Mediaboss Marketing

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

JOHNSTON, Iowa -- New gun laws go into effect on Saturday that include changes to Iowas stand your ground law.

The new law effectively eliminates the duty to retreat before turning to deadly force, and while most gun owners support the law as a whole, there are some concerns over Iowas more relaxed training laws.

It can be a slippery slope because initially Iowa law does not require you to ever hold or handle or learn to shoot a gun to even get a permit to carry a gun to start with, said CrossRoads Shooting Sports Owner Tom Hudson.

That leads to concern over untrained gun owners not being familiar with self-defense laws.

Nowhere in the permit requiring process does it require you to learn legal code in Iowa, said Hudson.

One gun owner expressed concerns that people can reapply for permits without any refresher courses or tests.

If you dont know how to use it, theres no point in having it. Youre putting yourself and everyone else around you in danger. Ive actually had a buddy accidentally shot himself, killed himself because he didnt know how to use the gun. He had his permit to carry and everything. So yeah, totally against that, said gun owner Kurtis Spaur.

Hudson says the changes to the law puts more responsibility on shops like his.

It does absolutely place a responsibility on us to help educate people. Just before you walked up I was helping a young couple select their first firearm for her, that she may want to carry here soon, so that then makes it our duty, and a shop owner's responsibility, in my opinion, to turn around and say, okay, if youre going to actively carry, lets talk about additional resources, said Hudson.

Hudson's shop offers training classes on the ins and outs of the stand your ground law, and says anyone who carries should go through it because there are serious consequences whenever a gun is un-holstered.

If you choose to use deadly force, if you choose to brandish your weapon, to present your firearm, it should only be because there is absolutely no other choice necessary other than defend your life. You cant retreat, you cant de-escalate it, you cant pick up a rock and try to just knock him out of the way and neutralize them to the point of getting away. There should be so many other steps that should be going through your mind. And while this is going to unfold in a matter of seconds, your mind needs to be prepared to operate that quickly. If not, put your gun away and leave it at home, you dont need to be carrying it."

The new law also allows Iowans to carry in the Statehouse.

More:
Gun Owners Pleased with New Laws, But Share Concerns - whotv.com

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided against hearing a case involving the right to carry a firearm outside of one's home. California resident Edward Peruta had challenged a state lawlimiting gun-carrying permits to those showing "good cause." Simply mentioning self-defense is not enough - San Diego policy requires residents to list specific threats they believe they're facing.

Although the right to carry has been a hot topic across the country, Peruta v. California did not interest at least four of the justices, so it will not be added to their docket at this time.

That really peeved off Justices Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the bench.

The Second Amendments core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry, Thomas wrote. Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

Thomas went on to say that he and his colleagues are too removed from everyday American life to understand why this case is so important.

"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," Thomas added.

Newest Justice Neil Gorsuch joined on to Thomas's opinion.

Without the chance to be heard at the Supreme Court, the lower court rulings stands. In a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the San Diego restrictions were permissible.

See more here:
Justice Thomas Chides Colleagues for Ignoring Second ... - Townhall - Townhall

The interior ministers of France, Germany and Italy will meet in Paris on Sunday to discuss a "coordinated approach" to help Italy deal with hordes of migrants arriving in its ports, a source said.

Italy on Wednesday threatened to suddenly stop vessels from other countries disembarking migrants at its ports after rescuing them in the Mediterranean.

French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb, German counterpart Thomas de Maiziere and Italy's Marco Minniti will meet European Union Commissioner for Refugees Dimitris Avramopoulos in the French capital, the informed source said.

"The aim is to have a coordinated and concerted approach to the influx of migrants in the central Mediterranean," as well as "how best to help the Italians," the source close to the issue said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron both expressed their backing for Italy after meeting in Berlin.

"Germany will certainly help Italy face this problem," Merkel said.

Macron meanwhile cited the Italian premier as saying that more than 80 percent of the migrants were seeking a better life economically and were not fleeing war or persecution.

Nearly 77,000 migrants have landed in Italy since January, up 15 percent on the same period in 2016.

"We are confronted with growing numbers that over time could severely test our reception system," Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni had said.

Speaking in Ottawa, Italian President Sergio Mattarella warned that "if we continue with these kind of figures, the situation will become unmanageable, even for a large and open country like ours".

Mattarella called on the fellow EU nations to make a "concrete contribution" to help Rome deal with the problem.

See the rest here:
Talks in Paris on Sunday on Italy's migrant crisis - The Local France

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly speaks about immigration reform at a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Photo by REUTERS/Joshua Roberts.

WASHINGTON Warning of threats to public safety and national security, the Republican-led House on Thursday approved two bills 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 measure would stiffen punishments for people who re-enter the U.S. illegally.

The sanctuary measure was approved 228-195, while the bill to punish deportees was approved 257-167.

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 on Wednesday with more than a dozen people whose family members were killed by people in the country illegally, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with the families Thursday.

WATCH: Jeff Sessions speaks at DOJ hate crimes summit

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 San Francisco in 2015 by a man who was in the country illegally. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who pleaded not guilty to the crime, had been released by sheriffs officials months earlier despite a request by immigration officials to keep him behind bars.

The 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.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the two bills would help avoid the kind of tragic circumstances that have totally involved the lives of the people who were at the White House speaking up for their loved ones.

The sanctuary measure follows a simple principle that if youre going to receive taxpayer dollars from the federal government to keep people safe, that youve got to follow the law and keep them safe, Goodlatte said.

Democrats said the bills were feel-good measures intended to make lawmakers look tough on crime.

READ MORE: Trump administration keeps DACA program, shields young immigrants from deportation

Were not doing bumper stickers here. We are doing laws, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif, said.

She and other Democrats said the sanctuary measure was about telling people how to police their cities and telling local officials that we in Washington, D.C., know better than you do.

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.

A spokesman said later that Kelly will continue to push back against any attempt pressure, threat or otherwise to ignore the enforcement of immigration law.

Enforcement is not selective, occasional or arbitrary, its the law, spokesman David Lapan said.

READ MORE: President Trump urges passage of House immigration bills

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.

Sessions said Steinle would still be alive today if only the city of San Francisco had put the publics safety first. How many more Americans must die before we put an end to this madness?

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said Kates Law would not have had an impact on the Steinle case, noting that Steinle was killed in July 2015 by an immigrant who had been mistakenly released by the federal Bureau of Prisons.

The proposed bill would not have kept Kate Steinles killer off the streets, Gutierrez said. Instead, we are voting on a bill to put other people in different circumstances in jail for longer periods of time. It is a bait-and-switch strategy: Use a horrible tragedy to sell a policy that would not have prevented that death, so that you put more immigrants in jail for longer periods of time.

Visit link:
House Republicans back bills to crack down on illegal immigration - PBS NewsHour

'People Will Die': Parody Musician Pokes Fun at Dems' Rhetoric

Congress Takes Off Over 200 Days Per Year

Study: Russia-Obsessed Networks Barely Covered the Economy in Past Month

An illegal immigrantis set to be awarded $190,000 from San Franciscoafter police turned him over to immigration authorities, which is a violation of the city's sanctuary policy.

Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, who is fromEl Salvador and was living in the U.S. illegally, walked into a police station on December 2, 2015, to recover his stolen car. When he left the station, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immediately took him into custody.

Figueroa-Zarceno recently reached the massive settlement agreement with the city attorney's office. The agreement must be approved by the city's Board of Supervisors.

Immigration advocateRoberto Hernandez joined Tucker Carlson tonight to debate the controversial payout.

Tucker argued it's "insane" that the city is payingHernandez because they actually enforced U.S. federal immigration law.

"You shouldn't pay a criminal for breaking the law," Tucker said. "And that's what San Francisco is doing."

Judge Jeanine: Everything Is About 'Trashing' Trump With Mainstream Media

'Get Your Facts Straight': Podesta and Bartiromo Clash Over Russia Ties

Female Kurdish Fighter Smiles, Sticks Her Tongue Out After ISIS Bullet Misses Her Head

Hernandez said that San Francisco has a sanctuary policy because citizens and city leaders believe that the federal government's immigration policy has failed.

"In San Francisco, we are different. We are progressive. We think different. We're leaders when it comes to being humanitarians,"Hernandez said.

Tucker asked why San Francisco is willing to ignore federal law, but only for illegal immigrants.

"If I'm wanted for tax evasion in another state and the San Francisco police turn me over to the feds, why shouldn't I be able to sue the city of San Francisco for cooperating with the federal authorities?" he asked. "Why do only illegal aliens have this privilege in your city?"

Watch the debate above.

Tucker: 'Real Tragedy' of Trump's Tweets Is That They Distract From His Agenda

'Angel Mom' Speaks Out: 'More Light Needs to Be Shed on This Problem'

Cosmo Mag Called Out for Dems-Only List of Women Who Could Be President

Limbaugh: CNN, 'Little Jim Acosta' Humiliating Themselves

See the rest here:
Tucker on SF's $190K Payout to Illegal Immigrant: 'You Shouldn't Pay a Criminal for Breaking the Law' - Fox News Insider