Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops You have to be kidding, right!?!

Never ever agree to allow the cops to search & here is why

RENO, Nev. (KRNV) – There’s a new push to change Nevada law to stop the alleged abuse of power by civil forfeiture. This sparked more interest in the wake of a high-profile case where Nevada troopers confiscated a man’s life savings.

Push to change Nevada law after troopers confiscate man’s 80k life savings (KRNV)

One year ago, Stephen Lara was driving behind a semi truck he wanted to pass. He was driving the speed limit, east of Sparks along Interstate 80. Dash camera from a Nevada State Police showed the trooper, in the fast lane, following Lara for several miles. Lara said he didn’t feel safe cutting in front of the trooper to pass the semi, so he trailed behind the truck. After several miles the trooper pulled him over for tailgating.

“We’re seeing a bunch of crashes out here, I’m just trying to educate people,” the trooper said. “You got your driver’s license with you?”

That’s when he started peppering Lara with questions. The trooper learned that Lara is a retired Marine who was traveling from Texas to Portola, California, to see his daughters. The trooper asks if he has any drugs, guns or large amounts of cash in the car.

“Officer: Okay. How much money you got in there?

Lara: A lot.

Officer: Okay.

Lara: [unintelligible] So-

Officer: Fair enough. Fair enough. Um, would you give me permission to search your vehicle today?

Lara: Sure.”

The trooper found nearly $87,000 in cash in Lara’s car. He also had a stack of receipts proving the money was withdrawn from the bank over time. Lara said it was his life savings. He said he doesn’t trust banks, doesn’t have a credit card and it’s his way of living within his means, without carrying debt.

“Officer: Why do you transport bulk currency like that?

Lara: Well there’s nothing illegal about it.

Officer: No.”

More than an hour later, troopers confiscated the cash, suspecting it may be drug money.

“I knew at the time he didn’t have probable cause to search my vehicle but at the same time I was like, ‘You know I have nothing to hide, I’ll just be totally transparent and then just be on my way,'” Lara later told KRNV.

Lara was left with just a few dollars in his pocket and a desperate desire to make some changes.

Will a lawsuit force a change?

Lawyers from the non-profit group Institute for Justice took on Lara’s case and filed a federal and state lawsuit. The group fights what it calls abuse of power through its lawyers on staff.

Six months after a national media group reported on this case, the feds gave Lara his money back.

Most innocent people will never see redemption like Lara did. About half of forfeitures involves less than $1,000. It would cost more money to hire an attorney than the amount lost.

Lara’s federal court case was dropped after he got his money back. The case in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County is still pending.

“The real problem here is that the highway patrol officials didn’t forfeit the money under Nevada law, they used a federal program called Equitable Sharing to get around the protections of Nevada law and the Nevada constitution,” said Ben Field, attorney with Institute for Justice.

The Institute for Justice said this is a form of theft – highway robbery. Field said the abuse happens when officers don’t even have to charge somebody with a crime and confiscate their money. He added that they put the burden on that person to prove they are innocent.

There’s big financial gains for agencies to do forfeitures.

“When you have highway patrol officers like this pulling Steven over and forfeiting his money through the federal government, they get to take up to 80% of the back which they can use for their own salary for their own equipment. So they have a personal financial stake in forfeiting money,” Field said.

Forfeitures and seizures bring in big bucks for Nevada agencies

Agencies report their seizures and forfeitures to the Nevada Attorney General. In the last fiscal year from July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021, Nevada agencies took in more than $9 million.

  • Reno Police Dept.: $269,299.56
  • Sparks Police Dept.: $74,620.12
  • Washoe County Sheriff’s Office: $198,890.35
  • Dept. of Public Safety: $415,316.19

Reno and Sparks Police as well as the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office didn’t provide a comment for this story. The Department of Public Safety that oversees State Police previously told KRNV it won’t comment on pending litigation.

Law enforcement have been vocal about the benefits of asset forfeitures.

“They say openly, ‘Hey, if you take away this tool that we have, you’ll probably need to raise taxes because we’re so reliant on this,'” said Robert Fellner with the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

Lawmakers continue to push for a change

Nevada lawmakers have introduced many bills to reform this law. All fell flat.

In 2019, AB420 was supported by all democrats and half the republicans in the Assembly. But Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro killed it. She is a Clark County Deputy District Attorney and has strong law enforcement backing.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen an issue with such widespread support and you listen to all that testimony and the only constituency on the other side of the lawn enforcement community,” Fellner said. “They have an unbelievably strong voice.”

Republican Assemblyman Jim Wheeler backed AB420 in 2019.

“I think but the civil forfeiture is important, don’t get me wrong. It’s a good law enforcement tool but there needs to be some checks and balances in there,” Wheeler said.

Wheeler said he’d like to talk to law enforcement agencies and police unions to to see if there could be some kind of adjudication before taking someone’s property or money.

“The constitution says nobody’s property should be taken without adjudication,” Wheeler said. “What I’d like to see is maybe a special master available for the police to call in to say should we or shouldn’t we.”

All proponents to change the law admit it’s going to be a hard push to pass a reform bill in the legislature. It’s failed too many times in the past, and it’s likely Senator Cannizzaro will kill it again.

It also brings in a lot of money for agencies. Without the forfeitures, law enforcement has said taxes would have to go up to make up the money in the budget.

Below is what each Nevada agency reported in seizures and forfeitures to the Attorney General’s Office from July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

Gavin Newsom Wants to Protect Your Gun Rights by Destroying Them BY STEPHEN GREEN

Gavin Newsom Wants to Protect Your Gun Rights by Destroying Them
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
California governor — and stealth presidential candidate/Ron DeSantis obsessive — Gavin Newsom announced a plan on Thursday to implement “common sense” gun control measures nationwide, “while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

“Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

All it requires is one teensy little amendment to the Constitution that would neither “leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged” nor “respect America’s gun-owning tradition” as Newsom claims because Newsom hates your rights and is also a known liar.

Newsom’s 28th Amendment, if adopted, would raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; mandate universal background checks; institute a “reasonable” waiting period for all purchases; and ban so-called assault weapons. In addition, it would authorize Congress, state governments, and even local governments to impose even stricter measures. Under the 28th Amendment, I guess Sacramento could legalize a state Gestapo to take every California resident’s guns away and that would be totally kosher.

What’s reasonable? I suppose that’s up to the courts to decide. What’s an assault weapon? State governments have tried again and again to define it, and sometimes comically failed.

So the 2nd Amendment would still be there in the Constitution. But like the 18th Amendment outlawing the sale, production, or transportation of alcohol was superseded by the 21st, ending Prohibition, the 2nd would be completely gutted by Gavin’s 28th.

What I’ve been unable to find — even on Newsom’s official release announcement — is the actual text of the amendment. It could be even worse than Newsom describes it. Since the text seems to be nowhere to be found, I’m forced to conclude it is far worse than even Newsom describes it.

Amending the Constitution, fortunately, is easier said than done. It requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. Amendments can also be proposed and adopted by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures — something that has never happened in our country’s history.

Only 27 amendments have ever been adopted, the first ten — the Bill of Rights — as a package deal. So, really, the amendment process has only taken place 18 times.

The Framers’ wisdom puts Newsom’s proposal, which is a non-starter in every red state, at a serious disadvantage. Liberty lovers can breathe easy at Newsom’s conspicuous posturing to Democrat primary voters… but remain ever-vigilant against the next attempt.

———————————————————————————-If this “person” were to tell me that the Pacific Ocean was wet. I would go & check just to make sure!! And no I did not vote for him either. Grumpy

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Being a Stranger in a very Strange Land Born again Cynic! Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

I see that ATF has some personnel problems

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" You have to be kidding, right!?!

Nope!

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Info for Rookies

40 Million Americans Refuse To Comply with Biden’s ATF Pistol Brace Rule ~ VIDEOS by Gary Marbut

AmmoLand Come and Take It Tee
File Photo

I have seen various estimates of the percentage of pistol brace owners who have complied with the new BATFE rule that deems braced pistols to be subject to prohibition or registration as Short Barreled Rifles (SBR) under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The most defensible estimates seem to be around 2.5% compliance. The most generous estimates come in near 8% compliance, while other estimates come in as low as .6% (yes, 6/10ths of one percent).

Nobody really knows for sure, but whatever numbers you believe, it seems apparent that there is wholesale noncompliance. This just proves the old adage that stupid laws breed disrespect for the law.

We know that just over 250,000 braced pistols have been registered as SBRs. The Congressional Research Service estimates(embedded below) that there are between 10 and 40 million pistol braces in private ownership in the U.S. Suppose half of the high number, or 20 million, is correct. Suppose half of those owners have become compliant by destroying their braces, surrendering them to the BATFE, attaching a 16″ upper to a braced lower, or other means. Yeah, right. That’s a stretch.

Given the remaining pool of 10 million brace owners and 250,000 who registered SBRs is what gets us to about 2.5% overt compliance.

That gets us to 97.5% NONcompliance. Thus, stupid laws simply breed disrespect for the law. In this situation, this breeding makes mosquitoes look slow and unsuccessful.

What? Not concerned as long as you are allowed to possess your over-and-under shotgun for bird hunting? Just wait for the administrative rule change declaring your favorite fowling or trap and skeet gun to be a trench gun and, therefore, a “destructive device” subject to felony prosecution for possession. Need only your bolt-action rifle for deer and elk hunting? Watch as those are administratively declared to be “sniper rifles” and suddenly quite illegal to possess.

There is a reason why this fight over pistol braces is essential and why the BATFE’s ability to turn millions of lawful gun owners into federal felons with the stroke of an administrative pen is an unacceptable hard crossing of a double-yellow line.

It will be interesting to see how this wholesale noncompliance with the BATFE’s pistol brace rule plays out. That and magazine capacity, semi-auto function, “safe storage,” mandatory insurance, forced reset triggers, key cards, bump stocks, [firearms ID cards, pistol purchase permits], and more. Stay tuned. It is getting spicy.

Best wishes,
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
www.MTPublish.com

Congressional Research Service Handguns, Stabilizing Braces, And Related Components

About Montana Shooting Sports Association

The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. For more information, visit: www.mtssa.org.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! You have to be kidding, right!?!

How the ATF is EXTORTING Americans for MILLIONS

https://youtu.be/6bbXri_vZrA

And then they wonder why most Folks don’t respect the Federal Government any more. Gee I wonder why!

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" You have to be kidding, right!?!

Uh sure thing Professor!

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Hawaii allows more concealed carry after US Supreme Court ruling, but bans guns in most places by: AUDREY McAVOY, Associated Press

HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii Gov. Josh Green on Friday signed legislation that will allow more people to carry concealed firearms but at the same time prohibit people from taking guns to a wide range of places, including beaches, hospitals, stadiums, bars that serve alcohol and movie theaters. Private businesses allowing guns will have to post a sign to that effect.

The legal overhaul comes in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last year that expanded gun rights by saying Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

New York and New Jersey adopted similar laws last year that quickly met legalchallenges which are making their way through federal courts.

Green, who is a physician by training and has been an emergency room doctor in Hawaii for decades, said gun violence is a public health crisis and action needs to be taken to address it.

“On many occasions in my training back on the mainland, I was one of the physicians that took care of individuals who were victims of gun violence. Not only that, I lost a loved one to a suicide with a gun,” Green said before signing the measure. “And so anything that we can do, we should.”

Rep. David Tarnas, chair of the House judiciary committee, said lawmakers carefully crafted the measure to be consistent with the high court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms and also establish what he called a “fair system” for regulating concealed carry permits.

“We aim to create a balanced approach that respects the rights of gun owners and the need to maintain a safe and protected space in Hawaii,” Tarnas said.

Hawaii has long had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, Hawaii law gave county police chiefs the discretion to determine whether to issue gun owners a permit to carry. Police chiefs rarely did. They issued just six such permits in 21 years, making it virtually impossible for civilians to carry guns in Hawaii. Otherwise state law only allowed people to keep firearms in their homes and to transport them – unloaded and locked up – to shooting ranges, hunting areas and other limited places like repair shops.

In 2022, Hawaii had the second-lowest gun death rate among the 50 states, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only Massachusetts had a lower figure.

Andrew Namiki Roberts, the director of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, said Hawaii lawmakers wanted the law to be a “workaround” of the high court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said the new law effectively makes it so people can’t carry firearms in public for self-defense and is a “gross infringement” on the Second Amendment.

“It limits carrying a firearm to public sidewalks and private businesses — if you can get permission. All other places in the state, it’s going to be illegal to carry a firearm,” he said.

Kainoa Kaku, president of the Hawaii Rifle Association, said it showed the state’s leaders viewed “law-abiding, gun-owning citizenry of Hawaii as criminals.”

“They are so stupid they cannot tell the difference between someone who doesn’t follow the law and commits crimes with firearms and someone that just wants to protect themselves and their family with a gun,” he said.

Both gun rights groups plan to challenge the new law in court.

Attorney General Anne Lopez said her office was prepared to fight these lawsuits.

Kaku also objected to the anticipated expenses of the new law, estimating it will cost gun owners $1,000 to take all the classes and proficiency tests required to obtain a concealed carry permit that will only be valid for four years.

The governor also signed another bill requiring the state Department of Education to develop a training program to help public and charter schools respond to school shootings.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

In gun law push, Gov. Lee’s office memo says NRA prefers to ’round up mentally ill people’ by KIMBERLEE KRUESI and JONATHAN MATTISE

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s administration accused the National Rifle Association of wanting to use involuntary commitment laws “to round up mentally ill people and deprive them of other liberties,” according to documents drafted by the Republican’s staffers as part of their initial attempt to pass a gun control proposal earlier this year.

The memos, provided by Lee’s office as part of a public records request, reveal a rare criticism of the powerful gun lobby made by the Republican governor. Lee has previously praised the NRA’s efforts to protect the Second Amendment but has since faced opposition from the group as he works to pass gun control legislation in response to a deadly Nashville school shooting that took place in late March.

So far, Lee has proposed keeping firearms away from people who could harm themselves or others. He’s currently facing pushback from both the GOP-dominant General Assembly and firearms rights advocacy groups, including the NRA, that are wary of loosening gun laws in ruby red Tennessee. The NRA’s opposition is particularly notable because the group was a crucial player in Lee’s successful push in 2021 to pass a law that allows people 21 and older to carry handguns without a permit in Tennessee.

That means Lee has been forced to go on the defensive, arguing that what he has proposed is not, in fact, a so-called red flag law like those adopted by other states in the wake of tragedies. Instead, the talking points show he is attempting to sell his proposal as “the most conservative in the nation” and the best plan for “Second Amendment advocates.” He also is taking aim at advocates who want to focus on Tennessee laws that allow committing people without their permission if they pose “a substantial likelihood of serious harm” due to a “mental illness or serious emotional disturbance.”

“Not only is the NRA’s proposal impractical — it would drastically expand the scope of government,” one of the memos reads.

In announcing his plan publicly in April, Lee acknowledged the proponents of involuntary commitment, but did not name the NRA.

“Some advocates of the Second Amendment say something called ‘involuntary commitment’ is the answer, but that would restrict all kinds of constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment,” Lee said at the time. “It’s not the best way.”

Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, House Speaker Cameron Sexton further lowered expectations that Lee’s proposal has a chance to pass, saying he doesn’t think he and fellow Republican lawmakers support red-flag-esque laws. He said some other areas of policy could be considered: involuntary commitment, more mental health in-patient beds, better database updating for background checks, a new state-level offense beyond the federal law prohibiting felons from having a certain amount of ammunition, and broadening state law so more types of violent threats could be considered a crime.

“When you look at what the NRA is saying, is you currently have laws on the books — emergency, involuntary commitment,” Sexton told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “And so, use what you have.”

The governor initially unveiled his legislation just weeks after six people — including three young children — were killed in a Nashville school shooting. Lee’s wife, Maria, was friends with the head of the school and a substitute teacher who were among those killed.

Despite Lee’s urging for lawmakers to pass his proposal, GOP leaders have resisted. The Legislature adjourned without taking up the issue in April, but Lee has since called them to come back to address the matter in late August.

The documents reviewed by AP show that Lee’s administration drafted the talking points in April. They tout the governor’s proposal as “more targeted and more limited” than what the NRA currently supports. It’s unclear where the memos were circulated or how many people outside Lee’s office received them.

In the memo, Lee’s office wrote that the NRA’s plan “does not get at the heart of the problem, as it fails to address unstable individuals who suffer from mental health issues but do not qualify for involuntary commitment to a facility.”

“Gov. Lee believes the best path forward is practical, thoughtful solutions to keep communities safe and protect constitutional rights,” his spokesperson, Jade Byers, said in an emailed statement. “He looks forward to speaking with key stakeholders, including the NRA, and working with legislators on proposals in the months ahead.”

In an April memo, the NRA’s lobbying arm urged its supporters to oppose Lee’s plan. The group noted that “Tennessee already has broad civil commitment laws” and added that the state could improve access to emergency mental health services.

Asked about the governor’s office talking points about their group, NRA spokesperson Amy Hunter didn’t address the claims, saying in a statement that the group is focused on “preserving and advancing the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Tennessee.”

————————————————————————————–Yet Billy Lee thinks it’s okay to deprive his constituents of other civil liberties such as the Right to Bear Arms and the Right to Due Process

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

ATF: Pot Users Can’t Legally Own Firearms Regardless Of State Laws Tyler Durden’s Photo BY TYLER DURDEN

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) warned in a Tuesday advisory that Minnesota residents who use marijuana cannot legally own firearms despite the recent legalization of cannabis for recreational use.

According to the St. Paul ATF office, because marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, people who smoke weed or take marijuana edibles are “still federally defined as an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance,” and are therefore “prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.”

“Until marijuana is legalized federally, firearms owners and possessors should be mindful that it remains federally illegal to mix marijuana with firearms and ammunition,” said ATF acting special agent in charge of the of the St. Paul field division, Jeff Reed.

That warning from the ATF is concerning for Second Amendment rights advocate Rob Doar, vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. He said he’s long been aware of the state-and-federal cannabis contradiction, whether it’s for medical or recreational use.

Doar urges gun owners to be aware of the risks, even though under Minnesota’s new law, sheriffs cannot deny someone a permit to carry solely because they are enrolled in the medical cannabis program or are an adult using marijuana. -CBS News

“I think if [the ATF agents] weren’t planning on enforcing it, they may have just let it go and it would kind of be a wink-wink, nudge-nudge that yes it’s illegal, but much like other federal cannabis prohibitions, we’re not going to be enforcing it,” said Doar, adding “The fact that they sent out the notice is cause for some raised eyebrows.”

Cannabis attorney Jason Tarasek of Vincente LLP says that the federal government has typically turned a blind eye and has “left states alone” when it comes to those which have legalized marijuana, but now “It’s an interesting song and dance we’re going through with the federal government.”

Doar and Tarasek would like clarification from the feds.

“It would be great to get some clearer guidance from the federal government that would make people in legal markets more comfortable that they don’t need to be worried about the federal government knocking at their door,” said Tarasek.

During the Obama years, the DOJ issued guidance advising that they wouldn’t interfere in states that had legalized marijuana as long as it didn’t interfere with federal law enforcement priorities. It was rescinded by former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions during the Trump administration.

Read the ATF letter below: