Sec. Zinke Is Coming To Asheville (Updated)

I saw this moments ago in The Outdoor Wire. Too bad I won’t be able to attend. I’m guessing Mr. Zinke will be talking about arrests for bear poaching. That is what it usually is.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke will host a press conference in Asheville, North Carolina, on Thursday, September 27th to announce the results of a major joint law enforcement operation. Secretary Zinke will be joined by Federal, Tribal, State and local partners. This will be the Secretary’s third trip to the Asheville region since taking office.


WHO:
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
Federal, Tribal, State, and local partners


WHAT:
A press conference to announce the results of a major law enforcement operation in Indian Country


WHEN:
Thursday, September 27, 2018
9:30 A.M.


WHERE:
Veach Baley Federal Building, 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC

UPDATE: Well it wasn’t bear parts but drugs including opoids, Fentenyl, marijuana, meth, and pills. A task force of Federal, state, and tribal officials broke up a number of drug distribution networks on the Qualla Boundary in Cherokee, NC. That is the reservation of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

From what I’ve been told by a former student, teens are targeted by drug dealers at age 15-16. They want to get them dependent so that they can get their major payout from the trust funds enrolled members receive at age 18. The amount that an 18 year old will receive before taxes is (or was) in the $160,000 range.

The full details on the arrests is found in this news release from the Department of the Interior.

Will Kavanaugh Be Found Unmutual?

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

I saw this posted this morning on MeWe by Kevin Z. Williamson. The more I watched it, the more I thought The Prisoner was way ahead of its time and that it was a preview of what we might see today from certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Will Judge Kavanaugh be found to be disharmonious? Will he be deemed unmutual? Will DiFi remember to wear her top hat and stripes?

Ford’s Prepared Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Earlier today I published the prepared testimony of Judge Brett Kavanaugh which contained his unequivocal denial of participating in any and all sexual assaults. Needless to say, I believe him.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney has now posted her prepared testimony which is scheduled to be delivered before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. If this were the court of law instead of the court of public opinion, this case would never have even gotten to trial. As it is, this was meant to be the Democrat’s bombshell revelation that would take down a good man and destroy his chances of serving on the Supreme Court. I imagine it was also intended to force him to step down from his position as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I think it will fail as well it should.

Judge Kavanaugh’s Prepared Statement For Thursday’s Senate Hearing

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s prepared testimony for his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee has been released. In it, he addresses the charges by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually attacked her at a party 36 years ago. He categorically denies it.

It is a strong statement but I wish he might have taken the approach of Justice Clarence Thomas and called it for what it is – bullshit. However, Kavanaugh is a more measured, judicious, and temperate person than I am which is why he’s a judge and I’m not.

As posted at The Atlantic:

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee:

Eleven days ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing a serious wrong more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, unequivocally, and categorically. The next day, I told this Committee that I wanted to testify as soon as possible, under oath, to clear my name.

Over the past few days, other false and uncorroborated accusations have been aired. There has been a frenzy to come up with something—anything, no matter how far-fetched or odious—that will block a vote on my nomination. These are last-minute smears, pure and simple. They debase our public discourse. And the consequences extend beyond any one nomination. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country.

As I told this Committee the last time I appeared before you, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I am and will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. This effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. I am here this morning to answer these allegations and to tell the truth. And the truth is that I have never sexually assaulted anyone—not in high school, not in college, not ever.

Sexual assault is horrific. It is morally wrong. It is illegal. It is contrary to my religious faith. And it contradicts the core promise of this Nation that all people are created equal and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Allegations of sexual assault must be taken seriously. Those who make allegations deserve to be heard. The subject of allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law.

Dr. Ford’s allegation dates back more than 36 years, to a party that she says occurred during our time in high school. I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now. But that’s not why we are here today. What I’ve been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior. I never did anything remotely resembling what Dr. Ford describes.

The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women.

I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done that to her or to anyone. I am innocent of this charge.

Cody Wilson Out, Paloma Heindorff In At Defense Distributed

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed parted ways as of Friday, September 21st, according to the new Director of Defense Distributed, Paloma Heindorff. The news came in a press conference held in Austin, Texas yesterday (September 25th).

Good morning, thank you for attending. My name is Paloma Heindorff, I’m the new director of Defense Distributed and CEO of Ghost Gunner. I spent last three years at DD working as director of development and VP of Operations.


Cody Wilson tendered his resignation on Friday evening to focus on personal legal affairs. Defense Distributed Board of Directors accepted his resignation and thus his role at the company has been concluded.

Also on the stage at the news conference were Defense Distributed’s attorneys Josh Blackman of  the South Texas College of Law Houston and Chad Flores of Houston law firm Beck Redden.

During the news conference, Heindorff continually emphasized that Wilson has no further involvement with Defense Distributed and that she would not answer any questions regarding his personal legal issues. She did say, “it was Cody Wilson’s decision to resign and Defense Distributed supported him in that.”

When she was asked by a reporter if anything in her views had changed on the case, Heindorff made a strong statement of her beliefs.

The same as we stood before. We believe in the right of people to have these files; we believe in our right to publish them. I believe very strongly in both the First and Second Amendment causes in the case. That’s where I stand. The same as where I stood a week ago.

Asked if she had spoken with Cody Wilson, she said, “Cody and I have been speaking. It is important for the transition. We still have some paperwork to do.”

Heindorff’s background is in the arts. When asked why she left New York and moved to Austin to work for Defense Distributed, she had this to say.

It’s the most effective and elegant activism I’d seen performed and I wanted to be a part of that. It’s just so beautiful, isn’t it, to exercise one’s rights like that and to do so in a way that pushes authorities to allow you to. Too often people are perturbed by threats, and I found it incredible that this company persisted.

Heindorff spoke about this in more detail at last year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Dallas. You can see her comments in this video starting at about the 24:30 mark.

When asked about the case brought the attorney general of Washington State to prevent Distributed Defense from posting the files online , Josh Blackman emphasized that there was no change in the case. Later in the news conference, both he and attorney Chad Flores re-emphasized that they are DD’s attorney and that Cody Wilson has his own attorney for his issues. With regard to legal issues, all three pointed out that the approximately $400,000 raised for legal fees was for Defense Distributed and no monies were being used by Cody Wilson for her personal defense on charges of sex with a minor.

The change of leadership at Defense Distributed and Ghost Gunner has received attention across the spectrum. You have stories by the NY TimesFox News, NPR, and the Austin Statesman. You have stories by Recoil, Ammoland, and  TTAG. The story was also covered by tech industry publications like Ars Technica and Wired.

Heck, even the Brady Campaign released a statement concerning the change in leadership. The funny thing in their statement is their acknowledgement that the “Pandora’s box had been opened, and it won’t go away with Wilson.” Then they said they would continue to fight the threat. I find it funny that they realize the signal can’t be stopped and then in the next breath say they are going to fight it. There is nothing to compare to the posturing of the gun banners when they know the fight is futile.

The whole news conference is shown in the video below. The actual news conference begins at about the 2 minute mark.

Foster Parents In Illinois Sought As Plaintiffs In 2A Lawsuit

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Illinois Carry is seeking foster parents in Illinois as plaintiffs in a Second Amendment lawsuit. I’m guessing it will be similar to the recent lawsuit in Michigan. In that case, a Michigan foster parent sued the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services over a requirement that firearms and ammunition to constantly locked and inaccessible. A Federal judge said the suit should be allowed to proceed.

From Illinois Carry:

Are You An IL Foster Parent?

Are You Willing To Be A

Witness/Co-Plaintiff In A Second Amendment Lawsuit?

Please contact IllinoisCarry spokesperson Valinda Rowe immediately by sending an email to:

VRowe@IllinoisCarry.com

Valinda Rowe has done incredible work in the Prairie State in advancing the cause of armed self-defense.

Rossi Revolver Safety Warning Issued

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

If you bought a Rossi revolver made between 2005 and 2017, you need to read this:

Rossi is issuing a voluntary safety warning on .38 Special and .357 Magnum revolvers made between the years 2005 and 2017 that may have a condition that could cause, under certain circumstances, the revolver to fire if dropped


This Safety Warning covers .38 Special and .357 Magnum revolver models R351, R352, 461, R462, R851, R971, and R972 with serial numbers beginning with the letter Y, Z, or A through K.


Rossi is developing inspection and repair solutions. Rossi will make every effort possible to ensure Rossi Revolvers will be inspected, serviced if necessary, and returned to customers in a prompt, timely fashion.


Issues underlying this Safety Warning are currently pending before the court in a proposed class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida styled Burrow v. Forjas Taurus, S.A., civil action file no. 1:16-cv-21606-EGT


ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN:


Stop using your revolver immediately.


Call 855-982-8787 for assistance.


If you no longer have this revolver, please inform current owner of this notice.


We appreciate your business and value you as a customer.

Here is a link to where you can search the serial number of your Rossi revolver (if you have one). If it is one of the revolvers in question, then stop using it and follow their instructions for returning it for inspection and repairs.

The Committee Vote Is Friday

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

September 25, 2018
 
RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING
 
        The Executive Business Meeting originally scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building has been rescheduled for Friday, September 28 at 9:30 a.m.
 
        By order of the Chairman.

I. Nominees

Brett M. Kavanaugh, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Jonathan A. Kobes, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit
 
Kenneth D. Bell, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina

Stephanie A. Gallagher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland

Mary S. McElroy, to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island

Carl J. Nichols, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia
 
John M. O’Connor, to be United States District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma
 
Martha Maria Pacold, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
 
Mary M. Rowland, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
 
Steven C. Seeger, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois


II. Bills

S.2785, DETER Act (Durbin, Graham, Blumenthal, Cruz)

S. 3178, Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018 (Harris, Scott, Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker)   

When The Company You Work For Lives Up To Their Name, Look Elsewhere

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

I got a press release in my email today from Sig Sauer announcing Jack Barnes as their new VP for Commercial Sales. Normally, I would not be blogging about something like this. However, in the case of Mr. Barnes, his former employer was a company that lived up to its name more than once:  Dick’s Sporting Goods.
Here is the relevant paragraph from the press release:

Barnes comes to SIG SAUER with a robust background in retail commercial sales, serving the last nine years at Dick’s Sporting Goods where he was Vice President General Merchandise Manager. While at Dick’s, Barnes focused on the hunting and outdoor categories, and led the development of the Dick’s Sporting Goods, Field & Stream retail stores from concept to grand opening. He further led the continued growth and sustainability for Field & Stream stores through sales, inventory control, and merchandising. Prior to that, Barnes worked for twelve years at Wal-Mart in various management roles. Notably, Barnes gained tremendous firearms experience as a professional competitive shooter, before he began to focus his career in retail sales management.

I don’t know whether Mr. Barnes left Dick’s on his own or was forced out when Dick’s CEO Ed Stack went full gun control after the Parkland mass murders. Regardless, I’m glad to hear he is now with a company that respects the Second Amendment.

By the way, this afternoon I drove right by a Field and Stream store and kept on going. Mr. Barnes did a good job in developing them but I refuse to spend my money with a company that advocates for gun control.

Sharp V. Becerra – Assault Weapon Registration Lawsuit – Moved To Federal Court

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

In late August, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA)  moved to have the lawsuit against him and the California DOJ over their ineptness implementing the new registration of bullet button weapons moved to Federal court. One would have thought that he’d want to keep a suit against the California Department of Justice in state court.
The case was moved to US District Court for the Eastern District of California and assigned to Judge Morrison England, Jr. 
Today, the plaintiffs which include a number of individuals and a number of civil rights organizations filed an amended complaint. Joining the plaintiffs is the Madison Society Foundation.  The amended complaint also adds a Section 183 claim for deprivation of due process rights.

While I might have been tempted to just say “screw it”, all the individual plaintiffs spent hours trying to comply with the law requiring registration of their firearms. Some of the plaintiffs are IT professionals and tech savvy. Nonetheless, the database system was so screwed up, most of them were not able to do so. The response of Cal DOJ was “you procrastinated, so tough”. From the complaint:

The following Monday, July 2, 2018,
Plaintiff (Terry) Jahraus contacted the DOJ for assistance, but the DOJ official told him, essentially, “it
was [his] responsibility to comply with the law [and] that he had all year to do so.” In other
words, DOJ blamed him for failing to register, even though its own statutorily-mandated
registration system was inaccessible and defective throughout the entire period he had attempted
to register it well before the deadline.

The joint release of the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation is below:

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 24, 2018) — Attorneys for seven California gun owners and five advocacy organizations announced a new court filing in a now-federal constitutional rights lawsuit over the State of California’s “assault weapon” registration debacle. The case, Sharp, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was originally filed in the County of Shasta Superior Court. But in late August it was removed to federal district court in Sacramento at the request of Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the DOJ defendants. The new court filing is online at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/sharp.

On August 24, the California Attorney General moved the case to federal court on the basis that the plaintiffs’ claims present a federal constitutional question, in addition to their state-based claims. That same day, the lawsuit was assigned to District Court Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Two years ago, Judge England issued a bench ruling to enjoin a California statute that criminalized the use of Assembly video footage in political advertisements in a case brought by Firearms Policy Coalition and its Proposition 63 ballot initiative political committee, FPC Second Amendment Defense Committee.

“While it’s interesting that Attorney General Becerra doesn’t want his own state’s courts to hear how badly he mis-administered the mandated firearm registration program, we welcome the opportunity to show Judge England how the DOJ violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and others like them,” said George M. Lee, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “General Becerra’s actions and failures affected many gun owners from San Diego to Eureka. These law-abiding gun owners tried to register their weapons as required by law but could not do so because DOJ’s registration system was wholly inadequate to do the job. We are simply asking that those injuries be reasonably remedied so that those citizens are not subject to criminal liability for possessing illegal, unregistered weapons – solely as a result of DOJ’s failures.”

In the latest complaint, submitted last Friday, the plaintiffs added a claim for deprivation of their due process rights under Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code. The complaint also adds as an institutional plaintiff the Madison Society Foundation, a nonprofit organization that fights to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs say that Becerra and the DOJ had a legal and constitutional duty to provide a functional registration system during the registration period, but that they were unable to exercise their own rights and legal duties “due to the Defendants’ actions and failures, including but not limited to the inaccessibility, defects, and/or non-functionality of the DOJ’s CFARS-based registration system.” The plaintiffs alleged that the DOJ’s ‘botched’ “assault weapon” registration scheme – including the error-prone Internet application for registration that often crashed completely – violated both the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution’s guarantees of due process. They also allege that the failed DOJ system violated the plaintiffs’ and other similar gun owners’ statutory rights.

“Even though the lawsuit is now in a federal district court, it’s still just a straight-forward case about how Attorney General Becerra and his DOJ didn’t do the job they were mandated to do,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “Their actions and failures violated the rights of thousands of California gun owners. It’s just that simple.”

Under California’s voluminous gun control laws, someone merely transporting an unregistered “assault weapon” to the shooting range – even if one believes it was legal and registered under other DOJ systems, like DROS – “is guilty of a felony” and potentially subject to a prison sentence of “four, six, or eight years.” Other crimes can be added on to that, including common separate charges like possession and manufacturing.

The complaint says the plaintiffs “seek an un-extraordinary result, compelled by the basic tenets of due process: That they simply be allowed to register their eligible firearms and comply with the law, and that the Attorney General, the DOJ, and their officers and agents similarly comply with the law by allowing such registrations and ensuring they are properly and timely processed through a functioning online database as they have been required by statute to do.”

“This unjust California government-created problem must be stopped immediately,” Second Amendment Foundation Founder and Executive Vice President, Alan Gottlieb, said in a previous statement. “Gun owners should not be put at risk due to state regulatory incompetence.”

The plaintiffs said that they would soon be asking Judge England for a preliminary injunction to protect affected gun owners’ rights and property while the case goes forward to summary judgement or trial.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys George M. Lee and Douglas Applegate of San Francisco-based Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, as well as Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general and prosecutor. Attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group, who earlier this month secured a major First Amendment victory in a case that challenged a different California gun control statute that banned truthful, non-misleading speech about handguns, have been added to the legal team.

The lawsuit is backed by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.

Californians who tried to register their firearms as “assault weapons” before July 1 but were unable to, or who suffered a privacy breach at DOJ, should contact the organizations’ Legal Action Hotline immediately at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or by telephone at 855-252-4510.