2020 Democrats keep shifting left. Moderates fret they’ll shift even further at next debate

H/T McClatchy DC.

I do not see how much farther to the left the DemocRats can go.

Bob Buckhorn remembers sitting at home in Florida last month watching the first Democratic presidential debate — and openly worrying about what he was seeing.

The former centrist Democratic mayor of Tampa said the candidates were lurching much too far to the left on key policy issues, damaging the party’s chances of defeating President Donald Trump during next year’s election.

“I don’t think most Americans are comfortable with some of what they heard last debate,” Buckhorn said. “And I think it’s unfortunate.

Buckhorn’s view is a common one among moderate Democrats. In interviews, many of them expressed deep concern that this week’s debate in Detroit will feature another inevitable shift to the left, one that will alienate swing voters in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Last month, Democratic candidates debated — and in many cases, embraced — issues like eliminating private health insurance and decriminalizing illegal border crossings that are unpopular with the broader electorate.

Even some of those who will participate in the debate are unsure where the conversation will move next.

“This primary is becoming about moving the goalposts on these issues,” said John Delaney, one of the presidential race’s most outspoken moderate candidates. “And you never know what the next one is going to be.”

Primaries traditionally encourage candidates to back policy proposals that appeal more to the party’s ideologically fervent base than moderates In most cases, whoever emerges as the eventual nominee inevitably pivots back toward the center for the general election.

But centrist Democrats say the last debate was, even for a primary, unusually fixated on subjects that either didn’t interest or outright repelled voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

“I hope that in the next debate there’s more of a discussion about education and public safety and issues of the economy and those other issues that a lot of moderates are looking for,” said former Democratic Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska.

Even more alarming, they said, was the speed at which some once-fringe issues were widely adopted by the presidential field, like decriminalizing border crossings.

The idea gained broad acceptance among most of the candidates after being introduced by former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro — despite polls showing that it had little support among the broader public and even uneven backing within the Democratic Party.

Just 27 percent of Americans say it would be a good idea to decriminalize border crossings while 66 percent say it would be a bad idea, according to a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Maris poll released last week. The idea has split support among Democrats, with 45 percent saying it would be a good idea and 47 percent saying it’s a bad idea.

Moderate Democrats say they want White House hopefuls to condemn Trump’s immigration policies and show support for plans that grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants. But discussion that avoids any talk of border security is politically dangerous, they argue, especially with a president who plans to make immigration the centerpiece of his reelection campaign.

“What President Trump would like to do is for us to talk about the rights of Central Americans instead of the rights of American citizens,” said Scott Peters, a moderate Democratic congressman from the San Diego area. “And we can’t fall into that trap.”

Peters, a member of a center-left group in the House called New Democrats, encouraged his party’s presidential candidates to emulate the agenda and style of the host of freshman Democrats who won battleground districts during last year’s midterm elections.

Most of them focused their general-election campaigns relentlessly on GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would remove protections for men and women with pre-existing medical conditions, while touting a liberal if more pragmatic set of policy proposals.

That’s aligned with the approach of some presidential candidates, most notably former Vice President Joe Biden, who has argued that he wants to preserve Obamacare while criticizing some of his opponents for wanting to switch instead to a single-payer system.

“We should all be concerned that we not lose touch with those people who are going to really matter in winning this election,” Peters said. “I was surprised that there wasn’t more of a defense, for instance, of Obamacare, and a defense of an immigration policy that helps our economy and recognizes the importance of borders at the same time.”

The conflict among Democrats in part stems from different views of how the party can defeat Trump. For some, they think the key is driving up turnout among their core liberal base.

For others like Jeff Smith, a former Democratic state lawmaker in Missouri, the key is winning over more moderate independent voters.

Smith said when he watched last month’s debate in a right-leaning part of his home state, he kept thinking how few people near him would agree with what the Democratic presidential candidates were saying.

Missouri isn’t a swing state, he said, but many of the middle-of-the road voters in the state are similar to the ones Democrats need to win over in Wisconsin and Michigan next year. It’s why he wishes the candidates would steer the conversation to policies with more support, he said, despite his own progressive ideological convictions.

“Am I for most of those things? Yes, I’m for most of those things,” Smith said. “I also know that in the span of 18 months, we aren’t going to change enough minds to make those the median voters’ position.”

Hall of Fame linebacker Nick Buoniconti, part of legendary undefeated Dolphins team, dies at 78

H/T Fox News.

R.I.P. Nick Buoniconti.

Hall of Fame linebacker Nick Buoniconti, a member of the Miami Dolphins during that team’s undefeated 1972 season, died, a spokesman for his family said Wednesday.

He was 78.

Buoniconti spent 15 years in the NFL playing with the Dolphins and the Boston Patriotsbetween 1962 and 1976. He won two Super Bowls, was named to the Pro Bowl eight times and was an All-Pro selection five times.

After he retired, Buoniconti and his son Marc raised more than a half-billion dollars in the search for a cure for paralysis. Marc was paralyzed from the shoulders down making a tackle in 1985 playing for The Citadel.

Marc Buoniconti remembered his father as his hero.

“Today, with a heavy heart and profound sorrow, my family and the entire Miami Project to Cure Paralysis and Buoniconti Fund community mourn the loss of a man who was truly larger than life, my father, NFL Hall of Famer Nick Buoniconti,” he said in a statement. “My dad has been my hero and represents what I have always aspired to be; a leader, a mentor and a champion.”

Bruce Bobbins, a family spokesman, said Nick Buoniconti died in Bridgehampton, New York, on Tuesday. The cause of death was not immediately known.

After he retired, Buoniconti worked as an attorney, as president of U.S. tobacco and an agent to athletes such as Bucky Dent and Baseball Hall of Famer Andre Dawson.

He struggled with symptoms of CTE after he retired and vowed to donate his brain to CTE research when he died, according to ESPN. In May, it was revealed he was struggling with memory loss and couldn’t use his left hand to put on a shirt, among other ailments.

Top Firefighters’ Union Supports Biden, Opposes Medicare for All

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

The thugs that lead these unions do not give a Damn if their rank and file support their choice for President.

These thugs that lead these union would support Lucifer if he ran with a “D” after his name.

IAFF says they would find it difficult to support a candidate who wants to eliminate private insurance.

One of the leading unions representing firefighters throughout the United States has come out against Medicare for All ahead of the second Democratic debate.

The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) begancirculating a letter last week to Democratic presidential candidates voicing the union’s concerns that Medicare for All proposals would jeopardize their memberships’ current health care plans. The letter was signed by Harold Schaitberger, president of the IAFF.

“The IAFF cannot support the notion that our members and the millions of hard-working Americans who have union-negotiated, employer-provided healthcare should be forced to give it away in favor of a government-run program,” the letter states.

“The elimination of employer-based insurance in favor of a Medicare-for-all or government-run single-payer proposal is a bad idea that punishes working families who have secured quality healthcare,” the letter continues. “Those with employer-provided healthcare should not be disadvantaged in order to create a government option.”

Boasting a membership of over 300,000 firefighters, the IAFF operates one of the most active political action committees on the national level. It contributed over $6 million to Democratic and Republican politicians in 2018. At the presidential level, the labor union has traditionally supported Democratic presidential candidates and quickly endorsed former vice president Joe Biden, a longtime ally of the union, after he announced his presidential campaign earlier this year.

As the Democratic presidential candidates prepare for this week’s 2nd debate, Schaitberger’s letter also indicates that some progressive policies pushed by leading candidates such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) have not gained the union’s support. Each candidate’s health care proposal is expected to draw a significant amount of attention during the debate.

“We would find it difficult to support any candidate” who supports replacing employer-provided health care with government-run health care, the letter warns.

The Medicare for All plans supported by Harris, Sanders, and Warren all call for a transition for those who have employer-sponsored health care plans to government-administered coverage. Biden’s recently released healthcare plan proposes creating a public option for individuals without completely eliminating private insurance.

According to an analysis by NBC News following the 2016 election, 50 percent of IAFF membership voted for Donald Trump while only 27 percent voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2008 and 2012, the membership by a narrow margin supported President Obama over his Republican challengers. After the polling results were published, Schaitberger suggested he was not surprised by the findings as he believed the national Democratic Party’s focus on identity and cultural issues turned off his membership in the 2016 general election.

Biden Blows Garlic Reaction, says ‘Broken Gun Laws Need Fix,’ But Wait…

H/T AmmoLand.

I have a question for Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden, What laws in extreme gun control Commiefornia that is broken?


U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat hopeful Joe Biden may have once again unintentionally inserted foot in mouth when he reacted to the Sunday mass shooting at the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, Calif.—a state with possibly the strictest gun laws in the nation—by tweeting, “How many more families will have to lose a loved one before we fix our broken gun laws? We must take action, starting with real reform,” according to Fox News.

With its strict gun control laws—all passed in a state by lawmakers who claimed each new restriction was designed to “fix” and “reform” a “broken gun law”—California legislators, Biden and some of his equally-exploitive competitors evidently don’t get it, critics could say. Restrictive Golden State gun control laws cannot prevent criminals from committing crimes or prevent madmen from causing mayhem. The career politician now clinging to a lead in the Democrat primary race as Wednesday evening’s second debate looms famously once suggested firing a shotgun into the air as a way to frighten burglars away.

Former Vice President Joe Biden reacted to shooting in state with toughest gun laws by saying more gun laws are needed. (Screen capture, YouTube, CBS, CTM)

Biden, and California Sen. Kamala Harris, who as the state attorney general before she moved up the political food chain used to enforce those gun laws, may have some explaining to do.

The site of the Garlic Festival is a “gun-free zone” and people are checked with metal detectors before being allowed to enter. But the alleged gunman, who was fatally shot by police within a minute of opening fire, apparently cut through a chain link fence to get around security measures and violate the gun restriction. He may not be the only suspect, authorities have indicated.

Among the dead is a 6-year-old child identified as Stephen Luciano Romero. A dozen people were injured.

A 13-year-old witness to the shooting, identified by Fox News as Evenny Reyes of Gilroy, reportedly told the Mercury News, “It was like the movies — everyone was crying, people were screaming.”

The suspected killer has been identified as 19-year-old Santino William Legan, according to CBS News. He allegedly used an unidentified rifle in the attack.

The scene of the shooting is in a county where, according to researcher and author John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center, average citizens have a difficult time obtaining a concealed carry permit. Lott said Santa Clara County has only 113 active carry permits in a population with some 1.5 million adults. But even if more people had permits, they would have been unable to carry at the Garlic Festival because of the firearms prohibition.

Harris and another anti-gun Democrat running for the party nomination, Sen. Cory Booker both talked about an “epidemic of gun violence.” If that is so, this epidemic broke out in the “hospital” environment of California, where gun laws are so restrictive that even ammunition purchases require background checks. The state has steadily eroded gun rights for many years.

Virtually every Democrat now running for the party nomination has espoused some sort of gun control scheme, from national licensing and registration to bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” Fox News noted that “Gun control has been a key issue for Democrats and many have laid out plans on how they will approach the issue.”

The quick police response by officers who were already on the scene providing security reinforced the argument that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” That observation was first made by now-embattled National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

Bernie Will ‘Absolutely’ Consider Cutting Aid to Israel Until They Change Their Behavior (WATCH)

H/T Flag And Cross.

Bernie Sanders has removed his mask and his anti-Semitism is showing.

Bernie Sanders may be a Jew but he is not a friend of Israel.

Video of the day?

Isn’t Bernie Sanders Jewish?

He’s certainly no friend of Israel.

His latest remarks about America’s best ally in the Middle East are pretty damning.

Check this out, per Free Beacon: 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) said that he would “absolutely” consider cutting aid to Israel during a Friday interview with left-wing podcast Pod Save America.

Sanders clarified his position, saying he would use the funding as a bargaining chip to pressure the Israeli government to behave differently toward its Middle Eastern neighbors.

Bernie said, “This is not easy stuff—to try to finally bring peace to the Middle East and to treat the Palestinian people with a kind of respect and dignity they deserve. Our policy cannot just be pro-Israel, pro-Israel, pro-Israel. It has got to be pro-region working with all of the people, all of the countries in that area.


There are few people currently on planet earth who are as despicable as Venezuelan tyrant Nicolas Maduro.

Due to socialism, people of his country are forced to search for meals from the back of garbage trucks. They even look for water in sewer drains.

That, apparently, did not matter to Bernie and his 2020 presidential team.

How else can it be explained why they would hire a man who once praised Maduro, noting that “his brand of socialism achieved real economic gains?”

Click that link above to read about it.

What’s more, is that David Sirota hoped the Boston bomber was a “white American.”

Harry Khachatrian


Holy sh*t. Bernie Sanders’ new speechwriter after the Boston Marathon bombing: “let’s hope the terrorist was white” https://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/ 

View image on Twitter
797 people are talking about this

You couldn’t make that up if you tried.

Will Democrats care enough to hold Bernie and company accountable? That was rhetorical.

When liberal protesters were asked if they would trade President Trump for Maduro, some people actually said, “yes.”

Think about that for a second. How uninformed can a person be?


Democrats and Media Have Been Calling Baltimore a Sh**hole for Years

H/T Godfather Politics.

When DemocRats and the media say bad things about DemocRat controlled places it is just fine but let a Republican and a Conservative do it then it automatically becomes racism.

This week’s Democrat meltdown is their lie that Trump posted “racist tweets” about the rat-infested city of Baltimore. Oddly, liberals and the media have been calling Baltimore a sh**hole for years, but it had only become “racist” to say so since last weekend when Trump posted his tweets about it.

Democrats and their handmaidens in the media shot into the stratosphere of hyperbole calling Trump a racist for his criticism of Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings and his failed leadership for the City of Baltimore.

“Rep. Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous,” Trump tweeted on Saturday.

Then on Sunday, Trump tripled down saying, “There is nothing racist in stating plainly what most people already know, that Elijah Cummings has done a terrible job for the people of his district, and of Baltimore itself. Dems always play the race card when they are unable to win with facts. Shame!”

Donald J. Trump


Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA……

67.5K people are talking about this

In another tweet, Trump added, “Rep. Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA.”

As Breitbart News reported, the left went wild with lies about Trump’s tweet:

First off was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT on CNN’s “State of the Union” who said:

It’s unbelievable that we have a President of the United States who attacks American cities, who attacks Americans, who attacks somebody who is a friend of mine, Elijah Cummings is one of the most decent and outstanding members of the House of Representatives. He fights every day to improve life in his community.

Then came Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). He called President Donald Trump’s attacks on both Cummings and Baltimore “disgusting” and “racist.” Nadler told ABC’s “This Week”:

Well, the president is as he usually is often is disgusting and racist. They’re designed to distract attention from the very serious allegations about his conduct that came from the committee hearings this week. The fact is, the president accepted help from the Russians to attack our election. His campaign worked with the Russians, that’s undisputed, and he works hard to cover up to cover those crimes and committed more crimes. He’s trying to change the subject.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also went to bat for Cummings, decrying the president as “racist.”

“@RepCummings is a champion in the Congress and the country for civil rights and economic justice, a beloved leader in Baltimore, and deeply valued colleague,” she tweeted. “We all reject racist attacks against him and support his steadfast leadership.”

Breitbart has a lot more examples of the pile-*on. But the above will suffice for our purposes here because the main point we are discussing is the fact that the left has been smearing Baltimore for years.

Baltimore is well known as one of the worst, most rat-infested cities in the U.S.A. I fact, it is so bad that pest control company Orkin put Baltimore on one of its worst rathole lists.

Orkin rated Baltimore as one of America’s top ten worst “rattiest cities,” behind Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.

Unsurprisingly, Democrats run each of those top ten cities and have for decades.

Baltimore’s rat infestation is so bad that a documentary about it was produced two years ago and the Baltimore Sun has been publishing stories of how bad the city is for quite some time.

Amy Kremer


This is the perfect example of .

In April, the @baltimoresun was concerned about the trash in the city.

Only 3 months later, they are accepting of a rat infestation.

The citizens of deserve better.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
246 people are talking about this

As Fox News’ Todd Starnes noted:

In 2015 the Washington Post reported that the average life expectancy in some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods is nearly 20 years below the national average.

“Fourteen Baltimore neighborhoods have lower life expectancies than North Korea,” the Washington Post reported. “Eight are doing worse than Syria.”

Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., currently a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, was shell-shocked by the city’s deplorable living conditions.

“Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Sanders said during a 2015 visit reported by the Baltimore Sun. “You would think that you were in a Third World Country.”

Then there is the 2018 video of Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh wandering through Cummings’ district and saying, “you can smell the rats.”

It isn’t a matter of money, either. Between 2003 to 2013, Barack Obama sent $2.4 billion in federal dollars to Baltimore (on top of the $1.8 billion in state aid). Where did it all go? Apparently down the rat hole… literally.

In 2015, President Obama even criticized Baltimore saying that city leaders are corrupt politicians who are not doing the right thing!

So, the left has been calling Baltimore a rat-infested, craphole for years. And it has never once been “racist” until today when Trump said it.

The left is so ginned up to attack anyone who would call Baltimore a rat-infested dystopia that they even went after a black woman who tweeted out her agreement with Trump that Baltimore has a significant problem that it is not making any serious attempt to solve.

Kimberly Klacik, a Baltimore Republican and pro-Trump supporter who is black, made the videos on Baltimore that reached the eyes of President Trump. Now the let is on the attack against her.

Kimberly Klacik@kimKBaltimore

So I am receiving calls that reporters are working on a hit piece on me. It is truly disappointing. Residents asked if I could help get the trash removed. I filmed it, posted it. You would think people would be upset that their brothers & sisters are living in those conditions.

13.4K people are talking about this

Kimberly Klacik@kimKBaltimore

Stressful 24 hours. I’ve received countless emails, calls & text claiming my “hit piece” is on the way. If this is the Left’s attempt to silence me, it only makes me want to fight harder for what is right. Intimidating a black woman just for speaking out? Actual racism.

18.6K people are talking about this

Kimberly Klacik@kimKBaltimore

Someone is trying hard to hack my social media accounts. If you don’t think I would say it, or post it, there is a 100% chance I did not.

View image on Twitter
1,202 people are talking about this

Washington State Sheriff:‘We Have Constitutional Duties with Our Oath of Office’

H/T GunPowder Magazine.

We need more Sheriffs like  Lincoln County Sheriff Wade Magers.

Sheriffs in Washington State are caught in a catch-22 between the state’s sweeping gun control rules, Initiative 1639, and waiting until the courts decide whether or not the provisions contained therein are Constitutional.

“The bottom line is that we have Constitutional duties with our oath of office,” Lincoln County Sheriff Wade Magers told Gunpowder Magazine. “There’s not anything for sheriffs to enforce yet. Other than the laws sounding good, there’s not much we can do.”

I-1639 was approved on the Washington State ballot during the November 2018 midterm elections. The initiative raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, adds expanded background checks and a 10-day waiting period to acquire a gun, and creates firearm storage requirements. These mandates are scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2019.

Magers contends that the laws were written and sold to the public in such a way that they distort the duties of a law enforcement officer. The police do not play a part in selling weapons; they do not handle background checks – those are left to the National Crime Information Center within the Federal Bureau of Investigations – and they cannot legally knock on doors to ensure firearm owners are securing their weapons properly. Such action would violate the Fourth Amendment.

“Hypotheticals aside, there really is no practical scenario in which we can enforce any of 1639,” Magers said. “Just because you start an initiative and get a bunch of signatures doesn’t mean it’s right.”

Sheriffs in Okanogan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Benton, Pacific, Stevens, Yakima, Wahkiakum, Mason, and Klickitat Counties also said they will wait until the courts decide on the legality of the laws.

Shortly after the initiatives were passed, Gunpowder Magazine reported that the Washington State Sheriffs Association (WSSA), Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs (WACOPS), and Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (WSLEFIA) did not support them.

GPM also reported that Washington Police Chief Loren Culp regards the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment as superseding the state’s gun control initiatives. Culp declared:

“I’ve taken three public oaths, one in the US Army and Two as a police officer,” Culp wrote on his Facebook page. “All of them included upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States of America. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As long as I am Chief of Police, no Republic Police Officer will infringe on a citizen’s right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”

The National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation both filed a lawsuit against the laws in the U.S. District Court of Seattle, arguing the laws violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and violates a gun seller’s rights under the Commerce Clause.

“Smart” Guns and Mandatory Storage: Two Bad Policy Ideas Cut from the Same Tattered Cloth


I will go on record that Smart guns and Mandatory storage are two idiotic ideas.

Whenever a tragedy strikes that involves a firearm, no matter how statistically rare the event may actually be, you can count on anti-gun extremists to try to exploit it. The responses from those opposed to the Second Amendment upon hearing that a fatality resulted when a firearm was used by a criminal, or accessed by someone who should not have access, tend to sound fairly similar. If a ban isn’t the response selected from the handful of ideas gun control advocates have been promoting for decades, then added restrictions on law-abiding gun owners is the policy du jour.

Restricting access to guns is a very popular notion among those who feel there should be far less freedom when it comes to responsible gun ownership.

In a misguided and misinformed attempt to limit access to firearms by those who should not have access to them (at least, in the mind of the supporters of gun control), the idea of mandatory storage laws was born. And as firearm technology has advanced (although not nearly as fast as anti-gun advocates think or would like), the little brother of mandatory storage laws, “smart” gun mandates, was conceived.

Methods for securing and storing firearms, as well as “smart” guns, may very well be options that law-abiding gun owners will want to explore to see if either or both satisfy their particular needs. But the operative word here is “options.”

Government mandates on “safe” storage and “smart” guns are not just anathema to those who cherish individual liberty, but are policies ill-conceived, and potentially deadly.

Mandatory storage laws, which the gun-ban community euphemistically refers to as “safe” storage laws, tend to look like they were all spit out of the same gun-control factory, with only small variations. In general, they require all firearms within the home to be locked with a trigger-locking device or kept in a locked container or safe, unless a firearm is in the actual possession of the lawful owner.

What these proposals overlook is the fact that gun safety and storage is a matter of personal responsibility and every person’s situation is different. It is unreasonable for the government to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. More importantly, mandatory storage laws invade people’s homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in a self-defense situation by locking them up.

In addition, those who wish to gain access to a firearm for nefarious purposes are not going to be deterred by a trigger lock or a locked container; both devices having been shown to be easily defeated by determined criminals. And while a safe is certainly far more reliable for securing firearms, their cost is prohibitive for many.

“Smart” gun mandates are similarly problematic, although perhaps even more dangerous.

While the idea of a gun that can only be used by someone authorized to use it is intriguing, the technology simply doesn’t exist. There have certainly been developments in the field, but everything that has been offered or tested has had problems. Either the “smart” aspect of restricting who may use it is easily defeated, or the gun aspect of firing when an authorized user is operating it is unreliable.

Being unable to access a firearm when needed, because it is locked away in a safe or otherwise “secured” is one thing. Trying to use a firearm to defend yourself or your loved ones against a violent criminal, only to find the “smart” technology fails at the most critical time, could be even worse.

In spite of the fact that at least one Democrat Presidential candidate seems convinced “smart” guns are a thing, they simply are not.

In the real world, firearms remain useful and effective tools in the hands of law-abiding citizens as a deterrent to violent crime. But only if the government doesn’t mandate ridiculous and dangerous policies like storage requirements or “smart” guns. And this isn’t just a hypothetical argument, as an incident in San Diego, Californiarecently highlighted.

According to reports, a man broke into a home in the Lake Murray area of San Diego, then attacked and stabbed the homeowner. The violent criminal was only stopped when the victim’s 20-year-old son, according to police, “retrieved a firearm and shot the intruder.”

So, why is this case particularly poignant? Because San Diego recently took the first steps to implementing a mandatory storage law.

The proposal “would require gun owners to store guns in a locked container or disable them with a trigger lock when not in the person’s immediate control or being worn on their person.” Had the law been in effect this week, and had the victims of this violent assault been in compliance, one wonders whether the outcome would have been dramatically, and tragically, different.

If the victim’s son was unable to access the firearm he used without first opening a safe or removing a trigger lock, provided he even had the ability to do either, the violent criminal may very well have continued his assault unabated.

Even the local news notes some are questioning the new proposed storage requirements in light of this crime, stating, “The situation is making residents think twice about the new law that, if it were already in effect, could have altered the outcome of this burglary.”

Of course, similar concerns could be raised if San Diego had a “smart” gun mandate in place, but at least the City Council hasn’t taken that approach…yet.

On the other side of the country, however, the Garden State had already decided “smart” gun mandates should remain part of the future of gun control.

In 2002, New Jersey passed a law stating that, once “smart” guns were certified as viable, only handguns incorporating this technology could be sold in the state. This, of course, amounts to nothing more than a ban on traditional handguns. But after almost two decades, “smart” gun technology remained unproven, unreliable, and undesired by America’s gun owners. Without any significant developments or improvements in “smart” gun research that would lead to certification of firearms that satisfy the law passed in 2002, anti-gunners are using a new approach to attempting to force these mythical products into existence.

Last week, rabidly anti-gun New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D) signed into law a requirement that every gun dealer in the state offer at least one model of “smart” gun for sale. A commission will be established to determine a list of firearms that qualify as “smart” guns.

Typically, when you have to force businesses to sell a product, that’s a very strong indicator that there is not a market for the product. New Jersey gun shops may be forced to put a “smart” gun on their shelves, but the anti-gun zealots are more likely to see dust collecting rather than actual sales.

And while some might consider this new law an improvement, as it repeals the 2002 law that sought to require only “smart” guns be sold, don’t expect this to be the end of what anti-gun legislators will do to continue their ongoing war against gun owners in New Jersey.

Governor Murphy, after signing the new law, has already stated his desire that only “smart” guns be sold in New Jersey. Once somebody develops one that qualifies under the current law, regardless of how reliable it is, it can be placed on the approved-for-sale list. At that point, reviving the 2002 law would be the obvious next step.

Storage mandates and “smart” gun requirements will continue to be falsely promoted as safety measures in the never-ending war on law-abiding, responsible gun owners. But limiting the use of firearms by those facing assault by violent criminals, either because of storage requirements that delay access or technology that is subject to inopportune failure, is likely to lead to unintended, and sadly tragic, consequences.

Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting, Only Confirmed Fact: Park Was a Gun Free Zone

H/T AmmoLand.

This story will soon fade away from the drive-by media as I heard somewhere the shooter was of Middle Eastern descent and hated Whites and Hispanics.

Gilroy, California – -(AmmoLand.com)- Early reports coming over the news channels on the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting are all over the place, with eyewitness claims of machine-guns, multiple active shooters, 100 of bullets whizzing by heads, etc. All the typical hysteria we see in the first reports of any tragic mass shooting.

Early Police reports are that as many as 11 people were injured and three people are dead, in a shooting Sunday at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in Northern California.

The only thing we know for a fact at this moment is that the Gilroy Garlic Festival and the host location in Christmas Hill Park is a Gun Free Zone. That means none of the law-abiding festival attendees were armed. They were all sitting ducks.

The Gilroy Garlic Festival website clearly lists the Christmas Hill Park as a gun-free killing zone, banning “weapons of any kind”.

Gilroy Garlic Festival website clearly lists the park as a gun-free killing zone
Gilroy Garlic Festival website lists the park as a gun-free killing zone.

Christmas Hill Park is a 51-acre community park operated by the City of Gilroy in southwest Santa Clara County, California. Gilroy lists the park as a deadly Gun-Free zone.

Christmas Hill Park operated by the City of Gilroy Gun Free Zone Notice
Christmas Hill Park operated by the City of Gilroy Gun Free Zone Notice

The anti-gun Brady Center for Gun Control ranks California number one (#1) for having the “strongest” (read most oppressive) gun laws that help keep guns out of the hands of lawful U.S citizens.

Brady Center for Gun Control ranks California number one oppressive gun laws
Brady Center for Gun Control ranks California number one oppressive gun laws

We will update this story as we get more information.

Ginsburg Bats Down 2020 Democrats’ Proposal To Expand the Supreme Court

H/T Western Journal.

I am surprised that Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsburg opposed the idea of packing the court by DemocRats.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Tuesday it would be a “bad idea” to add to the number of members on the U.S. Supreme Court, as some Democratic presidential candidates have suggested.

Those who have expressed openness to such a court-packing scheme in order to offset President Donald Trump’s appointments include Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, as well as former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke.

Additionally, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker has said he supports having a “national conversation” about changes to the Court.

The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices, leaving it up to Congress to decide by statute.

Since the founding of the republic, the number has ranged from six to 10, but for the last 150 years it has been set at nine.

“Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” Ginsburg told NPR.

“I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Court,” she added.

The FDR-backed Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 would have allowed him to “appoint up to six additional justices … for every justice older than 70 years, 6 months, who had served 10 years or more,” according to History.com.

Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, told History.com a majority of the public did not support the bill and Congress never voted on it.

“Congress and the people viewed FDR’s ill-considered proposal as an undemocratic power grab,” she said.

“The chief justice [Charles Evans Hughes] testified before Congress that the Court was up to date in its work, countering Roosevelt’s stated purpose that the old justices needed help with their caseload.”

Ginsburg believes the American people would have the same reaction now.

“If anything would make the Court look partisan,” she said, “it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

The justice contended this would take away from the Court’s legitimacy and independence.

“We are blessed in the way no other judiciary in the world is,” she noted.

“We have life tenure. The only way to get rid of a federal judge is by impeachment. Congress can’t retaliate by reducing our salary, so the safeguards for judicial independence in this country, I think, are as great or greater than anyplace else in the world.”

Following Democratic presidential candidates’ talk of increasing the number of justices, GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida introduced a constitutional amendment in March that would keep the number at nine.

Many have speculated whether Ginsburg — the oldest justice at 86 — will be the next to leave the bench.

Last summer, she hinted at a timeline for her retirement.

“My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years,” she said.

If Ginsburg retired at 90, that would fall during a potential second term for Trump.

The justice told NPR she shared a dream she had with Stevens shortly before his death earlier this month.

“I said that my dream is that I will stay at the Court as long as he did,” Ginsburg recounted.

“And his immediate response was, ‘Stay longer!’”