Published on May 6, 2019
At Seminar, Lawyers Agree to Snitch on Clients Who Have Guns
By Jose Nino
Gun owners could be at risk of losing their Second Amendment rights and other freedoms if their lawyers believe that possessing firearm defines them as dangerous.
At The Federalist, Rebecca Kathryn Jude highlighted a troubling scenario at an ethics seminar, “The ‘Perfect’ Match: Selecting Clients for Successful Representation (Ethics),” that she was attending.
Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the Mississippi Bar, put forward a hypothetical scenario the group of civil and criminal lawyers in attendance:
A man has been fired from his job. He is upset. He hires you as his attorney. You are of the opinion he has an excellent case and file a complaint on his behalf. You later discover he possesses a permit to carry a firearm. He also has a so-called enhanced carry license. While his case is wending through the courts, your client goes to a public area outside his former workplace. He displays signs that say he has been wrongfully fired. The man has no history of criminal activity, violence, or threatening anyone.
The instructor then asked the class what action they would pursue in this situation. In Jude’s view, “there was no reason to do anything except proceed with the client’s case.”
She then added that she “would also advise my client to avoid confrontations with anyone who worked for his former employer and what he might consider saying if approached by the media.”
Much to her surprise, however, was her peers’ response.
According to Jude, “many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.”
Jude was “flabbergasted” and for good reason.
Mississippi is one of the most pro-gun states in the country, ranked in 16th place according to the Guns & Ammo magazine.
It is also one of the 16 states in the country with Constitutional Carry.
Jude was appalled that her colleagues “were proposing to violate the attorney-client privilege, which establishes one of the most sacrosanct confidential relationships” in this hypothetical scenario put forward.
She noted that the attorneys “focused on the fact the client owned a gun and had firearm permits” and that this “was enough to label him as reasonably certain to cause death or serious bodily harm and report him to the police.”
BLP has reported on numerous occasions how certain corporate interests like Dick’s Sporting Goods and CEOs have pitched in to undermine gun rights.
Gun controllers recognize that they don’t have full legislative control, so they’ll find other means to subvert gun rights.
Eric Swalwell Pushes ‘Assault Weapons’ Buyback After Synagogue Shooting
By AWR HAWKINS
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) reiterated his “assault weapons” buyback push on Sunday following the attack on the Congregation Chabad in Poway.
The synagogue was attacked Saturday morning. Breitbart News reported that the attacker arrived at approximately 11:20 am, opening fire shortly thereafter. Three persons were wounded and one was killed.
he attacker then fled the scene while a good guy with a gun ran behind him, shooting at, but missing, the suspect.
CNN reports that the Chabad in Poway attacker used an “AR-type assault weapon.”
Swalwell responded by tweeting:
Here is another way to look at this:
-
Aurora — Gun-Free Zone
-
Orlando — Gun-Free Zone
-
Parkland — Gun-Free Zone
-
Sandy Hook — Gun-Free Zone
-
Umpqua CC — Gun-Free Zone
-
Waffle House — Gun-Free Zone
-
San Bernadino — Gun-Free Zone
-
Tree of Life Synagogue — Gun-Free on the day the attack occurred.
And in a gun-free zone, it does not matter what type of weapon the attacker uses because he is the only one with a gun. Therefore, he has time on his side. The Parkland attacker had time to pause and reload five times while the Sandy Hook attacker had over nine minutes without armed resistance.
Also missing from Swalwell’s list of shootings and types of weapons used is any acknowledgement that California already has an “assault weapons” ban.
Regardless of these things, Swalwell is full steam ahead on his push to do a mandated buyback of “assault weapons,” with jail-time as a consequence for those who do not comply.
Eric Swalwell Tries to Walk Back Push to Jail Gun Owners
By Awr Hawkins
Democrat presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell tried to walk back his statement about jailing gun owners who refuse to comply with a future firearms ban.
On April 14, 2019, CNN’s Jake Tapper noted Swalwell’s plan to mandate buybacks of “assault weapons” and criminally prosecute those who do not comply. Tapper asked Swalwell if criminal prosecution means Americans who held on to their guns would go to jail. Swalwell responded, “They would.”
Swalwell added that gun owners would be given an “alternative” choice of placing keeping their guns at “a hunting club or a shooting range,” but either way, the guns would no longer be in their possession.
He has been clear that he plans to use a forced buyback to take “assault weapons” away from everyone who possesses them. In fact, it has been one of his most prominent campaign promises:
Despite these statements on sending non-compliant gun owners to jail and taking away whole categories of firearms, Swalwell claims he has no plans to “take guns from law-abiding gun owners.”
He tweeted:
Note that his attempt to dismiss concerns that he wants to “take guns from law-abiding gun owners” ends with the pledge to #BanandBuyBack. The plan to #BanandBuyback is the method used to take away guns in Australia and New Zealand.
BERNIE SANDERS CALLS FOR NZ STYLE GUN GRAB
It’s the kind of overnight gun control Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders can get behind
MARCH 22, 2019
Three days is all it took for politicians in New Zealand to ban so-called “military style” rifles in the wake of horrific attacks on mosques that left 50 kiwis dead.
The laws haven’t been formally approved by the country’s parliament, but Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the ban on “all military style semi-automatic weapons” takes effect immediately, regardless.
“Today I am announcing that New Zealand will ban all military-style semi-automatic weapons. We will also ban all assault rifles. We will also ban all high capacity magazines,” Ardern said, according to ABC News. “We will ban all parts with the ability to convert semi-automatic or any other type of firearm into a military style semi-automatic weapon.”
It’s the kind of overnight gun control Democrat presidential candidate can get behind.
The socialist senator from Vermont praised the government’s move to limit gun rights in a post to Twitter late Wednesday.
“This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like,” Sanders posted, along with a link to The Washington Post’s coverage of the gun grab.
He ignored the fact that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
“We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States,” Sanders wrote.
Ardern said she expects New Zealand lawmakers to approve the new restrictions by the end of a two week session that concludes on April 11, and she called on retailers to halt the sales of the banned weapons and return unsold supplies.
The prime minister announced the gun ban is only the first step, with further restrictions on licensing, registration and storage still to come, according to ABC News.
The New Zealand government in unsure of the number of “assault” or “military-style” guns currently owned by citizens, but plans to hold a buy-back costing between $100 million and $200 million to convince them to turn them over, Ardern said.
She described the cost as “a price that we must pay for the safety of our community.”
Ironically, a man who helped to stop the horrific shooting at two New Zealand mosques last week used a semi-automatic handgun to chase the perpetrator away.
Under the new gun ban, that gun would now be illegal, according to Townhall.
The criteria for the new ban on “Military-Style Semi-Automatics” defines the term as any “semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges” or “a semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges,” the news site reports.
“Based on the specific criteria outlined in the New Zealand ban, Sanders is calling for a ban on essentially every firearm in the United States,” Townhall reports. “The functional definition of ‘assault rifle’ in this case includes nearly all firearms in regular, legal and proper use by millions of Americans.”
Screw the Christchurch Shooter and Screw the Mainstream Media
Published on Mar 15, 2019
Repeat after me; content creators, are not, responsible, for the actions, of their fans. Candace Owens and pewdiepie don’t cause violence you twits.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Uses New Zealand Mosque Terror to Attack NRA
By Joel B. Pollak
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) used the news of the terror attack at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday by attacking the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The attack, which occurred during Friday prayers, has killed 49 people as of this writing, and wounded dozens of others.
In two tweets, Ocasio-Cortez mocked the idea of sending “thoughts and prayers” to the victims of the shootings. After significant pushback, clarified that the target of her criticism was the NRA.
“At 1st I thought of saying, ‘Imagine being told your house of faith isn’t safe anymore.’,” she tweeted.
“But I couldn’t say ‘imagine.’ Because of Charleston. Pittsburgh. Sutherland Springs.
“What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t even keep the pews safe?” she concluded.
Advocates of gun control on the left have begun to mass shooting events by disdaining the expression “thoughts and prayers,” treating it as an excuse for legislative inaction rather than as a genuine expression of sympathy and anguish.
Left-wing critics have also taken to using the phrase “thoughts and prayers” as a way to mock the NRA even outside the context of a shooting event. Last year, for example, liberal celebrities wished “thoughts and prayers” to the NRA after reports that it was having financial trouble.
In that vein, Ocasio-Cortez added a subsequent tweet to clarify her meaning in the original one:
The NRA had not (and, as of the writing, still has not) reacted to the Christchurch attacks. There is also no evidence that it invented the phrase “thoughts and prayers.”
Moreover, New Zealand already has gun control measures similar to those Democrats want to pass into law in the United States, including the universal background check bill that the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed last month.
The NRA has argued that a better way to stop mass shootings would be to encourage responsible gun ownership and make armed guards available to vulnerable targets like schools.
Early reports from Christchurch indicated that an armed Muslim man helped chase away assailants from the second mosque that was attacked.
Ocasio-Cortez also retweeted an attack blaming President Donald Trump for inspiring the New Zealand terrorists.
NEWSCorporate Oligarchs Want Gun Registration
By
Corporate oligarchs are calling for more gun control.
With the U.S. House expected to vote Wednesday on universal gun registration bill H.R. 8, four CEOs signed a letter urging Congress to spearhead this legislation.
Blake Mycoskie, the founder of TOMS’s shoes, has joined the anti-gun frenzy. At first, TOMS’s board of directors debated whether the CEO should be involved with political issues as controversial as gun control.
Mycoskie said “everyone was very concerned about us doing something like this” and was somewhat hesitant to take on this fight.
Trending: Twitter Tells Michelle Malkin to Lawyer Up for Breaking SHARIA LAW
However, the board eventually embraced the gun control hysteria, as Mycoskie noted:
“But ultimately we recognized that this is an opportunity for us to really be a leader in business and to show our customers that we are engaged in the issues that matter most to them.”
Mycoskie joined the CEOs of Levi Strauss, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and RXT Realty in signing this letter calling for the U.S. to pass H.R. 8, legislation that would put the U.S. one step closer towards gun registration.
Instead of being upfront about the legislation’s true intentions, the CEOs wrote:
“… we are writing to you because we have a responsibility and obligation to stand up for the safety of our employees, customers and all Americans in the communities we serve across the country….
Mycoskie recognizes that roughly 12 percent of his customer base won’t buy his company’s shoes due to his anti-gun stances. Nevertheless, Mycoskie remains firm in his anti-gun ways stating that his company “lost some customers by doing this, but I think we also strengthened our relationship in a way that was far greater than whatever we lost.”
Scott Rechler, the CEO of RXR Realty, has also become a gun control advocate and believes that it is “important for CEOs to take a greater level of social responsibility.”
It remains to be seen if these statements will hurt Mycoskie and Rechler’s companies, but if Dick’s Sporting Goods’s experience is any indicator, it may not turn out so well for these gun control-supporting companies. When Dick’s decided to stop selling AR-15s and banned individuals under 21 from buying firearms, sales plummeted.
Ever since the Las Vegas and Parkland shootings, gun controllers nationwide have come out in force trying to pass gun control legislation in state legislatures across the country. From 2016 to 2018, Democrats were completely shut out of power at the federal level, so they turned to state legislatures and the corporate boardroom to undermine gun rights.
Corporations are continuing this gun control crusade by cutting ties with firearms vendors and gun-related organizations. This recent announcement shows that corporate interests won’t relent.
It’s time that gun owners fight back by hitting corporations where it hurts them most—their pocketbooks.
Tom's Blog 