California’s One-Gun-a-Month Rule Is Tossed

Judge William Hayes ruled that California’s law forbidding a citizen from purchasing more than one firearm, or a “precursor” such as a receiver, per month, is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen in 2022 upended the basis for states such as California seeking to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

.

Judge William Hayes, appointed by President George W. Bush to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in 2003, ruled that California’s law forbidding a citizen from purchasing more than one firearm, or a “precursor” such as a receiver, per month, is unconstitutional.

The arguments brought forth by the state illustrated clearly the bankruptcy of the law, its specious nature, and its complete disconnect from reality. As more of these faux arguments are ferreted out of our nation’s history and discarded by judges such as Hayes, the more likely these laws passed before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen in 2022 will also be found to be unconstitutional.

In a word, Bruen upended the basis for states such as California seeking to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The “rationing” of one gun per month is just one attempt, and was properly ruled unconstitutional.

The claims brought against the state of California were simple enough: Such rationing violated on the Second Amendment, and therefore is unconstitutional. But California reached the bottom of the barrel in its search for some law, somewhere, somehow, that could persuade the judge that such rationing was in fact constitutional.

The state failed, miserably.

First, the state claimed that “rationing” didn’t violate the right to “keep” and “bear” arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. It was intended, lawyers for California said with a straight face, to “stop one gun purchaser from buying several firearms and transferring [a] firearm to another person who does not have the legal ability to buy a gun him/herself … a ‘straw transaction.’”

Plaintiffs, including five Californians and three gun-rights groups, held that the rationing inhibited their right to keep and bear arms, as the right to keep arms “necessarily involves the right to purchase them.” The judge held that “defendants must justify the OGM [one gun a month] law” by proving that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

This, they could not do. But they tried.

First, “gunpowder regulations.” The state produced evidence of laws in history that “placed limits on the ownership and storage of gunpowder,” declaring those laws analogous to the “rationing” imposed on gun owners in California. But the judge saw through the façade: Those laws were created to prevent accidental fires and explosions.

Next, restrictions on the sale of firearms to Native Americans.

Lawyers from California, again with a straight face, claimed that limits placed on Native Americans (that were passed due to the risk of “Native violence”) “do not impose a comparable burden to the OGM law,” wrote the judge.

Third, restrictions on “Deadly Weapons” such as knives, swords, and the like.

The judge nearly laughed this argument out of court:

To the extent these nineteenth century laws prohibited the sale of certain deadly weapons because they were “dangerous and unusual,” they “provide no justification for laws restricting the [acquisition] of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today.

Lastly, taxing and licensing regulations.

Read full article here…

 




Judge Halts California Law Banning Concealed Carry Guns in Many Public Places

A federal judge blocked parts of a California law that would have banned carrying concealed firearms in certain “sensitive places,” including places of worship, public libraries, amusement parks, zoos and sporting events. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said that California plans to appeal the decision. The law applies to those with licenses to carry a concealed weapon. Judge Cormac Carney wrote that the new law “turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’ effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.” He called it “repugnant.”

The judge cited a recent landmark Supreme Court decision to justify blocking the sweeping California state law, which had been challenged by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and Gun Owners of America, among other plaintiffs.

.

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked parts of a California law that would have banned carrying concealed firearms in certain “sensitive places,” including places of worship, public libraries, amusement parks, zoos and sporting events.

California is planning to file an appeal of the decision, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Wednesday, adding that “the court got this wrong.”

The law, among a series of gun control measures signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, applies to those with licenses to carry a concealed weapon.

US District Judge Cormac Carney granted a preliminary injunction, and indicated that provisions of Senate Bill 2 that were being challenged “unconstitutionally deprive” concealed carry holders of their rights to carry a handgun.

The judge called the coverage of California’s law “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

“SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’ effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public,” Carney wrote in his order.

Newsom quickly hit back, saying the judge’s decision defies common sense.

“This ruling outrageously calls California’s data-backed gun safety efforts ‘repugnant.’ What is repugnant is this ruling, which greenlights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds — spaces, which should be safe for all,” the governor said in a statement to CNN.

“California will keep fighting to defend our laws and to enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution. The lives of our kids depend on it,” he added.

When he signed the gun laws in September, Newsom cited shootings across the country that left at least 104 people dead over the 72 hours prior to the signing.

Nationwide there have been 642 mass shootings so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive – including the mass shootings in California’s Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay, which left a total of 18 people dead.

The judge cited a recent landmark Supreme Court decision to justify blocking the sweeping California state law, which had been challenged by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and Gun Owners of America, among other plaintiffs.

That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, changed the framework judges must use to review gun regulations and determined that modern-day laws restricting gun ownership are only constitutional if consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

While assessing various public areas where California’s law prohibited the concealed carry of a firearm, Carney indicated the State of California had not provided a sufficient “historical analogue” to similar laws banning weapons in areas like zoos, museums, libraries and hospitals.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Bonta said Senate Bill 2 does adhere to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Bruen.

“If allowed to stand, this decision would endanger communities by allowing guns in places where families and children gather,” said Attorney General Bonta said in a statement. “Guns in sensitive public places do not make our communities safer, but rather the opposite. More guns in more sensitive places makes the public less safe; the data supports it.”

The attorney general noted that the judge’s decision does not address prohibitions on carrying guns in other places not challenged in the lawsuits, including schools, airports and legislative offices. “Those restrictions remain in full effect,” he said.

Gun rights groups quickly celebrated Carney’s decision Wednesday.

“This is a great day for Californians and human liberty,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The court’s decision is both well-reasoned and the required result under the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Bruenhas resulted in the blocking of several gun laws at the circuit court level across the country, with cases covering a range of topics including the right of felons to own guns, possessing weapons without serial numbers, the ownership of firearms by individuals subjected to restraining orders, and state assault weapon bans.

Read full article here…




Gavin Newsom’s Gun Grabbing Constitutional Addition Would Repeal the Second Amendment

.

Whatever else Gov. Gavin Newsom ’s (D-CA) campaign for a 28th Amendment gets wrong about guns, at least it implicitly admits that the Democratic Party’s gun control wish list is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment . After all, why propose an amendment if the Constitution doesn’t forbid what you want to accomplish?

Leaving Newsom’s admission aside, however, his 28th Amendment would accomplish nothing, at least nothing good. At worst, it would lay the legal groundwork for confiscating every gun in the United States.

Newsom has offered no text for his amendment, only four “principles” he wants written into it. This allows him to propose “barring civilian purchase of assault weapons” without ever having to define exactly what an “assault weapon” is.

Define it too narrowly and gun manufacturers will create new models that skirt the definition. Define it too broadly by saying it is “any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine,” for example, and you outlaw almost half the handguns in the nation. If the text of Newsom’s 28th Amendment is ever written, he’ll have to choose. The first option renders his amendment useless; the second would mean it never gets the votes to become law.

Not all of Newsom’s principles are so vague. Raising the legal age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21 is an easy bright line to enforce, but there isn’t any evidence that it would reduce gun crimes at all. But how can we raise the age to 21 when people may vote when three years younger than that?

Newsom’s third principle calls for a “reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases.” What is “reasonable” is not defined. We know from existing state waiting periods that they reduce gun suicides for those over 55, but they have no effect on gun homicide rates overall.

Finally, Newsom calls for “universal background checks” for gun purchases. But all commercial gun purchases are subject to universal background checks already. What Newsom is really calling for here is background checks for all private firearm transfers. Anytime anyone transfers gun ownership, from father to son, for example, or from neighbor to neighbor, Newsom wants the federal government to know about it.

Some states have tried this, and compliance is nonexistent. It is estimated that only 3.5% of private transfers in Oregon, for example, complied with that state’s universal background check law. The only way to achieve anything approaching effective compliance would be for the federal government to create a national gun registry and force all owners to register their firearms with the feds. That is the Democrats’ real goal with a universal background check system: a new government database that knows who owns every gun in the country and where they live.

Read full article here…




Lawsuit Against Kyle Rittenhouse is an Attack on Self Defense and the 2nd Amendment

Kyle Rittenhouse killed two men and wounded a third man in self defense during a Black Lives Matter riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020. He is now being sued in civil court by Gaige Grosskreutz, the man Rittenhouse shot in the arm. Grosskreutz testified in the criminal trial against Rittenhouse that he pointed a loaded gun at Rittenhouse’s head just before Rittenhouse shot him in the shoulder. Tucker Carlson said that the civil lawsuits are being used across the country to bankrupt people who have justifiably protected themselves in order to nullify the right to self defense in America.

.




California: New Law Allows Gun Manufacturers to Be Sued For Negligence Based on Sandy Hook Precedent

A new law signed by California Governor Newsom could allow gun makers to be sued by citizens, local governments, or the state’s attorney general if one of their firearms is used irresponsibly or causes harm. Under federal law, gun manufacturers are typically protected from civil lawsuits under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), but can still be held responsible if they are found to be guilty of negligence or in breach of contract. California’s law would be enacted under an exemption of that 2005 law by allowing private citizens to file a lawsuit if the gun maker is found to be in violation of state laws regarding gun sales or marketing.

Nine families of victims from the Sandy Hook shooting event successfully sued Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the weapon reportedly used by Adam Lanza, setting a bad precedent. Mark Pellin reported that the plaintiffs circumvented federal law and claimed that the company’s advertising and marketing campaigns made Remington culpable rather than the actual firearm itself. He wrote that the Remington case was meant to deliver a template for future litigants to go after gun manufacturers and clears the way for more litigation that will either force other gun companies out of business under the financial stress of defending themselves, effectively reducing the supply of guns, or make guns so prohibitively expensive that the average law-abiding citizen can’t afford them.

Please refer to our earlier reports (here and here) on the Remington case that settled for $73 million and James Fetzer’s case in which he was sued by a parent of Sandy Hook and he says the shooting event was staged to disarm America.

Gun manufacturers in California may become susceptible to lawsuits from private citizens alleging negligence under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday.

The legislation could allow gun makers to be sued by citizens, local governments, or the state’s attorney general if one of their firearms is used irresponsibly or causes harm. It would also create a code of conduct to reduce gun violence that would “establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls … pertaining to unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and false advertising,” according to the bill .

“Nearly every industry is held to account when their products cause harm or injury,” Newsom said . “All except one: the gun industry. Today, California is going to change that. They can no longer hide from the mass destruction that they have caused.”

Under federal law, gun manufacturers are typically protected from civil lawsuits under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act but can still be held responsible if they are found to be guilty of negligence or in breach of contract.

Newsom’s law would be enacted under an exemption of that 2005 law by allowing private citizens to file a lawsuit if the gun maker is found to be in violation of state laws regarding gun sales or marketing. The bill was specifically modeled after an abortion law passed in Texas earlier this year that deputizes private citizens to sue abortion providers who are found guilty of aiding or abetting abortion in the state.

Read full article here…

Need To Know/ Fetzer:    https://needtoknow.news/2022/03/the-sandy-hook-shooting-a-huge-controversy-that-lingers/

Need To Know/ Remington:   https://needtoknow.news/2022/02/%ef%bf%bcremington-arms-to-pay-73-million-in-sandy-hook-case-cerberus-bankrupted-remington/




California AG Publishes Names and Addresses of Concealed Carry Gun Permit Holders

California Attorney General Rob Bonta posted the names, addresses and birth dates of concealed-carry permit holders on the California Department of Justice website on Monday. Bonta claimed the move was to help the public access data on guns in California, including information about the issuance of Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits and Gun Violence Restraining Orders. The list included 244 judge permits and 420 reserve officers. Lee Williams, an editor at the Second Amendment Foundation, said that Bonta published the names of CCW permit holders was retaliation for the Supreme Court’s recent decision that affirmed the right to bear arms outside the home. He wrote that Bonta’s true intent was to put Californians on notice that if they want to exercise this right, they will pay a price, and the price will be their privacy, safety, and security. Guns are the third most sought-after item by burglars and these gun owners are now targets.

On Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta posted the names and addresses of concealed-carry permit holders on the California Department of Justice website.

In a press release, Bonta claimed the move was to “improve transparency and information sharing for firearms-related data and includes broad enhancements to the platform to help the public access data on firearms in California, including information about the issuance of Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits and Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs).”

He also claimed it will help promote “gun violence” research, and foster “trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve.”

Make No Mistake, This Was 100% BS.

Bonta’s move was clearly retaliation for the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed the right to bear arms outside the home.

Bonta’s true intent was to put Californians on notice that if they want to exercise this right, they will pay a price, and the price will be their privacy, safety, and security.

You see, Bonta has created a handy reference guide for burglars, home invaders, and other criminals. Now, they’ve got a searchable database of firearm owners and homes where guns are kept. Guns have always been the third most sought-after item by burglars, after prescription meds and cash.

What’s not included in Bonta’s press release, tweets or media interviews is the chilling effect this will have on the Second Amendment in the Golden State. Anyone who wants to carry a defensive firearm must now risk a complete loss of their privacy and the increased likelihood they and their family will be targeted by criminals.

I’m sure California’s booming gun-ban industry, which likely played a significant role in developing this idea, has already made plans on how to use the database to its advantage. Look for massive doxing, which will include false red-flag complaints, cyber-crimes, and other online harassment.

Read full article here…




US Supreme Court Rules that Americans Are Legally Allowed to Carry Guns in Public

The US Supreme Court issued a rare decision supporting constitutional gun rights and ruled 6-3 that Americans have the right to carry arms outside of the home and in public — in a major victory for advocates of the Second Amendment. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association against the state. The suit argued that the restriction made it almost impossible to get a legal carry permit and made the Second Amendment a privilege and not a right. The ruling will affect other states that have similar laws, including California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued a rare decision involving constitutional gun rights and ruled that Americans have the right to carry arms outside of the home and in public — in a major victory for advocates of the Second Amendment.

The high court voted 6-3 in striking down a New York law that said gun owners must demonstrate a need to carry firearms outside the home.

The court was split along ideological lines, with all six conservative justices voting against the New York law and the three progressive justices voting to uphold the gun-safety statute.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said that the New York law goes too far in restricting legal possession of firearms and said it violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“Because the state of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Thomas wrote in the ruling.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett wrote concurring opinions and Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the current term, wrote a dissenting opinion.

Read full article here…




The Sandy Hook Shooting – A Huge Controversy that Lingers

James Fetzer, author of Nobody Died At Sandy Hook, It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control, was unable to present his evidence in a lawsuit brought against him by a parent of a child reportedly killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Fetzer plans to take his case to the Supreme Court. He said that there has never been a determination that anybody ever died at Sandy Hook and that ought to be done before Remington, the gun manufacturer, pays $73 million to settle a lawsuit with parents of children from Sandy Hook. Fetzer tried to intervene in the Remington case. Curiously, both parties in the case, the Sandy Hook parents and Remington, opposed Fetzer’s intervention on their behalf!

 

Summary by JW Williams

James Fetzer, a retired university professor and author of Nobody Died At Sandy Hook, It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control, offered his book for free, after it was censored, and then it was downloaded over 10-million times. Mr. Fetzer has collected evidence that he says shows that the 2012 shooting event at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticuit, was really a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) drill that was then used to claim that children and teachers were massacred in the shooting but, in truth, it was a deception, and no one really died that day. He says that the purpose of the staged shooting was to promote gun control.

Fetzer was sued by Lenny Pozner, father of Noah Pozner, who was reportedly shot to death by Adam Lanza who stole the gun from his mother and shot her before killing 20 students and six adult staffers and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

James Fetzer Describes Curious Facts about the Lawsuit Against Him

Mr. Pozner filed a the lawsuit because Fetzer claimed that his son, Noah, was issued a death certificate that was not authentic. Fetzer had two experts examine the death certificate and they said it was not authentic. Curiously, a A total of four different death certificates have been presented.

The judge, instead of simply excluding the document experts’ reports, which would be grounds for an appeal, instead “set aside” the experts’ reports as someone’s “opinions” thereby shutting down Fetzer’s ability to submit evidence in his own defense. The case should have been sent to a jury to resolve this disputed fact.

On the topic if the death certificate, the judge refused to allow Fetzer to present any evidence that Sandy Hook was a hoax and no one died. Fetzer quoted the judge as saying, “Whether or not Sandy Hook really happened is not relevant to this, the truthfulness or the accuracy of the death certificate.”

But Noah’s Pozner’s death certificate alleges that he died at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012 of “multiple gunshot wounds,” which does make Fetzer’s evidence extremely relevant to the deathcertificate issue. The judge made a summary judgement when the primary fact of authenticity was in dispute.

After the judge granted the summary judgement against Fetzer, a jury trial was held for damages without knowing of his evidence and he was ordered to pay $450,000 to Mr. Pozner in 2019.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to review Fetzer’s case, and he is now taking it to the US Supreme Court.

Mr. Fetzer stated that no one may be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law. This case will be used to deny right to due process and is a threat to jurisprudence. Therefore, Fetzer may pursue a case of deprivation of rights under color of law because the judge violated his rights in a form of dereliction of duty. Fetzer can only bring this lawsuit after all other avenues have been exhausted, including going to the US Supreme Court.

Sandy Hook Parents’ Lawsuit Against Remington Arms

Last month, in a precedent-setting case, Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 weapon that was purportedly used in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by families of Sandy Hook victims for $73 million. The settlement will be paid through insurance companies.

This is the first time a gun manufacturer will pay a massshooting claim in the US because there is a federal law that shields gun makers and dealers from most civil litigation. However, there is a loophole in the law if marketing of the firearms contributed to the massacre.

The Cerberus private equity firm bought Remington in 2007, and was accused of launching an ‘aggressive’ campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter video games and by touting the AR-15 as an effective killing machine.

Cerberus used the assets of Remington Arms to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars saddling it with the debt in 2012, which led to Remington’s bankruptcy.

Cerberus is also the parent company of DynCorp, a major national security contractor with the US government that charges billions for overseas military and police training. DynCorp has been involved in a number of scandals including pedophilia, rape, child trafficking, sexual slavery with boys in Afghanistan, and child pornography.

In 2018, former President Trump named Cerberus co-founder Stephen Feinberg to head the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

Fetzer Says Remington is Part of the Hoax!

Mr. Fetzer says that no one died at Sandy Hook. Here are some of his reasons for saying that: the school had been closed since 2008, no teachers or students were there, there were no ambulances, no medi-vac helicopters, nor any school buses on the scene. He also says that a FEMA manual for the mass casualty exercise was discovered.

Mr. Fetzer tried to intervene in the Remington lawsuit because there has never been a determination that anybody ever died at Sandy Hook and he says that ought to be done before Remington pays $73 million. Curiously, both parties in the case, the Sandy Hook parents and Remington, opposed Fetzer’s intervention on their behalf! Fetzer said that the management of Remington is “in on it” and is part of the plot for gun control.

Former President Obama nullified the Smith Munn Act of 1948 by supporting the Modernization Act of 2012, which, now allows allows the government to use tactics within America that the CIA commonly uses in other countries, such as propaganda, fake shootings, staged riots and crisis actors.

Fetzer says that Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to provoke gun control, and that he was sued to make him shut up. He said that Remington has paved the way for the scam to require gun owners to obtain insurance as the way to get registration and confiscation.

One can only wonder what the jury verdict would have been if the evidence for this seemingly outrageous claim had not been suppressed.

Sources:

Fetzer interview:   https://noliesradio.org/archives/187565  or  alternative link

givesendgo:     https://givesendgo.com/fundingfetzer
 
Background:    https://jamesfetzer.org/2019/06/jim-fetzer-why-the-sandy-hook-pozner-v-fetzer-lawsuit-matters/
 
Reuters:    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nine-sandy-hook-families-settle-liability-claims-with-remington-arms-2022-02-15/
 
Need to Know News:  https://needtoknow.news/2022/02/%ef%bf%bcremington-arms-to-pay-73-million-in-sandy-hook-case-cerberus-bankrupted-remington/

 




San Jose Passes Law Requiring Gun Owners To Purchase Insurance, Pay Fees For Anti-Gun Non-Profit

San Jose gun owners will soon be required to invest in liability insurance through their renter’s or homeowner’s insurance and to also pay annual fees on their Second Amendment rights, making San Jose “the first city, state, or jurisdiction in the nation” to adopt such a law. The mayor said San Jose taxpayers incur approximately $442 million in gun-related costs annually and the new fees would help cover damages or loss resulting from “accidental” use of the weapons. The law change does nothing to address the issue of criminals obtaining weapons illegally and places a tax on a Constitutional right. The city was served with its first lawsuit from the National Association for Gun Rights less than 24 hours after the vote.

San Jose gun owners will soon be required to invest in liability insurance and to pay annual fees on their Second Amendment rights.

City lawmakers voted Tuesday to approve the gun owner insurance mandate, making San Jose “the first city, state, or jurisdiction in the nation” to adopt such a law, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo boasted in a press release later that night.

“Tonight San José became the first city in the United States to enact an ordinance to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and to invest funds generated from fees paid by gun owners into evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm,” Liccardo declared.

The mayor said he worked “tirelessly” with legal partners and community advocates to “craft a constitutionally compliant path to mitigate the unnecessary suffering from gun harm in our community.”

He praised the City Council for continuing to show their “commitment to reducing gun violence and its devastation.”

“I look forward to supporting the efforts of others to replicate these initiatives across the nation,” Liccardo added.

The mayor said San Jose taxpayers incur approximately $442 million in gun-related costs annually, CNN reported.

“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” he declared.

Requiring law-abiding gun owners to have liability insurance would encourage them to install trigger locks, utilize gun safes, and to take firearms safety classes, Liccardo told CBS News.

Such policies would help cover damages or loss resulting from “accidental” use of the weapons, he said.

Firearm owners would be liable for damages or losses involving a lost or stolen gun unless they report the loss or theft to police.

It’s nor clear how authorities would determine if gun owners lost their guns after the law was enacted, or if they lost them in a boating accident (sponsored link) prior to the law.

Liccardo said gun owners who don’t purchase liability insurance will not face criminal charges and will not have their firearms seized, CBS News reported.

In addition to purchasing the policy through their renter’s or homeowner’s insurance, gun owners will also be required to pay an annual fee of approximately $25.

An undetermined nonprofit organization will be tasked with collecting those fees, which will then be doled out to various community groups, CBS News reported.

Critics argued against the measure in an hours-long debate ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

“You cannot tax a constitutional right. This does nothing to reduce crime,” one speaker told the council.

The law change does nothing to address the issue of criminals obtaining weapons illegally or firearms being purchased without background checks, CBS News reported.

Liccardo acknowledged that the mandate “won’t stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crimes,” but he argued it will help curb suicides, domestic violence homicides, and accidental shootings.

Critics vowed to sue the city and warned that the ensuing legal battle would be expensive and lengthy for the municipality, CBS News reported.

“Vote ‘no’ on this ridiculous law that’ll get shot down in the courts before you waste more of San Jose’s money,” one opponent said.

Read full article here…




Parents Charged with Involuntary Manslaughter After Son Allegedly Murdered 4 High School Students

A 15-year old boy is accused of shooting and killing four students at his high school. His parents, who are accused of making the handgun easily accessible to him, are being charged with involuntary manslaughter, concerning critics about Second Amendment implications. It is unknown whether the boy has a history of using antidepressant drugs, which have been a factor in dozens of other mass shootings.

Link for video:   https://www.bitchute.com/video/5uxv2Ftv0ITt/

Summary by JW Williams

Oxford, Michigan: 15-year old Ethan Crumbley was arrested for allegedly shooting and killing four teens at Oxford High School, and wounding six more students on November 30. He is being charged as an adult with with first-degree murder, terrorism and assault.

His parents, James and Jennifer Crumbley, were the subjects of a manhunt after they failed to appear for their arraignment. Each of them has been charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. Police say that Ethan’s father, James Crumbley, purchased the 9mm Sig Sauer handgun that was used in the attack four days prior, along with three 15-round magazines. An investigation revealed that the Sig Sauer 9 mm handgun purchased by James Crumbley was stored, unlocked, in a drawer in James and Jennifer’s bedroom, allowing easy access.

A police report indicates that the day before the shooting, a teacher notified school administrators she saw the teen looking up ammunition during class. His mother exchanged texts with him and wrote, ‘LOL I’m not mad. You have to learn not to get caught.”

According to a report by Oxford County Sheriffs Office Lieutenant Tim Willis, just three hours before the shooting, a teacher was alarmed by scrawlings by Ethan and his parents were called to the school. Lt. Willis said, “The note contained the following: a drawing of a semi-automatic handgun pointed at the words, ‘The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.’ In another section of the note was a drawing of a bullet with the following words above that bullet: ‘Blood everywhere.’ Between the drawing of the gun and the bullet is the drawing of a person who appears to have been shot twice and bleeding. Below that figure is the drawing of a laughing emoji. Further down the drawing are the words, ‘My life is useless,’ and to the right of those words are, ‘The world is dead,’

Ethan’s parents opted to leave their son in school. School officials reported that they told the couple to get their son into counseling within 48 hours. Three hours later, he allegedly opened fire on his fellow students. Four of his classmates are dead and four remain hospitalized.

An analyst at Ammoland wrote that pro-Second Amendment advocates argue that the Crime Control Act of 1990, sponsored by Joe Biden, contained the deadly Gun-Free School Zones Act that has resulted in almost doubling school killings due to prevention of law-abiding citizens, teachers, and other staff to defend themselves and their students on school property with firearms.

Sources:

Police Tribune:    https://policetribune.com/manhunt-underway-for-parents-of-oxford-high-school-shooting-suspect/

Ammoland:    https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/biden-whitmer-responsible-for-oxford-killings/#axzz7E6HzTIY3




Rittenhouse Found NOT Guilty Despite Media Lies, Prosecutorial Misconduct and Jury Intimidation

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five charges against him, including two homicide charges, in a clear case of self defense. The left tried to destroy Americans’ right to self defense by bringing charges against Rittenhouse. Politicians and the media have falsely characterized Rittenhouse, both before and after the trial, as a white supremacist, a murderer, and a man who crossed the state line to shoot black people. Rittenhouse has the opportunity to sue for defamation.

Summary by JW Williams

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five charges against him, including two homicide charges, in a clear case of self defense. The left tried to destroy Americans’ right to self defense by bringing charges against Rittenhouse. Politicians and the media have falsely characterized Rittenhouse, both before and after the trial, as a white supremacist, a murderer, and a man who crossed the state line to shoot black people. While Kyle did cross from Illinois into Wisconsin, he worked there and his father lives in Kenosha.

The prosecution criticized Rittenhouse for maintaining his Constitutional right to remain silent before the trial, they minimized the effects of the 2020 riots in Kenosha and withheld evidence from the defendant, including essential video and witnesses.

Joshua Zaminski, a man with a violent criminal history, discharged his handgun as Kyle was chased down by child rapist Joseph Rosenbaum. Zaminski allegedly set multiple fires that night and was charged with arson, but never testified in court and never explained why he fired the shot.

After Kyle killed Rosenbaum, a mob chased him down the street and a man kicked him in the face, knocking him to the ground. The prosecution said that they could not identify the man. Kyle was charged with endangerment for shooting at the man twice, but missed both shots. The man was later identified as Maurice Freeland and he offered to testify at the trial in exchange for immunity, but prosecutors refused the deal. This indicates that Freeland was known to the prosecution before trial. Kyle’s lawyers never got a chance to cross examine this witness. Freeland has a criminal history of domestic abuse, property damage, and disorderly conduct. Every person who Kyle shot and shot at had a violent criminal history.

Leftist groups outside the courthouse tried to intimidate jurors, and a reporter from MSNBC followed the jury bus one night. However, the jury bravely followed the facts and returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict.

Democrat Congressman Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, implied that Rittenhouse may face federal charges when he said that the verdict justifies federal review by the Department of Justice. Tucker Carlson says that this case will be used to justify taking guns away from Americans.

After the verdict, Congressman Patrick, the head of the Democrat party’s national campaign arm, wrote, “It’s disgusting and disturbing that someone was able to carry a loaded assault rifle into the protest against the unjust killing of Jacob Blake, an unarmed black man.” The problem is that Jacob Blake is not dead, he admitted he had a knife, and he was allegedly trying to kidnap a child. Democrats are trying to make this a racial case, but all of the men who were shot were white. The Attorney General of New York said that our judicial system needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

A few days ago, ABC News said that police killed Jacob Blake, which is a blatant falsehood as he is still alive. The media is trying to incite people to riot by using dangerous racial accusations of white supremacy and white vigilantism. MSNBC news host Tiffany Cross called Rittenhouse a “murderous little white supremacist”, which a lawyer called textbook defamation with actual malice.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote, “It is difficult to imagine a black or Muslim defendant engaged in the same conduct being found not guilty.” Yet OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder.

Kyle now has the opportunity to sue the media and politicians for defamation. Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic kid who won major defamation cases against the mainstream media, has reached out to Rittenhouse.

National File:   https://nationalfile.com/so-called-victims-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-pedophile-woman-beater-and-domestic-abuser-in-self-defense/




Federal Judge Overturns California Ban on AR-15 Rifles. The California Attorney General Will Appeal.

Judge Roger Benitez of California’s Southern District, a George W. Bush appointee, said that California’s ban on AR-15 “assault” rifles is a 30-year “failed experiment” and he declared the state’s statutes to be unconstitutional. He said that like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment that is good for both home and battle. The judge said that the media exaggerates the danger of rifles and cited some surprising FBI crime statistics. He concluded that in order to fulfill the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms for lawful purposes.

The ruling and injunction are stayed for 30 days, during which time the attorney general may appeal and seek a stay from the Court of Appeals.

If you can believe it, a Federal judge in California has overturned the state’s onerous AR15 and “assault weapons” ban.

In a lawsuit presented by plaintiff James Miller, Judge Roger Benitez of California’s Southern District (George W. Bush appointee) ripped the state’s law, referring to it as a “failed experiment” and stating “State level assault weapon bans that remain in effect have little to show.”

The 94 page ruling starts off with:

Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.

.
Further still, Judge Benitez ripped into the false narratives set by the media and 2nd Amendment prohibitionists:
.
This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned “assault weapons” are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.
One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter. Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle.In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.

.
Toward the end of the ruling, Benitez concludes:
.
You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment. It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned. As Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of permissible state action. California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.

There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.

Read full article here…