Category: Good News for a change!
Israel Loosens Gun Laws After Unprecedented Terror Attack
- Stephen Gutowski
It will now be easier for Israelis to carry firearms for self-defense in the wake of the worst terror attack in the nation’s history.Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir announced on Sunday he has ordered officials responsible for issuing gun licenses to broaden its standards. As the death toll inflicted by terror group Hamas grew to over 600, Ben-Gvir said he wants more Israelis to be able to legally arm themselves.“Today I directed the Firearms Licensing Division to go on an emergency operation in order to allow as many citizens as possible to arm themselves,” he posted, according to a Google translation. “The plan will take effect within 24 hours.”
The policy change comes after Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israelis that saw terrorists carry out the brutal murder and mutilation of men, women, and children. Many more were injured or kidnapped. Israel has declared war on Hamas and begun carrying out airstrikes in Gaza, but it remains unclear if all of the terror group’s fighters have even been expelled from the towns they ransacked at this point.
The move to arm Israeli civilians in the wake of a vicious invasion mirrors that of the Ukranian government last year. As the Russian Army approached Kyiv last February, the government distributed 10,000 rifles to civilians hoping to stem the tide. The Ukrainian Army, bolstered by civilian resistance, eventually pushed Russians away from their capital city.
Israel’s plan is more reserved than distributing rifles on the street to all comers. Instead, Ben-Gvir said the country would loosen its gun-carry requirements. Still, he said the changes should allow thousands of Israelis to get and carry guns within the next week.
The first change is moving from an in-person interview to a phone interview for gun-carry applicants.
“Any citizen who meets the detailed tests for carrying a private firearm due to self-defense and serving the security forces and is without a criminal or medical record will be required to undergo a telephone interview instead of a physical interview and will be able to receive permission to carry a firearm within a week,” Ben-Gvir said. “(Self-defense tests: residence in an eligible settlement, rifle veterans 07 and above, officers in the rank of lieutenant and above and combatants in the rank of major and above in the IDF and the security forces, service in special units, firefighters, policemen, and workers and volunteers in the rescue forces).”
The second change allows anyone who had a permit to purchase a firearm in 2023 but didn’t do so before the license expired to buy a gun without going through the process. He estimated that would apply to 4,000 citizens.
He said another 1,800 citizens would also be allowed to retrieve a gun they were forced to give up in the last six months because the owner didn’t get “refresher training or renewal training.”
He also raised the ammunition purchase limit for “conditional permits to carry firearms” from 50 to 100.
“I thank the members of the Firearms Licensing Division, the Civil Response Department of the Israel Police, and the employees of the Ministry of Health for the very important commitment that will allow as many citizens as possible to arm themselves and protect themselves and their environment when necessary,” Ben-Gvir said.
After the Remington bankruptcy, Bushmaster Firearms was purchased by Franklin Armory (Crotalus Holdings LLC) and moved to Nevada. They are now located in Carson City.
Yesterday, I received an email from Lee Felch who is the Director of Marketing for Bushmaster. He said given the close history between Bushmaster and Windham Weaponry that the company was reaching out with condolences on the closure and possible job offers.
It is good to see other companies in the firearms industry reaching out to the Windham Weaponry employees. Furthermore, Bushmaster is not wasting any time in seeking those employees with critical skills to its own success. I’m not sure how many will trade the Sebago Lake region of Maine for the high desert of Carson City but a job is a job.
The ladies FREE shooting event will be held on Saturday, July 29, 2023, and Sunday, July 30, 2023, at both the Top Gun Shooting Sports (22050 Pennsylvania Road in Taylor, Michigan) and Recoil Firearms (22509 Ecorse Road in Taylor, Michigan).
There will be no charge for the Firearm Instructor’s safety briefing, the usage of a firearm, ammunition, and range time. Participation is 100 percent free for all attendees. No prior firearms training or experience is required of the women who desire to take advantage of the lesson. Further, experienced women merely desiring to improve their marksmanship skills are also welcome to attend.
For some reason to me. That this rifle looks like what I would call a really fun gun to go plinking with during a weekend with the younguns! Grumpy
Table of contents
It’s not every day that you hear about the IRS packing heat. But that’s exactly what’s been happening, to the tune of $35.2 million. Iowa’s Senator Joni Ernst is saying enough is enough.
Ernst, the straight-shooting Republican, is spearheading a move to disarm the IRS. Yes, you heard it right. She’s calling out the tax agency for splurging taxpayer dollars on weapons, ammunition, and military-grade gear.
Since 2006, the IRS has been spending wildly. They’ve spent over $35.2 MILLION on an arsenal that would make some small countries blush. They’ve dropped $10 million on weaponry and gear since 2020 alone.
Sen. Ernst Calls ‘Em Out
“The taxman is fully loaded at the expense of the taxpayer,” Ernst said in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica. “As the Biden administration has worked to expand the size of the IRS, any further weaponization of this federal agency against hardworking Americans and small businesses is a grave concern.”
“I’m working to disarm the IRS and return these dollars to address reckless spending in Washington,” she added.
Those Hilarious Training Videos From Last Year
Why Is the IRS Playing War
The question that’s tickling everyone’s mind is, why is the IRS playing at war?
According to Adam Andrzejewski, CEO of Open the Books, the IRS isn’t just buying handguns for self-defense. They’ve been stocking AR-style rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, and even submachine guns. They’ve also stockpiled 5 million rounds.
“The IRS special agent is starting to look less like a desk worker or rule maker and more like a SWAT team from a Hollywood thriller. It’s the blurring of the lines between a tax agency and traditional law enforcement,” observed Andrzejewski.
The Why Does the IRS Have Guns Act Would:
- Prohibit the IRS from buying, receiving, or storing guns and ammo,
- Transfer all guns and ammo currently in the IRS’ possession to the General Services Administration,
- Auction off these guns and ammo to Federal Firearms License owners and devote proceeds to deficit reduction, and
- Relocate the IRS Criminal Investigation Division within the Justice Department.
Ernst is doing more than just talking. She’s proposed the ‘Why Does the IRS Have Guns Act.’ The act would prohibit the IRS from buying, receiving, or storing guns and ammo. It would also force the IRS to offload its existing arsenal.
But here’s the kicker. The act stipulates that all this weaponry should be auctioned off to Federal Firearms License owners. And the money raised? It’ll be used for deficit reduction. A classic two-birds-one-stone move.
Furthermore, Ernst wants to relocate the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. She wants it under the Justice Department, where traditional law enforcement belongs.
This move is a stand against wasteful spending and overreach. Ernst is making a clear point: the IRS is a tax agency, not a paramilitary organization. The time has come to ask ourselves, why does the IRS need guns?
And, Ernst isn’t just demanding answers, she’s making moves and leading the charge for change – it’s high time someone stepped up to the plate.
Fox News Video
The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether You Have a Right to a Prompt Hearing After Cops Seize Your Property
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two consolidated cases by Alabama women whose cars were both seized for more than a year before courts found they were innocent owners.
(Gary Blakeley | Dreamstime.com)
Do you have a right to a prompt hearing after the government seizes your property? The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the question in its upcoming term.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Culley v. Attorney General of Alabama, two consolidated cases concerning whether property owners have a due process right to a hearing to determine if police had probable cause to seize their property.
The issue may seem esoteric, but it’s hugely important to people who have their property seized by police under civil asset forfeiture laws. Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can take property suspected of being connected to criminal activity even if the owner hasn’t been charged with a crime. Property owners then often have the burden of going to court and proving their innocence, a process that can take months and sometimes years.
Take the two cases at issue: In the first, Halima Culley’s son was pulled over by police in Satsuma, Alabama, while driving Culley’s car. He was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The City of Satsuma also seized Culley’s car. It took 20 months, during all of which Culley was bereft of her vehicle, before a state court ruled that she was entitled to the return of her car under Alabama’s innocent-owner defense.
In the second case, a friend of Lena Sutton took her car to run an errand in 2019. He was pulled over by police in Leesburg, Alabama, who found methamphetamine in the car and seized it. Sutton also eventually was granted summary judgment on an innocent-owner defense, but not until more than a year after the initial seizure of her car.
These sorts of long delays have been documented elsewhere around the country. In 2018, three Detroit residents filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Wayne County police and prosecutors seized their cars and forced them to wait months, sometimes years, for a hearing. Two years later, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, filed another class-action lawsuit challenging Wayne County’s asset forfeiture program, including its practice of not providing defendants with prompt post-seizure hearings.
“The government should not be able to take your car without providing you with a prompt opportunity to challenge the seizure,” Dan Alban, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, said in a statement. “In criminal cases, after the government arrests you, it must hold a probable cause hearing shortly after the arrest so that a judge can make a preliminary determination about whether the arrest was legitimate. The government should provide the same kind of prompt hearing after it takes your property.”
The specific question before the Supreme Court is which test district courts should apply when determining if someone’s 14th Amendment right to due process was violated by being deprived of a prompt hearing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Alabama, has held that the “speedy trial” test, a particularly vague balancing test created to resolve allegations of Sixth Amendment violations, applies and that due process is satisfied by the civil forfeiture process itself. However, every other circuit that has weighed in on the issue uses a different balancing test established in the 1976 Supreme Court case Mathews v. Eldridge to determine due process violations.
Culley and Sutton both filed lawsuits claiming that the towns violated their Eighth and 14th Amendment rights by depriving them of their cars for months when a pretrial hearing to establish probable cause for the seizures could have quickly determined that they were innocent owners under Alabama law.
The 11th Circuit rejected their claims, finding the state’s civil forfeiture process satisfied the requirements for a timely hearing under the speedy trial test.
Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall filed a brief opposing Culley and Sutton’s Supreme Court petition, arguing there is no circuit split on the issue and that the women had no constitutional right to an additional hearing.
“As an initial matter, petitioners’ ‘innocent owner’ status does not entitle them to special solicitude under either test,” Marshall wrote. “For centuries, this court has confirmed that in rem civil forfeitures need not inquire into the guilt or innocence of the property’s owner—only the use of the property itself in a prohibited act. That Alabama chose to enact statutory protections for innocent owners thus does not entitle those owners to heightened constitutional protections.”