CA Assemblyman Puts Gavin Newsom on Blast for Politicizing Tragedy

On Tuesday four people were killed in a small northern California town, Rancho Tehama, when a man who was legally barred from possessing a firearm went on a multi-site rampage before being killed by police. One of the sites was an elementary school, at which one child was shot and others injured by flying debris. Police believe the shooter, Kevin Janson Neal, killed his wife Monday night and stashed her body under the floorboards of their home before starting his rampage Tuesday morning.

Gavin Newsom, who is serving as acting Governor at the moment, wasted no time in pointing fingers or politicizing the tragedy.

When Vice President Pence sent a message of support and commended the work of law enforcement officers, who put their lives on the line to bring this monster down, Gavin used that as an opportunity to shame and virtue signal.

Even when issuing a proclamation to have flags flown at half-staff, he just couldn’t leave politics out of it.

California voters and politicians have come to expect such heartless rhetoric from Newsom. This time, it hit too close to home for Asm. James Gallagher, who represents the area. His video response to Newsom is emotional but hits on every single point Newsom and his gun control fanbois should consider.

Everything about Gallagher’s address is masterful. Here is the entire text:

Dear Acting Governor Newsom:

I want to say thank you for your heartfelt condolences for the victims of this violent rampage that was carried out against my constituents in the community of Rancho Tehama. As you can imagine, this has been a tough couple of days for us. Our north state community is still reeling from this senseless act and is anxious for all of the facts to come out.

What is not appreciated is using our tragedy for your own personal political agenda. While you point the finger at Congress, perhaps you might ask yourself whether California’s policies that you support played a role in this tragedy?

Your disastrous prison realignment scheme, for instance, has dumped tens of thousands of criminals into our local county jails and onto our streets. Our jail is full, and our law enforcement resources are overtaxed.

The fact that you are hamstringing local law enforcement has nothing to do with Congress. We can all agree that this monster had no business possessing firearms. Even his own family has said so. But where was your Department of Justice?

The state APPS program is designed for California DOJ officers to remove all firearms from dangerous persons who have either a felony, restraining order, or mental illness. This guy had a restraining order and was reportedly shooting off guns all the time. He was clearly mentally ill. Did the DOJ do its due diligence?

Maybe you should also ask yourself why California has chosen to make our schools the ultimate soft target? Laws that you support have taken away the ability for trained individuals to concealed carry on campus. Why didn’t this madman respect that in California, our schools are gun-free zones? Maybe he didn’t see the sign as he was ramming down the school gate.

As you travel around California campaigning, protected by armed guards, does it ever cross your mind that our children deserve the same protection?

While you veil your agenda with concern for a town you’ve never heard of, let alone visited, maybe you should consider that in your own city of San Francisco young women are gunned down on the pier by illegal immigrant felons, fully protected by a sanctuary city policy that you have now made statewide.

In other words, acting Governor Gavin, maybe it’s not the guns or Congress. Maybe it’s your policies.

Again, I thank you for your condolences. We will all feel safer when we truly put the public safety ahead of political posturing.

It’s safe to say that Gavin Newsom won’t be able to sit comfortably for quite some time after that spanking.

The post CA Assemblyman Puts Gavin Newsom on Blast for Politicizing Tragedy appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Alabama Auditor Uses Religion to Claim Allegations Against Roy Moore are No Big Deal

It’s always in poor taste to blame the victim in a sexual harassment case or imply that they “deserved it” by their actions or because of the clothing they wore. In comments defending Roy Moore, the Senate candidate who is facing allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old girl when he was in his 30s, an Alabama politician has blown right through that line and created a whole new level of stupid.

I’m not sure what’s more alarming: Ziegler’s heresy, or the fact that he’s been elected to statewide office?

Taking this thought train to its logical conclusion, Ziegler seems to be saying that if the allegations are true, if the 14-year-old had just had sex with Moore, they could have been the parents of deity. Or is he saying there could have been an immaculate conception? Hmmm.

That wasn’t Ziegler’s only Biblical example.

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist.”

Still not convinced by that dazzling display of theological “justification”? Perhaps you’ll enjoy Ziegler’s other rationalizations:

Ziegler…told the Washington Examiner that any political concern would be mitigated by three things. Moore never had “sexual intercourse” with the girl. Their relationship “happened almost 40 years ago.” And finally, “Roy Moore fell in love with one of the younger women.”

Mr. Ziegler, if a man rapes a woman and falls in love with her, does that make it okay? Or if he just penetrates her with his finger or another object, that’s okay politically? Because, newsflash, THAT is rape.

It’s easy to laugh at such inane statements, but the fact that Ziegler believes this and felt safe expressing this belief to a reporter is terrifying. Ziegler’s words are the kind you would expect to hear a sociopathic serial sexual abuser saying to a victim. “Come on, it’s okay if I touch you. Mary was a teenager… don’t you want to be like Mary?”

Ziegler’s words perpetuate the coastal elites’ stereotype of the South as a backwater place filled with Bible-thumping predators who pervert their religion and twist theology to convince women to have sex with them.

But most of all, his justifications (if the allegations are true) are reprehensible.

The post Alabama Auditor Uses Religion to Claim Allegations Against Roy Moore are No Big Deal appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Airman: Bergdahl Received Same Sentence as People Who Fail PT Tests

As part of a Chamber of Commerce program in my hometown of Simi Valley, California, I spent part of the morning touring the facility of one of our largest employers, AeroVironment, the leading supplier of UAV’s to the US military. While our guide was describing the different types of drones and their applications, one theme remained constant:

“We do this so we can bring our military men and women home safely. That is why we do what we do.”

If only Bowe Bergdahl had the same level of concern for his brothers in arms.

At the conclusion of the tour, our guide took us to observe production and said that sometimes members of our military who have used their products will come to the facility and so they can personally thank the workers for what they do – and for saving their lives. When we left the tour, I looked at Twitter and saw the news about Bowe Bergdahl and felt like I was going to throw up.

The anger and revulsion I felt was nothing compared to what those who have served in the military feel. A member of the Air Force who works specifically in rescue was expressing his rage at the sentence to me over messenger, so I asked him if I could share his thoughts here. Due to the nature of his work, his name and location will not be published.

Today at 1200ET Bowe Bergdahl received the same discharge sentence as Airmen I’ve served with who had multiple PT test failures. The difference between the two is that Sgt Bergdahl actually cost the lives of his fellow soldiers due to his desertion. The judge’s finding that his living for five years under Taliban “captivity” is a mitigating factor rings hollow to anyone who wears a uniform. He voluntarily put himself in the position to be a “captive” of Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Laden, or any other warlord who deemed him a valuable bargaining tool.

I vividly remember that every time I logged on to any computer while I was deployed in 2013 I saw Pvt. Bergdahl’s face and a descriptor of him and his “capture.” At the time, the rumors had spread that he hadn’t been captured but had deserted his post. Despite that, the military was still looking for him and was willing to do whatever it took to secure his repatriation. But when President Obama announced that an exchange agreement had been reached, concern was felt throughout the ranks. The terms of the deal didn’t add up. Why would the Taliban just “give up” an American prisoner? And the bigger question: why would the US give up five senior level Taliban officers for a US Private? (He was a Private when he deserted, but was promoted to Sgt during his captivity.)

As we watched the awkward Rose Garden announcement with his parents and then the “exchange,” we all knew something wasn’t right. Although facts were trickling out which proved Sgt Bergdahl had been less than “honorable” in his service, Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows. Just like she had after Benghazi, she attempted to gaslight the American people and convince us that our common sense wasn’t to be trusted. As reality became obvious to the American people, the Obama administration continued to tell us all that Bowe Bergdahl had “served with honor.”

As more facts surfaced, there was hope for retribution for those who were killed in an effort to “rescue” him shortly after his desertion. The names of actual heroes lost trying to rescue Bergdahl: 2LT Andrews, SSG Murphey, SSG Bowen, SSG Curtiss, PFC Martinek, PFC Walker.

As a member of the United States Air Force’s premier rescue unit, I share President Trump’s opinion that today’s decision was “a complete and total disgrace to our Country and our Military.” As we prepare to rescue someone who’s been injured or lost to the enemy, we never do so with the mindset they’ve willingly abandoned their post, nor do we ever launch a mission looking for a member that’s willingly put others at harm. Knowing that today Bergdahl walked away while others that searched for him can’t speak is a travesty.

Today’s laughable sentence handed down by the court at Ft Bragg, NC will be used by JAG defense attorneys for decades to ask for a light adjudication in their client’s favor. If desertion and misbehavior before the enemy doesn’t get more than a dishonorable discharge and time served, what will it take to get an actual sentence at Leavenworth? Rarely has there been a time when a broad portion of the civilian populace could say that the military was “too light” in delivering justice.

When I joined the military after 9/11, I knew that I did it to protect America regardless of her political ideals. When I became a member of her premiere CSAR unit, I knew we’d go through hell or high water to bring every last soul home. Today’s decision about Bergdahl changes all of that and shows that as long as an individual fits the political doctrine of an administration, the military will save them. For each member of the world’s greatest military, that hurts.

The same sentence as one receives for failing multiple PT tests. Incredible.

The post Airman: Bergdahl Received Same Sentence as People Who Fail PT Tests appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Sexual Harassment in Politics and the Problem With Mocking #MeToo

When the New York Times report outing Harvey Weinstein as a serial sexual harasser and abuser was released, we all knew it was a big story and would lead the news cycle for, well, at least a few days. But as victim after victim came forward with disgusting stories of his perversion and industry insiders said, “We all knew; it was an open secret,” the story’s legs grew.

People outside of Hollywood were shocked at the level of depravity Weinstein’s behavior demonstrated, and that an industry so vocal about feminism and women’s rights would turn a blind eye for so long.

The enormity of the Weinstein scandal is absolutely horrific, and Hollywood’s hypocrisy isn’t a big surprise. Feminist hypocrisy and systematic sexual harassment runs just as rampant in politics. In the past week, hundreds of women lobbyists, staffers, and officeholders across the country have gone public with their experiences.

Perhaps finally this issue will be taken somewhat seriously, and we have the #MeToo hashtag to thank.

On October 18 a group of 140 women who work in California politics signed an open letter calling out “rampant” sexual harassment and abuse in Sacramento. Samantha Corbin, a lobbyist who helped coordinate the letter, said more women wanted to sign it, but were afraid of retaliation.

“Often these men hold our professional fates in their hands. They are bosses, gatekeepers, and contacts. Our relationships with them are crucial to our personal success,” they wrote. “We don’t want to jeopardize our future, make waves, or be labeled ‘crazy,’ ‘troublemaker,’ or ‘asking for it.’ Worse, we’re afraid when we speak up that no one will believe us, or we will be blacklisted.”

Their list [of harassing behaviors] is long and explicit: Groping. Touching. Inappropriate comments about bodies and abilities. Insults and sexual innuendo, frequently disguised as jokes. Promises and threats.

Two days ago, The Hill reported on rampant sexual harassment happening in state capitols. Then Tuesday a group of women working in Illinois politics, inspired by the California letter, released their own open letter giving examples of harassment women in that state have faced:

(It looks like) a male legislator, a chamber leader; asking a female staffer out to dinner under the guise of offering mentorship, then proceeding to explain his ‘open marriage’ to her and ask if she’s single.

In the Illinois letter, the authors propose more required sexual harassment training, a step I think will have exactly zero effect on the problem. Sexual harassment training has been around for years, and besides, basic human decency should prevent someone from using a position of power to demand or request sexual favors.

In California, the State Senate has hired an investigator to look into sexual harassment allegations and at least one lawmaker is under investigation for sexual assault.

Nothing will change, though, until the problem of retaliation is dealt with. Women who report sexual harassment – whether or not they “gave in” to the harasser’s advances, are targeted for professional and personal destruction. I know this first-hand because of what I experienced after I quietly brought an elected official’s bad behavior to party officials in an attempt to prevent him from doing it to other people or harming the party. (The story of my experiences will be posted later today.)

This brings me to the problem with bashing the #MeToo hashtag. When the hashtag campaign started, many on the conservative side bashed it, saying that type of activism doesn’t work and giving several “Yeah, but…” reasons to diminish it.

Yes, society at large objectifies women and is a massive contributor to the problem.

Yes, pop culture celebrates perverts like Hugh Hefner (who arguably was simply an out-in-the-open Harvey Weinstein), tacitly endorsing this abusive behavior.

Yes, men are victims, too.

Yes, there is a huge difference between sexual harassment and sexual abuse and the two should not be equated.

And yes, some malicious women falsely accuse men of sexual harassment.

But the point of #MeToo was to raise awareness of how widespread the problem is, period. The point was not to call attention to other, equally serious, problems. When a group attempts to co-opt or diminish something like #MeToo with “yeah, but’s” or their own agenda, they don’t bring positive attention to their cause. They just look like insensitive jackwagons. And no one wants to align with insensitive jackwagons.

In spite of the mocking and dismissal, a lot of good is coming from the #MeToo awareness campaign. Women in Hollywood, media, and politics (and other industries, to be sure) are saying: “Enough.”

 

The post Sexual Harassment in Politics and the Problem With Mocking #MeToo appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Suddenly Kathy Griffin Isn’t So Annoying

Kathy Griffin, the gravel-voiced comedian whose tasteless “Headless Trump” photo caused controversy earlier this year, publicly excoriated her former attorney – and daughter of Gloria Allred – Lisa Bloom Sunday.

It started with a tweet:

Later, Griffin gave an interview to the Daily Beast, in which she claimed Bloom:

  • Charged $40,000 for two days’ representation
  • Hired another attorney – who would bill Griffin separately – before ever meeting with her
  • Mishandled the June 2 press conference and made Griffin’s situation worse
  • Used Griffin’s press conference to pimp LisaBloom.com
  • Physically prevented (through her bodyguards) Griffin’s long-time personal attorney and her boyfriend from attending the presser
  • Provided inadequate security at the presser, at which a Gateway Pundit reporter approached Griffin and frightened her
  • Tried to force her to go on a joint media “victim” tour
  • Lied to her about media requests (claiming she couldn’t do interviews alone, that the networks were requiring Bloom to be on the air as well.)
  • Badgered Griffin and her boyfriend for weeks by phone after Griffin pulled the plug on a Good Morning America appearance and press tour.

In addition, Griffin says that on a post-mortem conference call with her entertainment attorney, her First Amendment attorney, Bloom, and Bloom’s hubby, Bloom attempted to pull the “feminist” card on her and guilt her into defending Bloom’s strategy.

“Lisa said, ‘Kathy, I don’t like it that you’re the only other woman on this call and you’re not speaking up for me,’” Griffin recounted. “And I’m like, ‘Are you f***ing kidding me? After everything I’ve been through, you’re gonna try to play the f***ing feminist card with me?… Are you f***ing nuts? It doesn’t work that way. I don’t have your back on this one at all.’”

Bloom’s “strategy” was to parade Griffin – who was being investigated by the Secret Service – around the country doing joint media appearances, probably with LisaBloom.com swag everywhere. The only other person on the call who agreed with Bloom’s strategy was her husband/law firm manager. Gee, I wonder why? I disagree with Griffin on almost everything, but it would seem pretty obvious that after the press conference it was time to lay low and not add to the damage.

During the call, Griffin said Bloom “’became obviously extremely volatile. She’s too f***ing hotheaded to be an attorney. That’s the last thing you want in an attorney, and she and her husband were really badgering me’ about flying to New York and going on GMA.’”

The comedian believes Bloom represented her for selfish motives, and not to look out for Griffin’s best interests. Of the press conference, she says:

“I didn’t know I was going to her office, and that I would be under a f***ing banner that said ‘Lisabloom.com,’ and that she would hand me a coffee cup that said ‘Lisabloom.com.’ It was one of the worst days of my life.

“[Immediately after the press conference] Lisa’s husband was physically holding the door closed, so we were in there, and Lisa was outside doing interviews in the hallway fame-whoring which we didn’t know at the time.”

From her hotel room in Australia, Griffin went on Facebook Live to talk about the treatment of women in Hollywood, saying she needed to “blow the lid off of fake feminism” and dissed Bloom. (Warning: Language NSFW)

If Griffin’s descriptions are to be believed (and due to Bloom’s recent behavior and my own personal experiences, I believe they are), Bloom is more of a bullying publicity-whore diva than 99 percent of Hollywood.

In an email to the Daily Beast, Bloom denies any bad behavior and blames the press conference fiasco on Griffin. She also says she never badgers clients, that she simply presents options, and that she never shouted at Griffin. In my own personal experience in this area, where I consulted with attorneys (full disclosure – Gloria Allred was one of them) I know that attorneys do, indeed, pressure, badger, and yell at women in sexual harassment cases when the women don’t want to go along with the media circus the attorneys wish to create.

In addition, Bloom’s recent passionate defense of Harvey Weinstein, where her statements about his behavior were completely at odds with anything she’s said on the subject of sexual harassment in the past, showed her true colors: anything for money or publicity. Bloom’s subsequent “dismissal” of Weinstein and switcheroo back to victim’s attorney bears that out. Griffin’s descriptions of Bloom’s behavior are consistent with Bloom’s recent actions.

Kathy Griffin’s humor is not my cup of tea at all. But no one should be treated the way she was by Bloom, who had zero regard for her client’s position and, in fact, harmed her client in a quest for fame and fortune.

You’ve done it, Lisa Bloom. You’ve made me have sympathy for Kathy Griffin.

The post Suddenly Kathy Griffin Isn’t So Annoying appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


BREAKING: Harvey Weinstein’s Contract Terminated by The Weinstein Company

Harvey Weinstein, left, and Georgina Chapman arrive at the Oscars on Sunday, Feb. 26, 2017, at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)

After an explosive New York Times report was published earlier this week detailing decades of sexual harassment, abuse, and assault by Harvey Weinstein toward female employees, actresses, and other women, Bloomberg is reporting that The Weinstein Company has terminated Harvey Weinstein’s contract.

 

This is a developing story. Further details will be posted as they become available.

The post BREAKING: Harvey Weinstein’s Contract Terminated by The Weinstein Company appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Brie Larson Thinks She Was Sexually Harassed by TSA? I’ll Tell You Who Was Harassed…

So, Brie Larson thinks she was sexually harassed by a TSA officer who asked for her phone number after she smiled at him. Kira Davis, replying to Ms. Larson’s outrage, expertly satirized what a horrible chore it is to be a good-looking woman in the US these days. I’d like to share with Ms. Larson an actual story of sexual harassment by the TSA, both verbal and physical.

Last week I traveled to the Phoenix area with some other RedState, Townhall, and Hot Air writers (as seen in this photo and the featured photo for this story. Yes, I’m pimping us).

When I left from Phoenix, I lucked into the agent I’ve now dubbed Angry Paul Blart (APB). As I stepped into the body scanner and assumed the position (as I’ve done a million times), APB tells me how I’m supposed to stand, though I’m already in the position. Clearly, as a female wearing high heels I needed his patriarchal instruction.

Then he says “Don’t move for 3 seconds” and, as I was not moving, he starts to yell “hold still.” Naturally, I flinched – and the 3 seconds wasn’t yet up. So then he yells, “I told you not to move,” and I replied, “I wasn’t… until you yelled.” Such disrespect is not tolerated well by APB, who yells back, “Well, you should listen.”

I ask them to just do it again. “We can’t do it again. You should have listened.” As I exit the scanner I’m informed by the female officer that SIX areas lit up on the scanner so she has to physically check all of those areas – including all of my sensitive areas. She asks if I want to be felt up right there or privately. Since I’ve already been shamed by APB and just want to get on with my travels, I tell her to go ahead and feel me up there.

She does, as I look to the side with a resigned Tina Fey eyeroll look on my face.

As I am wearing skinny jeans and tank top, it’s easy to tell I’m not concealing anything between my clothing and my skin, but whatever. APB is still telling me that I should have listened, so I start explaining to him that when one is already complying with his instructions, it’s confusing and startling for him to pipe up and yell at them to do what they’re already doing. I can’t get through a sentence without interruption and denial from APB. Why does he hate women?

After the groping, they swipe my hands to test for explosives – and inform me that I have set off the alarms. Whut?

APB is still standing there scowling at me.

The female agent grabs my belongings off the conveyor belt gets a male agent to start going through them and testing them as she does the second, more intensive (!), groping.

While I’m being groped the nice male TSA agent and I start football bonding (yes, I can multi-task because I’m a woman) after he finds my Panthers jersey in my bag (thank you, Becca!) and the he asks how I ended up over there. As I’m quietly telling him what happened at the scanner, Angry Paul Blart hears and was none too happy about it – and also because the rest of the agents like me more than they like him (of course).

So he saunters (waddles) over there and says, “Someday you’ll listen to people. You should listen to directions.”

Would he have said that to a man? I highly doubt it. Yet, no one stopped him.

I reply, “All I’m saying is it’s confusing when someone is already doing what they’re supposed to and you loudly tell them to do what they’re already doing.” APB is undeterred. “You can plead your case all you want, lady.”

By then I’ve had it. (Oh, and by then they’ve come back and said that my second, more “sensitive,” explosives test has come back positive so they need to take me in the back room and REALLY give me a full-body check. And she’s finding another lady to “witness.”)

Plead my case? Have I been arrested for insurrection? I say to APB, who was the C butting into an A and B conversation: “I wasn’t talking to you. And by the way, I am allowed to disagree with you and believe that the way you give your instructions are confusing.”

Nice Football Fan TSA Guy, whose back is to Angry Paul Blart, stifles a giggle. Angry Paul Blart harrumphs and shuffles back to his station.

I’m then led behind the frosted glass for my third feel-up, which I’m told will be more invasive. At this point I’m wondering if that means a cavity search? Or bare hand inside my skinny jeans? I’m wondering, Ms. Larson, if you ever had THAT kind of fear in your horrific interaction with the TSA agent?

No alarm went off that time, though we had to wait three minutes for TSA Supervisor Lady to get off the phone to give me a thumbs up so I could put my heels back on and do the walk of shame to my gate. I held off on giving Angry Paul Blart a raspberry and a one-finger salute as I walk away.

Ms. Larson, it was absolutely unprofessional for that agent to ask for your phone number, but it wasn’t sexual harassment. You said no and you walked away. Had he then subjected you to a higher level of screening, it would have been sexual harassment. Let’s not water down the standard so much that it is meaningless, and the experiences of other women are cheapened.

(Why did the alarm keep going off? Fortunately, the Nice Football Fan TSA Guy told me that if people have used a lot of lotion on their hands they can set off the explosives alarm. The alarm tests for nitroglycerin, and a common ingredient in many lotions is glycerin. Since I was in Arizona – which is known to be a little dry – I had slathered lotion on my hands just a few hours earlier. When I looked at the ingredient list on the lotion I used, the second one was glycerin. Mystery solved.)

The post Brie Larson Thinks She Was Sexually Harassed by TSA? I’ll Tell You Who Was Harassed… appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Off-Duty News Photographer Captures an Intense Scene at Mandalay Bay Entrance

Chad Flowers, a photojournalist for WRAL-TV in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina, has witnessed an incredible amount of history first-hand because of his job. He’s been to multiple presidential inauguarations, to the Vatican, covered more hurricanes than he can count on both hands, and provided livestream video for the area’s most notorious murder trials.

One of his videos – in which he filmed a tornado bearing down on Raleigh from the penthouse of a downtown highrise – ended up on the National Geographic channel and won him an Emmy.

It’s a job that allows one to see the best and the worst of mankind. Predictably, he was up early Monday morning to catch a flight to Las Vegas. Monday and Tuesday were grueling and emotional days. Late Tuesday Chad took a walk to the Mandalay Bay entrance and snapped this photo:

While the politicians and partisans have become entrenched in their familiar positions, these two men sought to comfort. Their actions remind me of the prayer of St. Francis:

Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred let me sow love…

O divine master grant that I may
not so much seek to be consoled as to console…

Our nation is in need of peace, love, and consolation. Thank you to the two unnamed gentlemen who were not seeking glory or recognition, but were simply showing love and asking for God’s protection on these officers.

The post Off-Duty News Photographer Captures an Intense Scene at Mandalay Bay Entrance appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Could This be the First 2A Case Justice Gorsuch Hears?

When Neil Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court, many observers thought (hoped) that the case of Peruta vs. San Diego would be the first Second Amendment case heard by the new court, pertaining to concealed carry permits. SCOTUS punted on their decision for months, then finally denied certiorari in late June (with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch strongly dissenting).

Another California-based 2A case, though, Silvester vs. Becerra, could end up having the distinction of being the first Trump and Gorsuch-era gun rights case heard before the Supreme Court. The Calguns Foundation and others recently filed a petition for certiorari after a long and tortuous trial and appellate process – in which Plaintiffs prevailed at trial (which is as unheard of in the 9th Circuit as a unicorn sighting).

The particulars of this case are more favorable for a Second Amendment win than Peruta, so that denial of cert could be a blessing in disguise.

Silvester challenges the application of California’s 10-day waiting period law to people who already lawfully possess a firearm and  a valid certificate of eligibility to purchase a firearm, or have a valid concealed carry permit. Under the law all purchasers must undergo a background check at the time of purchase, but people who fall into the category described above must still wait a full 10 days before taking possession of their newly-purchased gun – even if their background check is completed before that.

That means that a person with a valid concealed carry permit could carry their gun into a gun store, purchase another one, pass an instant background check, yet be subjected to a 10-day “cooling off” period before being permitted to take their new purchase home.

As with many supposedly “common sense” gun control laws, this makes no sense.

California residents and legal gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, backed by The Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, filed suit in federal court in December 2011, arguing that “enforcing the full 10-day waiting period had no plausible justification and hence violates, inter alia, the Second Amendment.”

A three-day bench trial was held in 2014, at the conclusion of which Clinton-appointed Judge Anthony W. Ishii agreed and ruled that the waiting period violated Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. Though Kamala Harris’ Department of Justice argued that since Combs and Silvester already had guns their Second Amendment rights were not being threatened by forcing them to endure another 10-day waiting period, Ishii noted:

The Second Amendment applies to “arms” and its language does not limit its full protections to a single firearm. Some firearms are better suited for particular lawful purposes than others. Defendant has cited no authority that suggests that the Second Amendment only has application to a single firearm.

In addition, as Second Amendment Foundation President Alan Gottlieb said, Judge Ishii ruled that this type of waiting period is similar to prior restraints on speech, which courts have said violate the First Amendment. Gottlieb commented:

“We would never tolerate such waiting periods for speech and we should not tolerate arbitrary and unnecessary waiting periods for the exercise of Second Amendment rights.  A civil right is a right, and all rights are equal and deserve equal protection.”

Defendants appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where a panel “bizarrely ruled” in the absence of credible evidence that a 10-day waiting period “is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved,” called that review intermediate scrutiny, and reversed the decision.

In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas went further. California has had some form of waiting period on the purchase of guns since 1923, but those waiting periods only applied to certain types of guns and, for the most part, were far less than 10 days. According to Judge Thomas, that’s a “longstanding qualification.”

I write separately, however, because the challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period can be resolved at step one of our Second Amendment jurisprudence. As a longstanding qualification on the commercial sale of arms under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a ten-day waiting period is presumptively lawful. Therefore, it is unnecessary to proceed to the second step intermediate scrutiny examination of the law.

Because it’s presumptively lawful, in Judge Thomas’ opinion, nothing else needs to be considered. Silvester takes issue with that.

“I passed a rigorous state and federal background check and have a license to carry a handgun in public throughout the State of California. The DOJ knows that I am a law-abiding person, and I’m even in their Rap Back system. What possible reason does the State have in denying me my Second Amendment right to take possession of a firearm after I pass yet another background check?”

Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra don’t really have an answer for that, and neither did the 9th Circuit panel. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree that this is a case which deserves their attention.

The post Could This be the First 2A Case Justice Gorsuch Hears? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Could This be the First 2A Case Justice Gorsuch Hears?

When Neil Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court, many observers thought (hoped) that the case of Peruta vs. San Diego would be the first Second Amendment case heard by the new court, pertaining to concealed carry permits. SCOTUS punted on their decision for months, then finally denied certiorari in late June (with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch strongly dissenting).

Another California-based 2A case, though, Silvester vs. Becerra, could end up having the distinction of being the first Trump and Gorsuch-era gun rights case heard before the Supreme Court. The Calguns Foundation and others recently filed a petition for certiorari after a long and tortuous trial and appellate process – in which Plaintiffs prevailed at trial (which is as unheard of in the 9th Circuit as a unicorn sighting).

The particulars of this case are more favorable for a Second Amendment win than Peruta, so that denial of cert could be a blessing in disguise.

Silvester challenges the application of California’s 10-day waiting period law to people who already lawfully possess a firearm and  a valid certificate of eligibility to purchase a firearm, or have a valid concealed carry permit. Under the law all purchasers must undergo a background check at the time of purchase, but people who fall into the category described above must still wait a full 10 days before taking possession of their newly-purchased gun – even if their background check is completed before that.

That means that a person with a valid concealed carry permit could carry their gun into a gun store, purchase another one, pass an instant background check, yet be subjected to a 10-day “cooling off” period before being permitted to take their new purchase home.

As with many supposedly “common sense” gun control laws, this makes no sense.

California residents and legal gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, backed by The Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, filed suit in federal court in December 2011, arguing that “enforcing the full 10-day waiting period had no plausible justification and hence violates, inter alia, the Second Amendment.”

A three-day bench trial was held in 2014, at the conclusion of which Clinton-appointed Judge Anthony W. Ishii agreed and ruled that the waiting period violated Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. Though Kamala Harris’ Department of Justice argued that since Combs and Silvester already had guns their Second Amendment rights were not being threatened by forcing them to endure another 10-day waiting period, Ishii noted:

The Second Amendment applies to “arms” and its language does not limit its full protections to a single firearm. Some firearms are better suited for particular lawful purposes than others. Defendant has cited no authority that suggests that the Second Amendment only has application to a single firearm.

In addition, as Second Amendment Foundation President Alan Gottlieb said, Judge Ishii ruled that this type of waiting period is similar to prior restraints on speech, which courts have said violate the First Amendment. Gottlieb commented:

“We would never tolerate such waiting periods for speech and we should not tolerate arbitrary and unnecessary waiting periods for the exercise of Second Amendment rights.  A civil right is a right, and all rights are equal and deserve equal protection.”

Defendants appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where a panel “bizarrely ruled” in the absence of credible evidence that a 10-day waiting period “is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved,” called that review intermediate scrutiny, and reversed the decision.

In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas went further. California has had some form of waiting period on the purchase of guns since 1923, but those waiting periods only applied to certain types of guns and, for the most part, were far less than 10 days. According to Judge Thomas, that’s a “longstanding qualification.”

I write separately, however, because the challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period can be resolved at step one of our Second Amendment jurisprudence. As a longstanding qualification on the commercial sale of arms under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a ten-day waiting period is presumptively lawful. Therefore, it is unnecessary to proceed to the second step intermediate scrutiny examination of the law.

Because it’s presumptively lawful, in Judge Thomas’ opinion, nothing else needs to be considered. Silvester takes issue with that.

“I passed a rigorous state and federal background check and have a license to carry a handgun in public throughout the State of California. The DOJ knows that I am a law-abiding person, and I’m even in their Rap Back system. What possible reason does the State have in denying me my Second Amendment right to take possession of a firearm after I pass yet another background check?”

Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra don’t really have an answer for that, and neither did the 9th Circuit panel. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree that this is a case which deserves their attention.

The post Could This be the First 2A Case Justice Gorsuch Hears? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State