Everyone remember MSG(R) Bob Ross?
Everyone remember MSG(R) Bob Ross?
I just dug up this clip from 1992…
Severn Cullis-Suzuki's speech to the UN in 1992 on climate change sounds an awful lot like Greta Thunberg's in 2019.
I cut the two together to show just how similar the language is: pic.twitter.com/18ptTzX4M4
— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) September 26, 2019
Here she is now. And she looks just fine… The UN has used children to push various agendas for decades. After some years they drop their child-warrior and move on to the next one. pic.twitter.com/dcgEXdB7qQ
— Obianuju Ekeocha (@obianuju) September 26, 2019
In the midst of all the impeachment crap -and let us not mince words, it is all crap – New York Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced a package of six bills as part of what she calls “A Just Society.” This is her latest attempt to turn the United States into a socialist nation since the Green New Deal really has not gone anywhere, aside from the fantasies of eco-fundamentalist freaks rife with delusional climate anxiety. The key promises of this “Just Society” is your right to not to be fat and have perfect mental health, illegal immigrants receiving endless federal welfare and benefits, and national rent control, among other policies that would hurt American workers. In short, it basically wants to put the government in every aspect of your life and your money in efforts the United States should not be supporting.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez introduced her ambitious plans on Wednesday. Here are just six plans, none saying how the American people will pay for them. Of course, we know it will be through higher taxes.
Here are the six bills:
(1) A Just Society Recognizes & Eradicates Poverty: The Recognizing Poverty Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, contract with the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) to propose a new official poverty guideline. This guideline would account for costs related to geographic variation, health insurance, child care, and “new necessities” such as internet access. This would ensure the accuracy of our current poverty measure, which determines eligibility for much of the social safety net including — Medicaid, Food Stamps, Family Planning Services, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the National School Lunch Program.
(2) A Just Society Creates a Place to Prosper: The Place to Prosper Act would protect low-income tenants and rein in corporate landlords by, among other things – creating an access to counsel fund for renters facing eviction, imposing a 3 percent national cap on annual rent increases, and imposing disclosure requirements on the nation’s largest landlords.
(3) A Just Society Is Merciful: The Mercy in Re-entry Act ensures that notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may not be denied any Federal public benefit solely on the basis that the individual was convicted of a criminal offense (whether under Federal, State, tribal, or foreign law).
(4) A Just Society Embraces Our Immigrants: The Embrace Act ensures that notwithstanding any other provision of law (including title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), an individual may not be denied any Federal public benefit solely on the basis of the individual’s immigration status.
(5) A Just Society Uplifts Our Workers: The Uplift Our Workers Act would direct the Department of Labor (DOL), in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to create a “worker-friendly score” – similar to LEED certification – for federal contractors. This score would consider factors including, but not limited to, paid family leave, scheduling predictability, hourly wage, and union membership. Thereafter, DoL and OMB are to provide federal agencies with recommendations on how to evaluate – and give systemized preference to – “worker-friendly contractors as it makes contracting decisions.
(6) A Just Society Guarantees the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of All: This resolution would direct the Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This Covenant recognizes the right to just and favorable conditions of work, the right to form trade unions, the right to adequate food, clothing, housing, and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
Bill number four on this list seems particularly outrageous. This massive welfare state for illegal immigrants would encourage only more border crossings from every nation in the world. We can barely afford to help our veterans and American citizens who need welfare, let alone open the floodgates to illegal aliens who could come here solely for federal public benefits.
Senate Republicans Shut Down ATF Nominee
GOP senators wary of Chuck Canterbury’s support for gun control
Chuck Canterbury, President Trump’s nominee to serve as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is likely to see his nomination withdrawn due to stringent opposition from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Free Beacon learned on Thursday.
“Chuck Canterbury does NOT have sufficient support in the Judiciary Committee and is now expected to be held up instead of getting a vote today,” a GOP Senate aide told the Free Beacon on Thursday morning. “Republican members are (1) Concerned about his stances on gun control, and (2) there is still some bad blood for him flipping the Fraternal Order of Police in support of the First Step Act (after opposing the more moderate version), allegedly in exchange for the ATF Director nomination.”
“His 2A views are bad and he’d lose a lot of votes in committee,” a second Senate source told the Free Beacon. “We expect the White House will pull him given lack of support from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.”
At least one Republican senator, Utah’s Mike Lee, seemed to agree with this assessment when reached for comment.
“Sen. Lee has concerns about Canterbury’s Second Amendment views and is pleased the markup has been delayed,” Lee’s office told the Free Beacon.
Canterbury, who served as the president of the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), was expected to receive a vote out of committee Thursday morning. But his nomination was blocked by conservative Republicans who voiced concerns about his stances on gun control.
Canterbury’s nomination seemed in trouble during his July confirmation hearing when he frustrated Republican senators by refusing to deviate from the official positions of the FOP on gun control. He avoided answering questions about his views on the Second Amendment and even explicitly said he did not understand ATF regulations well enough to say what gun control policies he could or could not implement.
“If you’re not familiar with the process running the ATF, then you are not qualified,” Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.) told him at the time.
It was Canterbury’s views on gun control, however, that sealed the deal. His past support for universal background check proposals and for President Obama’s attorney general Eric Holder were both major stumbling blocks, according to the second Senate source.
While head of the FOP, Canterbury explicitly supported background checks. In a 2013 letter, he told then-Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) that “expansion of background checks on firearm purchasers” was an “absolutely critical” element of “addressing gun violence.”
“We believe the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system,” Canterbury wrote on behalf of the FOP. “Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals.”
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, just 10.5 percent of gun violence offenders purchased their firearm through a transaction that would be covered by any expanded background check proposal. Additionally, a Free Beacon analysis earlier this year found Colorado’s universal background check law had little effect on the number of checks done in the state, suggesting it was not as effective as advocates claim.
In 2009, Canterbury testified on behalf of then-nominee Holder, calling “his positions, his policy work, and the official acts … consistent with the goals of the FOP.” Holder would go on to oversee operation Fast and Furious, a gun-running investigation where officials allowed guns to be sold to people connected with Mexican cartels in an effort to track their networks. The program was poorly overseen and led to the death of a Border Patrol agent. Critics argued the program’s failure was due to Holder’s negligence.
Opposition to Canterbury also stemmed from his convincing the FOP to change its position on the FIRST STEP Act, the White House’s landmark criminal justice reform bill. The FOP initially opposed FIRST STEP, but changed its view after several revisions.
GOP Senate aides indicated that Canterbury was integral in bringing about this shift and that his work on FIRST STEP helped him clinch the ATF nomination, a view further indicated by Politico reporting in May. The Fraternal Order of Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While GOP aides expect Canterbury’s nomination to be withdrawn, that has yet to happen officially.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment as to its intentions.
Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire is testifying before the House Intelligence Committee. I have embedded the committee’s live feed below.
Having just watched the shameless Chairman (ugh!) Adam Schiff examine Maguire, I am impressed yet again by the dishonest and deceitful approach of Schiff to all matters Trump. Schiff serves one legitimate purpose, though not the one he intends. He strongly suggests to me that this affair is “a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.” By contrast, Devin Nunes made an excellent opening statement and is doing a good job examining Maguire as I write.
They’re calling Beto O’Rourke the “AR-15 salesman of the year” after he forcefully stated in the last Democratic debate that an O’Rourke presidency would mean the mandatory government confiscation of such rifles. His exact quote was: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47– We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”
He’s the first to be so direct, but he isn’t treading into empty waters. Many Democratic presidential hopefuls want to curb, regulate, and restrict gun ownership and sales.
America has seen tragic gun violence recently. Everyone can agree that these seemingly regular mass-shootings are horrific and detestable. We can do more as a society to prevent these occurrences. But the guttural reaction of the left to use government regulation to fix the problem is harmful, not helpful, to the safety of the American public.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms to the American citizen. Here, many misunderstand the basic founding principles of our country. The right to bear arms, just like the right to free speech, assembly, life, and liberty, are all rights we are born with. Neither the Constitution nor any federal law grant those rights, they are our inheritance. The Second Amendment reminds and restricts the government from its ability to interfere with those rights. Here’s the full text of the Amendment:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Our founders had no more ability to grant us those rights than the modern American political leader has to take them away. They are natural rights: ours and ours to keep. Even repealing the Second Amendment wouldn’t change this. And we should be so thankful. A government that has the power to grant rights has the power to take them away – and the nullifying, retracting, or ignoring of natural rights by government has been the vehicle by which the most egregious human rights abuses have and will continue to take place worldwide.
Even the most ardent progressive would agree that protecting human rights at home and abroad is a persistent and unending challenge of the civic minded activist. Nothing can secure a people’s rights more firmly than to recognize they are ours by birth, not granted by any human or government. For this alone I encourage the left to rally around the American system and think twice before slashing into any Constitutional protection…………….
There are about 393 million guns owned in America, or 46% of the world’s total gun supply. After the Christchurch shooting this year in New Zealand, the mandatory government buyback program made underwhelming performance, barely making a scratch in the estimated number of firearms held by the public. And that was in a country with far less identity wrapped around the right to bear arms.
The government simply cannot collect them all.
Cities in America with some of the strictest gun control laws often appear among the list of the top 10 cities with the highest gun-crime rates in the country…………..
Important yet absent from the gun control debate is an examination of how many crimes are prevented because of legally owned guns, or the role of guns as a defensive verses offensive tool. An Obama-era CDC study estimated as many as 3 million crimes are prevented in the US by guns annually—or 8,200 a day. According to the Foundation for Economic Education:
60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
I believe the issue we face in society is not a product of the guns we own but of the lack of morality we are fostering. We are seeing a devaluing of the nuclear family unit, the secularization of society, a de-emphasis of religion and tradition, and an embrace of emotional and identity politics.
America should curb gun violence with a measured and principled response.
The guns we own, and even the Second Amendment that protects the right to own them, is an easy but misplaced target. And it is a starting point of dire vulnerability from which our recognition of natural rights can be dismantled.
I’m not praising guns, I am explaining the rationale behind the sacred rights that we each carry with us by virtue of being born, and how unique and important it is that the American Constitution recognizes and prohibits the government from taking these from us, including the right to bear arms. We shouldn’t be so quick to forsake Second Amendment protections in misplaced attempts to tackle gun violence because other precious rights will become negotiable in the same way at a later time. We can’t stop the bleeding on this one. Either we acknowledge and protect all natural rights, or we have none.
Bryan Griffin of the London Center for Policy Research is a lawyer and author who specializes in American policy in the Middle East.
Earlier this month, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled a person charged with misdemeanor domestic battery is entitled to a trial by jury, because the state Legislature in 2017 enacted a law saying someone convicted of such a crime could have their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms denied.
In keeping with a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision, our state’s high court had previously held that only those persons charged with a “serious” crime are entitled to a jury trial, which was defined as a crime carrying a sentence of greater than six months.
The unanimous opinion written by Justice Lidia Stiglich stated the change in state law to prohibit firearms possession by someone convicted of domestic violence effectively increases the “penalty” and makes the crime “serious” rather than “petty.”
“In our opinion, this new penalty — a prohibition on the right to bear arms as guaranteed by both the United States and Nevada Constitutions — ‘clearly reflect[s] a legislative determination that the offense [of misdemeanor domestic battery] is a serious one,’” Stiglich writes in a case out of Las Vegas.
The ruling concludes, “Given that the Legislature has indicated that the offense of misdemeanor domestic battery is serious, it follows that one facing the charge is entitled to the right to a jury trial.”
Attorney Michael Pariente, who represented appellate Christopher Anderson, told the Las Vegas newspaper, “I applaud the Nevada Supreme Court for unanimously doing the right thing. I think it’s a huge decision. They spoke with one voice, and it’s a good day for people who are charged with misdemeanor domestic violence. It forces the prosecutor to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to a 12-person jury instead of one single, sitting judge.”
But Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, whose office argued against allowing a jury trial in such cases, put out a statement saying, “The devastating consequences of this decision cannot be overstated. Misdemeanor courts across this state are not equipped for jury trials, and this decision could have a widespread chilling effect on domestic violence victims coming forward. My office is working hand-in-hand with city, county, and federal officials to formulate a response and prevent the domestic violence epidemic in this state from further devastating our communities. The most immediate priority for my office is doing whatever it takes to ensure more people are not killed by their abusers as a result of this decision.”
Frankly, we have to ask: Why did it ever come to this?
The Webster’s definition of “all” is: “the whole amount, quantity, or extent of; every member or individual component of; the whole number or sum of; every.”
You see, Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury …”
The Sixth Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …”
The Nevada Constitution says: “The right of trial by Jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever …”
How the U.S. Supreme Court decided “petty” crimes do not warrant a trial by jury is beyond our feeble minds, but in any case the Nevada high court is to be applauded for deciding that the denial of the fundamental right to bear arms constitutes a serious matter and deserves a trial by a jury of one’s peers. — TM
To the editor:
Anyone in this country that thinks we, the citizens, don’t need AK47 and AR15 semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines just needs to look at what is happening in Hong Kong. If you don’t think that could happen in this country, you’ve got your head in the sand. In fact, we should have the same weapons as the military as it was set up when the Constitution was written. That’s what the second amendment is all about!
Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA (September 24, 2019) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important legal brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The brief is available online at FPCLegal.org………
The brief argues that so-called “large-capacity” magazines are inherent components of functional firearms; that they are constitutionally protected because they are “in common use” for lawful purposes; and that because they are constitutionally protected, they cannot be banned.
“This case presents the type of Second Amendment challenge the Supreme Court has ruled on more than any other: a challenge to a prohibition on particular arms. And the Court’s precedent is clear: if the arms are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens, they cannot be prohibited,” said FPC Director of Research and brief lead author, Joseph Greenlee. “Evidence presented in this case shows that over 100 million magazines of the type that the State of California bans are owned in America. It is therefore indisputable that the magazines are common, and as such, their prohibition violates the Second Amendment.”
NORTH FORT MYERS, Fla. – A woman was awakened by a burglar shining a light in her living room.
Around 3:40 a.m. on Friday, the woman woke her husband up, who grabbed a gun and approached the man in his living room. He fired off one warning shot, and the burglar fled.
The break-in happened along Blue Beard Drive in Buccaneer Mobile Home Estates, according to Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers.
Dallas police are investigating a shooting where a hired maintenance man shot another man after an altercation outside an Oak Cliff grocery store Monday night, officials say.
The shooting was reported at about 11:35 p.m. at the El Rio Grande Latin Market in the 2500 block of West Jefferson Boulevard.
According to police, the contracted maintenance worker told officers that several men, one of them armed with a gun, walked into the store and caused an altercation. The maintenance worker fired his gun, striking one of the men, police said.
The wounded man was later brought to Methodist Hospital in serious condition, police said.
Thousands of children skipped school last week to march in the streets and demand government action about the hypothetical threat that human industrial activity will change the Earth’s climate. It would have been better if the students had stayed in school and learned something about real science.
Scientists working under government grants tell us that we have to take action by 1999 or runaway global warming will be irreversible. See: Peter James Spielmann, “U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked,” Associated Press, June 29, 1989. Oh, wait. That didn’t happen. We must stop CO2 emissions act by 2006 or it will be too late. Oh, wait. We have to act by 2013 or it will be too late. By 2013 there will be no more snow and all the ice packs will be gone. In any other area of life, would we keep listening to these people?
We do not know how much carbon dioxide was in Earth’s atmosphere prior to the 1930s. Devices to measure carbon dioxide went through a difficult, slow, irregular development. Reliable devices to measure carbon dioxide were available around 1930.
“The measurement of carbon dioxide (CO2) was first developed in the early 1900s; however, it was complex and of limited clinical use. ” See: Thomas Nowicki; Shawn London, “Carbon Dioxide Detector,” National Center for Biotechnology Information. The technology was slowly developed and produced a useable machine only around the year 1930.
Guy Stewart Callendar — who dreamed up the global warming scare — rejected nearly all CO2 measurements before 1870 because of “relatively crude instrumentation” and recognized only twelve suitable data sets in the 20th century. Callendar, G.P. “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere,” Tellus 10: 243-48. (1958).
“In 1939, August Herman Pfund (1879–1949) developed a respiratory gas analyzer that was used at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore to measure carbon monoxide and CO2. ” Pfund AH, Gemmill CL. “An infrared absorption method for the quantitative analysis of respiratory and other gases,” Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp, 1940;67:61–5.
The existence of carbon dioxide was not confirmed until 1777 when chemist Antoine Lavoisier thought the gas was a compound of coal and discovered that it was produced by respiration (breathing) as well as by burning coal. See: Techniques for the Measurement and Monitoring of Carbon Dioxide in the Blood, ATS Journals
We cannot measure carbon dioxide content of the Earth’s past from air pockets in ice core samples. First, gases can diffuse through solid walls. Buy a helium balloon. A week later the balloon will no longer be floating but on the ground. The helium gas diffuses out through the walls. We know that gas does not stay unchanged even in a closed container.
Second, over thousands of years, gases in the ice core will be changed by non-organic chemical reactions or by microscopic plant life like algae or microbes. As the weight of accumulating layers presses from above, gases will be forced into the ice core.
“Bacteria form in the ice releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at great depth. Brent C. Christner, “Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice,” Dissertation. Ohio State University, 2002.
Testimony before the U.S. Senate made this clear in 2004:
Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. * * * More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice.
One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. * * * After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air.
Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of –15oC dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters.
This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now. — Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski. Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland, Statement before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 19, 2004
Third, real science requires careful protocols. A measuring instrument must be validated, calibrated, using a meaningful scale, and manufactured with consistency. That’s why the U.S. Government from its earliest days including various agencies to establish “weights and measures.”
So, to use trapped gases from ice core samples, we would — if we were doing real science — have to put a known composition of gas into an ice air pocket, then come back thousands of years later, and re-test the gas composition. That would be the kind of real science that the protesting students could have learned had they stayed in school.
A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.
Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The session on an otherwise contentious issue flew largely under the radar amid the Trump-Ukraine controversy and Democrats’ impeachment push. But reflecting the gun control divide in the country — amid a spate of deadly mass shootings that prompted renewed calls for strict laws — Muller said that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.
“Please don’t legislate the 150 million people just like me into being criminals. It has happened. You’ve already done it,” Muller said, referring to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the devices that use a semi-automatic weapon’s recoil to make it rapidly fire like an automatic. “I was a bump stock owner, and I had to make a decision: do I become a felon, or do I comply?”
Should the government pass an assault-weapons ban, Muller declared, “I will not comply.”
Muller and others at the hearing focused on the practicality of a ban, pointing out what they claimed were mainly “cosmetic” differences between weapons such as the AR-15 and standard semi-automatic hunting rifles. This issue was also raised by Heritage Foundation senior legal policy analyst Amy Swearer when Rep.Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., went down the line of witnesses asking if they believed hunting rifles should be banned if they are semi-automatic.
Swearer said no, stating that there was no difference in the mechanics or function of an “assault weapon” or a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Dayton, Ohio Mayor Nan Whaley, who recalled the recent mass shooting in her city, did not give a definitive answer to Sensenbrenner’s question, nor did Dr. Alejandro Rios Tovar, a trauma surgeon who treated victims of the attack in El Paso, Texas. Charlottesville, Va., Chief of Police RaShall Brackney indicated she was in favor of a ban on “any weapon that could be used to hunt individuals.”
( I guess we need to ban rocks & sticks then! What an idiot)
Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., countered the idea of a hunting rifle ban by referring to his assault-weapon ban bill. Cicilline said that more than 200 weapons are exempt from the bill, so there is really no issue of eliminating hunting rifles.
Swearer also testified against the idea that law-abiding citizens have no need for weapons like AR-15s, recalling how her mother, a gun novice, had difficulty accurately firing a handgun at a shooting range, but was much more effective when she used an AR-15.
“As I read the Second Amendment, it doesn’t say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed unless the gun has scary features,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said.
WASHINGTON – Troops who die on active duty but not in combat would no longer be eligible for burial at Arlington National Cemetery, according to a proposal released Wednesday by the Army aimed at conserving space at the nation’s most hallowed ground for fallen troops.
Without changes to eligibility, the cemetery, home to the remains of privates and presidents, would run out of room in 30 years to inter even troops who have been awarded the Medal of Honor.
The new criteria for burial include troops killed in combat, recipients of the Silver Star or a higher award, wounded who have received the Purple Heart, former prisoners of war, presidents and vice presidents, and combat veterans who have exceptional records of public service.
The new eligibility rules at the cemetery also would allow certain veterans, including those from the World War II era, to be laid to rest at the cemetery in above-ground facilities.
Acting Army Sec. Ryan McCarthy also proposed setting aside 1,000 grave sites for recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award for valor.
“Arlington National Cemetery is a national shrine for all Americans, but especially those who have served our great nation,” McCarthy said in a statement. “We must ensure it can honor those we have lost for many years to come.”
Congress mandated the proposed rule changes, which will be open to public comment. Without changes to eligibility, the 155-year-old cemetery would be filled to capacity sometime after 2050.
Anti-gun Representatives tried and failed on Wednesday, September 18th to override Governor Chris Sununu’s vetoes of three-anti gun bills.
House Bill 109 would have effectively banned the private transfer of firearms, with exemptions too narrow to matter. As written, the bill would have imposed a definition of “commercial sales” broad enough to cover private transactions at gun shows, forcing nearly all individuals transfer through Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) dealers. Between 1) the narrowness of the bill’s supposed “exemptions” for private individuals outside of gun shows; and 2) the broad scope of the definition for “commercial sales,” the “exemptions” for New Hampshire citizens were effectively useless.
House Bill 514 would have hindered the Second Amendment rights of New Hampshire citizens by imposing an arbitrary three-day waiting period (excluding weekends and holidays) between citizens and the firearms they purchase. Limited “exemptions” were hitched to requirements involving prolonged safety courses and certain long gun purchases.
House Bill 564 would have prohibited law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense while on school grounds (except when picking-up or dropping-off students and, even then, only if the firearm remained in the vehicle). This counterintuitive law would have impeded the very type of protection that citizens and students deserve under the Second Amendment. The bill’s wonky “exemptions” for leaving firearms in vehicles were riddled with limitations that would have forced parents to make an absurd choice between their family’s security or their child’s participation in school activities.
A Senate staffer tells me gun legislation is dead, at least for the time being, because of the impeachment inquiry.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) September 25, 2019
Sometimes you have to come to the conclusion that TPTB in congress really don’t want to deal with it anyway; except as a grandstand for their next re-election campaign.
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- In the latest court filing, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, (ATF) has stated that they do not possess the authority to legislate the banning of bump stocks.
A bump stock is a device that allows the user to use the recoil of the firearm in conjunction with a forward pushing motion on the handguard to pull the trigger rapidly. In theory, this combination enables the user to increase the rate of fire of a firearm.
On the day after Christmas in 2018, the ATF released a final ruling on bump stocks stating that the devices are “machine guns.” All machine guns are a National Firearms Act (NFA) Item. Since the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 bans citizens from owning any machine gun produced after 1986, it made every bump stock illegal.
Owners of bump stocks could either destroy their device or turn them over to law enforcement to hold or be destroyed. States like Washington State held bump stock buybacks which paid owners $100 to turn in their bump stocks. If a bump stock owner refused to turn in their device or make it inoperable, they faced a $10,000 fine in ten years in federal prison.
In Aposhian v. Barr, et al., Firearms instructor W. Clark Aposhian of Utah sued Attorney General Bob Barr. He claimed that the ATF lacks the authority to change the definition of a machine gun. The plaintiff further asserts that only congress can make a new federal law that would ban the device.
AmmoLand reached out to our sources in the Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF. Our source, who was not authorized to talk on the matter stated that the new interpretation of machine gun did not come from their branch. He went onto point out that a person doesn’t need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle. He explained how common items like belt loops or rubber bands can be used to bump fire a gun.
Our source went onto say that the Firearms Technology Branch has reviewed bump stocks on multiple occasions since getting one from Slide Fire in 2010. Every time, they have ruled that these devices do not violate the NFA. He speculates that it was pressure from the White House that caused the definition to change, but he states that he doesn’t have direct evidence.
I reached out to several other ATF agents and lawyers about the court filing. All our contacts expressed the view that this admittance isn’t a deal. In the eyes of the ATF, anyone caught with a bump stock is still guilty of a felony, and they will fully prosecute the owner to the full extent of the law.
The ATF isn’t arguing in court that they have the legal authority to change the definition of a machine gun. The ATF is merely claiming they are using the “best interpretation” of the statute.
Sources close to the case on the plaintiff side have also told me that this admittance from the ATF doesn’t do much other than creating headlines. This court filing is not the end of the case, and in all likelihood will have little effect on the outcome since the ATF has never claimed to have the power to legislate.
AmmoLand reached out to several sources in the ATF, but none were willing to go on the record.
The Bill of Rights. The document on permanent display in the Rotunda is the enrolled original Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, proposing 12-not 10-amendments to the Constitution.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
(The preamble in the first paragraph that follows is most important. It explains that the Bill Of Rights was to be a restriction on the government, not on the people)
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Article the first… After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Article the second… No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Article the third… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth… A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article the fifth… No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article the sixth… The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article the seventh… No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth… In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article the ninth… In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article the tenth… Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article the eleventh… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth… The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate