Virginia House Bill no. 567, prefiled on 6 January, 2020, and offered on 8 January, 2020, seems aimed particularly at the NRA headquarters range at 11250 Waples Mill Rd. in Fairfax, Virginia. HB 567 contains a number of provisions that single out the NRA HQ range from nearly all others. Here are the provisions of the bill:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2 as follows:
§ 18.2-511.2. Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in private buildings; exceptions; penalty.
A. As used in this section, “indoor shooting range” means any fully enclosed or indoor area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, or black powder or any other similar sport shooting.
B. It is unlawful to operate an indoor shooting range in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or the federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers, as defined in § 9.1-101, or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user’s name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user’s identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card.
C. Any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.
The NRA HQ range is located in the NRA HQ building in Fairfax, Virginia.
- It is indoors.
- It is privately owned.
- More than 50 employees work in the building.
- It is open to the public.
Only one of the other indoor ranges found, in a quick survey of Virginia indoor ranges, were in buildings over two stories tall. The Colonial Shooting Acadamy, in Richmond, Virginia, is a three-story facility. It has a few more than 50 employees working in its building. It is the biggest indoor range in Virginia. The owners would like to expand and hire more employees. This bill would make expansion impossible. Large indoor urban ranges have been expanding across the country. The trend was arguably started with the Scottsdale Gun Club in Arizona.
Full disclosure, Terry Schmidt is my second cousin. He and his wife Nadine conceived of the Scottsdale gun club and now own majority interests and manage the concern. Terry credits me with planting the seed of his lifelong fascination and career with firearms.
Many small businesses have less than 50 employees to avoid burdensome federal regulations that apply to businesses that have over 50 employees. It is a large range, indeed, which would employ over 50 people in one building.
The bill would likely face challenges under both the Virginia State Constitution and the federal Constitution under the Second Amendment.
The Seventh Circuit has ruled the availability of gun ranges, to serve the public, is protected to some extent, by the Second Amendment.
It seems unlikely the proposed Virginia law would meet the requirements to pass muster under the Second Amendment. What rationale would require the limitation of gun ranges to buildings that employ less than 50 people?
Governments have deep pockets to defend against lawsuits. They are spending other people’s money.
The lawsuits required to defend against the host of laws infringing on the Second Amendment in Virginia will be costly. They will not be funded by tax dollars, but by private individuals.
The individuals may band together into groups or organizations to fund the lawsuits, but the money will not be taken from other people by force, as is tax money.
After seeing so many of these plea bargains letting criminals free to commit more crime, that wouldn’t have happened because they still would have been behind bars, it makes the conspiracy theory that it’s a plan not seem all that off the wall anymore.
ELIZABETH — The gunman who killed two congregants at a Texas church last month had been charged years earlier with a felony gun offense in New Jersey, where prosecutors later downgraded the crime to a low-level misdemeanor that had nothing to do with firearms.
Since the Dec. 29 shootout at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, much has come out about Keith Thomas Kinnunen’s criminal record, which seems to follow a pattern: He would get charged with serious, sometimes violent crimes, which later were pleaded down to less-consequential offenses.
Despite Kinnunen’s history of mental illness — including a 2012 judge’s order declaring him unfit to stand trial — it does not appear his plea deals were enough to trigger legal provisions limiting gun ownership, which would apply in cases involving domestic violence and felonies.
Linden police arrested Kinnunen in Sept. 12, 2016, after finding him with a 12-gauge shotgun, the same kind he used last month in the Texas church. Linden police said Kinnunen, who had been riding a bicycle near the Phillips 66 refinery, told them he was homeless and was taking photos of “interesting sites.”
He was charged with unlawful possession of a rifle/shotgun, a third-degree indictable crime that in other states would be called a felony.
In January 2017, he accepted a plea deal finding him guilty of criminal trespass, a low-level misdemeanor that state law classifies as a petty disorderly persons offense.
As part of the deal, a Superior Court judge in July 2017 sentenced him to 303 days of time served at Union County Jail and ordered him to forfeit his weapon.
A spokesman for the Union County Prosecutor’s Office last week defended the deal as “fully reasonable and legally appropriate.”
“The assistant prosecutor assigned to this case consulted with a member of the Union County Police Department Ballistics Unit, who determined that because the recovered weapon was missing a fundamental component, it was inoperable under the definition outlined in the applicable statute,” the spokesman for the office said in a written statement.
In Oklahoma in 2011, Kinnunen was charged with felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after attacking the owner of a doughnut shop. He was also charged with arson in a separate offense in which he was accused of starting a fire at a cotton field with flaming tampons. Police also said that he forced his underage to throw around a flaming football.
An Oklahoma judge in 2012 ruled him mentally incompetent to stand trial and committed him to a psychiatric facility. A year later, he pleaded guilty after the charges were downgraded to misdemeanors.
In 2012, an ex-wife in Oklahoma filed for a protective order that described him as “a violent, paranoid person with a long line of assault and battery w/ and without firearms.”
Another ex-wife told The Associated Press that they divorced in 2011 after he got “more and more” into drugs that “messed with his head.”
In 2008, he was charged with aggravated assault in Texas. The charged was later downgraded to misdemeanor deadly conduct.
On Dec. 29, Kinnunen walked into the packed White Settlement church wearing a fake beard and wig and opened fire, killing 67-year-old Richard White and 64-year-old Anton “Tony” Wallace. Kinnunen was then killed by a single shot by security volunteer Jack Wilson.
The motive for the attack was unclear. The church had previously helped feed the shooter. The pastor told The Associated Press that Kinnunen was angry when the congregation declined to give him money.
Why does it seem that liberal extremists are pursuing new infringements on gun rights seemingly unchecked? Why do we have an escalated situation in Virginia where liberal politicians seek to further infringe the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, threatening imprisonment and even violence against Constitutional gun owners who have committed no crimes?
This is due to a failure of our system of checks and balances. Due to a failure of the courts to deal with a barrage of important Second Amendment cases over the last ten years, we are perilously off balance.
In 2008, we had the epic Heller decision, and the subsequent McDonald decision in 2010, which applied Heller to the states. In the more than 10 years since those decisions were handed down, we have seen relentless encroachments on Second Amendment rights by extreme anti-rights fanatics.
When will it ever end? When will the Supreme Court make it end?
The response by gun rights supporters to these continued, ongoing infringements has been appropriate: seek redress using the three branches of government. Specifically, file lawsuit after lawsuit begging the Judiciary to enforce Heller’s holdings on concepts like individual rights and common-use.
Unfortunately, the Judiciary has repeatedly ignored these petitions for redress—a complete and dangerous failure to enforce the provisions enumerated in the Heller decision. The results have been a painful, unconstitutional existence for those of us in states like New Jersey and, most recently, it has brought Virginia to the edge of chaos.
This judicial hibernation, combined with the limitless funding of special interest groups and individuals like gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg’s funding of Moms Demand Action and Everytown, has resulted in a highly explosive situation.
Since 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States has declined the opportunity to grant several petitions for certiorari.
In 2014, the Court denied the petition in a New Jersey case asking the critical question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies outside the home. See Drake v. Filko. In 2017, the petition for cert was denied in Peruta v. San Diego.
These denials have resulted in terrible consequences. They have provided liberal, anti-gun rights extremists an unfettered highway to infringement.
On the micro level, in the repeated failure to act swiftly in upholding the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court itself has placed citizens like New Jerseyians (who are automatically denied a right to carry) in danger of criminal activity and terror, such as we saw in the recent Texas church shooting.
The Court’s failure to act has also placed us in danger on the macro level, such as in Virginia where politicians have threatened to use the National Guard against the state’s citizens and to jail those who have committed no crimes.
The Court must act soon. It is abundantly clear, despite a dearth of reporting by the mainstream media, that complete civilian disarmament is the end goal. Americans will not allow them to succeed.
Saslaw Hot Mic Moment: “These people are crazy” “Yea, they’re like little kids. As long as we don’t reply we’ll get through this.”
Incoming Majority Leader of the Virginia Senate, Saslaw is the author of SB-16, the Virginia ‘assault weapon ban & confiscation’ bill.
Politicians and journalists often portray fiction as fact. It is easy to be opinionated, but hard to be informed. This came to mind as I listened to Virginia Democrats tell us we’d be safer if we were disarmed. What is the truth about gun-control laws? What politicians says a law will do might have nothing to do with what the law actually does. Lives are at stake when gun-control laws fail. Saying that the next gun-control law is necessary to stop violent crime admits that the 23 thousand firearms regulations already on the books didn’t work as advertised. It is a rare politician who admits how limited the government really is when it comes to public safety.
Fortunately, we’ve lived with firearms for several hundred years. We know some things that work. Here are a few inconvenient truths I’ve found after a few decades of study.
Inconvenient Truth: Most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders. Unfortunately, restrictions on firearms have not reduced the rate of suicide. Fortunately, informed gun owners are reaching out to other gun owners who are dealing with mental illness. Mental health treatment works. We’re changing the gun culture for the better, no thanks to the politicians.
Inconvenient Truth: Most murders with a firearm in the United States are committed by members of criminal gangs. The police know who most of these murderers are. Gun-control laws that restrict the actions of honest gun owners have not changed the actions of known criminals. Most of the young people shot with guns are gang members who were shot by other gang members. Unfortunately, some of the victims are also innocent bystanders or victims of crime. Disarming the innocent victims doesn’t stop the criminals.
Inconvenient Truth: Background checks don’t reduce the rate of violent crime. Criminals don’t buy their guns at gun shops or gun shows. Criminals get their guns the same way they get their drugs; they get them illegally from other criminals. (By the way, there is no gun-show loophole. Every law that applies outside a gun show also applies inside a gun show.)
Inconvenient Truth: Honest gun owners do not cause crime. In fact, licensed concealed carry holders are both more law-abiding and more accurate with their guns than the police. Civilians with a permit to carry a gun in public are the most law-abiding group that sociologists can find.
Inconvenient Truth: Civilian gun ownership is the most cost-effective way to reduce violent crime.
Inconvenient Truth: Owning a gun does not make you more likely to be a victim of violent crime. It is true that people who live in high-crime areas are more likely to want a firearm for personal protection. People tend to be more sensitive about personal safety when someone they know have been victims of violent crime. Gun ownership is often a response to criminal violence rather than the cause of it.
Inconvenient Truth: Criminals don’t often take a person’s gun and hurt them with it. There are more examples of victims disarming criminals than of criminals disarming victims.
Inconvenient Truth: A sexual assault almost never becomes a rape if the victim is armed. The armed victim is such an uninviting target that the attacker usually runs away once he sees that the victim is armed.
Inconvenient Truth: Criminals don’t fight fair. There are usually several criminals attacking a single victim. We civilians are the first victims of crime. Police are our backup and usually arrive after the fight is over.
Here is one last inconvenient truth: Politicians often exempt themselves from the laws they pass. Some politicians own guns. They must think guns are useful. Some politicians have armed security. They must think guns make them safer. If politicians don’t live by the gun regulations they want for us, then the politicians don’t believe in gun-control.
I agree with what these gun-control politicians do even if I disagree with what they say, and that is the truth.
The world isn’t safe. If you don’t believe me, then ask a policeman who deals with criminals every day. The policeman wants a firearm because he lives in a dangerous world. Unfortunately, the average criminal will victimize over 20 civilians before the policeman catches him. That is why you and I need a firearm too. We have to protect ourself and our loved ones until the police arrive, and we only call the police after we’ve been attacked. There is no doubt that self-defense is inconvenient, but I’d rather be inconvenienced now than be a helpless victim later. To make matters worse, you don’t get to pick when you might be attacked. ;-(
The Trump administration, under orders to slash Obama-era regulations, has also issued the fewest new rules since the government began counting them in 1975.
For a third year, Trump’s administration has broken the record for issuing the fewest regulations and rules, a radical departure from the eight years of former President Barack Obama.
According to Clyde Wayne Crews, the regulation expert and policy vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Federal Register published 2,964 final rules.
Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ordered a review of state laws that allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and restrict data sharing with federal immigration authorities.
Wolf on Tuesday ordered all of the components of DHS to conduct a department-wide review of the state laws to determine how they affect their day-to-day operations, according to a memo obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The DHS chief’s directive indicates he is prepared to take aim against the state laws.
“Accordingly, I am instructing each operational component to conduct an assessment of the impact of these laws, so that the Department is prepared to deal with and counter these impacts as we protect the homeland,” Wolf’s memo read.
The memo follows implementation of New York’s “Green Light” law, and passage of a similar bill in New Jersey in December. Both laws not only allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, but also restrict DMV data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.
In New York, in particular, numerous county clerks have expressed reservation over the fact that illegal aliens can obtain a driver’s license with foreign documentation — arguing that such a policy paves the way for voter fraud, identity theft, and even terrorism. DHS had already voiced its opposition to a provision in the New York law that prohibits Homeland security Investigations, a division of ICE, from accessing DMV information — even if the agency is investigating serious crimes.
“Laws like New York’s greenlight law have dangerous consequences that have far reaches beyond the DMV,” DHS spokeswomen Heather Swift said Tuesday. “These types of laws make it easier for terrorists and criminals to obtain fraudulent documents and also prevent DHS investigators from accessing important records that help take down child pornography and human trafficking rings and combat everything from terrorism to drug smuggling.”
And there you have it folks. A felon, who from his record should have been behind bars with a long time yet to go before release, is the deadhead. When you see so many times that these people have been through the criminal ‘justice’ system time and again and are still set free, it makes the idea that it’s part of a plan seem all the more plausible.
The suspect involved in a fatal shooting at a Dallas-area church on Sunday was identified by officials as 43-year-old Keith Thomas Kinnunen, it was reported.
Law enforcement sources told local station KXAS Channel 5 that Kinnunen was the shooter. He had a criminal record in Tarrant County, including aggravated assault and theft of property charges.
Kinnunen was fatally shot by an armed member of the church’s security team in an incident that was captured on a church live stream. He stood up from the audience in the West Freeway Church of Christ at about 10:50 a.m. Sunday morning, went to a corner of the Church after saying something to someone there, and then pulled out a shotgun from his coat and opened fire, according to footage obtained by Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
The footage showed Kinnunen apparently wearing a hooded jacket and holding a shotgun.
In 2016, he told police in Linden, New Jersey, that he was homeless and was traveling from Texas to take photos. He was arrested in September of that year when police found him with a shotgun, the paper reported.
The report stated that Kinnunen was also arrested in 2008 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Fort Worth. According to KXAS, he was charged with theft in 2013.
The Virginia Defense League and Gun Owners of America, the gun rights group that is spearheading the Second Amendment sanctuary movement in the commonwealth, responded to Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s statement that called the sanctuary resolution as having “no legal effect.”
The VDL and GOA sent a letter to their supporters and urged them to resist any unconstitutional gun control law the General Assembly passes in the new session next year.
“It is apparent that AG Herring and Governor Ralph Northam believe that Virginia localities have a duty to actively assist the Commonwealth in the enforcement of any law enacted by the General Assembly. These officials appear to believe that such blind obedience is required irrespective of whether a law violates the U.S. Constitution, the Virginia Constitution, or is manifestly destructive of the preexisting rights of the People of Virginia,” the groups wrote. “This radical view is demonstrably false, and ignores the significance of the fact that local officials are required by law to take an oath to support the federal and state constitutions above the laws enacted by the General Assembly.”
The VDL and GOA said Governor Ralph Northam and Herring are wrong in their assessment counties must always implement laws passed since they “have taken exactly the opposite legal position” when it came to sanctuary status for illegal immigrants.
Northam vetoed two bills in March that would have banned localities from becoming sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants and would have required law enforcement agency to notify federal authorities if they had illegal immigrants in their custody.
“The safety of our communities requires that all people, whether they are documented or not, feel comfortable, supported and protected by our public safety agencies,” Northam said at the time.
“Thus, three times in three consecutive years (2017, 2018, and 2019), Governor Northam used his office to support the right of Virginia’s localities to declare themselves sanctuary cities and counties, refusing to help with the enforcement of federal immigration laws, based on mere policy differences with those federal laws,” the gun rights group said.
The VDL and GOA stated there is nothing new with people not obeying illegal and unauthorized government acts, adding, “If necessary, the lower authority may even actively resist the superior authority, since the higher authority is acting illegitimately and unconstitutionally, and without legal authority.”
An overwhelming number of counties in Virginia have declared themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries, promising to not enforce any gun law deemed as unconstitutional.
A few Virginia sheriffs voiced their support for counties becoming gun sanctuaries to Townhall, giving the movement critical backing.
“I am in favor of the Second Amendment Sanctuary. I believe we need to send a message to Richmond that our citizens will take a stance. My deputies and I take an oath to uphold the Constitution and that’s what we will do,” said Rappahannock County Sheriff Connie Compton.
It’s glorious how the normal people of Virginia are rising up to reject Governor Blackface … or is it Governor KKK-klothes? He can’t seem to remember which one he was in the photo, meaning he had probably donned both creepy get-ups at some point. Yay, our Democrat betters! In any case, the people are telling him, “No, we’re not letting you goose-stepping Bloomberg bots take our guns,” and it is especially glorious that the means to make this righteous commitment is a new, and not garbage, sanctuary movement.
I’ve always been an advocate of playing by the left’s new rules, and this is a great opportunity to new rules the libs good and hard. We got your sanctuary right here, pinkos.
See, the left decided that Virginia, whose northern reaches are now full of government workers and other garbage people, needed to turn blue. With tons of lib donor money and the aid of a typically inept state GOP (I know those feel here in California), they managed to just barely grab control of both houses of the legislature. With Governor Byrd-Jolson in charge, they immediately promised to do away with the Second Amendment. They announced that they were going to confiscate the citizens’ scary guns and do all sorts of other things to show those disobedient, probably Jesus-loving rubes who was boss.
Instantly, everyone outside the garbage counties locked and loaded their freedom and so the Second Amendment sanctuary movement began. County after county, and many cities, all committed to resisting if the state tried enforcing unconstitutional gun laws against normal citizens. And it was beautiful. The Dems wet themselves.
Remember, these normals won’t hurt anyone who doesn’t mess with them. They work, raise children, pray, and they keep guns for the defense of themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. They didn’t get the memo that said they were supposed to just roll over and become subjects instead of citizens.
After all, Virginians aren’t Canadians.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) has no plans to use the National Guard against residents in Second Amendment sanctuary counties, according to a spokesperson.
The Los Angeles Times quoted Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky saying, “[Northam has] absolutely no plans to call in the National Guard.”
The clarification of Northam’s position comes after Rep. Donald McEachin (D-VA) suggested the governor use the National Guard to force compliance with any newly passed gun controls.
The Washington Examiner quoted McEachin saying, “I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law. That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”
Northam’s decision not to call in the National Guard at this time also follows Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins’ vow to “deputize thousands” to defend gun rights.
Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. “Red Flag” laws without due process will create enormous conflict as well.
America has more guns than citizens and murder has long been illegal. At best, the proposed gun restrictions will disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense and possibly cause a criminal to choose another tool for evil.
Jenkins added, “If necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”
When people desperately trying to avoid a fight are left no choice but to fight, they are often the fiercest fighters imaginable.
The reason being an explosion of righteous anger – of berserker fury – directed at the bullies who will not leave them be.
Governor “Coonman” Northam of Virginia is such a bully.
He intends to rescind the current, ancient and long-acknowledged legal right of Virginians who aren’t criminals to possess more than single shot rifles and pistols – by criminalizing anyone who does possess them. These newly minted “criminals” will then be required to turn in their formerly legal firearms to the government or be subject to Hut! Hut! Hutting! by armed government workers sent by the Coonman to enforce his criminal acts.
This is a recipe for 1775.
Another bully – Thomas Gage, the British military governor of Massachusetts – attempted a “Coonman” in that year, which lit the fuse of what became the Revolutionary War. He sent armed government workers – Redcoats – to confiscate the weapons of the colonists – who had finally had their fill of being bullied. These long-ago AGWs eventually gunned down several colonists on the village green at Lexington.
Word of the massacre spread and the people rose in response, fighting back with whatever means available, harrying the column of armed government workers as it made its way back toward Boston, some 18 miles away.
The fury incited by that long-ago “Coonman” was subsequently described by himself:
“These people show a spirit and conduct against us they never showed against the French . . . They are now spirited up by a rage and enthusiasm as great as ever people were possessed of and you must proceed in earnest or give the business up. A small body acting in one spot will not avail, you must have large armies making diversions on different sides, to divide their force. The loss we have sustained is greater than we can bear. Small armies cannot afford such losses, especially when the advantage gained tends to do little more than the gaining of a post.”
Eight years later, those furious colonists finally succeeded in getting the bullies off their backs – permanently.
They probably never imagined that homegrown bullies even worse than “Coonman” Gage would eventually arise to torment them.
The current “Coonman” may not realize just how very tired the people are of being bullied – and how willing they are to fight, if a fight is forced upon them.
The “Coonman” feels confident. He has the full weight and force of the government and all its means at his disposal. He has legions of armed government workers available to enforce his writ.
But he hasn’t got the fury – and that is something he ought to reckon with, before it it is too late.
If this thing starts, it will not end until one or the other side is no longer capable of fighting. It will be no-quarter-given. It will be awful.
But it will be righteous.
And it may be necessary.
They can’t control their power mad fantasies and not go into their standard operational overreaching.
- Virginia House Del. Ibraheem Samirah introduced a bill that would override local zoning officials to permit multi-family housing in every neighborhood, changing the character of quiet suburbs.
- Oregon passed a similar bill, following moves by cities such as Minneapolis; Austin, Texas; and Seattle.
- Proponents say urban lifestyles are better for the environment and that suburbs are bastions of racial segregation.
Democrats in Virginia may override local zoning to bring high-density housing, including public housing, to every neighborhood statewide — whether residents want it or not.
The measure could quickly transform the suburban lifestyle enjoyed by millions, permitting duplexes to be built on suburban lots in neighborhoods previously consisting of quiet streets and open green spaces. Proponents of “upzoning” say the changes are necessary because suburbs are bastions of segregation and elitism, as well as bad for the environment.
The move, which aims to provide “affordable housing,” might be fiercely opposed by local officials throughout the state, who have deliberately created and preserved neighborhoods with particular character — some dense and walkable, others semi-rural and private — to accommodate people’s various preferences.
But Democrats tout a state-level law’s ability to replace “not in my backyard” with “yes, in your backyard.”
House Delegate Ibraheem Samirah, a Democrat, introduced six housing measures Dec. 19, coinciding with Democrats’ takeover of the state legislature in November.
“Single-family housing zones would become two-zoned,” Samirah told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Areas that would be impacted most would be the suburbs that have not done their part in helping out.”
Presiding judge Rosemary Collyer, having returned from her vacation on Mars and just in time for her retirement, has demanded of the FBI revised procedures to ensure that the multiple frauds committed upon the court, including inclusion of fraudulent material, omission of exculpatory information, and the deliberate alteration of documents to mislead the court. It was farcical to hear her, in the face of multiple felonies in a Deep State plot bordering on sedition, suggest that revised procedures for the handling and submitting of FISA applications is the answer to our chief law enforcement agency’s attempt to overthrow a sitting president of the United States.
Did she just wake up? Where has she been?
Back on February 2, 2018, a House Intelligence Committee memo, written when it was chaired by the now vindicated Rep. Devin Nunes, detailed the phoniness and falsification of the data used in the first and subsequent FISA warrants based primarily on the fraudulent Steele dossier.
Nunes told how FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe admitted that without the now fully discredited Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA warrants and no subsequent Deep State coup against Trump under the guise of a counter-intelligence investigation:
The dossier, authored by former British spy Christopher Steele and commissioned by Fusion GPS, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie. It included salacious and unverified allegations about Trump’s connections to Russia.
The memo, which has been at the center of an intense power struggle between congressional Republicans and the FBI, specifically cites the DOJ and FBI’s surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, saying the dossier “formed an essential part” of the application to spy on him[.] …
The memo states that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”
The memo also says Steele was eventually cut off from the FBI for being chatty with the media. It says he was terminated in October 2016 as an FBI source “for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations — an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.”
Justice is supposed to be blind, but in her case and that of the other FISA court judges, it was brain-dead………..
Most Americans know of the FISA court and its star chamber judges but not about it, which is that it is a borderline example of the prophetic warning about trading liberty for security and winding up with neither. The potential abuse of FISA powers is enormous and the damage that has been done to our republic, and our politics has been staggering:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court deals with some of the most sensitive matters of national security — terror threats and espionage. Its work for the most part cannot be examined by the American public, by order of the Congress and the President. It is a tribunal that is completely secret (or supposed to be), its structure largely one-sided, and its members unilaterally chosen by one person.
A rotating panel of federal judges at the FISC decides whether to grant certain types of government requests — wiretapping, data analysis, and other monitoring for “foreign intelligence purposes” of suspected terrorists and spies operating in the United States.
… [T]he 11 judges are appointed exclusively by the Chief Justice of the United States, without any supplemental confirmation from the other two branches of government. John Roberts has named every member of the current court, as a well as a separate three-judge panel to hear appeals of FISC orders, known as the Court of Review.
The FISA court knew all of this or should have. The remedy is to impose the appropriate criminal sanctions authorized by law. As Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett notes:
A year and a half ago when the redacted FISA applications were first made public, it was obvious that the FBI relied almost entirely on Christopher Steele’s phony “dossier” and that the FISA court was being lied to. Back then, Collyer should have immediately ordered a “show cause contempt” hearing demanding that Comey, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein all appear before the court to explain why they should not be held in criminal contempt for deceiving judges in the four warrant applications they signed. They swore that the information was true and verified when they knew or should have known it was not. Collyer still isn’t ordering a contempt hearing. This is an appalling abdication of judicial duty.
Indeed it is. Imprisonment and/or disbarment for the lot of them is required. After that, abolish the FISA court itself. It is an unelected fourth branch of government with no real accountability. We have sacrificed our liberty for its bogus promise of security, putting our democracy at risk. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we see that happening before our very eyes.
Almost every Democrat running for president supports so-called “gun buybacks.” Too bad they don’t work.
Proposals range from Joe Biden’s voluntary gun buybacks to the more radical mandatory confiscation proposed by Cory Booker. (He still misleadingly calls it a “buyback.”) So it’s worth examining how such buybacks played out recently in New Zealand, which passed a ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons and a mandatory gun buyback program after a tragic shooting in April.
The deadline for the mandatory gun buyback program was Friday. The New Zealand program successfully led to the compensated confiscation of 51,000 of the targeted firearms. But as the left-leaning Guardian newspaper reports, this is out of an estimated 170,000 such guns currently in circulation. And there are still a minimum of 1.2 million legally owned firearms in New Zealand on top of that.
This means that many people ignored the demand that they turn in their guns and trust the supposedly benevolent government to protect them from themselves.
And it’s almost certainly safe to say that those who surrendered the 51,000 semiautomatic guns will skew heavily toward the law-abiding, nondangerous end of the spectrum. Thus, getting these guns off the street in this fashion only tends to disarm the good guys, leaving their society at large more at risk, not less. Americans use firearms in self-defense hundreds of thousands of times per year, analysts estimate, usually without firing a shot.
One must avoid drawing direct conclusions based on how policies affect countries with different populations, characteristics, and societal norms. But rough comparisons can be fair, for what they’re worth. And the massive failure of what was a sweeping, bipartisan gun control measure in New Zealand bodes poorly for how more obstreperous Americans would react to the partisan, contentious gun control measures Democrats are contemplating.
Moreover, assuming that American gun owners complied in similar proportions, common sense dictates that those planning to use their guns to commit crimes would be among the last to comply. Meanwhile, millions of people in the United States who pose no threat would become criminals overnight. They could face incarceration or even deadly consequences if police really do go around kicking in doors to seize guns, as failed presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke once called for.
And even in the case of a voluntary buyback, it is far less likely to attract guns that are going to be used in crimes.
All in all, New Zealand’s mandatory buyback program is a massive failure. But don’t expect that to change the minds of most Democratic presidential candidates. They’re concerned with what polls well among the Democratic base — not with what actually works.
Consider the recent statements and acts of iconic progressive celebrities.
Jane Fonda is chronically furious. This time she directed her wrath at those who disagree about the urgency of ending the entire fossil fuel industry and ruining the current economy. Her idea is to put climate “deniers” on trial for incorrect speech. So much for the First Amendment. “Now, because of the fossil fuel industry, it’s too late for moderation,” Fonda says. “And given the emergency, it’s those who believe in moderation, in pre-Trump business as usual, who are truly delusional. And those who lie and continue to lie about what they’re doing to the environment should be put on trial.”
Green teenage heartthrob Greta Thunberg has a different solution for those who disagree with her orthodox view on “climate change”: “World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities, but we have to make sure they cannot do that. We will make sure that we put them against the wall, and they will have to do their job to protect our futures.”
If Thunberg is truly worried about past government decisions that have threatened the world, she might study Swedish history and ask why her forefathers sold iron ore to the Nazi war machine—without which it could not have waged the war it did—and often threw in Swedish transport in the bargain.
For those who think the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal watchdogs ceaselessly monitor our government to ensure our Bill of Rights and laws are not abused to the detriment of citizens, they should be sorely disappointed. The Left has redefined “civil liberties” to mean “correct thinking.” Thus, incorrect thinking is not protected speech or behavior.
It is now clear that the top hierarchy of the FBI under James Comey and Andrew McCabe used the powers of their agency to deceive a federal court with fraudulent evidence in order to surveil a U.S. citizen as part of a larger plan to subvert a political campaign and eventually a presidential transition.
It is also likely that both James Clapper and John Brennan trafficked in a fake dossier, a product of opposition research designed to smear a political candidate in a presidential race. Both were also likely involved in the use of overseas informants to surveil Trump campaign aides.
Few on the Left feel that it was either morally or legally wrong for Hillary Clinton to hire a foreign national to spy on her opponent’s campaign, much less for a foreign national Christopher Steele to interfere in a U.S. election.
Laws are fluid, to be enforced when they champion the “good,” to be ignored or subverted when they empower the “bad.” That is why both Clapper and Brennan—who in the past alike have admitted to lying to Congress while under oath—were rewarded with paid analyst positions, respectively with CNN and MSNBC……
If and when fascism comes to America, it will not arrive with jackboots, stiff arms, and military uniforms. The attempt to suppress political opposition in anti-constitutional fashion, to regiment the economy by denying constitutionally protected freedoms, and the efforts to change the Constitution to reflect political utility, will come under the auspices of “equality,” “fairness,” “saving the planet,” and “social justice”—as a way to combat “climate change,” “racism,” “homophobia,” and “sexism.”
The old Confederate idea of state nullification of federal law—the great bane of a century of civil rights movements—is now a progressive trademark.
Over 550 sanctuary jurisdictions have announced that federal immigration law simply does not apply in full within their confines. Because there were no federal consequences when states simply ignored federal immigration legislation, why would not local jurisdictions—such as an increasing number of counties in Virginia—simply renounce state laws in matters of gun control?………….
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a Los Angeles law requiring businesses that want city contracts to disclose whether they have ties to the National Rifle Association.
The NRA’s request for a preliminary injunction was granted by U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles. It temporarily prohibits enforcement of the measure while the case unfolds. The next step could be an appeal by the city or an NRA request to make the injunction permanent.
The judge also threw out part of the lawsuit on technical grounds and removed the city clerk and Mayor Eric Garcetti as defendants but he refused to entirely dismiss the lawsuit.
Another record November in NICS checks