Categories
Category: Cops
What I mean is that he’s someone who can screw up nine ways to Sunday, yet still tell himself the problem has absolutely nothing to do with him.
The latest example? Amid his own failures, including the release of a convicted murderer, he’s still blaming guns.
Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon praised California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push for more gun control as he faces criticism over releasing criminals who have gone on to commit violent crimes.
“Thank you, @cagovernor Newsom, for signing several important bills to protect Californians from #gunviolence including four bills supported by my office,” Gascon’s office tweeted Friday in response to Newsom signing four bills that Gascon says will ‘help limit the availability of firearms and take on the growing menace of unlicensed ghost guns.’”
…
“Easy accessibility of firearms, precursor parts, and ammunition has compounded this nation’s gun violence crisis,” Gascon’s office tweeted. “These sensible measures will help stop this deadly #epidemic.”
…
Gascon’s tweet comes at the same time he faces heated criticism over releasing a California murderer 6 years into a 50-year sentence who was re-arrested this week on gun and DUI charges after a car chase.
The report also notes that most of the responses to Gascon’s office’s tweet were negative, with at least one calling it “virtue signaling.”
Regardless, Gascon is in a particularly tough position. I mean, he’s releasing criminals and refusing to prosecute others, which isn’t really going to do much to reduce violent crime, yet he’s beholden to liberal donors who wanted just that.
So, he’s got to do something else, such as jump up and down about gun control.
However, I want to know if Gascon honestly believes that if you remove guns from the equation, people will just stop killing one another.
I mean, look at the convicted killer he’s in so much heat over. This is someone with a felony conviction–one of the big boy felonies at that–and who lives in a universal background check state, yet he got a handgun despite all of that.
Seriously?
I mean, you’re going to push for gun control when confronted with evidence like that? How? Just what new gun control can the state pass that will remotely address something like that?
The answer, of course, is nothing. Newsom’s new bill won’t do anything about that and neither will anything else Gascon is supporting here.
What might, though, is stepping up and prosecuting criminals.
In other words, if Gascon did his job, Los Angeles might not be in such a tough spot right about now. However, Gascon is one of a handful of uber-progressive prosecutors who seem determined to make lives in our cities untenable, even as the rest of their progressive buddies try to usher more people into them.
If there’s an upside to this, it’s that it’s unlikely that even folks in Los Angeles aren’t dumb enough to look at Gascon’s record and think that the real problem is not enough gun control. Then again, this is LA we’re talking about, so I could well be wrong.
The Los Angeles Police Department has stopped enforcing California’s state law banning “high capacity” magazines, according to an internal LAPD email obtained by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project.
The email was sent Wednesday morning to all LAPD personnel by Commander Ernest Eskridge, assistant commanding officer of the department’s Detective Bureau.
Eskridge noted that on June 23, the “United States Supreme Court vacated the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of its recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.”
Because of this ruling, Eskridge said in the email, all sworn LAPD personnel shall not “investigate, detain or arrest” anyone for possessing a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, unless they are already legally barred from possession ammunition in the state.
There were three issues in Duncan v. Bonta: whether a law prohibiting law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment; whether confiscating legally obtained magazines violated the Fifth Amendment’s “takings clause;” and whether the “two-step” approach the 9th Circuit and other courts applied to Second Amendment cases is constitutional and meets Supreme Court precedents.
In its Bruen decision, the Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home and that New York’s “special need” requirement for a concealed-carry permit violates those protections. It also ruled that the two-step rights balancing method by which many gun control laws have been upheld since Heller violates the Second Amendment.
Please check back throughout the day for more on this breaking story.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
Delaware — A small business owner with no criminal record was shocked this month when he watched a disturbing scene unfold on his Ring doorbell camera. When he checked the notification on his phone he noticed three armed men wearing tactical vests, dressed in t-shirts and blue jeans. Two of the armed men were agents with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the third was a Delaware state trooper.
Knowing he had committed no crime, the business owner who wishes to remain anonymous, had no idea why these men were there so he walked out to confront them before they ever knocked. The entire interaction was recorded on his camera system.
“Can I help you?” he asks.
The homeowner had recently made a firearm purchase and the ATF agent told him they were there to verify it. Making sure this wasn’t a scam or a setup, the homeowner verified their identification before proceeding.
The ATF agent then pulled out a list of recent firearms purchased by the man and demanded to see them. The ATF claimed they were investigating straw purchases. A straw purchase is when someone buys a gun for a third party who is not legally authorized to buy a gun themselves.
The following creepy dialogue then unfolded as the ATF showed the homeowner a list of all of his guns — which the ATF claims not to have.
Agent 1 – “All I’m doing is verifying that you have it, you got two different purchases. If you have them, I’m out of here. That’s how quick it is. Yeah. Do you have them with you by any chance?”
Homeowner – “They’re in my safe.”
Agent 1 – “If you can unload them and bring them out. We can go out to your foyer here, check them out, write the serial numbers and we’re out of here.”
Homeowner – “That’s it?”
Agent 1 – “Yep.”
Agent 2 – “That’s it. It will take five seconds.”
Trooper – “The reason we’re out here is obviously gun violence is at an uptick. We want to make sure – we’ve been having a lot of issues with straw purchases. One of the things, indicators we get is someone making a large gun purchase, and then a lot of times we’ve been there and ‘Oh, those guns got taken.’”
Agent 1 – “The idea is that when you purchase more than two guns at a time it generates a multiple sales report and it comes to us and we have to check them out. That’s all that is. You did nothing wrong – absolutely zero. I noticed you were stopped in Philly though with one of your guns?”
Trooper – “We’ll wait if you feel more comfortable.”
Homeowner – “I’m okay. I just – I didn’t expect…”
Agent 1 – “Oh no. It just came up. We came here, look, I’m telling you. There’s an email from the federal side saying can you make sure this guy’s got his guns. If you recently purchased a whole bunch of guns, if we can look at them and just scratch them off…”
Homeowner – “I have them all.”
Agent 2 – “We can look at them and write which ones you just bought, so we can save a trip from coming back. We’ll confirm that you have them.”
When the homeowner went back inside to retrieve his guns, the cops had a telling conversation outside, not knowing they were being recorded.
Trooper – “He doesn’t believe we’re cops.”
Agent 1 – “I don’t blame him.”
After showing the agents his firearm, they left. The homeowner had been coerced into a warrantless search of his property despite the fact that he was not suspected of committing a crime, nor was he the subject of any law enforcement action.
In fact, because the ATF agents did not have a warrant, it means they lacked any probable cause to obtain one. Their entire warrantless search relied on the compliance of the homeowner — who in hindsight says he wishes he wouldn’t have consented to the search.
A reporter with Ammoland spoke to the homeowner who told them this situation was embarrassing as it was disturbing.
“I was embarrassed,” the homeowner said. “My neighbors saw the whole thing – guys in these police vests standing in my yard. I was really uncomfortable. I felt really confused, like I was in some way being accused of something even though I didn’t commit a crime. It was quite embarrassing. I knew they couldn’t come in, but I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want to get put on some watch list. We just got new gun laws here. I didn’t want them coming back again. I felt like they were invading my privacy.”
Unfortunately, it appears that this is going to become the new norm. In July of last year, US attorneys offices and the ATF announced that they will be investigating straw purchases more aggressively, “focusing not only on major cities, but also the neighboring towns and states.”
All the ATF needs to do is claim they suspect you of making a straw purchase and now they can come to your door and demand to see your guns. If that does happen, and they have no warrant, you do not have to show them your guns and can simply tell them this.
When federal agents are going door to door to verify gun purchases it means we are that much closer to a national gun registry which will not end well. How long until this disturbing scene unfolds on your doorstep?
Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist
These shotguns look mighty high end to me! Maybe I should go on Welfare out here! (Oh Hell No!) Grumpy
- 43 Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill, and one Democrat, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., who is not running for reelection, voted against it
- Supporters of the bill said that it would allow police to alert the public of unsafe situations more quickly
- They said police typically rely on social media and news reports to get word out
- Critics said the bill was unnecessary and likely to stoke fear among the public
- ‘This bill is like yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater, except the fire is in another movie theater across the street,’ Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said
The House on Thursday passed a bill 260-169 that would allow law enforcement to deploy an Amber alert-like phone notification system in active shooter situations.
Forty-three Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill, and one Democrat, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., who is not running for reelection, voted against it.
The bill, led by Reps. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Fred Upton, R-Mich., now heads to the Senate.
Supporters of the bill said that it would allow police to alert the public of unsafe situations more quickly. They said police typically rely on social media and news reports to get the word out. Critics said that the bill was unnecessary and likely to stoke fear among the public.
‘This bill is a common sense piece of public safety legislation that police have asked for over, and over, and over again, and we are past due in delivering it to them,’ Cicilline said on the House floor.
The bill would carve out a new role in the Department of Justice known as the national coordinator of the Active Shooter Alert Communications network, and that coordinator would work with the FEMA administrator, Transportation secretary FCC chair to help state and local law enforcement set up such alert systems.
Upton, the Republican leader on the bill, pointed to the July 4 mass shooting at a parade in Highland Park, Ill., where the suspected gunman was at large for eight hours and drove across state lines to Wisconsin.
‘Wouldn’t it have been nice to have had a system that would have alerted the entire parade route to take cover, and maybe some of those folks that were killed or wounded wouldn’t have happened?’ he asked.
Police deploy after gunfire erupted at a Fourth of July parade route in the wealthy Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois on July 4
A Fourth of July parade-goer runs for cover after gunfire was heard at the parade Monday morning, July 4
People’s belongings lie abandoned along the parade route after a mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade
Upton said he heard from ‘law enforcement and police chiefs that active shooter alerts can be a vital tool to provide accurate, real-time information to our communities, and one they believe will help in these dangerous situations.’
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday Republicans cared more about their ‘political survival’ than children’s survival after 168 voted against the bill.
‘If your child were in a school where there was an assault, wouldn’t you want to know? How can these Republicans vote ‘no’?’ she said.
‘These people think their political survival is more important than the survival of their children.’
The Active Shooter Alert bill would allow for Amber alert-style notifications to pop up on nearby residents’ phones in the case of a mass shooting
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., warned that such a bill could cause chaos, giving a hypothetical where a stadium full of concertgoers all get an alert if someone fired a gun several blocks away, maybe even by accident.
‘Would that make the circumstance safer? Of course not. It would lead to stampede, tragedy, hysteria, mistake, perhaps even more death,’ he said.
Gaetz said that the bill was vague about how far from an incident people would still get alerts and what types of events would warrant an alert.
‘This bill is like yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater, except the fire is in another movie theater across the street,’ he said.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, described the bill as ‘Democrat fear-mongering that guns are an ever-present threat.’
Democrats, meanwhile, mocked Republicans for being ‘pro-life’ but voting against the bill.
‘The vast majority of the House Republican Conference voted against a bill to alert people of nearby active shooters,’ Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., wrote on Twitter. ‘The bill doesn’t limit gun ownership. All it does is keep communities safe. In case you were wondering what the ‘pro-life’ party really stands for.’
‘Last night, 168 Republicans voted against the Active Shooter Alert Act, which would set up a system to send alerts directly to people’s phones, warning them in the case of a nearby active shooter. This could save lives. Yet most of the “pro-life” party voted to try and block it,’ Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, wrote on Twitter.
I just received the below email from the Missouri AG:
Missouri Attorney General Condemns FBI’s Illegal Attempts to Harvest Concealed Carry Permit Information from Missouri Sheriffs
July 13, 2022 Contact: Constituent Services Office: 573-751-3321
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Today, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they cease their attempts to illegally obtain information from local sheriffs on Missourians who have concealed carry permits. Missouri law specifically prohibits the sharing of information on concealed carry permit holders to any entity – local, state, federal, or otherwise.
“The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.”
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office became aware that the FBI is planning to travel to Missouri in August to do “audits” at sheriff departments across the state, which would include harvesting information on those who have legally obtained a concealed carry permit. The letter states, “It has come to my attention that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has informed several Missouri county sheriffs that they will be showing up in August to ‘audit’ CCW permit holder records. The FBI states that, ‘The audit includes an onsite review of your Concealed Carry Weapons Permits…’ Let me be perfectly clear. Allowing federal agents from the FBI to have access to records of Missourians who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon violates Missouri law and infringes on our Second Amendment rights.”
Missouri law states, “Information retained in the concealed carry permit system under this subsection shall not be distributed to any federal, state, or private entities . . . .” § 571.101.9(2), RSMo.
At the end of the letter, Attorney General Schmitt promises to use the full power of his Office to stop the FBI’s attempts to obtain information on Missouri concealed carry weapons permit holders.
The full letter can be found here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2022-7-13-ltr-fbi.pdf?sfvrsn=5fbbdf7_2
Should be interesting if they and these sheriff’s attempt the audit.
Will the MO state police be waiting and once a record is presented to an FBI agent by a SO personnel, will they both be arrested under both the CCW records statute and the MO 2a Preservation statute?
Only by a court order pursuant to a criminal inquiry or investigation may Missouri CCW records be released by the county sheriff who issued it.
Mesa, AZ — As we previously reported, the Justice Department is investigating the police response to the horrifying shooting in Uvalde, Texas that left 19 4th grade children dead along with two teachers. As the world quickly learned in the days after the shooting, police were more concerned with preventing parents from saving their children than they were with stopping the mass murdering psychopath inside the school.
Unless they can find actual evidence of a crime, none of the officers involved will likely face any consequences. This is due to the fact that police officers have absolutely no legal duty to protect you.
The leading case on the topic is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) when the Court stated that the “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
Being a hero is not a requirement of a cop. In fact, case after case has shown that while there are certainly many cops willing to throw themselves into harms way and risk their lives to help others, far more of them are more than willing to take cover and save their own skin while others suffer.
We’ve seen this play out in multiple school shootings, street fights, and, as the following incident shows, in house fires. Earlier this year, a police officer from the notoriously violent and corrupt Mesa Police Department had a chance to be a hero as a fire engulfed an apartment with two children inside. But badges and guns don’t make heroes — courage does.
As the officer’s body camera shows, residents were telling the officer that two children were inside the apartment and their screams were audible. Instead of climbing inside the window to pull out the trapped toddlers, the officer throws rocks as the children suffocate inside, yelling for them to “come to the window.” He might as well have yelled, “I’m not doing a damn thing, rescue yourselves.”
Fortunately for the trapped children, however, an actual hero was nearby and ran straight into danger. Unlike the officer throwing rocks, this good Samaritan did not have on a gas mask which would have allowed him to breathe a little better in the fumes. The good Samaritan had nothing but selflessness and courage — and this is what saved the lives of the children trapped inside.
As the cop continues to throw rocks, the unidentified hero climbs up to the window, jumps inside the apartment and grabs one of the children and removes her from the apartment. By the time he gets the first child out, smoke is now billowing out of the window heavily but this does not deter the anonymous hero and he runs right back into danger.
Moments later, he emerges with the second child, saving her life as well. Had he not been there, this officer would have thrown rocks at an apartment as the children inside burned to death. Luckily, he was there and the children were taken to the hospital, treated for smoke inhalation and made a full recovery.
Rest assured that if the Mesa cop would’ve been the one who jumped into the burning building with his body camera rolling, we would’ve certainly known his name and seen multiple nightly news specials on his courage. But this good Samaritan didn’t do it for the fame and glory and after he rescued the children, he left the scene without telling anyone his name.
“According to all who were there, if it wasn’t for the citizen who assisted, the outcome of this incident may have been different,” said Richard Encinas, a spokesperson with the Mesa Police Department. “He saw the fire from a distance, jumped a wall to the apartment complex, and ran towards the fire to help.”
He added that “the citizen did not want to be identified but said he only wanted to help rescue the kids if he could.”
Below is a video that proves the notion that merely possessing a badge and a gun does not make you a hero — being heroic does.
Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist