Digest for alt.gossip.celebrities@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 25 topics

"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 01:09PM +0200

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation®
(NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition,
hunting and shooting sports industries, Board of Governors today
unanimously voted to expel Dick's Sporting Goods from membership
for conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Foundation.
 
Dick's Sporting Goods recently hired a Washington D.C.-based
government affairs firm, for "[l]obbying related to gun
control." Dick's Sporting Goods CEO Edward W. Stack announced
earlier this year the Field and Stream stores in the retail
chain would end sales of modern sporting rifles, voluntarily
raise the age to 21 to purchase firearms in their stores and
called for more restrictive legislation. Dick's later announced
they would destroy the remaining modern sporting rifle
inventory. NSSF responded that business decisions should be
individually made, but was nonetheless disappointed and the
decision does not reflect the reality of the vast majority of
law-abiding gun owners.
 
About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association
for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect
and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961,
NSSF has a membership of more than 13,000 manufacturers,
distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's
organizations and publishers. For more information, visit
nssf.org.
 
________________________
 
Media contact:
Mike Bazinet
203-426-1320
 
https://www.nssf.org/nssf-expels-dicks-sporting-goods/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 12:21PM +0200

You've seen the headlines about Brownells losing its YouTube
channel temporarily, about England forcing a gun supporter off
internet, and about liberal bias at behemoth social media site.
The answer, proposed by A1F contributor Frank Miniter was
simple: We need our own YouTube site. Well, guess what? It
exists.
 
Outdoorsports.video provides a gateway for gun owners to share
the love of their pastime with other like-minded people, and
they won't have to worry about getting booted off the site.
 
Now, to be fair, this site isn't yet monetized to the degree
YouTube is in that you're not going to get rich by having
millions of people click on your video. But it's certainly a
step in the right direction.
 
Denny LeFevre is the mastermind behind the plan. He currently
funds the site with his retirement check (he is a retired master
sergeant in the U.S. Armed Forces).
 
The site, still in its infancy by most standards, started by
legally embedding 3,000 videos from YouTube, LeFevre wrote in an
email to A1F. That number has since dwindled to 600 as YouTube
continues to cull its offerings that offend its liberal
sensibilities
 
To make up for the diminishing returns associated with YouTube,
outdoorsports.video is encouraging people to upload original
content. One goal, of course, is long-term growth, which could
ultimately lead to a better payoff for those who post there,
provided the site gets advertising support.
 
But even now, LeFevre reports that the site is viable enough
that the video owner who generates the most views every month
gets a check for $50. As was mentioned earlier, you're not going
to get rich off it right now. But if enough gun backers thumb
their noses at YouTube and invest their online time with
outdoorsports.video, it will at least offer a way for believers
in the Second Amendment to exercise their First Amendment rights
as tbey pertain to guns.
 
A cursory glance at the site shows a mix of hunting and
defensive videos. If you've got video clips you'd like to share,
the sign-up process looks pretty straightforward.
 
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2018/9/5/gun-
supporters-have-a-youtube-like-site/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 12:09PM +0200

Albany, N.Y.
 
Andrew Cuomo versus the NRA? You know the governor is loving
this.
 
The public brawl with the group Democrats hate most is just what
Cuomo needs to carry him through next month's primary and to
elevate his standing for the coming presidential race. It's a
wonderful way to change the subject and brush aside those
unpleasant corruption headlines.
 
But there's something to consider if you are among those
cheering the governor during this particular fight: His attack
on the National Rifle Association is more harmful to the First
Amendment than the Second.
 
Cuomo, you see, has essentially weaponized the state's
regulatory authorities to go after a political organization with
which he disagrees. It is also an organization that will stand
in his way if he really does run for president.
 
Specifically, the fight involves an insurance policy that is
promoted by the NRA for those who carry concealed weapons. The
governor says the program is illegal in New York because it
could cover acts of "intentional wrongdoing."
 
If it is true that the insurance is illegal — I won't pretend to
be an expert in insurance law — the state is within its rights
to target it.
 
But the effort is much broader than that. Cuomo, as the NRA
notes in a recently filed lawsuit, is using the power of state
government to pressure banks and insurance companies to stop
doing business with the gun rights group.
 
"We must push further to ensure that gun safety is a top
priority for every individual, company, and organization that
does business across the state," Cuomo said in an April press
release. "I am directing the Department of Financial Services to
urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any
relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations
sends the wrong message."
 
The DFS, which regulates the banking and insurance industries,
followed up with letters urging companies to reconsider doing
business with the NRA and other gun-rights groups. Consider the
potential for "reputational risk," the letters say.
 
"Simply put, the defendants made it clear to banks and insurers
that it is bad business in New York to do business with the
NRA," the group says in its lawsuit. It adds that the
"blacklisting campaign" is a violation of speech and association
rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
 
The NRA is wrong about much, but they have that right. What
Cuomo is doing — using the power of the state to target a
political enemy — is tyrannical.
 
If you're willing to excuse the danger this time because you
believe the NRA is uniquely awful, at least consider the
precedent being set. What if conservative governors decide to
similarly target progressive causes or companies that do
business with liberal advocacy groups?
 
To get a sense of what that might look like, we don't have to
travel far. We have an example from right here in Albany,
implemented by ... you guessed it! ... Andrew Cuomo.
 
Two years ago, the governor issued an executive order requiring
state agencies to stop doing business with companies and
organizations that support boycotts, divestment or sanctions
against Israel for its alleged mistreatment of Palestinians —
otherwise known as the BDS movement, a popular cause on the left.
 
Cuomo's order even required that the state Office of General
Services create a blacklist of companies involved in the BDS
movement and make that list available to everyone online — a
nice little bit of public shaming for anyone daring to diverge
from the governor's point of view.
 
The move was outrageously antagonistic toward free speech, but
that has long been the pattern with Cuomo. He doesn't want to
debate those who disagree with him. He calls his opponents
enemies and tries to intimidate them. He tries to shut them up.
 
(Yes, it is quite Trumpian.)
 
On Monday, Cuomo was still enjoying the attention provided by
his battle with the NRA. Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," he
said, "If they went away, I would offer my thoughts and prayers,
Joe, just like they do every time we have another situation of
innocents losing their lives."
 
It's an effective line among Democrats, and Cuomo has repeated
it in recent days. It's also an effective line for the NRA,
given how it will induce a flood of donations.
 
Cuomo versus the NRA? In the short term, both sides win.
 
https://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Churchill-Cuomo-targets-
the-NRA-mdash-and-free-13136475.php
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 12:04PM +0200

CORAOPOLIS, Pa. — Dick's Sporting Goods on Tuesday reported
disappointing holiday sales numbers in part due to weak demand
for one-time hot brands like Under Armour.
 
The company's CEO also said recent changes to its firearm
policies, ending the sale of guns to anyone under 21, will hurt
future sales and may cause fewer shoppers to come to its stores.
 
Last month, Dick's stepped into the national spotlight when, in
the aftermath of a school massacre in Parkland, Florida, it
banned the sale of assault-style rifles and the sale of all guns
to anyone under 21. Other retailers followed suit, including
Walmart, which also raised its minimum age rules for firearms.
 
Sales fell 2 percent at established stores during the fourth
quarter, which was about double the decline that Wall Street was
expecting. Industry analysts watch that figure closely as a
barometer of a retailer's health as it excludes the volatility
of stores recently opened or closed.
 
To try and improve sales, CEO Edward Stack said the company will
give more store space to its private-label brands, such as
Second Skin workout apparel. Its store brands are growing faster
than others, and Stack expects them to surpass $2 billion in
sales in a "short period of time," but did not give an exact
time for that to happen.
 
Stack said that the company's new firearms policy "is not going
to be positive from a traffic standpoint and a sales standpoint."
 
Dick's expects full-year earnings of about $2.80 to $3 per
share. Analysts polled by FactSet predict $2.79 per share.
 
For the period ended Feb. 3, Dick's Sporting Goods Inc. earned
$116 million, or $1.11 per share. A year earlier the company,
based just outside of Pittsburgh in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania,
earned $90.2 million, or 81 cents per share.
 
Excluding certain items, earnings were $1.22 per share. That's 2
cents better than analysts expected, according to a survey by
Zacks Investment Research.
 
Revenue rose to $2.66 billion, from $2.48 billion, with online
sales up about 9 percent. But that was still shy of Wall Street
projections for $2.73 billion.
 
Shares of Dick's Sporting Goods Inc. ended Tuesday up 32 cents,
or about 1 percent, at $32.88 after dipping to $29.53 earlier in
the day.
 
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/13/dicks-sporting-goods-gun-
age-will-impact-sales/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 12:04PM +0200

"If I could have put the N.R.A. out of business, I would have
done it 20 years ago," Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said of
the National Rifle Association. The two sides are locked in a
legal battle in federal court.CreditCreditChang W. Lee/The New
York Times
 
The long-running battle between Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York
and the National Rifle Association, which says it has lost
millions of dollars because of state officials' political
agenda, entered another round of legal wrangling and public
posturing this week.
 
Mr. Cuomo announced on Friday that the state was moving to
dismiss a lawsuit the N.R.A. filed in federal court in May,
which he called "frivolous." The lawsuit, which accused state
officials of "blacklisting" the gun rights organization, was
amended with sharper language last month.
 
At issue is whether New York regulators violated the
constitutional rights of the N.R.A. by preventing financial
institutions and insurers in the state from doing business with
the organization.
 
In the lawsuit, the N.R.A. accused Mr. Cuomo, as well as the New
York State Department of Financial Services and its
superintendent, Maria T. Vullo, of discrimination that violated
the organization's right to free speech.
 
Last month's amended complaint included more details about how
state regulators have squeezed the organization.
 
The N.R.A. said officials had discouraged banks and insurers,
including Lockton Companies and Chubb Group Holdings, from
working with it.
 
If insurers remain wary, the organization said, it could be
forced to shut down some of its programs, such as its online
video channel, NRATV.
 
"Defendants' conduct indeed shocks the conscience," the
complaint said.
 
Mr. Cuomo's response on Friday was terse: "If I could have put
the N.R.A. out of business, I would have done it 20 years ago."
 
While the complaint said the N.R.A. had "suffered tens of
millions of dollars in damages" because of New York State
officials, it did not make specific claims about the
organization's current financial standing.
 
Much of the argument revolves around Carry Guard, an insurance
program started by the N.R.A. last year that was meant to cover
legal fees for people who fired a weapon in self-defense.
 
New York financial regulators began investigating the program in
October. That investigation was continuing when a gunman killed
17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Fla., in February.
 
Survivors of the shooting have led protests in support of
stricter gun control. Politicians have voiced their support,
including Mr. Cuomo, who stretched out on a sidewalk to
participate in a "die-in" with students in Lower Manhattan in
March. Several businesses including car rental services,
airlines, technology companies and insurers announced that they
were cutting ties with the N.R.A.
 
Three months after the Parkland shooting, the Department of
Financial Services announced that Lockton and an affiliate would
pay a fine of $7 million while Chubb and a subsidiary would pay
$1.3 million for underwriting Carry Guard.
 
According to the department, the program "unlawfully provided
liability insurance to gun owners for acts of intentional
wrongdoing."
 
Days later, the N.R.A. filed its initial complaint, arguing that
the state's aims went far beyond its opposition to Carry Guard.
"From the outset, it was clear that the investigation was meant
to advance Cuomo's political agenda by stifling the N.R.A.'s
speech and retaliating against the N.R.A. based on its viewpoint
on gun control issues," it said, claiming that its
constitutional rights had been violated through conspiracy and
implicit censorship.
 
Last month's amendments added two more accusations: that state
officials had interfered with potential revenue and that they
had violated the N.R.A.'s freedom of association.
 
"Defendants seek to silence one of America's oldest
constitutional rights advocates," it said. "If their abuses are
not enjoined, they will soon, substantially, succeed."
 
In announcing the filing to dismiss the suit, Mr. Cuomo said
that "while the N.R.A. tries to play the victim, New York stands
with the real victims — the thousands of people whose lives are
cut short by gun violence every year."
 
The N.R.A. is a staunch, sometimes incendiary defender of the
Second Amendment with a long record of hobbling regulatory
efforts, grading legislators on their voting histories and
running ads suggesting that the rights of gun owners are forever
under siege.
 
During the 2016 presidential election cycle, the N.R.A. spent
$20 million to persuade voters to reject Hillary Clinton and
another $11 million in support of Donald J. Trump. Public
records from that year showed that the organization's expenses
exceeded revenues by about $46 million.
 
Donations to the organization spiked after the Parkland
shooting, according to records from the Federal Election
Commission.
 
William Brewer, a partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors who
is lead counsel in the organization's lawsuit against the New
York officials, said on Saturday that the N.R.A. is growing and
"in good financial standing."
 
"However, the conduct of defendants, from the home state of the
N.R.A., now threaten the financial growth and overall trajectory
of the organization," he said.
 
On Saturday afternoon, Mr. Cuomo doubled down in his opposition
to Carry Guard, announcing a "national effort urging states
across the country to follow New York's lead and outlaw" the
insurance program.
 
"At a time when Washington has completely abdicated its
responsibility to protect the American people, states must
lead," he said in a statement.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/nyregion/nra-broke-financial-
lawsuit.html
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 11:42AM +0200

A national group that supports more gun regulation is backing
Columbus as it fights a lawsuit from gun-rights groups that sued
the city over firearms restrictions enacted this year.
 
Everytown for Gun Safety, co-founded by former New York mayor
Michael Bloomberg, will provide free legal assistance to the
city as it defends the new regulations in Franklin County Common
Pleas Court. It will serve as co-counsel on the case, according
to a news release.
 
"Everytown is well known for their commitment to working to
reduce gun violence in communities all across America. Their
offer to join our team on a pro bono basis will help us best
utilize all available resources as we work to vigorously defend
the laws we carefully crafted just a few months ago. We welcome
their support and look forward to working hand in hand with
their team," City Attorney Zach Klein, a Democrat, said in a
statement.
 
Ohioans for Concealed Carry and the Buckeye Firearms Foundation
sued Columbus last week, saying the city overstepped its home-
rule powers when it created ordinances violating state law that
requires uniform laws across the state to regulate guns.
 
City officials have said they believe their ordinances do not
fit under the state's so-called pre-emption law.
 
Ohioans for Concealed Carry and Buckeye Firearms specifically
challenged the city's ban on bump stocks, which convert
semiautomatic weapons into near-full automatic fire, and an
ordinance that made carrying a gun while under disability a
misdemeanor.
 
Those two pieces were part of a broader package of gun
regulations city officials said would help curb violence in
Columbus, which set a new record in 2017 with 143 homicides.
Most of those were committed with guns.
 
"If Bloomberg's group wishes to save the taxpayers of Columbus
money in this lawsuit, that is certainly their right," said
Chuck LaRosa, a director with Ohioans for Concealed Carry.
 
Judge David E. Cain also granted a motion this week for Ohio
Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican, to join the gun-
rights groups in their lawsuit.
 
http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180629/group-tied-to-bloomberg-
helping-city-fight-gun-regulations-lawsuit
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 11:32AM +0200

American denim giant Levi Strauss & Co. announced Tuesday that
it is launching a series of new initiatives to benefit groups
working to prevent gun violence.
 
Levi Strauss's CEO and President Chip Bergh wrote in Fortune on
Tuesday that the company "simply cannot stand by silently when
it comes to issues that threaten the very fabric of the
communities where we live and work."
 
"You may wonder why a company that doesn't manufacture or sell
guns is wading into this issue, but for us, it's simple," Bergh
wrote. "Americans shouldn't have to live in fear of gun
violence. It's an issue that affects all of us — all generations
and all walks of life."
 
Bergh said it was his responsibility to speak up for important
issues since he leads a "values-drive company that's known the
world over as a pioneer of the American West and one of the
great symbols of American freedom."
 
He added that he is not advocating to repeal the 2nd Amendment
nor calling gun owners irresponsible.
 
"We can't insulate ourselves from every threat," Bergh wrote.
"We can't 'harden' every place we gather — whether it be our
schools, workplaces, shops, churches, or entertainment venues.
But we can take common-sense, measurable steps — like criminal
background checks on all gun sales — that will save lives."
 
Levi's, therefore, announced a new three-tiered initiative to
support gun violence prevention.
 
The company will donate more than $1 million over the next four
years to nonprofits and youth activists that work to end gun
violence, establishing the "Safer Tomorrow Fund."
 
The blue jean manufacturer also partnered with gun control group
Everytown for Gun Safety and other executives to form Everytown
Business Leaders for Gun Safety.
 
Bergh called the group a coalition of business leaders who
"believe, as we do, that business has a critical role to play in
and a moral obligation to do something about the gun violence
epidemic in this country."
 
Levi's will also double all donations made by their employees to
the Safer Tomorrow Fund.
 
Bergh acknowledged that the decision to advocate for gun control
is a controversial one.
 
"While taking a stand can be unpopular with some, doing nothing
is no longer an option," he wrote.
 
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/404902-levis-teams-up-
with-gun-control-group-we-simply-cannot-stand-by-silently
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 11:32AM +0200

On the heels of YouTube shutting down Brownells' channel in
America, a stranger story has emerged on the other side of the
Atlantic. It seems as if police in the United Kingdom have
pressured gun blogger Calum Long-Collins into disbanding his
YouTube channel.
 
Long-Collins, who had 15,000 followers and had garnered more
than 15 million views over the past few years, said he shut down
his site after authorities marked his work as a "forum of
extremism" and he was going to have to "show the police that I
am a fit character to own firearms within the U.K."
 
Long-Collins posted a farewell video—well, one more that will
present a montage of highlights from his video archives is yet
to be posted—in which he discussed the factors leading up to his
decision.
 
The dispute isn't new. It was about two years in the making,
finally coming to its denouement when Long-Collins voluntarily
decided to end his posts.
 
Two years ago, the blogger lost his firearm licenses after
someone make an unfounded accusation against him. The
allegations proved false and he was again granted his right to
own firearms, but investigators dug us "suspect" videos.
 
When those concerns were brought to light, Long-Collins says in
his farewell video, he tried "to change the direction" of the
content on his channel. "Unfortunately, I've failed to bring the
channel and the videos to the standard that the police feel is
adequate and I only have myself to blame for this."
 
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2018/6/14/british-
youtube-gun-channel-goes-dark/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 11:07AM +0200

The National Rifle Association on Friday sued the state of New
York for fining and coercing financial institutions until they
severed their connections to the gun-rights group.
 
Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Department of Financial Services,
the state financial regulatory agency, engaged in a
"blacklisting campaign" against banks and insurance companies
who did business with the NRA, infringing upon the group's
constitutional right to "speak freely about gun-related issues
and defend the Second Amendment," the lawsuit alleges.
 
The NRA presented as evidence an April letter from Maria Vullo,
the DFS's superintendent, warning banks under her purview about
the "reputational risk" of doing business with gun-rights
groups. The state also pressured the companies behind the
scenes, the group claims.
 
"Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves
selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats
with a singular goal—to deprive the NRA and its constituents of
their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related
issues and defend the Second Amendment," the complaint states.
 
"Simply put, Defendants made it clear to banks and insurers that
it is bad business in New York to do business with the NRA."
 
Insurance companies Lockton and Chubb cut the NRA loose after
New York imposed $7 million and $1.3 million fines on them,
respectively, for insuring the NRA's Carry Guard program, the
NRA says.
 
The DFS said it fined Chubb for "unlawfully providing liability
insurance to gun owners for acts of intentional wrongdoing."
 
The "viewpoint-based discrimination campaign" convinced the
financial institutions to accept deals with the regulatory
agency that require them to terminate business with the NRA in
New York and elsewhere, the NRA said, costing the gun-rights
group tens of millions of dollars.
 
"The orders prohibit lawful commercial speech for no reason
other than that it carries the NRA brand," the suit says.
 
The fines were the "culmination of years of political activism
by Cuomo against the NRA and gun rights organizations," one
lawyer for the gun-rights group stated.
 
COMMENTS
Governor Cuomo called the suit "frivolous," and "a futile and
desperate attempt to advance its dangerous agenda to sell more
guns."
 
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York.
 
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nra-sues-new-york-over-
threats-against-financial-institutions-doing-business-with-group/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 11:02AM +0200

This week the nation was subjected to an embarrassing and
undignified spectacle of obstructionist partisan politics
surrounding the confirmation hearings of Judge Brett M.
Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Democrat caucus,
understanding that Judge Kavanaugh is an eminently qualified
jurist with an upstanding reputation and that the votes likely
exist to confirm him, abandoned the norms of the Senate and of
civility and resorted to childish and temperamental theatrics.
This included talking out of order and over their colleagues,
including Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley;
encouraging disruptive and illegal protests in the gallery; and
holding up large posters to distract the Judge as he answered
committee members' questions.
 
But while such demonstrations are merely obnoxious and juvenile,
the more serious affront arose from committee members who were
either too ignorant or too dishonest to accurately articulate
the law and the facts in their exchanges with Judge Kavanaugh.
Case in point: arch anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein, who
grossly exaggerated the criminal use of semi-automatic rifles
and mischaracterized the Supreme Court's Second Amendment
precedent to attack the nominee for failing to embrace her
political position on gun control.
 
The exchange came on day two of the proceedings, with Democrats
becoming increasingly frustrated at their inability to ruffle
Judge Kavanaugh or mount any effective resistance to his
confirmation.
 
Senator Feinstein began by reminding the audience that her
office wrote the federal "assault weapon" ban that was in effect
from 1994 to 2004. It's notable that her first misstatement of
law concerned her own legislation. According to her, the law
"essentially prohibited the transfer, sale, and manufacture of
assault weapons. It did not at the time affect possession."
 
That is plainly untrue. The law did, in fact, ban possession of
the controlled firearms (see page 201 of this link). The law did
not apply to firearms that had been lawfully obtained before the
law's effective date, but that clause operated as an
"affirmative defense" that put the burden on the accused of
raising the issue at trial. Simply put, anyone found in
possession of a firearm described in the Act was presumptively
in violation of the law and susceptible to federal felony
penalties.
 
To her credit. Senator Feinstein at least hedged her next false
statement by couching it as a "belief," rather than outright
assertion of fact. "I happen to believe that [the federal
"assault weapon" ban] did work and that it was important," she
said.
 
Unfortunately for her, there is no credible evidence to this
effect. Two government funded studies of the law's effects in
fact found it had no measurable impact on violent crime. More
recently, a survey of gun control laws by the Rand Corporation
found that the only perceptible effect of assault weapons bans
generally is perhaps a short-term increase in the price of
assault weapons; that in itself does not establish any
beneficial crime reduction effect, however.
 
Feinstein next took issue with a dissent that Judge Kavanaugh
had written in a case that upheld a D.C. "assault weapon" ban
similar to the expired federal law. Specifically, she chided him
for finding the firearms were "in common use" and therefore
protected under the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedent.
"Assault weapons are not in common use," Feinstein said.
 
Not only is that assertion not true, it's the opposite of the
truth. The types of firearms covered by both Feinstein's now
expired legislation and the current D.C. ban include the most
popular rifles in modern America, including the iconic AR-15.
According to figures compiled by the National Shooting Sports
Foundation for litigation launched in 2013, nearly 4.8 million
AR platform rifles were manufactured in the U.S. between 1990
and 2012, and more than 3.4 million AR and AK platform rifles
were imported during that timeframe. The number of AR-15s
manufactured in 2012 was double the number of Ford F-150 pick-up
trucks sold– the most commonly sold vehicle in the U.S.
Approximately 5 million people in the U.S. own at least one
modern semiautomatic rifle that would be covered by the
Feinstein/D.C. bans and such rifles make up 20.3% of all retail
firearms sales and are sold by 92.5% of retail firearm dealers.
Even media outlets that support "assault weapon" bans
acknowledge that the firearm those bans most specifically target
– the AR-15 – is "America's rifle." And the popularity of the AR-
15 actually increased after NSSF compiled these figures, likely
to the tune of millions of new owners.
 
Meanwhile, rifles of any type – whether or not they would be
included in the Feinstein/D.C. "assault weapon" bans – are used
far less often in murders than handguns, which overwhelmingly
remain the gun of choice for violent criminals. In fact, they
are used far less often, according to FBI statistics, than
"personal weapons" like "hands, fists, and feet."
 
Yet even though AR-15s and the like are by all accounts
America's most popular rifle, Dianne Feinstein insisted during
the hearing that numbers alone do not determine "common use."
"Common use is an activity," she said. "It's not common storage
or possession, it's use. So what you said is these weapons are
commonly used. They're not."
 
This ridiculous hairsplitting is, of course, contrary to both
common sense and English usage. Common items are routinely said
to be "in use" for a purpose whether or not that involves active
manipulation of the item at any given time. Police "use"
firearms to keep the peace, even when they're not pointing or
firing them at criminal suspects. Schools "use" fire
extinguishers as part of a general safety plan, whether or not
someone is actively putting out a fire with them. Drivers "use"
seatbelts to safeguard against injuries, even when they're not
actually colliding with other vehicles or objects. And AR-15s
and similar firearms are "used" by Americans to protect their
homes and loved ones, even when they are providing a deterrent
and not actually being actively employed.
 
As Judge Kavanaugh very patiently explained, the prevalence of
so-called "assault weapons" in millions of American homes
establishes they are in "common use." He went on to detail how
that phrase was used by the Supreme Court to distinguish Second
Amendment protected arms from the sorts of "dangerous and
unusual weapons" that are beyond the Amendment's scope (see p.
55 of this link). A firearm owned by many millions of Americans
may be potentially "dangerous," he noted, but it is in no way
"unusual" and therefore cannot be said, under the letter of the
Supreme Court's prior Second Amendment cases, to be unprotected
by that provision.
 
Responding to Judge Kavanaugh's own profession of concern about
firearm-related crime, Feinstein then asked him, "How do you
reconcile what you just said with the hundreds of school
shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent
history? How do you reconcile that?"
 
Feinstein's question (which was actually more of an accusation
that Judge Kavanaugh is oblivious to the toll of firearm-related
crime) was again based on a false premise. There have not been
"hundreds and hundreds of school shootings" in recent history,
much less hundreds using "assault weapons." Even National Public
Radio has acknowledged that the number of school shootings has
been vastly overstated, including in figures published by the
U.S. government. And not only are AR-15 and other supposed
"assault weapons" rarely used by common criminals, they are not
even the first choice of mass shooters, having been used far
less often than handguns.
 
Judge Kavanaugh has repeatedly said during this week's hearings
that he considers himself bound by Supreme Court precedent as an
appellate judge, whether he likes it or not. So it's perfectly
consistent that he could be horrified by firearm-related crime
but still recognize that lawmakers have to find ways to address
it other than trampling on the Second Amendment rights of law-
abiding Americans. Justice Scalia said as much when he wrote the
Heller opinion, acknowledging the problem of handgun-related
crime but asserting the Constitution takes certain policy
choices – like banning the firearms Americans overwhelmingly
choose for their own defense – "off the table." That doesn't
show a lack of empathy but a commitment to the rule of law.
 
Fortunately, the Democrats' unseemly theatrics and shaky claims
have merely provided an even sharper contrast for Judge
Kavanaugh's own dedication to and mastery of the law, as well as
his intellect and composure. There has been very little in the
proceedings that will burnish the reputation of the Senate's
minority party. But Americans can at least take heart that
President Trump is working diligently to preserve the
competence, effectiveness, and integrity of the federal
judiciary and of the U.S. Supreme Court in particular.
 
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180907/anti-gun-senator-
distorts-the-law-and-the-facts-in-unsuccessful-attack-on-supreme-
court-nominee
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 11:02AM +0200

Left-wing activist David Hogg made a fool out of himself in
Canada late last week while joining leftist Michael Moore for
the premiere of his anti-Trump propaganda film "Fahrenheit 11/9."
 
Appearing on stage with Moore at the Toronto International Film
Festival, Hogg spoke to the Canadian crowd about saving America
and turning their "shame" into "votes."
 
"I have a question for you guys: Who's ready to save America?
Who's ready to make America the country we say it is on paper
and make it the actual country that it wants to be?," Hogg asked
the Canadian crowd. "I think the most important thing to
realize, however, is the problems we face as a country, whether
it be water in Flint, Michigan or the amount of mass
incarceration of people of color that can't vote."
 
Hogg continued by suggesting that Canadians can donate money to
political campaigns in the United States, which is a felony.
 
After making the embarrassing remarks, Moore took the microphone
away from Hogg.
 
Nearly ten minutes later, Hogg was briefly allowed to speak
again. He called out to the IRS, which he hoped was watching him
speak, and asked them to investigate President Donald Trump for
getting "$30 million from Russia via the NRA."
 
Hogg, who has a tenuous relationship with the truth, has
repeatedly spread this lie which he seems to have come up with
on his own:
 
 
David Hogg
?
@davidhogg111
Russia used the NRA to give Trump $30 million
Russia used the NRA to give Trump $30 million
Russia used the NRA to give Trump $30 million
Russia used the NRA to give Trump $30 million
Russia used the NRA to give Trump $30 million #NRAgate
 
RT this so everyone knows
 
10:10 AM - Jul 17, 2018
122K
78.8K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The truth is the NRA allegedly received $2,500 from a few people
with Russian addresses over the course of a couple of years.
Even CNN reports that "it's not illegal for the NRA to accept
contributions from foreign donors," unless it were to use that
money for "electioneering purposes."
 
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35640/watch-david-hogg-makes-fool-
himself-canada-michael-ryan-
saavedra?utm_medium=referral
&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_c
ampaign=dailywire.com&utm_term=69017&utm_content=2288305
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 10:40AM +0200

Mike Bloomberg is mulling another run for president — but as a
Democrat, sources close to the former three-term mayor said.
 
If he takes the plunge, Bloomberg would be 78 when he's
competing in Democratic primaries across the nation.
 
Last week, he said he would pump $80 million of his vast
personal fortune to aid Democrats in the congressional midterm
elections this year.
 
"That's an indication of where his head is at," a Bloomberg
insider said Tuesday.
 
Bloomberg himself hinted at his thinking on June 6, when he was
honored at a YMCA fundraiser at Cipriani 42nd Street.
 
At the end of his speech Bloomberg told the 500 guests, "Before
you leave I want to get your cellphone number because I'm
thinking of getting the band back together," said one source.
 
The well-heeled attendees erupted into thunderous applause,
believing Bloomberg was telegraphing his interest in taking on
President Donald Trump.
 
Bloomberg, 76, considered making a bid for the presidency in
2016 as an independent. But he ultimately decided not to run,
concluding that he could not win on a third-party line.
 
Bloomberg endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, even
delivering a prime-time speech at the Democratic National
Convention trashing Trump.
 
Although elected on the Republican line, Bloomberg is closer to
Democrats on key issues — gun control, taxes, infrastructure and
climate change.
 
Bloomberg did not mince words on what he thought of Trump in his
DNC speech two years ago.
 
"Throughout his career, Trump has left behind a well-documented
record of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits, angry
shareholders, and contractors who feel cheated, and
disillusioned customers who feel ripped off. Trump says he wants
to run the nation like he's run his business. God help us. I'm a
New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one," he said.
 
But Trump got the last laugh — he won.
 
https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/bloomberg-considering-run-for-
president-as-a-democrat/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 10:40AM +0200

One can imagine similar actions targeting Planned Parenthood,
tobacco companies, or even rival political campaigns.
The National Rifle Association announced May 11 that it has
filed suit against the New York State Department of Financial
Services; its superintendent, Maria T. Vullo; and the state's
governor, Andrew Cuomo, alleging the state and its agents
violated the NRA's First Amendment rights in a recent regulatory
ruling.
 
I will leave to constitutional scholars to debate the First
Amendment question. But in terms of regulating the business of
insurance in an effective, efficient, and nonpoliticized manner
— a topic about which I am the author of an annual report — the
department's behavior sets a dangerous precedent that should
trouble citizens across the political spectrum.
 
The lawsuit stems from settlements the DFS reached earlier this
month with Kansas City–based insurance broker Lockton Cos. and
underwriter Chubb Ltd. The companies were fined $7 million and
$1.3 million, respectively, in connection with alleged
violations of New York insurance law. The purported wrongdoing
stemmed from Lockton's work as broker for the NRA's "Carry
Guard" insurance program, which provides liability insurance to
NRA members for firearm-related accidents and for legal costs in
self-defense cases.
 
The charges against Lockton varied from the technical to the
flimsy to the picayune, but they all give the appearance of
pretext for what the department was actually seeking, and got: a
consent decree in which the broker agrees "not to participate in
the Carry Guard Program, any similar programs, or any other NRA-
endorsed programs with regard to New York State."
 
In fact, Lockton had already cut ties with the NRA, one of a
number of corporate partners to do so in the wake of the mass
shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Fla. But the Department of Financial Services has made clear its
willingness to pressure other firms to do the same. In an April
letter from Vullo to the state's banks and insurance companies,
she wrote that the department "encourages its chartered and
licensed financial institutions to continue evaluating and
managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may
arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion
organizations."
 
Ironically, we have simultaneously seen recent legislative
efforts by some gun-control advocates, including in the general
assembly of neighboring Connecticut, to actually require gun
owners to maintain liability insurance. The type of coverage
usually envisioned by such proposals, which would compensate the
victims of offensive uses of firearms, is unlikely ever to come
to market, as intentional acts are generally agreed to be
uninsurable. But as a result of the New York regulator's action,
one expects a chilling effect that would cause insurers to
withdraw from offering even the more limited coverage included
in the NRA program, or in many homeowners insurance policies.
 
Indeed, Lloyd's of London, the world's largest market for hard-
to-place risks, has responded by directing its underwriters "to
terminate any existing programs of this type and not to enter
into any new ones," with specific reference to concerns about
the New York DFS inquiry into "programs offered, marketed,
endorsed or otherwise made available through the National Rifle
Association of America." The Lloyd's decision was a feature, not
a bug, of the department's action. The goal pretty clearly was
to use the regulator's office, which is supposed to apply
impartial, technocratic rules to see to it that insurance
companies responsibly and competently manage their underwriting
and investment risks and that they deal with consumers in good
faith, to achieve political ends.
 
This temptation is not unique to the political Left. In early
2015, Oklahoma insurance commissioner John Doak issued a warning
shot to property insurers in the state who might seek to invoke
exclusions for "manmade" earthquakes stemming from oil and gas
exploration. Despite strong evidence that deep-well injections
play a role in the thousands of earthquakes Oklahoma experiences
every year, Doak asserted there was "no agreement at a
scientific or governmental level concerning any connection
between injection wells or fracking and 'earthquakes.'"
 
Seeing regulators open this Pandora's box should be deeply
concerning to those on both the right and the left. One easily
could imagine similar motivated prosecutions of financial-
services firms that do business with Planned Parenthood, tobacco
companies, tech firms, the solar industry, or even the political
campaigns of rival parties. The precedent set by these blatantly
political regulatory actions undermines not only the insurance
market, but the rule of law.
 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/new-york-lawsuit-against-
nra-sets-dangerous-precedent/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 10:34AM +0200

The past few months have left gun owners enraged about how
frequently and casually they're villainized.
Dallas, Texas — A video shown twice before the main speeches at
the NRA's annual meeting mocked CNN's "this is an apple"
commercial.
 
"This is a lemon," the announcer declared. (It is unlikely that
it is a coincidence that the choice of produce is the surname of
a CNN anchor.) "Yes, some people might try to tell you that this
is a journalist. They might even scream 'journalist,'
'journalist,' 'journalist,' over and over again. They might put
journalists in all-caps . . . but this is a lemon." The joke
worked on three levels, and the gathered gun owners chuckled
throughout. In a subsequent video, NRATV host and former U.S.
Secret Service agent Dan Bongino silently made lemonade out of
some lemons, generating another round of laughter. "When they
give you lemons, we give you the truth," the video promises.
 
It's unsurprising that the national news media would be a
frequent and favorite target of the speakers at the NRA's annual
meeting — particularly the regular critics of media such as
Chris Cox, Wayne LaPierre, and Donald Trump. But even the
comparatively buttoned-down Vice President Mike Pence spoke at
length about his objections to the mass media's coverage of
firearms and those who own them.
 
"The media are working an agenda that is very different from
most of us in this room," Pence said. "They won't tell the whole
story of firearms in America. They focus on the tragedies and
heartbreak — and well they should — but many in the national
media ignore when well-trained, law-abiding gun owners save
lives. It's the truth." Pence spoke of armed citizens who
intervened and prevented tragedies at an Atlanta party, a
Philadelphia barber shop, and on a Chicago street.
 
"I'm calling on the national media to start telling the whole
story to the American people about firearms," Pence said to
applause. "It's time the national media gave as much attention
to our heroes as much as they give to our villains."
 
Criticism of the media has always been a theme of the speeches
at the NRA's gathering, but this year felt like it could easily
have been co-produced by L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center.
 
Even by the standards of the never-smooth relationship between
the NRA and the national media, the past few months have left
gun owners enraged about how frequently and casually they're
villainized, and how openly gun-control advocates have been
exalted. Much of this change in the media's coverage of gun
rights stemmed from the emergence of pro-gun-control students
who survived the Parkland shooting.
 
CNN was always a favorite target of speakers at NRA events, but
its recent coverage added fuel to the fire. The prime-time "town
hall meeting" CNN put on just days after the shooting
represented a particularly embarrassing hour for the network, in
which the furious demonization of NRATV Dana Loesch went
unchecked while Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel — whose
department handled the situation about as badly as is imaginable
— was given the stage to lecture Loesch: "You are not standing
up for [these students] until you say, 'I want less weapons.'"
It was shameless and deft responsibility-shifting on the
sheriff's part, and CNN let it go unchallenged. (After several
days, in perhaps the journalistic equivalent of a referee's make-
up call, CNN subjected Israel to more critical coverage and much
tougher interviews.)
 
The emergence of the Parkland students provided the national
media with what was ostensibly an emotional human-interest story
— here's a young student who's endured a terrifying event,
listen to how that experience affected him — and it quickly
turned into an opportunity for scathing, often unfair criticisms
of gun owners and the NRA. David Hogg quickly became a go-to
source for comments that programs, magazines, and newspapers
would never print or broadcast in other contexts. In one
particularly angry interview, Hogg called the NRA, "pathetic
f***ers that want to keep killing our children," and claimed GOP
lawmakers "could have blood from children splattered all over
their faces and they wouldn't take action, because they all
still see these dollar signs."
 
For better or worse, CNN's media reporter, Brian Stelter,
admitted in a late March interview with S. E. Cupp that he
simply couldn't bring himself to correct David Hogg when he
appeared on Stelter's program.
 
"There were a few times I wanted to jump in and say, 'Let's
correct that fact.' And at one of the times I did and other
times I did not," Stelter said. "There's always that balance,
how many times you're going to interrupt."
 
Almost every speaker at the convention mentioned longtime NRA
member Stephen Willeford, who exchanged fire with a mass shooter
outside the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas,
and helped chase him down in November 2017. NRA members fairly
ask why they're considered morally culpable for the horrific
actions of mass shooters, but the virtues of heroic NRA members
are not worthy of comparable discussion.
 
For the NRA and many of its members, no real conversation about
our gun laws can begin until the national media acknowledge that
their past coverage has been one-sided and they begin to paint a
more accurate picture of America's gun owners. The NRA enjoyed a
lot of legislative successes in the past decade or so, but
perhaps the organization wonders how secure those legislative or
political victories are in a media environment like the current
one. The media largely shrugged at Connecticut governor Dannel
Malloy repeatedly insisting that the NRA has "in essence become
a terrorist organization," and Newsweek thought the most
newsworthy angle about a defaced billboard declaring "kill the
NRA" is that "the gun lobby is freaking out about it."
 
COMMENTS
For all of the glowing coverage of the Parkland students, and
the bold declarations that they "changed the gun debate,"
there's some evidence that their arguments had little lasting
impact:
 
In the more than two months since that shooting, HuffPost and
YouGov have conducted five surveys tracking Americans' views on
guns. The results show a burst of support for gun reform in the
two weeks after the shooting, followed by a gradual reversion to
the mean. Once-heightened concerns about gun violence have
tapered back to previous levels, as has a desire for stricter
gun laws and a belief that gun restrictions can be passed
without violating Second Amendment rights.
 
Florida's legislature and Governor Rick Scott raised the age to
purchase any firearm to 21, and several states passed "red flag"
gun laws that allow a judge to temporarily seize guns from
someone who might pose a danger to themselves or others. But
there's been little movement on the bigger priorities of gun-
control advocates — an assault-weapons ban or more restrictions
on concealed-carry permits. There's little question that most
media organizations tossed away traditional notions of
objectivity and fairness when it came to covering the gun issue
after Parkland. They now must ask themselves whether it was
worth it.
 
"There's never been a worse time to be a member of the
mainstream media," Cox declared to roaring applause. Members of
the national media may dispute that, but they obtained this deep-
rooted distrust and enmity the old-fashioned way: They earned it.
 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/nra-convention-media-
criticism-gun-owners-enraged-at-being-villianized/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 10:11AM +0200

Education administrators in Alabama have another option to stop
a school shooting, now that Gov. Kay Ivey has signed an
executive memo authorizing the storage of firearms in a safe on
campus. There are stipulations, but the state is moving to
create new approaches for dealing with the threat of school
shootings.
 
Ivey's memo mandates that any administrator who wants to take
advantage of the offer must have a concealed-carry permit, must
undergo firearm training, must submit to random drug tests, must
be sworn in as deputy sheriff and must work at a school without
a school resource officer.
 
The guns and ammunition must be kept in a biometric safe and
should be retrieved only in the event of an armed attack.
 
Ivey acted on her own, rather than waiting for the state
Legislature—which convenes early next year—to address the
concerns regarding school safety, because, "With the unfortunate
continued occurrence of school violence across our country, we
cannot afford to wait until the next legislative session."
 
While Moms Demand Action railed against the action, an analyst
with The Heritage Foundation pointed out that armed response can
stop threats, or keep them from becoming worse. "Even in [Santa
Fe, Texas], where 10 lives were tragically lost, the immediate
response of armed school resource officers prevented the
situation from becoming much worse," said Amy Swearer, a legal
policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation. She also called this
a more financially viable option than requiring school districts
to hire more school resource officers.
 
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2018/6/13/alabama-
schools-can-keep-guns-at-the-ready/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 10:11AM +0200

Iowa state representatives are debating House Joint Resolution
13, which would add the right to keep and bear arms to the state
constitution. Should the resolution's wording be adopted as is,
it would require "strict scrutiny" as the judicial standard for
any restrictions on the firearms freedom of Iowans.
 
Louisiana, Missouri and Alabama are the three states that
already apply the strict scrutiny standard for gun restrictions.
The strict scrutiny standard means that when the matter goes
before a court on a constitutional challenge, the state is held
to the highest standards of justification for any limiting
actions. Even if the state comes up with a compelling reason for
a restrictive law, it has to structure the legislation as
narrowly as possible.
 
The anti-gunners, of course, will make their easily refutable
stand saying that a state constitutional amendment means anybody
and everybody will be able to get guns, or to quote a Barack
Obama claim, that it will be easier to get a gun than to buy a
book. But the fact is, the strict scrutiny standard still allows
for the public safety measures, such as a law that says violent
felons can't buy or possess firearms.
 
For more on what the Iowa resolution means to firearms freedom
in that state, go online to the NRA's Institute for Legislative
Action page.
 
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2018/1/30/iowa-looks-
to-add-gun-amendment-to-state-constitution/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 10:11AM +0200

There is no law in Washington state. On Friday, the Seattle
Supreme Court — formerly the Washington State Supreme Court
–killed it. The so-called justices killed the law because they
are left-wing activist, arrogant, lying hacks. They hate guns,
they hate gun owners, solely due to those factors they
unanimously approved Initiative I-1639. The so-called court
openly defied the clear and simple language of Washington state
law. The so-called judges killed the law.
 
This is a serious matter. If King County voters press I-1639
upon Washington state, gun owners will have a moral obligation
to refuse to comply. We will not be breaking the law because, in
Washington state, there is no law.
 
Proof that it is literally impossible to contend I-1639 is legal
The law says initiatives in our state must contain the clear,
complete language of the proposed legislation. Here, in plain
language, is the Secretary of State's website explaining that
requirement.
 
State law requires that petitions contain certain information,
including the full text of the measure. This includes a ballot
title and summary, written by either the Attorney General or a
Superior Court judge, and other required information. The full
text is usually printed on the back of the petition. Sometimes
petition circulators attach the petitions to clip boards in
order to make them easier to sign or easier for the circulator
to handle. Sometimes the full petition or the full text of the
proposal might be folded over or on the back. You should feel
free to read any part of the petition that you think is
necessary in order for you to make up your mind, even if that
means unfolding it or removing it from a clip board.
 
The billionaires behind I-1639 — at least two of whom apparently
enjoy armed guards for themselves — didn't bother to put the
full text of the measure on the initiatives people signed: it-is-
not-there. That is not even questionable. There is the proposed
law and there is what people signed: the two documents are-not-
the-same. Here, used with the permission of WeTheGoverned.com,
is the initiative people signed. The red ink indicates where the
language has been altered, ignored or changed. This is-not-the-
full-text of the measure.
 
government
Image created by 'We the Governed.com.'
 
The so-called justices need to know this: You can kill the law
but, in so doing, you kill the moral requirement to follow your
diktat
This is not a judicial ruling, it is a diktat. In openly defies
the law. The Seattle Supreme Court has not only killed the law,
they have handed the citizens of Washington state a moral
obligation to ignore this diktat. The so-called justices may
have power, but they have killed their standing as arbiters of
the law. If I-1639 passes, most gun owners will defy it. We will
say to the Seattle Supreme Court and the rest of the one-party
apparatus of the state: "we are not breaking the law because
there is no law–you killed it."
 
http://mynorthwest.com/1091009/law-is-dead-in-washington-state-i-
1639-is-inarguably-illegal/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 10:00AM +0200

Did you know the Winchester 1903, a .22-caliber rifle that has a
10-round tube magazine, is a "semi-automatic assault rifle"? In
fact, every semi-automatic rifle is a "semi-automatic assault
rifle." So says Michael Bloomberg, and he is poised to turn his
definition into law.
 
The gun-banner epithet "assault weapon" has always been a
deceit. Unlike other firearm terms—such as "handgun" or "bolt
action"—the phrase "assault weapon" has never had a fixed
meaning. Instead, the phrase is a euphemism for "as many
firearms as we can restrict, based on current political
conditions." Back in 1989, then-Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.,
introduced an "assault weapons" bill to ban only nine specific
models of firearms. But that was what the prohibitionists call
"a good first step." Now, Bloomberg and his allies are pushing
an "assault rifle" ballot initiative in Washington state that
would apply to every semi-automatic rifle in existence.
 
Bloomberg and his spokespeople claim to support the Second
Amendment, saying they simply oppose "assault weapons." But then
they try to classify any semi-automatic rifle as an "assault
weapon," regardless of caliber, magazine capacity or anything
else.
 
Gun-banners in nations such as Australia and Great Britain have
already succeeded in outlawing all semi-automatic long guns. In
the United States, a big step in that direction is this year's
Washington state ballot measure 1639.
 
Bloomberg and his spokespeople claim to support the Second
Amendment, saying they simply oppose "assault weapons." But then
they try to classify any semi-automatic rifle as an "assault
weapon," regardless of caliber, magazine capacity or anything
else. Under Bloomberg's proposed Washington law, semi-automatic
rifles or handguns of any type would be subjected to onerous new
restrictions and taxes, thus discouraging their possession and
lawful use.
 
One objective of the Bloomberg strategy is stigmatization of gun
owners. Maybe you just bought a Benelli R1, or your father gave
you his Ruger 10/22, or you cherish your great-grandfather's
Remington 8. You, like all owners of semi-automatic rifles, are
being stigmatized as an "assault rifle" owner—the kind of person
who owns "weapons of war" that have no place in civil society.
 
This spring, Bloomberg organized rallies all over the country to
denounce people who own such "assault rifles." The hatred was
palpable. Most of the people at those rallies knew almost
nothing about firearms, and Bloomberg's employees worked hard to
make them loathe you because you own a "semi-automatic assault
rifle."
 
The Washington state scheme provides context to Bloomberg's
propaganda campaign, which employs boycotts, threats, libel and
mob hysteria against anyone having anything to do with what they
consider "assault rifles."
 
Perhaps you thought that the hate groups were only talking about
AR-15s, Mini-14s or other firearms invented in the past six
decades. To the contrary—every semi-automatic rifle ever made,
going all the way back to the first Winchester in 1903, is an
"assault rifle," according to Bloomberg. The kind of people who
hunt with them, collect them, sell them or make them are evil
people who worship guns and don't care about children's lives.
So say the mobs chanting the Bloomberg slogans. If the
Washington proposal passes in November, individuals who wish to
acquire a semi-automatic rifle will also have to waive the
confidentiality of their medical records. The act of applying to
purchase "shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and
written request that the health care authority, mental health
institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an
inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant
to the applicant's eligibility to purchase."
 
The Bloomberg groups pushing the defamatory initiative call
themselves "Safe Schools Safe Communities" and the "Alliance for
Gun Responsibility." That's like a group that wants to restrict
access to books calling itself the "Alliance for Literacy." The
groups are funded by not only Bloomberg, but also by his
billionaire allies, including former Microsoft Corp. executive
Paul Allen.
 
Under the Bloomberg proposal, nobody, of any age, could ever
acquire a "semi-automatic assault rifle" (that is, any semi-
automatic rifle) without first passing a gun safety course, the
content of which would be controlled by the government. So if,
for example, you have been a certified hunter-safety instructor
for the last 25 years, that still isn't good enough. You can't
even borrow a semi-automatic rifle without first enrolling in
and passing the government-controlled class at least every five
years.
 
Further, no semi-automatic rifle sales or loans will be allowed
without prior permission from the local police chief or sheriff.
In Washington, such permission has historically been required
for handguns, but not for long guns. If background check records
are incomplete, local officials can place a 30-day hold on the
sale, and that hold can be renewed indefinitely by a court.
There is no specific requirement that the person subject to the
hold be notified or have an opportunity to present his or her
side of the case to the judge.
 
Under current law, those visiting Washington can purchase long
guns. But the Bloomberg initiative would forbid them from
purchasing semi-automatic rifles.
 
Also under the Bloomberg initiative, law enforcement would be
required to keep detailed registration records, including the
serial number, make and model of every semi-automatic rifle that
is sold or lent with their authorization, as well as information
about the buyer.
 
As experience demonstrates, registration records collected in
one year can then be used for confiscation in future years.
That's precisely what occurred in Australia, whose gun control
scheme is often touted by gun prohibition lobbies as the model
we should be following. The national gun confiscation law in
Australia was introduced shortly after the Australian anti-gun
lobbies had succeeded in imposing gun registration in all
Australian states.
 
Think it can't happen in the United States? The same already has
occurred in New York City. Long-gun registration there was
enacted in 1967. Later, starting with Mayor David Dinkins and
continuing ever since, the city's gun registration lists have
been employed for gun confiscation. When Bloomberg was mayor, he
oversaw the confiscation of all long guns that held more than
five rounds—a list which included semi-automatics, as well as
those with pump actions and other actions.
 
If the Washington proposal passes in November, individuals who
wish to acquire a semi-automatic rifle will also have to waive
the confidentiality of their medical records. The act of
applying to purchase "shall constitute a waiver of
confidentiality and written request that the health care
authority, mental health institutions, and other health care
facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement
agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to
purchase."
 
Handgun and semi-automatic rifle owners would be subject to
continuing reverification of their eligibility to possess
firearms. According to the initiative, the verification must
take place "on an annual or more frequent basis." So at least
once a year—and possibly many more times, according to the
language of the initiative—the government could harvest and
store the medical records of owners of handguns and semi-
automatic rifles. To the contrary—every semi-automatic rifle
ever made, going all the way back to the first Winchester in
1903, is an "assault rifle," according to Bloomberg.
 
Suppose you promptly get permission from the local police or
sheriff to purchase a handgun or semi-automatic rifle. You still
can't take the gun home: There will be a minimum waiting period
of 10 business days (that is, at least two full weeks, depending
on holidays) before you are allowed to take possession of your
gun. It's too bad if you're a stalking victim in need of
immediate protection, or if you're a hunter who wants to replace
a gun that broke in the middle of a hunting trip.
 
If you're under 21, you might have to wait a lot longer, as
Bloomberg is committed to eradicating the Second Amendment
rights of young adults. His initiative would prohibit
individuals 18 to 20 years of age from acquiring a semi-
automatic rifle.
 
Bloomberg's prohibitory rationale could also be applied to many
other groups. For instance, males commit homicide at a much
higher rate than do females, but that does not justify a gun ban
for all males.
 
The preamble to the Bloomberg initiative says, "Research
indicates that the brain does not fully mature until a later
age." The current scientific view is that full development of
the prefrontal cortex is not completed until about the age of
25. So while Bloomberg currently aims to disarm 18- to 20-year-
olds, his initiative actually sets the stage for limiting gun
ownership to those over 25.
 
Under Bloomberg's proposed plan, every semi-automatic rifle
transfer would incur a $25 tax. This includes lending a semi-
automatic to your brother-in-law for a weekend hunting trip.
When your brother-in-law returns the rifle to you, there's
another $25 tax. Worse, this tax is indexed to inflation,
meaning it would automatically increase as the inflation rate
does.
 
The proceeds from this tax must then be used to administer the
gun control program—for example, hiring employees to collect all
new medical records about those who own handguns or semi-
automatic rifles.
 
Of course, gun stores can't provide services for free. When they
conduct private transfers, as is now required in Washington
state under a 2014 Bloomberg initiative, they charge fees for
the time required to fill out all the paperwork. Consequently,
the simple act of lending a firearm to a relative for the
weekend and then having that firearm returned could easily cost
$100 or more in taxes and fees.
 
Under ballot measure 1639, gun stores would also be ordered to
disseminate false anti-gun propaganda to firearm buyers. The
language on an application form to buy a handgun or a semi-
automatic rifle would state: "Caution: The presence of a firearm
in the home has been associated with an increased risk of death
to self and others, including an increased risk of suicide,
death during domestic violence incidents, and unintentional
deaths to children and others."
 
It is true that in the homes of law-abiding citizens, firearms
do increase "the risk of death … to others." Namely, it is the
risk of death to home invaders, stalkers and other violent
criminals.
 
Social science studies do show that when a violent domestic
abuser has access to a gun, the abuser is more likely to kill
someone. But domestic abusers—even those who have been convicted
of just a misdemeanor—are already prohibited from possessing a
firearm. That has been federal law for more than two decades.
The studies also show that in the home of a domestic violence
victim, such as a woman who has escaped from an abuser, the
presence of a firearm is not associated with criminal homicide.
 
Under current Washington law, the application form for a handgun
purchase includes the notification "that local laws and
ordinances on firearms are pre-empted by state law and must be
consistent with state law." This accurately informs gun owners
about their legal rights. The Bloomberg initiative would
eliminate that notification requirement. Of course, preventing
gun owners from knowing their legal rights is a key strategy of
the Bloomberg organizations. Under ballot measure 1639, gun
stores would also be ordered to disseminate false anti-gun
propaganda to firearm buyers.
 
Because of the extremism of ballot measure 1639, Bloomberg's
team has even illegally concealed the contents of the initiative
from petition signers. In violation of Washington state law, the
paid petition-gatherers did not allow signers to see the full
text of the initiative, including the provision that would
remove current language in state law. Even the website for
Bloomberg's "Alliance for Gun Responsibility"—proponents of the
measure—refuses to post the full text of the initiative.
Instead, website visitors are merely offered an incomplete and
deceptive summary of the initiative.
 
There is no doubt that Bloomberg and other malefactors of great
wealth will spend massively to fool Washington voters about
what's really in the measure. And it is doubtful that most of
the media will do a good job of fully informing the public.
 
Yet it's possible to beat the 11th-richest man in the world if
enough grassroots civil rights activists work hard to educate
the public, including their friends and neighbors. In 2016, for
example, the voters of Maine narrowly rejected a Bloomberg
ballot measure.
 
Ultimately, the side with the most money does not always win
elections. The entire financial resources of the NRA are a
pittance compared to Bloomberg's personal wealth of $50 billion,
let alone the cumulative wealth of Bloomberg's network among the
ultra-rich. Yet the NRA uses its limited resources effectively.
If the NRA has what it needs to get the job done, it's possible
that Bloomberg could be defeated in Washington.
 
If not, then expect copies of the Washington law to be
introduced all over the country, just as Bloomberg's previous
victories in the far West have been used as models elsewhere.
 
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180901/sneak-attack-on-
washington-state
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 09:49AM +0200

We have recently been reporting on the bizarre anti-gun activism
of one of the nation's larger firearm retailers, Dick's Sporting
Goods and its affiliated Field & Stream stores. First, the
company announced it would stop selling most centerfire semi-
automatic rifles at its stores, carry only limited capacity
magazines for semi-automatic guns, and ban firearm sales to
certain legally eligible adults. It then took the further step
of declaring it would destroy its inventory of the newly-
restricted firearms at company expense. And if that weren't
enough, the news also recently broke that the company had hired
expensive D.C. lobbyists to push for gun control measures on
Capitol Hill.
 
Dick's, in other words, was positioning itself as a rising star
in the field of corporate gun control activism, in obvious
contradiction of its own financial interests.
 
Now, however, the pro-gun community is parrying Dick's gun
control thrust with their own countermeasures, while customers
appear to be eschewing Dick's to search for bargains elsewhere.
 
Last week, the Board of Governors of the National Shooting
Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the
firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries –
voted unanimously to expel Dick's Sporting Goods from membership
in the organization. While the NSSF noted it supports the rights
of its members to make individual business decisions, it
determined that Dick's new polices do not "reflect the reality
of the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners" and constitute
"conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Foundation."
Law-abiding gun owners, the company added, "should not be
penalized for the actions of criminals."
 
Meanwhile, members of the firearms industry have also begun
withdrawing their products from Dick's and Field & Stream
outlets.
 
First, Illinois-based Springfield Armory – maker of several
lines of highly-popular rifles and pistols -- announced early
this month that was "severing ties" with the two retailers. In
announcing the decision, Springfield Armory stated, "we believe
in the rights and principles fought for and secured by American
patriots and our founding forefathers, without question." It
concluded, "We will not accept Dick's Sporting Goods' continued
attempts to deny Second Amendment freedoms to our fellow
Americans."
 
Iconic shotgun maker O.F. Mossberg & Sons followed up this week
with its own announcement that it will "not accept any future
orders from Dick's Sporting Goods or Field & Stream" and is "in
the process of evaluating current contractual agreements."
Mossberg's press release on the decision cited its own "staunch
support[] of the U.S. Constitution and our Second Amendment
right" and its disagreement with "Dick's Sporting Goods' recent
anti-Second Amendment actions."
 
MKS Supply, marketer of Hi-Point Firearms and Inland
Manufacturing, LLC, has now become the latest supplier to cut
off Dick's and Field & Stream. Its president, Charles Brown,
justified the decision on the basis that "Dick's Sporting Goods
and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, have shown themselves, in
our opinion, to be no friend of Americans' Second Amendment." He
went on to cite several "wrong" moves by Dick's in recent
months, including "villainizing modern sporting rifles in
response to pressure from uninformed, anti-gun voices" and
"hiring lobbyists to oppose American citizens' freedoms secured
by the Second Amendment."
 
This industry pressure on Dick's comes at a sensitive time for
the company. Its shares took a steep 6.3% dive in March, amid
what analysts described as a "downbeat outlook." Indeed, its own
CEO Edward Stack admitted his new investment in gun control "is
not going to be positive from a traffic standpoint and a sales
standpoint."
 
How that assessment squares with his own obligations to the
company and its shareholders is unclear. Profits, after all, are
where the rubber meets the road in any business enterprise.
 
What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick's has
inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge
unscathed, if it manages to survive at all. Its business with
Second Amendment supporters in particular may well grind to a
halt.
 
Should that happen, Dick's will have no one to blame but itself,
and especially Mr. Stack. Dick's example should serve as a
warning for other businesses in the firearm sector that would
hope to find common cause with activists who are seeking nothing
so much as to put gun sellers out of business for good.
 
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180511/hard-times-for-dicks-as-
second-amendment-supporters-respond-to-companys-anti-gun-bent
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 09:37AM +0200

The Washington State constitution, Art. 2, sec. 1, contains an
explicit direction that each "petition shall include the full
text of the measure so proposed." A state law incorporating this
requirement specifies that all petitions circulated for
signatures must have "a readable, full, true, and correct copy
of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the
petition."
 
The purpose is to fight fraud and misinformation by ensuring
that all voters being asked to sign the initiative petition have
the opportunity, at the time, to inform themselves and verify
the details of the proposed law they are being called upon to
support, but a recent decision by the Washington State Supreme
Court regarding the latest gun control initiative in the
Evergreen State calls into question the effectiveness of these
laws.
 
The text of Initiative 1639 filed with the Washington secretary
of state covers 30 pages. In addition to using a font tiny
enough to shrink all 30 pages-worth of text to fit on a single
page of the petition, the initiative sponsors neglected to use,
in the petition provided to voters, the actual text of the
initiative as it had been filed. Compounding this failure, the
teeny text included in the petition lacked clear indications to
actually show the changes – the very many changes – to the
existing law proposed by Initiative 1639.
 
The NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and other gun rights
supporters had raised I-1639's noncompliance with mandatory
state requirements governing initiatives in severallegal
challenges.
 
On August 17, Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon
agreed that the initiative petition did not meet the "readable,
full, true, and correct copy" requirement and issued an order
prohibiting I-1639 from appearing on the November ballot. He
absolved the secretary of state from any alleged breach of duty,
as the law at issue empowered the secretary to reject a petition
only in specified circumstances, and a failure to comply with
the "readable, full, true, and correct copy" directive was not
included.
 
In such cases, though, Judge Dixon ruled it was the court's duty
to safeguard the interests of Washington's voters and ensure
"strict compliance with the initiative process." He explicitly
rejected the argument that close was good enough: "The court is
not persuaded by the argument that substantial compliance is the
proper analysis." Holding up a copy of an actual petition page,
he indicated the petition did not contain a "readable copy" of
the initiative text, adding "I have 20-20 vision … I simply
cannot read it." Moreover, the petition lacked a true, accurate
and correct replica of the initiative measure text as filed by
the sponsor. "Voters have a right to know, and sponsors have a
corresponding obligation to provide, what the initiative seeks
to accomplish. …The text on the back of these petitions [does]
not allow voters to make informed decisions. For this court to
hold otherwise would be to condone noncompliance with the clear
provisions of the law."
 
Backers of the initiative immediately appealed Judge Dixon's
ruling. On August 24th, the Washington Supreme Court reversed
his decision.
 
The appellate court did not dispute the findings made by Judge
Dixon regarding the failings of the petition – that the "text on
the back of the petitions was not readable and did not strictly
comply with the statutory and constitutional requirements."
Instead, the court, in a unanimous decision, sidestepped the
compliance issue entirely and held that the court lacked the
authority to intervene. According to the Supreme Court, pre-
election judicial review to protect the integrity of the
initiative process and the mandates of the constitution was not
available in this case. The court's inherent mandamus power
could be invoked to compel a public officer, like the secretary
of state, to perform a nondiscretionary duty imposed by law.
However, because the secretary "has no mandatory duty to not
certify an initiative petition based on the readability,
correctness, or formatting of the proposed measure printed on
the back of the petitions," the remedy could not apply.
 
In her press release following the appellate court's decision,
Secretary of State Kim Wyman referred to the fact that she had
previously "expressed significant concerns over the formatting"
of the initiative petition and concluded, "Our voters deserve
full and clear information about what they're asked to sign
onto."
 
The result of the ruling is that this flawed, unreadable, and
non-compliant initiative has been cleared to appear on the
ballot.
 
The decision to allow the initiative to proceed has also fueled
perceptions among Washington State gun rights supporters that,
in addition to fighting a massive funding disparity with the
billionaire-backed sponsors of the initiative, they face an
uphill battle to have their legitimate concerns about something
as basic as following the rules addressed.
 
Already this year Washington State's Attorney General Bob
Ferguson, whose office is charged with the responsibility for
preparing the ballot title and summary language for each
initiative, unusually "broke with tradition" to throw his
support behind I-1639. Shortly before May 9, when his office
released the proposed ballot title and summary for the
initiative, he expressed he was "deeply committed to [the
initiative] and, in general, to having common sense gun reform
laws in our state," adding "It's outrageous what we have, it's
deeply disappointing to me that our state Legislature won't
address these issues in a forthright manner…" This endorsement
was cited in one legal challenge objecting to the proposed
ballot title for I-1639, alleging, among other things, that the
"Attorney General's office has created a substantial reasonable
suspicion in the eyes of the general public that the language
used in this Concise Description has been drafted for maximum
bias and support of the sponsors of the initiative by his
unprecedented and very public statement of support for this
initiative." As a result of these several challenges, the ballot
title was subsequently ordered to be revised by the court.
 
Following the August 24th court decision, many in Washington
State have questioned to what extent any compliance with the
constitutional provisions governing ballot measures is required.
One outraged citizen went further, penning an article titled
"Law is dead in Washington state: I-1639 is inarguably illegal."
 
Washington State residents, and anyone else who is interested in
more information on I-1639, is encouraged to visit the NRA's
website at https://www.initiative1639.org. In the meantime,
we'll continue to keep readers updated as more facts surrounding
this unlawful initiative continue to unfold.
 
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180907/law-is-dead-in-
washington-state-outraged-reaction-to-court-decision-on-i-1639
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 09:37AM +0200

DENVER — Federal prosecutors in Colorado say three members of a
gang have been sentenced to prison time for stealing 56 guns
from Cabela's in Thornton.
 
According to court records, they were Bloods street gang members
and distributed the guns to other members. Prosecutors said the
men pleaded guilty early in the year and were sentenced between
April and this month.
 
According to records, 23-year-old Kendall Crockett was sentenced
to 80 months in prison, 24-year-old Darnell Hudgens of Denver
was sentenced to 57 months and 21-year-old Giavanni Edward Miles
was sentenced to 70 months.
 
Prosecutors say Hudgens, Miles and another suspect broke into
the Cabela's in August 2017 and filled backpacks with guns.
Crockett drove them away.
 
Prosecutors say Hudgens and Miles' sentences included charges
from another gun theft.
 
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/08/29/bloods-sentenced-for-
stealing-cabelas-guns/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 09:32AM +0200

The Washington State Supreme Court unanimously overturned an
earlier decision that removed I-1639 from the November ballot.
 
The original decision was prompted by a case brought by the
Second Amendment Foundation. The National Rifle Association
filed a second lawsuit in Thurston County on the same day. The
lawsuits argued that signature gatherers broke state initiative
rules and that should invalidate the entire effort.
 
"This isn't the first time the gun lobby has tried to stop
Washington voters from enacting safer gun laws," said Alliance
for Gun Responsibility CEO Renee Hopkins. "When the people of
this state have tried to put responsible laws into place, the
National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation
have always stood in the way. It's disappointing when they do
so, but the Alliance has prevailed each time the gun lobbyists
and their allies irresponsibly attempt to take power away from
Washingtonians. The decision today is just another example of
Washingtonians defeating the gun lobby's callous disregard for
our lives and our futures."
 
I-1639 received more than the 260,000 signatures to be placed on
the November ballot. The initiative aims to establish new
firearm regulations in Washington state, including a safe
storage rule similar to Seattle's recently passed law. It also
raises the age to purchase semi-automatic assault weapons to 21
(from the current age of 18). And it will create enhanced
background checks for those weapons.
 
"Today, the Washington State Supreme Court abrogated its duty to
protect the state constitution and state election laws by
allowing Initiative 1639 back on the November ballot," said Alan
Gottlieb, founder and Executive Vice President, Second Amendment
Foundation, in a news release on Friday. "The court never
addressed the merits of the complaints against I-1639, instead
choosing to ignore the law."
 
It's not the first legal action that I-1639 has faced. Opponents
have argued that the print on the initiative was far too small
for signers to know what the issue is about. They also argue
that the language of the initiative was improperly posted on the
signature gathering forms.
 
"The petitions were not printed in accordance with state law
because they did not have a full and correct version of the
measure printed on the back," Gottlieb said.
 
http://mynorthwest.com/1090658/court-overturns-i-1639-decision-
allows-gun-measure-ballot/
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 09:21AM +0200

Quick action by a vigilant pro-Second Amendment student at the
University of Kansas has resulted in shutting down a professor's
anti-gun syllabus. After KU senior Victoria Snitsar shared a
copy of the offending syllabus with university officials, the
university forced the professor to remove language from his
class syllabus that is not "in compliance with university
guidelines and state law."
 
In his syllabus history professor Eric Rath requested students
"not bring firearms to class or anywhere I am present."
Referencing widely discredited and biased gun control claims,
Rath's syllabus warned students that carrying a firearm could
increase a student's likelihood of being killed in an active
shooter situation. Rath's syllabus attempted to suppress the
exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right.
 
A university spokesperson didn't indicate if the professor of
Japanese history would face any disciplinary action.
 
Kansas, along with 9 other states, allows law-abiding citizens
to carry firearms on campus. Rath used taxpayer resources to
produce a syllabus that quotes extensively from the partisan gun
control advocacy group, the Giffords Law Center for the
Prevention of Gun Violence. His syllabus omits the fact that in
Kansas, as in every other state, campus carry laws make
students, faculty, and staff safer. In the first year of the new
law, campus crime dropped by 13 at Kansas University.
Furthermore, campus police did not record a single weapons
violation on campus for the entire year.
 
Kansas State Representative Blake Carpenter (R-81) says this
kind of anti-gun bias has no place in our public universities
and is pleased the university is taking action to correct the
anti-gun syllabus. "It is unacceptable for professors to
intimidate students like this and try to force their political
views on them." He encourages students to be vigilant to these
types of attacks on our rights and bring them to light.
 
Snitsar, who alerted national media outlets to the syllabus, is
pleased with the university's response. She says no student
should feel unwelcomed in a classroom. She says she has always
been active in calling out anti-Second Amendment bias on campus
and lives by the Ronald Reagan motto, 'freedom is never more
than one generation away from extinction.' "I just don't want
any other student to have to experience that kind of
intimidation by a person in authority," Snitsar said. "That is
not right."
 
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180907/pro-2a-student-shuts-
down-anti-gun-syllabus
coleenbrown007@gmail.com: Sep 27 12:24AM -0700

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:18:05 AM UTC+5:30, Jimbobb12 wrote:
> > > Join Me: http://www.yashowme.com/signup/
 
> good website to meet local women for sex tonight
 
looking new people
"Gene Poole" <gp@dont-email.me>: Sep 27 08:54AM +0200

The state has no right to threaten financial institutions that
do business with the NRA.
Imagine the following scenario. Imagine the media response.
 
By October, the governor of Texas was fed up. A well-funded ten-
month campaign by Everytown for Gun Safety designed to
stigmatize gun ownership was causing support for gun rights to
measurably decline. Called "You afraid?" the campaign mocked men
and women who carried weapons to grocery stores or restaurants.
An associated "courage" campaign asked mothers to hand back
their carry licenses, and while most didn't, the dozens who did
received international media attention.
 
Then, two weeks before Halloween, a gunman opened fire in a
Houston Walmart, and no one responded for nine agonizing minutes
until police arrived. This was Texas. The store wasn't a gun-
free zone — yet not a single armed citizen was available to
intervene.
 
The governor was furious. In public comments, he blasted
Everytown, declaring — in no uncertain terms — that "gun-
controllers have no place in Texas. Because that's not who we
are." But words mean nothing without action, and the state of
Texas acted. The governor directed state regulators to "urge
insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any
relationship they may have with Everytown or similar
organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their
communities who often look to them for guidance and support."
 
Regulators responded, issuing "guidance letters" directed at the
chief executive officers, or equivalents, of all Texas licensed
financial institutions and all insurers doing business in Texas.
The letters urged recipients to sever ties with Everytown and
other "gun controller organizations." The letters went well
beyond a mere political exhortation and invoked the private
corporations' "risk management" obligations and their
obligations to consider "reputational risks."
 
State regulators began investigating Everytown's business
transactions in the state and coerced key vendors into consent
decrees that not only punished allegedly unlawful activity but
banned those vendors from engaging in entirely lawful business
relationships with the gun-control organization. As state
regulators moved, other commercial entities backed away — ending
longstanding business relationships with Everytown.
 
Let me ask a simple question. If Texas acted like this — if it
used state financial regulators to issue warning letters to
institutions doing business with an organization unquestionably
engaged in constitutionally protected advocacy — do you think
for one moment that America's mainstream media would remain
silent, or speak up mainly to chuckle at Everytown's financial
predicament? Do you think for one moment that America's leading
progressives wouldn't sense an immediate threat to free speech?
 
Yet the scenario above is playing out today, in a different
state, with a different target. New York's Andrew Cuomo is
engaging in a deliberate campaign to use state power to drive
the NRA out of business. It's using a combination of consent
decrees and warning letters directed at financial institutions
to coerce them into cutting of business relationships with the
NRA.
 
Cuomo's intentions aren't hidden. He's on a crusade. "If I could
have put the NRA out of business, I would have done it 20 years
ago," he said earlier this week. He followed up with this pithy
statement: "I'm tired of hearing the politicians say, we'll
remember them in our thoughts and prayers. If the NRA goes away,
I'll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers."
 
Clever. But when statements like this are accompanied by state
action, there's another word that applies — unconstitutional.
 
New York's lawyers argue that the state's letters represent
nothing more than government speech. The NRA and the state are
engaged in nothing more than a frank exchange of ideas. But
while the government does have broad power to engage in its own
advocacy, that power has its limits. As the Second Circuit has
recognized, there is a difference between "permissible
expressions of personal opinion and implied threats to employ
coercive State power to stifle protected speech." When "comments
of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as
intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory
action will follow the failure to accede to the official's
request," a First Amendment claim exists.
 
It simply strains credulity to argue that a financial
regulator's letter to the financial institutions it closely
regulates urging those institutions to consider "risk
management" when dealing with the NRA is nothing more than
robust debate. Indeed, the letter at issue is explicitly phrased
as offering regulatory "guidance." The NRA also claims this
"guidance" — combined with other state actions — is making
corporations fear reprisals if they continue to do business with
the NRA. Here's a key claim in the NRA complaint:
 
On or about February 25, 2018, the Chairman of Lockton
Companies, placed a distraught telephone call to the NRA.
Lockton had been a close business partner of the NRA for nearly
twenty years; its commitment to the parties' business
relationship had not wavered in connection with the Parkland
tragedy, nor the prior Sandy Hook tragedy, nor any previous wave
of public controversy relating to gun control. Nonetheless,
although he expressed that Lockton privately wished to continue
doing business with the NRA, the chairman confided that Lockton
would need to "drop" the NRA — entirely — for fear of "losing
[our] license" to do business in New York.
 
New York has filed a motion to dismiss the NRA's claims, but it
is imperative that New York's actions be subject to full and
fair discovery. The extent of public animus directed at the NRA,
the specific "guidance" and consent decrees, and the allegations
of "backroom" pressures at the very least deserve the scrutiny
of civil litigation and at the very least should raise the alarm
of civil libertarians — regardless of their positions on gun
control.
 
As I've written many times before, the battle over gun rights
has devolved into a bitter, unyielding culture war, and in a
culture war, civil liberties are often the first casualty. State
officials have their own free-speech rights, yes, but those free-
speech rights do not include the right to use express or implied
threats to wield state power against disfavored viewpoints.
 
Heckle all you want, Governor Cuomo. Display your malice. But
the instant that malice translates into state action aimed at
speech is the instant the Constitution holds you to account.
 
COMMENTS
NOW WATCH: Trump Stands Behind 2nd Amendment Rights In Speech To
NRA
 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/new-york-nra-second-
amendment-first-amendment-
attack/?utm_source=Sailthr
u&utm_medium=email&utm_cam
paign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-08-
07&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.gossip.celebrities+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

تعليقات

إرسال تعليق