If it is too silly, is it still Trademark Infringement?
Fat Lady in the Limelight?
J.D. Salinger was famous for saying (in Catcher in the Rye) “It’s not over until the fat lady sings.” This posting is about the August 13, 2015 en banc decision from the CAFC in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. The CAFC heard the court on remand from the Supreme Court.
The remand order itself was covered in an earlier posting.
For those readers that have not been following the case, in the original CAFC en-banc decision of August 31, 2012 that court “…reconsider[ed] and overrule[d] the 2007 decision of this court in which we held that in order for a party to be liable for induced infringement, some other single entity must be liable for direct infringement. BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To be clear, we hold that all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.
On June 12, 2014 the Supreme Court remanded the Case to the CAFC indicating: “The Federal Circuit seems to have adopted the view that Limelight induced infringement on the theory that the steps that Limelight and its customers perform would infringe the ’703 patent if all the steps were performed by the same person. But we have already rejected the notion that conduct which would be infringing in altered circumstances can form the basis for contributory infringement, and we see no reason to apply a different rule for inducement. In Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U. S. 518 (1972), a manufacturer produced components of a patented machine and then exported those components overseas to be assembled by its foreign customers. (Theassembly by the foreign customers did not violate U. S.patent laws.) In both Deepsouth and this case, the conduct that the defendant induced or contributed to would have been infringing if committed in altered circumstances: in Deepsouth if the machines had been assembled in the United States, see id., at 526, and in this case if performance of all of the claimed steps had been attributable to the same person. In Deepsouth, we rejected the possibility of contributory infringement because the machines had not been assembled in the United States, and direct infringement had consequently never occurred. See id., at 526–527. Similarly, in this case, performance of all the claimed steps cannot be attributed to a single person, so direct infringement never occurred. Limelight cannot be liable for inducing infringement that never came to pass.
The May 2015 panel concluded , of course, that the district Court’s JMOL of non-infringement was proper.
(2) where the actors form a joint enterprise.
So the fat lady has sung only the rules for infringement. Final decision in this case will (apparently) come from a future CAFC panel. Time will tell whether the Supreme Court approves of the new rules they invited the CAFC to suggest.
This posting is the result of the serendipitous appearance of a “Business Insider” article entitled “Apple has filed a patent that could completely reinvent the idea of a mixtape” in my inbox. The patent application referred to is US20150220634. A quick look at the claims in the application surprised me for two reasons.
The first reason for surprise is that the claims are all directed towards user side implementation (i.e. playback of a “digital mix tape” by a recipient after someone else has prepared it).
The second reason for surprise is that although the application was filed in April 2015, the claims indicate no effort to avoid a §101 rejection as being directed towards an abstract idea.
This means that Apple, and their legal representatives, were following accepted practice when they filed US 13/481,405 in May of 2012. The fact that the “manifestly evident” doctrine of that first CAFC panel would subsequently be overturned by an en banc re-hearing which was subsequently validated by the Supreme Court was blissfully unknown to all when Apple filed their first “Digital Mix Tape Application”. Unfortunately for Apple, by the time the first Office Action in that case was issued (August 12, 2014) the “manifestly evident” doctrine was only a fond memory and the Examiner stated unequivocally that the claims were directed towards an abstract idea because the method steps are not performed by a machine and/or because “providing a compilation of media tracks to a consumer as a gift” is an abstract idea. The Office action also contained §112 (indefinite) rejections and a §102 and several §103 rejections.
Looking at the wrapper for the parent case (13/481,405) provided insight about the first reason for surprise in the continuation application (claims are all directed towards user side implementation). In a response filed on November 12, 2014, Apple cancelled all of the claims in the parent case and entered new claims. This made short work of all the rejections of record. However, the Examiner found the amendment non-compliant because the new claims are directed towards user side implementation (i.e. playback of a “digital mix tape” by a recipient after someone else has prepared it) while the original claims were directed towards server side implementation (i.e. preparation of a “digital mix tape” by the server in response to a request followed by transmission to a recipient).
These new “user side” claims became the subject of the April 2015 application which was the subject of the Business Insider article.
Since we would all like to have a portfolio like Apple’s what can we learn from their handling of the case?
The most obvious thing is “minimize estoppel”. Once Apple decided they were unlikely to get an allowance in the original case, they did not provide any substantive answers to the rejections offered by the Examiner.
The next, less obvious, thing is that having an application pending in the US is valuable. Apple spent several thousand dollars to file a continuation application with only user side claims which will be tricky to enforce if granted. Presumably this is largely a ploy to allow them to return to the more commercially relevant sever side claims in the future if they develop a product around this concept.
The least obvious thing is enrich your specification with unclaimed detail. Claims like: “…presenting a first name for the first media item before playing the first media item for the first time; and presenting a second name for the first media item after playing the first media item for the first time, where the first name is a fake name and the second name is an actual name of the first media item.” are presumably supported by the specification of the parent application, although they were not claimed. Even the independent claims in the April 2015 continuation application have features that were not present in the parent application. This forces the Examiner to reveal the best references available. Apple can then assemble a set of features that they feel is patentable over the art and draft a server side claim to be filed in a subsequent continuation application.
The last thing is, alas, all too obvious. You want to have a budget like Apple’s so you can play these games with numerous applications in a diverse portfolio.
Feedback on how those of us with more modest budgets might employ a similar strategy will be appreciated.
The USPTO has issued a supplementary set of guidelines on subject matter eligibility of July 30, 2015. The new material includes a Federal Register Notice, a main document entitled “Update on Subject matter Eligibility”, Appendix 1 (Examples), Appendix 2 (Index of Examples), Appendix 3 (Court decisions) and a “Quick reference sheet”. The stated purpose is to respond to feedback from the public.
The diagram makes it seem like any method of correlating or comparing is unlikely to be patentable. We learned from Alice that dressing these methods up as computerized systems is unhelpful.
Hopefully the USPTO is sending us the message the Supreme Court wants us to get.
Since the CAFC’s third decision in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. which found the claims in that case patent ineligible, the CAFC has rendered only one decision in which the claims of a computer implemented invention were held to be patent eligible subject matter [DDR HOLDINGS LLV v HOTELS.COM].
The Apparent dichotomy between those rulings left many of us hoping that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari in the Ultramercial case. Those hopes were more like wishes, since the Supreme Court had already granted/vacated and remanded (GVR) twice after the two initial CAFC decisions were deemed unacceptable.
On June 29, 2015 the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Ultramercial case, leaving the wish ungranted.
It is not all clear whether we should be wishing for a grant of certiorari inn the DDR HOLDINGS case or not. DDR HOLDINGS is the only post Alice V CLS Bank case dealing with “software” implemented claims that went in favor of the patentee. If the Supreme Court offers their insight, there may be no favorable § 101 decisions in the software field, although those insights might make the case law more uniform and easier to understand.
Venture Capitalists (VCs) like Intellectual Property (IP) but see very little of it. Most entrepreneurs seeking funding file a provisional patent application so they can tell one or more VCs they have some IP. Since VCs typically don’t have legal expertise, they usually don’t take a closer look at these provisional applications (PPA). However, VCs are entitled to ask for quality IP.
Here is a list of five things to focus on in a provisional patent application to get a rough idea of its potential value. Both inventors and VCs should focus on these points when preparing/reviewing a PPA as indicators of potential value.
1) Are there claims? This is a yes or no question. “Yes” means the inventor made an effort to define their idea as an invention. “No” means they did not make the effort. If they did not make the effort, one might ask why.
2) Who do you sue? This is difficult (but not impossible) to answer if there are no claims. If there are claims, ask if everything in the claim is likely to be done by a single party. The answer must be yes for an infringement lawsuit to be possible. Since IP derives its value from the potential to sue, this is a critical point in estimating potential value.
3) Is there a real world effect? We live in a world where a “telephone” is actually a technological Swiss army knife. A lot of the features though are purely software. Once the application is installed, the phone acquires new capabilities. While cool apps have great business potential, they are difficult to patent. Software per se has always been un-patentable. The most reliable way around this is to show that the software, when run on the device, has a real world effect. One type of real world effect is that the software improves performance of the machine on which it is running (e.g. makes it run faster, cooler or more reliably or extends battery life). Another type of real world effect is control of a non-computer component. Demonstration of a real world effect can be the key to convincing the patent office that the invention is in a field which can be patented. If you cannot convince them, there will be no patent and therefore no value from the IP.
4) Does the invention go beyond business? This is a corollary to (3). The patent office does not believe that accounting functions like billing are “real world effects”. If the description of the invention focuses on business related activities it is difficult to convince the patent office that the invention is in a field which can be patented. Again, if you cannot convince them, there will be no patent and therefore no value from the IP.
5) Did you say “Wow!” when you read the application? The patent office searches computerized databases to find publications on related technology. For the initial evaluation, it is sufficient to use your gut reaction. If you read the application and said “So what?” there is no breakthrough described. If you said “Wow!” you perceive a breakthrough. The casual reader’s impression of a breakthrough is not a guarantee that the patent office will feel the requirements for getting a patent have been met, but if the casual reader cannot see a breakthrough, the patent office almost certainly will not. That means no “Wow!” probably no patent and probably no value from IP.
Items (1) and (2) in the list relate to evaluating the approach the entrepreneur takes to IP portfolio development. Those that don’t put much into it are unlikely to get a lot out of it. Items (3) and (4) relate to an understanding of the rules for what is potentially patentable. Unfortunately, a lot of potentially valuable product ideas are simply not eligible for patent protection. Investors in technologies that are deficient with respect to items (3) and (4) need to develop a plan for holding on to market share that does not rely on the exclusivity provided by patent protection. Development of brand recognition is the obvious choice here. Item (5) relates to an instinctive evaluation of the legal requirement that an invention be new and non-obvious to be patentable. Again, if it seems unlikely that the application will become a granted patent, branding is an appropriate alternative.


text:
Cembura, Al. Jim Beam Bottles. 1973/74. Identification & Value Guide. San Francisco. Self published. 1973. Octavo. Hard cover. Seventh edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Near fine copy (very light shelf wear).
Cembura, Al. Jim Beam Bottles. Identification & Value Guide. San Francisco. Self published. 1976. 192 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. Seventh edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Near fine copy (crease on front panel).
Ceram, C.W. Gods, Graves, & Scholars. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. 1954. Octavo. Hardcover. Reprint. Illustrated. Fine copy in near fine (light shelf wear) dust jacket (in mylar).
Ceram, C.W. Gods, Graves, & Scholars. The Story of Archaeology. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. 1962. Octavo. Hardcover. Reprint. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Ceram, C.W. The Secret of the Hittites. The Discovery of an Ancient Empire. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. 1956. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Ceram, C.W. The Secret of the Hittites. The Discovery of an Ancient Empire. New York. Dorset. 1990. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition thus. Illustrated. Fine copy (owner blind stamp) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Ceran, C.W. The March of Archaeology. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. 1958. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Cerf, Bennett. At Random. The Reminiscences of Bennett Cerf. Photo available. New York. Random House. 1977. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in near fine (small chips at spine bottom) dust jacket (in mylar).
Cerwinske, Laura. The Book of the Rose. Photo available. London. Thames and Hudson. 1992. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Cesarani, David. Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trail of a "Desk Murderer". np. Da Capo. 2004. 458 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Fine copy in fine dust jacket.
Chabad-Lubavitch. Chabad-Lubavitch. The Lamplighters. Photo available. Brooklyn. Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch. 1988. 131 pps. 4to. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Important reference work. Fine copy (owner inscription on end paper).
Chafetz, Henry. Play the Devil. A History of Gambling in the United States from 1492 to 1955. New York. Clarkson N. Potter. 1960. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Near fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Chafetz, Henry. Play the Devil. A History of Gambling in the United States from 1492 to 1955. Photo available. New York. Clarkson N. Potter. 1960. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in edge chipped dust jacket (in mylar).
Chalmers, Irena. The Great American Christmas Almanac. A Complete Compendium of Facts, Fancies, and Traditions. Photo available. New York. Viking Press. 1988. Octavo. Hard cover. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Chamber, Clarke A. The New Deal at Home and Abroad, 1929-1945. New York. Free Press. 1965. 273 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Fine copy.
Chamberlain, James (ed). The Romance of Greeting Cards. An Historical Account of the Origin, Evolution and Development of Christmas Cards, Valentines and Other Forms of Greeting Cards from the Earliest Days to the Present Time. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1956. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in very good (edge chipped) dust jacket (in mylar).
Chamberlain, John. A Life with the Printed Word. Chicago. Regnery. 1982. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Fine copy (owner blind stamp) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Chamberlain, Narcissa. The Flavor of Italy in Recipes and Pictures. New York. Hastings House. 1965. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Near fine copy (some offsetting to some pages where news articles were laid in) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Chamberlin, E.R. The Sack of Rome. London. B.T. Batsford. 1979. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy (owner blind stamp, name) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Chamberlin, Kathleen H. Marcy Mary. Signed by the author. The Memoirs of a Dachshund American Princess. The Early Years. Photo available. Indianapolis. Dog Ear Publishing. 2009. 19 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Signed by the author. Fine copy.
Chambers, Paul. Jumbo. The Greatest Elephant in the World. Photo available. Hanover. Steerforth Press. 2008. Octavo. Gilt decorated hard cover. First American edition. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Chamish, Barry (1952- ). Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin? Cambridge. Brookline. 2000. 72 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Fine copy.
Chan, Stella. Stella Chan's Secrets. In the Art of Chinese Cooking. Santa Clara. Academic. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy.
Chan, Sucheng. Asian Californians. San Francisco. MTL. 1991. 236 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Very good copy. Light damp staining on last few pages.

matches:
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine


A 16-year-old who tried to rob a Des Plaines grocery store at gunpoint Saturday was thwarted by the store owner who pulled a gun of his own from behind the counter and fired on the teen, authorities said.
WASHINGTON — The US Army has awarded Orbital ATK with a $120 million contract modification to make kits that turn conventional 155mm artillery into a near-precision shell.
The kits are meant to limit civilian casualties and collateral damage, allowing the use of artillery where it would have otherwise been ill-advised — in a congested area or near friendly forces.The guidance fuzes would be fielded to the Army, the Marine Corps, Australia and Canada. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in early 2016, following low-rate initial production, which began in January.
In 2006, ATK — which has since merged with Orbital — was awarded one of two technology demonstration contracts from the US Army to develop the XM1156 precision guidance kit (PGK) for the 155mm howitzer artillery system. In 2013, it won a $58 million contract, with a base requirement and two options for a year of full-rate production; the recent award was option one.
120 million is a nice chunk, but it is not much in the overall DOD budget. These kits are well worth having. The article claims that the fuses only cost about 10K each. That would be 100 fuses per million dollars, or 12,000 fuses total. I expect the price to drop with mass production. This is already a significant price drop from the Excaliber round, which I also spent an extensive number of hours supporting. The Excaliber round current cost of production is about 68K or about seven times as expensive as the PGK.
The range for both of the rounds is about 25-30 km. I can envision a Tom Clancy type novel, consisting of the consequences of jihadis obtaining a couple of M777 howitzers and 50 of the PGK fuses with the shells to go with them, and how they would be deployed in the U.S.A.
Here is a video of the Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) to make smart shells out of “dumb” standard rounds.
It is a great feeling to see that some of the many, many hours I put in on RDT&E is paying off.
Think of how few rounds you need, in comparison with the massive artillery barrages in WWII, when you have this sort of accuracy at your fingertips.
It probably costs 10K just to get a plane off the ground, not to include the risk to pilot and the plane.
A simple “dumb” round costs about $500. So you can have 21 “dumb” rounds for 1 PGK. But that does not consider the costs of shipping those rounds, transporting them in a combat situation, and storing and guarding them.
The over all cost and effectiveness figures are all on the side of the PGK.
There are some times when you need massed fire. You do not need precision munitions for that. But have enough precision munitions, and there is a good chance you will not have to use mass fires, nearly as much.
A man fired a gunshot to try to scare away an armed intruder he confronted.
Raytown police were called to a home in the 8300 block of Pershing Road about 10 a.m. Thursday in regards to a disturbance and shots fired. The man who rents the home told police they got back and found an intruder inside.
He told police he knew the armed suspect and fired his gun as a warning shot to scare the intruder away.
A store clerk fights back against a robber in Hays County. Now a neighborhood in Buda is on alert after the brazen crime that was caught on camera.
U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona has declared unconstitutional the CNMI Weapons Control Act that prohibits all residents from obtaining handguns for self-defense purposes.
Manglona ruled that the handgun and handgun ammunition ban contained in the CNMI Weapons Control Act is declared unconstitutional and in violation of the Covenant that incorporated Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Manglona said the implied prohibition on issuing weapons identification cards (WIC) for self-defense, or “family defense” as stated on the WIC application, is declared unconstitutional and in violation of the Covenant that incorporated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Dramatic surveillance video shows a quick-thinking grocery store clerk who helped bust a robbery ring in suburban Des Plaines.
At the Nuevo Mexico grocery Saturday morning, a 16-year-old pulled a gun on a store clerk to rob the store, but the clerk turned the tables.
We're told Wardrip and Thompson went to protect the girl, and that's when the shooting occurred.
Officers say Wardrip is cooperating and confessed to his role in Williams' death.
"He gave a statement," Anthony said.
And while behind bars today, self-defense is being considered as a possible motive for Wardrip.
Refusing to use "family defense" or "self-defense" as a valid reason for issuing a Weapons Identification Card" (WIC) , required for purchasing a firearm, is unconstitutional.
Any response by the defendants shall be filed by 18 April, 2016.
Because the Covenant applies both the Second Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the CNMI as if it were a state, and it is unconstitutional for a state to ban handguns for self-defense purposes in the home or to restrict handgun possession to citizens but not lawful permanent residents, the Court must grant the Radiches cross-motion for summary judgment as to all counts, and similarly deny the Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
b. Defendants shall file their response, if any, no later than April 18, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2016.
It is another in a string of wins for Second Amendment supporters.
A taco stand employee fatally shot one of three suspects in a botched robbery attempt in South Los Angeles Friday night.
The person who shot Hurston, 30-year-old Joshua Smith, told police that Hurston tried to rob him at gunpoint.
Smith said that he'd arranged to meet a woman online at a duplex on Hamill Road. He said he got out of his car and was walking to the duplex with the woman when Hurston came out from beside the duplex, pointed a gun at him and demanded money.
The officer reportedly shot a man who was breaking into her home.
The suspect was treated at a local hospital and released.
He is currently in the Faulkner County Jail facing a charge of residential burglary.
Seul Lim the wife of the shooter, had been shot in a gunfight on February 18, captured on store video. No video of the current shooting as yet.
Pierce County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Ed Troyer at about 10:30 p.m. Friday, two young men were drinking in the parking lot of the Pacific Quick Mart on Pacific Ave S. Troyer said the two went into the store, where there was an attempted shoplift.
Troyer said the store owner/clerk pulled a gun, there was a confrontation and at some point a couple of rounds were fired, hitting and killing the man.
A 25-year-old store clerk fatally shot a suspected robber inside his store, Houston police confirmed.
It happened around 9:30 a.m. Friday at 8624 W. Montgomery Road.
According to Sheriff Joe Browning, Nick Jones, no age verified as yet, had been transported to Holzer Medical Center for treatment before being flown to a Huntington, W.Va., hospital. The weapon used in the incident has been identified as a .410 bore shotgun. Reports suggest the incident involved one neighbor supposedly trying to break into the other’s home, with the shooter trying to prevent the other from entering.
Police reports state the shooting occurred in the 1700 series of Clay Chapel Road. Charles Day, 66, of Crown City, had called the 911 Gallia County Communications Center to report that Jones had allegedly tried to enter his home through a window when Day allegedly fired a shotgun, reportedly striking Jones’ leg.
Holland says an investigation is underway into Hunter's death, but there were "clear signs at the house that Hunter was causing fear to his parents" during a domestic dispute. Investigators believe Hunter's father, Tony Curtis, used a handgun to shoot him.
Tony Curtis was not arrested in connection with the incident, as investigators are still piecing together what happened. No other arrests have been made.
Rifle in Tree; M86/88 Mannlicher, 1891 Carcano, or Mosin Nagant?
The image in the middle is a picture that is floating about on Russian social media. It was sent to me by by a friend, who I previously wrote about, the one of the adventures with two Bushmen. He asked me if the action bedded in the tree might be a Mosin Nagant.
At first glance, there are definite similarities, the solid magazine, the 90 degree bold handle, the shape of the trigger... but close examination shows that this is no Mosin Nagant. The most obvious difference is the placement of the bolt handle, at the back of the action, instead of inside the ejection port. The magazine shape is different, the bolt handle is directly over the trigger, and the shape of the rear sight elevator is distinctive, and clearly not a Mosin Nagant.
I believe the rifle in the tree is an Austrian Mannlicher M86/88. There is not much difference between the 1886 and 1888 models that you can tell from a photograph such as this. The picture on the left is of a Mannlicher M86/88. Comparing them shows the clear family traits of the rifle in the tree. Everything matches, as much as can be easily derived from the photographs. While not obvious from the photographs, the Mannlicher is a straight pull bolt action, while the Mosin Nagant and Carcano are of the more conventional type.
It is impossible to tell when the rifle was left leaning against what appears to be an oak tree. It was long enough ago to embed the rifle barrel rather solidly. I suspect it was during WWII. The location of the photograph is said to be from a Russian forest, when I found a matching image in a 2014 article in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail article says that a reader identified the rifle as an 1891 Carcano. That is incorrect. The bolt handle is in the wrong place, even though the magazine and rear sight have similarities.
Long ago I gave up hoping for any firearms knowledge among old media writers. I offer my services as a firearms subject matter expert to proof these stories, for a small fee, of course. Such proofing would improve the accuracy of their articles, and gain much needed credibility.
Entrance to University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Thompson Dr.
It would grant the Board of Regents, all their staff, and all employees and agents, blanket immunity from any lawsuits as a result of what they did or did not do about guns and knives on campus. Those amendments were added at the request of the Board of Regents. From SB174(pdf).
employees, or agents of the University of Alaska are immune from civil liability for any act or omission resulting from a policy or regulation adopted or enforced under this section by the Board of Regents or the president of the University of Alaska, or a claim arising from the possession, ownership, use, carrying, registration, or transportation of firearms or knives by any person.
The University's Board of Regents acted today to oppose SB 174 by a vote of 9-2.
The state legislation would allow concealed handguns and knives on campus.
The Board of Regents instituted their administrative ban on guns and knives on campus in 1995, shortly after the Legislature passed the first Alaska concealed carry permit law. The current version even bans BB guns, hunting knives, and slingshots. No one has challenged the ban in court, yet, though it seems clear that it violates not only the Second Amendment and the State Constitution, but the strong state pre-emption law as well.
FINDINGS AND INTENT. The legislature finds that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right under art. I, sec. 19, Constitution of the State of Alaska, and may not be abridged by the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska. The legislature reserves to the state the authority to regulate firearms, except as specifically provided in AS 14.40.173.
Perhaps this is why the Board of Regents objects to SB 174. It removes any doubt that the Board is subject to the restrictions of the State Constitution, particularly art. I, sec. 19. It makes clear that only the State has the authority to regulate firearms.
The Board of Regents has been able to run roughshod over the rights of students and staff for over 20 years. They have never been challenged in court. It is easy to see that they feel secure in the authority they already wield.
State university systems are one of the most powerful lobbies in any state. Legislatures lavish money and power on them. In this case, the Board of Regents may be outsmarting themselves. If an Alaskan has the guts to wear an openly holstered pistol or a belt knife on a university campus, and is cited with trespass, or administrative sanctions, it is likely they would prevail in court. Of course, court fights tend to be long and expensive. The Board of Regents has deep pockets full of other people's money. It seems to be a gamble the Board of Regents is willing to make. After all, no one has challenged them. Yet.
Police said an investigation by Metro’s homicide section revealed that the two victims were in the apartment when an armed suspect, who was unknown to them, entered. One of the residents got a gun and fired several rounds at the suspect, while the suspect shot the other resident and injured that person, the release said. That resident was taken to Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center to be treated for injuries.
The identity of the person killed will be released by the Clark County coroner’s office. Metro said this was the 37th homicide investigated in its jurisdiction in 2016.
CHICAGO (WLS) -- A man whose father was shot in a home invasion more than 50 years ago, shot a would-be burglar who was breaking into his elderly mother's South Shore apartment early Thursday.
Investigators said a 21-year-old man was shot during a fight that followed a minor car accident.
The suspect drove a short distance away, then stopped and called police.
According to investigators, the suspect has a valid concealed carry permit and is cooperating in the investigation.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).
An act relating to slungshot; amending s. 790.09, F.S.; deleting provisions prohibiting the manufacture or sale of any instrument or weapon usually known as slungshot; amending s. 790.001, F.S.; revising the definition of the term “concealed weapon” to delete the inclusion of a slungshot; amending s. 790.18, F.S.; deleting a provision prohibiting a dealer in arms from selling or transferring a slungshot to a minor; providing an effective date.
I doubt that the Caetano decision was ever brought into debate about the Florida bill. The bill passed unanimously; slung shots have not been in much use by criminal gangs for some time. It would have made sense for the Florida legislature to simply have done away with the ban on the carrying of concealed weapons altogether. The Florida decision is just part of the cultural and legal flow away from civilian disarmament. Once the dam was broken, and firearms became recognized as Constitutionally protected weapons, useful for self defense, the prohibition on lesser weapons seems pointless and absurd.
One way this is impacting legislation is in widespread reform of knife laws. Knife Rights deserves great credit here. They have lobbied and pushed legislation into law in a dozen states, creating knife preemption laws to give uniform knife laws throughout a state, and eliminating silly and antiquated bans such as those on switchblade knives.
The switchblade laws were a later version of the slungshot laws: trendy laws aimed at criminal gangs. At least the slungshot was not an ordinary implement carried by millions everyday.
Another trendy law has been the ban on nunchucks, essentially two sticks or bars joined together with a short length of cord or chain.
Arizona legislators have introduced bills to repeal the ban, which appears to have been based on kung fu movies. The legislation has not received much support at this time.
The removal of the slungshot ban went into effect on the date of Governor Scott's signature, 24 March, 2016.
Solomon shot an intruder, killing him. Days later, we learned the intruder was Lanny Ray Marler II. Marler had several arrests in Hillsborough County for burglary and grand theft, and had just been released from Florida State Prison after serving three years on a burglary charge.
Solomon tells News Channel Eight the home was burglarized once before, about a year ago. On the advice of authorities, he and his mother took all of the first floor blinds down to deter any would be-thieves. That’s when he bought a gun, took a course and paid for the proper permits. He hoped he would never have to use that weapon.
According to a police report, at about 21:35h on Wednesday, the man who has so far been identified as “Jermaine” of ‘D’ Field, Sophia, broke into the Lisa General Store, Charlotte Street, Georgetown, and during a confrontation with the owner, who is a licensed firearm holder, he was shot to his buttocks.
Governor C.L Butch Otter reluctantly signed SB 1389, the permitless "Constitutional carry" bill that was passed by the Idaho legislature.
His office sent the transmittal letter(pdf) to the President of the Senate today, the 25th of March, 2016. Idaho becomes the eighth state to restore permitless or "Constitutional" carry. Vermont never restricted concealed carry from those who were not felons or mentally defective.
Governor Otter stated that he signed the bill with some reluctance, because the bill did not have a training requirement for the carry of firearms.
There has never been a legal requirement for training in order to carry firearms, openly or concealed, in 99% of the State of Idaho for the last hundred years.
During that entire period, all state and local government officials could legally carry without a permit, and without any training requirement.
It is hard to understand why Governor Otter signed the bill while simultaneously complaining about it; but he did sign it.
The bill will go into effect on 1 July, 2016. It will not change much. Constitutional carry was already a fact in the vast majority of Idaho for most people.
But permitless, or "Constitutional" carry was never really about the legal impact. It was, and is, all about symbolism. Does the Constitution mean anything? If it does, it is hard to see how a permit could be required for the exercise of a Constitutional right.
Do more guns cause more crime? There does not appear to be any hard evidence to indicate that is so; and it is the entire premise that the modern basis for "gun control" or citizen disarmament, has been based on.
The number of states with permitless carry has been accelerating. For decades, there was only Vermont. Alaska went "Constitutional" carry in 2003, Arizona in 2010, Wyoming in 2011, Arkansas in 2014, Kansas and Maine in 2015, and West Virginia and Idaho so far in 2016. There are permitless carry bills pending in a number of other states.
Most of the credit for the passage of SB 1389 belongs to the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance. The ISAA has been pushing for permitless carry in Idaho since 2013. Idaho was always considered a prime state to restore permitlyess carry. As the ISAA lobbied for bills in the legislature, it was able to find out who the players were that were blocking their bills. As they became more sophisticated about their lobbying, the ISAA grew, and grew, and became more and more powerful. It became a force that the legislators could not ignore. In 2016, the ISAA organized a rally of a thousand supporters at the state capitol They kept the legislators busy answering phone calls and emails. They gathered crucial support from the Sheriffs association and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Much credit belongs to Greg Pruitt, who is a driving force in the ISAA. Now that ISAA has passed permitless carry, the ISAA will not be going away. They have plans to restore more freedom and remove more restrictions from Idaho law.
The NRA, GOA, SAF and other organization all helped pass the legislation, and all deserve some credit.
Mississippi is a hire or fire at will state. The Doctrine is from the State Supreme Court. Employers or employees may terminate their relationship at will, for any or no reason. There are very few exceptions to this Mississippi legal doctrine. Those exceptions have to be codified by the legislature. That is exactly what the legislature did regarding the exercise of Second Amendment rights through the storage of firearms in employees' locked vehicles on company property.
A company, Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, ignored the state law and fired an employee, Robert Swindol, for violating the policy. They publicly fired Swindol in front of other employees and explained why they had done so. Swindol sued, and the case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person from transporting or storing a firearm in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.
Whether in Mississippi an employer may be liable for a wrongful discharge of an employee for storing a firearm in a locked vehicle on company property in a manner that is consistent with [Mississippi Code] Section 45-9-55.
Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., 805 F.3d 516, 523 (5th Cir. 2015). The Fifth Circuit also concluded that it “would benefit from [this Court’s] analysis of whether Section 45-9-55(5) bars” Swindol’s suit. Id. at 522.
While Mississippi is an at-will employment state, that doctrine is not absolute. This Court repeatedly has stated that the doctrine must yield to express legislative action and/or prohibitions found in federal or state law. We find that such “express legislative action” and “state law prohibitions” exist here. We also find that Subsection (5) does not protect Aurora from liability under the facts of this case. As such, we answer the certified question affirmatively.
While seemingly obvious and incremental, the case adds to the growing number of cases that find that state governments have solid and presumtive reasons for protecting their residents' right to keep and bear arms.
“She heard the window get busted and she called her husband and said I think somebody’s breaking in the house,” said Edsel Ballard, the woman’s father.
“He broke in through the baby’s window, ok, and when he was coming out the door, my sister was coming out her bedroom door, he aimed and shot at her first and then she shot him,” said Eddie Ballard, the woman’s brother.
The woman exchanged gunfire with the burglar, family members said, and the intruder was hit multiple times. He was taken to an Indianapolis hospital, police said. Dispatchers said the intruder was also carrying zip ties and a walkie-talkie.
Spartanburg County deputies said a burglary suspect was arrested after neighbors discovered him leaving the scene and held him at gunpoint until deputies arrived at the scene.
The couple told police Roberts had been living there, but was no longer welcome.
Pope Francis has been a grave disappointment to many Christians, not just Catholics. He appears to be as steeped in "Merchant of Death" conspiracy theory as he is in Christian theology. At a traditional pre-Easter ritual, the Pope washed the feet of refuges, including a Catholic woman, Muslims, and a Hindu man. The ritual had long been limited to practising Catholic men, almost exclusively, priests.
Many Catholics are unhappy with this severe break in tradition.
"Three days ago, there was a gesture of war, of destruction, in a city of Europe by people who don't want to live in peace," he said. "Behind that gesture there were arms manufacturers, arms traffickers, who want blood, not peace, who want war, not brotherhood," he said.
In a reference to the Brussels attackers, Francis condemned "those poor creatures who buy weapons in order to destroy brotherhood," comparing them to Judas Iscariot, the apostle who the Bible says betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.
This is not the first time that this Pope has inappropriately condemned weapons manufacturers.
This is not Christian theology. It is "Merchants of Death" conspiracy theory. This theory claims that it is arms manufacturers who push for and cause wars. It minimizes conflicts between nations and people who have ideological and religious differences, or who are competing for limited resources such as territory, food, raw materials, or for dominance. The theory, like many conspiracy theories, is popular among people who want someone to blame for wars, and an "easy fix" to stop wars. Movies have been made with this theme.
The theory has long been discredited. War is as old has humanity, as old as social insects. It existed long before there were weapons manufacturers and has been waged by numerous states where the manufacture of weapons of war was done only by the state. For Pope Francis to make this statement shows a profound and deep misunderstanding of the causes of war, and of human nature.
The weapons used in the Brussels attack were not manufactured by an industrial concern. They were homemade from common household chemicals.
The change in the foot washing ritual also shows a profound misunderstanding of human nature. To Muslims, it is a symbol of submission. Fundamental Muslims will interpret this as a sign that the attack in Brussels was a tremendous success. It will embolden them and lead to more attacks. After all, because if it, the Pope knelt down at the feet of Muslims in an act of submission.
When the Pope exhibits such a deep misunderstanding of human nature, of human organization, and of global realities and of Christian doctrine, it is a grave cause for concern.
If Popes in the days of the Crusades had urged their followers to welcome Muslim invaders, Christian Europe would never have survived and thrived. There would not have been a reformation, the renaissance, or the scientific revolution. It happened in the Middle east, eastern Europe, North Africa and Spain, where Muslim invaders conquered vast areas controlled by Christians, and destroyed the Christian Byzantine empire. Science in Muslim lands never advanced beyond that of the middle ages, in spite of Muslim access to Greek manuscripts, Indian mathematics, and Chinese printing blocks, and gunpowder technology, all of which travelled through Muslim controlled lands before they reached Christendom.
Fortunately, wiser Popes in the western half of Christendom recognized the legitimacy of self defense and helped expound the doctrine of "Just War". It is a long standing and well developed Catholic doctrine. The comments of Pope Francis seem to be inconsistent with the "Just War" doctrine. How can there be a "Just War" if the manufacture of weapons is illegitimate? For that matter, how can the Pope maintain an armed guard of Swiss mercenaries to defend the Vatican? Will the next proclamation of Pope Francis be that he is throwing wide the gates of the Vatican to refuges, and disbanding the Swiss guard?
I hope, and pray, that this will not happen.
Open Carry is legal in Kentucky. Not all places listed in the “Places Off Limits” apply to those who are Open Carrying. It is up to you to know what laws apply to you when Open Carrying. When open carrying, be prepared for Police Officers to question you as open carrying firearm gets their attention. See the “RV/Car Carry Without a Permit” section for carrying in a vehicle.
The state preempts all firearm laws in the state and local authorities can’t have Laws/Ordinances against open carry. Remember that if you enter any property and the owner/responsible person ask you to leave you must leave. Failure to leave can result in Trespass Charges. Kentucky Government White Paper on Open Carry can be seen Here. The Minimum age for Open Carry is 18.
In some states Open Carry is forbidden in places where those with a valid permit/license can carry. This is not the last word on Open Carry in this state. Check at www.opencarry.org or go to Google and type in State Name Open Carry or Open Carry State Name for a search for open carry info in this state. Check with the State's RKBA Organization/s. Also see “Attorney General Opinions/Court Cases” Section for any written opinions/Cases on Open Carry.
At the last NRA annual meeting in Nashville, there was a nasty Internet meme that claimed the NRA was banning people from carrying guns at the Annual Meeting. That idea was used a potent propaganda by disarmists to claim that the NRA was being hypocritical. I and others killed that story with pictures and articles. This year, we should make certain that the world knows that we are not ashamed of being armed citizens.
There is no reason anyone should shy away from OC at the NRA convention. It looks like almost all of the events are to be held at the Ky State Fairgrounds and Exposition Center or the Louisville Convention Center, downtown. The NRA Women's Leadership Forum Luncheon & Auction will be at the Marriott Hotel adjacent to the Convention Center. The NRA-ILA Dinner and Auction and the Prayer Breakfast will be held at the Galt House Hotel's restaurant, but I doubt that any of us would be interested in those, the dinner is $500 a ticket and the Breakfast is $40. The Toby Keith concert on Saturday night will be at the Yum Center, also a state building. I don't know how Toby Keith feels about OC. Friday night the NRA Jam will be outdoors, at the Bellvedere. That is owned by Louisville Metro and they are preempted from any firearms regulation. The Galt House is private property and can do what they want, but the Fairgrounds and the Convention Center are both state owned facilities and they do not prohibit guns, no matter how they are carried. The only other possibility would be for the NRA to ban all guns or just ban OC. What are the odds of either of those happening?
The last time the convention was in Louisville, I OC'ed everyday. I expect to do so this year. I hope that others will join me.
I will be open carrying at the annual meeting in Louisville. With the constant threat of extralegal action by President Barack Obama, we should consider open carry at the meeting to be a political act. Consider wearing your prettiest handgun. It is unlikely that you will be under physical attack at the NRA meeting; but you will be under constant political attack.
Open carry with holstered handguns is an effective way to strike back politically.
If you are concerned about open carry and safety, carry your nicest pistol in its prettiest holster without a round in the chamber, or completely unloaded if you like.
We should refrain from unholstering pistols, even if someone really wants to see it. Cameras will be everywhere, and angles will taken advantage of to make a gun in the hand look unsafe.
Do not do it. Keep the pistol holstered. Be safe. Open carry at the NRA annual meeting is strong, symbolic, protected, political speech in favor of the Second Amendment. Use it to promote your rights.
KY: May You Legaly Carry at the NRA Meeting in Louisville?
Not all NRA Annual Meeting venues have historically welcomed peaceable citizens carrying handguns.
This year, with the upcoming meeting in Louisville, KY, it seemed prudent to inquire of NRA about carrying at the meeting.
Will permitted individuals be allowed to carry at the meeting in Louisville?
A Kershaw County grand jury has refused to indict a Camden man charged with voluntary manslaughter for shooting and killing a 17-year-old who was apparently trying to siphon gasoline from the man’s pickup truck in the middle of the night in February.
The teen, Brandon Spencer, was running away at the time after trying to steal some gasoline from the truck of Jimmy Joe Methe, 49, while it was parked in front of his Norden Drive home in Camden, according to evidence in the case.
Methe shot Spencer once in the back of the head from a distance of 37 yards as Spencer was fleeing down a street with an accomplice – apparently another youth – around 3 a.m. Feb. 13, Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews said Friday.
Albuquerque police says Chavez told them he shot someone during an attempted break-in.
Charges were filed after it was discovered Chavez was a felon and not supposed to own a gun.
A. AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL INVESTIGATE ANY ORDINANCE, REGULATION, ORDER OR OTHER OFFICIAL ACTION ADOPTED OR TAKEN BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN THAT THE MEMBER ALLEGES VIOLATES STATE LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA.
A legislator files a complaint with the state Attorney General stating the allegations that a sub unit of government is violating the State Constitution or state law. The AG investigates and makes a report to the Governor, the Secretary of State, the Senate, the House and the originating legislator(s). The report needs to be don in 30 days. If the report concludes that the governing body is in violation, they will be given 30 days to comply; if they do not comply, state revenue sharing will be withheld.
Once they comply, revenue sharing will be restored.
Political subdivisions of the State are all creatures created by the State government, which are regulated by the state government. No authority at a lower level than the State, except for the people, has direct Constitutional authority. Only the State and the people do: all the rest are derivative from state authority.
The problem has been that some political subdivisions of the state have decided not to obey state law, on the presumption that the State has no penalties in place to force compliance. This law puts the penalty authority in place. It also allows for subdivisions of the state to ignore those penalties if they are willing to give up the state revenue sharing.
Arizona Citizens Defense League (AZCDL) supported this reform, as they have seen numerous instances where subdivisions of the state have violated the state firearms preemption law with impunity. I have personally noted situations where local governments refuse to check firearms (store them) for areas where they restrict access from legally armed people, as required by law. Tucson has put in place a legal requirement to report lost or stolen firearms that is in violation of state law. This law provides a means of redress.
Are there dangers in this law? Certainly. An unscrupulous AG could cut off revenue sharing from political subdivisions that they wished to punish; the AG could refuse to certify that they were following the law not matter what they did.
The only redress would be to impeach the AG, or to replace them from office in the next election. It may be sufficient. Perhaps this will spark a movement for political subdivisions to return to less reliance on the State to collect and redistribute taxes. The most responsible political subdivisions would be least subject to this type of sanction.
Some of the earliest complaints will likely be about firearms law. We will find out in the next few months.
Other states have taken other, more specific measures to insure that subdivisions of the state comply with laws designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Florida and Pennsylvania have passed laws that allow individuals and organizations to sue subdivisions who flout the law. Those laws allow the plaintiffs to collect costs and punitive damages.
Texas has a law that requires the AG to investigate governmental subdivisions who violate State law on where firearms may be prohibited.
SB 1389, Constitutional Carry, was delivered to the Governor's office yesterday (March 21st) at 2:40 p.m.
That means today is the 1st of 5 days he has to act.
The gentleman I spoke with said that the calls were 5 to 1 againat Constitutional Carry. Bloomberg is clearly spending money to make it look like Idahoans are opposed.
Better step up your game!
I called Governor Otter's office to see what was happening with the bill, and what sort of opposition it was getting. I was refereed to the Press office. As expected, they are very busy because this is the end of the legislative session. They are handling large numbers of calls on numerous issues.
Most of the callers are from out of state. I was told that this was common on issues involving abortions, wolves, and guns.
On the particular issue of permitless or "Constitutional" carry, the phone calls are running 50/50 for and against.
The Governor's office confirmed that they have until 2:40 p.m. on Saturday to veto or sign the bill.
If the veto occurs after the end of the legislative session, there will not be any reasonable chance to override the Governor's veto, because the Governor would have to call the legislature back into a special session for an override.
I do not see that as happening.
Permitless carry passed the legislature with veto proof margins. 27-8 in the Senate, 54-15 in the House. It has the endorsement of the Idaho Sheriffs Association and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Chris Fullmer Governor Otter, please show that you uphold to Constitution by signing SB 1389. Do not be swayed by out of state influences like Michael Bloomberg who would try and control us. Stand true to your oath.
Governor Otter has a reputation as Second Amendment Supporter. I will be surprised if he vetoes S 1389. We will know by Saturday afternoon.
Liftable Media, Inc., the parent company of Western Journalism, paid for its employees to go through a concealed carry certification course over the weekend.
About half of the staff took the company up on the offer and participated in four hours of teaching by active and former police officers with Arizona Defensive Firearms Training.
Liftable Media, Inc is a media company that drives positive cultural change through media, truth, and storytelling. We are a Top 10 digital publisher consistently ranked among the Top 50 most visited media networks in the U.S. and we receive over 150 million pageviews each month in our network. We are proud to operate some of the world’s top conservative news and commentary news sites, including WesternJournalism.com and ConservativeTribune.com. Liftable Media, Inc also operates growing lifestyle sites Liftable.com and ThoughtfulWomen.org.
For decades Second Amendment supporters have held to the truism that one of the easiest ways to convert some one into a Second Amendment supporter is to take them shooting. Introducing a significant percentage of a media outfit's staff to the experience of shooting is a good way to improve their knowledge and writing ability about shooting and Second Amendment related stories. It is much harder to be blindly prejudiced against an activity once you have actually experienced it.
I suggested that the Bloomberg funded propaganda workshop for media personnel, that was held in Phoenix, include an evening's experience at the range. I was not surprised when my suggestion was ignored. The disarmist media are usually ignorant about guns, and proud of their ignorance.
Is Hollywood indoctrinating audiences to view guns as dangerous? At times, some would say that it seems that way. Recently, attention has been drawn to the Entertainment Industries Council (EIC), a non-profit organization with the mission of providing “information, awareness and understanding of major health and social issues” among the entertainment industries and to audiences. The organization’s stated goal is the accurate depiction of these issues in Hollywood and beyond, and it bills itself as a resource to writers, directors, and producers. However, the organization recently earned the ire of some gun rights advocates after The Daily Caller pointed out that EIC offers a list of firearm “depiction suggestions” on its website. Second Amendment advocates and groups, such as the NRA, accused the lengthy list as propaganda that demonizes guns and gun ownership.
That's when Alvarez made a U-turn and followed Bellino, BSO said. At some point Bellino Shot Alvarez, who later died.
BSO said in a statement "homicide detectives said the statements provided by Bellino and Alvarez’s girlfriend were consistent with eyewitness accounts and her cell phone video that suggested the shooting was a result of self defense."
Four people apparently met at the restaurant to finalize a Craigslist deal for the cell phone, Medlock said. Three men planned to sell two cell phones to the fourth man, who was already waiting inside the restaurant.
During the transaction, police said, the three robbed the awaiting buyer with a handgun. The buyer then fired back with a handgun of his own inside inside the busy restaurant at the other three, striking two of the men.
The suspect is identified as 34-year-old Blake Elliot Herman. He was shot in the leg.
The resident told investigators he heard a noise coming from his sister’s bedroom. When he opened the door, he reported seeing a man standing in the doorway. The resident adds, he feared for his life thinking Herman had a gun.
Herman told deputies he had a key to the home. He also admitted that he used to date the woman who lives at the home and that he was there to get revenge.
ID: When will Governor Otter Sign Permitless Carry?
Approve the bill by signing it within five days after its receipt (except Sundays), or within ten days after the Legislature adjourns at the end of the session (“sine die”).
Allow the bill to become law without his approval by not signing it within the five days allowed.
A bill may become law over the Governor’s veto if both houses vote to override the veto by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present in each house.
When a bill is approved by the Governor or becomes law without his approval or over his veto, it is transmitted to the Secretary of State for assignment of a chapter number in the Idaho Session Laws. Most bills become law on July 1, except in the case of a bill containing an emergency clause or other specific date of enactment. The final step is the addition of new laws to the Idaho Code, which contains all Idaho law.
Sin die (the day the legislature adjourns) is estimated as March 25th for 2016.
If the legislature adjourns before Governor Otter has the bill for five days, he has an additional five days after that, not counting Sundays, to sign or veto the bill. If he does neither, the bill becomes law.
If the legistature adjourns after 25 March, and the bill was not signed by the Governor, the bill will become law on 25 March. If the legislature adjourns before 25 March, and the bill is not signed or vetoed, it will become law on 31 March.
I expect that Governor Otter will sign permitless carry. He has a good track record as a Second Amendment supporter. The bill is a small, symbolic, incremental, step to restore this freedom to Idaho; and it is supported by the vast majority of law officers in the state.
When Governor Otter signs S 1389, Idaho will be the ninth state to have permitless or “Constitutional” carry. Seven states have restored permitless carry since 2002. The eight states with permitless carry are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Vermont.
Over the past decade, 60,000 people in New York City have been victimized by corrupt prosecutors for possessing common pocket knives. They have been cited, arrested, fined and imprisoned for carrying some of the most common tools in existence in the United States, under an incredibly broad interpretation of New York law banning "gravity" knives. The New York City prosecutor has demanded payment to his office fund of for "knife safety", what amounts to extortion money so as not to be prosecuted for selling these common knives.
All of that is threatened by the clear finding of the wording of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court today, March 21st, 2016, in the case of Caetano v. Massachusetts.
Jaime Caetano is a woman who was poor and homeless, who carried an electric stun gun for self defense. She also used it for that purpose. But the stun gun was discovered in her purse when she consented to a search for shoplifting. No stolen items were found, but she was charged with illegal possession of a stun gun. Massachusetts bans possession of stun guns.
The case was appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ruled that stun Guns were unusual and dangerous weapons, that did not exist at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and so, could be banned.
The Supreme Court has cleared up numerous lower court confusions with this simple ruling. Clearly knives constitute instruments that are bearable arms. Clearly folding pocket knives are common, as are fixed blade knives or all lengths. Therefore there is no doubt that a ban on possession of common knives is unconstitutional on its face.
The same goes for sticks, clubs, and virtually all types of firearms that have sold more than the approximately 200,000 electric stun guns estimated to be in the United States.
(Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009).
Thus we have an lower limit for what is considered "common"; any type of weapon that can be shown to exist in numbers approaching a couple of hundred thousand is in common use. Locking, folding, pocket knives exist in tens, more likely, hundreds of millions. There are millions of semi-automatic rifles that meet the facial description of common, bearable, arms. The open carry of those arms in dozens of states makes it clear that they are both bearable and common.
I do not see how the numerous local and state bans can withstand this argument. No doubt those cases are on the way.
Caetano v. Massachusetts will provide a powerful argument for those who are attempting to reform these ineffective and archaic bans on common arms.
But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation's founding.
Referring to its landmark 2008 ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms," even those not in existence at the time of the founding.
The unsigned opinion is very short. It is sparse, as noted by justices Thomas and Alito. Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence. It could, and should, have gone much further. None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond stun guns and Massachusetts. Because the opinion is short, here is the unanimous opinion, without Justice Alito's concurrence, which is at the link.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).
The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
There is strong language in this opinion. If 200,000 stun guns in the U.S. are "common", it is hard to believe that 5 million AR-15s and millions of other semi-automatic rifles are "unusual". If stun guns are common and protected by the Second Amendment, then so are knives, clubs, and future weaponry.
The case lays to rest the idea that courts can simply say anything other than handguns are "uncommon" or "unusual" and are therefore exempt from Second Amendment protections.
This case will be cited far into the future.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won’t hear a dispute over a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property and adjacent parking lots.
It is easy to under stand why Second Amendment supporters on the Court would not want to hear this case at this time. Antonin Scalia is dead. There are now only 3 justices on the Court who can reasonably be counted on to uphold the Second Amendment. They do not want to hear a Second Amendment case that could be used to gut the Amendment.
We do not know who voted to hear the case or not. But I am not surprised that the Court decided not to hear this case.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. —Kansas City police are investigating a shooting on the city's east side involving a homeowner and a man trying to steal a pickup.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Police in Memphis are investigating a double shooting.
FLORESVILLE, Texas - A man was shot and killed Saturday morning after he tried to burglarize a building, according to Floresville police.
A trespasser was shot and killed by a homeowner on private property in Greenville Co., according to deputies.
The Sheriff’s office says they received a call about a suspicious person on a property on Altamont Road and that the homeowner fired a weapon.
The coroner has ruled the death a homicide.
Solomon grabbed his gun, went downstairs and found a man in the kitchen. He told officers he was "in fear for his life," and then fired multiple gunshots at the intruder, according to police.
The intruder was pronounced dead at the scene. His identity was not released Tuesday by police, who said they were trying to find his next of kin. The police released no other details about the incident.
"It does make you want to be prepared," said Chris Mercer, a friend of Solomon's. "I'm in awe."
A suspected intruder was shot by an Ontario homeowner early Tuesday morning after his daughter alerted him that someone broke into her bedroom, authorities said.
"I had complete tunnel vision. I didn't know I hit him until he fell on the floor," Arthur Corral, the homeowner, said.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The homeowner who shot a thief he said was trying to steal his truck from his driveway has been arrested.
Police were called to the home on East 47th Street early Friday morning. Now the man in his 70s is back home, while he waits to see what prosecutors have to say about the shooting.
According to Drobik, the guard found the suspect allegedly trying to get into a car on the property.
A confrontation ensued and the suspect pulled out a weapon.
Police say the suspect then got closer to the guard, who fired his weapon.
Davis and Todd Benson, both of Clarksburg, are alleged to have broken in through the back door of the home at around 5:14 a.m., according to Clarksburg Chief of Police Robbie Hilliard.
The man and woman living in the home woke up and were assaulted by the suspects. The man then reportedly shot Davis in self-defense.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – Police say an attempted burglary suspect was shot in the arm by a resident late Friday morning.
It happened just before 11 a.m. at Waterford Crossings on Old Franklin Road.
The resident heard repeated knocking at her door, and saw a man she did not know when she looked through the peephole.
She became concerned and hid in a closet in her bedroom with a .357 revolver.
Idaho is a strong Republican state. It is known for being Second Amendment friendly. The reason it took so long to pass permitless or "Constitutional" carry is epitomized by the three Republican committee chairs shown above. All three chose to vote against permitless carry. They were the only Republicans in the House to do so.
It says a great deal that these powerful people chose this political hill to die on. Why? Why not vote for the bill, and at least camouflage your actions? How many are in the Idaho legislature who did exactly that? These are only the ones in the House. There is likely a similar cabal in the Senate.
Three high-profile Republican House members opposed a bill Friday that would allow permitless concealed carry throughout Idaho.
Despite the opposition from most House Democrats and Reps. Maxine Bell, R-Jerome, Rep. Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry, and Fred Wood, R-Burley, the bill cleared the chamber on 54 to 14 vote and now moves to Gov. Butch Otter’s desk for his consideration.
Rep. Maxine Bell, a retired school librarian from Jerome, was first elected to the Idaho Legislature in 1988. She’s the longtime co-chair of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, which crafts the annual state budget.
If these three Chairs are against you in the Idaho legislature, it does not matter very much who is for you. It takes the overwhelming force of a higher power to overcome the resistance of the massive legislative clout of these Chairs.
And that is what happened. The overwhelming force was the force of the voters in Idaho. At one point, a thousand demonstrators showed up at the Idaho capitol, and this was not a one time event. This has been building for years. On the side of this bill are the vast majority of Idaho sheriffs in the Idaho Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the NRA. The overwhelming political force of the voters was organized by the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance. They have become a powerful voice in the Idaho legislature. I expect to hear more from them in the future.
I have seen this pattern before, in numerous other legislative bodies, and in many executive offices. The longer a person stays in power, the more arrogant and disdainful of the people they become; and they become more and more likely to wish the people disarmed.
The bill has not yet passed. It has been sent to Governor Butch Otter. I expect him to sign it. He has been pro Second Amendment in the past. If he does not veto it, it will become law five days (not counting Sunday) after it is enrolled and the Governor receives it. The legislative web site is not yet showing it as enrolled.
Update: Constitutional carry was signed by Governor Otter on March 24, 2016. These three Republicans are emblematic of why it took so long to accomplish.


text:
But FECA, according to the United States Department of Justice, operates differently. Most of FECA’s prohibitions, including those related to contributions/donations from foreign nationals, create criminal consequences only when a person “knowingly and willfully” commits a violation of the statute.*** See 52 U.S.C. 30109(d)(1)(A). And according to the DOJ’s standards, which may differ from the case law’s (more on that later), this heightened mens rea standard means that a person must know that he is breaking the law to trigger a criminal prosecution, and must know about the relevant statutory duty: The “words [‘knowingly and willingly’] of specific criminal intent require proof that the offender was aware of what the law required, and that he or she violated that law notwithstanding that knowledge, i.e., that the offender acted in conscious disregard of a known statutory duty or prohibition.” U.S. DOJ, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, p.135 (7th Ed.) (2007) (DOJ Manual). By the DOJ’s standards, if a defendant is unaware of FECA, she cannot commit a criminal violation of the statute. See id. at 14 (“FECA violations become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.”). Even if she negligently ignores the law or mistakes its requirements, no prosecution can properly follow. See id. at 4. Instead, civil enforcement will correct any violations. See id. See also 52 U.S.C. 30109(a) (describing, among other things, civil enforcement procedures); 11 C.F.R. 110.20(g) (“knowingly” standard applies for civil violations of 52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(2)); 11 C.F.R. 110.20(a)(4) (defining “knowingly” as referring to knowledge of the facts, rather than knowledge of the law); Rick Hasen, Election Law Blog (“Trump Jr. can still be civilly liable, even if he’s too ignorant to be criminally liable.”).
Trump Jr.’s familiarity with the law presents a question of fact, impossible to resolve in a blog post. However, speaking from a purely legal perspective, it is safe to say that where ignorance of the law is a defense to a crime, prosecutors face significant challenges in securing a conviction. Additionally, where, as here, the actual meaning of the law is not clear, as suggested by scholarly debates, prosecutions may be especially unlikely. See DOJ Manual at 145 (FECA’s criminal provisions are often of “little concern to federal prosecutors and investigators . . . because they concern issues that are subject to evolving regulation when the application of the law to the facts is not entirely clear”); DOJ Manual at 151 (“[A]ny situation when the application of the law to the facts is unclear does not easily produce a prosecutable FECA crime.”). Cf. also United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1163 (4th Cir.1974) (“Even if [the defendant] had consulted the law and sought to guide herself accordingly, she could have had no certainty as to what the law required,” such that “the element of willfulness could not be proven”) (federal tax case).
Also, although the DOJ Manual does not create binding law, it will likely control any prosecution decisions by the DOJ, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Under 28 C.F.R. 600.7(a) & (d), the Special Counsel must comply with all “rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice” and may be removed for “a violation of Departmental policies.” The DOJ Manual, which is published by the DOJ’s Public Integrity section, states that it describes the Department’s practices and policies. See DOJ Manual at 1 (This manual “addresses how the Department handles all federal election offenses . . .[It] summarizes the Department’s policies, as well as key legal and investigative considerations, related to the investigation and prosecution of election offenses.”). See also U.S. Attorney’s Manual § 9-85.210 (U.S. Attorneys must consult with the Public Integrity Section on criminal matters related to campaign finance violations, including those arising under FECA); United States v. Hemmingson, 157 F.3d 347, 362 (5th Cir. 1998) (relying on DOJ Manual (6th Ed.) as evidence of “typical” prosecution practices).
However, in a case affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, a district court held that an intent to violate the law generally, without intent regarding a specific FECA provision, suffices. See United States v. Whittemore, 944 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1007 (D. Nev. 2013), aff’d, 776 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2015) (“‘willfully’ in this [FECA] statute means that the ‘[g]overnment must prove that [the defendant] intended to violate the law (whatever the law was); but it need not prove awareness of the specific law’s commands’”) (citations omitted). See also United States v. Danielczyk, 788 F.Supp.2d 472, 491 (E.D. Va. 2011) (establishing the approach on which Whittemore was based), rev’d on other grounds, without discussion of mens rea issues, 683 F.3d 611 (4th Cir. 2012). Thus, even if the DOJ Manual were not followed, then, in jurisdictions following the Whittemore standard, prosecutors would have to prove, at a minimum, that the defendant intended to violate the law, though they would not need to show that she was aware of FECA’s specific provisions.
In any event, given the unusually strict standards for prosecution under FECA, whether determined under the DOJ Manual or under the case law, and given the currently available facts, it seems highly unlikely that Trump Jr. will face any criminal consequences under that statute. Of course, whether any action is or is not criminal does not establish the morality or ethics of that action. Nor does the absence of criminality under FECA prove or disprove whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia regarding the hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Also, the June 2016 meeting may raise legal problems aside from those under FECA. Nonetheless, the relevance of a FECA prosecution to Trump Jr. has likely been greatly overstated in current public debates. Going forward, commentators should take into account FECA’s mens rea standards before alleging a criminal campaign finance law violation.
*This post was updated to emphasize that a violation of 52 U.S.C. 30201 may trigger civil enforcement, even if the standards for criminal prosecutions under 52 U.S.C. 30109(d) have not been satisfied. I thank Professors Marty Lederman and Rick Hasen for encouraging me to clarify that point.
** This is not to say that “willful” has a clear, single meaning in the law. See, e.g., United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432, 447 (5th Cir. 2007) (noting that the “definition of ‘willful’ in the criminal context remains unclear despite numerous opinions addressing this issue” and that “[t]hree levels of interpretation have arisen that help to clear up the haze”).
This post will be occasionally updated. Last updated on 8/8/18.
You should, however, adjust your post’s title, e.g., replacing “commit a criminal offense,” rather than “break it.” It’s still a violation, whether or not it’s subject to criminal sanctions.
Good point, Marty. I do acknowledge in the middle that civil enforcement is available to correct a violation, but I’ll massage the post to make that more clear.
This seems like a gross loophole behind which bad actors can hide a myriad of abuses. We little people (read: lay people) don’t get the benefit, as you mention, of claiming ignorance of the law. Why then should some of the most powerful actors in our nation, people who seek positions of lawmaking and power, be granted such allowances? This is a blatant hypocrisy.

matches:
v.
§ 9
v.
v.
v.
v.


text:
LEVENSON v. WORD et al.
Louis Levenson, pro se. Jack F. Witcher, Kevin B. Buice, Daniel B. Greenfield, Bremen, Rita D. Carroll, Carrollton, for appellees. Patrick H. Head, Dist. Atty., Dana J. Norman, Asst. Dist. Atty., amici curiae.
This is a conversion case involving the interpretation of OCGA § 53-1-5, a probate statute that addresses the inheritance rights of an individual who feloniously and intentionally kills or conspires to kill the decedent. Appellant Louis Levenson, the administrator c.t.a. of the estate of Jerry Post, brought suit in 2006 against appellees, two criminal defense attorneys and their law firm, alleging that appellees converted estate property when they accepted certain sums as payment for their professional services in representing Post's widow, Debra, after she was indicted in September 2002 for Post's October 2001 murder. Post subsequently pled guilty to the charges in September 2003. The Court of Appeals in Levenson v. Word, 294 Ga.App. 104, 668 S.E.2d 763 (2008), after setting forth more fully the facts of this case, affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees. We granted certiorari to consider that ruling. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
(b) An individual who forfeits the right to take an interest from a decedent's estate by virtue of this Code section forfeits the right to take any interest such individual would otherwise take at the decedent's death ․ and is treated as having predeceased the decedent for purposes of determining the distribution of the decedent's property and of appointing personal representatives or trustees.
(d) A final judgment of conviction or a guilty plea for murder, felony murder, or voluntary manslaughter is conclusive in civil proceedings under this Code section. In the absence of such a conviction or plea, the felonious and intentional killing must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
Relying on this statute, appellant contends Debra Post, after murdering her husband, stole the proceeds of the decedent's estate and used the proceeds to pay for her defense such that appellees, by accepting payment for their professional services, converted estate property. Pretermitting whether conversion could properly be utilized to recover the particular funds sought by appellant in this case,1 the record establishes certain uncontroverted facts that existed at the times when Post dispersed the funds at issue and when appellees received them. Those uncontroverted facts are that Post had qualified as executor of the decedent's estate and letters testamentary had been issued to her; Post had not yet pled guilty to the murder charges and no final judgment of conviction had been entered in regard to the criminal indictment; and Post's felonious and intentional killing of the decedent had not been established by clear and convincing evidence in any judicial proceeding.
In Georgia, to maintain an action to recover for the conversion of personalty, a plaintiff must establish not only that he had possession or an immediate right to possession of the converted property at the time the suit is instituted, e.g., Gilbert v. Rafael, 181 Ga.App. 460(1), 352 S.E.2d 641 (1987), but also that either he or his predecessor in interest had possession or an immediate right to possession of the converted property at the time of the alleged conversion. See OCGA §§ 51-10-1, 51-10-2. See also McElmurray v. Harris, 117 Ga. 919, 43 S.E. 987 (1903) and Willis v. Burch, 116 Ga. 374, 42 S.E. 718 (1902), superseded by statute on other grounds; Graham v. Frazier, 82 Ga.App. 185(5), 60 S.E.2d 833 (1950) (a plaintiff may maintain an action to recover converted property even though the alleged conversion took place prior to the time plaintiff acquired his interest in the converted property where plaintiff can prove that he succeeded to all of the rights and remedies of the person who had possession or an immediate right to possession of the converted property at the time of the conversion).
1. Additionally, we do not address whether the grant of summary judgment to appellees was appropriate on the alternative ground that appellant failed to show that the sums at issue belonged to the estate and not to Post at the pertinent time periods. See Levenson v. Word, supra, 294 Ga.App. at 107, 668 S.E.2d 763 (“[t]here is no evidence in the record, such as an accounting, establishing the extent of [Post's] net worth or distinguishing her assets from those of her husband”).
2. The record reflects that, in September 2006, the probate court assessed a monetary judgment against Debra Post in the amount of $375,382.42, representing all the proceeds from the decedent's life insurance policies, personalty and realty minus the sums Post distributed to beneficiaries and heirs.
3. Nothing in OCGA § 53-1-5 precludes interested parties from utilizing other existing statutory and equitable remedies, e.g., caveat to the will or injunctive relief, to prevent an alleged murderer from dispersing his or her interest from a decedent's estate. See OCGA § 23-2-91; Bowman v. Bowman, 206 Ga. 262(1), 56 S.E.2d 497 (1949) (heirs may bring equitable action against administrator and persons charged with acting in collusion with him to protect their rights where administrator makes collusive conveyance for purpose of defrauding those interested in the estate).
4. Appellant argues that, even if the applicable law was correctly applied, a fact question remains as to whether appellees acted “in good faith.” Aside from appellant's failure to identify any duty that appellees owed him or the decedent's estate that required the exercise of good faith on appellees' part and the complete absence of any evidence in the record to indicate that appellees acted in bad faith, this argument is meritless given that appellant's sole cause of action alleged conversion for which the good faith of a party is immaterial. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co. v. Welchel, 257 Ga. 259(1), 356 S.E.2d 877 (1987).

matches: v. § 53 v. v. v. v. v. v. § 53 § 23 v. v.


President Trump can assemble a fringe divider utilizing the United States military to stop mass illicit movement and medication dealing without subsidizing endorsement from Congress and without proclaiming a national crisis.
Amid a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood affirmed to Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) that Trump does not require Congress or a national crisis affirmation to fabricate a divider along the U.S.- Mexico fringe.
Rivulets: I need to guide your regard for 10 United States Code § 284 which approves President Trump to convey the United States military toward the southern outskirt to assemble wall and to complete a great deal of different things, and for clearness, on the off chance that you find it in the lexicon the word fence incorporates the word boundary and the word hindrance incorporates dividers made of a wide range of materials.
So that having been stated, I can’t help thinking that 10 U.S. Code § 284 can be utilized by the President of the United States to guide the United States military to assemble a divider. Presently starting today, you’ve referenced military powers along the southern outskirt, have any of them been conveyed in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 284?
ROOD: Congressman, I don’t trust any of our powers have been sent in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 284. You are right, be that as it may, that that utilization of power would approve the secretary of safeguard to erect obstructions, streets, fencing, those kinds of materials to upset medication pirating.
Creeks: Does 10 U.S.C. § 284 as you comprehend it, require the statement of a national crisis before it is executed?
Streams: Has President Trump, as far as anyone is concerned, at any point utilized 10 U.S.C § 284 to guide the military to assemble the divider that is important for outskirt security?
ROOD: No, not as far as anyone is concerned, Congressman.
Rivulets: If President Trump were to coordinate the Pentagon and the United States military in accordance with 10 U.S.C § 284 to assemble such obstructions as are important to anchor our southern outskirt from medication dealing and universal wrongdoing cartels would the United States military comply with that arrange?
ROOD: If we judge it to be a legitimate request, yes sir. What’s more, I accept it would be.
For as far back as two years, Trump has declared that he needs subsidizing endorsement from Congress to construct a divider at the southern fringe. This has brought about the organization constructing a similar steel bollard hindrances that Presidents Bush and Obama worked amid their residencies.
The Trump organization’s primary qualification, authorities have stated, is that their bollard fencing at the fringe is 30 feet high in a few zones, around 10 feet higher than the obstructions worked under Obama.
Most as of late, Trump revived the government by marking a subsidizing charge that proceeds with government spending at current dimensions. The subsidizing measure did exclude any fringe divider assets and along these lines there have been no extra development ventures declared at the southern outskirt.
While the spending bill will subsidize parts of the government through February 15, there are about something like 30,000 illicit fringe intersections that are relied upon to happen amid the following couple of weeks.
This is proportional to about a band of Central American and Mexican vagrants crossing the fringe each day for the following 22 days.