Canada’s Gun Control Debate Acknowledges 2A Keeps U.S. Antis in Check

H/T AmmoLand.

The Second Amendment keeps the anti-gun crowd in check that is why the anti-gun crowd wants to gut it.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A Duke University law professor may have unintentionally explained to a writer at Foreign Policy.com why Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was able to push through new gun control measures following the deadly Nova Scotia shooting spree, when such arbitrary actions would never be permitted in the United States.

Buried deep in a story that was perhaps incorrectly headlined “How Canada Got Tough on Guns” are a couple of paragraphs quoting Prof. Joseph Blocher, who “studies gun rights and regulation.” As he explained to writer Jillian Kestler-D’Amours, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms “as a factor for why the gun debate in Canada can appear so different. In Canada, there is no constitutional right to own guns.”

It’s not that Canada “got rough on guns,” but that Trudeau got tough on gun owners; law abiding Canadian citizens who neither committed the crime nor endorsed it. But the story really does not focus on that, only on the perception that some guns, at least, including so-called “assault weapons” and handguns, are not considered necessary in Canada.

The 2008 Heller ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court put that discussion off the table when it identified the handgun as the most common firearm used for personal and home protection. Handguns are in common use and therefore, according to Heller, they’re protected by the Second Amendment.

Twelve years ago, when the gun prohibition lobby contended almost around the clock to any news willing to listen that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right, the late Justice Antonin Scalia corrected the record. Now anti-gunners argue the amendment does not protect “assault rifles” or carrying guns outside the home, and there are ten cases pending before the high court that—if one or more is accepted for review during the next term—could correct gun grabbers again.

WICZ News picked up a report from CNN’s Jamie Ehrlich that discusses how these cases, none of which were accepted for review this week so they go back on the list for consideration during the court’s next conference, could change the legal landscape anew. It’s been ten years since the Court accepted a Second Amendment case, so the justices are overdue.

By no small coincidence, the CNN story also quotes someone from Duke, Jacob Charles, executive director for the university’s Center for Firearms Law. Charles acknowledges the court composition has changed since Heller and the 2010 McDonald ruling, “but that is no guarantee the court will make a sweeping ruling the way some conservatives hope,” the story says.
Regardless of one’s philosophical position on the Second Amendment, both reports put the right to keep and bear arms squarely in the spotlight, a situation that could never happen north of the border, where the amendment doesn’t exist.

The Foreign Policy.com story mistakenly observes that “some 30,000” U.S. citizens are “dying from gun violence every year,” which mischaracterizes the problem considerably. Fully two-thirds of those fatalities are from suicide, not homicide, and gun rights advocates in the U.S. have insisted for years that the two categories should not be mixed together. One is the result of a crime, the other an act of emotional desperation, and combining the numbers only makes for a more dramatic and alarming total, which plays well with the gun control agenda, but rather fast and loose with actual fact.

As AmmoLand’s David Codrea noted in his recent article about the Canada situation, gun control extremists in that country have essentially admitted that disarmament is the ultimate goal.

Meanwhile, gun control will no doubt be a central issue in the upcoming presidential campaign, if it ever really gets underway amid the coronavirus pandemic panic. There are several battles on that front.

In Florida, National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer—the NRA’s first female president nearly 25 years ago—is in a fight with Leon County Tax Collector Doris Maloy about her apparent plan to delay accepting new, first-time applications for Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm licenses as the county gets back to normal services. Maloy reportedly has a “five-point plan” that will open four service centers around the northern Florida county. However, new gun license applications will still not be accepted, and Hammer is not happy. She’s advised Maloy in a letter that the Tax Collector lacks authority to make such a call under state law, according to the Tallahassee Democrat.

A few days ago, the Second Amendment Foundation issued a statement declaring to local governments that if they are not issuing concealed carry licenses, citizens should not be arrested for carrying concealed. It’s something of a “Catch 22” situation. People can’t carry concealed without a permit or license. While the law allows them to apply, local governments or police agencies have blamed the COVID-19 outbreak for their decision to not accept new license applications to reduce potential contact between their employees and the public.

But there is nothing in the law, nor the Constitution, that allows for certain rights to be suspended because of a virus outbreak. So, SAF, the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition and other groups have been busy legally.

These legal and political skirmishes keep anti-gunners reined in, but they also cost lots of money. That’s why all gun rights organizations are appealing to members and supporters to keep contributing, especially now that there are signs the economy is recovering from the coronavirus shutdown.

As Blocher, the Duke University law professor noted, the Second Amendment prevents the kind of heavy handed gun control now unfolding in Canada. That’s not to say U.S. anti-gunners wouldn’t like to change that situation.

This is why, as many leading gun rights advocates repeatedly tell people, “elections matter.” Donald Trump’s election in 2016 brought about some 200 appointments of conservative, pro-Second Amendment judges to the federal bench. For that to continue, he must win in November and Republicans will have to retain the Senate.

Somewhere out there, gun control advocates are planning their election strategy to flip the nation backwards. Gun owners who are alarmed about the Canadian situation and want to prevent that from happening here—Second Amendment or not—need to get in the game right now.

According to gun rights activists, the only things separating the U.S. and Canada are an invisible border and the Second Amendment. Ignoring that or taking it for granted could prove disastrous in November.

Northam’s Mask Mandate In Effect What Does It Mean For Concealed Carry?

H/T Bearing Arms.

How will the mask mandate effect concealed carriers?

Gov. Ralph Northam’s mask mandate for Virginians is in effect as of today, and while I suspect that the mandate is going to be largely unenforced throughout much of the state (and may very well be challenged in court) for gun owners who plan on wearing masks while shopping there’s still a question about the legality of carrying a firearm while wearing a mask.

Augusta County Sheriff Donald Smith says gun owners don’t have to worry about running into any legal troubles, despite a Virginia law that bans the wearing of masks while armed. In a Facebook post-Thursda evening, the sheriff explained why he believes carrying while masked isn’t illegal, at least at the moment.

The VA Code Section that restricts you from concealing your identity does NOT apply in this situation. In this case, the Commonwealth of VA is under a “state of emergency” and the masks are in response to the Governor’s orders. This order doesn’t restrict your ability to conceal a firearm legally. Wearing a face mask (that covers your nose and mouth) while carrying a weapon is not a violation of this VA Code Section. Below I have attached the Code of VA addressing this. Section (b) at the very bottom addresses this specifically as to what does NOT apply to this code. I hope this clears up any confusion and helps ease everyone’s concerns.

Here’s the section of Virginia code that the sheriff referenced.

§ 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.

It shall be unlawful for any person over 16 years of age to, with the intent to conceal his identity, wear any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon (a) the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device, or (b) the declaration of a disaster or state of emergency by the Governor in response to a public health emergency where the emergency declaration expressly waives this section, defines the mask appropriate for the emergency, and provides for the duration of the waiver.

I appreciate the sheriff’s explanation, but I still have some questions. In the governor’s executive order requiring masks, Northam did not expressly waive this section of Virginia law, nor did he provide for a duration of the waiver (or even the duration of the order itself). Northam’s original order declaring a state of emergency back in March also failed to waive the section of Virginia law that makes it illegal to wear a mask in most circumstances.

In practice, I think it’s highly unlikely that any concealed carry holder is going to run into trouble for carrying while wearing a mask, but despite the sheriff’s explanation, it’s still unclear to me whether or not it’s technically legal to do so. Until the governor actually follows the law by specifically waiving this section of Virginia code and providing for an expiration date for his order, I’d check with my local sheriff’s office to ask them if they plan on enforcing the prohibition against carrying while masked. Again, in most parts of the state I don’t think it will be an issue, but I’m less confident about that being the case in some of the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Michigan Bust Shows Why Gun Control Fails

H/T Bearing Arms.

Another example of how gun control fails every time.

Time and time again, anti-gunners try to tell us that gun control works. They tout countless flawed studies that show correlations, but not causation. We tend to counter with other studies that show the opposite, particularly how guns save lives.

Yet, at the end of the day, the truth is that gun control would never work, even if guns didn’t save more lives. Why? Because the people who represent the problem when it comes to guns simply don’t care about gun laws. Or any laws, for that matter.

Take this Detroit drug bust.

A trio of search warrants served by a police task force in Troy and Detroit uncovered a stash of drugs, guns and cash.

[Michigan State Police] said it was part of an ongoing investigation by MNET — a multi-jurisdictional task force consisting of state, local and federal law enforcement agencies — into a group trafficking prescription pills in metro Detroit.

Seized today, police said, were two AR-15 pistols, one AK pistol and two semi-automatic pistol. Officers also seized body armor, thousands of prescription pills and $99,000.

Now, for many, this is alarming because of the presence of two AR-15 pistols and an AK pistol.

However, it also illustrates the futility of gun control

How?

Well, take a look at what else was found. Yes, there were a couple of handguns, some body armor, and a pile of cash. Also was a lot of prescription pills.

Now, medication is tightly controlled in this country. You can’t just walk into a store and order prescription pills. You have to get permission in the form of a prescription from someone licensed to write them. Doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or whoever with the appropriate permissions has to say, “Yes, these people actually need these medications.”

Then, depending on the medication, there may be limits on how many can be given at a time. I spent six months of training time in the Navy learning this stuff during a “C” school, so I know what I’m talking about here. The drugs most likely to be abused can’t be prescribed for more than a month’s supply and there can’t be any refills.

Inside the pharmacy, these particular meds also tightly controlled. Each pill has to be accounted for or else someone faces jail time. They don’t play around with controlled substances.

Further, prescription medications can’t easily be made in backyard workshops. It takes a great deal of specific knowledge to make pharmaceuticals, something your average person doesn’t have. I went through a whole class on how to compound medications and even then, I wouldn’t have been up to trying to replicate controlled substances in pill form

So, with all of this, just how did these individuals get their hands on thousands of controlled pills?

If you can answer that, then you also know how these same people will get their hands on firearms no matter what laws you try to put in place.

You’re not going to stop bad people from getting guns. You’re just going to stop the good people from being able to do so. That puts them at the mercy of the criminal, and no one wants to be there.

Cuomo Outrages Local Officials by Arbitrarily Canceling Reopening Phase Hours Before It Was To Start

H/T Western Journal.

Little Andy Cuomo(Delusional-NY)is on a power trip.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo indicated on a radio show Thursday evening that phase two of the reopening process for the eligible regions of the state would not begin Friday as local officials and businesses had previously been planning for.

Retail stores, hair salons and barbershops had been preparing to reopen their doors after over two months of shutdowns due to the coronavirus, as had been laid out in reopening guidelines provided by the state.

However, the Democratic governor suggested in a Thursday afternoon radio interview that five regions of the state would not enter phase two on Friday morning, and he would instead give the past two weeks of COVID-19 data to experts to review and determine if his state can continue to reopen.

“The reopening of the first five regions ends tomorrow when the reopening of phase one ends,” Cuomo told WAMC-FM.

“We’ll give the experts all the data. It’s posted on the web, but let them analyze it. And if they say we should move forward, we move forward.”

Local officials were surprised by Cuomo’s comments because they hadn’t heard anything from the governor’s office at that time, the Observer-Dispatch reported.

“Look, the governor can make that comment to someone on the radio but we can’t get a call from the governor’s office?” Chemung County Executive Chris Moss said.

“You know what, we’re opening tomorrow.”

Onondaga County Executive Ryan McMahon told reporters shortly before the radio interview that he believed the Central New York region would begin phase two on Friday but didn’t expect to hear that from the governor.

“But there were rules that were communicated,” he said. “It’s a data-driven process and the data says go.”

The state had laid out a four-phase reopening plan, with each phase lasting approximately two weeks.

Each region had to meet seven data benchmarks to show a decrease in hospitalizations and deaths as well as available testing.

The first five regions met those benchmarks and began reopening on May 15, with four other regions starting the process shortly after.

Because Cuomo has said that he can extend or shorten each phase, there has been some confusion about reopening guidelines, which Democratic Cuomo ally and Broome County Executive Jason Garnar has called “frustrating.”

Panels of local leaders received word during Thursday evening calls that phase two would not proceed Friday, according to the Observer-Dispatch.

Local officials received Cuomo’s executive order extending phase one to all regions except New York City and not initiating phase two on Friday morning.

Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente Jr. said the governor’s decision was “misguided,” according to WNBC.

“This is some seriously disturbing behavior being exhibited by this Governor,” Rensselaer County Executive Steve McLaughlin tweeted.

As George Floyd Video Makes MSM Headlines, Clip of Black Cop Violently Choking Young Man Practically Nowhere To Be Seen

H/T Western Journal.

The response from the drive-by media is crickets.

The death of George Floyd, allegedly the result of a cop’s aggressive action, appears to be propelling our nation into another conversation about race, policing and the very fabric of America.

Floyd, a black man, died after having his neck knelt on earlier by a white police officer. Although the connection between the officers and Floyd’s death has not yet been proven, video of the incident has sparked protests across multiple states.

As of Thursday afternoon, articles about Floyd and the protests following his death dominate the front pages of CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Despite the apparent concern over police brutality and its effects on communities, each of these establishment media heavyweights has so far failed to cover a viral video out of Mississippi seemingly showing an extremely aggressive cop.

The underreported video shows a Jackson police officer, identified as Myron Smith by the Jackson Free Press, with his hands around an apparent suspect’s throat. The footage was first seen on Friday.

The cop and the apparent suspect seen in the clip are both black.

With the young man pinned against the car, Smith yells at him while bystanders urge the officer to relent. Like Floyd, this man also complains that he cannot breathe while being restrained.

Disregarding the complaints, the officer continues his actions.

While this suspect did not die, like Floyd did, the disparity in the media’s coverage of the attack, especially when it’s a narrative that is dominating the news cycle, is shocking.

WARNING: The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.

So far, it appears that only local media and a few national outlets are covering the video.

Site-wide searches on the websites of CNNMSNBCThe New York Times, and The Washington Post show that the clip has not been reported on yet.

The video is more relevant now than ever and could help the nation have a real conversation about the direction of policing in our country.

As the new clip proves, police violence is not simply a white-on-black problem.

Many (including at least one lawmaker) have increased racial tensions in the aftermath of the George Floyd video by pointing the finger at the involved white officers.

While no account of police brutality is welcome news, this video could present an uncomfortable truth for those looking to further divide the nation using race.

UPDATE, May 29, 2020: When originally published, this article’s headline claimed that this story was nowhere to be seen, when a small group of outlets had already reported on it. We have updated our headline for clarification.

California Exploits Ammunition Background Checks to Confiscate Guns

H/T Independent Institute.

Commiefornia has found a backdoor around the Second Amendment.

How long will Commifornia get away with it?

Since last July 1, California has required background checks for those purchasing firearm ammunition. As we noted, by December 2019 the state had run 345,000 background checks and rejected 62,000 Californians legally entitled to purchase ammunition, including off-duty sheriff’s deputies purchasing shotgun shells to hunt ducks. Officials blamed glitches in the system, but for Ari Freilich of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the system was working as intended, as a “red flag” law allowing seizure of weapons from those who have committed no crime. As it turns out, Freilich was on to something.

Last month, the state Department of Justice mounted “a dozen operations to confiscate firearms and ammunition possessed by owners who failed background checks,” the Sacramento Bee reports. Agents seized 51 firearms, 28,518 rounds of ammunition and more than 120 magazines, and there was more. They also found 116 grams of methamphetamine and a whopping four grams of heroin. No word on whether those who possessed the drugs were part of any legal needle exchange program like the one in San Francisco.

“Gun violence is the last thing our communities and children should have to fear during a public health crisis,” proclaimed Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “Background checks can save lives and DOJ’s firearms operations help make that happen. At the California Department of Justice, we’ll keep doing our part to keep firearms out of the hands of violent and dangerous individuals.” Californians concerned about their Second Amendment rights might note a couple things here.

The DOJ raids were not in response to actual cases of “gun violence,” and there is no evidence the raids saved lives. For Becerra’s DOJ, anyone who fails their background check system, the same one that denied purchases to more than 60,000 law abiding gun owners, is automatically considered dangerous. DOJ agents then swoop in to confiscate their guns. What could possibly go wrong?

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez in San Diego ruled that the ammunition law “defies common sense while unduly and severely burdening the Second Amendment rights of every responsible, gun-owning citizen desiring to lawfully buy ammunition.” Last month, as CBS News reports, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Becerra’s request to stay the order from Judge Benitez.

Also in April, while the state was blocking ammunition sales and confiscating guns, California released 3,500 prison inmates, including seven violent sex offenders in Orange County. One of them, Luis Joel Ramirez, has a history of sexual battery, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, and has violated parole four times. Stay safe everybody.

Here’s Who Joe Biden Could Pick for the Supreme Court

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

God help us if Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden gets elected.

Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has pledged to appoint the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court if he prevails in November.

Biden’s promise is a nod to the black voters who revived his once-flailing presidential campaign. His zealous courting of black votes has been awkward in stretches, as when he told radio host Charlamagne tha God that African Americans struggling to choose between himself and President Donald Trump “ain’t black.”

There are two broad groups Biden might select from, the first including sitting judges on federal and state courts, the second with more academic backgrounds. The leftwing group Demand Justice, which is pressing Biden to release a shortlist of potential nominees, has released its own list, which is heavy on academics and cause lawyers. A Washington Free Beacon analysis found the most likely candidates are U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, and U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, with Stacey Abrams as a possible wildcard pick.

Every president since Ronald Reagan has made at least two appointments to the Supreme Court. Biden’s pledge gives him a relatively small pool of candidates with a traditional background for elevation to the High Court. According to biographical data kept by the Federal Judicial Center, there are 17 black female federal judges under the age of 60, the upper limit for Supreme Court nominees in recent decades. Trump’s two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were 49 and 53 respectively. Only a handful of black women on the federal bench are under 55, meaning Biden will have to cast a wider net for potential picks.

If elected, Biden will have to balance three competing problems when selecting a nominee: mounting pressure from the left to pick a candidate with varied occupational experiences, a possible Republican majority in the Senate, and the prospect of an expansive search.

Demand Justice is pressing Biden to pick judicial candidates with civil rights or consumer protection experience, and the group’s list includes black professor Michelle Alexander of Union Theological Seminary, best known as the author of a popular, controversial book on incarceration, and NAACP Legal Defense Fund president Sherrilyn Ifill. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Biden’s onetime rival and a potential vice presidential nominee, has similarly decried “corporate capture of the federal courts”—the concern that judges who worked for corporations or represented them in private practice are too friendly to business.

If Republicans retain control of the Senate, Biden will also have to find a candidate palatable to a caucus that proved unyielding when former president Barack Obama tried to replace the late justice Antonin Scalia. Indeed, the GOP ran a two-year blockade on judicial confirmations in the waning years of the Obama administration, leaving over 100 vacancies for Trump to fill.

Further analyses of the most likely picks in a future Biden administration can be found below.

U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, 49

Jackson, who sits on the federal trial court in Washington, D.C., has already been considered for the Supreme Court. Former president Barack Obama reportedly interviewed Jackson in 2016 for the ill-fated nomination that ultimately went to Judge Merrick Garland. Her stock has only risen in the intervening years.

Since taking the bench in 2013, the judge has decided several high profile matters. Her most significant decision may be a 2019 ruling requiring former White House counsel Don McGahn to comply with a House subpoena, which included pointed rejoinders of President Donald Trump’s legal positions. Though her 118-page opinion was much feted among the president’s critics, it was overturned on appeal.

Jackson had an unlikely ally in former House speaker Paul Ryan when she was nominated for the federal bench. The judge’s husband, Patrick Jackson, is the twin brother of Ryan’s brother-in-law William Jackson. Ryan introduced Jackson during her 2012 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Our politics may differ, but my praise for Ketanji’s intellect, for her character, for her integrity, it is unequivocal,” Ryan told the committee.

Her confirmation would mark the first time that two African Americans have served together on the Supreme Court. Jackson lunched with Justice Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court clerk and recounted the experience to Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher for their 2007 book, Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas.

“I just sat there the whole time thinking: ‘I don’t understand you. You sound like my parents. You sound like the people I grew up with,'” Jackson said. “But the lessons he tended to draw from the experiences of the segregated South seemed to be different than those of everybody I know.”

Jackson’s time in private practice could complicate her prospects. Her résumé—which runs a wide range of law practice—includes experiences liberals will admire, like a three-year tour in the federal public defender’s office and a clerkship for Justice Stephen Breyer. Yet she also advised corporate clients for nearly a decade, first for a Washington arbitration boutique, then at such “BigLaw” standbys as Goodwin Procter and Morrison & Foerster.

One leftwing judicial group is already signaling that her tenure in private practice is a problem. Jackson is notably absent from Demand Justice’s list of possible nominees.

California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, 43

Kruger holds the credentials typical of a modern Supreme Court nominee but is free of the professional baggage liberals find problematic.

Following brief stints in private practice and a clerkship for Justice John Paul Stevens, Kruger entered government service as an assistant to the solicitor general, the Justice Department official who represents the U.S. government before the Supreme Court. In that capacity, she argued a dozen cases for the government before the High Court. University of California Hastings College of Law professor Rory Little described her presentation style as polite and “uniformly serious” in a 2015 review of Kruger’s Supreme Court arguments.

Her most notable argument came in a 2011 case called Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, a landmark religious liberty dispute. During oral arguments, the entire bench seemed to think that the Obama administration’s position, which Kruger presented, took a dim view of the First Amendment. In his decision for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government’s position was “remarkable” and “hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself.”

As a justice on the California Supreme Court, Kruger has developed something of a moderate reputation on the left-leaning tribunal. An appeals lawyer who collects data on the California Supreme Court placed her at the “ideological center” of the bench, describing her voting record as “moderately liberal in civil cases, moderately conservative in criminal cases” in a January article. She also dissents sparingly, suggesting a preference for consensus decision-making.

For example, in 2018 Kruger joined with the court’s Republican appointees to turn back a challenge to a voter initiative that requires law enforcement to collect DNA samples from people arrested for felonies.

At a general level, her profile tracks Justice Breyer, who sometimes votes with the conservative justices on criminal law issues. A relatively centrist streak could make Kruger’s nomination acceptable to Senate Republicans if they hold their majority.

Stacey Abrams, 46

Though Abrams’s name is most often mentioned in connection with the vice presidency, her nomination as a justice would address oft-repeated criticisms of the Court’s composition.

The justices now serving are something like a legal gentry, ever attentive to decorum and possessed of dazzling credentials. Before becoming judges, all nine served in prestige positions at the Justice Department, practiced at highly selective firms, or taught on leading law faculties. It’s an elitist professional bent that skews pro-corporate, pro-government, and pro-prosecution, critics say.

Abrams’s workaday legal experience may be an appropriate antidote. After graduating from Yale Law School, Abrams practiced tax law with an Atlanta firm, then advised local officials on public works issues as a deputy city attorney.

Her subsequent tenure as the minority leader in the Georgia General Assembly recalls the early career of retired justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was the majority leader in the Arizona State Senate in the 1970s. After losing the Georgia governor’s race, Abrams founded Fair Fight 2020, a nationwide advocacy and impact litigation group.

As a state legislator turned cause lawyer, Abrams would follow in the tradition of Southern politicians and activists elevated to the High Court by Democratic presidents. The Court’s first black member, Justice Thurgood Marshall, was a Marylander who litigated across the South as a lawyer with the NAACP. Likewise, Justice Hugo Black, an Alabaman, was a two-term U.S. senator before his appointment to the Court. A repentant Klansman, Black became a passionate supporter of school desegregation and civil liberties.

Looking beyond the bench could be an asset to the Court. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who studies judicial selection, told the Free Beacon that the current crop of justices is lacking in both racial and experiential diversity.

“Many observers believe that the Supreme Court needs to be more diverse in multiple ways,” he said. “Eight of the nine justices were formerly members of appeals courts and the ninth served as solicitor general.”

“On the lower federal courts, there are many more former prosecutors than public defenders and more former big firm and corporate lawyers than lawyers who worked for legal aid,” he added.

For her part, Abrams has disclaimed any interest in the High Court for the time being.

“I have no interest in serving as a judge in any capacity at any point,” she told the Associated Press on May 7.

U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, 45

Stacey Abrams’s younger sister strikes a more familiar figure for a Supreme Court nominee. Abrams Gardner is an Obama appointee on the federal trial court in Macon, Ga., where she has served since 2014.

Former Georgia GOP senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson both returned “blue slips” to the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsing her nomination, which came just weeks after the Obama White House and Georgia Republicans struck a deal on judgeships that some Democrats found overly accommodating.

Abrams’s personal life is particularly compelling. Her husband, Jimmie Gardner, was falsely imprisoned in a West Virginia penitentiary for 26 years, following wrongful convictions for sexual assault and robbery. Gardner was a victim of the notorious laboratory technician Fred Zain, who fabricated or manipulated evidence in dozens of cases to help state prosecutors obtain convictions. Gardner was released in 2016 and married Abrams two years later.

Before her elevation to the bench, Abrams Gardner practiced in the Washington offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, where she advised clients like Bank of America and the Radian Group on corruption investigations and complex civil litigation. While at Skadden, she helped prepare an amicus brief for the American Bar Association that urged the Supreme Court to abolish the death penalty for minors. In 2010, she became a federal prosecutor in Atlanta, where she handled a variety of criminal cases and served as a community outreach coordinator. She is a graduate of Yale Law School.

The Biden campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

The Countless Unpaid Crimes of the Clinton’s

Jim Campbell's

Comment by Jim Campbell

May 30th, 2020

There is no precedent for putting a former president and first lady in prison.

Trish Regan: Quick Maternity Leaves Were a 'Mistake' | PEOPLE.com

That certainly needs to be rectified if we are to believe that there is justice for all which I know for a fact there is not.

It’s a shame they can receive the same treatment as Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg.

Hillary finally hands over her server—after it’s been professionally wiped clean.

Trish Regan was fired from Fox Business News because she told the truth.[Source]

By Sidney Powell

[General Michael Flynn’s Attorney.

After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, Hillary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives.

Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled. Myriad…

View original post 1,451 more words

Below The Radar: Keeping Guns from High-Risk Individuals Act

H/T AmmoLand.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Second Amendment supporters often focus on efforts by anti-Second Amendment extremists to do one of two things: Either ban firearms or to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. There is a third tack that anti-Second Amendment extremists also take: They try to expand the number of people who are ineligible to even possess a firearm.

This is the approach that Representative Robin Kelly (D-IL) took with HR 1116, the Keeping Guns from High-Risk Individuals Act. It is the sort of attack that Second Amendment supporters need to defend against but doing so can be a bit risky.

Why? Because, in some instances, people who pass background checks, and who then proceed to misuse firearms often had criminal charges that while they didn’t trigger the provisions of 18 USC 922, they did point to a potential for violence. Now, some folks probably should be denied firearms, something that is contemplated in the Heller decision, which states, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”

However, Kelly’s legislation is way outside the bounds established by Heller. The text of the legislation adds four new disqualifying conditions, and none of them are really well-established historically as valid reasons to deny rights. For instance, it has long been the case that juvenile records are sealed once a person is an adult, yet Kelly’s bill seeks to use juvenile convictions as reason to deny Second Amendment rights.

The provision on alcohol and controlled substances seems to be duplicative of what is already in 18 USC 922. The other two provisions, on crimes of violence and stalking, would catch a number of people convicted of misdemeanors into the “prohibited person” category.

Those are all bad enough, but this bill also appears to violate Constitutional provisions against ex post facto laws. In this case, as was the case with the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment involving domestic violence, new punishments are added to crimes adjudicated long before the bill was proposed. Someone who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor battery charge over a bar fight would find themselves a federal felon with the stroke of a pen if they kept a hunting rifle under this law’s provisions.

If stalking and crimes of violence are serious enough to take rights away, then politicians should be willing to take the heat of increasing the penalties so that they become felonies. Even if new categories are added to “prohibited persons,” then it should be made clear that such additions only take effect after the law is signed.

The fact is, there is no way to make HR 1116 even remotely acceptable. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and politely ask that they oppose this legislation.

Testing Indiana’s Self-Defense Laws

H/T AmmoLand.

How will this play out in court?

 

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)-  On May 17, 2020, the South Bend Tribune highlighted a story of interesting perceptive which challenges Indiana self-defense laws. The story revolves around a 19-year-old man Kyle Doroszko shooting and killing another teen, Traychon Taylor, in self-defense in April 2019. According to court documents on the night of April 28, 2019, Doroszko and a 17-year-old companion met with Taylor, 19, and three of Taylor’s associates in the back parking lot of Frank’s Place, a bar just northwest of downtown South Bend. Also according to court documents, Taylor’s group was planning to rob Doroszko.

According to the South Bend Tribune,“Prosecutors still charged Doroszko with murder, however, arguing he did not have the right to use force to defend himself because he was trying to sell marijuana and possibly a gun.”  The case is testing the limits of the law in the state of Indiana that denies self-defense rights to someone committing a crime. The case already saw a rocky start when, according to the Tribune,  “Doroszko claimed he caught officers lying under oath about interactions that were captured on video.” This forced the County prosecuting attorney to recuse himself.

The heart of the issue lies in the complicated question of what types of crimes should take away a person’s right to use force to protect himself? The Tribune writes that the courts in Indiana have wrestled with this question for many years. Joel Schumm, an appellate attorney, and professor at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law is quoted in the Tribune article saying, “The problem is the self-defense statute has language that if you’re committing a crime, you can’t use self-defense.  “If you take the statute literally, someone using marijuana or playing in an illegal card game cannot use self-defense no matter what someone does to them.”

The following Except from the Tribune Article sums up the events of the evening:

“According to court documents, Doroszko told police that Taylor, armed with a handgun, tried to steal marijuana and a backpack. Around the same time, one of Taylor’s associates approached and pointed a gun at the vehicle.

“Taylor got in the backseat of Doroszko’s vehicle. Doroszko’s vehicle sped away, and while he struggled with Taylor, he drew a handgun and shot Taylor twice, according to the documents. At the same time, Taylor’s associate, Atlantis Branch, fired at the vehicle. Taylor fell from the vehicle and lay in the street, where police later found him.

Along with the murder charge against Doroszko, prosecutors filed felony murder charges against Branch and Jeremiah Williams, alleging they caused Taylor’s death by participating in the attempted robbery.”

So, you’ve got one kid trying to pass some grass and the other kids who whip out guns to rob the guy.  What a mess. To top this off the legal age to buy a handgun in Indiana is 21 and further drives the case down the rabbit hole with potential felony gun charges. The interpretation of the law is particularly interesting since in Indiana it denies self-defense to anyone committing a crime, with no exceptions, even misdemeanors. Other states with similar laws exclude only those committing a “forcible felony.”  Now there are two Indiana Supreme Court Justices that have written opinions on the law stating  a “non-violent crime with no inherently predictable violent outcome should not negate the defense of self-defense.” The state of Indiana has struggled according to the Tribune article to clarify the law for many years.

Other academics and lawyers see the case at a slightly different angle. “But for the drug deal, this wouldn’t have happened,” said Jimmy Gurule, a professor at the Notre Dame Law School and former federal prosecutor. “This wasn’t some totally unexpected reaction. Historically, drugs and money and guns all go hand in hand.”

So the question lies therein, is it unfair to deny Doroszko the ability to protect himself from an armed robbery because he was selling marijuana? Have prosecutors had over-charged both Doroszko and Taylor’s group?

As both sides prepare for trial a difficult path forward lies ahead. Does the current law, unfortunately, leave both parties at a disadvantage?  While I am no legal expert one element I think will have a weighing factor here is, how much moral stake are people placing on the sale of some dope? What is reasonable self-defense? By placing the sale of weed on a pedestal does this negate someone’s ability to defend themselves?

To read the full story click here.


Jason ReidAbout Jason Reid

Jason Reid is a writer and business professional from upstate New York. After deciding to pursue his dream of becoming an outdoor writer, Jason started a blog from his dorm room at Houghton College, growing it and working hard to earn opportunities. While bowhunting big game is his ultimate passion, Jason welcomes all outdoor challenges which force him to push his limits.