State Bans Guns That Hold More Than 10 Rounds, Citizens Told to Surrender Them or Become Criminals

/0 Comments/in , /by

The state of New Jersey, which is known for its strict gun laws, has tightened regulations with new legislation that gives citizens 180 days to surrender all firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds —and if they are caught with the newly illegal contraband, they will be treated as criminals.

The new rules are courtesy of Assembly Bill 2761, which was recently passed by the state. The bill’s purpose is to reduce “maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds,” and the text states that citizens will have 180 days to comply:

A person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine… which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition… may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days after the effective date of this act.

During the 180-day period, the bill states that citizens can get rid of their firearms and magazines by:

Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;
Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable or permanently modify a large capacity ammunition magazine to accept 10 rounds or less;
Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine

The bill also includes a detailed process for citizens who choose to “voluntarily surrender” their newly illegal firearms and magazines to police. It states that in order to surrender the weapons without being convicted of a crime, the citizens must give written notice, which includes “the proposed date and time of surrender,” and the weapons must be given to the superintendent or the chief of police in the municipality in which the individual lives.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is fighting back against the legislation by filing a motion in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey to block enforcement of the law, on the basis that it violates the Second Amendment.

Scott Bach, the group’s executive director, told the Washington Free Beacon that they are fighting back against the new law because they believe it will be “ignored by criminals and madmen,” and will only affect the law-abiding gun owners who are turned into criminals because of its existence.

“It turns one million people into criminals with the stroke of a pen, limits self-defense, and takes away property lawfully acquired. Buy it yesterday, ban it today, go to prison tomorrow—it’s the Jersey way, and the goal of our lawsuit is to boot this law, which makes no one safer, into the trash heap of history where it belongs,” Bach said.

Those who choose to protect themselves and their families and resist this legislation by holding on to their weapons will be charged with a 4th degree felony and face up to 18 months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

This legislation is just one of several bills that have been passed in New Jersey recently, with the purpose of increasing gun restrictions in a state that is already known for its strict gun laws. Gov. Phil Murphy signed the bills into law earlier this month, which are all targeted at increasing gun control by expanding background checks, adding increased restrictions to concealed carry permits, and establishing a “red flag” system where individuals can report people who they believe are dangerous, and those suspects will have their firearms temporarily seized by police.

Assembly Bill 1217 authorizes “gun violence restraining orders” and firearm seizure warrants; Assembly Bill 1181 requires firearms seizure when mental health professionals determines a patient poses a threat of harm to himself or others; Assembly Bill 2757 requires background check for private gun sales; Assembly Bill 2758 codifies and restricts regulations defining justifiable need to carry handgun; and Assembly Bill 2759 prohibits possession of ammunition that qualifies as “capable of penetrating body armor.”

Yet even with the current gun regulations in place, a convicted felon who spent years in prison on aggravated manslaughter charges was able to access a handgun, which he used to unleash a hail of bullets on a crowd at an arts festival in Trenton, New Jersey, last week, and 22 people were injured as a result. Everything he did to obtain the gun and open fire was illegal—none of the laws stopped him.

When strict control gun control laws are enforced, it is not the criminals who suffer, but the law-abiding citizens who own guns for the purpose of protecting themselves and their families, and the new gun restrictions in New Jersey set a dangerous precedent that could serve as a blueprint for other states to follow. (For more from the author of “State Bans Guns That Hold More Than 10 Rounds, Citizens Told to Surrender Them or Become Criminals” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

California Considering Creating Advisory Group For Fake News

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an Orwellian move straight out of 1984, California has proposed a bill to consider creating a “fake news” advisory group in order to monitor information posted and spread on social media, CBS reported.

Senate Bill 1424 would require the California Attorney General to create an advisory committee by April 1st, 2019. Further, the council would need to consist of at least one person from the Department of Justice, representatives from social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars.

The advisory group would be required to study how false information is spread online and come up with a plan for social media platforms to fix the problem. The Attorney General would then need to present that plan to the Legislature by December 31st, 2019. The group would also need to come up with criteria establishing what is “fake news” and what is just biased information.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes the bill, calling it “flawed” and “misguided.” The group argues the measure would make the government and advisory group responsible for deciding what is true or false. It also points out the First Amendment prevents content-based restrictions, even if the statements of “admittedly false.”

Last year the previous iterations of California’s crusade against fake news Assembly Bill 1104 or “The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act,” included making it against the law to publish and spread so-called “fake news” that could potentially impact a political race.

In another Senate Bill 947 earlier this year senators proposed teaching students how to spot “fake news.” The legislation aims to come up with statewide school standards on Internet safety and digital citizenship, including cyberbullying and privacy as well as fighting fake news.

The text of the California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act was so Orwellian that it could apply to anyone who writes, publishes or even shares news stories that could be false, if those news stories are later found to have had an impact on an election.

From the bill:

This bill would modify the definition of the terms “political cyberfraud” and “political Web site” to include Internet Web sites that urge or appear to urge the support or opposition of candidates for public office. The bill would also make it unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on a Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on a Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on any issue submitted to voters at an election or on any candidate for election to public office.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), once again fought back saying the bill was “so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.”

Memo to California Assemblymember Ed Chau: you can’t fight fake news with a bad law.

On Tuesday, the California Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs, which Chau chairs, will consider A.B. 1104—a censorship bill so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.

This bill will fuel a chaotic free-for-all of mudslinging with candidates and others being accused of crimes at the slightest hint of hyperbole, exaggeration, poetic license, or common error. While those accusations may not ultimately hold up, politically motivated prosecutions—or the threat of such—may harm democracy more than if the issue had just been left alone. Furthermore, A.B. 1104 makes no exception for satire and parody, leaving The Onion and Saturday Night Live open to accusations of illegal content. Nor does it exempt news organizations who quote deceptive statements made by politicians in their online reporting—even if their reporting is meant to debunk those claims. And what of everyday citizens who are duped by misleading materials: if 1,000 Californians retweet an incorrect statement by a presidential candidate, have they all broken the law?

At a time when political leaders are promoting “alternative facts” and branding unflattering reporting as “fake news,” we don’t think it’s a good idea to give the government more power to punish speech.

The legislation was then pulled after massive blowback from the public, EFF and other privacy rights groups.

The EFF wrote at the time, “At a time when political leaders are promoting “alternative facts” and branding unflattering reporting as “fake news,” we don’t think it’s a good idea to give the government more power to punish speech.”

I couldn’t agree more; it probably isn’t a good idea to give Trump’s government more power to punish free speech. But beyond Trump this is a growing and worrying trend of legislators worldwide who want to censor information and decide what is and isn’t fake, a move that would undoubtedly allow tyranny by prohibiting negative information.

In April of this year, Malaysia approved a law against “fake news” under the Anti-Fake News 2018 bill that would allow for prison time of up to six years for offenders, shrugging off critics who say it was aimed at curbing dissent and free speech ahead of a general election and amid a multi-billion dollar scandal at state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), Activist Post reported.

In recent years (increasingly at a rapid rate in the last few months especially), we have seen a visible crackdown on freedom of speech in a number of countries seeking to silence political opinion and news including – Egypt, France, Germany, Indonesia, Brazil, Italy , Singapore, Philippines, Russia, India and of course China. (There still may be other countries missed at the time of this report, or further countries to add at a later time.)

Article 19, an organization formed in 1987 to defend free speech, stated in an article that “a number of countries around the world prohibit the dissemination of false information, even if it is not defamatory in nature.” It adds, however, that these laws against fake news are “rare in the more established democracies and have been ruled unconstitutional in some.”

The U.N. Human Rights Council has “reiterated that false news provisions ‘unduly limit the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression,’” notes Article 19.

The U.N. council has upheld this even in cases of news that may cause public unrest, on grounds that “in all such cases, imprisonment as punishment for the peaceful expression of an opinion constitutes a serious violation of human rights.”

Since the year 2000 in China it has been illegal to post rumors, and news deemed “fake” can lead to prison sentences.

In 2000, the China Finance Information Network was fined $1,807 for re-publishing a report from a Hong Kong news outlet that claimed the vice governor of Hubei Province had accepted bribes from a local company.

In Western countries, the State cannot simply fine a news outlet, and any lawsuit over a story can be defended against if the outlet can prove the article’s claims are verified to be true.

In China, there is no opportunity for outlets to defend themselves.

In November 2015, the Chinese Communist Party revised its law to impose sentences of up to seven years in prison for “spreading rumors” about disasters. Human Rights Watch stated the rule could be abused.

In the past, the Chinese government has detained netizens who questioned official casualty figures or who had published alternative information about disasters ranging from SARS in 2003 to the Tianjin chemical blast in 2015, under the guise of preventing “rumors.”

Meanwhile, in Russia, the Russian telecom regulator is preparing a draft decree designed purely and simply to block all content that contains false information.

As such, since July 2016 content aggregators have been required to verify the veracity of reports that they publish if they do not come from media outlets registered in Russia, and could face harsh penalties for fake news. The Russian Foreign Ministry has posted a new section on its official website dedicated to debunking fake anti-Russian news stories published by international news outlets. (For more from the author of “California Considering Creating Advisory Group for Fake News” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Socialist Candidate Pulls a ‘Seismic Political Upset’ Against Democratic Party Boss

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Democratic party faced an enormous shakeup Tuesday when an unlikely socialist candidate beat a powerful 10-term incumbent for one of New York’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. . .

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old member of the Democratic-Socialists of America, knocked out machine-boss incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y), who was widely considered a candidate to follow Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as the leader of Democrats in the House of Representatives.

“We saw these numbers coming in, we couldn’t believe it. We checked, we reloaded, this is a seismic political upset!” said MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki in his typically breathless fashion.

“To put this in some perspective,” he explained, “Joe Crowley has been there since 1998, he was thought to be the next Democratic leader in waiting potentially a speaker of the house here, he runs the Queens county democratic party in the old sense of the word.”

Ocasio-Cortez won the 14th district in New York which includes Queens and a portion of the Bronx. Crowley spent $1.09 million on the campaign in the same time that Ocasio-Cortez spent only $127,000. (Read more from “Socialist Candidate Pulls a ‘Seismic Political Upset’ Against Democratic Party Boss” HERE)

Maxine Waters Takes Own Advice, Gets Physical With Conservative Reporter

/0 Comments/in , , /by

. . .Democrat California Rep. Maxine “Impeach 45” Waters is one of those who is inciting leftists to engage in what amounts to mob violence against members of Trump’s administration and those who support him, an effort to shame such individuals and make them feel unwelcome in general society.

At a weekend rally in Los Angeles, Waters proclaimed, “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

However, even as she has received a rebuke from some on the left, many others are in agreement with Waters’ call to publicly harass Trump associates and supporters, and others have defended her comments by parsing her words to state she never called for violence, even as violent action was clearly implied by and an inevitable result of her demands for mob action.

According to Big League Politics, conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer tracked down Waters in the halls of Congress and asked her a series of questions with regard to her call to mob action, but Waters was in no mood to answer any questions. . .

On at least two and possibly three occasions, Waters attempted to bat away Loomer’s camera or cover it up with a sheet of paper, a physical act that could easily have accelerated the situation into a violent altercation. (Read more from “Maxine Waters Takes Own Advice, Gets Physical With Conservative Reporter” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HUGE: Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Federalist. The Supreme Court upheld the latest iteration of President Trump’s travel ban in a 5-4 ruling Tuesday, delivering a big win to the administration on a key campaign promise.

The proclamation temporarily suspends immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries with deficient vetting procedures or significant ties to terrorism. The state of Hawaii, which brought the case, claimed the ban unlawfully discriminates against Muslims, but the court found Trump was well within his rights granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the president broad powers to suspend entry from countries deemed a threat.

“By its terms, [the law] exudes deference to the President in every clause,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions.”

Roberts was joined in that opinion by justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito. The four liberals on the court — justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor — cast the dissenting votes.

(Read more from “Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban” HERE)

___________________________________________

Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban 5-4

By Washington Post. . .The vote was 5 to 4, with conservatives in the majority and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. finding that a string of unprecedented comments and warnings from Trump about Muslims did not erode the president’s vast powers to control entry into this country. . .

Later, the White House issued a formal response that also took a swipe at Trump’s declared enemies. It called the ruling a “vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

Lower courts had struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel ban, the first of which was issued in January 2017. But the administration said it fortified the order in response to each judicial setback, and it had reason to be optimistic about the Supreme Court, since the justices previously decided to let the ban go into effect while considering the challenges to it. (Read more from “Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban 5-4” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Investigation: Obama’s People Drugged, Force-Fed Meds to Border Kids

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A blockbuster report last week by the Center for Investigative Reporting cast a glaring light on a practice of U.S. authorities forcing immigrant children who have been separated from their parents to take psychiatric medicines – and forcibly injecting them if they resisted.

But in its eagerness to damn President Donald Trump and his administration for yet another aspect of handling illegal alien minors, according to a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner, the report left out one crucial detail.

The practice began during the Obama administration, and three of the four minors who are plaintiffs in a lawsuit naming Attorney General Jeff Sessions as a defendant were actually drugged long before Trump even took the oath of office.

As reported by the Washington Examiner’s Philip Wegmann, a lengthy article published Wednesday by Reveal, a publication of the Center for Investigative Reporting, failed to note anywhere in the text that the practice of drugging illegal alien children at a Houston-area social services contractor was begun while Obama was in the White House. . .

“Three of the four children cited in the report were drugged during the Obama administration. According to federal court filings, only one occurred while Trump was actually president. The other three happened in 2016. That timing is left out of the story, which, after opening with Trump’s policies, never mentions the years of the specific incidents of mistreatment.” (Read more from “Investigation: Obama’s People Drugged, Force-Fed Meds to Border Kids” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CHILL: Maxine Waters Bursts Into Tears, Uses ‘the Children’ as an Excuse for Harassment Comments

/0 Comments/in , /by

California Rep. Maxine Waters burst into tears Monday on MSNBC as she used “the children” to deflect away from the harassment comments she made over the weekend. . .

Waters then burst into tears after being confronted with the fact that major Democrats are denouncing her harassment claims.

“They don’t really say I’m out of line. What they do is try to find a way talk about civility without attacking me or anybody else as the leader of the Democratic Party, I expect that she would do everything that she could to make sure nobody believes that Democrats are out here harassing anybody or causing any violence,” Waters said of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who denounced Waters’ harassment comments Monday.

Waters made comments over the weekend about getting out and pushing back on people with differing political ideologies, saying, “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome any more, anywhere!” (Read more from “CHILL: Maxine Waters Bursts Into Tears, Uses ‘the Children’ as an Excuse for Harassment Comments” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

There Are Over One Billion Firearms Worldwide. This Is How Many Are Owned by Americans

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The United States is the land of the free and the home of the brave. We all know this. We’re also a nation that cherishes gun ownership and our Second Amendment rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Right now, as with any mass shooting, those rights are under attack by the political Left. All of these shootings are horrific, but chipping away at the rights of law-abiding citizenry for the sake of safety is unwise and dangerous. It’s always been that way. Sandy Hook was a heinous crime, but no new legislation to curtail our rights occurred. The anti-gun Left went for the Hail Mary and failed. Now, they’ve focusing on local legislative goals. The push for universal background checks is no longer a focus; it’s increasing the age for purchasing firearms. Vermont and Florida, which has Republican, pro-NRA governors, caved on this front. They’re gaining legislative wins, but while the Left’s their ultimate goal is to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate firearms, reality might upend that grand scheme.

We all know there are over 300 million firearms owned in the U.S. To enact laws to fully take all of them would need policies seen in brutal authoritarian regimes. According to Small Arms Survey, there are over 1 billion firearms in worldwide circulation, and Americans own 393 million of them. That’s 46 percent (via Time):

There are over 1 billion firearms in the world today, including 857 million in civilian hands — with American men and women the dominant owners, according to a study released Monday.

The Small Arms Survey says 393 million of the civilian-held firearms, 46 percent, are in the United States, which is “more than those held by civilians in the other top 25 countries combined.”

(Read more from “There Are Over One Billion Firearms Worldwide. This Is How Many Are Owned by Americans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Lame Duck GOP Senator’s Excuse for Blocking Trump Judges Will Set Your Hair on Fire

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Daily Caller. Outgoing GOP Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona is blocking votes on all of President Donald Trump’s appeals court nominees to secure concessions from Republican leaders on tariffs and Cuban travel restrictions.

Flake, a Trump antagonist who is not seeking reelection amid floundering popularity with Arizona Republicans, has not openly addressed the matter, though his seat on a closely divided Senate Judiciary Committee gives him significant leverage over judgeships.

Roll Call first reported that Flake halted a committee vote on Georgia Supreme Court Justice Britt Grant’s nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals court based in Atlanta. CNN confirmed late Wednesday that the senator will block all appeals court nominees to prompt discussions on relations with Cuba and the president’s escalating trade war with much of the industrial world.

Flake is one of 11 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which issues recommendations on judicial nominees before a final confirmation vote. The GOP has a one-vote majority on the panel, making Flake’s cooperation essential if Republicans wish to process candidates.

As of this writing, there are 10 appeals court nominees pending before the committee, including a candidate for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a regular target of conservative scorn and has jurisdiction over Flake’s home state. (Read more from “This Lame Duck GOP Senator’s Excuse for Blocking Trump Judges Will Set Your Hair on Fire” HERE)

_______________________________________________

At Rally in Minnesota, Trump Says Border Will Stay “Tough”

By CBS News. President Trump was in his element Wednesday night at a rally in Duluth, Minn., where supporters cheered him on as he blasted illegal immigration, praised his relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, promoted his new “Space Force” and mocked protesters.

In the roughly one-hour rally, the president jumped from topic to topic, as he often does, lightly touching on his decision earlier in the day to temporarily end family separation at the border. Mr. Trump said the U.S. will still be “tough” at the border, despite that policy change by executive order, a policy change Mr. Trump had said only days ago couldn’t be done by executive order.

Mr. Trump also reiterated his claim that he will halt foreign aid to countries from which people immigrate illegally.

“They’re not sending their finest,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re sending them the hell back. That’s what we’re doing.” (Read more from “At Rally in Minnesota, Trump Says Border Will Stay “Tough” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

McCain Staffer Had Nasty Plan for Tea Parties

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The IRS targeting of tea party and Christian groups during the 2012 presidential election campaign, when Barack Obama was seeking his second term, was just one of many examples of the deployment of the federal bureaucracy for political purposes during the previous administration. . .

Judicial Watch has obtained internal IRS documents that show a staff-level employee for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., urged the IRS to audit the targeted groups until it became “ruinous” for them.

Henry Kerner was McCain’s staff director and chief counsel of the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee at the time. He since has been appointed by President Trump to the United States Office of Special Counsel.

“The explosive exchange was contained in notes taken by IRS employees at an April 30, 2013, meeting between Kerner, [former IRS official Lois] Lerner, and other high-ranking IRS officials. Just ten days following the meeting, former IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner admitted that the IRS had a policy of improperly and deliberately delaying applications for tax-exempt status from conservative non-profit groups,” Judicial Watch said. . .

“The Obama IRS scandal is bipartisan – McCain and Democrats who wanted to regulate political speech lost at the Supreme Court, so they sought to use the IRS to harass innocent Americans,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. (Read more from “McCain Staffer Had Nasty Plan for Tea Parties” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.