1. 2

    2020-03-24 - Here is what I got when I tried to access the link: “Sorry, an internal error occurred while processing your request. The problem was reported to the site.”

    1. 1

      You’re right. It may have been a temporary link. This is a better URL: https://meetings.cob.org/Documents/ViewDocument/City_Council_Regular_Meeting_2215_Agenda_Packet_3_23_2020_7_00_00_PM.pdf?meetingId=2215&documentType=AgendaPacket&itemId=0&publishId=0&isSection=false

      Take a look at Paragraph 9 of Section 3, which begins on page 20.

    1. 1

      Should there be a tag for repartition? That is, redrawing state lines, presumably with the consent of both states and the US Congress? Could also apply to West Virginia’s proposal to Virginia.

      1. 1

        Thanks for posting. Two interesting excerpts:

        We are speeding toward a situation when someone in one of these camps refuses to obey a major decree, arrest order, or court decision, at which point Americans will get to experience the joys of their political futures being decided by phone calls to generals and police chiefs.

        My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump.


        Donald “Deep State” Trump is a legitimately elected president whose ouster is being actively sought by the intelligence community.

        1. 3

          …..and the odds that Califailure Gov. Gavin Typical Democrat Newsom will veto any of these are zero. It’s a real wonder the typical Democrats in Califailure haven’t simply gone for the brass ring and fully legislate 2A out of existence in the state.

          1. 1

            Yup. The left has tried this, and kind of succeeded. The good guys can file lawsuits in California, but even if they get before a district judge who respects the Constitution, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit will reverse. And even if the three-judge panel somehow finds its way to respecting the Constitution, the full 9th Circuit sitting en banc will reverse. (See Peruta v. San Diego for a good example of this.)

            It’s time for the Supreme Court to do something about the sad phenomenon of anti-constitutional circuit court judges thumbing their noses at precedent.

            1. 1

              See this article from Reason over the summer:

              Anti-gun politicians have been forthright about this goal. Last fall, then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, now California’s governor, wrote a letter to the 22nd District Agricultural Association asking it to stop allowing the Crossroads of the West show to lease the Del Mar fairgrounds. “Permitting the sale of firearms and ammunition on state-owned property only perpetuates America’s gun culture,” Newsom wrote.

              Newsom’s predecessor, Gov. Jerry Brown, last year vetoed a bill that would have prevented gun shows from taking place at the Cow Palace, a state-owned exhibition hall near San Francisco. AB 893, a bill currently making its way through the California state legislature, would explicitly ban gun shows at the Del Mar fairgrounds. Newsom, who is more hostile to the Second Amendment than Brown, is likely to sign it.

            1. 2

              AG Barr’s is saying that encrypted communications should always be readable by the police, presumably with a warrant issued by a judge. This would include secret FISA court proceedings. This is a “trust us” argument.

              Another way to state his “trust us” argument is: Trust the FBI, ATF, and other federal police agencies (yes, the ones that arguably conspired to take down a president) never to misuse this power. Trust federal judges including FISA judges (yes, the ones that signed off on surveillance of President Trump’s campaign) never to misuse this power.

              Technology aside, years ago Barr would have had a better argument. Now the tentacles of the Deep State have extended too far. We’ve learned too much to rely on “trust us” in the future.

              1. 2

                Barr seems to be asking for a new federal law. What would that law actually say?

                Wording matters. A lot.

              1. 2

                The Deep State tag seems accurate. This policy does not vary based on who’s in the White House (what makes you think presidents can influence the permanent bureaucracy?). Here’s an article I wrote published this July:


                The best way to read this report is that it represents the latest extrusion of the permanent cadre of law enforcement and national security bureaucrats who have never abandoned their efforts, underway for over 20 years, to allow U.S. government agencies to break or bypass encryption embedded in hardware and software products.

                The last time this extra-constitutional campaign against encryption kicked off was during the George W. Bush administration, in mid-2008, when FBI officials briefed Senate Intelligence committee members on what they called the “Going Dark” problem. This campaign continued without apparent interruption during the Barack Obama administration, when the FBI asked all field offices in 2009 for anecdotal information about cases in which “investigations have been negatively impacted” by encryption. By 2012, as I disclosed in an article at the time, the FBI had drafted a proposed law to force tech companies to build in backdoors and was asking the companies not to oppose it. That legislation was never publicly introduced.

                1. 2

                  Don Kilmer is a great speaker and defender of the 2nd Amendment.

                  1. 1

                    Don Kilmer is a great speaker and defender of the 2nd Amendment.

                    Agreed! I’m planning to be there.

                  1. 1

                    Don and Ed and I are likely going to be there. If you’re local, you’re welcome to join us.

                    1. 1

                      Also there’s this tweet a few hours ago from President Trump:

                      As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!

                      1. 1

                        This one, from Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters, isn’t helping:


                        Impeachment is not good enough for Trump. He needs to be imprisoned & placed in solitary confinement. But for now, impeachment is the imperative.

                        What, no call for a firing squad? Maxine has gone soft.

                      1. 3

                        Democrats had two obvious choices:

                        1. Delay impeachment and move ahead at full speed with their set of proposed federal anti-gun laws (that forcibly disarm law-abiding Americans, to one degree or another, and restrict our inalienable right to self-defense).

                        2. Move forward with impeachment (over a nothingburger), which jeopardizes own their efforts to forcibly disarm their fellow citizens.

                        They chose 2. The left has revealed that it’s more interested in pursuing their Orange Man Bad Must Get Rid Of Orange Man Bad fantasies then advancing their stated policy goals. Remember this the next time the left screams: “How many more Americans have to die in mass shootings before we have effective gun control?”

                        1. 3

                          BTW this development should be seen as good news for gun owners. See this article from this morning about what the president has been saying:

                          “She’s not interested in guns,” [President Trump] said Wednesday at the United Nations. “Nancy Pelosi is not interested in guns and gun protection [or] gun safety.”

                          On Wednesday afternoon, during a press briefing at the UN, Trump turned to Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, “who I’ve been dealing with on guns.” Murphy’s now “too busy wasting time on the witch hunt” to legislate, Trump said.

                          On Thursday, Trump shouted on the tarmac of Andrews Air Force Base: “We can’t talk about gun regulation, we can’t talk about anything.”

                          President Trump seems to be aware that without gun owners, he would not have been elected last time, and without gun owners, he has no chance of being re-elected next time.

                          But he can be wishy-washy on the Second Amendment: look at his bump stock ban by regulatory fiat, and the lack of national reciprocity even when the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.

                          The threat of impeachment tilts him back to the side of the angels.

                          1. 3

                            I wrote this article last year for Reason:

                            With the exception of Trump’s judicial appointments—they appear to typically be sound on gun rights—this is, sadly, not a White House that has proven itself to be a reliable champion of American gun owners.

                            I think I’d be a bit less harsh today. But only a little.

                        1. 2

                          The Florida ballot measure from BAWN (Ban Assault Weapons NOW) is here: https://bawnfl.org/amendment.html

                          It looks like existing owners of “assault weapons” must register them with the government or face mandatory third-degree felony charges for mere possession. No “assault weapons” may be sold or transferred after the date on which the prohibition takes effect. “Assault weapons” are defined as:

                          Definitions - a) Assault Weapons - For purposes of this subsection, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.

                          This seems fairly broad.

                          1. 4

                            This seems like the beginning of the end for lawfull owners of Americas favorite sporting rifle. The common AR-15 rifle owned by the average American ,is not an assault weapon . It is not select fire which is what defines assault weapons. 1 pull of the trigger equals 1 bullet fired. SEMI AUTOMATIC, I guess to some uneducated people , the civilian version looks scary. I’m sorry but feelings do not over rule Rights under our constitution.

                          1. 3

                            Dan, thanks for posting. The article is behind a paywall, so here are some excerpts:

                            “Passing a ban on assault weapons in Florida will set an example that it is absolutely possible for other states to follow suit, no matter their political affiliation,” said Al Hoffman, a Republican donor and one of the founders of Americans for Gun Safety Now, which has contributed $260,000 to the campaign.

                            It faces significant obstacles. The signature-gathering process in Florida is onerous, and the ballot language must be approved by a state Supreme Court that leans conservative. Florida also has historically supported few gun restrictions and is home to one of the National Rifle Association’s most powerful lobbyists, Marion Hammer.

                            The Florida initiative takes a simpler approach, proposing to outlaw all new semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition in either a fixed or detachable magazine. The language is directed at semiautomatic rifles like AK-47s and AR-15s.

                            1. 1

                              Excerpt from New York state law, Section 400:

                              Applications shall be made and renewed, in the case of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides… Before a license is issued or renewed, there shall be an investigation of all statements required in the application by the duly constituted police authorities of the locality where such application is made, including but not limited to such records as may be accessible to the division of state police or division of criminal justice services pursuant to section 400.02 of this article… Applications for licenses shall be accepted for processing by the licensing officer at the time of presentment. Except upon written notice to the applicant specifically stating the reasons for any delay, in each case the licensing officer shall act upon any application for a license pursuant to this section within six months of the date of presentment of such an application to the appropriate authority…

                              A license [to own a handgun] may be revoked and cancelled… by any judge or justice of a court of record; a license issued pursuant to section 400.01 of this article may be revoked and cancelled at any time by the licensing officer or any judge or justice of a court of record. The official revoking a license shall give written notice thereof without unnecessary delay to the executive department, division of state police, Albany, and shall also notify immediately the duly constituted police authorities of the locality.

                              1. 2

                                That story scares the hell out of me.

                                1. 1

                                  That story scares the hell out of me.

                                  As it should! A story like this should be plastered on the cover of Time magazine. But it’s not.

                                  It reminds me of Rod Dreher’s excellent and disturbing essay about the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America” trying to rehab Communism. Dreher didn’t go into theology or the theory of Communism. Instead he showed how Communism directly hurt people, real people, identifiable people, with photos. Some did not survive the encounter.

                                  This works better than a policy analysis (of Medicare or Communism) that nobody will ever read. When Rod Dreher is right, he’s very, very right.

                                1. 1


                                  This cheap money is rewarding asset holders more than wage earners (particularly asset-lite or asset-less young adults who comprise the childbearing population). These policies of inflating asset prices are rewarding elderly and institutions who own the bulk of assets over the young adults who are being penalized with record rents, home prices, insurance, medical costs, day care costs, and student loans, etc.. All this is further delaying marriage and family formation and only pushing fertility rates toward the low variant. The global population is set to peak far sooner and more dramatically than the UN’s current 2100’ish date.

                                  I don’t see anything obviously incorrect in the above excerpt. It reminds me a little of the happy times when your house value goes up and up and up as the bubbles froth and the froth bubbles: you can borrow more, you can spend more. All is well–until the crash happens.

                                  If the carnage is international, and not limited only to this country, then things could get pretty bad.

                                    1. 1

                                      And Kamala Harris is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, according to the Betfair.com betting market.

                                      I somehow get the impression you’re not a fan of the junior senator from California, who praised Rep. Swalwell’s (remember him?) mandatory gun buyback as a “great” idea, and promised to “take executive action” if Congress doesn’t.

                                      But how much of this is familiarity with her record because you’re in California? Would Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, or Cory Booker be any better in terms of policies? Or honesty? Remember Biden telling his audience that Mitt Romney would “put you all back in chains?”

                                      1. 1

                                        Here’s the text of Matt Drudge’s 1998 speech: https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mattdrugdenationalpressclub.htm

                                        It holds up well 21 years later. Though at the time, the legacy media (#mediajackals!) used to try to ignore dissident conservative/libertarian online media. This has changed. It took a while, but they now have some helpful allies in this campaign against dissident voices.

                                          1. 2

                                            I remember NPR analyst Juan Williams, all the way back in 2010, saying that the Gadsden flag is “the same imagery that was on Timothy McVeigh.”

                                            My guess is that some folks (#mediajackals alert!) simply don’t like the message. So suitable complaints will be manufactured.