Posted Bearing Arms
October 14, 2016
The frivolous lawsuit filed by a minority of Sandy Hook Elementary school parents against Bushmaster and Remington Arms has been dismissed.
A Superior Court judge has thrown out the lawsuit against the gun maker brought by the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy.
In a 54-page decision filed Friday afternoon, Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion to strike the entire lawsuit brought against the gun maker,Remington Outdoor Company, the dealer, Camfour Inc. and the company that owned the gun store, Riverview Sales where A___ L___’*s mother bought the assault rifle.
The judge ruled the lawsuit does not satisfy the exception to federal law preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the actions of gun owners under either the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) or the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
“Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law,” the judge wrote. “A plaintiff under CUTPA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commcercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.”
We commented on the sad absurdity of this case back in February.
The exploitative lawsuit filed by Koshoff, Sterling, and Mesner-Hage is based on the theory of “negligent entrustment.” The plaintiff’s argument is that the Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster Firearms, the manufacturer of the XM15-E2S, marketed their guns in such a way as to encourage violent crazy people to buy them. Of course, the Sandy Hook murderer didn’t buy the carbine he used in his attack. He murdered his own mother to gain access to it.
But hey, reality be damned; lawyers wanna get paid.
Further, these shysters are arguing that AR-15s—the most common rifle sold in the United States year after year, used in more than a half-dozen kinds of formal shooting competitions, for informal target shooting, home defense, hunting, and simply for fun—is a “weapon of war” that no civilian should have.
The semi-automatic AR-15s sold to U.S. civilians, of course, are not used in combat by any known military on earth.
Militaries instead use selective-fire M16s and M4s, which American civilians have not been able to buy from manufacturers at any price since the Hughes Amendment passed as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986.
The vultures of Koskoff Koskoff and Bieder are arguing that the most common rifle sold in the United States, which is, as a subset of rifles is one of the least likely instruments of murder in the nation, should be banned. Put bluntly, these attorneys appear to be hoping to find a way to sue gun companies out of existence, and get rich in the process.
The judge has a very simple choice in this case.
She can allow the continuance of an obviously frivolous lawsuit filed by unscrupulous attorneys, and set the stage for every company in the world to be sued out of their existence due to their choice of advertising, or she can throw this case out.
Let’s hope Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis is not among the world’s crazy people.
Clearly, Judge Barbara Bellis did not buy the argument made by lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Joshua Koskoff, who argued that the American people are “notoriously incompetent,” and unfit to own guns in common use.
* * *
Like this vile attorney, Hillary Clinton thinks that the American people are both inherently violent and stupid.
If a mentally ill 20-year-old murders his mother, steals her car keys, and plows the most popular car sold in the United States into a bus stop killing dozens, should the families of the victims be able to sue Toyota for manufacturing an “assault vehicle?”
While we’d all feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the victims, we’d also instinctively know that a lawsuit from a twisted family attorney and “traffic safety” zealots claiming that it was “criminally negligent” to manufacture a vehicle that could go more than posted speed limit of 45 MPH in the area was absurd.
Yet that is precisely the argument being made by Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton, as she supports the lawsuit filed by a small group of crime victims, who are attempting to claim that gun manufacturers are criminally negligent in manufacturing a rifle that has been sold in the United States for more than five decades, and which is the most popular rifle purchased year in and year out due to it’s light weight, low recoil, accuracy, and inexpensive, intermediate-caliber ammunition.
Mrs. Clinton’s views on the right to bear arms are themost radical ever from a presidential candidate in the history of the United States.
Senator Russ Feingold just admitted on a hidden camera that if she is elected, Clinton will likely attempt to exceed her authority as President and use executive orders to attack the Constitution.
Clinton wants gun manufacturers sued out of existence, and gut the right to bear arms in the process.
Think of this when you vote less than a month from now.
* Bearing Arms does not publish the names of mass or spree killers.
By Bob Owens
June 14, 2016
The Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida is the deadliest Islamic terror attack in the United States since the terror attacks of 9/11.
49 people were murdered in the slaughter, and 53 more were wounded. Despite claims from the Orlando police that the terrorist did his damage in the opening moments of the attack, we know for a fact that he was still killing people at least a half-hour into the event.
The terrorist began shooting outside Pulse at approximately 2:02 AM. It was at least 37 minutes into the attack when Eddie Justice was gunned down in a Pulse bathroom, along with others patrons. He sent his last text at 2:39 before the terrorist entered the bathroom he was hiding in, and opened fire.
These are facts we know
Law enforcement officers failed to get any effective hits on the terrorist outside of Pulse before the terrorist made it inside. Officer Adam Gruler was working security and engaged the terrorist with his handgun, but failed to make any effective hits. Lt. Scott Smith and Sgt. Jeffrey Backhaus, both also SWAT officers, were in the first patrol unit to arrive on-scene. They also failed to make effective hits.
The terrorist was then able to enter the club.
Once inside, the terrorist then fired into the packed crowd, repeatedly and at very close range, with no apparent resistance from any of the club-goers reported. This isn’t blaming the victim by any means, just noting that no accounts of the attack show that the club goers attempted to rush or disarm the gunman, even when he shot people at a distance of 2-3 feet—inside an arm’s length—in the club bathroom, over the top of the stall.
With an ineffectual police response outside the club and no known resistance inside the club, it was sadly irrelevant which firearm the terrorist chose for his attack.
It’s important to be very clear on this: when a terrorist faces no significant opposition, any common firearm can be used to inflict tremendous casualties.
We saw this at Virginia Tech, where the murderer was armed with one of the most common and utilitarian handguns in the world (a Glock 19 9mm pistol) and standard-capacity magazines, as well as a puny Walther P22… a training pistol.
We also saw it at the Washington Navy Yard, where the murderer used a very common pump-action shotgun to take numerous lives at will until law enforcement were finally able to locate, close with, and engage him. While an AR-15 was used at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the outcome would have been the same if he had decided instead to use either of the pistols in his possession, or the Saiga 12-shotgun he’d decided to leave in the trunk of the car.
In each instance, these violent criminals faced no credible resistance for long periods of time, and were able to cut down people who either could not or chose not to fight back.
Counter-terrorism and law enforcement experts all agree that the only thing that is going to stop an attack is effective resistance, preferably in the form of effective rounds on target. The media and Democrat Party mocked Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association when he said it after Sandy Hook, but he was entirely, factually accurate: the only thing proven to effectively stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, which Orlando SWAT finally did three long hours after the attack began.
Black Rifles Aren’t Boogeymen
It’s frankly fascinating to watch anti-gun politicians and the media attempt to sow so much fear about AR-15s and similar firearms.
You know how scary they are?
They’re so terrifying that little girls love to shoot them.
Bigger girls like to shoot them, too.
So do boys and young men, semi-out-of-shape, middle-aged gun writers, senior citizens, people with disabilities or injuries who can’t easily control the recoil of a handgun or shotgun, military veterans who prefer the familiar controls like the military’s M4 and M16 rifles, and millions of other people who simply enjoy shooting. Currently, there are estimated to be 9 million AR-15s alone in the United States.
Why are they so popular?
AR-15s are the most popular rifle sold in the United States for the following reasons:
- reasonably-priced, ranging from $499 to $2,000+ depending on options
- relatively light-weight
- easy to use
- low-recoiling with the most common and affordable intermediate-power caliber (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO)
- available in a wide range of calibers
- very user configurable, modular design
- depending on configuration, excels at more than a half-dozen kinds of sport shooting, is excellent for home and property defense, and is favored for many kinds of hunting.
Put simply, AR-15s are inexpensive, easy to customize, and being much less powerful and using much smaller bullets than most other rifles, they’re a lot more fun to shoot for more people.
In addition to 9 million AR-15s, there are millions of other firearms that fall under the broad classification of “modern sporting rifles,” or MSRs. Their common features tend to be that they shoot low-to-medium power centerfire rifle ammunition, fire one shot per trigger pull, and feed from a box magazine. This is only a very broad classification, however: there are many MSRs which are in rimfire calibers, and some long-range target rifles that fit the overall design or an MSR, but are in magnum calibers and are perhaps the only rifles in the classification that misleading media and politicians can honestly call “high-powered.”
The round on the left (above) is the .50 BMG, one of the most powerful rifle rounds currently made. It is legitimately “high powered.” The round beside it is the .30-06, a very popular hunting cartridge that was also the standard U.S. military service rifle cartridge in World War I, World War II, and Korea. In the middle is the .308 Winchester, which is very similar in power and performance to the .30-06, but which is just slightly less powerful. Fourth from the left (second from the right) is the .223 Remington, the most common cartridge for the AR-15, and one of the least powerful centerfire rifle rounds made. It’s visually identical to the 5.56 NATO chambering, with shoots a little faster. On the far right is the .22 Long Rifle (.22LR), often used for beginner training and the second most common chambering of AR-15s after the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO family of cartridges.
“Military-Style” Firearms And “Weapons of War” Are Largely A Myth
Despite attempts by politicians and the media to claim that the common, kid-friendly AR-15 is a “weapon of war,” or “military-style,” actual military rifles have been banned from manufacture for civilian purchase for exactly 30 years.
The Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act, signed into law by President Reagan in 1986, made it illegal to manufacture selective-fire (firearms that can be used as machine guns) rifles and handguns to the public. Only military, police, and specialized gun dealers and manufacturers selling to these markets can acquire them.
The most common rifles, pistols, and shotguns sold in the United States are not machine guns, not “weapons of war” as Hillary Clinton so glibly lies, and “military-style” is all about looks, not performance. Put bluntly, it’s a con job.
The most common rifles, handguns, and shotguns are semi-automatic, or “self-loading” firearms. They fire one shot per trigger pull, and (because I feel I have to repeat things for certain politicians) absolutely cannotbe fired as machine guns.
Here’s the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic firearms in a short, and very easy to understand video.
The basic concept for self-loading or semi-automatic firearms is old. It has been around since the 1880s.
While there are various semi-automatic designs, they all use some of the energy of the cartridge being fired to eject the empty cartridge and load another round into the chamber of the gun. The shooter can then opt to fire another shot (if he or she so desires) by pulling the trigger again.
One trigger pull, one shot.
Another trigger pull, another shot.
Another trigger pull, another shot.
Another trigger pull, another shot.
Each shot requires the shooter to pull the trigger again.
So it has been since the days of the horse and wagon.
But let’s get back to the modern day demonization of the AR-15, and attempts to demonize other guns that even vaguely look like them.
Black Guns Matter
As noted earlier, AR-15s are incredibly common because of a wide range of very good reasons. Ergonomic and easy to use by anyone, they’re the iPhone of the firearms world.
The Sig MCX used in the Orlando attack is just a modern take on basic concepts more than a century old.
I’ve only handled one at SHOT Show, but they look like fun.
It’s not particularly scary, is it?
It’s just another take on a basic concept that has been around for longer than any of us alive.
In a broader view, the media and Democrat politicians keep pushing the false claim that we have a “gun violence epidemic” in the country. That’s a bizarre claim to make, when we’re experience record-breaking gun sales at the same time we’re seeing the lowest per capita firearms homicides in U.S. history, per the FBI.
Robert Heinlein turns out to have been correct: an armed society is a polite society.
In terms of the horrific Islamic terror attack in Orlando, it was the lack of effective resistance and incredibly long period that the terrorist was allowed to operate that resulted in so many deaths, not his choice of guns.
Blaming the gun or even a broad family of firearms when many different firearms could have been used is incredibly dishonest.
Then again, that’s what we’ve come to expect from this nation’s news media and politicians, isn’t it?
By Michael Filozof
June 18, 2016
he gun control debate, relentlessly politicized by Democrats every time a jihadist or immigrant with foreign ties shoots up a gun-free zone here in the U.S., has taken what I regard as an ominous turn.
High-ranking former military officers are now promoting gun control.
In a New York Times editorial, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal endorsed gun control after the Orlando jihadist shooting. This follows an announcement a week ago that retired Gen. David Petraeus will be joining Mark Kelly, husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, to promote gun control.
McChrystal, as you may recall, was the top-ranking officer in Afghanistan until he was relieved for mocking Vice President Biden. Petraeus was the highly regarded architect of the “Iraq surge” and then director of the CIA until, like Bill Clinton, he sabotaged his own career due to his inability to keep his pants on.
McChrystal and Petraeus rose through the ranks during decades of abysmal military and foreign-policy failure in the Middle East. The U.S. military has been involved in Afghanistan, covertly or overtly, since the 1979 Soviet invasion. The U.S. military has been overtly involved in Iraq continuously since 1990. Neither country is better off, or less of a threat, after decades of U.S. involvement. Had it not been for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s, shooter Omar Mateen’s father, and Mateen himself, probably would never have been in the U.S. at all. The U.S. policy of assisting mujahedeen in the 1980s backfired when some of the so-called “freedom fighters” morphed into al-Qaeda in the 1990s. And the U.S. attempt to back militias to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria very likely led to the rise of ISIS.
Now, two generals who achieved prominence for their contributions to those failures think you shouldn’t have a gun. And it is supremely ironic that Afghan and Iraqi civilians in war zones formerly commanded by these generals were allowed to have an AK-47 for self-protection; now they are trying to deny Americans the same right.
Until recently, the military was the last bastion of conservative values. Loyalty, patriotism, toughness, and discipline were encouraged; adultery and homosexuality were banned. No more. In the Age of Obama, the Pentagon celebrates Gay Pride Day. Homicidal Muslim jihadists like Maj. Nidal Hasan are overlooked by the chain of command when they give out warning signals. Top-ranking officers like retired Gen. George Casey prize “diversity” over ferreting out Muslim crazies like Hasan. And Congress recently refused to prevent illegal aliens from serving.
The military has become an adjunct of the left-wing Deep State. It has become a mercenary force at the behest of the executive branch. High-ranking officers in the military are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They are, in point of fact, politicians who get ahead by being yes-men for the political elite. No high-ranking officers have questioned the illegal wars in Syria and in Libya; it fell to a 28-year-old captain to sue the president over Syria. (You can bet that his career is finished.)
It should not be forgotten that the Second Amendment was written because Gen. Thomas Gage declared martial law in Boston in 1774 and sent out a detachment of Redcoats to disarm the colonial militias in Lexington and Concord. We all know how that turned out.
McChrystal and Petraeus know, too.
By Hollie McKay
June 22, 2016
An alleged sexual assault on a five-year-old special needs girl has put a small Idaho city at the center of the debate over the Obama administration’s move to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Much of what occurred in the June 2 incident is unclear, clouded by emotion and rumor and sealed from public record due to the suspects’ ages. At a raucous public meeting Monday, dozens of residents of the city of 44,000 voiced their concerns after word had spread that young Syrian refugees had gang-raped a little girl at knifepoint, defiling her in unspeakable ways.
Some of what they had heard was true, some was not and still more remains unconfirmed speculation. But authorities believe something terrible occurred. Two young boys were arrested Friday and remain in custody.
“This is a serious crime and we are handling it the way we handle all such crimes,” Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs told FoxNews.com. “We’re still in the fairly early stages of investigating this.”
Despite the hot-button issue of refugee resettlement, the story has gained little traction with the national media, and Internet fact-check site Snopes.com has labeled the information circulating on the web as “mostly false.” According to Loebs, the three assailants, ages 7, 10 and 14, are not Syrian, but may be refugees. The girl was not raped, but is believed to have been sexually assaulted, he said.
The day after the arrests, local residents formed the Facebook community “Justice for Our Children” in support of the young victim and her family that has more than 9,000 members. A petition was circulated, attracting more than 2,500 signatures in less than three days.
“Many people in this community are in awe, and outraged that no consequences are being served to these boys nor their parents for this vile incident,” reads the petition letter dated Jun 18. “We feel there is an incredible lack of justice being served. We are not targeting due to racism. We are targeting these individuals because of their horrific acts. No one should go without consequences for actions like these no matter the age or language barrier.”
Davis Odell, a community resident who has been in close contact with the victim’s family said the boys dragged the unnamed girl into a utility room in the Fawnbrook Apartments, a low-income, subsidized housing complex in Twin Falls, and assaulted her in an attack that ended when a neighbor happened upon the scene and called police.
“They stripped her naked, and urinated in her mouth,” Odell told FoxNews.com, citing his conversations with the girl’s family.
Neither the Twin Falls Police Department nor Loebs confirmed the details given by Odell. Loebs did confirm that the incident was reported on June 2, and that two juvenile suspects were finally charged Thursday and arrested a day later. The prosecutor did not say why just two arrests had been made, and said the case is sealed due to its sensitive nature and the minors involved.
Twin Falls Police Chief Craig Kingsbury told reporters the suspects are Iraqi and Sudanese. Loebs said he does not know how long they have been living in the United States.
Twin Falls activists say the case and the lack of information from authorities demonstrates the problem with state and federal programs to resettle refugees in cities and towns.
“We’re worried that these are the kids who will be going to school with our kids,” said Odell. “We want to know what is happening.”
Refugee advocates say the disturbing case is being used to drive anti-refugee sentiments.
“There have been periodic website postings about hundreds of Syrians coming to Idaho that have all proven to be false in the past, and this is probably just one of those attempts to try and stir up hatred and bigotry,” Jan Reeves, director of the Idaho Office for Refugees, told the Idaho Statesman.
Reeves’ office has worked with the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement to find homes in the state for more than 300 refugees amid the current international crisis. Twin Falls is one of several communities in the state that has received refugees.
While the Syrian civil war touched off an international effort to absorb millions of displaced people, the refugee wave that has swept over Europe and into the U.S. includes people from more than a dozen Middle Eastern and African countries.
In Twin Falls last year, anti-refugee activists sought to close a local resettlement office, but did not gather enough signatures to put the measure before voters.
Davis and others are thus planning a fundraiser and “Walk of Support” this weekend in an effort to assist the family with relocation and legal costs. He said the girl is deeply traumatized and “very confused” about what happened.
At a City Council meeting Monday night, residents demanded answers from law enforcement regarding the crime and the resettlement program, with some calling for the removal of all immigrants in the city.
Lauren Day contributed to this report
By Howard Hyde
June 18, 2016
While Democrat legislators splatter us with saliva that they fraudulently pass off as tears in their quest for gun- and Bible-clinger control during moments of silence for the victims, liberals are lighting up the internet and Facebook with indignant rhetorical questions intended to shame us into retreat, like “Why should anyone need or want an AR-15” (variously described to liberals and other impressionable children as a “military-style assault rifle”)?
No actual, thoughtful answer is desired, of course. But I’ll give a few.
A semiautomatic carbine is a legitimate and appropriate weapon for a law-abiding citizen to own for personal or home defense. The suitability to task increases in proportion with the size of one’s home, lot, farm, or ranch, as a handgun is neither precise nor powerful enough to guarantee stopping a lethal threat the farther away that threat is – and we don’t apologize for wanting to keep the threat as far away as possible. With a carbine, a person defending himself or his family has two to five times greater chance of placing rounds on target at moderate distance. How important is that? It can make the difference between life and death. Consider that the hit ratio for cops – trained professionals – with handguns in real-life officer-involved shootings, at short distances, hovers around 15 percent. It’s incredibly difficult to hit the bad guy when you’re scared to death. Unlike The Hunger Games, we really do intend to tilt the odds in our favor.
Compared to shotguns, whether of the tactical or duck-hunting variety, which can pack a wallop of three times the kinetic energy on the target and commensurate rotator cuff-tearing recoil to the shooter, carbines are small, light, and maneuverable. (Yes, they are loud.)
In fact, it’s hard to think of a weapon more suitable to the task than an AR-15, if one could have been under the bartender’s shelf at the Pulse club last week. Dozens of lives might have been saved if just one good guy had had one at the ready at that moment.
Those of us who have friends or family members who have been crime victims or are under real threat of harm or death understand perfectly well why an AR-15 might be a candidate tool for personal protection. If you live in some idyllic part or social stratum of America where no one has been robbed, raped, or murdered in a hundred years, may God continue to bless you. But don’t render helpless those of us who are not as fortunate. We live here.
Thousands of Americans are murdered every year. While some of the victims are criminals or gangsters who but for the chance of circumstance might just as well have been the perpetrators, most are innocent. All of those innocent victims might have had their chances of survival increased via the possession and mastery of a firearm, including a carbine. If you had the power to rewind time and put an AR-15 in the hand of every murder victim just before their appointment with destiny, would you decline to do it because “nobody should have a weapon of war”?
Of course, we can’t rewind the clock to save victims who are already dead. And we also can’t ensure that no bad guy ever gets a hold of a gun again no matter how strictly we legally control guns, any more than we can stop all drug abuse via drug prohibition laws. Addicts and narco-traffickers find a way, to the great profit of the latter.
At the moment of the inevitable assault, the best thing we can do is to even the odds for potential future victims. The right to bear arms is the right to self-preservation, the primordial moral imperative that trumps (sorry) all other law. The reasons we baked this right into the Constitution are as valid today as they were in 1787. Any law or regulation that infringes upon this right, even if it increases hurdles by degrees for criminals and terrorists, puts the latter at a relative advantage over their victims. Innocent Americans are hurt more by gun control laws than the scumbags are.
Why should anyone need or want an AR-15? To save innocent lives, like those in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Paris. As the French say, parce que c’est bon – because it’s good.
The Clarion Project
June 22, 2016
The Council on American Islamic Relations is now charged with fraud and cover up perpetrated against hundreds of victims.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) will stand trial on charges of fraud and cover up for alleged crimes perpetrated against hundreds of victims, according to a new ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The case against CAIR National was originally dismissed by a federal judge but unanimously overturned by the appellate court. Two cases are involved in the suit, which the appellate court consolidated into one, since both cases involve racketeering, a federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) crime.
The lawsuits claim that CAIR National was aware that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Manager for Civil Rights” at the now defunct CAIR-Maryland/Virginia chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation.
Moreover, the suits claim, CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all. In addition, the complaints allege that, according to CAIR’s own internal documents, there were hundreds of victims of the fraud scheme.
While the original federal judge in the case ruled that Days and CAIR’s Virginia chapter were liable for fraud, he concluded that CAIR National was not responsible for Days’ conduct. The appeals court, however, found that, upon a review of the evidence, there was a direct relationship between CAIR National and Days.
David Yerushalmi, senior counsel for the plaintiffs in the case and co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center, remarked, “CAIR engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which literally hundreds of CAIR clients have been victimized.
“In his ruling, Judge Friedman [the original judge] inexplicably ignored material facts that establish CAIR National’s liability and then engaged in a transparently disingenuous ‘weighing’ of the factual evidence he did address … We are thankful that the appeals court has rectified the trial court’s errors. Now, at long last, our clients will go before a jury and get their day in court.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has a history of Islamist extremism including links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S. Justice Department labeled CAIR an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas-financing trial and listed CAIR as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
CAIR was also listed by the Justice Department as a part of the Brotherhood’s covert “Palestine Committee” to support Hamas in the United States.
By Rick Moran
June 16, 2016
Thirteen state GOP attorneys general have sent a letter to the Democratic AG’s who are investigating ExxonMobile for fraud in climate change research, telling them that if minimizing the danger of climate change is fraud, so is exaggerating the peril. They threaten to prosecute climate alarmists for making spectacular claims of disaster that have not materialized.
If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.
The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.
“Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.
“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”
The letter comes as Exxon Mobil fights off subpoenas by two prosecutors — Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker — for decades’ worth of climate-related documents and communications with academics, universities and free-market think tanks.
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris have also reportedly launched probes.
The 17 attorneys general — 16 Democrats and one independent — announced at a March 29 press conference that they had formed a coalition, AGs United for Clean Power.
“We think this effort by our colleagues to police the global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake,” said the letter.
The name of the coalition itself shows that the attorneys general “have taken the unusual step of aligning themselves with the competition of their investigative targets,” namely the solar and wind energy.
“If the focus is fraud, such alignment by law enforcement sends the dangerous signal that companies in certain segments of the energy market need not worry about their misrepresentations,” said the GOP letter.
Democrats have denied that the effort violates Exxon’s free-speech rights. Schneiderman spokesman Eric Soufer said in a statement that, “The law is clear: the First Amendment does not give any corporation the right to commit fraud.”
Think of how many global warming predictions over the last decade or so have been based on junk science or no science at all. The melting of the arctic ice cap by 2014 is my favorite. But the most important prediction that failed to come true is the failure of every single model that predicted a rise in temperature. Even the Intergovermmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees that there has been a pause in warming. The predictions about the rise in ocean levels has also been laughably wrong.
If the AG’s go through with their threat, their number one target should be Al Gore. He has not only been spectacularly wrong in many of his predictions, but he has also become fabulously wealthy by gaming the carbon trading system and capitalizing on his notoriety as the number one scaremonger in the world. I fantasize about putting him in an orange jumpsuit and making him do the perp walk in front of the cameras.
The GOP AG’s point is sound. A scientific disagreement should not be criminalized. Nor should free speech be chilled by prosecuting people you disagree with. Their plea will fall on deaf ears, however, because of the billions of dollars that the Democrats are looking to extort from Exxon.
Compared to that, free speech just doesn’t matter.
By Bob Owens
June 16, 2016
I’m firmly convinced that the New York Daily Newsexists entirely for my amusement.
Delicate flower Gersh Kuntzman became a laughingstock two days ago for his hysterical, grossly exaggerated description of his recent experience firing an AR-15.
Now Congressman and ex-Marine—and I’m using that term intentionally—Seth Moulton has popped up on my radar to prove that Blue Falcons are far from an extinct species.
Before popping up on the Daily News, Moulton, who represents Massachusetts’s 6th congressional district, proudly appeared on Twitter the other night attempting to trade off his experience as a Marine in Iraq for credibility as a gun control advocate here in the United States.
— Seth Moulton (@sethmoulton) June 14, 2016
The M4 carbine Rep. Moulton carried when he was still an honorable Marine serving the United States is indeed an assault rifle. An assault rifle is “a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power.”
On the American-designed M16 rifle and M4 carbine, the three-position selector switch (hence, selective-fire) is located on the lower receiver. Depending on the exact model of rifle or carbine, the three positions are safe, fire (semi-automatic or one-shot per trigger pull), and burst fire (variants may fire either three shot bursts or have the ability to fire fully-automatic until the trigger or released or the rifle runs dry).
Ex-Marine Moulton, now a turncoat betraying his oath as a Marine to defend the Constitution, posts a picture of himself holding a Colt M4 assault rifle in Iraq and says:
“I know assault rifles. I carried one in Iraq. They have no place on America’s streets.”
Seth Moulton lacks the integrity to tell you is that no civilian can own that gun, and no civilian ever has.
The M4 carbine, a shortened variant of the M16 assault rifle, was introduced into military service in 1994.
Eight years prior to that, however, President Ronald Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act into law. The most controversial piece of that legislation was the so-called “Hughes Amendment.”
It amended 18 U.S.C. § 922 to add subsection (o):
(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
The law went into effect in May, of 1986. Civilians have been barred from purchasing machine guns, including the M16 and M4 assault rifles used by the United States military, for 30 years.
The only exception to that law, and noted in subsection (2), are those registered machine guns (including machine pistols, submachine guns, and assault rifles) manufactured and registered with the ATF in accordance to the National Firearms Act prior to May of 1986.
Put bluntly, the assault rifle Moulton carried in Iraq has never been for sale in the United States to the civilian market.
Not even one.
The most popular civilian rifle sold in the United States is the AR-15. There are an estimated nine million currently on the market.
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not capable of selective fire.
The AR-15 selector-switch looks like this.
AR-15s—and all other rifles, handguns, and shotguns manufactured in the United States have the ability for the gun to be put on safe, or the ability to fire a single round when the trigger is pulled. They are not assault rifles.
Seth Moulton is a deceptive pile of filth.
No wonder he found a home in the Constitution-hating Democrat Party.
By Bob Owens
June 15, 2016
ight now, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrat party are using the most deadly Islamic terrorist attack since 9/11 to call for potentially millions of American citizens to be stripped of their right to bear arms without ever having been accused of a crime.
I saw a movie about that once, where the government had a Department of Precrime, and you could wake up one morning with a government agent’s gun in your face because someone thought a computer could make sense of flashes from the brains of a trio of mentally-challenged weirdos floating in a pool of their own pee.
Sadly, Donald Trump seems to be on board with the Democrats in thinking taking someone’s rights before they’ve committed any crimes is a bad idea.
I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2016
It apparently became the responsibility of the NRA toset Trump straight.
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Trump’s cluelessness on watch lists is disappointing, but he’s running as an “outside the beltway” candidate, and he clearly isn’t up to speed on a lot of domestic and foreign issues.
Hillary Clinton and her Democrat allies, however, have no such excuses. What both Hillary and the Democrats already know is that FBI is currently notified every time someone on a watch list attempts to purchase a firearm, and they already have the option to allow the individual to either allow the sale to proceed, deny the sale outright, or put it on a three-day delay. Let me make that perfectly clear again: it is up to the FBI’s discretion to decide how to proceed, and if they have an active investigation, they often don’t want to tip off a real terrorism suspect that he’s on a watch list by triggering a stopped sale.
The Democrats are intentionally risking national security in order to deny gun rights for tens of thousands of citizens who have inadvertently placed on watch lists, but who aren’t actually terrorism suspects.
Hillary and her Democrat allies have coldly calculated that they can use the anger and fear from this Islamic terrorist attack—committed by a long-time registered Democrat voter—to scare people into giving up their Fourth Amendment rights to due process, as well as the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
At least Hillary is now being honest: she’s not running against 2nd Amendment.
Her platform is running against the entire Bill of Rights.
By Steve Golac
June 16, 2016
When I learned of the Orlando shooting, I was completely overwhelmed by feelings of sadness for a moment — until I realized the opportunity before me. My fleeting encounter with human sympathy quickly shifted to rage. The boiling emotions inside could not be subdued. I will not allow sorrow, moments of silence, or any pallid sentiments to get in the way. This is a time for unbridled political rage. I’ll tell you why.
Time and time again, we have failed to live up to our self-appointed moral standing by not capitalizing on massacres — and that must end now! What’s the use of a tragedy if we can’t profit from it for political gain?
One of the greatest dangers at a time like this is allowing irrational passion to be replaced by responsible accountability. There is self-righteousness to be achieved, and we cannot allow facts, truth, or any other inconvenience to stand in the way.
As such, there is only one group to blame for the Orlando shooting, executed by a Democrat ISIS operative: Republicans. Yes, my political opponents. Why?
For their continued refusal to expand my political sovereignty over their individual rights. They are the ones at fault. It would be far too simple to blame shooters who identify with a worldwide syndicate, dedicated to beheading dissidents.
ISIS members are Muslims. Muslims are a minority. It is bigoted to demand a minority to live up to our basic social standards. You expect members of a victim group to be free moral agents, capable of deferring raging impulses?
I don’t even expect it of myself. What kind of a hypocrite would I be to expect it of a minority?
No. The shooter is absolved of responsibility. The blame is yours, GOP. If only you had not denied me my right to decide what you need and don’t need for protection, none of this would have happened. After all, your rights end where my feelings begin.
My seething is justified. All that stands in the way of our finally achieving peace is a single piece of legislation. That’s it. Just one law away from utopia. And your fetish for individual rights won’t allow that to happen. We could have ended shootings years ago, if not for you. Why wouldn’t I be indignant?
Sure the shooter passed federal background checks, but that only proves that we need even bigger and better checks! And who’s stopping those? You, Republicans! How many more need to die before you finally submit to us? When will you surrender the power we seek to finally end bad things for everyone? If only you terror accomplices were as forward thinking as the citizens of Paris or Brussels, all of this could have been avoided.
I appeal to the wisest minds of our time:
Rolling Stone called the Second Amendment outdated and petitioned for its repeal. And who understands being outdated more than Rolling Stone?
Middle-aged Canadian TV person Samantha Bee discharged an emotional outburst. Internet headlines called it blistering, and I’m not going to argue.
Somebody else said, “(We) must command all the guns. That way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” Okay, it was Mao, but it sounds like he was onto something.
Let us never forget that if things are illegal, they’re impossible!
It is absolutely paramount that opposition to progressive social policies be tied to terrorism. Otherwise, how are we expected to progress? By changing minds? Your failure to conform to our superior morality is what fuels terrorist acts by registered Democrats. Because sharing Martin Luther King, Jr.’s position that biology has something to do with marriage is qualitatively identical to supporting the mass murder of homosexuals.
Finally, I have decided that there is simply no reason for anyone to have the power to kill 50 people. Granted, you could do the same with a car or a pressure cooker, but when did I claim any devotion to consistency? My devotion is to public officials, who should have the power to end the world ten times over.
Of course more genocide has been committed by governments against unarmed citizens than everything else in history, combined… but that’s beside the point. Only a paranoid maniac would think that our government could ever become a totalitarian dictatorship. Now, if you don’t mind, I have a Trump-is-Hitler rally to attend.
So, hang your thoughts and prayers. No more silence. Our noble expression of rage toward innocent citizens who resist intrusion is needed more than your appeal to a deity. Who needs that, when we have something greater to rely on: government.
If it takes a thousand more terrorist attacks, we will keep exploiting them until you disarm. America will be as free of weapons as Pulse was. Only then will there be peace, once and for all. We’ve had enough! We are coming for your guns, Republicans. What could go wrong?