Posts Tagged ‘law’

Update on state waiting periods. Judicial decision in California provides a useful summary of waiting period laws.

by John Lott on Monday, August 25th, 2014

This is article 558 of 558 in the topic Gun Rights
The court’s decision in SILVESTER v. Harris has

ten states and the District of Columbia impose a waiting period between the time of purchase and the time of delivery of a firearm.  Three states and the District of Columbia have waiting period laws for the purchase of all firearms: California (10 days), District of Columbia (10 days), Illinois (3 days for pistols, 1 day for long guns), and Rhode Island (7 days).  Four states have waiting periods for hand guns:  Florida (3 days), Hawaii (14 days), Washington (up to 5 days from the time of purchase for the sheriff to complete a background check), and Wisconsin (2 days). Connecticut has a waiting period for long guns that is tied to an authorization to purchase from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Minnesota and Maryland have a waiting period for the purchase of handguns and assault rifles (7 days). There is no federal waiting period law.  See18 U.S.C. § 922(s) (Brady Act‟s 5-day waiting period expired in 1998).

For California, the history of waiting periods is given as such:

In 1923, the California Legislature created awaiting period for handguns,whereby no handgun, pistol, or other concealable firearm could be delivered to its purchaser on the day of purchase. . . .

In 1953, the 1923 handgun waiting-period law was codified into the California Penal Code with no substantive changes. . . .   One California court has cited legislative hearing testimony from 1964 in which witnesses testified that this 1953 law was “originally enacted to cool people off,” but that this law was “not enforced with regard to individual transfers through magazine sales nor at swap meets.”  . . . .

In 1955, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 1 day to 3 days. . . . No legislative history has been cited that addresses why the waiting period was extended from 1 to 3 days.

In 1965, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 3 days to 5 days.  . . . The legislative history indicates that the Legislature extended the waiting period from 3 days to 5 days in 1965 because the 3-day waiting period did not provide Cal. DOJ sufficient time to conduct proper background checks on prospective concealable firearms purchasers, before delivery of the firearms to the purchasers.   . . .

Additionally, a report from the 1975-1976 session of the Senate Judiciary Committee indicates that the “purpose of the 5-day provision is to permit the law enforcement authorities to investigate the purchaser’s record, before he actually acquires the firearm, to determine whether he falls within the class of persons prohibited from possessing concealed firearms.”  . . .  No legislative history relating to the 1965 law has been cited that relates to a “cooling off” period.

In 1975, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 5 days to 15 days. . . .  The legislative history indicates that the California Legislature extended the waiting period from 5 days to 15 days in order to “[g]ive law enforcement authorities sufficient time to investigate the records of purchasers of handguns prior to delivery of the handguns.”

In 1991, the California Legislature expanded the waiting period to cover all firearms. . .

Click to continue reading “Update on state waiting periods. Judicial decision in California provides a useful summary of waiting period laws.”
Go straight to Post

OBAMA: AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED SHOPPERS?

by Stephen Levine on Monday, August 25th, 2014

This is article 334 of 334 in the topic Criminal Activity

bo

Will President Obama grant amnesty to undocumented shoppers?

looters

“Undocumented Shopper Compelled by Racial Outrage to Loot Beauty Store”

FIX

Radical progressive socialist democrats in the progressive media forgive looting …

WTOP – “My Take with Clinton Yates” — August 21, 2014

CLINTON YATES: I’ve gotten a lot of emails recently regarding my thoughts about the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, many from former or current law enforcement officials, arguing one of two things: either they believe that the social contract that they think grants them near absolute power is something that everybody should buy into, or they can’t understand why anyone would loot in the wake of a controversial death.

On the first point, of course being a police officer is a difficult and risky job. But there’s an argument that if you believe that resorting to trigger-happy overzealousness is the lone way to guarantee your own safety then maybe law enforcement is not what you should be doing. The goal is to help people, and they will then respect the marginal level of authority you’re given over their lives. If they live in fear, that’s what we call a police state.

As for looting, material goods, by definition, are typically replaceable. Of course, the violence associated with the act of vandalism and then theft is not desirable, but think of it this way: In this case, saying that looting is never acceptable is implicitly saying that personal property is worth more than life itself. I’m Clinton Yates and that’s my take.

Of course, progressive socialists democrats often believe that there is no such thing as private property – and everything is owned by the state and subject to distribution on the basis of the Marxist dictum: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Governed by enlightened individuals for the collective good of the people.

Bottom line …

In the Orwellian world of the progressive socialist democrat, good is evil, evil is good, right is wrong, and wrong is right – when a White breaks a window and steals, it’s felony burglary; when a Black breaks a window and steals, it’s an expression of racial outrage.

The truth is simple to see …

OBAMA-N1

– steve

Go straight to Post

Bergdahl swap: Federal agency says Obama administration are lawbreakers

by Jim Kouri on Sunday, August 24th, 2014

This is article 1001 of 1001 in the topic Obama

The Obama administration violated U.S. law when it secretly exchanged five Guantanamo Bay imprisoned terrorists for a U.S. Army soldier — who was captured by the Taliban after allegedly deserting his post — and the violation is punishable by jail time, suspension and removal from office, according to a report from an Inside the Beltway watchdog group on Friday.

Judicial Watch obtained a copy of a government investigation summary that reveals the U.S. Department of Defense violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014 when its officials traded five terrorists being detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the release of a U.S. prisoner of war being held by members of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

According to a Examiner news report on the prisoner swap, the five terrorists were turned over to the nation of Qatar — a nation considered by counterterrorism experts to be highly suspect — without giving notice to members of certain congressional oversight committees. What Section 8111 prohibits is the Defense Department “using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer.” Because officials at the DOD used its appropriations to break the law, in addition to violating a provision of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014, officials also violated the Anti-Deficiency Act.

The investigative arm of the House of Representatives , Government Accountability Office (GAO), accused President Obama, acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief, of breaking a “clear and unambiguous” law when he authorized the swapping of five high-level terrorists for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who is accused of deserting his guard post and going AWOL in Afghanistan in 2009.

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the GAO described a violation that is a serious breach of federal law which may have severe consequences for the perpetrator or perpetrators. Penalties may include fines, imprisonment, administrative discipline, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office, the rules specifically state.

“Congress must be notified before acts of this magnitude are committed and the president completely disregarded the legislative branch. In fact the Department of Defense (DOD) failed to notify Congress at least 30 days in advance of the exchange, a flagrant violation of the law, and misused nearly $1 million of a wartime account to make the transfer,” the GAO report says.

“They held positions of great importance within the hard-core anti-American Taliban, including the Chief of Staff of the Taliban Army and the Taliban Deputy Minister of Intelligence. They have American blood on their hands and surely as night follows day they will return to the fight. In effect, we released the ‘Taliban Dream Team.’ The United States is less safe because of these actions,” according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Judicial Watch officials stated:.

“In a nutshell, Obama and his appointees flipped the finger at Congress, the American public and the rule of law. We’ve seen this many times during this president’s two terms and will likely see it over and over again before he moves out of the White House.

Click to continue reading “Bergdahl swap: Federal agency says Obama administration are lawbreakers”
Go straight to Post

Georgia dad files lawsuit to allow him to carry gun when visiting his daughter’s school

by John Lott on Saturday, August 23rd, 2014

This is article 557 of 558 in the topic Gun Rights
Georgia’s current law about schools and gun-free zones seems pretty clear, but there was sufficient ambiguity that a court decision is necessary to clear things up.  Well, it looks like that such a legal challenge might be at hand.  From Fox News:

A Georgia father has filed a lawsuit after he says the principal at his daughter’s elementary school told him he was not allowed to bring his gun on school grounds.

MyFoxAtlanta.com reported Friday that the lawsuit claims that the principal told Hugh Myers that he could not bring his gun onto the campus of Beulah Elementary School other than when he is dropping off or picking up his daughter. The principal allegedly threatened to have him arrested if he did so.

Myers’ attorney John Monroe is arguing that Myers is allowed to bring his gun under a new Georgia law that took effect last month, according to MyFoxAtlanta.com. . . .

Go straight to Post

Police Shoot First And Cover Up The Questions Later

by Bob Livingston on Friday, August 22nd, 2014

This is article 50 of 51 in the topic Police/Fire
Police Shoot First And Cover Up The Questions Later

SCREENSHOT
A police officer shot and killed Dillon Taylor outside this 7-Eleven in Salt Lake City on Aug. 11.

On Aug. 11, Dillon Taylor, a 20-year-old white man, exited a Salt Lake City 7-Eleven with two friends. The three were confronted by a black police officer barking orders. Taylor was almost immediately shot dead.

According to the Salt Lake Police Department, the officer was responding to a report of a man waving a gun in the area of the store and Taylor matched the description of the reported suspect. Taylor’s friends say he (Taylor) was wearing headphones and likely didn’t hear the officer’s commands. Police say the officer thought Taylor was reaching for a gun. Taylor’s friends say he was likely either hitching up his pants or reaching for his phone. Regardless, Taylor — and his friends — were all unarmed, or at least that’s what his friends say. The SLPD won’t say one way or the other.

Two days before Taylor was murdered by a police officer, 18-year-old Michael Brown, a young black man, was shot down by a white police officer. He, too, was unarmed.

Brown’s shooting resulted in protests and riots and recognition — by some people (finally) — that American has morphed into a police state. This is something I have been telling you for some time, and it’s why we created our Power of the State section.

But most so-called “law and order” conservatives still fail to get it. After the Ferguson Police Department released a video that purported to show Brown committing a strong-armed robbery just prior to his police encounter, many of the so-called “law and order” conservatives immediately determined (if they had not already done so on the basis that Brown was a large black man) that he was simply a thug and “got what he deserved.” This very comment was made many times in our articles on the subject and on our Personal Liberty Facebook page. In fact, no single subject causes us to lose as many subscribers and Facebook followers as our “liberal” articles on the police abuses.

Although the SLPD won’t say whether Taylor was armed and won’t release video from the officer’s camera, it did manage to leak this tidbit to the media: Taylor had a $25,000 bench warrant for a probation violation in connection with a felony robber and obstruction of justice conviction.

Note the commonality in the aftermath of both the Taylor and Brown shooting. Police leaked information that called into the question the character of the victims after they had been shot. This is a common propaganda ploy employed by the LEOs (legally entitled to oppress) in order to provide justification for their latest shooting. Lost is the fact that neither Taylor’s shooter nor Brown’s shooter knew anything about the prior “criminal” history of their targets, so this history played no role in the shooting.

There are about 500 people killed by police in America each year. Granted, some of the killings are justified.

Click to continue reading “Police Shoot First And Cover Up The Questions Later”
Go straight to Post

Al Jazeera’s Ferguson Publicity Stunt

by Cliff Kincaid on Thursday, August 21st, 2014

This is article 561 of 566 in the topic Media

We are seeing the herd mentality of the media at work in coverage of Ferguson, Missouri, and even some conservatives have joined the pack. Jonathan V. Last wrote in The Weekly Standard newsletter that arrived in my inbox on Wednesday that “a TV news crew was assaulted by police officers” in Ferguson. That claim is false.

He linked to a story from The Wrap headlined, “Al Jazeera Accuses Ferguson Police of ‘Egregious Assault on Freedom of the Press.’” But the story itself includes an update noting that the police say they did not fire any tear gas at the news crew and actually “aided the Al Jazeera reporters” when they were dispersed.

This confirms what we reported on August 18 that “The film footage supplied by Al Jazeera only showed one of the correspondents being ‘caught in the crossfire’ when a tear gas canister was shown near the news crew. It was not clear where it came from or who threw it.”

So a tear gas canister being discovered near a news crew and thrown by someone has become an “assault” by the police. This is absurd. The film footage actually showed an Al Jazeera reporter walking into the tear gas, rather than away from it. The incident seemed staged, probably to generate ratings for a propaganda channel that is desperately seeking viewers.

The update from the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department goes into more detail about the false story of the assault. The Wrap quoted department spokesman Lt. David Tiefenbrunn as saying that it was not the agency that fired the tear gas, but that it took down lighting equipment that Al Jazeera had installed on the street “because it made it difficult for officers to see.” The spokesman said “the SWAT team later helped the reporters out of the area, and reunited them with their equipment.” The Wrap added that “He said he did not know which of the police departments in the area fired the gas, but that he did not believe the reporters were targeted.”

The Weekly Standard’s treatment of the alleged assault is another unfortunate example of journalists making serious errors in judgment about events they did not witness. But the fact that an influential publication such as this would fall for the propaganda shows how the narrative about alleged police misbehavior has taken hold in the media. “When you have Kevin Williamson, Mark Steyn, and Ross Douthat all lined up to criticize the police in Ferguson, Missouri, you know that something is happening,” wrote Jonathan Last. “Part of the reason some conservatives are turning on law enforcement is the militarization of the police.”

But perhaps they have overreacted to a liberal version of events promoted by “news” organizations that want to find the police guilty of being prepared for the worst.

In the Al Jazeera case, it appears that the “news” channel contributed to its own reporters getting gassed because of their bright camera lights on the street that caused confusion. As indicated in our previous report on this incident, the tear gas was probably thrown at the outside agitators and demonstrators, but was falsely interpreted by the propaganda channel to have been directed at them. That enabled Al Jazeera reporters to pose as the victims of law enforcement.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Hands Up, Don’t Loot

by Daniel Greenfield on Wednesday, August 20th, 2014

This is article 49 of 51 in the topic Police/Fire

The interior of the Ferguson Market and Liquor Store is littered with broken bottles and scattered snacks. Despite the plywood boards covering the windows and doors, looters with their faces covered in bandanas helped themselves to anything they could find as those who came to memorialize Michael Brown carried on his work.

The violence in Ferguson didn’t begin when a police officer shot Michael Brown. It began when a 300 lb thug robbed the Ferguson Market and abused a clerk. The release of the video showing the obese criminal assaulting the clerk led to a terrified statement from the store manager that he had not called the police and had nothing to do with the release of the video.

“They kill us if they think we are responsible,” he said.
That is what this conflict is about. The police exist so that Ferguson Market and a hundred other stores can do business without being robbed or murdered. Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Michael Brown, was holding down the thin line that makes it possible for stores to stay open and children to go to school.
When the police pulled back, the rioting and looting began in earnest. A mob forced its way into Ferguson Market and other stores. Governor Nixon, a critic of the police was forced to turn to the National Guard.
After all the lectures about militarization, there was no better solution to the violence than the military. The police were never the problem. The looters and rioters were.
The photos of protesters with their hands in the air confronting police in riot gear told a very misleading story. But the real story was sitting in a video held by the Ferguson police and the Justice Department. It was the video of Michael Brown assaulting a clerk at Ferguson Market.
The Justice Department and Governor Nixon did not want the video released because it put the emphasis back where it should have been all along. This was not a conflict between Michael Brown and the police. It was a conflict between Michael Brown and a Ferguson Market worker.
We are all that worker.
Any one of us can be targeted by a Michael Brown at any time. Every week delivers up fresh new victims of the knockout game. A pregnant woman. An elderly man. A child.
The police are the common defense we use to protect ourselves against the kind of society where store workers have to fear being killed. They are not perfect, but they are far better than the rule of the Michael Browns who take what they want and attack anyone who tries to stop them.
In Ferguson there was a choice between looters wandering around shouting “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” and ordinary citizens crying out “Hands Up, Don’t Loot”. Shouting “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” at a police officer might work. Shouting “Hands Up, Don’t Loot” at a looter won’t.And that is why we have police forces. As flawed as they are, they follow some rules. The looters follow no rules at all.

Despite all the talk about the militarization of the police, there is very little discussion of why.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Ferguson’s Old Grievances

by Alan Caruba on Tuesday, August 19th, 2014

This is article 333 of 334 in the topic Criminal Activity

By Alan Caruba
Ferguson, Missouri and its re-run of 1950s civil rights grievances has now achieved national stature with the dispatch of our black Attorney General, Eric Holder, by our black President, Barack Obama, to address the unhappiness of blacks in the community over the shooting of a 6’4”, nearly 300 pound, black teenager, Michael Brown, who we are repeatedly told was “unarmed.”

According to witnesses, Brown had accosted a police officer, Darren Wilson, after being told not to walk down the middle of the street. After that, he reportedly “bum rushed” the officer who shot him. The reported facts of this case do not look good so far as Michael Brown’s behavior is concerned and give cause for Darren Wilson, the cop, to once again fear for his life after some “protesters”, led by agitators, were heard calling for his death.

This old white man who lived through the civil rights era that was filled with protests, marches, and a number of riots during and since is frankly experiencing a lot of déjà vu to the point where I am largely disinterested in the events occurring in Ferguson, Missouri.

They have occurred before and they will occur again because a segment of the black community is convinced that their problems are all caused by white bias. It’s not. It’s caused by bad attitudes and bad behavior.

Don’t take my word for it. Consider what Dr. Ben Carson said during an August 18 Fox News interview. “Try living for 24 hours with no police. I think you’ll really find out what a difficult situation is.” Blaming “outside agitators” for stirring up trouble in Ferguson, Dr. Carson said, “I wish they would use that same energy to help us with what’s going on in Chicago and Detroit and New Orleans and Washington, D.C., where (there is) just tons of shooting, murder, violence all the time, where we have tons of teenage pregnancy.”

Attorney General Holder, however, is heading to Ferguson, not Chicago, the hometown of the President. Why the federal government is even involved in what is essentially a local shooting incident defies the imagination. If Holder wants to turn this into a civil rights grievance that is just sheer, total exploitation; the kind we have already seen from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the New Black Panthers, among others.

Now, for a moment, let’s look at some other murders that have occurred thus far this year in which some 120 police officers have been killed in the line of duty; half of whom died by gunfire. Some were killed because they were cops, a form of bigotry that gets scant notice in the media.

A month prior to the August 9 shooting of Michael Brown, Officer Scott Patrick of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was shot in the head and killed by a fugitive during a routine traffic stop on July 30. The suspect was a white male. Earlier, on July 13, Detective Melvin Santiago of Jersey City, New Jersey, was ambushed when responding to a robbery call. Suspect is a black male who was killed on the scene. The suspect’s wife allegedly said that more cops should have been killed.

Click to continue reading “Ferguson’s Old Grievances”
Go straight to Post

Obama administration can’t account for how $619 billion was spent

by John Lott on Thursday, August 7th, 2014

This is article 521 of 522 in the topic Government Spending
Even by the Federal government standards, not being able to account for $619 billion is a lot of money.  From Fox News:

The Obama administration failed to properly account for how it spent nearly $619 billion, according to a watchdog audit of the main federal website meant to track where taxpayer money is going.

The report from the Government Accountability Office picked apart the website USASpending.gov, and the agencies feeding information to it.

The database of government spending and contracts was created out of a 2006 transparency law, but the GAO found it continues to have serious problems. The Department of Health and Human Services was the worst offender, during the 2012 period GAO examined.

“Although agencies generally reported information for contracts to USASpending.gov, they did not properly report information on assistance awards, totaling nearly $619 billion,” the GAO reported. . . .

Go straight to Post

By almost 2-to-1 vote, Missouri approves stronger constitutional protections to own guns

by John Lott on Thursday, August 7th, 2014

This is article 551 of 558 in the topic Gun Rights
Bloomberg’s gun groups claimed that this change would hurt safety in Missouri.  Voters overwhelmingly rejected the claims.  An explanation of the changes to the Missouri Constitution are available here at KFVS Channel 12:

Missourians voted to strengthen the state’s gun rights law when they headed to the polls on Tuesday, Aug. 5.  This ballot measure reads as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?”

Currently, the U.S. Constitution grants American’s the ability to keep and bear arms.
Missouri state law also protects that right.

Essentially, voters were asked to decide if this right to keep and carry guns should be an “unalienable right” just like American’s rights to life and liberty.

That would mean the right is impossible to take away and if it was challenged in court, this amendment would give Missourian’s the highest level of legal protection.

Senator Kurt Schaefer, a supporter of the change, says if passed, Missouri would have the strongest gun rights in the country. . . .

The St. Louis Post has this discussion of the outcome of the vote:

And Amendment 5, reitervating the U.S. Constitution’s right to bear arms, won by almost 2 to 1. . . .

The “right to bear arms” referendum (Amendment 5) will reiterate the U.S. Constitution’s similar guarantee, but with more specificity, making that right “inalienable.” Supporters argued it was needed because of attempts to restrict gun rights on the national level.

Opponents argued that it would be an unnecessary duplication of the federal Constitution’s Second Amendment and that it could impede enforcement of reasonable firearms restrictions.

After the vote, the group “Moms Demand Gun Sense in America” issued a statement warning: “Today Missouri voters approved a gun lobby-backed proposal that could gravely undermine public safety.” . . .

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin