Mediaboss Marketing

This article appears in the July 2017 issues of the Official Journals of the National Rifle Association.

The drumbeat of fake news continues as the elites disappointed by the 2016 election dedicate themselves to resisting the Trump administration.

Among their many false narratives is that Americans are no longer interested in firearms now that Barack Obama is out of the White House.

At least two big groups of people didnt get that memo.

One is comprised of the 2,045,564 Americans who were queried through the FBIs firearm background check database in April 2017. This was the second busiest April ever for that system. In fact, each month of Trumps presidency has seen over two million firearm-related background checks. Only in 2016, when Americans faced losing their Second Amendment rights forever, did the FBI run more checks during a January to April period.

The other group included the nearly 82,000 people who attended the NRAs Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Atlanta, Georgia in late April. This was our second-highest total of attendees ever. Fifteen acres of guns and gear on display at the Georgia World Congress Center said all that needed to be said about the vitality of Americas firearms industry.

But those werent the only encouraging signs that greeted the NRAs extended family reunion in the Peach State. Our Annual Leadership Forum drew an impressive line-up of speakers. Besides three sitting U.S. Senators (Georgias David Purdue, Alabamas Luther Strange, and Texas Ted Cruz), we heard from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Florida Governor Rick Scott. Lt. Col. Allen West and Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke provided a distinguished presence from the uniformed ranks. And rounding out the guest list were Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, former Major League Baseball great Adam LaRoche, and campus carry advocate Antonia Okafor.

But that was just the undercard, as it were. Because for only the second time in the NRAs history, we welcomed the sitting President of the United States (the last one before him being Ronald Reagan in 1983). For those of us who were on the front lines of the brutal 2016 election (and that included every NRA member present), it was not only an honor to have President Trump address the NRA, but one of the clearest possible lessons of the power the common person still holds in American democracy.

I began my remarks with a montage of film clips showing condescending figures from the political, media, and entertainment establishments dismissing Trumps chances of winning the election, contrasted with footage of the partnership forged between the NRA and Donald Trump. NRA members have always stood apart from the prevailing winds of elite opinion and political correctness to focus on the enduring values that have bound our country together from the beginning.

That resolve was never as evident or necessary as in 2016, when the fate of our country and the Second Amendment literally hung in the balance of the presidential contest. On the one hand was globalist and Second Amendment opponent Hillary Clinton, who claimed that the Supreme Court was wrong to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. On the other was Donald Trump, who had a Second Amendment position paper on his campaign website that began, The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. At stake was which of them would appoint the Second Amendments tie-breaking vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the time President Trump addressed the crowd in Atlanta, he had already made that appointment by filling the late Justice Antonin Scalias seat with another constitutional originalist, Neil M. Gorsuch. Once again, we have a majority of support on the Court for our right to keep a gun in our home for self-defense.

President Trump had many stirring things to say during his address. But the line all of us will remember most is when he assured the members of the NRA: you came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.

More than that, however, you the NRAs members came through for America and for the freedoms we hold dear. And American democracy and its elevation of the common man and woman came through for all of us.

As ever, the fight for Americas soul will continue. But that Friday in Atlanta showed with the utmost clarity it is one we can win.

Read the original here:
A New Day for the Second Amendment: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA - NRA ILA

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take a case about the boundaries of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, by saying it will not review a California self-defense law.

The petitioners in Peruta v. California who asked the Supreme Court to review the case called the controversy "perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question" left to come before the Supreme Court. The high court's action on Monday will leave that question unresolved.

The question the Supreme Court refused to hear is whether the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the high court's decision not to take the case, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

"At issue in this case is whether that [Second Amendment] guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense," Thomas wrote. "Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari."

He added, "For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a state denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it."

California law generally prevents carrying a handgun outside a home, but concealed carry is allowed for those with a license. Applicants for such a license need to demonstrate "good cause" to obtain the license, which several sheriffs have taken to mean including carrying a handgun for self-defense, as the petitioners noted in their brief to the Supreme Court. But in San Diego, the sheriff defined "good cause" as requiring a "particularized" need for self-defense that separates the applicant from an average applicant.

A three-judge panel found the San Diego County Sheriff's policy unconstitutional, but was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court did not take the case, the 9th Circuit's ruling will prevail.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote. "The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this court should address. I see no reason to await another case."

Paul Clement, an attorney who several conservatives hoped to see included on President-elect Trump's Supreme Court short lists when looking to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is listed as the counsel of record for the petitioners challenging the California policy and 9th Circuit decision.

Read the original here:
Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case - Washington Examiner

SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment Conservative Review Over the past few years, we have chronicled a pattern developing in the lower courts on the Second Amendment since the Heller decision. Not that we needed the Supreme Court to affirm the right to self-defense, which predated the Constitution, but the ...

More here:
SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment - Conservative Review

2016 was an extraordinarily deadly year for migrants: 5,000 people perished in the Mediterranean Sea, vastly exceeding the death toll of 3,700 in 2015. And in the first six months of 2017, more than 1,000 deaths have been recorded.

Year after year, we see the same dynamics at work. Migrants flee conflict and instability in the Middle East and Africa trying to reach Europe. In order to avoid the land checkpoints established by European governments, they take their lives into their hands, setting off across the Mediterranean in makeshift boats, often operated by unscrupulous people smugglers.

This is not a recent tragedy; migrant advocate organisations have been recording the death toll of these people since the 1990s. But now they don't simply tally up the dead, they directly intervene by rescuing migrants at sea.

It all started in 2014 with the discontinuation of the Italian navy's humanitarian and military operation Mare Nostrum. The cost of the operation was too high for the Italian government, which was unable to convince its European partners to join its efforts.

The program was replaced by operation Triton, financed by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex). But NGOs feared that the change would lead to the deaths of thousands of migrants: Triton has a lower budget than Mara Nostrum and only operates in a small section of the waters where boats are liable to sink.

Above all, Triton was primarily designed for border control, rather than saving lives.

Launched by a couple of Italian-American millionaires, the Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) was the first private organisation of its kind to charter a boat. In 2015, Doctors without Borders (MSF, short for Mdecins Sans Frontires) followed their lead, as did Save the Children in 2016.

Across Europe, citizens came together to create new organisations such as SOS Mditerrane, Sea Watch, Life Boat Project, Sea Eye, Jugend Rettet in Germany, Boat Refugee in the Netherlands, and Proactiva Open Arms in Spain.

The number of different authorities and organisations involved has made rescue operations more complex. Since maritime law states that any vessel close to a boat in distress must come to its aid, the relevant maritime authorities coordinate rescue efforts for each zone. In the central Mediterranean Sea, it is most often the Italian coast guard, part of the Ministry of Transportation, that grants NGOs permission to intervene.

But, in reality, it's often the NGOs who find a sinking boat and contact the coast guard themselves.

Once the migrants are rescued, they are taken to an Italian port, under the authority of another government department (Ministry of the Interior), who selects their destination, registers them and directs them towards " hotspots " - migrant centres set up by the European Union.

In Italy, the role of NGOs in rescue operations has created controversy. In December 2016, the Financial Times highlighted Frontex's frustration.

The European border force has reservations about sea rescue operations. In its opinion, letting migrants believe that all they need to do is take to the sea to be rescued and welcomed to Europe opens up the floodgates.

According to the British newspaper, Frontex has evidence that some NGOs are in contact with smugglers and direct them towards zones where migrants have the best chance of being rescued. In other words, they claim these NGOs are accomplices to human traffickers and are therefore guilty of the crime of assisting illegal immigration.

The report led Italian authorities to investigate. In May 2017, the Italian senate's parliamentary inquiry concluded that NGOs constitute a "pull factor" and that they should cooperate more with maritime police operations. The Catania chief prosecutor nevertheless stated that there was no proof of wrongdoing.

The Italian government itself is divided. While the minister for foreign affairs has denounced the NGOs, the prime minister has thanked rescuers for their help, and the coast guard says it supports "politically neutral" maritime activities.

International organisations have also taken a stand. The UN High Commission for Refugees defended the NGOs, while the International Organization for Migration gave partial support to Frontex's arguments, while highlighting the importance of saving lives in the Mediterranean.

On June 9 2017, researchers Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani published the report Blaming the Rescuers. Using empirical evidence, it refuted Frontex's claims and pointed out that the border force also accused operation Mare Nostrum of encouraging illegal immigration.

Yet the end of the Mare Nostrum operation, far from limiting fatalities, led to an increase in deaths. In the 2016 report Death by Rescue, these same researchers measured fatalities during Mediterranean crossings, comparing the number of people lost at sea with the number of people who reached Europe. They showed that it was far more dangerous to migrate during the Triton operation than Mare Nostrum. Increases in fatalities and the risk of death during a crossing are therefore not due to the presence of rescuers but rather to the lack of rescue operations.

These reports accuse Frontex of ending the Mare Nostrum operation knowing that it was saving lives. They also claim that it is now doing the same thing with NGOs, attempting to get rid of them knowing full well that their absence would make the journey riskier.

The debate highlights contradictions in European migration policies, which are creating a "prohibition effect". If it is impossible to procure something legally (access to Europe), demand shifts to the riskier back market, profiting unscrupulous intermediaries.

Strengthening border control, especially on land, automatically results in risky boat journeys and therefore a rise in the number of deaths at sea. And the humanitarian aim of saving lives inevitably runs up against government efforts to control immigration.

Behind the controversy lies the question of legitimacy. Who has the right to intervene and come to migrants' rescue?

Frontex defends the right of governments to control their borders and exercise sovereignty. NGOs have another perspective: if national governments are unable to uphold certain fundamental rights, such as the right to life, civil society must intervene.

This philosophy is nothing new. State inaction is also the reason many NGOs have become involved in the fight against poverty, for instance, and the defense of minorities. What is different is its application to questions of sovereignty, which is normally reserved for nation states.

To an extent, the crisis in the Mediterranean enables NGOs to challenge state control over borders. And it's understandable that this creates resistance. But if governments wish to defend their monopoly, they should find better arguments than those put forward by Frontex.

Greater solidarity in Europe would help avoid situations like the one that led to the discontinuation of the Mare Nostrum operation. Following the Dublin Convention, countries such as Greece and Italy are continuously at the front line, which is neither fair nor sustainable.

In this context, we can see the limits of the current political approach to migration, founded on an obsession with security and a denial of fundamental rights.

With calm weather conditions ideal for sea crossings, the northern summer is almost upon us. The migration debate is only just beginning and it brings with it the need for a basic rethinking of European migratory policies.

Translated from the French by Alice Heathwood for Fast for Word.

Antoine Pcoud, Professeur de sociologie, Universit Paris 13 - USPC and Marta Esperti, Doctorante en sociologie, Universit Paris 13 - USPC

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Visit link:
Are NGOs Responsible For The Migration Crisis In The Mediterranean? - Huffington Post India

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump is looking forward to signing two bills designed to curb illegal immigration, according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

Spicer said at Mondays press briefing that the House is expected to vote on both theNo Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kates Law at the end of this week.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act withholds Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice grants from states and localities that dont comply with federal immigration detainers. It also protects these localities from lawsuits due to complying with these detainers, while allowing victims of crimes from released illegal immigrants to sue these jurisdictions.

Kates Law adds increased punishments for deported illegal immigrants who return back to the United States. It is named after Kate Steinle, whose 2015 murder was allegedly done by a five-time deported illegal immigrant.

Spicer said that these bills are major priorities for the president, and that combating illegal immigration is an issue that should unite all Americans in both major parties.

Spicer went on to say, We look forward to signing them both.

He also added that the bills represent a major tool in a fight to dismantle the dangerous MS-13cartel. The Trump administration has focused on taking apart the transnational street gang based out of El Salvador. The president said at a recent cabinet meeting that the gang will be gone pretty soon.

Read the original:
WH: Signing Anti-Illegal Immigration Bills Is A Priority - The Daily Caller