On May 14, the European Union approved new anti-money laundering (AML) legislation in part targeting anonymity in cryptocurrency market … Rajoy’s departure could trigger another political crisis in southern Europe, “further unnerving financial markets …
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- On 25 May, 2018, Governor Edwards of Louisiana signed HB 892 into law. The bill now becomes ACT 341, which reforms Louisiana knife law, removing a 1950’s era ban on switchblades. From wafb.com:
BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) –
On Friday, May 25, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards signed 79 bills into new laws.
The bills he signed are as follows:
ACT 341 – HB 892 Provides relative to the illegal carrying of certain knives.
The wording of HB892, now ACT 341, is as shown at legiscan. From legiscan.com:
The manufacture, ownership, possession, custody or use intentional concealment on one’s person of any switchblade knife, spring knife, or other knife or similar instrument having a blade which may be automatically unfolded or extended from a handle by the manipulation of a button, switch, latch, or similar contrivance located on the handle. Section 2. R.S. 14:95(J) is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Words in struck through type are deletions from existing law; words underscored are additions.
The legislative history of R.S 14:95 indicates the switchblade ban was put into place in 1956. The banning of switchblade knives was based on a propaganda campaign initiated in New York by Congressman James J. Delaney. Congressman Delany made a name for himself by pushing emotional appeals to ban switchblade knives, claiming that they were only useful for crime. Other New York politicians joined him. The same arguments used by the knife banners are in use today by current activists pushing for a disarmed population. From 1958, arguing for a national ban on switchblade knives, Senator Frank J. Pino:
New York State Senator Frank J. Pino of Brooklyn had a glib rebuttal for the sportsman angle. He testified, “Actually, these knives are, I would say inherently dangerous, they have only one purpose. They are just deadly. They are lethal weapons, and they are suited for crime, that is all they are suited for. So that the sportsmen really have nothing substantial to complain about. But they do complain. It is an emotional thing with them, somehow.
Sound familar? It should. Substitute “assault weapons” for knives and the same paragraph would fit in perfectly with the emotional arguments being pushed today to ban semi-automatic rifles. In 1958, there were plenty of semi-automatic rifles available. They could be freely ordered through the mail. So could anti-aircraft cannon, anti-tank cannon, and ammunition. But crime was very low, and the understanding of the limits of the Commerce clause was still relatively strong.
It was understood that the federal govenment could not regulate commerce inside of state borders. That is why federal legislation was restricted to banning importation of switchblade knives and banning interstate transportation of switchblade knives. Even the interstate transport ban was recognized by the Department of Justice as problematic, and expansive of federal power. From knife-expert.com:
Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers wrote, “The Department of Justice is unable to recommend enactment of this legislation.
“The committee may wish to consider whether the problem to which this legislation is addressed is one properly within the police powers of the various States. As you know, Federal law now prohibits the interstate transportation of certain inherently dangerous articles such as dynamite and nitroglycerin on carriers also transporting passengers. The instant measures would extend the doctrine upon which such prohibitions are based by prohibiting the transportation of a single item which is not inherently dangerous but requires the introduction of a wrongful human element to make it so. “Switchblade knives in the hands of criminals are, of course, potentially dangerous weapons. However, since they serve useful and even essential purposes in the hands of persons such as sportsmen, shipping clerks, and others engaged in lawful pursuits, the committee may deem it preferable that they be regulated at the State rather than the Federal level.”
In the end, the power of yellow journalism to create crises where none existed, triumphed. Congress passed the federal ban, following the example of several states. A pattern for the passage of national laws based on an emotion driven, media favored agenda, had been created.
Louisiana has joined the trend of reversing that injustice. The number of states that still ban switchblade knives is growing smaller and smaller.
It has taken six decades, likely confiscations of millions of knives from people who never harmed anyone; thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives ruined by arrests and convictions that served no useful purpose.
It is an object lesson in bad legislation.
©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
The post Louisiana Governor Signs Knife Law Reform, Removes Switchblade Ban appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
The legislation in question is the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules (SMARTER) Act of 2018, a bill designed primarily to standardize the merger review process at the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. The bill …
Soccer~ is an official English short-form and geographical name of the Andorra, The name is registered by the. Key disclosure laws, also known as mandatory key disclosure, is legislation that requires individuals to surrender cryptographic keys to law enforcement.
Republicans facing difficult reelection campaigns have begun pushing for a vote on immigration to protect young undocumented immigrants, The New York Times reports. Members of the GOP from California, Florida, Colorado and Texas have all signed a petition calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to hold a vote on legislation that would protect Dreamers, as those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program were known.
San Francisco Creates Data Homage to Mayor Ed Lee San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee passed away late last year while he was still holding office at the age of 65. Lee, who was San Francisco’s first Asian-American mayor, was a popular leader widely lauded for …
Email Every Legislator Every Day Until June 7 2018. Demand That Mag Ban Be Defeated or That Real Grand-fathering Be Added. Act Now or Lose Your Rights Forever.
New Jersey – -(Ammoland.com)- June 2 & 3, 2018. This weekend represents Days 2 and 3 of ANJRPC’s one-million-gun-owner grassroots blitzkrieg against pending magazine ban legislation which will likely be voted on in both the full Senate and the full Assembly in final amended versions on Thursday, June 7th, which would then move to the Governor’s desk on Friday, June 8 2018.
As a reminder, ANJRPC is calling on all of NJ’s one million gun owners to email every member of the legislature at least once every single day between today and June 7, demanding that pending magazine ban legislation be defeated or that real grandfathering be added. Click here for the list of every email address of every legislator in New Jersey. Copy and paste that list into your email program. ANJRPC will be suggesting different messages for you to send daily. Act now or lose your rights forever. Copy and paste that list into your email program.
THIS WEEKEND’S SUGGESTED MESSAGE:
If you truly believe that S102 and A2761 (firearms magazine ban) is good public policy, then you need to set an example for the public by mandating that State House police and security themselves be limited to ten-round magazines.
Every moment you spend in the State House, you are protected by firearms magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. As a servant of the people, you should be prepared to live under the same rules you set for the people, and not reserve for yourself greater rights than those of the people.
If magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are truly evil, as the sponsors of S102 and A2761 claim, then how can they be magically transformed into positive instruments of safety simply because they are being used to protect you?
It would be the height of elitism and hypocrisy to exempt yourself from the same perils that this legislation creates for average law-abiding citizens, who don’t have taxpayer funded armed security details and have to rely on themselves for personal protection. Vote NO on S102 or A2761, or amend to add meaningful grandfathering of existing magazines.
Please watch for ANJRPC’s series of follow-up alerts between now and June 7.
Please also continue to take action on the other anti-gun bills moving through the legislature. Click here to access the NRA-ILA “take action” link, where you can easily contact legislators with a few mouse clicks.
Please forward this alert to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.
About Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs:The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state and federal level that would infringe upon these rights. Visit: www.anjrpc.org
The post NJ Democrats are Moving Forward to BAN all Standard Capacity Gun Magazines appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
There is a new lawsuit in Ohio – spearheaded by Institute for Justice – claiming Customs and Border Protection seized the life-savings of an immigrant family at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport without charging anyone with a crime. The suit says Rustem Kazazi was headed to Albania to do work on a home when he was accosted by CBP for the $58K in his carry-on. Via IJ:
While going through security, Rustem was detained by a group of CBP agents, who took him to a small room. The agents questioned Rustem in English—a language he only partially understands—and refused his requests for a translator. They stripped him naked and searched him from head to toe, but found nothing illegal. As if these indignities were not enough, the agents then took every penny of the Kazazis’ savings and gave Rustem a receipt for “U.S. Currency” that did not state the amount seized. Rustem was not arrested—he had not broken any law. The CBP agents simply took his money and sent him on his way.
There are plenty of pejoratives to describe this situation: baseless, authoritarian, police state, and un-American. The fact Rustem, who is an American citizen, had his money stolen by the government for the simple reason he had it in his carry-one is asinine. It’s a clear violation of the 4th Amendment because CBP seized the cash without bothering to make a reasonable effort to find an interpreter to establish whether probable cause existed. It’s a major failure on the government’s part, which shouldn’t be surprising because it’s government.
A little background on Rustem Kazazi. He’s a former Albanian police officer who immigrated to the U.S. with his family in 2005. IJ notes he became a citizen in 2010. Why was he carrying $58K on his person? The suit says Kazazi and his family didn’t want to deal with banking fees and figured it was easier to just have cash on hand. You or I might find it a little weird to carry that much money in a carry-on (or anywhere else) but it was his choice.
The suit itself has more details on the bureaucratic idiocy Kazazi and his family are going through. It doesn’t paint the government in a good light. Remember…Kazazi was never charged with a crime or arrested. Via the suit:
While Rustem was still away in Albania, CBP sent him a Notice of Seizure on December 1, 2017 claiming that the amount taken from him had been $57, 330 ($770 less than the amount the agents had seized in October). This document also announced, for the first time, that the agents had seized the money for being “involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation.” The notice informed Rustem that CBP intended to seek civil forfeiture of his money using an internal administrative process. And it appraised Rustem of his right to submit a claim to the money and request, instead, that civil forfeiture proceedings be referred to federal court. However, this initial seizure noticed included conflicting deadlines for responding. With [his son]’s help, the family contacted CPB about the conflicting dates, which the agency eventually corrected by sending an amended seizure notice, which set Saturday, January 13, 2018 as the deadline for receiving claims and any demand for federal court action.
So far, the Kazazis are following the process by which people can dispute any civil asset forfeiture seizures. Here’s where things get more fun – if by more fun you mean completely stupid. Court documents say the family didn’t want to go through the administrative process because they wanted a judge to decide on the cash. CBP didn’t want to play ball (which makes sense because better to trust bureaucrats than judges) and the suit claims things went further downhill (emphasis mine).
[O]n March 30, a CBP attorney in Chicago called [Rustem’s son] and left a voicemail, saying she wanted to discuss, “whether you want [the case] to go to court or if we could handle this administratively.” The attorney urged [Rustem’s son] to call back quickly because the agency’s deadline to begin the court process would expire “within the next week”- that is, no later than April 6, 2018. Three weeks later, when still no forfeiture complaint had been filed, [Rustem’s son] wrote to his contact at CBP to ask why the family’s money had not been returned. The response was distressingly bureaucratic: CBP had no idea. For the first, CBP told the Kazazis that it had no control over the case; instead, the U.S. Attorney’s Office was in control. When [the son] asked whom he could contract at the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, the agency claimed that it had no contact there and would not know who was handling the case until “a decision is made.”
Today, more than seven months since CBP agents unconstitutionally seized the Kazazis’ money and upended their lives, the government still has not begun civil forfeiture proceedings. It cannot do so now, as the deadline to seek forfeiture of the money expired no later than April 17. For the reasons explained below, the Court should order CBP to return the money.
This is why civil asset forfeiture has to be reformed on a federal level. I’ve written on the awfulness of civil asset forfeiture before and believe the Justice Department’s 2017 guidelines on the issue are obscene. I think it should be made illegal and the only asset forfeiture allowed is criminal asset forfeiture i.e. after a conviction.
Policing for profit needs to stop. Hopefully this case will force Congress to act on reform legislation.
The post Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport appeared first on Hot Air.
After the post about the police recovering stolen guns, a reader contacted me. He pointed out how gun owners tend to be a little paranoid about the government knowing what they own, thus why they don’t report their guns missing.
It’s a fair point. As a community, we tend to try and keep that stuff as secret as possible.
He also brought up mandatory reporting laws, legislation that’s been proposed in various places that would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within a certain amount of time.
Now, I have a major problem with mandatory reporting laws. Part of the reason? Well, it’s part of the same reason why I oppose universal background checks.
They’re unenforceable without gun registration.
Take my firearms for example. I’ve mentioned a couple here and there on this site, but I have a number I haven’t. Let’s say those guns were stolen and I failed to report them for whatever reason. How can I reasonably be caught breaking this law?
Without gun registration, I can’t. No one will know that firearm belonged to me. No one will know if it was stolen, lost, sold, or what. Not a soul.
The only people who will ever be punished are those who are honest enough to report their failure to comply with the law. That’s it.
What’s more, I can easily see this as being used to sell registration to the public. “We have to make people register them, so we know how the bad guys got the guns in the first place. This will also make people follow the reporting laws!”
An unknowledgeable public will shrug and think, “Makes sense.” They’ll back the new law easily enough.
Cries by gun rights groups of the potential downsides will be ignored. “You brought this on yourself,” they’ll say. “If only you and your crowd had complied with the reporting laws in the first place, we wouldn’t need to do this.”
The thing is, they don’t know that anyone failed to comply. All they’ll know is that they have guns with serial numbers not reported as stolen. They won’t have a clue just how they got there. They’ll just use gun owners as scapegoats.
Yeah, yeah, I hear the anti-gunners now. They think it sounds paranoid.
However, they say the same thing when we point out how they ultimately want to come for our guns. We’re paranoid because no one would want to do that. Except when they do.
They keep saying we’re paranoid, but we’re not the ones who are looking for any reason to impose new regulations on gun owners. We’re not the ones terrified of our fellow man being armed. We want those same people to have weapons and to have them on their person whenever they want. If we were truly paranoid, if we truly believed everyone was “out to get us,” we’d be screaming for the opposite. We’d want to be the only ones who have guns.
The truth is, we’ve gotten used to looking a few moves ahead. We know for a fact that we can’t look at what’s being talked about now in a vacuum. We need to also look at how this rule can justify the next one.
In this case, mandatory reporting is just an innocuous-looking gateway. Where it can lead is terrifying, and it’s why we should always oppose such proposals.
The post The Problem With Mandatory Reporting Of Missing Guns Laws appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Amid the latest spat between Israel and Turkey, the Knesset is poised to vote on legislation recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Such proposals have been fielded before, but this instance is notable because the government has neglected to submit a defense of its official Armenian Genocide denial policy to the Knesset, heretofore the typical response to such motions.