Report Finds Few Who Fail Background Checks Are Charged

H/T Bearing Arms.

I do not understand why more people are not prosecuted for lying on theses ATF forms

Gun grabbers look at violent crime rates and swear up and down that we need more gun laws. After all, criminals still get their hands on firearms, which means the laws aren’t working.

The reality, however, is much different. The reality is that our current gun laws stop a large number of people from buying guns when they’re not legally permitted to do so. The problem is that despite knowingly breaking the law, few are prosecuted for it.

Few gun buyers are ever prosecuted for lying on forms they are required to complete as part of a background check when purchasing a weapon, a new federal study concludes.

In the 29 states where federal officials handle the background checks, there were only 12 prosecutions in fiscal 2017 of people who were found to have provided false information, such as failing to disclose a felony conviction, according to the Government Accountability Office.

It is a federal crime for people trying to obtain guns to make a false statement or furnish false or misrepresented identification that is intended to deceive people on the legality of the sale of the firearm. Violators face up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000.

Of a total of 8.6 million transactions processed by federal officials that year, 112,710 were rejected but only about 12,700 were referred for further investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Now, sometimes, it’s difficult even to know where to look for someone, so I get that.

But when you do find someone or know their identity, few are prosecuted. Then, they try another way to get a gun and get one, only to commit a violent crime that’s then blamed on law-abiding gun owners who already swallowed countless gun laws to curb violence before and watched as it did nothing.

If they’d been prosecuted and convicted, they’d have been in jail, not on the street trying to get a gun from some thug with stolen firearms in the trunk of his car. Sorry, but that’s the sad fact.

Maybe it’s just me, but if you’re not going to prosecute people for this stuff, why does the law even exist in the first place? There are a lot of things out there that should probably be law, but any law on the books should either be taken seriously or repealed. This is a prime example, in my opinion.

Instead, though, we have a law-breaker not being prosecuted at the same time we who follow the law are fighting to protect our Second Amendment rights because of the actions of those who aren’t being prosecuted until someone is either bleeding or dead. Maybe it’s just me, but nothing about this sounds just.

For those who base a policy decision on logic, it makes no sense, but for those who base it on ideas like “fairness,” then please explain to me how this is remotely fair.

I’m waiting.

Advertisements

DNC Chair on Getting out the Vote During Midterms: ‘You Can’t Door Knock in Rural America’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

The DNC wants to reach out to the white middle class that they said they going to ignore during the Obama years I am shocked.

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez on Friday said the Democratic Party “can’t door knock in rural America” during a discussion about the DNC’s get-out-the-vote strategy during the midterm elections.

Perez appeared on MSNBC’s “All In,” where he discussed the DNC’s strategy to trying to take back Congress in the midterm elections, saying that they were investing their money in infrastructure and digital organizing.

Host Chris Hayes said that many people thought that there were lost opportunities during the 2016 election, prompting him to ask Perez whether the party was doing things differently to prepare for the November midterm elections.

Perez said the DNC was spending $0 on television ads and were instead focusing on digital organizing and infrastructure.

“To get back to your question which is a really important one, we are investing and organizing. We are investing and making sure we build that organizing infrastructure, the technology infrastructure because you can’t door knock in rural America,” Perez said. “That is why we invested in digital organizing in Indiana, Georgia, Montana and elsewhere.”

Perez’s comment about door knocking followed his remarks about how the Democrats were “building meaningful relationships” with voters.

Following the Republican victories in 2016, Perez acknowledged that the DNC needed to redefine its role to help Democrats retake control of Congress and the White House.

“We didn’t invest enough in our state party infrastructure. We didn’t invest enough in grass roots organization. We ignored rural swaths of America. We can’t do that. We need an every-ZIP-code strategy,” he said.

Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign was heavily scrutinized following her loss to Donald Trump for not being able to appeal to middle-class voters in rural states.

Conn. Workers Sue SEIU for Back Dues

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

It is great to see these SEIU members working to recover the union dues they were forced to pay to the union thugs in charge.

Fallout continues for labor in wake of Supreme Court ruling striking down forced fees.

Government workers in Connecticut have filed a class-action suit to recover their wages in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling against coercive unionism.

Employees with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection are suing the state chapter of Service Employees International Union, Local 2001, to win back dues and agency fees the state required them to pay as a condition of employment. The suit comes just months after the Supreme Court declared forced-dues schemes in the public sector an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. It alleges the department and union have made no effort to reimburse workers for mandatory payments.

“Local 2001 and the State Defendants acting under color of state law to force employees to join a union or pay a fee as a condition of continued employment have violated Plaintiffs’ rights,” the suit says. “Defendants, acting in concert with one another, have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiffs and class members’ of their constitutional rights.”

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees that government agencies could no longer require workers to pay union fees or dues as a condition of employment, overturning the long-standing precedent set forth in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). The ruling has caused panic in the labor movement as the four largest public-sector unions, including SEIU, face the loss of 400,000 agency fee payers who provide partial dues meant to cover the cost of representational activities, such as collective bargaining and grievance proceedings, while withholding financial support for political activities and lobbying. The loss of those partial payments could cost labor organizations hundreds of millions of dollars.

SEIU Local 2001 represents about 21,000 workers and collects more than $6 million in revenue each year charging dues that range between $300 and $884 per year, according to its 2017 federal labor filings. The union had only 682 agency fee payers that year. The department ceased automatic deductions for dissenters in July following the Janus ruling, but the union continues to demand payments from them, according to the suit. The workers, who are represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation—the same lawyers who argued Janus before the Supreme Court—argue that deductions should have ceased years earlier since the Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of compulsory union fees in the 2012 Knox case. The suit also seeks a pledge from the union that it will not seek to include mandatory payments in future contract negotiations with the state.

“Local 2001 has been on notice since at least the Supreme Court’s decision in Knox in 2012 that agency fees violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment as the Court explained in Janus,” the suit says. It further asks the Court to expressly prohibit “the State Defendants from requiring, requesting, collecting, receiving, or in any other way possessing or obtaining union fees from Plaintiffs and the class at all.”

The union vowed to fight the suit, calling it “malevolently motivated” and “completely without merit.” Local 2001 said it abided by all relevant federal laws in collecting dues and that it was within its right to accept agency fees after the Supreme Court affirmed mandatory payments in the Abood case. Union executive director David Glidden said it has complied fully with the new Janus standard.

“The lawsuit, in addition to being malevolently motivated, is completely without merit, and we shall vigorously defend against it. CSEA has complied fully with the Janus decision since it was issued,” he said in a statement. “Prior to that, we collected fair share fees in accordance with 35 years of Supreme Court precedent for the purposes of negotiating and administering contracts, and therefore we are confident that we will prevail in this matter.”

A department spokesman referred the Washington Free Beacon to a spokesman for Democratic governor Dannel Malloy. The governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

 

C.B.I. Theater – June 1945 (2)

Pacific Paratrooper

Assembling the helicopter at Myitkyina. Shortly after, it would land on a Burma peak for the 1st such mercy mission in this area.

AAF HQ. – Capt. Frank W. Peterson maneuvered the helicopter through the maze of jungled Burma peaks and set the small ship down on a rough strip atop a razorback mountain whose sides fell off steeply to narrow valleys 2,500 feet below.
Twenty-four hours later, after gas and oil had been air-dropped, he took off again, this time carrying a passenger: 21-year-old Pvt Howard Ross, ground observer at an isolated weather station outpost in North Burma who was suffering from a badly infected gunshot wound in his hand.

This air evacuation mission, marking the first time a helicopter had been employed in rescue work in this Theater, climaxed one of the most amazing stories to come out of India-Burma.  The story had its beginning when, after the forced…

View original post 862 more words

C.B.I. Theater – June 1945 (1)

Pacific Paratrooper

Harassed and groggy after ever-increasing aerial blows, residents of Japan’s main cities once more sought shelter underground this week as Super-Forts rode high and unchallenged over the island kingdom. But, for once, the giant planes did not only unleash cargoes of flaming death. Huge paper bombardments also rained down on the cities, spraying millions of propaganda leaflets over wide areas.


Text of the leaflets was soon revealed by Radio Tokyo, which reported they were signed by President Truman and advised the Japanese people to get out of the war or face the same destruction that was accorded the German people. “Unconditional surrender,” the broadcast reported the pamphlets as reading “would not mean obliteration or slavery for the Japanese people.”
However, Uncle Sam’s airmen backed up the threats implied in the propaganda warfare with two “knockout” punches aimed at Nippon’s “glass jaw” – her concentrated industrial empire.

As Maj. Gen. Curtis…

View original post 631 more words

MSNBC: Kavanaugh Will Be ‘Illegitimate Supreme Court Justice,’ Trump Is a ‘Dictator in the Making’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is running wild at PMSNBC.

MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski and analyst Steve Schmidt had strong language Tuesday for President Donald Trump and his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, calling the former a “dictator in the making” and the latter “illegitimate” before he’s even been confirmed.

Kavanaugh begins his confirmation hearings Tuesday as Democrats mount a last-ditch effort to defeat his nomination. No Senate Republicans have signaled they will oppose him since Trump nominated Kavanaugh in July, and at least two need to vote no to torpedo his chances.

Schmidt, the ex-Republican strategist and vociferous critic of the Trump White House, previously helmed the successful confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito while working in the George W. Bush administration. He and other Trump opponents have been a sharp critic of the administration’s handling of Kavanaugh’s process.

“What we see here is an illegitimate process that will yield an illegitimate Supreme Court justice and further degrade in the public’s mind the legitimacy of the institution of the Supreme Court itself,” Schmidt said on “Morning Joe.”

He sarcastically complimented Trump as being “absolutely indefatigable” in his “vileness, his illiberalism, his fetish for autocracy.”

“It exhausts everybody,” Schmidt said. “The problem with it is that when you are in a fight, there’s only two ways to win a fight. You either have to bring your opponent to submission … or you wear them out. Trump wears people out. He exhausts them. He numbs them, He completely—”

“That sounds like a dictator in the making, actually,” Brzezinski said.

“He just completely wears them out,” Schmidt said.

Brzezinski has previously called Trump a “great dictator” and questioned his mental stability. She also agreed with Schmidt’s statement in May that the president is a “stone cold racist.”

GOP Sen. Ben Sasse says he “regularly” considers leaving the Republican Party

H/T CBS News.com.

Senator Ben Sasse(R-NE) Please take our sorry RINO ass and leave the Republican Party will be better off without you.

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, said on Twitter Saturday that he “regularly” considers leaving the Republican Party. He made the remark in response to a tweet by a user who said she switched from being a member of the Democratic Party to having no affiliation.

“I switched my party from Democrat [to] no-party this week as I see that to be part of the solution. Have you considered following suit?” the user asked Sasse.

He responded, “yep — regularly consider it.”

Ben Sasse

@BenSasse

yep — regularly consider it
(except the “from Dem” part)

stephanie pickens@guard_ad_litem
Replying to @BenSasse

I switched my party from Democrat Ro no-party this week as I see that to be part of the solution. Have you considered following suit?

Sasse is a frequent critic of President Trump. After Mr. Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in July, Sasse told “CBS This Morning” the president “isn’t leading.” In a press conference after the meeting with Putin, Mr. Trump publicly disagreed with the conclusions of American intelligence leaders that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

“Right now the president isn’t leading. We negotiated from a position of weakness yesterday and Vladimir Putin walked away from Helsinki with a win. It’s a disaster,” Sasse said.

Sasse told “Morning Joe” on MSNBC on Wednesday that party was less important to him than his ideals.

“I’m not really sure why a lot of people around here make a lot of their decisions, but I think most people in both parties right now, their main long-term interest in Washington is their own incumbency. And, that’s not really what I’m that interested in,” Sasse said. “Most of the stuff I care about isn’t right vs. left. It’s past vs. future.”

Sasse has previously tweeted that he identifies more as an independent than a Republican. “I’m sorta an independent conservative who caucuses with republicans,” he tweeted in March.

He is considered to be a possible presidential candidate in 2020 or beyond.

However, Sasse is a conservative Republican and often votes in line with the president’s priorities, according to FiveThirtyEight. He is expected to vote to confirm Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.