Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Questions remain on enforcing new red-flag gun laws in Michigan
Livingston County Sheriff Mike Murphy said last month he would not enforce the red flag program, saying there is a violation of due process.
LIVINGSTON COUNTY, Mich. (FOX 2) – The latest piece of Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s gun reform platform is now official – with her signature on a bill greenlighting so-called “red flag laws” also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.
They allow cops, mental health professionals and worried family members to get a firearm taken away from a person believed to be a danger to themselves or others.
“We have heard too many times from those who knew a mass shooter who had expressed concern in advance about that mass shooter’s intentions,” Whitmer said earlier today. “We’ve seen situations where local police flagged someone or even spoke to them about their violent statements but weren’t able to take any further course of action.
“With Extreme Risk Protection Orders we have a mechanism to step in and save lives.”
But there are questions about the legality of the laws – with officials in places like Livingston County thumbing their noses at them.
Sheriff Mike Murphy said last month he would not enforce the red flag program, saying there is a violation of due process.
“If all the gun safety laws work so well, we wouldn’t have issues like Chicago,” said Colleen Quinn. “So, we are standing by our commissioners and our sheriff, we are very proud of them.”
Quinn attended Monday night’s meeting of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners. It is a body that recently declared itself a “Constitutional County” meaning they will not back any laws that violate the Second Amendment in their view.
“So I feel our commissioners did a great job, our sheriff, we are behind him 100 percent,” Quinn said. “And these laws aren’t going to move the needle.”
Governor Whitmer was asked about local authorities who refuse to enforce the Extreme Risk Protection Orders.
“I think that every prosecutor takes his oath to uphold the laws of the State of Michigan,” she said. “And that’s the expectation.”
Here’s how the red-flag laws would work:
A judge will have 24 hours to decide on a protection order once it is filed. If granted, the judge would have 14 days to set a hearing which would then give the red-flagged person a chance to prove why they are not a risk to themselves or others.
Another layer to the enforcement element is, Attorney General Dana Nessel has said if the local law enforcement chooses to not follow through on a red-flag order, she will find someone with the jurisidiction who will.
Paul Krumrie, 37, of Park Forest
COOK COUNTY, Ill. – A Cook County man faces multiple felony counts after he was allegedly found in possession of eight firearms while his Firearm Owners’ Identification (FOID) card was revoked.
Paul Krumrie, 37, of Park Forest, has been charged with eight counts of possession of a firearm with revoked FOID and one count of possession of ammunition without a valid FOID.
On Tuesday, Cook County Sheriff’s Police Gun Suppression Team investigators told Krumrie that his FOID card was revoked after he was determined to be a clear and present danger by the Illinois State Police.
The investigators offered to assist him with transferring any firearms he had since he could no longer be in possession of them. Krumrie told investigators that he didn’t have any firearms.
On Wednesday, investigators discovered that Krumrie was planning to take firearms to Florida. Investigators went to his residence and saw him loading a rifle bag into a midsize moving truck.
Krumrie nor the driver were wearing seatbelts, so investigators pulled the vehicle over on Interstate 57 near Sauk Trail Road.
Both were asked to step out of the vehicle after investigators smelled cannabis coming from the truck’s cabin, the sheriff’s office said.
Krumrie was then taken into custody.
Krumrie allegedly told investigators that his firearms were in the vehicle and that he was taking them to Florida.
Investigators recovered eight firearms, including an uncased, loaded 9mm pistol under the passenger seat where Krumrie was sitting during a search of the car.
They also recovered 157 rounds of ammunition, the sheriff’s office said.
Krumrie appeared for a bond hearing Friday where bond was set at $20,000.
Lea Suzuki/AP
As many of the country’s police departments grapple with dips in funding, reputational crises, lack of morale and a struggle to keep numbers in most departments at approved levels—all as violent crime surges—many businesses and citizens are opting to hire their own private police forces of sorts: armed guards.
According to the Security Industry Association, there are around double the number of security guards employed across the country than there was two decades ago. As of 2021, there are two police officers for every one thousand civilians—and 3.1 guards for that same amount.
While “private policing” is hardly a new concept, it has gained significant traction across the United States since the 2020 riots. In and around 2020, more than 20 major cities slashed their police budgets, even as lawlessness swelled. Further, Left-leaning cities in recent years have introduced an abundance of criminal-friendly policies, such as “bail reform” and early prisoner releases.
With more criminals on the streets, those who can afford more security tap into the billion-dollar private security arena; meanwhile, the middle and lower classes—especially in cities mandated by gun control activism and anti-Second Amendment legislation—are left in even more desperate situations as law-enforcement resources are stretched thin and as these same officials also do all they can to prevent average citizens from obtaining the means to defend themselves.
Perhaps there is no more significant example than Beverly Hills, Calif. This uber-affluent, ultra-anti-gun enclave has reacted to rising crime by hiring even more private security. One private security firm was even hired to provide armed safety personnel at public schools in the city—schools frequented by the children of the rich and famous.
An ad on Jooble even reads: “Urgent! Armed security jobs in Beverly Hills, CA.”
Beverly Hills also contracted several other firms to patrol the area in cars and on foot to help the police safeguard the “luxury capital of the world.”
Meanwhile, well-off residents and business associations in upper-class communities spanning San Francisco and New York to Chicago, Portland and Seattle—all pockets saddled with hostile and restrictive private gun ownership laws—have also turned to independent companies to deter criminal activity.
Even in Washington, D.C., the national beacon for propelling an anti-firearm disposition, [what entity?] has turned to contract security officers out of concern for declining personnel numbers in the strained police resources. And next door in Maryland, the Downtown Annapolis Partnership has begrudgingly admitted they now need to use taxpayer funds to retain private guards to protect prominent areas—guards they cleverly call “safety ambassadors.”
In other words, the unspoken motto from most Left-leaning enclaves is, “We have the money to hire protection, but guns are bad, and if you aren’t rich like us, you are on your own.”
Moreover, wealthy sectors are already at an advantage, as these cities can generally entice more police officers because they have higher tax earnings, which generally means they can offer better wages and benefits.
Thus, if holding down crime is such a struggle for them, imagine the reality most of urban America now has to confront.
What is a better solution? How about enabling all Americans, regardless of social status or wealth, to have the same fighting chance to protect themselves and those they love?
The same political leaders who are quick to espouse “equality” and, in the next breath, champion hefty gun control legislation are the same ones hiring armed private guards. America is supposed to be a land of opportunity and equal rights, not a land where the elites are protected while the average citizens struggle to remain safe.
By Larry Keane. May 23, 2023
‘Gun control’ groups are foisting ‘gun control’ on the American public by taking to university campuses to convince law students to pledge to never represent the firearm industry, or its interests, in court.
‘Gun control’ groups are big Shakespeare fans, apparently. They’re taking a page from the famed Elizabethan-era bard’s Henry VI as the next play on foisting ‘gun control’ on the American public.
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” Shakespeare wrote in the play.
Two ‘gun control’ groups are putting a 21st Century twist on the line and taking to university campuses to convince law students to pledge to never represent the firearm industry, or its interests, in court.
Call it the long game. ‘gun control’ isn’t satisfied with attacking Second Amendment rights, or even First Amendment rights. Now, they’re targeting Sixth Amendment rights too. That’s the amendment that guarantees the right to be represented by legal counsel.
Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence and March for Our Lives, ‘gun control’ groups headed by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, respectively, are canvassing campuses to convince law students to sign a pledge they won’t represent the firearm industry or firearm owners when it comes to protecting and preserving Second Amendment rights. The ‘gun control’ groups’ pledge peddles verifiably false claims to convince the aspiring lawyers that the firearm industry is responsible for violent crime in America.
Not criminals. Not gang violence. Not the illicit drug trade. They’re blaming the industry for crimes committed by violent offenders and ignoring basic legal foundations to sway law students to deny legal services to companies and individuals that follow the law.
Do You Swear?
David Pucino, Giffords’ deputy chief counsel, makes some dubious claims to convince law students that after they earn their juris doctorate, they should sign the ‘gun control’ group’s nonbinding pledge to never represent the legal interests of a Constitutionally-protected industry. First among these misleading claims is that firearms are the leading cause of death for American children.
This is a favorite false talking point among ‘gun control’ groups and antigun politicians, including President Joe Biden. The problem is that it is demonstrably false. The University of Michigan manipulated data sets to include 18 and 19-year-old adults as “children” to boost the figure of childhood deaths to surpass those caused by motor vehicle accidents. When 18 and 19-year-olds are backed out because they’re not children, but in fact adults, that claim falls apart. NSSF demonstrated that here.
Giffords’ pledge website also claims the firearm industry actively opposes “any effort to pass gun safety laws.” Again, this is demonstrably false. NSSF backed the FIX NICS Act, named for the firearm industry’s FixNICS® initiative to get all states to submit disqualifying records into the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NSSF changed the laws in 16 states and in Congress to get the background check system to work as intended. In fact, NSSF helped create the instant point-of-sale background check system that would instantly inform a firearm retailer if a customer is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
Pucino urges law student to never work for firms that represent the firearm industry because, in his estimation, the firearm industry “represent some really reprehensible companies that have done some horrible things.”
Never mind that the firearm industry administers the Real Solutions. Safer Communities® campaign that includes FixNICS and Project ChildSafe®, which partners with over 15,000 law enforcement agencies in all 50 states and five U.S. territories to distribute over 40 million free firearm safety kits including locking devices. Real Solutions also includes the partner programs with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to prevent illegal “straw” purchases of firearms through Don’t Lie for the Other Guy™ and Operation Secure Store® to help firearm retailers voluntarily increase security to deter and prevent firearm burglaries and robberies. The firearm industry also partnered with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) to provide firearm retailers and ranges kits to encourage a “brave conversation” to prevent suicide tragedies.
Persona Non Grata
Giffords and March for Our Lives think these programs are “reprehensible” enough to demand the ATF not work with the firearm industry on these campaigns that have been proven to save lives. Giffords was among 43 other ‘gun control’ groups that demanded the ATF stop working with the industry it regulates.
“Stop funding, partnering, or co-branding programs with the National Sports Shooting Foundation via the Department of Justice and other Federal Agencies,” the letter said, according to The Reload. “No longer should the ATF hold private briefing and training sessions at NSSF’s annual SHOT SHOW without making their remarks available to the public online.”
NSSF pointed out how “unserious” ‘gun control’ groups are with their demands then. They continue to prove that unseriousness now. These ‘gun control’ groups put special-interest political agendas ahead of real answers to keep the public safe. Their answer isn’t to “do something” as they demand. It is to “do something” to ban guns. And now, apparently, it is also to ban legal representation.
Giffords and March for Our Lives rolled out their “pledge” drive at the University of California – Berkeley School of Law, Cardozo School of Law, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law, Vanderbilt Law School and Yale Law School. Pucino said the drive isn’t limited to those schools. Plans are to make it “broad and national.”
The goal is to encourage the aspiring lawyers to flex their legal muscle, putting pressure on law firms that they’ll miss out on talent because these law school graduates will refuse to assist in any cases defending the firearm industry or Second Amendment rights. It’s a tall order.
“There’s certainly the case that the legal system allows for and encourages for everyone to have representation, of course,” Pucino conceded in an interview with The American Independent.
These ‘gun control’ groups might want to read Shakespeare’s Hamlet and flip forward to the line that reads, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
U.S.A. — “President Biden Announces 13 New Actions to Reduce Gun Violence by Maximizing the Benefits of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” a Sunday White House Briefing Room “Fact Sheet” statement claims. The unproven presumptions packed into that headline are that “gun violence” is a legitimate term rather than an exploitable political one, that it will be reduced, that infringements on rights are beneficial, that they are politically unifying, and that the result will be safer communities.
That’s some concentrated weasel-wording there, packing five full lies in just 20 words. Seasoned Democrat propagandists are nothing if not pros at that.
“These reports make clear that BSCA is saving lives,” the statement continues, citing as “proof” that “enhanced background checks” have kept some under-21-year-olds from buying guns, prosecutions of people, some of whom may just be enthusiasts and collectors, is up, and tax plunder has been redistributed “to make our schools safer, improve access to mental health services, and help young people deal with the trauma and grief resulting from gun violence.”
That the schools are still “gun-free” predator empowerment zones, and that the statement is short on empirically documenting how swarms of headshrinkers have done anything but encourage and fund complementary neuroses is secondary to an observable reality: They’re claiming lives are being saved without actually proving that they are. Yeah, they’re pros at this.
As for those benefits, the statement is promising that will be forthcoming, it’s curious that an administration that’s talking about enhanced background checks is so quiet – some might say obstructionist – on the president’s son, Hunter Biden, getting a gun after denying using controlled substances on a Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record. ATF, the Justice Department, and a federal court have all said that’s Hunter’s private business and no one else’s, and the Secret Service has signed an affidavit denying any involvement at all.
As far as keeping guns out of dangerous hands, the false assumption being pushed here is one that ignores a 2016 Department of Justice prisoner survey:
“An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.”
In other words, don’t look for weekend headlines on Chicago and Baltimore homicides to show a statistically significant reduction anytime soon. Ditto for anything “mental health” or “red flag”-related, especially since we’re basically talking bribes to the states to do end runs around due process.
The whole thing is a meaningless boondoggle that does what Democrats with the media in their pockets do best: Spend money that’s not theirs, attack rights, and spread lies. And helping them do that this time out were the usual suspects from the Vichycon wing of the GOP, the useful idiot/self-serving swamp creatures who continually prove themselves adept at turning coats and stabbing backs.
First, we get to thank Marco Rubio, who introduced the bill.
Then there are 10 Senate Republicans who cut a deal in June of last year to an “agreement in principle [talk about an oxymoron] on gun control legislation,” which was “the number needed to break a GOP filibuster on the package.” They were:
- John Cornyn, R-Texas
- Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
- Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
- Richard Burr, R-N.C.
- Bill Cassidy, R-La.
- Susan Collins, R-Maine
- Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
- Rob Portman, R-Ohio
- Mitt Romney, R-Utah
- Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
And true to what we’ve come to expect from them, NRA at the time provided cover, saying:
“As is our policy, the NRA does not take positions on ‘frameworks’. We will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review.”
That way, a form of “plausible deniability” could be maintained with those who don’t look too closely at things to realize the bill itself would never have advanced in the first place without that “compromise.” No matter, memories are short, and everyone was counting on four of the senators retiring in 2022 and another five not being up for re-election until 2026.
Assuming Rubio, Cornyn, Tillis, Graham, and McConnell are still in the running, expect “A” grades and boilerplate assurances that they’re “staunch defenders of the Second Amendment.”
U.S.A. — President Joe Biden remains “fully committed to further regulations on guns,” according to a recent report in The Advocate, but a statement from the White House following a deadly shooting at a mall in Allen, Texas suggests he is also committed to hypocrisy.
In a Briefing Room statement, Biden referred to the eight people killed in Allen and then said, “Jill and I are praying for their families and for others critically injured.”
However, as Business Insider noted, “Biden called out Republicans for sending ‘thoughts and prayers’ following the latest mass shooting, and called on members of Congress to pass gun-control bills.”
If Biden can do it, why can’t Republicans? Does the Oval Office have a monopoly on prayers for murder victims?
Whatever else Biden wants in during the remainder of his presidency, restrictive gun control and a ban on semi-auto rifles remains at the top of his wish list, The Advocate story indicated. Following the shooting in Allen, Biden made what has become a reflexive pitch for additional gun controls. He also wants to eliminate the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects the firearms industry from junk lawsuits trying to hold gun makers responsible for crimes committed with their products.
As reported in the Business Insider article, “Biden noted that the Texas gunman wore tactical gear and was armed with an AR-15-style weapon.”
“Once again I ask Congress to send me a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Biden said in a prepared statement. “Enacting universal background checks. Requiring safe storage. Ending immunity for gun manufacturers…”
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Biden is “using his bully pulpit; he’s been very clear.”
Following the shooting, Biden dragged out the traditional gun control wish list. In a tweet, he spoke of a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines,” universal background checks and a safe storage mandate. These are all things he has been wanting for years, long before the mall shooting in Allen.
If Congress were to deliver such legislation, Biden says he would “sign it immediately,” according to Politico.
But Congress does not appear inclined to accommodate the gun control president. While he’s been outspoken on the gun control issue, Biden has also acknowledged he has essentially done all he can, and that the ball is in Congress’ court.
Press reports about Biden’s inability to get the GOP-led House to cooperate on gun control routinely fail to mention two important points.
In a story published by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in June 2022, it is clearly explained, so that even a reporter can understand, “Nearly two decades ago the Department of Justice funded a study to analyze this very topic, and it concluded that the assault weapon prohibition had ‘mixed’ results.
“Researchers noted there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms classified as assault weapons,” the report acknowledged, “but noted ‘the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns.’
“In other words,” the FEE article explained, “there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms that were banned, but the drop was replaced by crimes committed with other types of firearms that were not banned.
“While gun violence overall fell in the US during this period—just like many other countries around the world—the decline continued even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban ended in 2004. Authors of the government-funded study plainly stated ‘we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence’ and any future reduction in gun violence as a result of the ban was likely ‘to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.’”
Add to that a Rand report from earlier this year which noted, “we find inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings,” and “we find limited evidence that high-capacity magazine bans reduce mass shootings.”
The second point is even more egregious because the White House and the media can easily look at the annual FBI Uniform Crime Reports, which consistently show that rifles of any kind are used in only a fraction of homicides in any given year. According to FBI data, far more people are murdered annually with knives or “personal weapons” (i.e. fists, feet, hands) than with rifles.
Possibly the biggest hypocrisy of all is that Biden, and his allies in Congress, are all protected by the same kinds of guns they want to ban for everyone else.
.JPG)