Well, I did tell them…..
Iranian-backed Militants Attack Al-Assad Airbase, Iraq
At approximately 6:30 p.m. (Baghdad time) time Jan. 20, multiple ballistic missiles and rockets were launched by Iranian-backed militants in Western Iraq targeting al-Assad Airbase. Most of the missiles were intercepted by… pic.twitter.com/rYaNrRdRtu
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) January 20, 2024
According to Houthi Sources, a Senior Houthi Official alongside 2 Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran were Killed earlier today in a U.S. Airstrike against a Missile Launch Site in the Al-Bayda Governorate of Western Yemen.
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) January 20, 2024
Dr. Eli David
Dear Palestinians,
Two decades ago Israel withdrew from Gaza, and gave you full autonomy on every inch of it. Tens of billions of dollars of international aid money were given to you to build a prosperous future.
You built terror tunnels and rockets instead. You continued educating your children to become murderers. You cheered as you slaughtered 1,200 Israelis. You celebrated as hundreds were kidnapped.
You proved to the world what you are capable of. You showed how a “Palestinian state” would look like.
You don’t deserve a state. You don’t deserve autonomy. When you pursue and glorify misery and bloodshed, that’s the only thing you’ll have.
You, and you alone are responsible for your suffering.
U.S. House Judiciary Committee approves South Dakota firearm legislation
RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – On Thursday, two bills submitted by South Dakota Representative Dusty Johnson passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. The bills focus on the Second Amendment and the right to own a firearm.
To be able to purchase a firearm in the United States, you need to have an identification card such as a driver’s license, passport, or military ID. However, Tribal IDs are not currently accepted, and because of this, Representative Johnson re-introduced the Tribal Firearm Access Act, which would classify a Tribal ID as a valid form of identification for the purchase of firearms.
“They should be able to use that same government-issued photo ID to be able to go through purchasing a gun. They still have to go through the background check, they still have to go through the same process with a federal firearms dealer. But it makes it clear that having a tribal ID is just as good as having a state-issued driver’s license for the purchasing of firearms,” stated Rep. Johnson.
Also Thursday, the Travelers Gun Rights Act was passed out of the same committee. The bill, also introduced by Johnson, would allow firearm access for those who don’t have a permanent physical address.
“In many states to be considered a resident, you have to have lived in a permanent residence for quite a period of time, a year is not unusual, and you have to be considered that resident before you can purchase a firearm. That isn’t fair to military spouses. People who travel all over the country following that military member. It’s also going to make it that much easier for RV-ers, people who don’t have a permanent address that they’re at day in and day out, they’re out on the road, to also be able to exercise their second amendment rights,” Johnson continued.
Senator Mike Rounds also supported the Traveler’s Gun Rights Act. The next step for both bills is the full House.
Iran? Acta Non Verba
also; (Last paragraph:)
An Israeli strike Saturday in south Lebanon killed two members of Hamas as they were traveling in their car, three security sources told Reuters.
Israel Takes Out 5 IRGC Members in Damascus; Iran Vows Revenge
Tehran vowed to carry out revenge attacks against Israel on Saturday after a missile strike flattened a building used as a base of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards in Damascus, killing five Guards and an unspecified number of Syrian troops.
Ambulances and fire trucks gathered around the site of the strike, which had been cordoned off, a Reuters journalist at the scene said. Rescue operations for people stuck under the rubble continued through the day. A crane was in place to hoist concrete slabs off the wreckage.
A security source in a network of groups close to Syria’s government and its ally Iran told Reuters the multi-story building was used by Iranian advisers supporting President Bashar al-Assad’s government. It was completely flattened by “precision-targeted Israeli missiles,” the source said.
The Guards said an unspecified number of members of the Syrian military were killed, along with the five Iranians, whom it identified without giving their ranks. The security source said one of the slain Iranians ran the elite force’s information unit.
January 20, 2024
The legal right to Self-Defense
In its natural form and going back to the beginning of time, we have felt that we have the right to self-defense. This statement is true but if you are not aware of the specifics to a self-defense claim, you might find yourself in legal trouble. It is expected that a person has the right to self-defense and the defense of another.
You would think that such a natural act as defending yourself or another would be the same no matter where you go in the United States or worldwide, but self-defense laws vary from state to state. Some states have Castle Doctrines and Stand your Ground laws and others do not. It is important to know what actions you might need to take to re-enforce your self-defense claim.
Self-defense is the act of using force to protect yourself or a third party from imminent harm or bodily injury. So, does this mean if someone is throwing a punch at me, which could cause injury, I can draw my firearm and shoot them?
The level of force that you take will be considered during the evaluation of the incident. The level of force needs to be appropriate to the force being inflected on you. This is where the courts will apply the reasonable person rule. Depending on the force directed at you, was your responding force reasonable to defend yourself from such force?
Self-defense laws can be more complicated than they first appear. Another aspect of self-defense is whether the action taken by the assailant is imminent. Are you reacting to something that you fear might happen, or that could possibly happen, or is it immediate and occurring at that moment where if you did not react, you or a third party will be injured.
Let’s look at another aspect of a self-defense claim. Did you provoke the situation? Yes, we all at times lose our cool and say things or provoke others to react to our actions. This doesn’t rid you of a self-defense claim if the incident were to escalate, but there are other actions that you need to take in an attempt to remove yourself from the incident before you can legally claim self-defense. In other words, I can’t pick a fight and when the other party responds, I react with force and then claim self-defense. If I initiate the scenario and it turns ugly, then I need to take appropriate actions showing that I attempted to calm the situation or remove myself from the quarrel.
I’m constantly given scenarios by students of mine and asked how they should respond to such scenarios. That’s a difficult task because each individual has to articulate their reason for the fear of imminent harm. As a 10-year military veteran and 20-year retired police officer who served 7 years on SWAT, it’s a little harder for me to claim fear for my life than it is for a 120-pound female that has never had any tactical training. That “reasonable person” concept is going to look at every aspect of your life and experiences when determining whether your response was reasonable.
There are many variables to consider during a possible life-threatening event. Cooler heads prevail. Consciously tell yourself to stay calm and consider everything that is occurring around you. Panic leads to tunnel vision and the possibility of miss-reading the entire event.
In the state of Arizona, we do not have a duty to retreat, and we do have a stand your ground law. By law you do not have to take appropriate actions to remove yourself from the dangerous environment. I look at these laws as a re-enforcement of my self-defense claim, if necessary, but I don’t use it as a “why I stayed claim.” I would rather do everything I could to not act in self-defense.
You can serious injure someone or even take their life and be justified in doing so, but you still have to live with that fact. That statement is by no means advising you to not defend yourself, it is persuading you to do everything you can to not have to.
NEVER STOP TRAINING!
Never Stop Training!
Oz Johnson/Lead Instructor, NRA Certified
Karin Johnson/Operations Manager
JohnsonGroupTAC.com
Bill would require Alaska schools to have trusted adults carry handguns on campuses
n an effort to ensure that Alaska school districts enlist qualified adults to carry concealed guns for the protection of students and educators, State Sen. Shelley Hughes has filed a bill entitled, “The Safe Schools Act.”
Senate Bill 173 aims to deter active shooting tragedies from occurring in Alaska’s K-12 schools.
According to Hughes, she was inspired to file the bill after being approached by a retired teacher who previously worked at Bethel High School when a tragic shooting occurred on Feb. 19, 1997. That day, two people were killed, and two others injured when 16-year-old student Evan Ramsey arrived at the school with a shotgun. Ramsey shot and killed 15-year-old Josh Palacios and Principal Ron Edwards, before surrendering to police.
“If we do nothing, it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when,” Hughes said upon filing her bill. “This is a critical conversation, and it is time for critical decision-making. If we want to prevent the deaths of school children in Alaska, we need to act. If we wait to address this matter until after precious children have died, what a dreadful shame and inexcusable mistake that will be.”
“Our students deserve every opportunity to participate in our education system without fear of losing their lives,” Hughes added.
According to K-12 Shooting Database, there were 346 shooting incidents in 2023 resulting in 249 victims either wounded or killed. Over the past five years, the number of school shootings has skyrocketed with 1,073 students and staff being wounded or killed nationwide.
“Like you, over the years I’ve watched with horror the news reports of shootings at schools: Columbine, Parkland, Uvalde,” Hughes said. “I’ve wondered too like you, what if there had been intervention to help that person? But I’ve also asked, what if the school had been better prepared? What if that school campus had permitted concealed carry? Maybe the incident would not have occurred at all.”
Hughes emphasized that every second, every minute counts when a person begins to shoot in a school building.
“Due to distance, when law enforcement response in Alaska can take from a few minutes to a few hours, or with inclement weather in remote communities, even longer, our children, our teachers and staff are sitting ducks,” she noted. “Our officers do their best to respond quickly but Alaska is a state of mammoth proportions. We need well-trained individuals on-site who can respond immediately.”
Current Alaska law does not prevent superintendents and school boards from setting policy to allow concealed carry, but none have done so.
Hughes bill would change this by requiring schools to “grant one or more persons who meet the requirements” of the law to “carry a concealed handgun on the person on school grounds for defensive use.” The only exception is when no qualified person can be found.
School districts would also need to develop a written policy establishing the standards and requirements for conceal carry in schools, and document and fund firearm training and education for those who conceal carry in schools.
Hughes said she hopes her bill will give communities a path forward to begin assigning concealed carry duty to “trusted, stable, respected, and well-trained individuals.”
“Our students deserve every opportunity to participate in our education system without fear of losing their lives,” Hughes added.
The bill is set for its first public hearing on Jan. 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee. Testimony at this initial meeting will be by invitation only.
Baldwin Facing Involuntary Manslaughter Charges After Grand Jury Indictment
A few months ago it looked like Alec Baldwin was going to avoid having to choose between a trial and a plea bargain for his role in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Last April prosecutors dropped the original charge against the actor, citing new evidence that the gun in question might have been modified or malfunctioned, though they did say at the time that the “decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled.”
The investigation continued after the dismissal, and prosecutors received another analysis of the revolver by the Arizona company Forensic Science Services, which concluded that despite Baldwin’s claims that he never pulled the trigger of the gun before it discharged the round that killed Hutchins, “the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver.”
Prosecutors recently brought that analysis before a grand jury, and now its members have indicted Baldwin on the same charge that was dismissed in 2023.
While the proceeding is shrouded in secrecy, two of the witnesses seen at the courthouse included crew members — one who was present when the fatal shot was fired and another who had walked off the set the day before due to safety concerns.
Baldwin, the lead actor and a co-producer on the Western movie “Rust,” was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during a rehearsal on a movie set outside Santa Fe in October 2021 when the gun went off, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza.
Baldwin has said he pulled back the hammer, but not the trigger, and the gun fired.
Baldwin’s not the only one facing charges, of course. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was Rust’s armorer, has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering in the case. Her trial was supposed to take place last month, but is now scheduled for February 21.David Halls, who was an assistant director as well as film’s safety coordinator, ended up taking a plea deal last March; pleading no contest to a single count of unsafe handling of a firearm in exchange for six months of probation, suspended.
Baldin’s attorneys offered a brief comment to Variety after the indictment was announced, telling reporters only, “We look forward to our day in court.” With the possibility of an 18-month prison sentence hanging over his head, my guess is that Baldwin and his legal team are also looking to see what kind of deal might be on the table before a trial takes place.
This case has been a hot mess from almost Day 1; with multiple prosecutors recusing or resigning from the case, charges filed, dropped, and now refiled, and conflicting reports about the gun in Baldwin’s hand when Hutchins was killed. Despite enough drama to serve as the inspiration for a whole season of Law & Order episodes, the case ultimately boils down to this: can prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted negligently and without due care by violating some of the cardinal rules of gun safety on the set? They’re probably going to need more than a forensic report, so it will be interesting to see if either of the two crew members spotted at the courthouse where the grand jury met is willing to state that they actually saw Baldwin pull the trigger with Hutchins and Souza in front of him.
Speaking of the rules for gun safety, if nothing else, Baldwin’s legal woes are a good opportunity to remind him and everyone else of the four fundamentals:
Follow these rules (and I’d throw in the fifth rule of never mixing guns and alcohol/drugs as well) and you’ll be fine. Ignore them and it might not be just your own future you put in peril but your friends, family, range buddies, or even co-workers.
3 Gun Rights Cases Before the Supreme Court You Should Know About
Both sides of the Second Amendment debate will be watching the U.S. Supreme Court closely in 2024 as it applies the standards from previous decisions to new high-profile cases.
In the 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, to be constitutional, new gun laws must match the plain text of the Constitution and the “history and tradition” of the United States.
“The test that … applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority in June 2022.
One of the first major post-Bruen cases, United States v. Rahimi has court watchers curious about how Bruen will be applied. The high court heard oral arguments on Rahimi on Nov. 7, 2023.
Federal law currently bars those who are under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. The Supreme Court in the Rahimi case will decide if it stays or goes.
Gun control advocates say the “text and tradition” standard of the Bruen decision, if applied in Rahimi, would allow violent abusers access to guns, resulting in the deaths of domestic violence victims.
“The Supreme Court must reverse this dangerous [Bruen] ruling,” Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, wrote on the Everytown for Gun Safety website. “Domestic abusers do not have—and should not have—the constitutional right to possess a firearm.”
Gun rights advocates say the Rahimi case has been mischaracterized as an attempt to arm violent criminals when it’s really about protecting society without preemptively suspending constitutional rights.
“It’s going to answer one issue, which is, do we as a country have a historical tradition of disarming people that we believe to be dangerous?” William Kirk, a Washington state-based lawyer who specializes in the Second Amendment, told The Epoch Times.
January 19, 2024
There’s No Way the Media Is Touching the Latest Trans Mass Shooter Story
Mia had the details this afternoon about the wannabe transgender mass shooter, who was arrested but known to authorities for years due to aberrant and violent behavior. The FBI picked up Elizabeth Ballesteros West, formerly Francisco Frank Paramo, of Cottage Grove, Oregon, for allegedly plotting a mass slaughter of supposed ‘transphobes.’ West also shoved a shogun into the mouth of his father in 1993 and pulled the trigger, though the firearm failed to fire.
There’s ‘guess that party,’ a game that pops up when a Republican gets into ethical or legal trouble, though party affiliation vanishes from the reporting like Houdini when Democrats find themselves in similar circumstances. We’re rehashing another fan favorite for this story: will the media cover it? The answer is hell no.
The LGBT aspect aside, West is a neo-Nazi. As Mia noted, the would-be mass killer was happy to move to Eugene because there was an absence of blacks and Mexicans. West had numerous racist social media posts, along with images of Nazi flags. Just read the insanity:
According to a 23-page affidavit authored by an FBI special agent who specializes in behavioral threat assessment and terrorism-related crimes, the federal law enforcement agency was alerted all the way back on September 26, via an anonymous tip, that West was threatening to carry out a mass shooting at his workplace and accusing coworkers, his apparent targets, of “transphobia.”
In his threat posted to a Facebook “transwoman” support group, West claimed he was being “bullied by trans phobic a**holes” at work. At the “end of my rope” and “left with no alternative,” West indicated that he intended to “go out in a blaze of glory.”
“Well, I wish I had better news to tell but what I’m writing to you right now is the fact that I’m at the end of my rope[.] I’m probably gonna get fired from his job. I’m […] supposed to be called into the office this morning so I wonder what lies are going to spew in order to justify firing me. I’m too old to keep looking for jobs and I’ve had it up to here being bullied by trans phobic a**holes I am left with no alternative. I’ll probably have to go out in a blaze of glory. I’ve been preparing for this moment a long time at least then I’ll be remember I have no family no friends…So there really isn’t any point living anymore? I’m just gonna have to do what I have to do and pray for the gods to forgive me,” West wrote in a post to the Facebook page “TRANS WOMAN SUPPORT GROUP.”[…]
West’s dead boyfriend had owned a Nazi flag. Following his passing, West found the Nazi flag and kept it. West has “mixed feelings” about Nazi sentiments, the FBI affidavit says, is “juxtaposed” on the political climate in Israel, and thinks the Israelis treat Palestinians in the same manner that the Nazis persecuted the Jews during the Holocaust. West is also angry that U.S. immigrants enjoy welfare and food stamps on his tax dollars, yet he is unable to benefit from the same social programs.
In November, the FBI began tracking West’s alarming activity on X’s platform. There, he describes himself as a “Nazi dominatrix from Hell, who is tired of the blackening of America and Europe and ready to stand up to the Black orcs and the Jewish wizards.” Previously, West’s profile picture featured a Nazi flag, and his X biography stated he’s “an older woman trying to find her way.”
Mia noted the interviews the FBI had with West, the long history of disturbing posts, and the research he did to commit suicide—this person was severely mentally ill. You have mental health playing a major factor here, too. Either way you slice it, the media has zero interest in reporting on this story if they hope to weaponize it against Republicans.
I’ll use the lexicon of the PC police here: It seems every mass shooting, including attempts, featuring these individuals who are part of the alternate lifestyle is more insane than the last. Sure, the Left is going to point out that more ‘cisgender’ people have committed mass shootings. The problem is that these same folks have been peddling the narrative that mass shootings are an exclusively white, male, and Republican problem. At times, it’s been framed as some social defect or an illness. We now have multiple transgender mass shootings and like-minded plots being unearthed, and it’s another reminder of how a) authorities seem to know about all the perpetrators, regardless of how they identify, and b) how mental health always seems to be at the forefront of all these shootings.
It’s not a new story, but one that never gets old because the establishment media will never cease protecting the holy grail of liberal narratives.
Op-Ed: HB 114 – Destruction Of State Firearm Industry Act
This dangerous legislation, prefiled at the Roundhouse by Los Alamos State Representative Christine Chandler, targets the already heavily regulated firearm industry with potential litigation intended to make it impossible to remain in business in New Mexico.
This specific, aggressive targeting of the singular industry necessary for the citizens to exercise a constitutionally protected right weaponizes the civil justice system and will create a vacuum into which unlicensed and unregulated persons and entities will likely step.
Bad actors in ANY industry who engage in unconscionable, unfair, or deceptive trade practices are already held to account by the state’s existing Unfair Trade Practices Act. Federally licensed firearm manufacturers and retailers who violate gun laws commit federal felonies and face prison time, heavy fines, and revocation of their license by the ATF. So why is HB 114 being filed?
HB 114 creates new civil violations associated with “false advertising” and actions that “negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare” that apply only to the firearm industry. Activist attorneys general, district attorneys, and gun control organizations are explicitly authorized to litigate against members of the firearm industry and drive them out of business. HB 114 provides a template for destruction that can and will be used against any industry disfavored by certain elected officials and progressive interest groups.
In the interim joint legislative hearings leading up to the 2024 session, in which the bill author participated, lawmakers repeatedly stated that they wanted to target unlawful manufacturers and sellers of illegal firearms and firearm products. HB 114 sweeps up lawful and legitimate firearm industry members in a web of subjective, vague civil law that applies only to them and no other industry.
Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince secured a major victory for Second Amendment jurisprudence in Lara, et al. v. Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, docket no. 21-1832, where the Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania’s banning of 18-to-21-year-olds from carrying firearms outside of their homes during a state of emergency is unconstitutional.
In so holding, the Third Circuit declared
The words “the people” in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group.
In that vein, the court went on to emphasize that
It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; id. amend. XVII), freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, government petitions (id. amend. I), and the right against unreasonable government searches and seizures (id. amend. IV)…and there is no reason to adopt an inconsistent reading of “the people.”
In turning to whether the relevant historical timeframe is 1791 (ratification of the Second Amendment) or 1868 (ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment), the court declared
[That] to maintain consistency in our interpretation of constitutional provisions, we hold that the Second Amendment should be understood according to its public meaning in 1791.
In turning to the statutory sections at issue, the court acknowledged that
[t]aken together, §§ 6106, 6107, and 6109 – when combined with a state or municipal emergency declaration – have the practical effect of preventing most 18-to-20-year-old adult Pennsylvanians from carrying firearms
and that “that the Commissioner cannot point us to a single founding-era statute imposing restrictions on the freedom of 18-to-20-year-olds to carry guns.”
Accordingly, the Third Circuit remanded the issue with “instructions to enter an injunction forbidding the Commissioner from arresting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth.”
