De Blasio Blames Guns After Career Criminal Attacks NY Cops

Anti-police leftist New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio predictably blamed guns after a career criminal shot two NYPD officers responding to reports of a man with a gun on Thanksgiving Eve in the Bronx.

The shooting suspect was shot three times during the gun battle with officers. His condition has been upgraded to “serious” from “critical.” NYPD commissioner Dermot Shea noted that the suspect was a “career criminal with far too many arrests.” Shea also stated that the firearm used by the suspect was reported stolen in Georgia last year.

The officers — one male, one female — are both expected to survive, no thanks to Democrat policies and rhetoric that demoralize and demonize police.

In response, de Blasio complained vaguely that there are “too many guns out there.” He added that the criminal’s alleged use of a stolen gun is “another example of a gun from out of state, comes into our city, hurts a New Yorker” — as if the gun hopped a boxcar in Georgia, crossed state lines, and randomly shot cops all by itself.

Police Benevolent Association president Patrick Lynch replied to Blasio’s unhelpful comment, “Yes there’s guns on the street, but perps aren’t afraid to carry them. They’re not afraid to put it in their belt, put it in their pocket, and pull it out on a police officer. That’s the problem.”

In the broader sense, soft-on-crime, anti-Second Amendment Democrats like de Blasio are the problem.


Bill de Blasio

52 Known Connections

Defunding the NYPD & Disbanding Plainclothes Officers Unit

In the aftermath of the May 25, 2020 death of George Floyd — a black man who died after being physically abused by a white police officer in Minneapolis — a number of U.S. cities were overrun by violent riots led by Black Lives Matter and Antifa. That chaos gave birth to a movement demanding that police departments nationwide be defunded. De Blasio joined that movement when he announced, in a June 7 press conference, a plan to “mov[e] funding from the NYPD to youth initiatives and social services.” “The details will be worked out in the budget process in the weeks ahead,” he added. “But I want people to understand that we are committed to shifting resources to ensure that the focus is on our young people.” “This is a beginning,” the mayor continued. “I want it to be abundantly clear to all New Yorkers. These are first steps to what will be 18 months of making intense change in this city…. This is a transformative moment.” He also announced that street vendor enforcement would “no longer be the responsibility of the NYPD,” and that a civilian agency would thenceforth be responsible for policing citizens’ interactions with city vendors.

On June 15, 2020, the NYPD disbanded its anti-crime unit of some 600 plainclothes officers, reassigning them to new roles in detective bureaus, neighborhood policing, and other areas.

In late June 2020, de Blasio said he had agreed to shift more than $1 billion in annual funding out of the NYPD, thereby reducing its overall annual budget from $6 billion to $5 billion. Much of the diverted money, the mayor stated, would go instead toward the improvement of youth centers and public housing.

To learn more about Bill de Blasio, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A Tale of Two Cities: Beware the Cold of Winter

A reader sent us this comparison of the cities of Chicago, Illinois and Houston, Texas. The point being made is that the environmentalists want to link violence with climate change. There is actually a Nation Whistle Blower (NWC) website where you can “Report Climate Crimes.”

According to the NWC website:

The National Whistleblower Center (NWC) is the leading nonprofit dedicated to protecting and rewarding whistleblowers around the world. We assist whistleblowers in finding legal aid, advocate for stronger whistleblower protection laws, and educate the public about whistleblowers’ critical role in protecting democracy and the rule of law.

So does crime come from the individual or the climate. Check out these interesting facts.

CHICAGO HOUSTON, TX
Population 2.7 million 2.15 million
Median Household Income $38,600 $37,000
% African-American 38.9% 24%
% Hispanic 29.9% 44%
% Asian 5.5% 6%
% Non-Hispanic White 28.7% 26%

Pretty similar until you compare the following:

Chicago, IL Houston, TX
Concealed Carry –Legal No Yes
Number of Gun Stores None 184 Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 legal places to buy guns– K-mart, sporting goods, etc.
Homicides, 2012 1,806 207
Homicides per 100K 38.4 9.6
Avg. January high temperature (F) 31 63

Conclusion:  Cold weather causes murders.  This is due to climate change.

Who were the real vigilantes in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?

This high-profile case has reopened the debate about US gun rights and self-defense laws.


Kyle Rittenhouse — the American teenager who killed two Black Lives Matter demonstrators and injured another one— has been found not guilty by a jury. Prior to the trial, left-wing media — and even then-candidate Joe Biden— ceaselessly portrayed Rittenhouse as a white supremacist vigilante who went from one state (Illinois) to another (Wisconsin) on a mission to execute peaceful demonstrators.

As the trial developed, we learned the truth. Rittenhouse had been viciously attacked by the three demonstrators— one of whom had a criminal history— and he acted in self-defense. He has never had any association with white supremacist groups, and although he did go from one state to another, the travel distance was only 20 miles, as he had family connections in both places. Furthermore, he did not violate any law by having possession of a weapon because Wisconsin allows people to carry long-barreled weapons.

Apart from a completely unwarranted obsession with race, this case has once again opened the debate about gun rights and self-defense laws in the United States.

I, for one, do not think it is a good idea to allow an immature young man to walk around with a semiautomatic rifle — as Rittenhouse did that night. Neither do I see much merit in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. And I believe so-called “stand-your-ground laws” need some reform.

But let’s not lose sight of the most important fact: like it or not, those laws are in the books.

This prompts an important question: should unjust laws be obeyed? Ever since Plato’s Crito, this has been a major dilemma amongst ethicists. Famously — as portrayed in Crito — Socrates refused to escape his death sentence, because he acknowledged that, although that sentence was unjust, citizens must obey the law (even if it is unjust).

Many other commentators, myself included, believe Socrates had the wrong approach. There is no moral duty to obey every unjust law. I certainly would have appreciated it if an SS agent helped someone escape after having violated one of the oppressive Nuremberg Laws.

And indeed, in the United States, there is a long tradition of jury nullification. This happens when jurors believe that a defendant is guilty of the charges, but nevertheless acquit him or her, because the concerned law is very unjust to begin with.

Jury nullification may be a moral procedure, but only insofar as it is used to acquit, never to convict. As the old Latin jurists would have it: in dubio, pro reo (in doubt, for the accused). If a defendant acted under the law, and that law is unjust, the defendant must still be acquitted. Perhaps that should serve as an occasion to begin a conversation and reform the unjust law in the future. But again, the defendant must walk.

Black Lives Matter and left-wing media do not like stand-your-ground laws or the Second Amendment, and their reasons may very well be legitimate.

But harassing a young man who acted in accordance with the law is wrong. As even CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged, Rittenhouse may be an idiot, but he is not on trial for that. In Toobin’s words, “this is a tough case for the prosecution because it does seem like he has a plausible case of self-defense… If it were illegal to be an idiot, the prisons would be even more crowded than they are now.”

A functioning democracy such as the United States offers plenty of civil routes for legal changes to be enacted. If you don’t like a particular law, you must attempt to change the law, and you may even try to acquit people charged under unjust laws.

But, if you take action hoping to get someone convicted because you believe his or her behavior is abhorrent —even though it is still legal—, then you have lost your moral standing. In fact, there is a name for those who prefer to bypass legal procedures and harass people, all in the name of morality: vigilantes.

Precisely for that reason, the vigilante in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was not the defendant— who, again, acted in self-defense under the existing laws. The real vigilante was the left-wing media. The Don Lemons and Joy Reids of the world were the ones who didn’t care about legal procedures, and in their dissatisfaction with the current laws, were lusting for blood.

In today’s world, those vigilantes are far more dangerous than the very few weirdos wearing KKK hoods in some remote rural area.

COLUMN BY

Gabriel Andrade

Gabriel Andrade is assistant professor of medicine at Ajman University, in the United Arab Emirates. He received a PhD from University of Zulia (Venezuela), in 2008. He worked as Titular Professor at University… More by Gabriel Andrade.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gun Control Works! Muslim Convert Murders Five People with a Bow and Arrow

My latest in PJ Media:

Advocates of gun control should take note of recent developments in Norway, but won’t: On Wednesday evening, a convert to Islam in the city of Kongsberg, southwest of Oslo, began shooting at random people with a bow and arrow. Police confronted him, but police in Norway are unarmed, so they had to retreat when he began firing arrows at them. He was only apprehended 35 minutes later, after he had murdered five people. The lessons for foes of the Second Amendment should be obvious, and those aren’t the only lessons of this grisly incident.

The attacker was a Danish citizen and convert to Islam named Espen Andersen Bråthen. And he hadn’t embraced that religion of peace and tolerance that non-Muslim politicians in the West keep telling us about. According to the UK’s Sun, “Police said the Danish man suspected of the attack is a Muslim convert who was previously flagged as having been radicalized.” Chief of Police Ole Bredrup Sæverud stated that “there has previously been worrying information about this man linked to his radicalisation which the police have followed up… but in 2021, we have not received any warnings about him.”

So the police knew that Espen Andersen Bråthen could be dangerous, but they hadn’t received any reports about him lately, and so he was free and unsupervised to the extent that he was able to murder five people. It would be unrealistic to expect Norwegian police to be shadowing every dangerous person who may at some point commit a crime, but Bråthen does appear to be one who warranted a bit more attention than he received. According to the Washington Post, “Norwegian media reported that a court had granted a restraining order last year for the alleged attacker to stay away from two of his family members for six months after he threatened to kill one of them.”

Despite all this, the Sun claimed that Bråthen’s motive was “unknown,” and the Post noted that “the police attorney said psychiatric experts would assess him on Thursday.”

Maybe he is insane, but there is a long history of authorities in the West declaring that people who are obviously jihadis are simply mentally ill. In the real world, there is extremely strong evidence of what Bråthen’s motive was. He is a convert to a religion that reveres as holy a book that tells believers to “kill them,” that is, unbelievers, “wherever you find them” (Qur’an 2:191; 4:89; cf. 9:5). This applies to family members as well, for the same book says: “O you who believe, do not choose your fathers or your brothers for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoever among you takes them for friends, such people are wrongdoers” (Qur’an 9:23). It depicts the patriarch Abraham as telling his unbelieving father that “there has arisen between us and you hostility and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone.” (Qur’an 60:4)

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s handlers bring in over 2,000 migrants from countries that export jihad terrorism

Vatican top dogs tried to dissuade Islamocritical Anglican from converting to Catholicism

Richard Clarke’s Complicated Iraq Calculus (Part Two)

Afghanistan: Sunni Muslims murder 32 Shi’ites in jihad suicide bombing at Kandahar mosque

UK: Muslim linked to ‘Islamist extremists’ stabs MP to death

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FBI REPORT: Twice as Many Killed with Knives than Rifles & Shotguns Combined

What next? Fist control? Knife control? No. It’s all about Democrat tyrants disarming the American people.

FBI: More People Killed with Fists, Feet, Than Rifles

By AWR Hawkins,, Breitbart News, 27 Sep 2021:

The FBI released its Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Monday showing that more people were killed in 2020 with fists and feet than were killed with rifles of all kinds.

The UCR shows that 454 people were killed with rifles in 2020 while 657 were killed with “personnel weapons,” which are defined as “hands, fists, feet, etc.”

The UCR figures show a similar situation was occurred in 2019, when 375 people were killed with rifles but 639 were killed with “hands, fists, feet, etc.”

In 2018 the number of people killed with “hands, fists, feet, etc.,” was more than twice the number killed with rifles of all kinds.

Breitbart News notes that the UCR also shows more than 3.5 times more people were stabbed to death in 2020 than were killed with rifles. The UCR shows that 454 people were shot and killed with rifles in 2020 while 1,732 were stabbed or hacked to death with “knives or cutting instruments.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Smith & Wesson Abandons Massachusetts for Freedom-Loving Tennessee

An example every freedom loving American should follow.

Smith & Wesson Gun Maker Abandons Massachusetts for Freedom-Loving Tennessee

Iconic U.S. firearms maker Smith & Wesson has just ditched Massachusetts for freedom-loving Tennessee.

By Warner Todd Huston, October 1, 2021:

Iconic U.S. firearms maker Smith & Wesson has been headquartered in Massachusetts for 168 years, but that is no more as the company just ditched the deep blue state for freedom-loving Tennessee.

I a news release published on Thursday, the gun company announced that it has now finalized plans to move its manufacturing and corporate headquarters to Tennessee because of the state’s “unwavering support of the Second Amendment.”

S&W President and CEO Mark Smith said the decision was “an extremely difficult and emotional” one, but since Massachusetts passed a new law that would prevent it from manufacturing most of its products, the company was left with little choice.

“For the continued health and strength of our iconic company, we feel that we have been left with no other alternative,” Smith said, adding that even if the particular legislation were to be defeated, the continuing anti-gun atmosphere in the state made the future dicey at best.

“These bills would prevent Smith & Wesson from manufacturing firearms that are legal in almost every state in America and that are safely used by tens of millions of law-abiding citizens every day exercising their Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights, protecting themselves and their families, and enjoying the shooting sports,” the CEO explained.

Smith called the state’s attack on the Second Amendment “arbitrary and damaging.” But he praised Tennessee for its welcoming attitude.

“The strong support we have received from the State of Tennessee and the entire leadership of Blount County throughout this process, combined with the quality of life, outdoor lifestyle, and low cost of living in the Greater Knoxville area has left no doubt that Tennessee is the ideal location for Smith & Wesson’s new headquarters,” Smith said.

“We would like to specifically thank [Republican Gov. Bill] Lee for his decisive contributions and the entire state legislature for their unwavering support of the 2nd Amendment and for creating a welcoming, business friendly environment,” Smith added.

S&W is not the only Massachusetts-based gun company to make Tennessee its new home. Recently Troy Industries also ditched Mass. for a new home in Clarksville, Tennessee.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

The Moral Problem With Most Gun Free Zones

By taking away our means of self-defense and refusing to provide a suitable substitute, gun-free zones violate our right to life.


Let’s start with a thought experiment. Suppose I push you into deep water as part of a swimming lesson. Because you do not know how to swim, you start desperately trying to keep yourself afloat, but to no avail. Now suppose further that I do nothing to rescue you, and as a result, you drown. My actions in this scenario are tantamount to murder. I intentionally placed you in a situation of great vulnerability and then refused to provide for you. Your rights were egregiously violated by my refusal to do anything.

The moral principle behind this thought experiment is the following: if I knowingly cause you to exist in a state of great need or vulnerability, then I am responsible for providing for you. If I do not, then I am negligent. If my negligence leads to your death, then I am guilty of murder.

This principle is enshrined in the legal system as part of the state-created danger doctrine. If the government does something that puts someone into a position of danger, it bears a special responsibility to provide for that individual’s safety. If it fails to do this, then it may be held liable for any harms that result.

This principle has direct relevance for so-called “gun-free zones.” These are locations in which the government has declared, using the threat of punishment to force compliance, that carrying firearms is prohibited. In coercively requiring us to disarm, the government intentionally handicaps our ability to effectively and reasonably protect ourselves.

It has, in other words, put us in a position of increased vulnerability with respect to our self-protection. If it does nothing to make up for the deficit in protection that it has created, then the government has violated our right to self-protection. If someone is harmed or killed as a result, then the government is guilty of a violation of said person’s right to life.

There is a large body of evidence showing that guns are very effective at producing successful outcomes when used in self-defense. Because of this, there is a strong moral presumption in favor of allowing individuals to carry guns in public. After all, our right to life follows us wherever we go, and so the right to defend our lives must also accompany us. If the government is to override this presumption and tell us that we can’t carry our guns into a specific location, then it must assume the special responsibility of making up for the deficit in self-protection that it has created. It must, in other words, provide some alternative that serves the same function that my gun would have served had I been allowed to carry it.

This deficit is sometimes met, such as in airports, courthouses, and prisons. However, the vast majority of gun-free zones are places in which the government clearly does not meet its special obligation of providing its citizens with a heightened standard of protection. The presence of an ordinary police force is not enough, as police responses almost always come after a crime has taken place.

When Seconds Matter, the Police Are Minutes Away

Indeed, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, only 47.3 percent of all personal crimes in 2008 were even reported to police. Of these crimes, only 28 percent of police responses came within five minutes of reporting, 30.3 percent within six to ten minutes, and 33.5 percent within eleven minutes to one hour of reporting.

Some might object to this by arguing that one’s chance of criminal victimization is so rare that the government does nothing wrong by refusing to provide a heightened standard of protection. This objection misses the point entirely. The very reason one carries a gun is precisely for those rare situations in which it becomes necessary.

Our right to defend ourselves isn’t a function of the risk of our being victimized. Rights are grounded in the dignity of the individual, not statistical averages. Self-defense is a liberty that I have by virtue of being a human being. I don’t lose that right just because the circumstances in which I will need to use it are statistically rare. Otherwise, this same argument could be used to rule out any kind of self-defense.

Another objection is that the same could be said of rocket launchers, machine guns, missiles, and nuclear weapons. In restricting these weapons, one might argue, the government “handicaps” our ability to defend ourselves. But it would be absurd to say that it violates our rights. So why are guns an exception? This objection fails for a simple reason: the use of rocket launchers, machine guns, missiles, and nuclear weapons are not proportionate methods for an individual to defend himself against threats that he may reasonably expect to encounter. Handguns and “assault” rifles are.

So where does this leave us? I’ve argued that most gun-free zones violate our right to self-defense. This is because the government clearly doesn’t meet its heightened obligation of providing for our protection in these areas. If this is correct, then we should be allowed to carry guns into most public places.

COLUMN BY

Tim Hsiao

Tim Hsiao is Instructor of Philosophy and Humanities at Grantham University and Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Johnson County Community College and Park University. He is also a firearms instructor. His website is timhsiao.org.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Most Dangerous Neighborhoods In Sarasota, Florida

“If you start taking money away from law enforcement you are already seeing crime go up in Milwaukee, New York City, Chicago,” – Sheriff Tom Knight


Some citizens of the City of Sarasota, Florida have called for defunding their police. Watch:

Here are the most dangerous neighborhoods in Sarasota for 2021 according to AreaVibes.com. The rankings are calculated based on the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people for each neighborhood, compared to the Sarasota violent crime average. Violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery and assault. The most dangerous areas in Sarasota is based on data from the local law enforcement agency and when not available, also includes estimates based on demographic data.

Most Dangerous Neighborhoods In Sarasota, Florida

#1 DOWNTOWN

POPULATION 3,233
334%
VIOLENT CRIMES 2,366 crimes / 100k people
334% more crime than Sarasota

#2 ROSEMARY DISTRICT

POPULATION 1,093
294%
VIOLENT CRIMES 2,150 crimes / 100k people
294% more crime than Sarasota

#3 17TH STREET

POPULATION 1,339
194%
VIOLENT CRIMES 1,606 crimes / 100k people
194% more crime than Sarasota

#4 ORIGINAL GILLESPIE PARK

POPULATION 863
155%
VIOLENT CRIMES 1,390 crimes / 100k people
155% more crime than Sarasota

#5 CENTRAL COCOANUT

POPULATION 1,837
VIOLENT CRIMES 1,388 crimes / 100k people
154% more crime than Sarasota

#6 SAINT ARMANDS

POPULATION 157
134%
VIOLENT CRIMES 1,274 crimes / 100k people
134% more crime than Sarasota

#7 AMARYLLIS PARK

POPULATION 3,094
131%
VIOLENT CRIMES 1,261 crimes / 100k people
131% more crime than Sarasota

#8 INDIAN BEACH-SAPPHIRE SHORES

POPULATION 1,090
VIOLENT CRIMES 1,055 crimes / 100k people
93% more crime than Sarasota

#9 POINSETTIA PARK

POPULATION 236
55%
VIOLENT CRIMES 847 crimes / 100k people
55% more crime than Sarasota

#10 BAYOU OAKS

POPULATION 3,472
53%
VIOLENT CRIMES 8
35 crimes / 100k people

©AreaVibes.com. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. – Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


Rumble — Spokesperson for Gun Owners of America, Antonia Okafor Cover, joins us to discuss the surge of women gun owners and why the Second Amendment is so important to women empowerment.

©Gun Owners of America. All rights reserved.

The ATF’s Latest Proposed Regulation Could Make 40 Million Gun Owners Felons Overnight

This is a conspicuous confiscation of power, and it’s precisely what America’s founding fathers strove to avoid through the establishment of checks and balances.


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has published a notice outlining their plans to update regulations on stabilizing braces.

Originally developed to help those with disabilities shoot comfortably, stabilizing braces have become a popular firearm accessory used to legally adapt AR-style pistols into guns that can be shot from the shoulder, like the highly regulated short-barreled rifle.

According to the ATF, stabilizing braces will now have to conform to a set of stringent guidelines to be considered legal. If they don’t meet those standards, they—and the gun to which they’re attached—will automatically become regulated as a rifle under the National Firearms Act.

This isn’t the first time the ATF or the DOJ have attempted to regulate this popular accessory. A similar reclassification was proposed back in December, but it was shot down due to uproar from lawmakers and the firearm community. However, after pistol-braced firearms were used in two recent, high-profile mass shootings, the ATF has circled back to the issue and seems more motivated than ever.

After the ATF notice was published, more than 130 representatives penned a letter to the agency and called upon the bureau to withdraw the rule, stating that the “proposed guidance is alarming and jeopardizes the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

Most importantly, the lawmakers reminded the ATF that for the last decade, it had asserted that there were legitimate uses for stabilizing braces, as the accessory was designed to aid disabled gun owners who enjoy recreational shooting.

“Should this guidance go into effect,” they wrote, “a disabled combat veteran who has chosen the best stabilizing brace for their disability is now a felon.”

In response, the ATF claimed that this new classification won’t impact braces designed to help those with disabilities. However, their proposed point-based worksheet of stabilizing brace criteria fails to make this clear for gun owners.

At 52 pages, the intricate proposal is so lengthy and establishes such specific requirements that law-abiding citizens will have no idea if their firearm is still legal.

“Certain prerequisites,” the proposal reads, such as weapon weight and the overall length, “will be applied to determine if the firearm will even be considered as a possible pistol or immediately determined to be a rifle.”

Furthermore, “design factors that are more likely to demonstrate a manufacturer’s … intent to produce a ‘short-barreled rifle’ and market it as a ‘braced pistol’ accrue more points than those that reveal less evidence.”

A stabilizing brace that has accumulated too many points based on these criteria will be deemed a rifle, and therefore unlawful. Not only is this formula complicated, but there seems to be another hitch.

“The new factoring system,” remarks the NRA-ILA, “seems designed to ensure that few, if any, firearms can meet the criteria.”

Therefore, by classifying these braced pistols as Short Barreled Rifles, one of the most highly regulated guns on the market, the federal government is forcing 10-40 million law-abiding gun owners to surrender, destroy, or register their legal firearms … or face felony charges.

Essentially, the ATF is able to add rules and reclassify weapons without holding a single vote in Congress. As a result, this significant assault on the Second Amendment will not receive its due process.

This is a conspicuous confiscation of power, and it’s precisely what America’s founding fathers strove to avoid through the establishment of checks and balances.

The Constitution’s authors designed the United States government as three separate branches: the legislative, judicial, and executive. The legislative creates laws, the judicial determines their constitutionality, and the executive implements them.

In certain scenarios, each branch has the power to override the others and ensure that no branch of government is able to hold too much centralized power.

Unfortunately, through its unilateral proposal that would impact tens of millions of US gun owners, the ATF is violating the Separation of Powers designed by the Constitution to limit government overreach and protect individual rights.

In Federalist No. 48, James Madison warned that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

This is exactly what is happening today.

This stealth power grab should concern all Americans, even if they are outside the immediately-impacted gun community.

COLUMN BY

Brett Cooper

Brett Cooper is a professional actress and a Libertarian-Conservative writer. She’s an ambassador for PragerU and TurningPoint USA and content manager at Unwoke Narrative.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How Fast Could You Get Your Gun in a Home Invasion?

I saw this news yesterday at The Blaze and was pretty impressed that a senior couple was ready and willing to blast a home invader as he attempted to break down their door while they ate breakfast.

And, I fully expected by today to have a name and photo of the invader who the homeowners shot dead especially because we are told he was on parole from a previous home invasion arrest.

I sure couldn’t find a name or a photo!  The story is nevertheless worth posting as a cautionary tale.  Many of us would be ready for an invasion after dark, but heck in the a.m. the doors are open, at least in my house, and weapons aren’t just laying around at the breakfast table.

Of course you could be one of those families I heard about recently who has a 9mm home defense handgun in most every room (presumably with no kiddos living there).

Check it out, really nice neighborhood ….

From The Blaze:

Armed man on parole kicks down door, enters home while couple in their 60s eats breakfast. But homeowner also has a gun — and fatally shoots intruder.

A California couple in their 60s were having breakfast Tuesday morning when they heard a knock at their door, followed by an attempt to kick down the door after they didn’t respond to the knock, Fairfield police said.

What happened next?

A Facebook post from Councilwoman Catherine Moy indicated the homeowner saw the suspect on his Ring surveillance camera.

The husband, fearing for his life and his wife’s safety, grabbed his legally owned gun to defend them, police said. Moy’s post said it was a .357 Magnum.

The intruder then broke down the door completely and entered the residence, police said.

With that, the husband fired at the intruder, who fled from the home, police said. Moy’s post said the homeowner shot twice at the intruder and hit him in the chest area.

[….]

Authorities said the intruder [who was found with a semi-automatic handgun.—ed] was a 27-year-old male from nearby Suisun City who was on parole for a violent crime in Alameda County. KTVU reported that the crime for which he was on parole was a home invasion.

Here is another story with a few extra nuggets of information.

Let me know if you find a name and a pic of the dead intruder.

And, would you be ready at breakfast?

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

False Flag Narrative

We have demanded that congress hold the president accountable for his usurpation of his office, and refusal to abide by our founding document, the US Constitution.

The president continues to act alone, and thumb his nose at congress when he is not given what he wants. He acts as if he is a child, throwing a fit because his mommy won’t buy him any candy in the checkout at Wal-Mart.

So, he takes what he wants, blames other people when he makes mistakes, and takes all the credit, in the rare instance, that something is done correctly. This out of control behavior is dangerous, and allowing this type of control, will have consequences beyond anything we can imagine.

I am going to reference “Hitler’s Enabling Act”, also known as, “Law for removing the distress of the people and the Reich”.

March 23, 1933, a newly elected German Parliament (Reichstag) gathered in Berlin, to pass the ,“Law for removing the distress of the people and the Reich”. With its passage, would come the end of German democracy, and create a legal dictator, in Adolf Hitler. The “distress” that Germany was experiencing at the time, was the result of a planned event, carried out on February 27th, 1933, by the Nazis themselves in order to create a crisis, to justify the willingness to concentrate all of the German government’s power in one man, Adolf Hitler.

The event amounted to the torching of the Reichstag building. This is similar to what some call a “false flag” operation, or event. As a result of the fire, the people were beyond upset, and the Nazis took advantage of the peoples’ outrage, pinned the act of arson, on the communists.

Chaos ensued.

On the day that the vote was set, Nazi storm troopers marched, as a show of force. They were chanting “Full powers- or else! We want the bill – or fire and murder!” These Nazi soldiers filled the hallways, staring down anyone that may want to vote against full power for Hitler.

Just before the vote, Adolf Hitler gave a speech and promised to only use this power, to carry out vitally necessary measures. His other promises highlighted in that speech, included an end to unemployment and to make peace with France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union.

Passage of the act, required 31 non Nazi votes, which came from the members of the center party. These votes were only made possible, by promises that Hitler made to these moderates, that were not followed through on after the fact.

One man Otto Wells, a social democrat, stood up and addressed Hitler directly. “We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal, and indestructible”.

With these words, Hitler became outraged. “You are no longer needed! The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!”

The final vote was 441 in favor, and only 84, all social democrats, opposed. This was the beginning of the nightmare that was Nazi Germany. Note that it was voted on, and passed by elected officials.

The lesson to take away from this, is that our government is made up of imperfection, due to the fact that every elected official, is human.

Most importantly, giving one man dictatorial powers, will put us at the mercy of human nature, more specifically, sin. The Reichstag voted the power away, America is allowing the power to be taken through inactivity, or just looking the other way. History does repeat itself, but rather than learn from others’ mistakes, we as a people continue to travel down the same road, leading to the same mistakes.

The funny thing is, we always act like we are shocked or caught off guard, when in reality, we knew what was coming all along, we just chose to look the other way.

EDITORS NOTE: The above article was written by Jason Brown, a regular contributor and follower here. It is copied with his permission as always.

©Save America Foundation. All rights reserved.

DOJ Warns States About Second Amendment Sanctuaries

Meanwhile immigration sanctuary policies are lauded and emulated.


On June 17, 2021 AOL published an Associated Press report under the title, Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can’t void federal gun laws.  This report began with this excerpt:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state cant ignore federal law, after the governor signed a bill last week that bans police from enforcing federal gun rules.

In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press, Justice officials said the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause outweighs the measure that Gov. Mike Parson signed into law Saturday. The new rules penalize local police departments if their officers enforce federal gun laws.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the law threatens to disrupt the working relationship between federal and local authorities, they said in the letter, noting that Missouri receives federal grants and technical assistance.

The public safety of the people of the United States and citizens of Missouri is paramount,” Boynton wrote in the letter.

The DOJ did not have to wait long for a response.  Just hours later, as reported by ABC News, Missouri responds defiantly to Justice Dept. over gun law, which noted, in part:

Similar bills were introduced in more than a dozen other states this year, including Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia and Iowa. In Texas, the governor has called for the state to become a so-called Second Amendment sanctuary.

Wow!  A new form of “Sanctuary policies” enacted by state governments and the federal government under Mr. Biden’s “leadership” is upset!

Having uttered the magic word “Sanctuary”, we cannot ignore that over the past several decades a growing number of cities and states, almost invariably led by radical leftists, have implemented so-called “sanctuary policies” that, to varying degrees, hamper cooperation between local and state police and federal immigration law enforcement authorities.

Certainly, our nation’s immigration laws are serious laws that were enacted to protect national security, public safety, public health and the jobs and wages of Americans.

Frequently these sanctuary policies have increased to the point where detainees lodged by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) personnel have been blatantly ignored so that aliens who have serious criminal histories were released from custody rather than be turned over to ICE so that could be deported from the United States.

A few of these cases received attention from the media, but in reality a huge number of such criminal aliens who should have been removed (deported) from the United States were permitted to roam freely in towns and cities across the United States, all too frequently, with tragic results.

Consider the horrific case of 32 year old Kate Steinle who was shot to death by Jose Ines Garcia-Zarate, a citizen of Mexico who was illegally present in the United States and had and extensive criminal history in the United States.  He had been previously deported from the United States five times, so that his mere presence in the United States constituted a felony under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): 8 U.S. Code § 1326.

On December 1, 2017 Business Insider published a report about this case, Kate Steinle’s death at the hands of a Mexican national became a flashpoint in the immigration debate — here’s the story behind her killing.  Here is an excerpt from this report:

At the time of Steinle’s death, Garcia Zarate had been convicted of nonviolent drug crimes and deported five times since the early 1990s.

He faced a sixth deportation in 2015, and was in Justice Department (DOJ) custody that March after serving 46 months in prison for a felony re-entry into the US, but instead of transferring him into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation, the department transferred him to the San Francisco County Jail for prosecution of a 1995 marijuana charge.

San Francisco prosecutors, who had long ago deprioritized marijuana charges, dismissed the decades-old charge and released Garcia Zarate on April 15, 2015. Due to San Francisco’s policy of limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities — which some refer to as a “sanctuary” policy — the city did not inform ICE when they released Garcia Zarate.

There is a huge number of similar cases around the United States, where “sanctuary policies” that contradict federal immigration law has resulted in the death and injury of thousands of victims at the hands of aliens who were illegal in the United States, subject to deportation but were shielded, aided and abetted by the jurisdictions who declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens, in apparent violations of a number of laws, beginning with 8 U.S. Code § 1324 that begins with the following:

(a) Criminal penalties

(1)

(A) Any person who—

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

When President Trump acted to end sanctuary policies that harbor and shield illegal aliens, out of his well-founded concerns about public safety and national security, he was rebuffed in the courts and by globalists who complained that his efforts were based on xenophobia” and God knows what else!

Did the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission that we keep so much about by Nancy Pelosi suffer from racism and xenophobia?  Pelosi has repeatedly called for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Back on December 21, 2004, the Congressional Research Service issued a wide-ranging report that must be made mandatory reading for every political leader of the United States.  The title of the report was: 9/11 Commission: Legislative Action Concerning U.S. Immigration Law and Policy in the 108th Congress Updated December 21, 2004.

Here is the summary of this report began:

Summary

Reforming the enforcement of immigration law is a core component of the recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission). The 19 hijackers responsible for the 9/11 attacks were foreign nationals, many of whom were able to obtain visas to enter the United States through the use of forged documents. Incomplete intelligence and screening enabled many of the hijackers to enter the United States despite flaws in their entry documents or suspicions regarding their past associations. According to the Commission, up to 15 of the hijackers could have been intercepted or deported through more diligent enforcement of immigration laws.

The 9/11 Commissions immigration-related recommendations focused primarily on targeting terrorist travel through an intelligence and security strategy based on reliable identification systems and effective, integrated information-sharing. As Congress has considered these recommendations, however, possible legislative responses have broadened to include significant and possibly far-reaching changes in the substantive law governing immigration and how that law is enforced, both at the border and in the interior of the United States.

The next time Nancy or her disciples invoke the 9/11 Commission, they need to be pointedly asked if they read the 9/11 Commission Report and how they and the Biden administration can blithely ignore the clear and present danger the Biden administration’s immigration policies (actions and lack of action) create for America and Americans.

Our nation’s Constitution and laws are not a menu from which picky eaters can decide what to order or not order.  It is hypercritical and beyond outrageous that the DOJ would attack Sanctuary policies regarding the Second Amendment while not only sanctioning immigration sanctuary policies, but actually emulating those extremely dangerous policies in clear violation of standing federal law and in direct opposition to the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

Congressman’s Impassioned Testimony Reveals the True Victims of Gun Control

Data show that every year, at least 200,000 women employ a firearm to defend themselves against sexual abuse.


Gun control advocates often claim the moral high ground. They accuse opponents of selfishly clinging to their guns and having cold hearts toward the victims of gun violence. That is exactly what happened on May 20 at a Congressional hearing on the issue.

But Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wasn’t having it.

“We care about victims,” he said in his testimony. “I care about the victims of gun control.”

Massie then related how gun control victimized Nikki Goeser, one of his former staffers, who “watched her husband killed in front of her, because she followed the gun control laws, and her assailant—her stalker—did not. She left her concealed carry weapon in her car, because it was a gun-free zone.”

More than a decade ago, she and her husband Benjamin Goeser were operating their karaoke business at a restaurant in Tennessee when her longtime stalker confronted them.

“…I would usually carry my permitted concealed handgun with me,” she told Fox News, “But, at the time, Tennessee did not allow carrying in restaurants that served alcohol. While I obeyed the law, Ben’s murderer did not. He had no permit to carry, and he brought a gun into a gun-free zone.”

“In April 2009, the murderer shot my husband seven times in front of 50 witnesses. The whole attack was recorded by the restaurant’s security cameras.”

Ben Goeser was a victim of gun violence. But, he was also a victim of gun control. A gun control law prevented his law-abiding wife from saving his life from a law-flouting criminal.

In a tragic irony, his death contributed to gun violence statistics that are regularly used to argue for more gun control laws like the very one that sealed his fate.

Women are particularly vulnerable to being victimized by gun control. An estimated 1.9 million women are targeted and physically assaulted in the United States every year: a number of them by stalkers like the one who menaced Nikki Goeser and slew her husband.

Data show that every year, at least 200,000 women employ a firearm to defend themselves against sexual abuse. And studies have shown that armed women are highly effective in preventing rape and sexual assault with guns

With generally smaller frames and thus less capacity to fend off large attackers with their bodies alone, firearms provide women essential protection. As comedian Chris Rock has pointed out, guns are the great equalizer. “You got pecs? l got Tecs,” he quipped, referring to the Tec-9 automatic pistol.

This reality is too often lost on many who otherwise voice support for female empowerment and equality. By depriving them of essential protection, gun control disempowers, oppresses, and victimizes women on a vast scale.

The specific gun control measures discussed in the May 20 hearing would only victimize women even more.

Gun control advocates want to eliminate a provision in the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that allows gun dealers to proceed with a sale if the buyer’s mandated background check has not been completed within three business days. They blame it for enabling Dylann Roof to obtain the gun he used in the 2015 Charleston church shooting. Thus, they call it “the Charleston loophole.”

But in his testimony, Massie explained that Roof would have passed the background check anyway, so eliminating the provision wouldn’t have hindered him.

Who would it hinder? Women in desperate need of a gun to defend themselves and their loved ones from abusers or stalkers and whose safety can’t afford a lengthy waiting period. For potential victims in such situations, time is of the essence.

Also discussed at the hearing were “safe storage laws,” which advocates claim would prevent accidental gun deaths and suicides. But as Massie pointed out in his testimony, there is no evidence backing this assumption. Instead, safe storage laws only impair and inhibit people’s ability to use their guns defensively… as in the case of a home invader.

A survey conducted by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that on average, Americans use guns to frighten away home intruders about 498,000 times per year, and in general, felons have reported that they avoid entering houses when people are at home because they fear being shot. If criminals know that guns are safely out of reach in locked storage, they will have less of a deterrent.

“One of the great mistakes,” the economist Milton Friedman once said, “is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Another great mistake, explored by Henry Hazlitt in his classic book Economics in One Lesson, is to only consider a policy’s impacts on one group of people and ignore its impacts on other groups.

Gun control advocates are too often guilty of both errors. They dwell on their intentions and disregard the unintended consequences of gun control. And while accusing others of not caring about victims of guns, they themselves turn a blind eye to victims of gun control.

COLUMN BY

Brett Cooper

Brett Cooper is a professional actress and a Libertarian-Conservative writer. She’s an ambassador for PragerU and TurningPoint USA and content manager at Unwoke Narrative.

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in chief of FEE.org.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

SCOTUS: Police Cannot Seize Guns Without A Warrant

The Supreme Court rejected the notion that police could take someone’s guns without due process.

Bing. Bang, Boom.

SCOTUS: Police Cannot Seize Guns Without A Warrant

By John Crumb, may 17, 2021;

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- In a case argued in front of the Supreme Court, that could affect Red Flag laws across the country, SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the “community caretaking” exception does not apply inside the home.

Caniglia v. Strom centers around the police seizing the firearms of a man that his wife reported as suicidal. The incident that led to the issue started when Edward and Kim Caniglia began to have marital problems in their 27-year long marriage. Mr. Caniglia grabbed his unloaded handgun and sat it on the table, and told his wife, “shoot me now and get it over with.”

Mr. Caniglia then left the house to go on a drive. While he was gone, Mrs. Caniglia hid the gun. When he returned, the couple started to fight again. This time, Mrs. Caniglia left the house and decided to stay at a motel to let things calm down and blow over.

Mrs. Caniglia tried to call her husband the following day, but he was not answering the phone. She then contacted two police officers to do a welfare check on her husband with her. She told the police about what her husband did the night before but stressed that her husband didn’t threaten her. He was just expressing how hurt he was because of the fighting. Mr. Caniglia has never been abusive and does not have a criminal record.

Police told Mrs. Caniglia to stay in the car. They found Mr. Caniglia sitting on the back porch. They talked to him, and he assured them that he wasn’t suicidal. One of the officers said Mr. Caniglia appeared completely normal but was upset because the police became involved in the dispute. The officers wanted him to go to the hospital for a mental evaluation.

Mr. Caniglia was hesitant because he believed the officers would seize his guns if he did, but the officers agreed not to take his firearms. The officers had him transported to the hospital via ambulance. Once gone, the police did what they promised Mr. Caniglia that they would not do. They entered his home and searched for guns. The officers seized two handguns, magazines, and ammunition without a warrant. They claimed to have used the “community caretaking” exception.

When Mr. Caniglia returned home, he found out police seized his guns without a warrant and did not leave him with any way to retrieve his firearms. When he tried to get the guns back, the police refused to turn over the man’s property. He would have to sue to get them back.

He claimed that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights and his right to due process. The case made its way through the courts. President Joe Biden strongly supported the actions of the police. President Biden has been pushing Congress to pass a national “red flag” law.
SCOTUS rejected the notion that police could take someone’s guns without due process.

Anti-gun groups condemned the decision of the Court and claimed it makes people less safe. Gun rights groups hailed the decision as a victory for freedom. One gun group, Gun Owners of America, filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Mr. Caniglia. The organization celebrated the decision as a victory for inalienable rights.

Anti-gun groups condemned the decision of the Court and claimed it makes people less safe. Gun rights groups hailed the decision as a victory for freedom. One gun group, Gun Owners of America, filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Mr. Caniglia. The organization celebrated the decision as a victory for inalienable rights.

The case will have a rippling effect across the legal landscape. The courts will have to decide if this decision affects “red flag” laws.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israel Showed U.S. ‘Smoking Gun’ on Hamas in AP Office Terror Tower, Officials Say

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.