Mediaboss Marketing

by C.D. Michel

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On June 29 2017, Cuban-born Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez issued aninjunctionin an NRA and CRPA supported lawsuit that challenges Californias laws prohibiting the possession of standard capacity firearm magazines.

For now at least, Judge Benitezs ruling in the Duncan v. Becerra case stops the ban from taking effect. More generally, and perhaps more significantly, it affirms that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, and must be respected and protected by the courts.

In 1960, when he was 10 years old, Judge Benitez emigrated from communist controlled Cuba to the United States. He was accompanied by his 13-year old brother, but his mother was initially unable to accompany them because she had been arrested by Castros forces on suspicion of sympathizing with the United States Government. After being held for three days without being allowed to call a lawyer or her family, she was fortunately released, and was eventually able to escape Castros regime.

Judge Benitez familys experiences under communist rule have impacted his judicial career, and apparently shaped his thinking. Thursdays well-reasoned and meticulously thorough 66-page decision to issue an injunction stopping California law from turning hundreds of thousands of California gun owners into criminals demonstrates that. It shows Judge Benitezs profound respect for, and appreciation of, the freedoms enshrined in the United States Constitution an appreciation likely brought into sharp relief compared to the oppressive dictatorship he and his family lived through.

It seems the Judge has seen how insidious government infringements on civil rights can be, and grasps how the Founding Fathers shaped the Bill of Rights to protect us from statist politicians incrementally increasing those infringements, even in the beguilingly alluring name of public safety.

The ruling is welcome news for gun owners who are under siege from shrewd California lawmakers with an extreme progressive agenda. Last year California politicians were faced with a threat from Gavin Newsoms self-promoting Prop 63 as he vied to seize the mantle of the King-of-Gun-Control from Senator Kevin DeLeon so he could build his name recognition in his gubernatorial campaign. So they raced to pass a number of gun bans that have collectively become known as Gunmageddon. Both Prop 63 and Gunmaggedon included a ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Although acquisition and importation of the magazines had been banned since 2000, under the new laws gun owners were compelled to dispossess themselves of the magazines by July 1. Its government confiscation with a mustache. But by issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Benitez instead preserved the status quo while the constitutionality of the ban is fully litigated in court, where plaintiffs are seeking to eventually have a permanent injunction issued.

Unsurprisingly Newsom, Prop 63s main proponent, was unhappy with the decision. As he stated to Fox News, large-capacity magazines enable murderers to unleash dozens of rounds without having to stop and reload.

But to quote the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. And despite Prop 63s purported public safety interests, those interests may not eviscerate the Second Amendment, as Judge Benitez put it.

Even so, Newsoms claim that banning these magazines would somehow save lives is pure fallacy. To support this policy choice, attorneys for the government offered a number of studies and expert testimonies trying to prop up that claim. But unlike some courts that have almost blindly accept the governments claims without scrutinizing the evidence, Judge Benitez took a close look. He found that states evidence was inconclusive at best. One of those experts admitted that it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading . . . affects the outcomes of gun attacks. Another so-called expert cited nothing more than news articles in concluding that the bans on large capacity magazines can help save lives by forcing mass shooters to pause and reload ammunition.

As Judge Benitez correctly notes, the burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State. In order to meet this burden, the State cannot get away with shoddy data or reasoning. But in this case, the States evidence is nothing more than a false dichotomy. For as a purely public policy choice, a government may declare that firearms of any capacity are dangerous in the hands of criminals, while simultaneously concluding that firearms with larger than 10-round magazines in the hands of law-abiding citizens makes every individual safer and the public as a whole safer. As a result, banning such magazines is hardly the reasonable fit constitutionally required to uphold such a ban.

In addition to the lack of evidentiary support for the policy being advocated, Judge Benitez bravely questioned the appropriateness of the trend of lower courts to apply a convoluted, multi-step test in scrutinizing the constitutionality of gun control laws. Its a subjective test that lets judges put their fingers on the scales of justice, and almost always results in upholding any form of gun-control. But even if that test were applied here, Judge Benitez found the States evidence to be incomplete, unreliable, and speculative at best, flatly rejecting the States attempt to support its ban with anything less than hard facts and reasonable inferences drawn from convincing analysis.

Newsom wasnt the only one to criticize Judge Benitezs clear and well-founded reasoning. Having just recently suffering a defeat before the Office of Administrative Law, which rejected his Departments most recent proposed assault weapon regulations, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra put out a press release stating that Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way.

But Judge Benitez was mindful that a majority of California voters approved Prop 63, just as he was equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. If all that was needed to undermine constitutionally protected rights was a simple majority vote, the Constitution would long ago have lost all meaning. And without the Constitution to preserve and protect Americas civil liberties we could, and given that bureaucrats crave power and power inevitably corrupts almost certainly eventually would, find ourselves under oppressive government regimes like those of 1960s Cuba.

Of course, this wont stop the state from appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit, where the politicians hope to find a more sympathetic audience that will bend over intellectually backwards to defer to the governments arguments.

To learn more about the Duncan case, as well as other NRA / CRPA lawsuits brought to protect the rights of California gun owners, subscribe to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And please take a moment to consider donating to the CRPA Foundation, to support the Duncan case, and other NRA / CRPA efforts in California. About: CalGunLaws.comis an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. CalGunLaws.com strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice.

Read this article:
Sorry Gavin, Your Civilian Disarmament Agenda Does Not Trump the Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

SALISBURY Barry Donadio gave remarks on the Second Amendment on June 26 to Republican constituents in Salisbury. The Wicomico County Republican Club of Maryland hosted his appearance and discussion at the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce located at 144 E. Main Street.

Our Second Amendment rights are an individual right and not for only those serving in the military, Donadio said.

During his talk, Donadio expressed his belief that the Second Amendment is a womens rights issue. He said, Every female U.S. citizen over the age of 18 and without a serious criminal history should have the unrestricted right to carry a concealed handgun on their person for self defense.

Donadio told constituents to never give up protecting the rights of the Second Amendment as it is an amendment that safeguards our liberties. Donadio advised the group to legally and safely exercise Second Amendment rights as the U.S. Constitution allows.

In attendance were President of the Wicomico County Republican Club Shawn Bradley, Maryland State Del. Johnny Mautz, Wicomico Republic Central Committeewoman Julie Brewington, Maryland State Sen. Addie Eckardt, Maryland State Circuit Court Judge Matthew A. Maciarello and the first female Police Chief of Salisbury, Barbara Duncan.

Donadio thanked the club for its hospitality.

Donadio led an honorable career in the volunteer ambulance service, volunteer fire department, the military, law enforcement and the United States Secret Service. He was assigned to the White House during the Bush and Obama administrations. He also served in multiple Middle Eastern war zones during his career. In 2013, he authored the book, TWA Flight 800 First Responder Witness Account.

In 2014, he was elected to the Queen Annes County Republican Central Committee in Maryland. He currently serves as President of Public Security LLC. He is also a Maryland State Police certified pistol instructor. In January 2017, Donadio was appointed the sergeant-at-arms of the Maryland Republican Party.

Here is the original post:
Donadio speaks about Second Amendment rights - My Eastern Shore

I expect that very soon border controls will be activated and that a assistance deployment (by the military) will be requested, Hans Peter Doskozil told the online edition of the Krone daily.

He was cited as saying that this move was indispensible if the inflow into Italy does not ease. The paper said that 750 soldiers were available and that four armoured vehicles had already been sent to the area over the weekend.

Austria introduced checks on its eastern border with Hungary in 2015 and has readied physical measures such as barriers on its Italian border in the south-west, including at the famous Brenner Pass.

Nearly 85,000 migrants and refugees have arrived in Italy by sea this year, the UN refugee agency said earlier Monday. More than 2,000 others have died or gone missing on the perilous crossing.

This is not sustainable. We need to have other countries joining Italy and sharing that responsibility, Vincent Cochetel, the UNHCRS special envoy for the central Mediterranean, told reporters in Geneva.

The comments from the centre-left Doskozil come ahead of early elections in Austria in October when the anti-immigration far-right is forecast to do well and potentially emerge as the biggest party.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Continued here:
Migrant Crisis: Austria Ready to Deploy Army, Impose Checks at Italy Border - Breitbart News

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

A new government report estimates that 1.4 million illegal immigrants are using the stolen Social Security numbers of Americans, a problem that is getting worse and being exacerbated by the inability of key federal agencies to work together.

Its a problem that U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., says demands congressional attention to protect the interests of American citizens and those in the U.S. legally.

According to the report from Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Robert George, only half of those 1.4 million Americans were even notified that their Social Security information was compromised.

He also concluded that tracking the fraud is more difficult than it needs to be because the IRS is forbidden from working with the Department of Homeland Security to identifythose responsible.

Let your voice be heard on the border issue! Sign the petition that tells Congress: Build the wall!

Rohrabacher finds that unacceptable but not surprising. He says the problem is getting worse because more and more people are coming to the U.S. illegally with the expectation of receiving federal benefits.

You have got a large number now, millions of people who are coming to this country who thought they were going to get government benefits, just like Americans, said Rohrabacher.

Today, weve evolved into a situation where if people [who]are here illegally can end up compromising the Social Security system or any of our systems designed to help Americans and legal immigrants, itll just destroy the whole system. Its in the process. We are in the process of collapsing now, said Rohrabacher.

The congressman saidthe problem also persists because of leaders who encourage it.

This is the same mentality as people who are in elected office who are telling us they are going to provide sanctuary in cities and states around the United States for people who are here illegally, even when theyre criminals. I mean how absurd is that, said Rohrabacher.

Listen to the interview:

He said the bureaucratic wall that prevents IRS-DHS collaboration is from the same mindset.

This same gang has managed to sneak this type of restriction into law or into practice here at the federal level. We need to make sure its dealt with as quickly as we can. Now that we have a president and two houses of Congress, we need to prove we can act, said Rohrabacher.

The congressman said there are definitely good, honorable people working inside the federal government, but he warns the number of political operatives who are embedding themselves into the bureaucracy is a problem.

There are a lot of other people who have been making their way through the bureaucracy that have been helped along by liberal-left political connections, sort of wormed their way into the system. I know a lot of people in the last eight years have made sure theyre in positions throughout our government, said Rohrabacher.

While Rohrabacher isnt immediately sure of what exact legislation is needed to allow greater interagency cooperation and to crack down on Social Security fraud, he said the process is clear.

Wed have to name those legal impediments to say specifically that the cooperation thats necessary to track down this type of fraud committed against the American people by illegal immigrants and that all areas of government should be legally able to work together, said Rohrabacher.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed multiple bills addressing illegal immigration, one to ratchet up the punishment for repeat illegal immigrants and the other to threaten the withholding of federal dollars to cities and other jurisdictions that impede the work of federal immigration officials.

Rohrabacher said addressing Social Security fraud and bureaucratic hurdles is another test the public expects Republicans to pass.

Get Leo Hohmanns Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad, available now at the WND Superstore.

Read more:
Feds handcuff selves on illegal immigration - WND.com

WASHINGTON The Republican-led House June 29 pressed ahead with legislation to crack down on illegal immigration, a key priority for President Donald Trump.

One bill would strip federal dollars from self-proclaimed sanctuary cities that shield residents from federal immigration authorities, while a separate bill would stiffen punishments for people who re-enter the U.S. illegally.

Trump often railed against illegal immigration during his presidential campaign, and his support for tougher immigration policies is crucial to his voting base. Trump met at the White House June 28 with more than a dozen people whose family members were killed by people in the country illegally, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions is set to meet with the families as well.

One of the bills, known as Kates Law, would impose harsher prison sentences on deportees who re-enter the United States. The bill is named after 32-year old Kathryn Steinle, who was shot and killed in California in 2015 by a man who was in the country illegally.

A second bill would bar states and localities that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving certain Justice Department and Homeland Security grants, including some related to law enforcement and terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said he appreciates Congress effort to address the dangers of sanctuary cities and illegal immigrant offenders.

At a news conference at the Capitol with House Speaker Paul Ryan, Kelly said his agency will enforce the laws that are passed by Congress, adding: I am offended when members of this institution put pressure and often threaten me and my officers to ignore the laws they make.

Kelly did not elaborate on what threats or pressure he was referring to.

The Justice Departments inspector general has identified California and major cities such as Chicago, New York and Philadelphia as locales with barriers to information-sharing among local police and immigration officials. The Trump administration warned nine jurisdictions in late April that they could lose coveted law enforcement grant money unless they document cooperation.

The Asian Americans Advancing Justice, an affiliation of five civil rights organizations, in a June 28 statement in response to the two bills, said it strongly opposes both H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 and the passage of any immigration enforcement legislation that would increase indiscriminate enforcement, further the criminalization of immigrants and instill more fear in already terrified communities.

It noted that roughly 40 percent of all immigrants come to the U.S. from Asia, and 1.6 million of those immigrants are undocumented.

Anti-immigrant policies create a climate of fear for all immigrants, regardless of status, the organization said.

We are horrified and dismayed that House leadership has chosen to line up behind the administration in its scapegoating of immigrants, it added. Both of these bills further the administrations goals of criminalizing all immigrants.

The bills are scheduled to be voted on by the end of the month.

The rest is here:
House Pushes Bills to Crack Down on Illegal Immigration - India West