Mediaboss Marketing

CNNs Dana Bash: Congressman. Gun control. In 2014, you told Bill Maher that you wished the Democratic Party would come out against the Second Amendment. How do you reach out to Americans who support gun rights when you dont support the Second Amendment?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.): First of all, let me tell you I remember that show very well, and that is not what I said at all. What I talked about is my grandfathers shotgun, the fact that I am a turkey hunter, and I didnt say that. That was not an accurate statement. []

Bash: Congressman, I just want to read you since you said that that wasnt what you said, Ill read you exactly what happened. Bill Maher: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem. Your response: I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.

Ellison: I wish youd play the tape, because if you did youd see that it did not go that way. But the real point is this, this country absolutely, I am for the right to bear arms, but I am not for these massive murders that happen all over this country every day. exchange during CNN debate with candidates for Democratic National Committee leadership, Feb. 22, 2017

During the debate on CNN, Ellison denied making comments about the Second Amendment during a March 2014 interview on Real Time with Bill Maher. We were curious to know exactly what he said during the interview, and whether he was being truthful in his response to Bash.

Since Ellison said to check the clips, we did. We found that the answer is not really clear, so we decided to present the comments in full for our readers.

The exchange in question begins around the four-minute mark in the video below. (A higher-quality video is here.)

Earlier in the clip, Ellison talks about family members who own guns and go hunting, and says that he is for gun control, but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules.

Later, Maher asks: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem.

The crowd laughs, and then Sheila Bair, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., interjects. She seems to say: Fifty-one votes, thats all it takes. The crowd, Bair and Ellison all laugh. Ellison then says: I sure wish they would, I sure wish they would.

Ellisons campaign staff says his answer was a reference to Bairs comment, and not an answer to Mahers question.

Bair, through a spokesman, said the vote she was referring to was the nomination of former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. At the time of this interview, Murthy had been waiting for confirmation for 16 months and could not get the 51 votes in the Senate to get confirmed. She thinks that nomination started the conversation [about gun control]. But it was a long time ago, her spokesman said.

Murthys nomination had been in limbo, partly because of opposition from the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association had called him a serious threat to the rights of gun owners because Murthy supported stricter gun control laws:

Even moderate Senate Democrats from states with strong gun cultures opposed Murthy. At the time of the Maher interview, the White House was considering withdrawing Murthys troubled nomination, after it became clear moderate Democrats up for reelection would not support Murthy because of his stance on gun control.

Heres a transcript:

Sheila Bair: Im a Republican and Im for gun control. I just want to be its not monolithic. Keith Ellison: Well, Im for gun control, too. Let me just say, Im for gun control but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules. Bair: No, you dont. Ellison: I mean, 27 children were mowed down. Isnt that enough for us? One of our colleagues, [former congresswoman] Gabby Giffords, shot in the face. Maher: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem. [Crosstalk] Ellison: Bill Bair: Fifty-one votes, thats all it takes. [Laughter] Ellison: I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would. Maher: Really? Ellison: Yeah. Maher: Because I never hear anybody in the Democratic Party say that. But they say, I am also a strong supporter. Ellison: You have got to check out the progressive caucus. We have come out very strong for common-sense gun safety rules.

After some back-and-forth with Maher, Ellison later says: You cant solve the problem with just one little thing. Youve got to make sure that the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] can issue reports on gun killings and handgun violence. Youve got to make sure that we can get rid of assault weapons. Youve got to close the loophole at gun shows. Youve got to do a whole range of things to get us into a sane place. Weve got 12,000 handgun murders a year. Its got to stop.

Its not entirely clear whether Ellison really was talking about Murthys nomination, the Second Amendment or votes on gun-control measures in general. But it is clear throughout the interview that Ellison says he supports both gun-control measures and the rights of gun owners. At one point, he says he is for gun control, but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules.

Of course, supporters of gun rights likely would consider the measures Ellison proposes as effectively gutting Second Amendment rights. Still, there seems to be more going on in the conversation that is not immediately clear in the transcripts that Dana Bash read during the debate. A constitutional amendment that would have nullified the Second Amendment would requirea two-thirds vote by the House and Senate, and then ratification by three-fourths of the states. So Bairs interjection of 51 votes makes it likely that theexchange was alluding to Murthys confirmation, rather than a constitutional amendment.

Given the murky information at hand, we will not rate this claim. We welcome readers to reach their own conclusions.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

See the rest here:
Keith Ellison's comments on the Second Amendment: For the record - Washington Post

On Monday, February 20, the Georgia House Public Safety and Homeland SecurityCommittees were scheduled tobegin to review a number of important gun bills.

Georgia StateRepresentativeEddie Lumsden, R-Rome, a retired State Trooper who sits on these committees, said:These are somemodified bills, after having conversations with the governor.

In their current state, he expects them to be more acceptable.

HB 280would allow people with their Georgia Weapons License (GWL) to carry concealed on all property owned or leased by a public institution of post-secondary education. There are minimal exemptions, sports facilities, student housing including sororities and frat houses, and campus preschools. Rep. Lumsden, who is in favor of this bill, points to the Second Amendment in part, for his support of the right to carry on college campuses.

HB 292 would impact Georgia gun laws in several positive and important ways, including:

HB 406aims totarget reciprocity between states and will affect Virginia reciprocity directly throughits code changes.

Most conservatives dont believe its wise of government to require training because this is a right, not a privilege, said Representative Eddie Lumsden. We all believe it would be a good thing, if youre going to carry a weapon, you be trained in its use. But this gets into constitutional questions.

If you live in Georgia, contact yourlegislatorson both committees and let them know how you feel about these bills.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Visit link:
Georgia Rep. Lumsden: The Second Amendment is a Right, NOT a Privilege - Bearing Arms

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is going to war with the U.S. Supreme Courts Heller decision, and its reasoning is both troubling and erroneous. Essentially, the court says Americans have no inherent right to own vaguely defined assault weapons.

That ruling, if later upheld by a post-Scalia Supreme Court, would gut the Second Amendment - which was never about hunting.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment doesnt protect assault weapons - an extraordinary decision keenly attuned to the brutal havoc these firearms can wreak, writes Slate magazine. Issued by the court sitting en banc, Tuesdays decision reversed a previous ruling in which a panel of judges had struck down Marylands ban on assault weapons and detachable large capacity magazines.

The majority opinion begins with an appeal to emotion, by citing a list of recent shootings. It then goes on to invent an entirely new test for Second Amendment policy - whether guns or devices have a military purpose.

Whatever their other potential, the court wrote, such weapons are unquestionably most useful in military service. That is, the banned assault weapons are designed to kill or disable the enemy on the battlefield.

These military combat features have a capability for lethality - more wounds, more serious, in more victims - far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.

As Slate sums up, the AR-15 is a weapon of war, not the tool of self-defense envisioned by the Heller court, and therefore can and should be regulated.

Thats flawed reasoning, says Daniel Horowitz in the Conservative Review.

The notion that any common weapon can be banned violates the inalienable right to self-defense, which predated the Second Amendment, he writes. It is a natural right. Yet, given that we live in a world where rights come from the Supreme Court, we should at least ensure that lower courts properly read the text of the Heller decision.

He quotes Justice Scalia, who wrote that majority opinion: A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

The Fourth Circuit says its balancing interests - the right of self-defense versus public safety. That, too, is flawed, Horowitz contends.

There is no government interest balancing for perceived benefits of public safety that can justify the infringement upon the right to self-defense for any commonly held weapon used for lawful purposes, he writes.

And thats clearly laid out in Heller.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution, that decision reads. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.

The Fourth Circuit was wrong in its reasoning and in its ruling.

Read this article:
Tyler Morning Telegraph - Editorial: Second Amendment rights aren ... - Tyler Morning Telegraph

New York Times

Kim Jong-nam, Illegal Immigration, Mexico: Your Evening Briefing New York Times 1. Undocumented immigrants fearful of President Trump's immigration crackdown are hiding out. Concerned even a minor run-in with the authorities could lead to deportation, some are bunkering down in their homes, forgoing trips to churches, stores ... Mexico chides US immigration policies, admits route for illegal immigrantsWashington Times Byko: A five-point plan to solve illegal immigrationPhilly.com Illegal immigrants: the facts behind the US-Mexico fightYahoo News Daily Caller -USA TODAY -Fox News -Department of Homeland Security all 675 news articles »

Follow this link:
Kim Jong-nam, Illegal Immigration, Mexico: Your Evening Briefing - New York Times

Its a Tale of Two Rikers. And this pair of true-life stories should frighten and outrage any law-abiding New York City-dweller.

Last week, 19-year-old El Salvadoran immigrant Estivan Rafael Marques Velasquez, an admitted gangbanger cooling his heels in the United States illegally, was quietly spit out onto the streets of Queens.

Hed served a light stretch in the citys notoriously ultraviolent Rikers Island jail after pleading guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. His criminal rsum also includes convictions for second-degree reckless endangerment and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Solid guy.

Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement unit ICE in New York requested they be informed when Velasquez was sprung so they might swoop in and deport the potentially dangerous character. It didnt happen.

Velasquez, instead, was set free, welcomed into the bosom of this city by the suicidal Sanctuary Cities Law signed into effect by Mayor de Blasio in 2014. Id be surprised if milk and cookies werent on his generous menu.

Fortunately, federal authorities quickly picked him up and put him in detention pending his booting from our shores. It was a close call.

Too close, in de Blasios above-the-law New York City.

Now, compare this gentle treatment of a possibly vicious foreigner with the Kafkaesque torture inflicted on an American citizen a young man convicted of no crime.

Kalief Browder was locked up on Rikers in 2010 when he was 16 years old, accused of stealing a backpack. Then the authorities threw away the proverbial key.

With his mother initially unable to come up with $3,000 bail, $900 bond, Browder spent about three years in hell, more than two of them in solitary confinement.

He was captured on video getting beaten by correction officers and fellow inmates. Several times, he attempted to kill himself.

Finally, in 2013, the Bronx District Attorneys Office dropped all charges against him. He was free but despondent, paranoid and suicidal. Then he was dead.

Browder hanged himself by the neck in 2015 with an electrical cord flung from a second-floor window of his Bronx house.

He was 22 years old.

The disparate treatment given one of our own versus a man of a protected class hangs heavily on critics of the criminal-justice system.

The mayor is going out of his way to protect this immigrant. Good for him, Paul Prestia, a lawyer representing the Browder family in a $20 million lawsuit against various city agencies, told me bitterly.

But he did not show the backbone in going after those responsible for the tragedy that was Kalief Browder. Juxtapose the sanctuary law with young men and women in the city. Why wasnt more done to protect them?

For a time, it seemed as if anyone with a microphone wanted a piece of Browder. On The View, Rosie ODonnell gushed to him, You really are a hero. Ex-Republican presidential contender Rand Paul evoked his name on the campaign trail. Former President Barack Obama mentioned him while enacting a ban on solitary confinement for youths and low-level offenders in federal prison. Mayor de Blasio even hailed him while instituting jail reforms, including ending solitary for juveniles.

Rap mogul Jay Z elevated Browder to the status of the holy in TIME: The Kalief Browder Story, a six-part documentary series on which he served as an executive producer. It debuts Wednesday on Spike TV.

Sometimes our prophets come in the form of young, undeveloped energy that will teach us grown-ups how to live better and have more compassion, and Kalief Browder was the prophet, he says on the show.

It wasnt enough.

Aggravatingly, city officials continue to defend their kid-glove treatment of an admitted member of the bloodthirsty M-13 gang, while all but ignoring the Kalief Browders of this city.

Velasquez was freed after serving time for an offense that does not qualify as a violent or serious felony under the citys local laws, and his gang affiliation was not supported by evidence that meets even minimal constitutional standards, a City Hall spokeswoman told The Post.

He posed a danger to the public and law-enforcement officers.

Kalief Browder threatened no one.

As long as officials get to choose whom to treasure at the expense of everyone else, were in for grief.

Eyes in New Jersey and beyond should fall on seventh-grader Sydney Phillips this weekend as the 13-year-old competes in a basketball playoff game with her Garden State Catholic school on the boys team. Her father sued St. Theresa School and the Archdiocese of Newark for her right to play, after the girls team was axed.

Instead, Sydney and her younger sister were expelled for two days, before an appeals court ordered them back to class.

On her return, she told me, a bunch of boys tried to block her from entering the school gym, and some parents bullied her online. But last week, a judge ruled that she can play. As she downed two baskets in her teams losing effort Sunday, spectators cheered wildly for her. Whatever happens next, Lady Courage is a winner.

Whod have thought The New York Times would publish a piece headlined Are Liberals Helping Trump?

But there it was Sunday, authored by Sabrina Tavernise, who interviewed moderate conservatives (we exist).

They felt pushed into President Trumps corner in the face of rampant liberal shaming of anyone even remotely to the right of center.

In the interest of diversity of opinion, Ill take whatever crumbs the Newspaper of Record dishes out.

How many more children must die or be permanently maimed? A pit bull being watched by a Brooklyn man mauled his 5-year-old son last weekend to the point where he needed 2,000 stitches. Depressingly, some people in New York City continue to champion this dangerous dog breed.

Too many pits are not safe around humans. Ban them!

More:
Illegal immigrant gangbanger gets better deal than innocent American - New York Post