web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > gun control

Virginia Gun Rally Live Updates: 22,000 Protesters Oppose New Gun Laws

Here’s what you need to know:

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_167455953_f4394824-606a-42ea-bd2a-15b938795530-articleLarge Virginia Gun Rally Live Updates: 22,000 Protesters Oppose New Gun Laws Virginia Van Cleave, Philip Second Amendment (US Constitution) RICHMOND, Va. Richmond, Va, Gun Rally (January, 2020) Politics and Government gun control Fringe Groups and Movements Demonstrations, Protests and Riots

Elizabeth Szmurlo and Hunter Mitchell of Richmond, Va., gathered with gun-rights advocates at the State Capitol on Monday to oppose proposals for gun control.Credit…Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times

Thousands of pro-gun advocates, many of them armed, converged on the Virginia State Capitol on Monday, flooding a secure area around the building and packing the surrounding streets with firearms, flags and political posters in a pointed message to state lawmakers who are weighing new gun control proposals.

The rally in Richmond, organized to oppose a series of measures being considered in the State Legislature, became a rallying cry for Second Amendment rights nationwide, inspiring cross-country flights from Colorado and road trips from Texas and attracting a crowd of about 22,000 people.

A threat of potential violence had been looming over Virginia’s capital city for days, fueled by reports that white supremacists, armed militia groups and other extremists planned to attend. But there were no official reports of skirmishes or major incidents as of Monday afternoon.

Hoping to head off trouble, the state set up a security perimeter around the Capitol grounds and banned weapons — including firearms — from the area inside. Police officers guarded the area with the help of bomb-sniffing dogs, and people entering the perimeter through the single entrance were screened with metal detectors.

The organizers of the rally, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and other participants said they tried to keep the event peaceful.

Vincent Carter, 36, who was picking up trash at the end of the event, said that participants were well aware that “the world was watching” and that any violence would have been blamed on gun rights groups.

“A lot of time was spent in planning for safety — to not let a certain type of person sort of mingle in with us,” he said. “If we didn’t know them, we didn’t let them come with us. We have a lot of guys who are ex-military, so that helped keep things in order.”

Even so, plenty of demonstrators came armed to Richmond, and officials worried that confrontations could develop just outside the perimeter entrance or in the surrounding streets where weapons were allowed.

During the rally, David Triebs and his two sons held a giant banner across the street from the perimeter entrance, reading “Come and Take It,” a reference to a defiant slogan used by Texan revolutionaries in 1835 when the Mexican authorities demanded the handover of a cannon.

Mr. Triebs and his sons drove for 24 hours straight through to Richmond from Fredericksburg, Texas, he said, drinking Red Bulls along the way to stay awake. He said relatives were worried about him coming to Virginia.

“The internet stuff I read made it sound like tanks were rolling in the streets and neo-Nazis were marching and antifa has descended,” he said. “But none of that stuff happened. It was like a family gathering.”

As they packed up their banner to leave after the rally, one of his sons struggled with two tall flagpoles, nearly knocking into a passing pedestrian.

“Careful — don’t hit anybody in the last five minutes,” Mr. Triebs said. “If you assault someone with a flagpole, that would be the only thing that made the news.”

The landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is known as the Heller decision, after Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit that overturned a gun-control law in the District of Columbia.

When Mr. Heller addressed the rally in Richmond on Monday, the crowd listened with rapt attention.

He got a big reaction when he quoted part of the amendment’s text: “Let’s yell it to them, so the media and left legislature can hear it: The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed!” The crowd roared the end of the sentence along with him.

And when he asked the crowd, “Do we need gun control in Virginia?,” the crowd roared back, “No!”

Another speaker, Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpeper County, Va., who has long been outspoken in advocating gun rights, told the crowd, “I ask that you all return to your homes and ask your elected officials, where is the line they will not cross?”

After the official speeches, as people began to leave the secure perimeter, participants made impromptu speeches in the street, denouncing abortion and the governor in addition to gun control. Some participants picked up litter and scraped discarded orange “Guns save lives” stickers off the pavement. “No confiscation! No registration!” the crowd chanted.

While armed men and women thronged the capital’s streets, gun-control advocates mostly stayed away. Organizers of an annual vigil in support of gun restrictions, which was scheduled for Monday, called it off this year.

Lori Hass, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s state director for Virginia, said in a news release that gun-rights activists “have amplified and fanned the flames of insurrectionism and civil war in a way that is irresponsible and dangerous.”

“Now, citizens who represent the overwhelming majority of Virginians are prevented from lobbying their officials because of credible threats to their safety,” Ms. Hass said.

But hours after the pro-gun rally ended, a crowd of about 30 gun control activists, many of them college students, went inside the Capitol grounds. Several of the students, including some who had survived school shootings, drove in from various locations in Virginia and slept at the office of a state legislator, Dan Helmer, on Sunday night.

The group had initially planned to hold a vigil earlier on Monday, but it moved the event to later in the afternoon after reports that white nationalists and militia members would attend the pro-gun rally. The advocates stayed in Mr. Helmer’s office throughout the morning.

“We heard them screaming from the office,” said Mollie Davis, 19, who survived a shooting at Great Mills High School in 2018. “That really scared me.”

Andrew Goddard, a gun control activist, asked the group to have a moment of silence for the thousands of people who have been killed by gun violence. “What would it be like if 10,000 of those people were standing with us and beside and behind us today?” Mr. Goddard said.

Though no incidents were reported at the gun rights rally on Monday, Mr. Goddard said it did not feel peaceful to see so many armed people marching in the streets. “Intimidation is not peaceful.”

He added, “They were looking for someone to scream at and shout at, and we weren’t going to provide that.”

Nupol Kiazolu, 19, the president of Black Lives Matter Greater New York, said she was compelled to attend the vigil for shooting victims “because oftentimes black and brown voices are left out of these issues.”

One gun-control advocate who did go to the rally on Monday morning to confront pro-gun demonstrators was Paul Karns, 49, a writer from Richmond. Mr. Karns said he had been dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder after he was shot 13 years ago while defending his neighbor during a robbery.

He got into a heated debate with a pro-gun demonstrator who said schools were vulnerable to violence because of the lack of guns on campus. Mr. Karns yelled and stormed off. “One thing I don’t see from that side of the spectrum is empathy for the rest of us,” he said.

On a day when guns and Second Amendment grandeur took center stage, the atmosphere also took on an overtly political tone at times, as pro-gun groups criticized the state’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam.

Demonstrators circulated a racist photograph from Mr. Northam’s medical school yearbook, which showed a man in blackface and another in a Ku Klux Klan robe, an image that nearly destroyed Mr. Northam’s political career. An investigation last year could not conclusively determine whether Mr. Northam appeared in the photo, and he now leads a state government that is fully controlled by Democrats and focused on enacting gun control.

“The man behind the sheet wants your guns,” read one poster, which had reprinted the photograph. In another case, a pamphlet using the photograph called on liberals and conservatives to “fight back” against “slave masters” in the state legislature.

Support for President Trump was apparent among many of the gun rights activists in attendance.

A large “Make America Great Again” flag whipped above the crowds that gathered outside the State Capitol perimeter. A bus adorned in pro-Trump posters, including a “Women for Trump” flag and a flag with the president’s head photoshopped on Rambo, occasionally drove passed the entrance of the capitol grounds and was greeted with cheers from the crowd.

“Trump 2020, baby!” one man shouted. “Amen,” a man wearing a camouflage hat replied.

Despite concerns about potential violence, which led the governor to declare a state of emergency ahead of the rally, the authorities said they were not aware of any major incidents or arrests by late afternoon. The Richmond police estimated the crowd at about 22,000, with 6,000 inside the perimeter and 16,000 outside.

Organizers had said they expected 120,000 people to attend. The Virginia Citizens Defense League noted online that it had failed to meet its fund-raising goal. Its website indicated that some 1,200 people had given a total of $71,533 by late afternoon Monday, short of the target of $100,000.

“The real fight is yet to come,” the group said in a Facebook post. “Can you throw a few bucks our way? We are behind in our goal.”

Inside the Capitol grounds on Monday morning, a peaceful crowd held banners and flags, and shouts of “U.S.A.” swelled in the background.

At the same time, a swelling crowd jammed the surrounding streets.

Weapons were allowed outside the security perimeter, and demonstrators walked through the area carrying firearms and flags, as if on parade. There were military-style rifles, shotguns, 9-millimeter handguns, .45- and .22-caliber pistols, and even a man carrying .50-caliber sniper rifle.

Chris Dement, 22, said he brought a 9-millimeter carbine to stand in solidarity, but was prepared to use it for self-defense in case of violence.

“It’s never out of the realm of possibility,” he said.

Richmond was alive with activity as early as 6 a.m. as clusters of people made their way toward the Capitol. The traffic downtown included a Jeep flying an American flag, and numerous pickup trucks.

Logan Smith, 25, a transmission plant worker from Indianapolis, said he set out Saturday night and drove in his black Dodge Charger for 9 hours and 46 minutes to reach Richmond on Sunday. Standing in a teal sweatshirt in the early morning cold on Monday, his hands in his pockets, he watched the line for entrance to the Capitol grounds start to snake around the block.

“I see how it matters — it matters to me back home,” Mr. Smith said of gun rights. Referring to the gun regulations bills before the Virginia legislature, he said, “Seeing stuff like this being pushed, it doesn’t sit well.”

Around the corner, a whoop went up from a small crowd when several men unfurled a large cloth banner with a long gun emblazoned on the front.

Teri Horne, 51, stood on the sidewalk directly across from the entrance to the Capitol grounds, with a Smith & Wesson M&P15T rifle straddled around her shoulder and a Texas flag at her side. Ms. Horne, of Quitman, Texas, said she and about three dozen others from the women’s chapter of Open Carry Texas attended “to support the people in Virginia.”

“This is where freedom began, right here, and this is what they’re doing to the people of Virginia,” Ms. Horne said. “Thomas Jefferson, he was a very livid character, he would have some strong words to say.”

The rally has been a frequent topic of discussion on internet platforms that are popular among anti-government militia groups and white supremacists. Many users expressed interest in attending the rally. But over the weekend, white-supremacist chat rooms began to overflow with warnings against attending.

Many suggested that participants were being set up for a government trap where they would either be blamed for any violence that broke out, or would even be the targets of violence themselves.

Those warnings continued on Monday from members of anti-government militias, white supremacists and others who were in Richmond. The message “Don’t go in the cage” was posted repeatedly on Twitter, along with comments like “Flood the rest of Richmond instead.”

For years, Martin Luther King’s Birthday, which falls early in the legislative session, has been a day for ordinary Virginians and advocacy groups to talk with state legislators about issues that concern them, in a tradition known as “Lobby Day.”

This year, gun rights groups made especially big plans, after control of the legislature flipped in the November election.

After a generation of dominance by Republicans sympathetic to gun rights, the State Senate and House of Delegates are now run by Democrats who want to impose tighter regulations — measures that have become increasingly popular in the state, especially after a gunman fatally shot 12 people last May in Virginia Beach.

The State Senate approved three gun control bills last week that the House of Delegates could approve as early as this week.

The prospect of new laws restricting firearms has met with stiff opposition in the state’s rural areas. Since November, more than 100 municipalities have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” — a purely symbolic step, but one that highlights the widening rift in Virginia between its cities and its rural areas, which have been losing population and political power for years.

Timothy Williams, Sabrina Tavernise and Zolan Kanno-Youngs reported from Richmond, Va., and Sarah Mervosh from New York. Neil MacFarquhar contributed reporting from New York.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Virginia Gun Rally Live Updates: 22,000 Protesters Oppose New Laws

Here’s what you need to know:

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_167455953_f4394824-606a-42ea-bd2a-15b938795530-articleLarge Virginia Gun Rally Live Updates: 22,000 Protesters Oppose New Laws Virginia Van Cleave, Philip Second Amendment (US Constitution) RICHMOND, Va. Richmond, Va, Gun Rally (January, 2020) Politics and Government gun control Fringe Groups and Movements Demonstrations, Protests and Riots

Elizabeth Szmurlo and Hunter Mitchell of Richmond, Va., gathered with gun-rights advocates at the State Capitol on Monday to oppose proposals for gun control.Credit…Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times

Thousands of pro-gun advocates, many of them armed, converged on the Virginia State Capitol on Monday, flooding a secure area around the building and packing the surrounding streets with firearms, flags and political posters in a pointed message to state lawmakers who are weighing new gun control proposals.

The rally in Richmond, organized to oppose a series of measures being considered in the State Legislature, became a rallying cry for Second Amendment rights nationwide, inspiring cross-country flights from Colorado and road trips from Texas and attracting a crowd of about 22,000 people.

A threat of potential violence had been looming over Virginia’s capital city for days, fueled by reports that white supremacists, armed militia groups and other extremists planned to attend. But there were no official reports of skirmishes or major incidents as of Monday afternoon.

Hoping to head off trouble, the state set up a security perimeter around the Capitol grounds and banned weapons — including firearms — from the area inside. Police officers guarded the area with the help of bomb-sniffing dogs, and people entering the perimeter through the single entrance were screened with metal detectors.

The organizers of the rally, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and other participants said they tried to keep the event peaceful.

Vincent Carter, 36, who was picking up trash at the end of the event, said that participants were well aware that “the world was watching” and that any violence would have been blamed on gun rights groups.

“A lot of time was spent in planning for safety — to not let a certain type of person sort of mingle in with us,” he said. “If we didn’t know them, we didn’t let them come with us. We have a lot of guys who are ex-military, so that helped keep things in order.”

Even so, plenty of demonstrators came armed to Richmond, and officials worried that confrontations could develop just outside the perimeter entrance or in the surrounding streets where weapons were allowed.

During the rally, David Triebs and his two sons held a giant banner across the street from the perimeter entrance, reading “Come and Take It,” a reference to a defiant slogan used by Texan revolutionaries in 1835 when the Mexican authorities demanded the handover of a cannon.

Mr. Triebs and his sons drove for 24 hours straight through to Richmond from Fredericksburg, Texas, he said, drinking Red Bulls along the way to stay awake. He said relatives were worried about him coming to Virginia.

“The internet stuff I read made it sound like tanks were rolling in the streets and neo-Nazis were marching and antifa has descended,” he said. “But none of that stuff happened. It was like a family gathering.”

As they packed up their banner to leave after the rally, one of his sons struggled with two tall flagpoles, nearly knocking into a passing pedestrian.

“Careful — don’t hit anybody in the last five minutes,” Mr. Triebs said. “If you assault someone with a flagpole, that would be the only thing that made the news.”

The landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is known as the Heller decision, after Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit that overturned a gun-control law in the District of Columbia.

When Mr. Heller addressed the rally in Richmond on Monday, the crowd listened with rapt attention.

He got a big reaction when he quoted part of the amendment’s text: “Let’s yell it to them, so the media and left legislature can hear it: The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed!” The crowd roared the end of the sentence along with him.

And when he asked the crowd, “Do we need gun control in Virginia?,” the crowd roared back, “No!”

Another speaker, Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpeper County, Va., who has long been outspoken in advocating gun rights, told the crowd, “I ask that you all return to your homes and ask your elected officials, where is the line they will not cross?”

After the official speeches, as people began to leave the secure perimeter, participants made impromptu speeches in the street, denouncing abortion and the governor in addition to gun control. Some participants picked up litter and scraped discarded orange “Guns save lives” stickers off the pavement. “No confiscation! No registration!” the crowd chanted.

While armed men and women thronged the capital’s streets, gun-control advocates mostly stayed away, although a counterprotest was planned for 3 p.m., hours after the gun-rights rally ended.

Lori Hass, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s state director for Virginia, said in a news release that gun rights activists “have amplified and fanned the flames of insurrectionism and civil war in a way that is irresponsible and dangerous.”

“Now, citizens who represent the overwhelming majority of Virginians are prevented from lobbying their officials because of credible threats to their safety,” Ms. Hass said.

Those concerns prompted organizers of an annual vigil in support of gun restrictions, which was scheduled for Monday, to call it off this year. Instead, gun control supporters mostly commented online.

Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, wrote on Twitter that “gun extremists” had gathered “in an attempt to intimidate lawmakers out of doing what voters elected them to do: pass common-sense gun laws that will keep our families safe.”

Some members of the Virginia Legislature also weighed in.

Lee J. Carter, a Democratic member of the House of Delegates, is a former Marine who describes himself as a socialist. He noted online that the demonstrators in Richmond seemed to be breaking two Virginia laws, by carrying weapons with large magazines and by wearing face masks, which was largely outlawed decades ago as an anti-Ku Klux Klan measure.

“So much for law abiding gun owners,” Mr. Carter wrote.

One gun-control advocate who did go to the scene and confront pro-gun demonstrators was Paul Karns, 49, a writer from Richmond. Mr. Karns said he has been dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder after he was shot 13 years ago while defending his neighbor during a robbery.

As the rally ended, he confronted a young man holding what appeared to be a bolt-action rifle. The man told him that he used the gun for hunting and precision shooting. “I learned a few things,” Mr. Karns said.

Mr. Karns got into a more heated debate with a pro-gun demonstrator who said schools were vulnerable to violence because of the lack of guns on campus. Mr. Karns yelled and stormed off. “One thing I don’t see from that side of the spectrum is empathy for the rest of us,” he said.

On a day when guns and Second Amendment grandeur took center stage, the atmosphere also took on an overtly political tone at times, as pro-gun groups criticized the state’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam.

Demonstrators circulated a racist photograph from Mr. Northam’s medical school yearbook, which showed a man in blackface and another in a Ku Klux Klan robe, an image that nearly destroyed Mr. Northam’s political career. An investigation last year could not conclusively determine whether Mr. Northam appeared in the photo, and he now leads a state government that is fully controlled by Democrats and focused on enacting gun control.

“The man behind the sheet wants your guns,” read one poster, which had reprinted the photograph. In another case, a pamphlet using the photograph called on liberals and conservatives to “fight back” against “slave masters” in the state legislature.

Support for President Trump was apparent among many of the gun rights activists in attendance.

A large “Make America Great Again” flag whipped above the crowds that gathered outside the State Capitol perimeter. A bus adorned in pro-Trump posters, including a “Women for Trump” flag and a flag with the president’s head photoshopped on Rambo, occasionally drove passed the entrance of the capitol grounds and was greeted with cheers from the crowd.

“Trump 2020, baby!” one man shouted. “Amen,” a man wearing a camouflage hat replied.

Despite concerns about potential violence, which led the governor to declare a state of emergency ahead of the rally, the authorities said they were not aware of any major incidents or arrests by early afternoon. The Richmond police estimated the crowd at about 22,000, with 6,000 inside the perimeter and 16,000 outside. Organizers had said they expected 100,000 or more people to attend.

Inside the Capitol grounds, a peaceful crowd held banners and flags, and shouts of “U.S.A.” swelled in the background. The area took on a festive atmosphere, with tunes being played on instruments that sounded like flutes and piccolos.

At the same time, a swelling crowd jammed the surrounding streets, appearing to outnumber those inside the grounds for the rally.

Weapons were allowed outside the security perimeter, and demonstrators walked through the area carrying firearms and flags, as if on parade. There were military-style rifles, shotguns, 9-millimeter handguns, .45- and .22-caliber pistols, and even a man carrying .50-caliber sniper rifle.

Chris Dement, 22, said he was glad to see that the demonstration was peaceful so far. He said he brought a 9-millimeter carbine to stand in solidarity, but was prepared to use it for self-defense in case of violence.

“It’s never out of the realm of possibility,” he said.

Richmond was alive with activity as early as 6 a.m. as clusters of people made their way toward the Capitol. The traffic downtown included a Jeep flying an American flag, and numerous pickup trucks.

Logan Smith, 25, a transmission plant worker from Indianapolis, said he set out Saturday night and drove in his black Dodge Charger for 9 hours and 46 minutes to reach Richmond on Sunday. Standing in a teal sweatshirt in the early morning cold on Monday, his hands in his pockets, he watched the line for entrance to the Capitol grounds start to snake around the block.

“I see how it matters — it matters to me back home,” Mr. Smith said of gun rights. Referring to the gun regulations bills before the Virginia legislature, he said, “Seeing stuff like this being pushed, it doesn’t sit well.”

Around the corner, a whoop went up from a small crowd when several men unfurled a large cloth banner with a long gun emblazoned on the front.

Teri Horne, 51, stood on the sidewalk directly across from the entrance to the Capitol grounds, with a Smith & Wesson M&P15T rifle straddled around her shoulder and a Texas flag at her side. Ms. Horne, of Quitman, Texas, said she and about three dozen others from the women’s chapter of Open Carry Texas attended “to support the people in Virginia.”

“This is where freedom began, right here, and this is what they’re doing to the people of Virginia,” Ms. Horne said. “Thomas Jefferson, he was a very livid character, he would have some strong words to say.”

The rally has been a frequent topic of discussion on internet platforms that are popular among anti-government militia groups and white supremacists. Many users expressed interest in attending the rally. But over the weekend, white-supremacist chat rooms began to overflow with warnings against attending.

Many suggested that participants were being set up for a government trap where they would either be blamed for any violence that broke out, or would even be the targets of violence themselves.

Those warnings continued on Monday from members of anti-government militias, white supremacists and others who were in Richmond. The message “Don’t go in the cage” was posted repeatedly on Twitter, along with comments like “Flood the rest of Richmond instead.”

For years, Martin Luther King’s Birthday, which falls early in the legislative session, has been a day for ordinary Virginians and advocacy groups to talk with state legislators about issues that concern them, in a tradition known as “Lobby Day.”

This year, gun rights groups made especially big plans, after control of the legislature flipped in the November election.

After a generation of dominance by Republicans sympathetic to gun rights, the State Senate and House of Delegates are now run by Democrats who want to impose tighter regulations — measures that have become increasingly popular in the state, especially after a gunman fatally shot 12 people last May in Virginia Beach.

The State Senate approved three gun control bills last week that the House of Delegates could approve as early as this week.

The prospect of new laws restricting firearms has met with stiff opposition in the state’s rural areas. Since November, more than 100 municipalities have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” — a purely symbolic step, but one that highlights the widening rift in Virginia between its cities and its rural areas, which have been losing population and political power for years.

Timothy Williams, Sabrina Tavernise and Zolan Kanno-Youngs reported from Richmond, Va., and Sarah Mervosh from New York. Neil MacFarquhar contributed reporting from New York.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Second Amendment Case May Fizzle Out at the Supreme Court

Westlake Legal Group 02dc-scotus-facebookJumbo Second Amendment Case May Fizzle Out at the Supreme Court washington dc Supreme Court (US) Second Amendment (US Constitution) New York City gun control firearms Decisions and Verdicts

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade may not end up changing anything, judging from questioning at arguments on Monday that focused largely on whether the repeal of a New York City law made the case challenging it moot.

“What’s left of this case?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “The petitioners have gotten all of the relief they sought.”

The other three members of the court’s liberal wing made similar points. “The other side has thrown in the towel,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told a lawyer for the challengers.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a member of the court’s conservative majority, asked questions that seemed aimed at making sure that the case was truly moot. But two other conservatives, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, seemed ready to decide the case, saying that the repeal of the law did not settle every question before the court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh asked no questions.

The law had limited city residents who had “premises licenses” from transporting their guns outside their homes. It allowed them to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits, but it barred them from taking their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they were unloaded and locked in a container separate from any ammunition.

Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued to challenge the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster.

After the Supreme Court granted review, the city repealed its law, apparently fearful of a loss that could sweep away other gun-control regulations, too. For good measure, New York State enacted a law allowing people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not.

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the challengers in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, said the restrictions imposed by the ordinance were at odds with the Second Amendment.

Richard P. Dearing, a lawyer for the city, responded that the ordinance was no longer on the books, meaning that there was nothing left for the court to decide.

The larger question in the case, one the court may not address, is whether lower courts have been faithfully applying its key precedent, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was decided by a 5-to-4 vote in 2008. The decision revolutionized Second Amendment jurisprudence by identifying an individual right to own guns, but it ruled only that the right applied inside the home, for self-defense.

Proponents of gun rights have been frustrated by lower-court rulings that have generally upheld various kinds of gun-control laws, often relying on a passage in the Heller decision that said some restrictions were presumptively constitutional.

“Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in a passage that was apparently the price of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s fifth vote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Justice Scalia died in 2016, and Justice Kennedy retired last year.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights

Westlake Legal Group merlin_151293738_52467552-c9f8-480d-a4c2-96f9db3e18fd-facebookJumbo After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights Thomas, Clarence Supreme Court (US) Suits and Litigation (Civil) Stevens, John Paul Second Amendment (US Constitution) Scalia, Antonin Kennedy, Anthony M Kavanaugh, Brett M gun control Gorsuch, Neil M firearms Decisions and Verdicts Constitution (US)

WASHINGTON — It has been almost 10 years since the Supreme Court last heard a Second Amendment case. On Monday, a transformed court will return to the subject and take stock of what has happened in the meantime.

The nation has had a spike in gun violence. And lower courts have issued more than 1,000 rulings seeking to apply the justices’ 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established an individual right to own guns but said almost nothing about the scope of that right.

The new case concerns a New York City ordinance. Fearing a loss in the Supreme Court, to say nothing of a broad ruling from the court’s conservative majority on what the Second Amendment protects, the city repealed the ordinance and now argues that the case is moot. But the court may be ready to end its decade of silence, elaborate on the meaning of the Second Amendment and, in the process, tell lower courts whether they have been faithful to the message of the Heller decision.

Proponents of gun rights and some conservative justices say lower courts have been engaged in lawless resistance to the protections afforded under the Second Amendment by sustaining unconstitutional gun-control laws.

“The lower courts have, generally speaking, been defying Heller,” said George Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming.

Gregory P. Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, looked at the same evidence and came to the opposite conclusion. “By and large, the lower courts have played this whole game very straight,” he said. “They have taken Heller seriously.”

The decision in the new case may clarify matters. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch have already set out their positions, saying that the Supreme Court has tacitly endorsed dishonest rulings in the lower courts by refusing to hear appeals from decisions sustaining gun-control laws.

It was, Justice Thomas wrote in a 2017 dissent joined by Justice Gorsuch, part of “a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

In another dissent last year, Justice Thomas returned to the theme.

“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court’s constitutional orphan,” he wrote. “And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”

Eight months later, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the court, replacing the more moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. And just a few months after that, the court announced that it would hear the case to be argued Monday.

The Heller decision was both revolutionary and modest. It ruled, by a 5-to-4 vote, that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own guns — in the home, for self-defense. At the same time, it indicated that many kinds of gun regulations are permissible.

Justice Kennedy was in the majority in Heller decision, but he insisted on an important limiting passage, according to a 2018 interview with Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the main dissent and died in July.

“Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the passage that was the price of Justice Kennedy’s fifth vote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The court’s only other Second Amendment case since then, McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, extended the Heller decision, which concerned federal gun laws, to state and local ones.

Recent scholarship tells a complicated story about how the Heller decision has been applied in the lower courts. A comprehensive study of Second Amendment rulings after the Heller decision through early 2016, published last year in the Duke Law Journal, found that the success rate for challengers was indeed low, at about 9 percent.

But the article concluded that “the low rate of success probably has more to do with the claims being asserted than with judicial hostility.” For instance, challenges by felons charged with possessing guns made up about a quarter of the cases and almost always failed, as the Heller decision itself seemed to require.

Other challenges, in criminal cases or brought by people without lawyers, were also seldom successful. But plaintiffs with lawyers in civil cases in federal appeals courts, the study found, had a success rate of 40 percent.

“Second Amendment challenges have overwhelmingly failed at a broad level,” said Joseph Blocher, a law professor at Duke, who conducted the study with Eric Ruben, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Something like 90 percent of them failed. But when you dig down into the cases to see why they failed, it turns out that many of them were weak from the outset.”

“Courts are not reflexively rejecting Second Amendment claims,” Professor Blocher said. “There will be cases in which judges may not go far enough in protecting the right, but that’s not indicative of what critics have called ‘massive resistance’ or ‘nullification’ or ‘second-class rights treatment.’”

Still, said Brannon P. Denning, a law professor at Samford University in Birmingham, Ala., “there was a tendency to give Heller the narrowest possible reading.”

“Judges were saying that as long as there is not a complete prohibition of possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home,” Professor Denning said, “then pretty much on anything else we’re going to give the benefit of the doubt to the government.”

The New York City ordinance challenged in the new case allowed residents with so-called premises licenses to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges in the city limits. But the ordinance barred them from taking their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they were unloaded and locked in a container separate from ammunition.

Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed a lawsuit challenging the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster under the Heller decision.

After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, the city amended its ordinance to allow people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not. For good measure, New York State enacted a similar law.

The challengers have gotten everything they sought, the city’s lawyers told the Supreme Court, making the case moot. In response, the challengers said the case is still live because they may be entitled to seek money from the city and could suffer negative consequences for what was unlawful conduct while the ordinance was in place. They urged the justices not to reward the city’s “extraordinary machinations designed to frustrate this court’s review.”

Timothy Zick, a professor at William and Mary Law School, said supporters of gun regulation had reason to hope the justices would rule that the case is moot.

“The fear is that the court will accept the premise that what we need here is the most robust form of protection we can offer to this fundamental right because it’s been orphaned and disrespected,” Professor Zick said. “That, and the fact that this law is not a very good one, makes it understandable that you might not want this case to be the one that the court decides.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Nukes Kamala Harris On Twitter Over Attempted Boycott.

Westlake Legal Group trump-face-nuclear-cloud-251x300 Trump Nukes Kamala Harris On Twitter Over Attempted Boycott. white house washington D.C. Social Media republicans progressives President Trump Media kamala harris gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI and DOJ Corruption Endorsements elections donald trump doj democrats Criminal Justice Reform crime Conservatives Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 2019

Just when you think you have Donald Trump figured out and can put him in a box, he zigs zags and makes you stop and wonder what in the hell is going on. This time it is with people that allegedly he hates and wants them all to die.

Except that he also wants to there shorten prison sentences or eliminate them altogether. That has made Kamal Harris very mad being she put a LOT of people away in her time as a prosecutor in California.

From Fox News

 

President Trump took a rare swipe at 2020 Democratic hopeful Kamala Harris on Saturday, criticizing the California senator for boycotting a South Carolina criminal justice forum in protest of the group giving an award to him.

“Badly failing presidential candidate @KamalaHarris will not go to a very wonderful largely African American event today because yesterday I received a major award, at the same event, for being able to produce & sign into law major Criminal Justice Reform legislation, which will greatly help the African American community (and all other communities), and which was unable to get done in past administrations despite a tremendous desire for it,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning.

The president’s tweets came after he received the Bipartisan Justice Award from the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center for his efforts to pass the First Step Act, which grants early release to thousands of nonviolent offenders who are currently serving time in federal prisons.

Trump has by and large not mentioned Kamala and the other dwarfs running on the Democratic side. He has had a lot of fun picking on Joe and Bernie and the fake Indian and left it at that. However, Kamala who once was considered the shining star of this primary season has never fully recovered from the shot that Tulsi Gabbard landed on her in the Detroit debate about her lock up record.

I will admit that when Trump met with Kim Kardashian about commuting the sentence of a lady that had clearly served way more time than she should have, I thought it was a mere publicity stunt of two reality T.V. stars meeting. That has proven to not be the case.

When Van Jones showed up at CPAC and praised Trump and conservatives for this I knew something positive was happening. Van Jones Praises Conservatives on Criminal Justice Reform: ‘You Are Stealing My Issue’

Kamala probably was thinking that her law & order cred was going to get her major props and so far it has been a dud. Her at first instinct of boycotting this event and trying to look holier than thou does not look like it will work and might not even last a full news cycle. Stunts like this are meant to raise your profile and so far it looks like it has sent her into deeper muck. Now that she has changed her mind she looks even more indecisive.

There are only 99 days left until the Iowa caucuses. Kamala better get in front as many people as possible or her campaign is going to be dead on arrival before next February.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Trump Nukes Kamala Harris On Twitter Over Attempted Boycott. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-face-nuclear-cloud-251x300 Trump Nukes Kamala Harris On Twitter Over Attempted Boycott. white house washington D.C. Social Media republicans progressives President Trump Media kamala harris gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI and DOJ Corruption Endorsements elections donald trump doj democrats Criminal Justice Reform crime Conservatives Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The C.E.O. Taking On the Gun Lobby

Ed Stack didn’t set out to be an activist.

The chief executive of Dick’s Sporting Goods, Mr. Stack spent his career selling fishing rods, camping gear and athletic equipment at big-box stores around the country.

Dick’s was founded by Mr. Stack’s father in upstate New York. As a young man, Mr. Stack worked for the family business. But he didn’t enjoy the experience. His father was a divisive boss who couldn’t manage a supply chain, and was especially hard on his son.

Hoping to chart his own course, Mr. Stack went to work at a law firm. But when his father fell ill, Mr. Stack came back to help run the company. He soon grew to love the retail business and eventually bought the company from his father in 1984.

Mr. Stack set about expanding across the country, at times moving too aggressively. Overextended, the company flirted with bankruptcy. But Mr. Stack stabilized the business, and in 2002, took Dick’s public. Since then, he has managed to keep the company competitive in the age of Walmart, Amazon and e-commerce.

With all of that accomplished and retirement in sight, Mr. Stack wasn’t looking for attention. Then in February 2018, a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., killing 17 people. As Mr. Stack watched the news, he decided to drastically curtail Dick’s gun sales.

Days after the shooting, Dick’s said that it would immediately stop selling all assault-style rifles, no longer sell high-capacity magazines and require any gun buyer to be at least 21, regardless of local laws.

Dick’s was not alone. Walmart also tightened its gun sales policies after the shooting in Parkland, and companies including Delta Air Lines and MetLife moved to distance themselves from the National Rifle Association.

But for gun rights activists, Mr. Stack’s deeply personal engagement with the issue struck a nerve. The N.R.A. came after Dick’s, and calls for a boycott sprung up on social media.

Mr. Stack was unbowed. He announced that Dick’s would destroy the assault-style rifles and accessories on its shelves instead of returning them to manufacturers.

More than a year and a half after the Parkland shooting, Mr. Stack continues his campaign for stricter gun control, calling on lawmakers to introduce legislation and detailing his journey from businessman to activist in a new book, “It’s How We Play the Game.” He is reportedly exploring a run for president.

This interview, which was condensed and edited for clarity and occurred before any presidential musings, was conducted in New York.


Had you confronted the guns issue before Parkland?

Our journey with guns has been a long one. Around 1999, some kids broke into our store in Rochester, N.Y., and stole a bunch of handguns. A few days later, the cops found these kids, and a couple of them were dead.

I said, “I don’t want to be in this business.” So we stopped selling handguns. We were small at the time, with just six stores, and nobody noticed. We took a little bit of guff from it, but nobody knew who Dick’s Sporting Goods was really at the time.

Who did you take guff from? The National Rifle Association?

No, it was customers asking, “Why aren’t you selling handguns anymore?” Then we opened in Texas and put some handguns back because it just felt that was what the customer wanted. With the assault weapons ban from 1994, we hadn’t been selling assault rifles. But then, probably a year before Sandy Hook, merchants came and said, “To be competitive in the gun business, you got to have assault rifles. This is what’s selling.” So we put them back in.

Then Parkland happened, and you decided to significantly curtail your gun sales.

When Parkland happened — watching those kids, listening to those parents — it had a profound effect on me. It was at that point I said, “I just don’t want to sell these guns, period.”

I’m a pretty stoic guy. But I sat there hearing about the kids who were killed, and I hadn’t cried that much since my mother passed away. We need to do something. This has got to stop.

I came to our management team on that Monday, and started to read a statement I had written. I got emotional, and I couldn’t get through it. Our chief of staff had to actually take the piece of paper from my hand and finish reading it.

You’ve done more than just take guns out of the stores though.

We called on Congress to come together with the intent to actually solve this problem. I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Washington, and it was pretty clear that nothing was going to get done, and nothing has gotten done.

I don’t know how, at least, we can’t get universal background checks done. For the life of me, I cannot understand how people can see that having universal background checks or red-flag laws really violates anybody’s Second Amendment rights.

You also went down to Florida.

The families from Parkland asked me to come down and talk to them. So I went down and sat with many of the families who lost somebody in Parkland. It was probably the hardest day of my life, to listen to those parents talk about their kids and what happened to them.

One woman said it had been a month since her son was killed. She said, “I go into his room every night, I sit on his bed and I talk to him.” As a parent, you can’t imagine putting yourself in that position. This whole thing still gets to me.

But what I found surprising of those families, not one of them said we need to ban all guns, that guns have to go away. What they said was we need to find common-sense changes to our gun laws so what happened to our family doesn’t happen anyplace else. If those families feel that way, I have no idea how the guys in Washington can’t come together and find a solution to this problem.

How do you respond to your critics?

People have said, “You know Stack, if we do what you want and ban assault-style rifles, ban high-capacity magazines and don’t sell a gun to anyone under 21 years old, it won’t eliminate mass shootings.” You know what, they’re probably right. But there will be less loss of life if an assault-style rifle isn’t used. And if we do all those things and we save one life, in my mind it’s all worth it.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_162912600_1b91ae60-983d-4e49-bdc3-bf4f379ce014-articleLarge The C.E.O. Taking On the Gun Lobby Sporting Goods and Equipment Parkland, Fla, Shooting (2018) mass shootings gun control Dick's Sporting Goods Inc

“I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Washington, and it was pretty clear that nothing was going to get done, and nothing has gotten done,” Mr. Stack said.Credit…Guerin Blask for The New York Times

What do you say to other business leaders who don’t want to get political?

If you have ideas about how to solve certain problems, I think it’s your responsibility as business leaders to speak up. This country is craving for leadership today, and the leadership is not coming out of Washington. So the leadership has to come from someplace else. Right now, the private sector is the place that it’s going to have to come from.

We have an expertise from a gun standpoint. We see the holes in the system. We found out that a couple months before the shooter in Parkland did what he did, we sold that kid a shotgun. The background system should have flagged this kid. He should not have been able to buy a gun.

Tell me about your dad, who started the company.

He was a complicated guy. He had a great heart, but he always had a bit of an inferiority complex. He always had something to prove. I think his fear of failure is what really drove him. He was a really tough, old-school guy. This was a time that you just never told your kids you love them. His view was, “We’ll make a man out of you.”

I didn’t want to work for my dad. I wanted to go out and do my own thing. But when I was 13, I went to work. We’re this really small, family, little corner sporting goods store. The family went and worked and tried to help out.

What did your dad do wrong as a businessman?

My dad never had a plan. He ran the business by the seat of his pants. His idea around buying was, “You got a hunch, you buy a bunch.” We were always close to going out of business. He always owed the bank money. He always owed the vendors money. He always paid them, but he was always in debt. Our garage would be filled with excess merchandise: Coleman coolers, propane fuel, white gas.

His management style was as haphazard as his buying habits. He played people one off the other. You can’t do that. You have to have specific roles and functions. And if you pick somebody who’s going to be your right-hand guy, then that’s the guy.

How did you take control of Dick’s?

I fell in love with the business, but my father still owned the company. He was a tough taskmaster, and at times unfair. It was just his way of kind of making a man out of you. I didn’t particularly like working for my father.

We got into a spirited conversation one day, and he stuck his finger in my face and said, “If you think you’re such a smart goddamn son of a bitch, go down to the bank, get your own line of credit and buy me out.” So that’s what I did. I went down to the bank, got it put together, came back and said, “We’re ready to go.”

What don’t people understand about growing a business?

It’s not a straight line. You’re going to have ups and downs. You’re going to have those quiet introspective moments where you go, “What am I doing?” You’re going to have those days of self-doubt. And you’ve got to just power through them. But we almost went out of business.



How did you go from being a local retailer to a big-box store?

We built a bigger store. The first store my father built was 5,000 square feet. The second store was 2,800 square feet. Then we went to Syracuse and did a 20,000-square-foot store. That was a huge, huge difference. We were just shocked at how much business we did. The guys from Nike said, “Hey Dick, you’ve got to be really proud of these kids. They’re doing a lot of business.”

My father, who could never really quite give you a compliment, looked at them and said, “You’re right, they did a lot of business. They did 25 percent more business than they thought they would the first month. So they’re not really as smart as they think they are.” That was him to a tee.

So we built this store, did really well, and then we just started opening these 20,000- and 25,000-square-foot stores.

How did you almost go out of business?

The business outstripped our management’s ability, including my own, to run the business. We finally talked to G.E. Capital in New York, which was the lender of last resort before you called Tony Soprano. And I didn’t want to call Tony Soprano.

I’d never been in a building like G.E. Capital’s: big conference room, 10 people firing questions at us, saying, “Why did you do this? How did this happen?” This is like our last resort. If this doesn’t work, there’s talk about filing for bankruptcy or selling the company.

They fired questions at us left and right, and we answered them, and I finally said, “Let me tell you something. This is what happened, this is why it happened, this is what we’ve done about it and this is why it’s never going to happen again.”

There was a guy sitting over in the corner, and I didn’t pay any attention to him. He never asked a question, was never involved in the meeting. After the meeting, he came over and sat down, looked at me and said, “What’s it going to take for you to shake my hand right now that we’ll agent your loan?”

The lesson I learned is the guy in the room who’s not saying anything, he’s the decision maker. Beware of the guy in the room who sits in the corner and doesn’t say anything. I told him how much money we needed and when we needed it by. He looked at me and shook my hand and said, “We’ll make this happen.” That saved the company.

What did you learn from that experience?

You look into the halls of hell, and near-death experience changes you. We slowed the growth down. We said, “We’re not going to open any stores for the next couple of years.” We got our inventory under control, we got our expenses under control and we learned from our mistakes.

The experience is on the list of mistakes I made. I wouldn’t say it’s a regret, because we learned a lot from it. One of the reasons we’re in the position we’re in right now is because of it. One of the things I learned from that is I don’t want to have debt; I don’t want to owe anybody any money.

What’s the difference between a mistake and a regret?

A regret is something that you wish you could take back. You go, “If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t do it because it didn’t turn out very well.” A mistake is something that you did that you learned from, that at the end of the day it helped make you who you are today.

I’ve made a lot of mistakes. I don’t have a lot of regrets.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Shockingly, the Media Absolutely Loved Disruptive Congressional Sit-Ins Until Republicans Did It

Westlake Legal Group snopes-fake-news-sites-620x344 Shockingly, the Media Absolutely Loved Disruptive Congressional Sit-Ins Until Republicans Did It sit-in scif republicans praise Politics MSNBC media bias gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Congress CNN Allow Media Exception

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. The media lauded Democrats as brave and revolutionary when they did something but now decry it as dangerous and a breach of decorum when Republicans do it. Shocking, right?

That’s exactly the dynamic at play with the current consternation over Republicans entering the SCIF (which they absolutely have a legal right to do as Congressional members) and we’ve got receipts.

You may recall back in 2016 when Democrats decided to shut down all proceedings by staging a sit-in on the House floor. For nearly two days, they stayed there.

Here was the media’s response.

The slobbering praise was so bad that NBC reporters were lauding the fact that Kim Kardashian was tweeting about it. You heard words like “historic” over and over. Brooke Baldwin is almost salivating over John Lewis’ “impassioned” speech. Chuck Todd said this would be the “recipe” for getting a vote. Comparisons to the Civil Rights movement were made.

It was unbelievably positive. There were zero concerns about decorum, holding up other work, or the fact that it was clearly just a political stunt. None at all.

But when Republicans do it in protest, it’s suddenly really, really awful. Funny how that works.

If you read the responses to that tweet, what you’ll see is a ton of “THAT’S DIFFERENT!!” hot takes because of the SCIF being involved.

Here are the facts, some of which I shared in a piece last night. The SCIF is legally accessible by all Congressional members. Period. The fact that Schiff is choosing to abuse it does not turn it into his own personal sanctuary. There was also nothing going on that was classified within those proceedings and no matter what happens in there, authorities would have been checking for breaches afterward. That’s standard procedure. They don’t otherwise have no security measures unless Republicans hand in cellphones while inside. To suggest such is to paint a false picture of what is actually occurring.

What we are seeing here is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple. These media giants absolutely loved political stunts before they were against political stunts. No one should be taking their criticisms as anything other than more partisan rancor.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Shockingly, the Media Absolutely Loved Disruptive Congressional Sit-Ins Until Republicans Did It appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group clowns-300x199 Shockingly, the Media Absolutely Loved Disruptive Congressional Sit-Ins Until Republicans Did It sit-in scif republicans praise Politics MSNBC media bias gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Congress CNN Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Brother of a Sandy Hook Victim Calls Out Joe Biden: He’s ‘Either a Liar or He’s Losing His Mind’

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPimage-620x317 The Brother of a Sandy Hook Victim Calls Out Joe Biden: He’s ‘Either a Liar or He’s Losing His Mind’ Uncategorized sandy hook Politics jt lewis Joe Biden Guns gun control Front Page Stories crime Campaigns Barack Obama Alt Right Allow Media Exception 2020

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at the Polk County Democrats Steak Fry, in Des Moines, Iowa, Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

 

 

Joe Biden is a liar.

So says JT Lewis, who lost his 6-year-old brother, Jesse, in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

According to JT, then-President Obama made a point to visit every single family that lost a loved one.

But now Joe Biden’s claiming the same, and JT’s calling hogwash:

“This is a lie. Obama came to Sandy Hook and met with every family. Joe Biden DID NOT. In fact, my family was not allowed on Air Force One because we refused to support Obama/Biden gun control efforts.”

Being that 2020 quickly approaches, these, of course, are the days of big claims. Everyone wants to take credit for anything and everything good.

See for yourself:



It’s one of the perks of the primaries — watching people get silly trying to outdo one another.

But JT’s not much for that happenin’ with Jiveturkey Joe:

“Joe Biden just claimed that he came to Sandy Hook after the shooting and met with every family who lost someone. It was actually Obama who did that, NOT Joe Biden. Biden also thought he was VP when Parkland happened. @JoeBiden is either a liar or he’s losing his mind.”

The grieving brother also laid it out to The Daily Caller, insisting, “Biden has no idea what he’s talking about. He thought he was VP during Parkland and thought he met with every family during Sandy Hook. Not a good quality in a presidential candidate.”

But while JT’s firm, JB’s holding the line, too.

In his defense, he said he “think[s]” he met with everyone:

Still, ya might wanna make sure before you create a campaign video.

The strange clip sounds as if he’s talking about the murderer — Joe decries the evil of Sandy Hook and says, “[T]he simple proposition is, it’s wrong. It’s wrong. And they should have more of a conscience…”

Then it turns:

“[T]hey should have more of a conscience, the manufacturers. They should have more of a conscience, the NRA.”

Joe sounds confused as to who destroyed lives that day. And what.

It wasn’t a manufacturer.

It was a human being intent upon killing the most innocent among us.

And, in my opinion, that tragedy shouldn’t be used for political maneuvering.

But that’s just me.

As for the above clip’s Twittering, Giffords has “hidden” one of the replies.

Here it is (hold your nose, Teen Vogue):

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Pioneer David Hogg Changes His Tune – The Cause Of Violence In America Is No Longer Guns

The NRA Pulls No Punches In Its Strike Against Walmart’s New Anti-Gun Policy

Man Attempts Armed Robbery, Accidentally Gives His Victim The Gun (Video)

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post The Brother of a Sandy Hook Victim Calls Out Joe Biden: He’s ‘Either a Liar or He’s Losing His Mind’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPimage-300x153 The Brother of a Sandy Hook Victim Calls Out Joe Biden: He’s ‘Either a Liar or He’s Losing His Mind’ Uncategorized sandy hook Politics jt lewis Joe Biden Guns gun control Front Page Stories crime Campaigns Barack Obama Alt Right Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

It All Comes Together: Anti-Gun Dick Sporting Goods CEO Floats Idea of Third-Party Presidential Run

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-620x317 It All Comes Together: Anti-Gun Dick Sporting Goods CEO Floats Idea of Third-Party Presidential Run Third Party Run second amendment Politics gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story elections Ed Stack Dick's Sporting Goods Allow Media Exception 2020

FILE – This Thursday, March 1, 2018, file photo shows a Dick’s Sporting Goods sign at one of their stores. A 20-year-old man in southern Oregon has filed a lawsuit against Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart after he says they refused to sell him a rifle. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)

If you’ve been watching the saga of Dick’s Sporting Goods, you’d know that since the Parkland shooting, the company has been losing money hand over fist thanks to its CEO deciding to take an anti-gun stance, as well as engage in activist work to limit 2nd Amendment rights.

The move by Dick’s CEO, Ed Stack, cost the company somewhere in the ballpark of a quarter of a billion dollars according to Stack himself. Despite his actions losing his company millions, he expressed that he had no regrets for his actions.

(READ: Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Says His Anti-Gun Crusade Has Cost The Company A Quarter Billion Dollars)

It was an odd thing for a CEO to say. Losing that much money isn’t exactly something to be proud of. Even if you are proud of the work you’ve done, it’s not exactly something investors and possibly board members enjoy hearing.

Now, however, it all seems to make sense as reports are now coming in that Stack is weighing a run for the Oval Office as a third-party candidate. As reported by Politico, focus groups are being asked interesting questions about the 2020 lineup, and whether or not he’d do well in the political ring:

Various messages were presented to a focus group in southern Wisconsin this week centering on the billionaire businessman, along with possible three-way match-ups against Donald Trump and Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

The focus group, according to a source who took part in the testing, ran through varying themes involving Stack and heavily focused on his example of “showing leadership” by halting the sale of assault-style rifles at all of Dick’s Sporting Goods stores in the wake of the high school massacre in Parkland, Fla.

A source familiar with Stack denied that the CEO has any intentions to run for office, but as Politico notes, that seems unlikely, given the questions being asked of focus groups. Politico also predicted that Stack’s inclusion into the race as a third-party candidate would have a wide-ranging effect on it.

I disagree.

For one, it’s clear that Stack will enter the race with a platform focused on gun control. A Democrat did that as well and was the first one shown to the door. Given, Rep. Eric Swalwell wasn’t exactly the most choosable candidate, but his platform was already one that Democrats constantly lose on.

Secondly, despite Stack being a self-professed “Republican,” it’s unlikely that he’s going to attract any votes from the right. His anti-gun stance has clearly alienated many right-leaning voters, and he’s definitely not going to attract any by maintaining that. If anything, he may attract a few Democrats who want something other than an extremist like Warren or Sanders, thus splitting the Democrat party and handing Trump an even bigger win than he’s likely going to get already.

What’s more, I’m not sure many in the business community would have faith in him either. He’s already proved he’s willing to sacrifice massive sums of money in order to virtue signal. Business leaders would have to ask themselves how Stack would cripple them in order to enact his vision of America. How many workers are going to feel safe in their jobs?

In short, the funding for his campaign wouldn’t exactly be impressive. Not from big or small donors.

Stack is testing the waters to see if it’s a good idea for him to wade into the 2020 pool, but let me save him some time…

The answer is “no, it’s not.”

 

The post It All Comes Together: Anti-Gun Dick Sporting Goods CEO Floats Idea of Third-Party Presidential Run appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cf1cbbd2-3018-4d8a-aa83-abc9e0481298-300x153 It All Comes Together: Anti-Gun Dick Sporting Goods CEO Floats Idea of Third-Party Presidential Run Third Party Run second amendment Politics gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story elections Ed Stack Dick's Sporting Goods Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Police Continue to Bash Beto Over His Promise to Send Authorities to the Homes of Gun Owners

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeElPaso-620x317 Police Continue to Bash Beto Over His Promise to Send Authorities to the Homes of Gun Owners sheriff second amendment Politics police Guns gun control Front Page Stories elections democrats Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception 2A 2020

Presidential candidate and former congressman Beto O’Rourke speaks with the media outside the Walmart store in the aftermath of a mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, Sunday, Aug. 4, 2019. (AP Photo/Andres Leighton)

Failed Democratic Texas Senate candidate and failing Democratic 2020 candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke made some promises on behalf of America’s law enforcement that America’s law enforcement isn’t happy about, and they’re speaking out about it.

Recently, O’Rourke went on MSNBC and told Joe Scarborough of “Morning Joe” that if he became president and by some dark miracle managed to make AR-15s illegal, he would institute a mandatory buyback. Should you as a gun owner not participate in that buyback, then O’Rourke said he would send law enforcement to pay you a visit.

As I reported, Sheriff’s departments from across the nation began speaking up and letting O’Rourke know that his threat wasn’t only not going to happen due to its unconstitutionality, it’s absolutely foolish in that it could result in the deaths of both civilians and officers. They lambasted O’Rourke for being so flippant about putting lives at risk.

(READ: Sheriffs Send Beto To The Burn Ward Over His Threat To Send Law Enforcement To Gun Owner’s Homes)

Apparently, the bashing from law enforcement is continuing, but now it involves the largest police union in the nation.

According to the Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski, the National Fraternal Order of Police not only stated that his threat was unconstitutional but rubbed salt in the wound by stating that O’Rourke is likely to never be elected:

“Mr. O’Rourke may not be aware that state and local police officers (who comprise more than 90% of all police in the U.S.) receive their orders from their local jurisdictions – not from the Federal government,” Jim Pasco, executive director of the FOP, wrote in an email to the Free Beacon. “Further, any such legislation, if it passed, would no doubt be vigorously litigated with a view to its apparent inconsistency with the Second Amendment.”

“In view of the foregoing, and in view of Mr. O’Rourke’s current standing in the polls, we do not view this as an issue we will have to grapple within the foreseeable future,” he added.

It doesn’t stop there. Gutowski also reported that Sheriff AJ Louderback of Jackson County, Texas, warned that officers would mutiny en masse should a politician try to implement a threat like that into action, and flat out stated his refusal to participate in such an action should he be ordered to:

“I think he’s seriously misjudging the law enforcement response to what he wants to do,” Louderback told the Free Beacon. “Many sheriffs would not comply with his plan.”

Louderback sits on the immigration and government affairs committees of the National Sheriffs’ Association, which represents over 3,000 sheriffs across the country. He described O’Rourke’s plan as unworkable and counterproductive.

“This guy’s plan is ridiculous,” he said. “Everyone is looking for solutions to violent crime but this isn’t one of them. I’m not going to harass my citizens for owning guns.”

The National Association of Police Organizations, which represents a massive number of officers, also verbally slapped O’Rourke for his threat:

“It’s ironic that Beto O’Rourke, who was slamming police as ‘the new Jim Crow’ just a year ago, now finds a need for police when he wants to disarm individuals,” Bill Johnson, executive director of the group, told the Free Beacon. “Maybe poor Beto should spend less time live-streaming his visits to the dentist and attend a basics civics class instead. He’d be reminded that the very first law every police officer swears to uphold is the Constitution.”

The number of officers refusing to do comply with Democrat’s “door to door” promise of gun confiscation should tip off the left to what kind of country they’re trying to disarm. When even law enforcement officials at the very top of offices and unions are openly revolting against you before you’re in a position to be revolted against, you’re not going to have a good time getting your authoritarianism into action.

The post Police Continue to Bash Beto Over His Promise to Send Authorities to the Homes of Gun Owners appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeElPaso-300x153 Police Continue to Bash Beto Over His Promise to Send Authorities to the Homes of Gun Owners sheriff second amendment Politics police Guns gun control Front Page Stories elections democrats Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception 2A 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com