“If it saves one life, then we should give up another one of our few remaining rights!” Chorus and repeat!
Story by Jeff Charles
Category: Born again Cynic!
“There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.”—Thomas Jefferson, 1789
What does it say about the state of our freedoms that there are now more pencil-pushing, bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with weapons than U.S. Marines?
Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the IRS, Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.
Add in the Biden Administration’s plans to swell the ranks of the IRS by 87,000 new employees (some of whom will be authorized to use deadly force) and grow the nation’s police forces by 100,000 more cops, and you’ve got a nation in the throes of martial law.
We’re being frog-marched into tyranny at the end of a loaded gun.
Make that hundreds of thousands of loaded guns.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of federal agents armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorized to make arrests, and trained in military tactics has nearly tripled over the past several decades.
As Adam Andrzejewski writes for Forbes, “the federal government has become one never-ending gun show.”
While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, federal agencies have been placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets and military gear.
For example, the IRS has stockpiled 4,500 guns and five million rounds of ammunition in recent years, including 621 shotguns, 539 long-barrel rifles and 15 submachine guns.
The Veterans Administration purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition (equivalent to 2,800 rounds for each of their officers), along with camouflage uniforms, riot helmets and shields, specialized image enhancement devices and tactical lighting.
The Department of Health and Human Services acquired 4 million rounds of ammunition, in addition to 1,300 guns, including five submachine guns and 189 automatic firearms for its Office of Inspector General.
According to an in-depth report on “The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies,” the Social Security Administration secured 800,000 rounds of ammunition for their special agents, as well as armor and guns.
The Environmental Protection Agency owns 600 guns. The Smithsonian now employs 620-armed “special agents.”
Even agencies such as Amtrak and NASA have their own SWAT teams.
Ask yourselves: why are government agencies being turned into military outposts?
What’s with the buildup of SWAT teams within non-security-related federal agencies? Even the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department have their own SWAT teams. Most of those officers are under the command of either the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice.
Why does the Department of Agriculture need .40 caliber semiautomatic submachine guns and hollow point bullets? For that matter, why do its agents need ballistic vests and body armor?
For that matter, why do IRS agents need AR-15 rifles?
Why do local police need armored personnel carriers with gun ports, compact submachine guns with 30-round magazines, precision battlefield sniper rifles, and military-grade assault-style rifles and carbines?
Why is the federal government distributing obscene amounts of military equipment, weapons and ammunition to police departments around the country?
Why is the military partnering with local police to conduct training drills around the country? And what exactly are they training for? The public has been disallowed from obtaining any information about the purpose of these realistic urban training drills, other than that they might be loud and to not be alarmed.
We should be alarmed.
As James Madison warned, “We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.”
Unfortunately, we’re long past the first experiment on our freedoms, and merely taking alarm over this build-up of military might will no longer suffice.
Nothing about this de facto army of bureaucratic, administrative, non-military, paper-pushing, non-traditional law enforcement agencies is necessary for national security.
Moreover, while these weaponized, militarized, civilian forces which are armed with military-style guns, ammunition and equipment; trained in military tactics; and authorized to make arrests and use deadly force—may look and act like the military, they are not the military.
Rather, they are foot soldiers of the police state’s standing army, and they are growing in number at an alarming rate.
This standing army—a.k.a. a national police force—vested with the power to completely disregard the Constitution and rule by force is exactly what America’s founders feared, and its danger cannot be overstated or ignored.
This is exactly what martial law looks like—when a government disregards constitutional freedoms and imposes its will through military force, only this is martial law without any government body having to declare it: Battlefield tactics. Militarized police. Riot and camouflage gear. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Drones. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Concussion grenades. Intimidation tactics. Brute force. Laws conveniently discarded when it suits the government’s purpose.
The militarization of America’s police forces in recent decades, which has gone hand in hand with the militarization of America’s bureaucratic agencies, has merely sped up the timeline by which the nation is transformed into an authoritarian regime.
Now we find ourselves struggling to retain some semblance of freedom in the face of administrative, police and law enforcement agencies that look and act like the military with little to no regard for the Fourth Amendment, laws such as the NDAA that allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, and military drills that acclimate the American people to the sight of armored tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and combat aircraft patrolling overhead.
This quasi-state of martial law has been helped along by government policies and court rulings that have made it easier for the police to shoot unarmed citizens, for law enforcement agencies to seize cash and other valuable private property under the guise of asset forfeiture, for military weapons and tactics to be deployed on American soil, for government agencies to carry out round-the-clock surveillance, for legislatures to render otherwise lawful activities as extremist if they appear to be anti-government, for profit-driven private prisons to lock up greater numbers of Americans, for homes to be raided and searched under the pretext of national security, for American citizens to be labeled terrorists and stripped of their rights merely on the say-so of a government bureaucrat, and for pre-crime tactics to be adopted nationwide that strip Americans of the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty and creates a suspect society in which we are all guilty until proven otherwise.
Don’t delude yourself into believing that this thinly-veiled exercise in martial law is anything other than an attempt to bulldoze what remains of the Constitution and reinforce the iron-fisted rule of the police state.
This is no longer about partisan politics or civil unrest or even authoritarian impulses.
This is a turning point.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are sliding fast down a slippery slope to a Constitution-free America.
If we are to have any hope of salvaging what’s left of our battered freedoms, we’d do well to start by disarming the IRS and the rest of the federal and state bureaucratic agencies, de-militarizing domestic police forces, and dismantling the police state’s standing army.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
SF prosecutors decline to charge security guard in fatal Walgreens shooting, cite self-defense
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — The security guard arrested for allegedly shooting and killing a person inside a San Francisco Walgreens last Thursday has been released from jail after prosecutors declined to pursue charges.
According to a statement released by the district attorney’s office Monday, they decided to not file murder charges, at this time, after a review of the evidence gathered by the San Francisco Police Department.
The statement said in part, “The evidence clearly shows that the suspect believed he was in mortal danger and acted in self-defense.”
Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony is accused of fatally shooting 24-year-old Banko Brown during what police are calling a shoplifting incident.
“We cannot bring forward charges when there is credible evidence of reasonable self-defense. Doing so would be unethical and create false hope for a successful prosecution,” the statement said.
On the same day Anthony was released from jail, loved ones of Brown held a rally in San Francisco to demand justice for his death.
“It’s insane that Walgreens has armed security, there’s nothing in that store worth a human life,” Jessica Nowlan, a representative from the Young Women’s Freedom Center said.
Julia Arroyo, co-Executive Director of the Young Women’s Freedom Center said the rally held Monday for Brown was also to demand housing, specifically for Black trans youth.
“Being a Black trans man, it was complicated for him. To be inside of women’s housing or men’s housing. He was constantly being targeted and so he often talked about, ‘where’s my place for a home?'” Arroyo said.
She says Brown was one of their community organizing interns and like many of the people connected with the center, he had been experiencing homelessness since he was just 12 years old.
“He was the next in line to receive his housing, and so they continued to tell him, you just got to call back every morning,” Arroyo said.
But despite sometimes helping others get resources before him through the Young Women’s Freedom Center, that call for permanent housing never came for Brown.
“I know that Banko called tirelessly to all of these places, waited in line for housing and was turned away so many times and I’ve just seen his urgency to get there and, this is the result,” she said. “This is the result and we should all be ashamed of ourselves in San Francisco.”
Police say this shooting was originally called in as a shoplifting incident, though a cousin who was with Brown Thursday evening tells ABC7 they were not shoplifting.
Darren Stallcup, a neighbor who shops here daily, believes shoplifting in San Francisco is part of a much larger problem.
“People who are struggling to make a life for themselves, to build a life for themselves, are having an even more difficult time nowadays,” Darren Stallcup, a San Francisco resident said. “What’s happening right now in San Francisco is an absolute humanitarian crisis, this is not an isolated incident.”
San Francisco Mayor London Breed’s office said they could not comment on the specifics of this case, but released a statement saying Breed announced a goal of ending trans homelessness last year and that the city has created a number of programs to support trans communities including the Our Trans Home SF Coalition, the Taimon Booton Navigation Center, guaranteed income programs and the Dream Keeper Initiative.
“San Francisco strives to be a national leader in supporting trans communities and helping people on the path to housing and stability in a country where too often the basic rights and safety of trans people are under attack,” the Mayor’s Office said.
Hope — and some skepticism — as fentanyl crackdown begins in SF’s Tenderloin
“I’m hopeful something good comes out of this and we can help reclaim this city,” one resident said.
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — Monday marks the start of Governor Gavin Newsom’s major move to crack down on San Francisco’s open-air drug market. California Highway Patrol and the California National Guard are teaming up with the SFPD and District Attorney’s Office to help get drug dealers off the streets.
CHP officers will be targeting the Tenderloin and South of Market neighborhoods, while the California National Guard works behind the scenes analyzing intelligence.
“As we hopefully wind down the drug market, we also have to make sure that we are winding up support for the people who are going to have a harder time finding drugs,” said Supervisor Dorsey.
RELATED: ‘Injecting Hope’ | Watch documentary on innovative program tackling drug overdose, fentanyl epidemic
“If you are going to be eliminating the supply like this, especially with people that do have substance use disorder and if their primary substance is fentanyl. We really need to make sure that we’re able to help these folks and very quickly,” said Gary McCoy of HealthRight 360, one of the nonprofits working with the city in hopes of establishing safe consumption sites.
Safe consumption sites, also known as safe injection, or overdose prevention sites, are places people can go to use their drugs under supervision in case of an overdose – and be connected to services like treatment and housing. The sites are illegal under federal law, but the Mayor’s Office and Board of Supervisors are trying to find workarounds, similar to sites like those in New York City, operated by a nonprofit.
“There are some conversations happening that fingers crossed we’ll make some progress on some of the overdose prevention sites that we’re talking about,” said Supervisor Dorsey.
Driving around the tenderloin on Monday afternoon, it looked pretty much like it does on any other day. There were a few SFPD officers on foot patrol. And we spotted two CHP cars passing through.
But despite no visible difference in the neighborhood, some San Franciscans are hopeful Monday will mark a turning point in San Francisco.
VIDEO: National Guard explains their role in fighting San Francisco’s fentanyl crisis
“I am cautiously optimistic. Let’s put it that way,” Tom Wolf, a recovering fentanyl addict who used to live on the streets of the Tenderloin, told ABC7 News.
Wolf said word has already spread around the community.
“From what I’m hearing from people on the street, is that they’re hunkering down. The people using drugs are hunkering down in anticipation of this increase in law enforcement to kind of ride out the storm,” Wolf said.
“The key is that, when we do this enforcement, it’s going to have to be a sustained approach,” he added. “We can’t just have the CHP come in here for three weeks and then go home. If they’re going to be here, they’re going to have to be here for six months at least.”
CHP said they have 75 uniformed officers in San Francisco, but they won’t say how many officers are being deployed at any given time for this effort.
Supervisor Dean Preston — who represents the Tenderloin and has been critical of Newsom’s plan — said he’s heard it’s going to be about six officers. He is among those skeptical the plan will make much change.
VIDEO: Mixed reaction to Gov. Newsom’s plans to combat San Francisco’s fentanyl crisis
“It’s kind of a big nothing burger in some ways,” Preston said. “I mean, the governor announced military deployment with the National Guard and CHP and all that. In reality, now we find out that the plan appears to be taking six CHP officers who are already stationed here in San Francisco and having them drive around the Tenderloin and SOMA.”
“So, I wish the governor would focus less on these publicity stunts and more on working on us to actually improve the community,” he added.
Wolf, meantime, is just thankful that there’s focus on combating the crisis.
“We definitely need to do something, so adding more law enforcement is a first step in that direction,” he said.
Jury is still out, he said, if that increased police presence will be enough to deter drug dealers.
“I think they’ll believe it if they see it,” Wolf said. “Until then, I think they’re going to keep doing what they’re doing. There’s too much money to be made out here.”
“That’s why I’m saying I’m cautiously optimistic,” he added. “I’m hopeful something good comes out of this and we can help reclaim this city.”
A CH-47 Chinook flight engineer during a training session over Cyprus in 2020.Maj. Robert Fellingham / 12th Combat Aviation Brigade / U.S. Army, file
Hundreds of Army aviation officers who were set to leave the military are being held to another three years of service after they say the branch quietly reinterpreted part of their contract amid retention and recruitment issues.
The shift has sparked an uproar among the more than 600 affected active-duty commissioned officers, including some who say their plans to start families, launch businesses and begin their civilian lives have been suddenly derailed.
“We are now completely in limbo,” said a captain who had scheduled his wedding around thinking he would be leaving the military this spring.
That captain and three other active-duty aviation officers who spoke to NBC News spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.
As part of a program known as BRADSO, cadets commissioning from the U.S. Military Academy or Army Cadet Command from 2008 and 2020 were able to request a branch of their choice, including aviation, by agreeing to serve an additional three years on active duty.
For years, the Army allowed some aviation officers to serve those three years concurrently, and not consecutively, along with their roughly contracted seven or eight years of service.
In a phone call with reporters Thursday, Army officials admitted “errors” in the system, which they noticed a few months ago, led to the discrepancy.
“We are fixing those errors, and we are in communication with the unit leadership and impacted officers,” said Lt. Gen. Douglas Stitt, deputy chief of staff of G-1, which is in charge of policy and personnel.
“Our overall goal to correct this issue is to provide predictability and stability for our soldiers while maintaining readiness across our force,” Stitt added.
In letters the Army sent this month to the affected aviators as well as to members of Congress, which were obtained by NBC News, it said it “realized” after conducting a “legal review of this policy” that the three-year BRADSO requirement has to be served separately.
“This is not a new policy, but we are correcting oversights in recordkeeping that led some officers with an applied BRADSO to separate from the U.S. Army before they were eligible,” the letter said.
Thursday’s media roundtable came after more than 140 aviation officers banded together to demand answers after learning one by one that they were being denied discharges due to outstanding BRADSO obligations beginning last fall.
More than 60 of them signed a letter to Congress outlining how they had been misled by the Army for years about the exact length of their service contract.
“It has been this unanimous uprising of emotions and frustrations,” said another Army aviation captain, who is newly married and wanted to begin having children.
He called the reversal of a precedent an “injustice” to an already burnt-out department still regularly deployed despite the end of the longest war in American history.
“Yeah, the war on Afghanistan ended. There’s still a high demand for Army aviation,” he said, while en route to another deployment. “We have units still in constant training or deployment rotations. They’re failing to recognize the human aspect.”
The newlywed said it has been difficult for him and his wife to accept a three-year delay in starting a family.
“That was the big kick in the gonads,” he said. “We wanted to start having kids, and we no longer can. It’s a stressor we didn’t plan to deal with.”
Documents obtained by NBC News show officers were given conflicting information about their service obligations.
Its just a pity that we did not adopt this round back then instead of playing politics with our Allies! But now we have adopted the 6.8 round. Which is a sorta, kinda version. Oh well better late than never!
Grumpy
I’ve only been up for a couple of hours (as I begin typing), and the news is already full of stupidity that I’ll need to address. I’ll lead off with a case challenging Washington, DC’s “large capacity” magazine ban, Hanson v. DC. The judge, one Rudolph Contreras, denied a preliminary injunction against the ban. His… reasoning is… remarkable. Or something; I’m trying to be somewhat polite.
A weapon may have some useful purposes in both civilian and military contexts, but if it is most useful in military service, it is not protected by the Second Amendment.
[…]
[Large capacity magazines] are not covered by the [2A] because they are most useful in military service.
Oddly, Contreras cites HELLER in making that point. I can’t find that argument in HELLER, which was largely about whether non- military weapons could be regulated, and how, but there is this.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.
Rather the opposite of Contreras’ weasel-wording, eh? Indeed, HELLER even cites the earlier MILLER, which establishes that militarily-useful arms are protected by the Second Amendment.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Having chucked decades of SCOTUS precedent already, Contreras proceeds to demonstrate an amazing lack of judicial awareness of current events and Supreme Court decisions. Now that he’s established in his own deluded mind that standard capacity magazines are not 2A-protected, he addresses whether this particular restriction of such magazines is permissable.
WARNING: If you’re drinking, swallow before proceeding, for the protection of your screen.
Under this “two-step approach,” a court must “ask first whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment; if it does, then . . . go on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.
Umm… BRUEN, moron. (All right; “somewhat polite” is off the table after all.) Associate Justice Thomas spent a fair amount of ink taking lower courts to task for continuing to use the two-step approach.
The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broad y consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.</b
[…]
To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.
[…]
The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
HELLER rejected two-step government interest scrutiny.
MCDONALD rejected two-step government interest scrutiny.
BRUEN rejected two-step government interest scrutiny, and bitch-slapped lower courts for continuing to use it in direct defiance of the Supreme Court.
At this point, I wouldn’t blame Clarence Thomas if he is looking for a 2X4 and Contreras’ home address.
Enough Lying. It’s Democrats, Not Republicans, Who Are to Blame for Most Child Gun Deaths | Opinion
The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee made a stop in New York City this week, in order to “examine how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s pro-crime, anti-victim policies have led to an increase in violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents.” As witnesses, the hearing featured the family members of victims of gun violence in New York, as well as other victims of Bragg’s soft on crime approach.
Family of Johnny Gaston, who was recently murdered, attend a House Judiciary Committee field hearing on violent crime in New York on April 17, 2023 at the Javits Federal Building in New York City. Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has been a leading critic of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg since he announced that a grand jury had indicted former president Donald Trump in an alleged hush money scheme to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels before the presidential election in 2016. Bragg has criticized the congressional inquiry as unconstitutional.© Spencer Platt/Getty Images
-
MSNBC‘Understanding gun violence is in the numbers’: Parkland father on AR-15 being 25% of weapons sold
11:39 -
5:23
-
17:08
House Democrats did their best to smear their Republican colleagues as attempting to pull off a stunt to distract from the indictment of former President Donald Trump. At times, they called the witnesses props, and accused the Republicans of not caring about crime and violence because if they did, they would support Democratic efforts to enact gun control.
“Gun violence is now the leading cause of death of children in America and kills 40,000 Americans a year, and my colleagues vote repeatedly against even the most common sense gun violence prevention measures,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) during the hearing.
But invoking gun control measures at a hearing about crime is gaslighting at its best, as was the invocation of the statistic that gun violence kills 40,000 children a year. A closer look at that statistic shows that it is Democrats who are failing most of those kids, not Republicans.
The numbers come from a new report out of the Pew Research Center, which found that gun deaths among children have risen by 50 percent in just two years. The report analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and revealed that in 2022 alone, there were over 2,500 gun deaths among children aged 0-17. This marks a significant increase from 2019, when there were just over 1,700 gun deaths.
The report found that homicides were the largest category of gun deaths among children in 2021, making up 60 percent of the total, followed by suicide, which made up 32 percent. Accidental gun deaths accounted for five percent.
But gun deaths by homicide and gun deaths by suicide were not evenly distributed among from different communities. The report found that Black children were five times as likely as white kids to die from gunfire. Forty-six percent of gun deaths involved Black victims, though they account for just 14 percent of the U.S. population. Meanwhile, white kids were more likely to die by suicide.
And unfortunately, given what we know about this data, gun control restrictions are not likely to make a big impact in putting an end to these deaths, for the simple fact that most of those shooting children and teens are doing so with illegally-obtained firearms.
Those arguing for more gun control measures cannot adequately explain how these laws would save lives. Criminals who engage in violence do not obey laws, so simply passing more laws will not necessarily prevent gun violence. The vast majority of criminals commit their crimes using firearms that they obtained illegally. More restrictions on lawful gun owners will do nothing to address this issue, though it may endanger people who would otherwise be able to protect themselves.
People like Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who made headlines after getting into a shouting match with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) over gun control, love to scream about how the government needs to limit gun ownership as a means of curbing gun violence. Yet, in Bowman’s own district, gun crimes have risen considerably despite New York having some of the strictest gun laws.
After suicide, most gun violence is gang-related, a problem that’s complex and requires a multifaceted approach that addresses root causes such as poverty, substandard education, and a lack of opportunities, as well as better, more effective, and more consistent policing. And making it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms will not address this problem. It will only endanger them.
Research shows that the overwhelming majority of defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement or the media; a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that there are up to 3 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States.
These statistics demonstrate that guns can play an important role in self-defense and personal protection. It could also enable adults to defend their children from gun violence.
The numbers coming from the Pew Research Center study should be disturbing to any American of conscience. But the bottom line is that targeting lawful gun owners will not make a dent in the number of gun homicides among children and teens. Addressing the root issues that lead to more violent crime, along with dealing with the issue of illegally-obtained guns, will save more lives. The question is: When will our politicians get on board?
Jeff Charles is the host of “A Fresh Perspective” podcast and a contributor for RedState and Liberty Nation.
The views in this article are the writer’s own.
1 of 7
BELLINGHAM, Wash. (AP) — A ban on dozens of semi-automatic rifles cleared the Washington state Legislature on Wednesday and the governor is expected to sign it into law.
The high-powered firearms — once banned nationwide — are now the weapon of choice among young men responsible for most of the country’s devastating mass shootings.
The ban comes after multiple failed attempts in the state’s Legislature, and amid the most mass shootings during the first 100 days of a calendar year since 2009.
The Washington law would block the sale, distribution, manufacture and importation of more than 50 gun models, including AR-15s, AK-47s and similar style rifles. These guns fire one bullet per trigger pull and automatically reload for a subsequent shot. Some exemptions are included for sales to law enforcement agencies and the military in Washington. The measure does not bar the possession of the weapons by people who already have them.
The law would go into effect immediately once it’s signed by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, who has long advocated for such a ban. When the bill passed the state House in March, Inslee said he’s believed it since 1994 when, as a member of the U.S. Congress, he voted to make the ban a federal law.
After the bill passed, Inslee said the state of Washington “will not accept gun violence as normal.”
Inslee said lives will be saved because of the semi-automatic rifle ban and two other measures approved by the Legislature this session: one that introduced a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases and another to hold gunmakers liable for negligent sales.
Republican state lawmakers opposed the ban, with some contending school shootings should be addressed by remodeling buildings to make them less appealing as targets and others saying it infringes on people’s rights to defend themselves.
“HB 1240 clearly violates our state and federal constitutions, which is why it will end up in court immediately,” Sen. Lynda Wilson of Vancouver said.
The U.S. Congress reinstating a ban on semi-automatic rifles appears far off. But President Joe Biden and other Democrats have become increasingly emboldened in pushing for stronger gun controls — and doing so with no clear electoral consequences.
Nine states including California, New York and Massachusetts, along with the District of Columbia, have already passed similar bans, and the laws have been upheld as constitutional by the courts, according to Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
In Colorado, lawmakers debated on Wednesday about similar gun measures, but a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms faces stiffer odds.
Lawmakers in the Texas Capitol set aside a slate of proposed new gun restrictions without a vote after hours of emotional appeals from Uvalde families whose children were killed last year. The hearing didn’t end until the early morning hours Wednesday.
During debate on the Washington state bill, Democrats spoke of frequent mass shootings that have killed people in churches, nightclubs, grocery stores and schools.
Sen. Liz Lovelett of Anacortes said that kids’ concerns about school shootings need to be addressed.
“They are marching in the streets. They are asking for us to take action,” Lovelett said. “We have to be able to give our kids reasons to feel hopeful.”
Another gun-control bill that passed in Washington this session would allow people whose family members die from gun violence to sue if a manufacturer or seller “is irresponsible in how they handle, store or sell those weapons.” Under the state’s consumer-protection act, the attorney general could file a lawsuit against manufacturers or sellers for negligently allowing their guns to be sold to minors, or to people buying guns legally in order to sell them to someone who can’t lawfully have them.
A second bill would require gun buyers to show they’ve taken safety training. It would also impose a 10-day waiting period for all gun purchases — something that’s already mandatory in Washington when buying a semi-automatic rifle.
Some gun-control legislation in other states has been struck down since last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which set new standards for reviewing the nation’s gun laws. The ruling says the government must justify gun control laws by showing they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
What I think is that only the lawyers will win out of this! 
EXCLUSIVE, updated with lawyers statement: Less than two weeks before a mini-trial is scheduled to begin in New Mexico over the October 2021 killing of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, all charges are going to be dropped against Alec Baldwin and the film’s armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed
Recently appointed special prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis are expected to file paperwork soon, perhaps even today, to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter claims against the multi-Emmy-winning actor and the crew member without prejudice, we hear. That means, as they are set to investigate further into what actually went down that terrible day on the Bonanza Creek Ranch set near Santa Fe, this case could be resurrected in the future.
“We are pleased with the decision to dismiss the case against Alec Baldwin, and we encourage a proper investigation into the facts and circumstances of this tragic accident,” Baldwin attorneys Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro said in a statement. Representatives for the Santa Fe’s District Attorney’s office had no comment on the situation when contacted by Deadline on Thursday.
“The new special prosecutor team has taken a very diligent and thorough approach to the entire investigation, which we welcome and have always welcomed,” said Reed’s lawyers Jason Bowles and Todd Bulllion today. “They are seeking the truth and we are also. The truth about what happened will come out and the questions that we have long sought answers for will be answered. We fully expect at the end of this process that Hannah will also be exonerated.”
Both Gutierrez-Reed and Baldwin had pleaded not guilty earlier this year.
Since an interview on ABC just weeks after the slaying of Hutchins, Baldwin repeatedly has insisted that he did not pull the trigger on the 1880s prop gun that killed the DoP — an insistence the FBI disagreed with in its report on the matter released last year. With Baldwin lawyers last month contesting the state of the gun, further investigation into the firearm looks certain to be undertaken as a part of any renewed probe.
These latest developments are occurring as production on a resurrected Rust was set to start in Montana with Baldwin and director Joel Souza, who was wounded in the October 2021 shooting. Originally scheduled to begin earlier this week, Rust 2.0 now is looking at starting tomorrow, we hear — though that could shift based on these new developments. The timing of the charges being dropped against Baldwin just before the new Rust production commences seems almost uncanny, though we are told it is purely coincidence.
The looming move by the special prosecutors also comes mere days after the filing of the witness list for the May 3-starting preliminary examination became public. Even with charges against Gutierrez-Reed still active, it looks unlikely that the preliminary examination aka mini-trial will go ahead as scheduled, especially with prosecutors digging anew into the evidence, context and circumstances of the on-set tragedy.
More than a year after Halyna Hutchins died on the Rust set, Baldwin and co-defendant Gutierrez-Reed were charged in late January with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. Along with a mandatory five-year firearm enhancement that later was cast aside as “unconstitutional,” those charges carried a maximum of 18 months behind bars and around $5,000 in fines if a jury delivered guilty verdicts to Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed. At the time, New Mexico officials made a plea deal with Rust assistant director Dave Halls, who was sentenced to six months of unsupervised probation.
In the past weeks, Baldwin had received approval from Judge Mary Marlow Sommer to be absent from the preliminary examination/mini-trial on the involuntary manslaughter claims against him. Still, in a sign of just how fast events were moving this week, the state released its 35-person witness list for the mini-trial, where Judge Sommer would determine if there is enough evidence to go to a full trial. Right near the top of that list is Rust director and co-creator Souza. The list also includes Rust script supervisor Mamie Mitchell — who is suing Baldwin and his fellow producers in one of the many suits against them still in L.A. Superior Court and New Mexico — armorer mentor Seth Kenney, more members of the crew and a ton of cops.
The sudden turn of events now for Rust star and producer Baldwin follows Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies stepping down from the case late last month and the duo of veteran New Mexico attorneys being put in charge.
While rare, that decision by the besieged DA looked almost inevitable over the past few weeks.
Almost from the jump after Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed were formally charged, the DA hit several self-created potholes, including a lost February 24 attempt to block Gutierrez-Reed’s request to possess a gun in her home for self-defense. More embarrassingly for the DA, there also was a dismissal of the firearm enhancement charge from the case in late February and the stinging loss of previous special prosecutor and GOP state lawmaker Andrea Reeb in mid-March. Then, almost certain to lose an attempt to be co-counsel with a new special prosecutor, Carmack-Altwies finally removed herself from the case altogether on March 29. At the same time, the DA brought well-respected New Mexico lawyers Morrissey and Lewis on board as special prosecutors.
As the State of New Mexico pondered bringing charges against Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed, the Hutchins estate settled its wrongful death suit against Rust Movie Productions LLC and Baldwin in October. As part of the deal, the DoP’s husband Matthew Hutchins is executive producing the new Rust production, as well as a documentary on his wife’s life and burgeoning career.
“I have no interest in engaging in recriminations or attribution of blame (to the producers or Mr. Baldwin),” Matthew Hutchins said at the time. “All of us believe Halyna’s death was a terrible accident. I am grateful that the producers and the entertainment community have come together to pay tribute to Halyna’s final work.”
Earlier this week, that settlement was ordered sealed to protect the privacy of the Hutchins’ young son.