The Bureau of Land Management is planning a truly boneheaded move, angering some conservationists over the affects to herd populations and migration routes. From Field & Stream.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently released a draft plan outlining potential solar energy development in the West. The proposal is an update of the BLM’s 2012 Western Solar Plan. It adds five new states—Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming—to a list of 11 western states already earmarked…… [read more]
Linda Sarsour, one of the organizers behind Saturday’s Women’s March, being held in Washington, D.C., was recently spotted at a large Muslim convention in Chicago posing for pictures with an accused financier for Hamas, the terrorist group.
Sarsour, the head of the Arab American Association of New York and an Obama White House “Champion of Change,” was speaking at last month’s 15th annual convention of the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America.
While there, she posed for a picture with Salah Sarsour, a member of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and former Hamas operative who was jailed in Israel in the 1990s because of his alleged work for the terrorist group.
Salah Sarsour, who is also a board member of American Muslims for Palestine, served as a bodyguard of sorts at the convention for Sumeyye Erdogan Bayraktar, the daughter of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Here’s the thing about Virginia Tech that some of us commenting at the time attempted to publicize: Nine months before the shootings, graduate student Bradford B. Wiles wrote a letter to The Roanoke Times in response to a campus manhunt for a murder suspect.
Rules against having guns are always designed for the moral amelioration of the immoral. The progressives know that law abiding men and women will follow the law, up to a point, and the liberal project of societal salvation through law-making was not intended for those who do not need it.
There are consequences for defenestration of the family and church. The progressives know full well that their rules will neither change the law-aiding nor allow him legally to defend himself. The immoral part of the progressive project is that it harms peaceable men and women, and the project masters don’t care.
The stupid part is that they believe they can change the behavior of the wicked with a new law or rule. But to what else would they turn? Without the church and family, the law is all that’s left.
The state Senate, as expected, voted along party lines, 13-10, on Thursday to approve a bill that would make it easier to legally carry a concealed weapon in New Hampshire.
Senate Bill 12 to eliminate the state’s permit requirement for concealed carry was endorsed in a 3-2 vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 10.
State Sen. Bette Lasky, D-Nashua, said the change will make New Hampshire residents less safe by removing the authority of police chiefs to pick and choose which residents will be allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Current law allows police chiefs to determine if someone is “suitable” for a concealed carry permit.”
SB 12 will revoke a process that has worked well in our state for more than a century,” said Lasky. “It’s a process that balances the Second Amendment rights of our citizens with local control of law enforcement to ensure that potentially dangerous people are not allowed to carry concealed weapons.”
New Hampshire is one of 31 states that give law enforcement the power to deny a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
[ … ]
D’Allesandro said the state’s police chiefs oppose the change …
I’m sure they do oppose constitutional carry. It destroys a revenue stream from which they can buy brand new Dodge Chargers, Comms gear and top of the line AR-15s.
“Pick and choose.” Remember that folks. That’s what the progressives want to do. They want to pick and choose the special people. You may not be on that list. As for the criminal, he’s not worried one way or the other.
“Tennessee has eight bordering states, I think seven of them allow what’s called open carry,” said state Senator Jon Lundberg, for Tennessee’s 1st District. “Has it changed the dynamics in Virginia and North Carolina, not really.”
The bill has been introduced twice and was rejected both times. If approved, Tennessee would join the other 29 states that don’t require these permits.
“This is one that people are passionate about, they’re either for it very strongly or against it very strongly,” said Lundberg. “So you will see those kind of passions come out this time around.”
Right now, the bill is still in the early stages and doesn’t have a senate sponsor yet.
Well, it needs a sponsor, and it needs to be passed this time around. Frankly, I thought that Tennessee was already a gold star open carry state like my own state of North Carolina.
Tennessee needs to join the ranks of states that recognize God-given rights like this one. Anyway, Tennessee can show the way to Texans, who have permitted open carry, and who are flirting with constitutional carry if only the awful Lieutenant Governor will get out of the way.
“The submachine gun was a Heckler & Koch MP5 10mm,” the report elaborates. “An ammunition magazine for the weapon was also taken. Officials did not say how the weapon was secured.”
I want to know that information. I was shopping at Lowes several months ago and happened upon a smaller town chief LEO who was looking for a case for a patrol rifle. I suggested several brands (which wouldn’t have been able to be located at Lowes), or shopping on Amazon.
Either way, it goes to show that putting your patrol rifle – or in this case an NFA weapon – inside a secure case, bolted to the floor of the vehicle, is the least a LEO can do to secure his weapons.
But we can’t be trusted with machineguns, because laws are for little people, not LEOs.
It will be late February at the earliest before the justices announce whether they will hear the case, Peruta v. California, filed on behalf of five California gun owners and a gun-rights organization by Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration who since then has taken on a number of high-visibility conservative causes. The mere fact that the appeal is pending is bound to play a role during the confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court nominee; during the campaign, President-elect Donald J. Trump called on “Second Amendment people” to vote for him as a bloc to prevent a President Hillary Clinton from being able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy with a justice opposed to gun interests.
With minor exceptions, California bans the open carrying of firearms. State law allows the concealed carrying of a loaded handgun by those who pass a background check, take a training course, and demonstrate to their local sheriff or police chief that they have “good cause.” The definition of “good cause” is left up to the local law enforcement officials authorized to issue the licenses. While most of these officials accept a stated desire for self-defense as good cause in and of itself, the sheriff of San Diego County has set a higher threshold. An applicant there must prove a particular need for carrying the concealed gun, like a documented threat or having obtained a restraining order against a specific individual. Under this standard, the sheriff’s office denies most applications.
The plaintiffs argue that given the ban on open carry — which is being challenged in a separate lawsuit filed last August in Federal District Court in Los Angeles — the San Diego sheriff’s restrictive policy on concealed carry means that as a practical matter, “the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.” The question is whether there is any such right.
Significantly, in ruling against the plaintiffs last June by a vote of 7 to 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn’t actually answer that question. That fact may deter the Supreme Court from hearing the appeal — or, depending on the justices’ appetite for a major gun case, it may prove irrelevant. The justices have the power to frame just about any question they want to answer. If they want to decide the core question of whether the Second Amendment gives the right to carry a gun, in some manner, any manner, outside the home — which is to say, if four justices think they can count on an eventual fifth vote for that proposition, then this will be the case to grant.
Farther down in the opinion piece, she cites Scalia’s position on the second amendment, viz. “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited …”
Ms. Greenhouse is a lecturer at Yale Law School, and she has the same reflexive instincts as, unfortunately, Justice Scalia, and most certainly any progressive law graduate, prosecutor or judge. Even Justice Scalia couldn’t extricate himself from the notion that the constitution “secures” rights.
We’ve addressed this before. All of life, from marriage, to work, family, church and state, is the covenant. Without understanding life within the framework of covenant, one cannot understand it at all. The constitution, including the second amendment, is a covenant. It contains a set of stipulations within which we have agreed to live, and while success in following them brings blessings and peace, failure to honor them brings curses and conflict.
The right to bear arms isn’t secured by the government, and the extent to which the government attempts to bar the exercise of moral rights and duties will be proportional to the conflict it spawns. And yet we also attempt to peaceably resolve our differences and persuade the parties to honor the covenant that is supposed to govern our actions because we wish to be slow to conflict.
In this instance, Peruta may not be ripe. We need a replacement for Scalia first, and even then I don’t know how Kennedy would vote. He joined Heller, but Heller was a weak decision and Kennedy may not go along with increased recognition of the right of self defense. It will be interesting to watch this case, but what would be worse than never getting a hearing in front of the Supreme Court would be to get a bad decision that actually denies the right to self defense outside the home.
In either case, when it comes to recognition of fundamental rights and duties, men cannot be patient forever. The covenant looms large, and there are curses for causing its wreckage.
Iowa would eliminate a prohibition on possession of machine guns, as well as short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns, under a bill introduced by state Sen. Jason Schultz.
Schultz, a Republican from Schleswig in northwest Iowa, told The Des Moines Register Thursday he simply wants to make Iowa law no stricter on firearms possession than federal law. Senate File 108 would permit Iowans to obtain machine guns and the other specified firearms after undergoing an extensive federal background check, filling out paperwork and obtaining a tax stamp.
“I haven’t heard anything but support” from firearms groups and individual law enforcement officers, Schultz said. Under current Iowa law, a person who possesses a machine gun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun can be charged with a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The legislation would be consistent, Schultz said, with a bill signed by Gov. Terry Branstad last year that allows Iowans to legally obtain a firearms suppressor, which reduces the amount of noise and visible muzzle flash generated by firing a weapon.
Ben Hammes, Branstad’s spokesman, said Thursday that the governor will reserve judgment on Schultz’s proposal until he sees it in its final form.
It’s ridiculous to have a law against something like an SBR anyway. Readers in Iowa need to go to the mattresses on this one. The governor is apparently lukewarm, and he needs to be persuaded to get on board.
Of course this doesn’t remove these items from the NFA list, which will take federal action and therefore all of us together. But it takes Iowa one step closer to removing the laws that infringe on their rights.
It’s difficult to be patient. It’s hard to wait and let stories develop. It’s hard work to investigate and vet sources. But just occasionally it’s both gratifying and amusing to be a part of things like this, albeit small on my part.
Watching the developments over the last couple of days brought a smile to my face and made me glad to be alive and able to appreciate what I’ve seen. The MSM has absolutely self destructed, little progressive heads have exploded all over the place, and it’s wonderful to sit back and observe the festivities over something so allegedly fake and fabricated as #Pizzagate.
But first things first. This began months ago when a journalist named Ben Swann began studying #Pizzagate, I’m sure using the sources found by the citizen investigators. He did a fairly short presentation for CBS46 in Atlanta on Pizzagate. By my estimation it was fairly benign and moderate, but he was certainly honest and careful. It was a good piece of investigative journalism making use of the discoveries by the citizen investigators. Here it is.
Queue the fireworks and exploding progressive heads. It was the first MSM piece that didn’t claim to “debunk” Pizzagate, but rather, gave it an honest hearing. That cannot be allowed among the rank and file. The attacks started and will continue for some time I’m sure.
Further, Ben Swann articles were scrubbed from reddit, and the most interesting thing of all is that we’ve learned that CBS46 took down their post of the video. Here is a phone call where they admit it.
A “URL problem.” This is priceless. Above I said that the hit pieces were crafted like Ben Swann had ended journalism as they all know it. Of course, that isn’t what happened. That occurred long before now at the hands of the MSM. No one cares about them anymore, so their own “get thee to thy fainting couch” reactions over their lost credibility are wasted effort.
But ironically, if it’s ever to be rebuilt, it will have to be with people like Ben Swann. Let me interpret for you what’s happened. There are those true believers in the “big state,” those “journalists” who believe that the government can do no wrong, who believe that the progressives have the correct vision for the world and that a monopoly of force should and must be used to enforce that vision. They will never believe that anything nefarious could occur. The state is righteous by definition.
This is a point of interest for my oldest son, Joshua, who quips from time to time about how the old conservatives and liberals have swapped places. Not the neo-cons, many of whom are in bed with the progressives, but the conservatives like me – those who believe that government must have checks and balances and that the best government is the smallest and least intrusive government.
I’m not so sure that we’ve actually swapped places like he thinks, as the hippie movement always had statism at its core, it was just that they weren’t in power and others were. Besides, neocons aren’t really conservatives anyway. What we’re watching now is the logical consequence and necessary outcome of the Bohemian flower child generation. These are the children of the hippies, both literally and ideologically.
But there is a second category of “journalists” who lament Ben Swann’s presentation, and they’re are the most interesting to me. Years ago when my son Daniel was in the Marines and I was a military blogger, I wrote a story on their operations entirely from email communications with Lt. Col. William Mullen (now Brigadier General). I couldn’t do it any other way. I tried to go to Iraq and report on his battalion, but I started too late and the funds weren’t there. I added some of what I knew without my conversations with Mullen, and it turned into a decent article. Not great, perhaps not even really good, but decent. Decent enough to publish, and that’s about it.
A friend named Bill Ardolino, who was a legitimate combat reporter, wrote me with both congratulations and lamentations. He liked the piece and congratulated me for getting the story. He lamented the fact that he considered it “his story” that I scooped. Half jokingly, but still, I could tell that he had wanted to write what I had written.
Bill went on to write a much better report from Fallujah in 2007 than I did, so I didn’t really scoop him. But here’s the thing. Ben Swann really did scoop the rest of the MSM put together. They are rattling their cages, chomping at the bits, barking at the walkers, or however you want to put it, waiting for the government – there’s that notion again of government omniscience – to tell them it’s okay to write about it because charges are coming down, or investigations are underway, or court dates have been set.
The editors are holding them back. Investigative journalism is over in America. All of the moral preening in the “journalism” community, all of the pining away for how things used to be, all of the time spent in journalism classrooms, is all just so much flotsam and jetsam. It’s just all irrelevant, and no one outside of their little circle of self righteous watchers cares. The watchers have turned into talking heads and pundits who interpret official talking points for the masses, nothing more.
Citizen investigators are beating everyone to the punch, and we finally see a courageous journalist who dares to go out and speak truth to power, and lo and behold, it’s not his detractors who did the piece. Outrage! Ben got their scoop, and they’re pissed about it. He was first out of the gate, and so he must be censored, even by his own station.
The MSM sucks, and it doesn’t just suck, but it sucks really, really badly. It’s worse than totally worthless. It has a deleterious affect on the culture. I work around many people every day, and I’m sure readers do as well, whose initial reaction to anything the MSM writes is either to ignore it or believe exactly the opposite simply because the MSM said it – not just conservatives, but everyone. If fake news is a problem, it begins and ends with the MSM. I’m not sure it’s possible for the collective community to recover, but if it stands any chance, doing what they did to Ben Swann is diametrically opposed to what they should be doing. Their instincts are so bad I’m disinclined to believe that they can ever recover.
Wednesday, January 18, Senator Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) pre-filed legislation in the Alabama State Senate to allow Alabamians to lawfully carry guns without a permit. Allen’s permit less carry proposal would remove a needless restriction on Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights and make it easier for citizens to protect and defend their families and property.
“Alabama should be leading the way on constitutional gun rights. More than ten states across the country already allow their citizens to carry guns without a permit. It’s time we give our citizens the right to bear arms without first seeking the government’s permission,” Allen said. “We already allow open carry without a permit, and there is no logical reason for continuing to require a permit for concealed carry.”
Under Allen’s proposal, the requirement for a permit would be repealed, but Alabamians could still apply for a pistol permit in order to carry a gun in states that have reciprocity laws with Alabama. Currently, Alabama conceal-carry permit holders can carry guns in Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida, among other states, due to state reciprocity laws. A pistol permit holder would also retain the benefit of foregoing a background check when purchasing firearms.
“You will still need a permit if you’re going to legally carry a gun in other states, so I anticipate that a large majority of gun owners in Alabama will continue to purchase a permit from their local sheriff,” Allen remarked. “My goal is to remove unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens who own and carry guns, since most criminals and thugs don’t bother applying for a permit anyways.”
It’s good to see Alabama joining the ranks of states where legislators are sponsoring constitutional carry bills. Be aware that the “Boss Hogg” sheriffs and sheriff’s association in Alabama will fight this since it potentially infringes on a constant stream of dollars to the coffers of law enforcement to buy their nice Dodge Chargers, comms gear and machine guns.
But if there is to be infringement, it’s better that it be with the state sheriffs rather than with the people who have constitutionally guaranteed rights.
