Paskalos

Mexico Threatens Texas Over Illegal Immigration

/in /by

The Mexican government has told Texas that they had better start issuing birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants–or risk lousing up the entire relationship between the U.S. government and Mexico.

Mexico has accused Texas of trying to deny citizenship to the so-called “anchor babies”–children born in America to illegal immigrants, who should automatically receive citizenship at birth because of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In order to obtain a birth certificate in Texas, a parent has to show two forms of identification.

But while illegal immigrants may have a Mexican passport, their other form of government-issued ID is a “matricula,” a special identification card given to illegal immigrants by the Mexican consulate.

But Texas does not recognize matriculas as a valid form of identification. Some Texas country registrars offices are even refusing to accept anything short of a U.S. visa or a U.S. ID card in order to obtain a birth certificate.

Right now, a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of six children by their illegal parents, who came from Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.

The lawsuit alleges that Texas is violating the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil.

But Texas claims the ability to choose which IDs to accept is a state issue, and has claimed that not accepting consulated-issued ID cards, like matriculas, is a long-standing policy.

Attorney Jennifer Harbury, who is representing the illegal immigrant families, said that the issue isn’t just whether or not matriculas should be accepted–but whether or not Texas is being fair.

“The argument is ‘what will you take that people can actually get?’” she said. “They have to take something. [The children] were born here. They are U.S. citizens.”

Paskalos

NSSF Threatens Costly Lawsuit If Seattle Mayor Signs Gun Violence Tax In To Law

/in /by

Seattle’s leftist progressive government running on emotions approved a sales tax of $25 on each firearm sold and five cents for each round of ammunition (two cents for .22 caliber).

Washington state preemption laws will lead to the city into a costly lawsuit if Mayor Ed Murray signs the “gun violence tax” in to law violating the state statute.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, says it intends to file a lawsuit challenging the City of Seattle’s recently NSSF and other pro-gun groups fought the legislation, labeled a “gun violence tax,” but the City Council nevertheless approved the ordinance on August 10. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has indicated support for the measure. NSSF today sent the mayor a letter urging him to veto the unlawful tax and letting him know that if the law was enacted “NSSF will have no alternative but to file a lawsuit” against the City to invalidate this unlawful regulation of the lawful sale of firearms and ammunition on the grounds that it violates Washington state’s preemption statute that blocks cities from regulating the sale of firearms. Additionally, the letter points out that the tax burdens citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm.

“This ordinance will do little to promote public safety and instead will place an undue burden on both federally licensed firearms retailers and law-abiding citizens who want to purchase firearms, particularly people in less well-off circumstances,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of NSSF. “This law is nothing but a ‘poll tax’ on the Second Amendment and an effort to drive Seattle’s firearms retailers out of business.”

If I were a Seattle taxpayer, I’d be furious that the city council and Mayor Murray are going to force an expensive and apparently doomed lawsuit for what appears to be nothing more or less than political theater.

Paskalos

Detroit Police Chief: Arm Yourselves

/in /by

In 2013, as Detroit sank into bankruptcy due to Democratic policies, Chief of Police James Craig surprisingly made the commonsense suggestion that, given shrinking police resources and a spike in violent crime, residents should take a hand in their own personal security by purchasing a firearm.

Since then, there has been a substantial increase in gun ownership in the city and not unexpectedly there is some indication that this has led to a decrease in some categories of crime.

Fox News:

“When you look at the city of Detroit, we’re kind of leading the way in terms of urban areas with law-abiding citizens carrying guns,” Craig said recently.

The chief’s call to arms, which first came in December, 2013, has been answered by thousands of men and women tired of being victims and eager to reclaim their beleaguered city. In 2014, some new 1,169 handgun permits were issued, while 8,102 guns were registered with Detroit’s police department – many to prior permit holders who bought new firearms. So for in 2015, nearly 500 permits have issued by the department and more than 5,000 guns have been registered.

“There’s definitely been a “Chief Craig” effect,” Rick Ector, a firearms instructor who runs the blog Legally Armed in Detroit. “His support and endorsement has been helpful.”

Obtaining a concealed-carry permit in the state of Michigan is not difficult compared to states with stricter gun laws. Eligible citizens can meet the state’s training requirement in eight hours, and firearms academies and gun shops within the city offer one-day courses for as little as $99.

Ector said that he and other instructors have seen a steady rise in locals looking to get a permit, to protect themselves either on the street or in their homes. While data showing a relation between increased gun ownership and the crime rate is not available, Ector said legally armed residents are having an effect.

Home invasions have gone down,” he said. “A huge reason was that there was a huge spate of homeowners using their guns against intruders. More people have guns and it’s making burglars cautious.”

The firearms instructor said women are driving growth in his business.

“It used to be that we would only have one or two women in a class,” he said. “Now we are seeing much, much more. This past May, I held a class where we trained 300 ladies.”

Detroit is more than 80% black and there has been a remarkable change in the attitude of black people toward gun ownership:

With a population of about 680,000, some 83 percent of which is African-American, Detroit’s growing embrace of Second Amendment rights has a racial component that is not unique to the city. According to a recent survey from Pew Research Center, 54 percent of African-American residents nationwide now see legal gun ownership as more likely to protect people than to put their safety at risk. That figure was up from 29 percent two years ago.

“If anyone should have the right or need to carry a gun, it should be the African-American community,” Philip Smith, founder of the National African American Gun Association, told Reuters.

What’s changed in 2 years? There has been a spike in crime in big cities the last few years and blacks, like any Americans, see their personal safety in terms of what they can do for themselves. Relying on the police to come save you when someone is trying to break into your home is suicidal. Better to have protection at hand to deal with an intruder yourself.

Is this a trend? Zealous, anti-gun prosecutors will prosecute citizens who use their personal firearm for protection, but that doesn’t seem to deter people from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Restrictive gun laws aside, citizens will almost always choose being safe over getting in trouble with the law.

As Patrick Henry once said, give me Liberty or give me death.

Paskalos

7th Circuit Court: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms extends to all individuals, even illegal aliens

/in /by

A Wisconsin appellate court on Thursday ruled that the right to keep and bear arms extends to all individuals in the United States, including “unauthorized aliens.”

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Meza-Rodriguez decided “the term ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment has the same meaning as it carries in other parts of the Bill of Rights” and that the framers could have used the term “citizen” to bestow the right, as they had in other parts of the Constitution, but chose not to.

While the decision was a win for gun rights, as left-leaning website Think Progress noted, it also holds other implications for undocumented individuals living in the country.

Hidden just one level below the surface in Meza-Rodriguez is the question of whether “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” which is protected by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, applies to undocumented immigrants at all.

Mariano Meza-Rodriguez was carrying a .22-caliber cartridge when Milwaukee police arrested him on Aug. 24, 2013. Because he was a citizen of Mexico, this possession was illegal under federal law. Police were called to a bar the night of Meza-Rodriguez’s arrested after receiving reports that a man with a gun was there.

After reviewing surveillance footage from that night, investigators believed they saw the man pointing what looked like a firearm. Police then later responded to another bar nearby after receiving reports of a fight. Officers then identified Meza-Rodriguez as the individual in the surveillance video. After chasing the suspect on foot and searching him, officers discovered the cartridge.

The Justice Department argued an undocumented immigrant wasn’t considered a part of “the people” and therefore not subject to search and seizure protections.

The case could go as far as the Supreme Court and if the DOJ argument is favored, it could affect the way illegal immigrants are treated in this country, Think Progress writes.

If this argument ultimately prevails, it will have profound ripple effects that extend far beyond the subject of guns. As mentioned above, the Fourth Amendment also refers to a right belonging to “the people,” so if that term does not include undocumented immigrants, their rights to be free from abusive police tactics could be severely curtailed. Similarly, the First Amendment refers to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Those rights could also potentially be stripped from undocumented immigrants if the Justice Department’s arguments prevail.

The court rejected the DOJ’s argument that the non-citizen cannot be a part of the “the people” because of the lack of commitment to basic obligation to U.S. society, according to analysis from Josh Blackman, an associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law. The court rejected that notion, Blackman wrote, saying the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

Paskalos

Lawmakers in California seek to put 10 year gun bans on more misdemeanor offensives

/in /by

State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, wants more gun bans on more misdemeanor gun offenders. (Photo: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

 

A proposal backed by a number of gun control groups that would expand the list of crimes that trigger an automatic 10-year ban on gun possession is moving through the Senate.

 

The bill, backed by a lawmaker who helped write last year’s Gun Violence Restraining Order legislation, would add such crimes as selling ammunition to someone under the age of 21 to current ones that mandate a ban on gun ownership and purchases for a decade. Introduced in April, it passed the Senate by a 24-15 vote and is now winding its way through the Assembly.

 

The measure’s sponsor is Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, who contends it will help stop future gun crimes.

 

“The horrific tragedy that happened nearly a year ago in Isla Vista has strengthened the resolve of so many of us that we must do more to prevent gun violence,” she said in a statement. “We know that those convicted of nonviolent firearm-related offenses are more likely than the average person to commit very serious crimes in the future. They are five times more likely to be charged with crimes like murder, seven times more likely to be charged with other nonviolent firearm offenses, and four times more likely to be charged with new violent offenses.”

 

Jackson’s bill, SB 347, adds to the state’s already existing list of misdemeanor crimes that result in a 10 year prohibition on possessing a firearm. These include:

 

Transferring a handgun without a firearms license.

Selling or giving possession of ammunition to a minor.

Selling handgun ammunition to a person under 21 years of age.

Possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Furnishing ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing ammunition.

Carrying ammunition onto school grounds.

Receiving stolen property consisting of a firearm.

Carrying a loaded or concealed weapon if the person has been previously convicted of a drug charges.

Possession of a firearm that is not registered.

 

“This bill helps keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them and keeps our communities safer,” said Jackson.

 

The legislation is supported by the Santa Barbara Police Department, the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association and other law enforcement groups as well as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Coalition Against Gun Violence.

 

In opposition are the National Rifle Association and its state affiliate, the California Rifle and Pistol Association who contend the move is overly broad.

 

“The addition of these misdemeanor offenses to the prohibited category list that include the ‘transfer’ of firearms or ammunition could entrap family members who are giving firearms to relatives and are unaware of the requirements for firearm transfers through licensed dealers,” reads an alert from the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

 

Jackson’s bill is scheduled to be heard Wednesday by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Paskalos

Chicago and LAPD bought military grade surveillance devices with asset forfeiture and DHS money

/in /by

The military surveillance devices known as “Dirtboxes” have been in secret operation for more than a decade, tracking citizens’ locations and intercepting their calls, breaking the encryption on hundreds of calls at once.

drtboxDRT boxes (named for Digital Receiver Technology Inc, a Boeing subsidiary), are called “Stingrays on steroids” — Stingrays are the powerful, secretive fake cell towers used to track whole populations’ movements around cities. Dirtboxes are often mounted on low-flying aircraft and used for mass-scale urban surveillance.

Dirtboxes are used by the US military and NSA overseas, including in France. Because of the secrecy surrounding Dirtboxes, they are acquired through no-bid contracts, and many of the cases in which they are used collapse in court because police departments are unwilling to reveal their phone surveillance capabilities in public forums.

Chicago bought their Dirtboxes with cash seized in dubious civil forfeiture cases; LAPD’s funding came from a DHS national security grant.

The main difference between the Harris and Digital Receiver Technology devices, Martinez said, is the ability of the most sophisticated Digital Receiver Technology devices to simultaneously break the encryption of communications from hundreds of cellphones at once. A 2011 purchase order for this equipment by the Washington Headquarters Services, a branch of the Pentagon, states the devices can retrieve the encryption session keys for a cellphone “in less than a second with success rates of 50 to 75% (in real world conditions).”

In Chicago, cell-site simulators have been used to eavesdrop on the activities of demonstrators during a 2012 NATO summit and Black Lives Matter demonstrations last year.

“What’s happened here is the U.S. goes to war against a foreign country under dubious circumstances, private companies develop these surveillance technologies with the help of the CIA and NSA, and they import them back home and use them on Americans,” Martinez said.

Chicago and Los Angeles have used ‘dirt box’ surveillance for a decade

 

Paskalos

North Carolina Pastor Will Arm Congregation

/in /by

Congregants carrying guns in church isn’t completely unheard of, but neither is it so common a sight as to go unremarked. For one congregation, though, it will be a regular occurrence within the year, if the pastor’s plans are carried out.

Since the mass murder carried out in a church in Charleston, S.C., in June, there has been an increased concern about the safety of parishioners, particularly those in predominantly black congregations. A number of politicians and Second Amendment advocates have spoken of placing armed officers in churches — in some cases, as Fox 10 Phoenix reports, whether they wanted them or not.

In this case, however, according to NBC, the Washington Missionary Baptist Church in Shelby, North Carolina, is arming the congregation by choice. Pastor Melvin Clark says that rather than have individuals take matters into their own hands, and carry guns to church to feel safe, whether or not they’re trained in the use, he’ll have ten members of his congregation trained, through a police training program or a local community college program. These members will be armed, and act as plainclothes security guards for the church on a rotating schedule.

He told TWC News he’ll have the ten church members licensed and insured, as well as trained, and that he’ll plan the specifics in conjunction with local police and other pastors. If all goes as he plans, he’ll have guns in the hands of trained church members inside a year.

The church already takes a number of security measures, with cameras on the entrances and a buzzer to let visitors in, but Clark’s focus on security isn’t exactly unfounded. Aside from being only a few hours away from the church where nine members were shot and killed this summer, and from a general flurry of KKK recruitment, marches, and activity in the Carolinas since the massacre, Clark himself has previously been targeted, in his church. According to Fox Insider, in 2002, a man with a gun entered the church and held Clark hostage. He believes appropriate security measures could help prevent a recurrence of such an event.

Whether or not a weapon should ever enter a church has been in much debate over the last few months, but Washington Missionary Baptist is taking the position that if there will be guns in church, they should be in the hands of those trained to use them in a professional manner, and the Reverend Clark is working to ensure that.

Paskalos

Judge Rules “Open Carry” Law Trumps School-District Policies

/in /by

In Clio, Michigan a judge has ruled that a Clio-area father can legally open carry his pistol inside of his daughter’s elementary school despite a legal challenge from the school district.

Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman on Monday, Aug. 10, ruled in favor of Kenneth Herman, who filed the lawsuit March 5 in Genesee County Circuit Court against the Clio Area School District after he was denied access to Edgerton Elementary multiple times while attempting to pick up his daughter because he was open-carrying a pistol.

Herman said after Hayman’s decision. “The ruling today does not come as a surprise, the law is the law, Now that Clio Area Schools have heard the ruling, read the laws and the Court of Appeals case law has been explained to them, I they stop burning through tax dollars fighting the law and common sense.”

DFWFZHerman sued the district after it declared all of its properties weapon-free zones and banned him from openly carrying his firearm in its buildings.

State law prevents people from carrying concealed firearms on school property. However, the law allows individuals with concealed pistol licenses to openly carry their firearms in schools. Herman is a CPL holder.

The district in July filed a motion asking Hayman to dismiss the entire case because it claims it is based on a “fundamental misunderstanding of Michigan Law.”

Much of Herman’s lawsuit focused on a 2012 Michigan Court of Appeals decision stemming from a case that involved Michigan Open Carry. The decision stopped a Lansing library group from banning the open-carrying of firearms on its properties.

But the district argued Herman and Michigan Open Carry are incorrectly interpreting the appeals court decision, saying the ruling does not apply to school districts.

The district argued that state law allows districts to enact policies to safeguard students and, therefore, allows them to institute firearm bans.

But, Hayman sided with Herman and Michigan Open Carry’s argument that the ability to create local weapon policies is beyond the legal authority of the school district and its attempt to do so intrudes upon the lawmaking authority of the state, which has created laws to allow open carry of firearms on school grounds for some people.

Herman said he hopes Clio school officials do not violate Hayman’s order and he looks forward to carrying his firearm in the future.

The Ann Arbor school district is also named in a similar, separate lawsuit filed after the district banned guns on school property.

Paskalos

Iowans Push for ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law

/in /by

Iowa state senator Rick Bertrand (R-Dist. 7) is pushing legislation to change the state’s current self-defense laws to included a “Stand Your Ground” provision.

Bertrand says his bill “clarifies [the] Second Amendment” Iowans already possess and protects law-abiding citizens who have to use a gun in self-defense.

According to ABC 9 News, “Stand Your Ground” legislation failed to pass in the last legislative session but supporters have since gathered “thousands of signatures” and are making clear that their votes in the 2016 elections will be used to get rid of lawmakers who oppose the self-defense bill.

Iowa Gun Owners director Aaron Dorr points out that Iowa law currently lets Iowan use lethal force when under threat, but he stresses that that law is not sufficient because it doesn’t shield the law-abiding citizen when he or she has to pull the trigger. He stressed that no one wants to be in a situation where they have to shoot but at the same time he said it is not right to keep law-abiding citizens in a place where they fear possible charges for protecting themselves or their families.

Senator Bertrand said, “Gun laws don’t keep guns away from the bad actors. They keep them from the good players, so at the end of the day, I trust Iowans and Americans.”

Paskalos

Federal Judge Denies Injunction against State Department in 3D Printed Gun Suit

/in /by

A federal judge denied 3D printed gun inventor Cody Wilson’s request for a preliminary injunction against the State Department after the agency forced him to remove gun designs from his company’s website.

Wilson’s lawsuit came after the State Department claimed the posting of designs for his 3D printed gun on his company’s website violated the Arms Export Control Act because they could be accessed outside of the United States. Wilson was joined in the suit by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and together they argued the State Department was violating Wilson’s First, Second, and Fifth Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman disagreed in a ruling earlier this month. In the ruling, first reported by Reason‘s Brian Doherty, Judge Pitman said the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements necessary to secure a preliminary injunction against the State Department and were unlikely to succeed on the merits of the case.

Wilson took issue with the reasoning Judge Pitman used in his ruling. “I think the gun owning public would be incensed to learn the judge’s reasoning. He doubts there’s a right to own a firearm protected by the Constitution,” he said. “He considers it trivial to censor the speech online because we could use the mail or people could come in person to get the files from us. He thinks gun software development isn’t handicapped by being banned from the Internet because there’s still other means of communication.”

SAF’s founder said he didn’t like the ruling but was happy the case would now move through the court system faster. “It would have been better to win the preliminary injunction but this case now will move faster and we believe we will win it at the appeals court,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said. “The government would have liked to tie us up in the lower court for years.”

A State Department official said the case was about protecting Americans.

“The United States is cognizant of the potentially adverse consequences of indiscriminate arms transfers and, therefore strictly regulates exports of defense items and technologies to protect its national interests and the peace and security of the broader international community,” said the official. “At the end of the day, it’s about protecting U.S. national security by regulating foreign access to exports of U.S. defense articles and potentially sensitive defense manufacturing technologies that could be used by terrorists or other bad actors to harm Americans, including our troops serving overseas; as well as citizens from U.S. allies and partners around the world.”

Wilson said the case showed that the fight over the Second Amendment is still raging. “We’re like seven years after the Heller decision here and we’re still in the courts fighting over whether you have the right to buy a gun, like in Mance v. Holder case, or the right to even make one or talk about making one, in my case,” Wilson said. “I mean, this is crazy, man.”