Pennsylvania towns abolish gun laws to avoid lawsuits

/in /by

New state law which makes it easier for gun-rights groups to fight firearms measures has divided Pennsylvania communities, with nearly two dozen municipalities ready to abolish gun control ordinances rather than be dragged into court.

An attorney for four pro-gun groups and several residents, Joshua Prince, has blamed the new law for putting nearly 100 Pennsylvania municipalities on notice that they will face legal action unless they cancel their firearms laws, AP reported. According to Prince, at least 22 of those municipalities have already either abolished them or plan to do so.

Pennsylvania, known for its tradition of hunting and gun ownership, has long forbidden its municipalities from enforcing firearms ordinances regulating the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition. Gun-rights groups complained that a number of municipalities neglected the 40-year-old prohibition by passing their own gun measures.

Under the new state law, gun owners no longer have to prove they have been harmed by the local measure to successfully challenge it. So organizations like the National Rifle Association can sue on behalf of any Pennsylvania member, while the challenger can seek damages as well.

At least one other US state, Florida, also allows a membership organization to file suits over local gun regulations.

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster have sued to annul the Pennsylvania law, alleging the legislation was passed improperly.

Officials say meanwhile the city could ill afford a legal fight.

“We get ourselves in trouble in terms of trying to circumvent a state law,” AP quoted Councilman Jeff Waltman as saying. “We’re not going to solve this with a local gun law anyway.”

Harrisburg, the capital city of Pennsylvania, wants to defend its ordinances, maintaining they comply with state law. The measures ban gunfire anywhere in the city and possessing firearms in city parks. There’s also a requirement to report lost or stolen weapons. According to Mayor Eric Papenfuse, Harrisburg’s laws are aimed at fighting gun violence.

“I don’t think it’s the be-all and end-all of public safety, but I think it’s an important tool to have, and it absolutely sends the wrong message to try to rescind those ordinances, especially given the epidemic of gun violence we have in cities like Harrisburg,” the told AP.

Gun activist and founder of American Gun Owners Alliance in the Pocono Mountains, Dave Dalton, said no municipality has a right to hijack Pennsylvania law.

“What gives a town or a city the authority to say, ‘We’re in Pennsylvania, but we don’t care about Pennsylvania law?’ It’s laughable,” Dalton told AP.

It is clear the local laws have violated gun owners’ rights without making people safer.

January 12, 2015 (Via: RT)

Je suis… désarmé

/in /by

January 7th, 2015 was only a week after the fresh and happy beginning of the new year celebration; however it might be a day that millions people will unfortunately remember for ever like we still all do for 9/11.

I know, “Je suis désarmé” (I am unarmed) is a very poor title choice but it could mean different things in French such: (of course) “I’m unarmed” or “I’m giving up”, but also “I’m soften” or even “I’m emotionally touched”… and obviously it does refer to the now popular “I am charlie”.

Generally, I don’t like to react immediately to comment any recent event without enough time to analyze it. We often don’t really know what’s exactly going on, why it’s happening, how it happens, who did it, all social, religious and geopolitical reasons behind it, etc… So don’t try to look too much into it that way.

What would be more interesting for me to observe here is not really the event per se and all geopolitics it could involve, but actually, to have a take on it only from a “Gun Control” politics point of view…

As some might remember, not too long ago I wrote an article about the French Gun laws to demonstrate that It’s not about safety, it’s all about control and confiscation purpose…

And even if French gun laws are not as drastic as the ones we can find in Australia or the UK, they’re still pretty strong when it comes down to semi-auto rifles or pistols, and they’re a pure and simple ban when it comes down to heavier artillery such, full auto rifles, grenade lunchers, RPGs, explosives, etc… However Wednesday, the people who did the attack against the French satirical newspaper “Charlie Hebdo”, did have this kind of heavy equipment. So, how could it be possible?Well, I guess it just proves it, unfortunately, once again, that criminals don’t obey the laws and no stricter gun control laws would have prevent them to have this kind of equipment that is already banned to law abiding French civilians.

One must fool himself very deeply to believe that criminals who attacked Charlie Hebdo went through the whole process to join a sport shooting club for at least 6 months to receive some safety instructions and shooting test controls to get their approval to request an “authorization” that will eventually need the approval of the government services after a background check, a medical exam, and no criminal records at all (not even a DUI). A few weeks later you get a visit at home from the police to check your home and your safe where you will store your requested gun.  Then you wait another 6 to 8 months to receive the authorization that is only valid for 3 months to buy the requested gun from an official gun store. The purchase will require all proper paperwork which requires the store to immediately send the registration, with the serial number and your info, to the government. Of course you still won’t be able to purchase a full auto AK, grenade launcher or RPG. You are only able to buy a semi-auto AK and that’s about it… and you won’t be able to have more than 12 of them total.

Everytime a tragic event involving guns happens, we can see the same thing in the media, the politicians, and all anti-gun associations. They’re asking for more “Gun Sense” to stop “Gun Violence”, but what could have been done Wednesday to prevent this tragic event?

French people were already unarmed (since conceal carry is not allowed for 99.99% of the population). The French are so used to being disarmed that some neighbors didn’t even realize what the “loud noises” were at first when they heard the gunshots. Actually, even the police officers that arrived first by bicycles were unarmed and they had to leave the scene quickly, unable to provide any response and protection to the victims.

So, what “Gun Sense” would have prevented this? Unarmed people with unarmed police officers… the only way would have been to have “unarmed criminals”, right? I believe we must to come to the conclusion that criminals don’t play by the rules and antigun laws have no effect. A few weeks ago before Christmas, the laws didn’t stop another man from getting a car and running down 13 people in the French city of Dijon. But we didn’t hear a cry for “Car Sense” by organizations against “Car Violence”.

Wednesday, two of the people killed were police officers. There’s a very graphic video that has been circulating on the net showing how organized and brutal the criminals were when shooting down a unarmed police officer. Does it mean it mean this tragedy wouldn’t have happened if everyone had guns? I don’t know , however I’m quite sure some people would have shot back and would have put of a fight.

Wednesday, no gun laws and no “gun sense” could have prevented the “gun violence” in Paris, like no “car sense” could prevent the “car violence” in Dijon few weeks ago.

Being able to call Fire fighters is not a reason for you to not have and use your own fire extinguishers in case of emergency.
Being able to call Armed Police officers is not a reason for you to not have and use your own firearms in case of emergency.

Without firearms you’re only option is to try to run away from the threat as you won’t have the power to stop armed attackers. At that point it will be too late and you will realize you won’t be able to fight back and you’ll keep saying to yourself: Je suis désarmé…

by Phil January 10, 2015, (The Bangswitch)

Ares Armor Writes Hilarious Letter to ATF in Crayon

/in /by

In an open letter to the BATFE, Dimitrios Karras of Ares Armor wrote a letter thanking them for defining what a weapon is, what a receiver is, and excoriates them on mistakes they made in their recently published 2015-01 ruling. The entire letter is published below along with the crayon version that is sure to be a big hit in the pro liberty community.

 

The Honorable B. Todd Jones
Director Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20226

Dear Director Jones,

I have read ATF Rul. 2015-1 which was intended to clarify your position on several issues. I would like to thank you for your indirect admission that a firearm receiver is not a “receiver”, as defined by the GCA of 1968, until it can house all of the necessary parts that it is intended to house. I know this was not your intent. However, your words are very clear.

PART 1. Statements and Admissions

  1. ) A “frame or receiver” and a “weapon”, are separately and uniquely defined in the GCA of 1968.

You correctly state on page 2 the following,

Section 921(a)(3), defines a “firearm,” in relevant part, as both a “weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” (921(a)(3)(A)), and the “frame or receiver of any such weapon”

You correctly observe that both a “weapon” and the “frame or receiver” of a weapon are defined separately in the GCA. Thank you for this admission!

  1. ) The “may readily be converted” phrase only applies to “weapon” and not to “receiver”.

As can be seen by your admission, these are defined separately. Therefore, you are also admitting that “may readily be converted” applies only to “weapon” and not to “frame or receiver”. Thank you for this admission!

  1. ) The meaning of the word “manufacture” is “to make into a product suitable for use.”

On page 3 you correctly quote the Broughman Case,

See Broughman at 675 (“[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘manufacture’ is ‘to make into a product suitable for use.’” (quoting Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2010))…

You love to quote court cases that agree with you and ignore ones that don’t agree. However, thank you for this admission!

  1. ) An object that is NOT suitable for use as a “receiver” is NOT classified as a “receiver”.

On page 2 and 3 you state the following,

“…it generally requires substantial additional machining before it can accommodate fire control components such as a trigger, hammer, or sear…”

“…incapable of being assembled into a weapon…”

And my personal favorite quote on page 3,

“ATF Ruling 2010-10 assumes that a licensed dealer-gunsmiths would perform certain activities on articles ALREADY classified as frames or receivers (i.e., no machining or other processes required to allow it to be used to assemble a weapon)… *emphasis added

Here, you have very clearly stated that an item that requires “machining or other processes” before it is suitable for use in assembling a weapon would not ALREADY be classified as a frame or receiver. THANK YOU FOR THIS GIGANTIC ADMISSION!

  1. ) Indexing marks DO NOT make a random object into a “receiver”.

On page 3, you incorrectly and in pompous contempt of the Court make the following statement,

Although such an article may be classified as a “receiver” when it is indexed…

As you are fully aware, this is direct conflict with UNITED STATES v. PRINCE. The ATF has already lost this argument in Federal Court. I have mentioned this case in previous communication with you. It is fully on record that you are aware of this case and its implications. Your choice to ignore this case is despicable at best.

“The court finds that the metal flat shipped to Prince is not a firearm. The court carefully considered the expert testimony of Agent Adam Galbraith, and reviewed the material submitted by the government concerning ATF opinions. However, the court simply does not believe that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and holes constitutes a “receiver,” i.e., a “firearm.” Rather, the flat piece of metal is somewhat akin to a piece of paper with lines drawn on it as a guide to make a paper airplane. Although making the paper airplane might be the intended use, it is not an airplane until it is properly folded. Until that time, it is a patterned piece of paper. Simply put, this court has no evidentiary or legal basis for holding that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and some holes constitutes, ultimately, a “firearm.””
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1506044.html
PART 2. The Lunacy Of Your Conclusions
On pages 4 and 5 you state the following,

However, when a licensed gunsmith takes in a frame or receiver to perform machining or other manufacturing process, that gunsmith “distributes” a firearm to the customer upon return because that manufacturing activity results in the making of a different “frame or receiver” and also a “weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile” –both defined separately as a “firearm” under the GCA.

You somehow confusingly conclude that even though both terms are defined separately, a “receiver” is a “weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile”

Let me ask one simple question… If a “receiver” is a “weapon”, why are they defined separately and uniquely in the GCA as firearms?

A “receiver” by itself cannot be “readily converted to expel a projectile” as the receiver by itself lacks the necessary parts. I would love to hand you a receiver and ask you to readily convert it into a weapon. Perhaps you would do that hand waiving Jedi-Mind trick thing you did to Congress when you were asked about why you raided my business!

A receiver is PART of a weapon. A receiver is NOT a weapon by itself, as it is clearly defined separately and uniquely in the GCA per your own admission.

Riddle me this one Batman… If a “receiver” is a “weapon” then it must have an individual part of itself that is a “receiver”, which would be classified separately from it as a “firearm”… So where exactly is it that I can buy this mysterious “receiver, of a receiver, of a receiver, of a receiver” that you refer to?
PART 3. The Common Sense Conclusion Based On Your Statements.

  1. ) A “frame or receiver” and a “weapon”, are separately and uniquely defined in the GCA of 1968.
  2. ) The “may readily be converted” phrase only applies to “weapon” and not to “receiver”.
  3. ) The meaning of the word “manufacture” is “to make into a product suitable for use.”
  4. ) An object that is NOT suitable for use as a “receiver” is NOT classified as a “receiver”.
  5. ) Indexing marks DO NOT make a random object into a “receiver”.

I conclude, based off of your statements, that one cannot be charged with a crime of “manufacturing” (make into a product suitable for use) an AR “receiver” ( “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”) if that “receiver” does not provide housing for any of the intended mechanisms.

I would like to thank you for your clarification that NOT drilling the through holes for the fire-control group (safety selector, trigger pin, and hammer pin) would be sufficient to have NOT manufactured a “receiver”.

Just to sink your own words in one more time, I will provide you with your quote from page 3 again,

“ATF Ruling 2010-10 assumes that a licensed dealer-gunsmiths would perform certain activities on articles ALREADY classified as frames or receivers (i.e., no machining or other processes required to allow it to be used to assemble a weapon)… *emphasis added

I expect that you will issue a letter in response to this stating that one can manufacture a 99% receiver (missing only the 3 holes for the fire control group) and not be charged with “manufacturing a ‘firearm’”.

I salute you on your efforts of making the hobby of building firearms at home easier!

To make things easier for you and your agents to understand, I have commissioned these concepts to be drawn in crayon. I have attached this drawing to this letter. You are welcome.

You block, you stone, you worse than senseless thing,

Dimitrios Karras
One of Your Restless Villagers
Semper Fi!

View the ‘Crayon Version’

 

 

I Carry a Gun Every Day

/in /by

Every day I get up and put on a gun. It’s part of my daily routine. No different from making coffee or feeding the dogs before I leave for work.

There is so much misinformation about who that makes me. I’m a “gun nut.” I’m one of “those right-wing Second Amendment people.” I’m the scourge of the earth to some.

Funny how that works.

They don’t even know me but they are worried that I’m what’s wrong with this country, this state and this city I call home. I walk among them and they don’t even know it. I’m the guy in the jeans and Under Armour shirt, the guy in the $200 sport coat and $125 shoes, the guy in Nike pants and a hoodie, and some days I’m the guy with dirty hands from working in the yard, but most of all I’m the guy they never see.

Oh, they acknowledge me sometimes. When I hold the door for them because my parents raised me that way. When I let them go ahead of me in line at the gas station because they seem to be in a hurry. When I pick up their baby’s pacifier in the aisle at the grocery store and hand it back to them because it fell out and they didn’t notice. But they don’t see me. I’m just another guy in the store with things in my hand. But only my left hand. I don’t carry things in my right hand. Not at the store. Not in public.

Why? Because I’m “that guy.” I know that bad things happen. Every day. Everywhere. So I try to be aware. I try to study my surroundings. I expect to not see it coming every time. I expect that evil may show up while I’m shopping or walking through the mall or eating at a restaurant. It doesn’t make me crazy. It doesn’t make me paranoid. It simply makes me aware. Unlike a lot of people that walk by me every day. Looking at their phones, their notes, their purses, or any of the other distractions that plague us. I get it.

I also get that there are wolves. Hungry. Lean. Skilled at their trade. Studying you. Studying me. They like you. They don’t like me. I see them at the mall. I see them at the gas station. I see them right here in this town. Do they know I’m armed? No, they don’t. They know that I’m aware. I look at them. Kill them with kindness. It’s a like a mutual agreement. I see you; you see me. Let’s not kid each other.

It’s weird in a way. The man and his friend in the store that looked all around and even glanced at the camera above us — those guys see me. I’m aware that the door is over there. I’m aware that the coffee pot is within reach and full. He urges me to go first to the counter. “Oh no, you go please. I have all day,” I reply. Now he has to make a purchase. Now he knows I’m polite …. I’m polite and I do not want them behind me in line.

The lady with her kid? She doesn’t notice me, but I’m there. I have a phone. I have a flashlight. I have two knives. I have a firearm. And I have a plan. If this doesn’t go well I want to get her and that little one out of here. Chances are nothing is going to happen until they’re gone anyway. I’d like to leave too.

One man asks the other a question. He hands the guy a few extra bucks to make the purchase of an item at the counter. They leave. I make my purchase. I call the employee by name and tell him to have a good night. I walk to the door and hold it open for the woman approaching. She says, “Thanks.” I say, “Yes ma’am.” Then, poof. I’m gone.

Just another uneventful trip to the store. The best kind ever. It’s funny those men truly saw me but other customers didn’t. Why? Maybe too busy. Maybe too much on their minds. Maybe because they didn’t worry for one second about those two men or me.

When I get home I don’t tell my wife about the two men who lingered. The two men who entered together but stood so far apart. The two men that seemed to have no sense of purpose or item they were in search of. No need to talk of them because nothing happened. This happens daily. Sometimes once. Sometimes multiple times. I like uneventful days.

Most people don’t know me. But man, they sure do judge me. If I use a gun to defend myself they will read about it. They will hear about it. They will weigh in on what should have happened.

I have seen bad people do bad things. I have seen good people dumbfounded and in shock because they couldn’t comprehend what was happening in front of them or, worse yet, to them. It’s not fun or pretty to think about, so most people don’t. They don’t stay awake late at night watching videos from self-defense experts. They don’t read the articles. They don’t look at unedited news on the Internet. They don’t search out the videos of people fighting for their lives and losing.

A man stabbed outside a bar. A couple hijacked and killed in front of the store. A store clerk shot even after complying with a robber’s demands. A video from inside the grocery store of a mad man with a gun shooting people while looking for his ex. Dashboard cameras of an officer involved in a shooting. It’s an ugly world so they choose not to see it.

I don’t train for the warm fuzzy days where everyone gets along. I train for the other days. I try to round out my skill sets. I look at what others have done to succeed. I watch videos of those who haven’t. Some refer to it as making something good out of something bad. Like watching videos of officers being killed as every person that’s gone through any type of law enforcement academy has had to do. Learn from others’ experiences.

People from all walks of life legally carry guns. Some are men and some are women. Some are old and some are young. The ones I know train. The ones I know are aware: Aware of their surroundings. And aware of all of the armchair quarterbacking that will be done if they ever have to use that tool of last resort on their belt. So why do it anyway? Because they value their life and the lives of others. Simple.

My so-called “gun nut” friends and customers are some of the most congenial, trustworthy people I know. I only wish everyone had such friends. I wish everyone understood like I do.

By: Ernie Traugh January 4, 2015 The Gazette

Gun control groups scrounge for cash, ideas to fight GOP-controlled Congress

/in /by

Gabrielle Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC seeks guidance after defeats

Gun control groups are scrounging for money and ideas as they prepare for the Republican-controlled Congress, which they expect will continue to thwart stricter firearm laws and move to expand gun rights.

Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, the group founded by gunshot victim and former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, sent an email to supporters soliciting cash and guidance on how to advance its cause in the wake of repeated legislative and election defeats.
The email linked to a survey that asked more than a dozen questions about how to make the group more effective, including whether its efforts should be concentrated on Congress, state legislatures or ballot initiatives.
“We’re asking our supporters to tell us what they think Americans for Responsible Solutions should do next year. Our team has some great ideas, but we want to hear from you,” the email said.

The group did not respond to repeated inquires about its agenda for 2015.

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said he would fight to hold ground in Congress. He said he has set his sights on the next election cycle and the Congress that will convene in 2017.
“We’ll probably be playing a little more defense, but I think we’re optimistic that we’ll be able to tamp down any type of [National Rifle Association] meddling and then be in a better position in 2016 to continue our work,” he said. “We’re not going to be going away. I can tell you that much.”

Mr. Horwitz found a bright spot in election losses that reduced Senate Democrats to minority status: It weeded out red-state Democrats who supported gun rights and left the party united in opposition to the pro-gun agenda.

“It’s going to be a much stronger, unified bunch of Democrats, and I think that is going to be able to hopefully stop most of the NRA’s agenda,” he said.

He said the pro-gun agenda likely would include policy riders on spending bills that would expand concealed carry rights and ease gun laws in the District of Columbia.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam would not confirm the organization’s legislative goals but said it would continue the fight on behalf of gun owners.

“We don’t take anything for granted. If there is one thing we’ve learned, it is the gun ban and gun control advocates are extremely well-funded, they are really adept at exploiting tragedy and nothing, including logic, stops them from pushing their political agenda,” he said.

Candidates endorsed by gun control groups lost to NRA-backed candidates throughout the country this year in contests for governor, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The election defeats followed years of unsuccessfully lobbying for bills that would expand background checks for firearm purchasers and limit the number of bullets in ammunition clips, measures backed by President Obama after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that left 20 children and six teachers dead.

Americans for Responsible Solutions fared worse than some other like-minded organizations. It poured resources into trying to re-elect Rep. Ron Barber, a former congressional aide to Ms. Giffords who succeeded her as representative of the Tucson-area district after she was severely injured by gunfire at a rally in 2011.
Mr. Barber, who also was injured in the attack, narrowly lost to Republican Martha McSally in an election dominated by gun issues.

Gun control groups found solace in victories in state legislatures and with ballot initiatives, including a referendum in Washington state that resulted in a law requiring background checks on all firearms sales.

“That was the Washington that mattered last election season. It proved that if politicians won’t act to prevent gun violence, voters will take matters into their own hands,” said Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for Everytown for Gun Safety, a group financed by the personal fortune of former New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

Everytown will be shifting its focus from Congress next year to legislative fights in as many as 20 states, the group said.

Gun control advocates also pointed to the recent confirmation of Surgeon General Vivek Murthy as evidence that their cause was not completely lost on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Murthy was opposed by the NRA because he advocated for gun control laws and characterized the prevalence of firearms as a public health issue. In his confirmation hearing, however, he pledged not to use his office as a “bully pulpit for gun control.”

Mr. Murthy’s confirmation was pushed through with a batch of nominees in the final days of the session before Democrats ceded power to Republicans.

“We can see that political leaders are listening to what’s happening in the states as they recently confirmed Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in a stunning defeat of the gun lobby’s fight against his nomination,” Ms. Lamb said.
By S.A. Miller – Thursday, January 1, 2015- The Washington Times

2014: The year liberalism died

/in /by

Jack Cashill sees fingerprints of Soviet apparatus in Ferguson response

Katherine Ann Porter had been duped, badly. In her memoir, “The Never-Ending Wrong,” published on the 50th anniversary of the 1927 execution of convicted murderers Nichola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Porter told how this came to be.

As the anarchists’ final hours ticked down, Porter had been standing vigil with others artists and writers in Boston. Ever the innocent liberal, Porter approached her group leader, a “fanatical little woman” and a dogmatic Communist, and expressed her hope that Sacco and Vanzetti could still be saved.

The response of this female comrade is noteworthy largely for its candor: “Saved … who wants them saved? What earthly good would they do us alive?”

As their predecessors did with Sacco and Vanzetti, progressives in 2014 falsified narratives and manufactured outrage to advance some ill-defined leftist agenda.

What is different now is that progressives no longer content themselves with claiming the guilty innocent. Dating back to the arrest of George Zimmerman in 2012, they are prepared to claim the innocent guilty, a darker turn altogether.

Their goal might be as grubby as enriching a race hustler or as grand as turning a presidential election, but no longer is it about justice, and always there is someone to accuse.

Nearly a century after Sacco and Vanzetti’s demise, crowds stood vigil outside the Ferguson, Missouri, police station waiting to hear whether a grand jury would indict Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of black 18-year-old Michael Brown.

In the crowd were many protesters as naive as Porter had been. In the crowd, too, were leftist agitators eager to see Wilson go uncharged. After all, what earthly good would Wilson do them in jail?

The Soviets called the practice “framing” – that is, taking a small kernel of truth and rewriting the history of a person or an event around it.

In Ferguson, that small kernel was the testimony of Brown’s partner in crime, Dorian Johnson. Immediately after the shooting Johnson told all who would listen that Brown raised his hands to surrender before Wilson shot him dead in a Ferguson street. The story could not withstand the least bit of scrutiny.

“It seems hard to come to any other conclusion,” the Washington Post finally conceded some months later, “than that Dorian Johnson’s version is simply made up.” In fact, Brown attacked Wilson in his car and then charged him when told to stop.

For the left, however, Johnson’s kernel trumped Wilson’s testimony, the corroborating testimony of a half-dozen eyewitnesses, the forensic evidence and the cautious judgment of a multi-racial grand jury.

Even while Brown’s body lay sprawled on Canfield Drive, activists were rehearsing his neighbors in the “Hands up, don’t shoot” gesture. With the help of an obliging media, this thoroughly corrupt iconography swept the world.

The seeds of Ferguson were planted 90 years earlier when Josef Stalin took control of the Soviet apparatus. More of a realist than Lenin, Stalin focused his American efforts not on a workers’ revolution but on discrediting the American dream.

For the Soviet experiment to prevail, the American experiment had to yield. The world had to see America through fresh, unblinking eyes, not as the great melting pot, but as a simmering stew of racism and xenophobia.

In 1925 the Comintern found just the victims of American injustice Stalin was looking for in Sacco and Vanzetti, a pair of Italian anarchists justly convicted of the murdering an Italian American payroll clerk five years prior.

While their capital murder case worked its way through the appeals process in the Massachusetts courts, the Comintern ginned up a worldwide frenzy around the fate of the convicted killers.

“Spontaneous” protests sprang up seemingly everywhere. Europe’s great squares – in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin – filled with sobbing, shouting protesters, declaiming the innocence of the immigrant martyrs and denouncing the vile injustice of their persecutors.

Sound familiar? The reaction to the Ferguson grand jury decision was eerily similar. Hundreds gathered outside the American embassy in London with signs proclaiming “no justice, no peace” and “solidarity with Ferguson.” In Berlin, protesters waved signs that read “Ferguson is everywhere.”

The difference between 1927 and today, and this is critical, is that Wilson was transparently innocent. So was Zimmerman. The left no longer cares.

In their own minds, liberals still see themselves as Atticus Finch standing outside the jailhouse, shotgun reluctantly in hand, protecting the innocent within.

There are a few liberals for whom that image make sense, but not many. Most on the left have joined the mob clamoring for the mockingbird’s head, his innocence be damned.

Today, that mockingbird could be George Zimmerman or Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo or anyone with the potential to feed the mob’s mindless frenzy.

The mob has not yet seized control of the jailhouse, but no Atticus stands against it, not the president, not the attorney general, not the governor of Missouri, not the mayor of New York City, not any Democrat anywhere.

It is too early to predict the future of the mob, but is not too early the write the epitaph for liberalism. It died an ugly death in 2014.
By: Jack Cashill December 31, 2014 (WND)