions while on duty. Their politically appointed bosses, as police chiefs, are not so restricted. Police chief voices nearly universally reflect the political preferences of the politicians who hired or appointed them.

This is why it is much more common to see Sheriffs support the Second Amendment than police chiefs. Sheriffs are elected directly by the people. They are more accountable.

Manhattan parking garage worker grazed in head,  wrestled gun away and shot suspected crook will not be charged by the Manhattan DA…at this time.

After a Midtown Manhattan parking garage attendant shot a would-be thief with the suspect’s own gun during a struggle, cops charged both men with attempted murder — but prosecutors are not pursuing the case against the worker.

Despite the initial charges filed by the NYPD, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office is not prosecuting the garage attendant in the bloody Saturday morning clash, pending further investigation, a spokesperson said………….

 

Bodycam Footage of Nashville Cops Taking Out Trans Shooter Released.

“MNPD Officers Rex Engelbert, a 4-year veteran, and Michael Collazo, a 9-year veteran, were part of a team of officers who responded to the Covenant Church/School campus Monday morning and immediately entered the building. Both of those officers fired on the shooter, who was killed,” reads the department’s description of the footage on Twitter. “This is their body camera footage.”

 

More Caught Illegally Crossing Southern Border in 1 Year of Biden Than Entire Trump Presidency.

“Our top priority is to keep terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States.” So says the website of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The same webpage that makes this declaration includes a table that provides some relevant data for the fiscal years from 2017 to 2023. It lists how many individuals on the Terrorist Screening Dataset (commonly known as the “terrorist watchlist”) were encountered by the Border Patrol as they were trying to illegally sneak into the United States between the ports of entry on our southern border.

The Terrorist Screening Dataset, says the webpage, “originated as the consolidated terrorist watchlist to house information on known or suspected terrorists (KSTs) but has evolved over the last decade to include additional individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watchlisted individuals.”

In fiscal year 2017, when Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, the Border Patrol encountered just two individuals on the terrorist watchlist trying to sneak across the southern border between the ports of entry. In fiscal year 2018, it encountered six. In fiscal year 2019, it encountered none; and, in fiscal year 2020, it encountered three.

In fiscal year 2021, the year President Joe Biden was inaugurated, there was a substantial shift in the trend. That year, the number of individuals on the terrorist watchlist that the Border Patrol encountered trying to sneak across the southern border increased fivefold to 15.

Then, in fiscal year 2022, it climbed to 98. So far in fiscal year 2023, which isn’t even half over yet, the Border Patrol has encountered 69 individuals on the terrorist watchlist trying to sneak across our southern border between the ports of entry.

How many on the terrorist watchlist have actually succeeded in illegally crossing our southern border into the United States? There is no way to know.

What we do know is that it only took 19 foreign terrorists who had made their way into the United States to hijack four domestic flights on Sept. 11, 2001.

While the Border Patrol managed to catch 98 on the terrorist watchlist trying to illegally cross our southern border between the ports of entry last year, is it possible there were 19 the Border Patrol did not catch?

There has also been a massive upward trend in the number of aliens the Border Patrol has “apprehended” or “encountered” as they tried to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border between the ports of entry.

Continue reading “”

Federal judge rules Missouri state gun law is unconstitutional
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit in February 2022 over the state law that declared “invalid” several federal gun regulations that don’t have an equivalent statute in Missouri.

WASHINGTON — A Missouri state law that declared several federal gun laws “invalid” is unconstitutional, a U.S. federal judge ruled on Tuesday, handing the U.S. Justice Department a victory in its bid to get the law tossed out.

At issue was a measure Republican Governor Mike Parson signed into law in 2021 that declared that certain federal gun laws infringed on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes in Jefferson City, Missouri, said the state’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal laws take priority over conflicting state laws.

Wimes, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, in a siding with Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration called the practical effects of the Republican-led state’s law “counterintuitive to its stated purpose.”

“While purporting to protect citizens, SAPA exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the federal government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens,” he wrote.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, in a statement promised an appeal, saying he was committed to “defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms.”

“If the state legislature wants to expand upon the foundational rights codified in the Second Amendment, they have the authority to do that,” he said.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Under the Missouri law, also known as H.B. 85, state or local law enforcement agencies could face a $50,000 fine if they knowingly enforced federal laws that the state measure purportedly nullified.

In a lawsuit filed in February 2022, the Justice Department argued the law had caused many state and local law enforcement agencies to stop voluntarily assisting enforcing federal gun laws or even providing investigative assistance.

A Lesson from Lori Lightfoot’s Landslide Loss

Chicago’s incumbent Mayor, Lori Lightfoot, just lost in a landslide. She came in third place and barely received 17 percent of the vote from Chicago voters – 83 percent chose someone else. That means she’ll miss out on a top-two run-off election in April and become the first Chicago mayor in 40 years to lose reelection.

The mayor has only herself to blame. Voters were pleading for her to get tough on criminals. Instead, she spent time and taxpayer dollars making cringeworthy videos on Chinese Communist Party-owned TikTok.

She ignored her employers and now she’s out of a job.

It’s The Crime, Stupid.

It didn’t take a genius to recognize what issue mattered most to Chicago voters – it’s crime. It was always crime. The city has been plagued by crime since Mayor Lightfoot was first elected and it only became worse during her tenure.

In the lead-up to the election, 44 percent of voters said crime and public safety were their top issues. The second-place issue, jobs, came in at 13 percent, far behind safety. Two-thirds of voters said they personally don’t feel safe, and half of voters said they were going to cast their ballot for a candidate who would get tough on criminals. No surprises Mayor Lightfoot lost given those numbers. A brief history shows why.

In 2020, crime was already plaguing the Windy City, and the coronavirus pandemic made it worse. Ahead of Memorial Day weekend 2020, Mayor Lightfoot, the Chicago Chief of Police and even gun control groups got together to plan for a violent weekend and urge city residents to remain safe, as if asking criminals politely would do the trick. The preparation failed and it was a violent weekend for the record books. Instead of taking accountability, Mayor Lightfoot blamed others. “Whatever the plan was, it didn’t work,” she said.

Later that year, Mayor Lightfoot caved to irresponsible pressure to defund the police and eliminated 600 law enforcement positions while crime surged. Mayor Lightfoot continued embracing strict gun control that limited Chicagoans’ ability to protect themselves even as police retirements continued climbing and the city’s crime problem grew.

In 2021, Chicago criminals still ignored the mayor’s pleas to stop their violent ways. In broad daylight, criminals exchanged gunfire between cars and a home with police officers nearby, tragically killing one person. Five others were taken into custody and despite clear video evidence to charge the perpetrators, nothing was done. Still, Mayor Lightfoot blamed others. “Given that evidence, a pod camera right there that captured the entire thing… why isn’t that enough?”

The buck stops with the mayor, doesn’t it? Chicago’s criminal violence left voters exasperated and searching for solutions. The answer wasn’t another term for Mayor Lightfoot.

Any Reflection?

Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and Chicago is even stricter. Stricter gun control laws just signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker are facing court challenges already – including by NSSF – but it remains clear that Chicagoans want security and the means to protect themselves. That includes exercising Second Amendment rights to protect themselves. During Mayor Lightfoot’s tenure, more than 1.9 million Illinoisans purchased a firearm, according to NSSF adjusted FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) data.

After such a lopsided misreading of voters’ priorities, did Mayor Lightfoot understand she got it wrong? Hardly. The mayor again shifted blame back to voters and all but called them misogynistic racists.

The New York Post reported she blamed other factors, not crime, on her loss and when asked by a reporter if she’d been treated unfairly, the mayor responded, “I’m a black woman in America. Of course.”

Her hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune excoriated the mayor and her record on crime. “Lightfoot campaigned for mayor in 2019 by arguing crime was too high… But homicides, mostly from gun violence, spiked dramatically in 2020 and 2021… Shootings and carjackings also skyrocketed.” Mayor Lightfoot still blamed others for the criminal misuse of firearms in Chicago.

For voters, it wasn’t complicated. It wasn’t Mayor Lightfoot’s race, or her gender or her sexual orientation. For Chicago voters, it was about safety, crime and getting tough on criminals. And for that, voters gave the mayor the boot.

Close to Missouri’s SAPA with some pretty stiff penalties for violating it.

Second Amendment Preservation Act would limit enforcement of federal gun laws in Nebraska

LINCOLN, Neb. (KLKN) – The Second Amendment Preservation Act, which would nullify some federal gun laws in Nebraska, got a hearing Thursday before a legislative committee.

If the bill is passed, law enforcement would be prohibited from enforcing federal firearm laws if they conflict with Nebraska law.

Sen. Steve Halloran, who introduced the bill, said that Nebraska’s own constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and that this bill would keep those rights from being infringed upon.

Other states have passed similar legislation, and supporters say the bill would help keep the federal government from controlling the guns of citizens in Nebraska.

“The people of Nebraska depend on us to uphold and protect their constitutional rights, which is why LB 194 is necessary,” Halloran said. “At this time, 14 other states have passed legislation, making them a Second Amendment sanctuary state, and it is time for Nebraska to be included.”

Several sheriff’s offices from across the state have said they will stand up to federal overreach and attempts to regulate gun ownership.

Opponents say it would be harder to hold police accountable when they enforce some laws but not others.

Representatives of both the Omaha and Lincoln police departments spoke at the hearing, saying the legislation would create a number of complications for law enforcement and how they work with the federal government.

“We believe LB 194 in its current construct would have unintended consequences, the result of which would negatively impact community safety, more specifically gun violence,” said Matt Franken, vice president of the Lincoln Police Union.

Omaha Police Sgt. Michael Todd Kozelichki said the bill leaves more questions than answers for local law enforcement and their federal partners on what exactly they can enforce.

“LB 194 handcuffs the cooperation between local and federal law enforcement more than it handcuffs the criminals who are out there committing violent crimes,” he said.

Concentrate Where the Murders Are Concentrated

One of the principles of good public policy is to focus efforts on understanding social problems and searching for effective responses where those problems are serious, not where they are minor or missing. Local problems justify locally focused and decided policies, problems that have effects that are more widely spread justify geographically broader policies, and the broadest problems justify national policies, as illustrated by the federalism of the US Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment.

That such a principle is well established is illustrated by t Edgar K. Browning and Jacquelene M. Browning’s  textbook, Public Finance and the Price System, which I used when teaching my first such class over four decades ago and which said, “The key issue here is the geographic area over which persons necessarily benefit [or are harmed],” which requires that “care is needed in determining what types of policies are more suitable for local governments.”

However, that principle is often honored in the breach today, as politicians at higher-level governments are always trying to regulate and legislate issues that are more local in character. Why? It lets politicians in areas where the problems are greatest pretend they are a national problem rather than ones tied to their jurisdictions and policies. Further, the power to vote on national-level plans gives politicians representing other areas the leverage to “rent” their support for such programs in exchange for more of what they want through the legislative pork barrel.

 

Just think how many times a single event in one place starts trending, then immediately gives rise to proposals for new state or national policies as “the solution,” as is so common with issues of crime. The Monterey Park mass shooting is a good illustration. The same day it was reported in the Los Angeles Times, they ran an editorial about mass murder shootings becoming “a sickeningly frequent occurrence in America” arguing that mass shootings “have one thing in common: They have guns” and asserting that we must limit the Second Amendment in the US Constitution—not only federal law, but the highest law of the land—because “national suicide is not the compulsory price of freedom.”

The result of such broad, national responses is also poor “target efficiency,” because too little attention focuses on the more local reasons for where the problems are worse.

An excellent example of this is provided by recent research on the US murder rate by the Crime Prevention Research Center, and its president, John R. Lott Jr., whom I have known since we overlapped many years ago in the UCLA Economics PhD program. I would note that John’s work is often controversial, which also makes him a frequent subject of ad hominem attacks, because the empirical data he develops can strongly contradict what others are “selling” as the truth in some area, particularly with regard to crime. However, I have never seen him abuse logic and statistics to get a particular answer he set out to find (or was paid to, as many “researchers” are). His focus, which strongly reminds me of the work of Harold Demsetz, who taught both of us, is on designing empirical tests to differentiate among alternative explanations, then following where the evidence leads, rather than torturing evidence to create the “right” wrong answer.

Increases in homicide rates tend to be treated by state and federal politicians as if they are broadly distributed national problems to scare Americans into supporting overly broad-brush “solutions.” But Lott’s research shows instead that “homicide rates have spiked, but most of America has remained untouched.” Or as David Strom summarized the results, “There are vast swathes of the country where violent crime is very, very rare, and small areas of the country where it is common.” If that is true, we should focus our attention on those small areas, not on national policies poorly focused on where the actual problems are most severe.

Lott’s research, which used 2020 homicide data, examined the concentration of homicides in particular areas to see whether America’s increasing homicide problem is national or local. He let that data tell its story.

First, he focused on county-level data rather than national data. Some of the dramatic results he found:

  • The worst five counties (Cook, Los Angeles, Harris, Philadelphia, and New York) accounted for about 15 percent of homicides.
  • The worst 1 percent of counties (31), with 21 percent of the US population, accounted for 42 percent of the homicides.
  • The worst 2 percent of counties (62), with 31 percent of the population, accounted for 56 percent of the homicides.
  • The worst 5 percent of counties (155), with 47 percent of the population, accounted for 73 percent of the homicides.
  • In contrast, over half of US counties (52 percent) had zero homicides in 2020, and roughly one-sixth of the counties (16 percent) had only one.

Continuing his investigation, Lott looked at even finer-scale zip code data for Los Angeles County. He found that the worst 10 percent of zip codes in the county accounted for 41 percent of the homicides, and the worst 20 percent accounted for a total of 67 percent of the homicides.

From such data, Lott concluded that: “Murder isn’t a nationwide problem.” Instead, “It’s a problem in a small set of urban areas, and even in those counties murders are concentrated in small areas inside them, and any solution must reduce those murders.”

Despite the constant political and media drumbeat to portray homicides as a national problem that threatens everyone everywhere, and thus demands national solutions in line with what the political Left wants, the evidence points us in a far more local direction.

That may well explain the political reason for the volume and persistence of that drumbeat. It provides camouflage for those whose policies (and those who support them) would come under far greater scrutiny if people recognized just how concentrated homicides are and then asked what is different in those places, rather than the “blame America first” bromides they are routinely misdirected toward today.

But that means if we really cared about those most harmed by the murder rate, rather than imposing broader-than-necessary restrictions on Americans, it is important to follow the evidence so many would prefer to keep hidden.

Analysis: Illinois Sheriffs’ Resistance to AR-15 Ban Latest Frontier for Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement

In the state often credited with kicking off the nationwide movement, so-called Second Amendment Sanctuaries are being put to their most significant test yet.

Shortly after Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D.) signed a bill banning “assault weapons” and certain ammunition magazines into law last week. Illinois gun owners have 300 days to register or otherwise dispose of the thousands of different models of guns affected by the ban. If they don’t, they could face serious criminal charges.

However, the actions of local officials across the state are calling that possibility into question. Many have begun to mobilize in opposition to enforcing the law. Sheriffs and State’s Attorneys of more than 80 Illinois counties have released statements decrying the law as “unconstitutional.” Most have publicly declared that they refuse to enforce it against otherwise law-abiding citizens.

“Until further direction from our courts, the Effingham County Sheriff’s Office will not expend the resources of Effingham County to ensure law-abiding gun owners are registering their firearms with the State, or arresting, otherwise law-abiding individuals, solely for their non-compliance with HB5471,” Effingham County Sheriff Paul Kuhns said in a public release.

“My office will exercise strict prosecutorial discretion in circumstances relating to enforcement of House Bill 5471, ensuring that the clearly-defined Second Amendment rights of our citizens remain undiminished,” Effingham County State’s Attorney Aaron Jones added. “While my office remains committed to protecting the citizens of Effingham County by prosecuting violent crimes, I have no intention of turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into convicted felons solely due to non-compliance with House Bill 5471.”

The sentiment was echoed in jurisdictions around the state with model language provided by the Illinois Sheriffs Association. Nine in 10 of the state’s sheriffs have now publicly declared their intention to disregard the law, according to the Associated Press

The sheer number of prosecutors and sheriffs who have come out against enforcing the new ban represents a new high water mark for the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement. That’s fitting for a trend that has its roots in none other than Effingham County, Illinois.

Resistance to gun control from higher up in the government has existed in some form for decades. The successful challenge of the Brady Act’s initial requirement that local law enforcement use their resources to conduct background checks on gun buyers in 1997’s Printz v. U.S. is one early success in the power struggle. Beginning in the mid-2000s and through the early 2010s, a handful of deep red states and localities around the country even passed resolutions suggesting that they wouldn’t obey gun laws they viewed as unconstitutional–though they were often primarily symbolic measures that have never been put to a significant test.

Those earlier efforts began to crystalize into the modern sanctuary movement starting with Pritzker’s 2018 election. Effingham County officials, alarmed by his win and the possibility of an assault weapons ban, passed the first resolution credited with coining the term “sanctuary” as applied to the Second Amendment. The resolution, which quickly spread to 70 additional counties across Illinois and later other states like Virginia, was a simple declaration that local officials would view any of the gun-control laws then under consideration by the legislature as unconstitutional.

“We’re just stealing the language that sanctuary cities use,” Bryan Kibler, former Effingham County State’s Attorney, told the Associated Press in reference to the immigration “sanctuary” movement at the time.

“We wanted to get across that our Second Amendment rights are slowly being stripped away.”

Now, faced with a new set of gun-control measures, a similar dynamic is at play.

But unlike those previous resolutions, which predominately surfaced ad hoc wherever new gun-control measures were a possibility, the current crop of non-compliance declarations are being announced in response to a law that has passed. That creates a new paradigm testing the mettle of officials on both sides. Without local law enforcement support and few options to force their hand, backers of the ban are left without many options. The state’s gun owners could very well decide to disregard the registration requirement, and local law enforcement may well follow through on their promise not to bother them.

That has happened before.

Following the 2013 passage of the SAFE Act in New York, the refusal of some sheriffs to enforce its ban on certain guns and magazines coincided with widespread non-compliance. The most recent data suggests only about four percent of the guns required to be registered under the SAFE Act have actually been registered.

“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” Paloma Capanna, a firearms lawyer who obtained the registration data,

told Hudson Valley One in 2019. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”

Since ninety percent of Illinois’ sheriffs are vowing to look the other way on this latest ban, it’s hard to see how the results don’t end up looking similar in the Land of Lincoln.

Of course, it remains to be seen how resolved the Illinois sheriffs are in refusing to enforce the gun ban and corresponding registry requirement. The rapid groundswell of opposition has already provoked a backlash from many of the state’s top Democratic lawmakers, including Governor Pritzker.

He has repeatedly suggested that the defiant sheriffs are “violating their oaths of office” and has threatened to fire  those that refuse to enforce the ban. However, it does not appear that he has the power to remove duly-elected sheriffs from office under Illinois law.

Even if he can’t directly remove the local officials, Pritzker may hope to sway or replace them by other means. Or bypass them altogether.

“It’s our state police and law enforcement across the state that will, in fact, enforce this law, and these outlier sheriffs will comply or, frankly, they’ll have to answer to the voters,” Pritzker told NBC 5.

It’s possible the political pressure could wear some sheriffs down and cause them to reverse course. Or some might have misread what their constituents want and get an earful from residents clamoring to see a gun ban enforced. Pritzer could also prioritize using state police resources to try and enforce the ban on their own, though that would be a very tall order without local support.

If not, the rapid and organized adoption of non-enforcement policies across broad swaths of Illinois in response to a gun ban and registry requirement may become the biggest success story of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement to date.

Backlash against weapons ban grows
Jersey County sheriff latest to balk at enforcement

JERSEYVILLE – Jersey County has joined a list of about 80 Illinois counties where sheriff’s and other law enforcement officials have said they will not enforce provisions of the state’s new weapons ban.

On Thursday afternoon newly-elected Jersey County Sheriff Nicholas Manns posted a letter on the department’s Facebook page detailing why he and Jersey County State’s Attorney Ben Goetten will not be participating in the enforcement of HB 5471.

The law bans the sale and possession of “assault weapons” and accessories such as large-capacity magazines, as well as .50 caliber rifles and ammunition. The banned weapons include some specifically names, and others by technical definitions.

However, it grandfathers in weapons that are registered with the Illinois State Police.

Mann said he would be using “lawful discretion” in enforcing the new law.

Continue reading “”

Dangerous Illinois Criminal Justice Law Goes Into Effect New Years Day

Chicago saw nearly 600 homicides in 2022, five times higher that New York City and 2.5 times higher than Los Angeles.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill) have repeatedly pushed back on criticism that highlights their failed crime policies.

However, beginning January 1, they will no longer be able to escape the reality that a new law will bring to the state.

The state’s Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today (Safe-T) Act will pretty much end cashless bail.

It will also limit when defendants can be deemed flight risks and allow defendants under electronic monitoring to leave home for 48 hours before they can be charged with escape.

Meaning criminals can be walking around the state for two days before police officers are called to go looking for them.

The law will also drop trespassing from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class B misdemeanor. So officers will no longer be able to arrest non-violent trespassers and instead only issue them a citation.

Sounds safe for the people of Illinois.

A class-action lawsuit, which dozens of counties across the state signed, argued that the pre-trial release and bail reforms in the SAFE-T act are unconstitutional.

“Today’s ruling affirms that we are still a government of the people and that the Constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of Illinois – most importantly the right to exercise our voice with our vote – are inalienable,” Kankakee County State Attorney Jim Rowe, one of the lead plaintiffs in the suit, said in a statement.

As the state appeals the decision, a higher court in Illinois eliminated cash bail, however, the rest of the bill remains in effect.

In his 33-page opinion, Judge Thomas Cunnington cited the need for a separation of powers, saying “…the appropriateness of bail rests with the authority of the court and may not be determined by legislative fiat.”

The ruling means the pre-trial release and bail reforms spelled out in the law will not take effect in those counties come the first of the year. The portion of the law would have allowed judges to decide if a defendant does not pose a public safety risk, they could be released without posting cash bail.

Orland Park Mayor Keith Pekau told Fox News that this is the most dangerous law he has ever seen.