Friday, November 29, 2019

This Case Will Tell Us Where The Court Is On The Second Amendment

Sheriffs Group Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down New York City Gun Rules

Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Daily Caller News Foundation logo
KEVIN DALEYSUPREME COURT CORRESPONDENT
  • The National Sheriffs’ Association is leading a coalition of police and Second Amendment groups urging the Supreme Court to strike down New York City’s gun transportation rules.
  • The sheriffs argue in a brief before the justices that the public safety rationale the city uses to justify the rule does not have merit.
  • The court will hear a challenge to the city’s transportation rules on Dec. 2.
The National Sheriffs’ Association is leading a coalition of law enforcement and gun rights groups urging the Supreme Court to strike down New York City’s gun transportation regulations.
The coalition filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief arguing that the city lacks a legitimate public safety rationale for the rule, which prohibits “premise license” holders from carrying their firearms beyond city lines or to any location besides an authorized gun club. The high court will hear a challenge to New York’s regulations on Dec. 2.
“The public safety interest alleged to support the rule is non-existent and unproven,” the brief reads. “There is no proof that premises licensees have ever posed a threat to public safety when transporting their handguns.”
“It is also highly implausible that premises licensees would engage in violence when transporting their handguns out of the city,” the brief adds. “Licensees undergo exceedingly searching inquiries during the application process, and licenses can be refused for even trivial reasons.”
To possess a handgun, New York residents must obtain a premises license. That license restricts possession to the address listed on the license itself. The holder may only transport a firearm to authorized shooting clubs within city limits. The plaintiffs in the Dec. 2 case are three city residents and a firearms advocacy group who wish to carry their guns to vacation homes and marksman competitions outside the five boroughs.
Inspector Andrew Lunetta, who leads the New York City Police Department License Division, said in an affidavit that the restrictive transportation rules are necessary to keep weapons confined in the home, as the premises license requires.
“Investigations have revealed a large volume and pattern of premises license holders who are found in possession of their handguns in violation of the restrictions on their license,” the affidavit reads.
The National Sheriffs’ Association counters that the city should produce specific examples of such violations. City rules require “an investigation and immediate report to the License Division” whenever a license-holder is involved in an incident that draws a police response. As such, the sheriffs group says the NYPD should release those records to prove its claim about wide-spread violations. (RELATED: Mexico Is Urging The Supreme Court To Stop President Trump’s Bid To End DACA)
Elsewhere in the affidavit, Lunetta warned that striking down the city’s gun transportation rules could make it impossible to enforce any restrictions on guns outside the home as a practical matter. He hypothesized that license-holders carrying guns in public would fabricate an explanation about traveling to a second home or shooting competition if stopped by police officers.
The rigorous application process for a premises license further diminishes the public safety rationale for the transport ban, the Sheriff’s Association says. Among others things, applicants must appear for an in-person interview; return waivers indicating all members of their household consent to having a gun present; and pass criminal and mental health background checks.
The simple fact of passing those reviews shows a license-holder is not the sort of person likely to commit a crime, the brief argues. In that connection, the sheriffs cite a 2009 article in the Connecticut Law Review showing concealed carry permit holders are “vastly more law-abiding than the public at large.”
“Licensees undergo searching scrutiny before obtaining a license, comparable groups of permit holders from other jurisdictions have repeatedly been shown to be far more law-abiding than the population as a whole, and most violent crime is committed by individuals with a criminal history who are ineligible to obtain a license,” the amicus brief reads.
The Trump administration is also supporting the gun rights plaintiffs in Monday’s case.
A federal trial judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the city at earlier phases of the litigation. After the high court agreed to take the case, the city amended its transportation rules to provide the relief the plaintiffs sought. City lawyers are now urging the justices to dismiss the case as moot, since the plaintiffs got everything they were seeking in court.
The plaintiffs oppose that course of action. They argue New York could revise its rules again at any time, and lower court decisions upholding the transport ban should be overturned in any event.
The case is No. 18-280 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.

Liberals Talk A Lot But Their Actions Prove They Are Frauds.


FLASHBACK: 10 Hollywood liberals who promised to leave if Trump won

The liberal meltdown over President Donald Trump’s stunning victory in 2016 didn’t just impact the mainstream media.
Scores of liberal Hollywood celebrities vowed they’d leave the United States if Trump was elected — but three years later, not a single one has packed their bags!
So The Horn News thought we’d do the world a favor and remind America’s left of their promises.
Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you!
1. Jon Stewart — Stewart told People Magazine that if Trump won, he “would consider getting in a rocket and going to another planet, because clearly this planet’s gone bonkers.”
It has been a year, Jon… isn’t it time for liftoff yet!?
2. George Lopez — During the election, Lopez discussed Trump’s immigration policies in an interview with TMZ saying, “If he wins, he won’t have to worry about immigration, we’ll all go back.”
For someone who hates America so much, it seems he’s spending an awful long time packing his bags to “go back.”
3. Cher –– The music superstar, who had a series of Twitter feuds with Trump, promised would move to Jupiter if Trump won the election.
Maybe Cher and Jon Stewart can split the rocket fuel costs!
4. Miley Cyrus –– In a series of Instagram posts Cyrus explicitly told her followers, “We’re all just f—ing jam between his rich ass toes! Honestly f— this s— I am moving if this is my president! I don’t say things I don’t mean!”
Three years later, maybe Miley needs a reminder that she promised to get out.
5. Rev. Al Sharpton — Al Sharpton said at a Center for American Progress event in Washington D.C., “If Donald Trump is the nominee, I’m reserving my ticket to get out of here. Only because he’d probably have me deported anyhow.”
Hurry up, you don’t want to miss that reservation, Sharpton.
6. Whoopi Goldberg — Goldberg promised in January 2015 on ‘The View’ that she would leave the country because “I can afford to go.”
Since then, she’s spent her time complaining… but not leaving.
What’s wrong, Whoopi, you can’t afford it?
Or is it that you’re not welcome anywhere else?
7. Amy Schumer — The controversial actor and comedian told BBC’s Newsnight, “I will move to Spain or somewhere. It’s beyond my comprehension if Trump won. It’s just too crazy.”
She hasn’t left for Madrid yet. Maybe she can start comprehending Trump’s appeal to voters when she finally packs?
8. Eddie Griffin — The actor and comedian cited Trump’s call for a Mexican border wall when he claimed he would move to Africa if Trump became commander-in-chief.
So far, Eddie hasn’t bothered to leave Los Angeles. What are you waiting for?!
9. Lena Dunham — Star of HBO’s ‘Girls’, the extremely left liberal Dunham announced in April 2015 that she would move to Canada saying, “I know a lovely place in Vancouver, and I can get my work done from there. I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will.”
Really? We hear Canada is lovely this time of the year. So what are you waiting for?
10. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg — This is the best one, of course. In a controversial interview with The New York Times, Democratic Justice Ginsberg suggested if Trump won, her late husband would have said, “Now its time for us to move to New Zealand.”
Thoughout the election she took the unprecedented step of bashing Trump, saying, “For the country it could be four years, for the court it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Well Justice, we will personally help you pack your bags, because that’s one more seat Trump can fill with a conservative Justice. When are you leaving?

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Wonder How These FBI Agents Will Be Treated By The Courts?

Sara Carter: FBI Agent's Suspected FISA Doctoring May Have 'Poisoned' Evidence Against Trump

Print
The highly anticipated Department of Justice Inspector General report on FISA abuse directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election may show some findings of the FBI’s investigation were tainted by the so-called “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
The New York Times reported Friday that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has referred former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to federal prosecutors for altering a document submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
According to The Times, Clinesmith resigned from the FBI two months ago after being interviewed by Horowitz’s team.
In February 2018, the attorney left then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, and the IG identified him in a June 2018 report as having animus toward Trump, based on multiple negative texts about the Republican.
Lamenting Trump’s 2016 election victory, Clinesmith texted on Nov. 9, 2016, “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently,” according to the report released by Horowitz in June 2018, in which the former FBI official is identified as “FBI Attorney 2.”
TRENDING: Trump Turns Turkey Pardon Into Hilarious Roast of Schiff, Democrats
The lawyer added, “Plus, my god d—ed name is all over the legal documents investigating [Trump’s] staff.”
Clinesmith further related that “the crazies won finally,” and in the context of asking whether he intended to stay in government, messaged, “viva le resistance.”
Investigative reporter Sara Carter wrote Monday that she has spoken with several sources who believe Clinesmith’s alternation of the FISA document could make all the evidence obtained thereafter as having come from the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
“Based on what we know, Clinesmith’s tampering of documents appears to have been significant enough to have played a role in the FISA courts decision to grant a warrant to spy on an American, maybe more than one American,” a U.S. official told Carter on condition of anonymity.

Do you think the inspector general report will reveal serious wrongdoing by the FBI?

93% (908 Votes)
7% (66 Votes)
“There is concern among the FBI that all the evidence will come into question, as it should — particularly the case of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ that the evidence itself is tainted — if that’s true than anything gained from that evidence might also be tainted. This could be a problem for anyone who approved the FISA as well.”
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine renders evidence obtained illegally inadmissible in court. In other words, if the tree (the source) is tainted, so is the fruit.
Criminal defense attorney David Schoen explained to Carter if an “agent falsifies, materially alters with false information, or makes a material omission in documents relied on to authorize surveillance — and here it was to authorize the most intrusive kind of surveillance by the most secretive court in the land — then any further step in the process and any material obtained by surveillance from the point of his illegal conduct forward is arguably poisoned by the initial illegal materially false alteration or material omission.”
George Papadopolous — who pleaded guilty to making false statements to federal investigators (and was sentenced to 14 days in prison) — told Fox News on Monday that Clinesmith was the “attorney who interviewed me from the Department of Justice.”
“I know The New York Times mentioned him as some sort of low-level attorney for the DOJ, but I don’t think he was a low-level attorney,” he added.
RELATED: Even CNN Now Admitting FBI's Alleged Doctoring of FISA Doc 'Is a Big Deal'
“This individual brought an entire delegation from Washington, D.C., to interview me in February 2017, and we now know that he and some of the others who interviewed me are under criminal investigation.”
Papadopolous contended he believes the leaks to The New York Times about Horowitz’s report were timed to provide cover for the FBI activities.
“So I think the report’s not going to be as pleasant as many people think it’s going to be for the FBI,” he said. “And it’s actually going to lead probably into probably criminal prosecution that [DOJ prosecutor John] Durham is going to be taking over.”
Horowitz’s report on FISA abuse is expected to be released on Dec. 9, and he is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee two days later.
Grab the popcorn: It’s time for the investigation of the investigators to enter its public phase.