The Pronk Pops Show 1082, May 23, 2018, Story 1: President Trump Participates on Immigration Roundtable and Threat of MS-13 Gangs (Kill, Rape, Control) — Secure Our Borders and Protect Our Communities — Videos — Story 2: Governor Abbott Roundtable Meeting in Stopping Mass Shootings in Gun Free Zones Such As Texas Santa Fe High School Shootings With 10 Dead and 14 Wounded –Videos — Story 3: President Trump Delivers Keynote Address at Susan B. Anthony List 11th Annual Campaign for Life Gala — Videos

Posted on May 24, 2018. Filed under: Abortion, Addiction, American History, Assault, Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Cartoons, Communications, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Empires, Employment, Extortion, Federal Government, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Killing, Knifes, Language, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, National Interest, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rifles, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1082, May 23, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1081, May 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1080, May 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1078, May 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1077, May 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1076, May 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1075, May 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1073, May 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1072, May 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1071, May 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1070, May 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1069, May 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1068, April 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1067, April 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1065, April 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1064, April 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1063, April 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1062, April 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1061, April 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1060, April 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: President Trump Participates on Immigration Roundtable and Threat of MS-13 Gangs (Kill, Rape, Control) — Videos —

What is MS-13?

President Trump participates in a roundtable on immigration. Bethpage, NY May 23, 2018

Trump administration goes after MS-13 gang

MS-13 Gang documentary / America’s Deadliest Gangs

National Geographic – MS13 [Mara Salvatrucha ] : America’s Deadliest Gang – full Documentary HD

Inside MS-13

Why MS-13 is more dangerous than ISIS

Inside Long Island’s war with MS-13

A firsthand look at how MS-13 terrorizes Suffolk County

ICE Chasing Down MS-13 Gang (Compilation)

Gangs of El Salvador (Full Length)

Gang World : MS13 (Full)

Border Patrol arrests MS 13 Gang Member

 

MS-13 spreads to 22 states, fed by 300,000 illegals, DACA recipients, tied to 207 murders

ms-13
In this April 19, 2017 file photo, the casket of Justin Llivicura is carried from St. Joseph the Worker Church after Llivicura’s funeral in East Patchogue, N.Y. Llivicura, 16, was one of four young men found slain in a suspected MS-13 gang killing in a park in Central Islip, N.Y., on April 12. The gang has been blamed for the deaths of nearly a dozen young people in blue-collar Brentwood and Central Islip since the school year began. (AP Photo/Frank Eltman, File)
Frank Eltman

Since 2012, 207 murders have been tied to the gang called “Mara Salvatrucha,” and there are over 500 cases nationwide of MS-13 members being charged in major crimes, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies.


But it can sometimes be hard to deport the illegals involved because about half of the crimes detailed in the report occurred in so-called “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

President Trump has pledged to crack down on the gang and deport those in the United States illegally, and report author Jessica M. Vaughan suggested that it can’t happen soon enough.

Detailing how the gang rebuilt itself under Obama’s open-border immigration policies, she said, “this resurgence represents a very serious threat to public safety in communities where MS-13 has rebuilt itself. The resurgence is directly connected to the illegal arrival and resettlement of more than 300,000 Central American youths and families that has continued unabated for six years, and to a de-prioritization of immigration enforcement in the interior of the country that occurred at the same time.”

The research she supervised at the immigration think tank found that MS-13 concentrations were in areas where so-called “unaccompanied alien children” were put under Obama, including Virginia, California, Maryland and New York. They included those participating in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals who Democrats in Congress are fighting for.

She cited an example of a Maryland DACA recipient charged with gang activity who urged pals in El Salvador to take advantage of Obama’s policies:

One MS-13 clique leader in Frederick, Md., who had received a DACA work permit and was employed as a custodian at a middle school in Frederick, Md., and who was recently incarcerated for various gang-related crimes, reportedly was told by gang leaders in El Salvador to take advantage of the lenient policies on UACs to bring in new recruits, knowing that they would be allowed to resettle in the area with few questions asked. Several of these unaccompanied minors now have been arrested and incarcerated for various crimes, including a vicious random attack on a sheriff’s deputy in 2015.

Crime, torture and theft are the trademarks of the gang.

“The MS-13 members identified in the cases we found were accused of very serious crimes, including 207 murders. More than 100 were accused of conspiracy/racketeering, and dozens of others were charged with drug trafficking, sex trafficking, attempted murder, sexual assaults, and extortion,” said the report. Vaughan is the center’s policy director.

The report noted the difficulty in seizing and deporting some of those involved because the crimes occurred in many of the 300 sanctuary regions in the nation that don’t cooperate with ICE.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ms-13-spreads-to-22-states-fed-by-300-000-illegals-daca-recipients-tied-to-207-murders

 

Morrelly Homeland Security Center

Bethpage, New York

2:05 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, everybody.  Thank you.  Great to be here.  Oh, do I know this location well.  That beautiful Bethpage State Park.  I spent a lot of hours there.  Great place.  Thank you very much and good afternoon.

We’re here today to discuss the menace of MS-13.  It’s a menace.  A ruthless gang that has violated our borders and transformed once peaceful neighborhoods into bloodstained killing fields.  They’re horrible people, by the way.

Thank you very much to Secretary Nielsen; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — Rod, thank you; Acting ICE Director Tom Homan, who is going to be — I hope you’re going to be with us for a long time.  I’m hearing he’s going to go into a little bit of an easier job, but you won’t be happy.  You won’t be happy.  What a job you’ve done.  Thank you very much, Tom.  And Acting Assistant Attorney General John Cronan.  Thank you very much.  Thank you, John.

And we also have a couple of folks with us today — Laura Curran, Nassau County Executive.  Wherever Laura may be.  Hi, Laura.

CURRAN:  Hi.

THE PRESIDENT:  How are you, Laura?  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.

I want to thank a very good friend of mine for a long time that this area knows very well, the great Peter King.  Thank you, Peter.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Doing a good job.  And he’s fully got my endorsement, even though I assume he has no opponents.  I don’t know if he has any opponent.  Nobody would be that crazy to run against Peter.  (Laughter.)

Congressman Lee Zeldin.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you, Lee.  Great job you’re doing.  Thank you for all your help.

And Congressman Daniel Donovan, really known as “Dan,” right?  Dan Donovan.  (Applause.)  He’s been a friend.

For their great leadership in combatting MS-13.  Also, Erin King — you know who I’m talking about — Sweeney.  Where’s Erin?  Where are you?  Where are you?  Hello, Erin.  How are you?  A little bit of a relationship.

REPRESENTATIVE KING:  That’s my wife, Rosemary, next to her.

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, Rosemary.  Hi, Rosemary.  See, you say, “That’s my wife.”  I know that’s your wife.  (Laughter.)  Nice to see you.  Thanks, Rosemary.  Thanks for being here.  Thank you very much, Erin.  It’s a great honor to have you.

We’re also grateful to be joined by Commissioner Geri Hart of Suffolk County, and Commissioner Patrick Ryder.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  And they know this threat probably as well as anybody.

We’re especially moved today to be joined by families who have suffered unthinkable heartbreak at the hands of the MS-13 gangs.  I’m truly honored to be joined again by the courageous families who were my guests at the State of the Union.  That was a special evening.  Elizabeth Alvarado, Robert Mickens, Evelyn Rodriguez, and Freddy Cuevas.  Thank you.  Thank you all.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

Their beautiful daughters, Kayla and Nisa, were murdered by MS-13 gang members, many of whom exploited glaring loopholes — and we have the biggest loopholes of any country anywhere in the world.  We have the worst immigration laws of any country anywhere in the world.  But they exploited the loopholes in our laws to enter the country as unaccompanied alien minors.  They look so innocent; they’re not innocent.

We are praying for these families with us today, and we pledge to honor the memory of those you lost with action and resolve — and I’ll just add another word — with great success.  And thank you very much for being here.  Thank you so much.  Really appreciate it.  (Applause.)  And they will not have passed in vain, that I can tell you.

MS-13 lives by the motto, “Kill, Rape, and Control.”  That’s actually their motto.  “Kill, Rape, and Control.”  Last month, MS-13 reportedly called for its members here on Long Island, where I essentially grew up.  You know Jamaica, right?  I always said, “Long Island.”  It’s very close.  To call and to see what happened is just incredible.

But they killed a cop for the sake of making a statement.  They wanted to make a statement, so they killed a cop, a policeman.  Here in Nassau County, MS-13 gang members were charged with killing and hacking up a teenager.  And police officers just told me four other young men were brutally murdered recently by MS-13 in Suffolk — Suffolk County.

In Maryland, MS-13 gang members are accused of stabbing a man 100 times, decapitating him, and ripping out his heart.  Police officers also believe the MS-13 members beat a sex-trafficked 15-year-old girl with a bat 28 times, totally disfiguring a beautiful young woman.

In Texas, two MS-13 gang members were charged after kidnapping, drugging, and raping a 14-year-old girl.  They then murdered her and somebody else.

Crippling loopholes in our laws have enabled MS-13 gang members and other criminals to infiltrate our communities, and Democrats in Congress refuse to close these loopholes, including the disgraceful practice known as catch and release.  That’s — you catch them, you write up a little piece of paper that’s meaningless, and then you release them.  And they go all through the country, and they’re supposed to come back for trials.  They never come back — or very rarely.  It’s the rare person that comes back.

Democrats have to abandon their resistance to border security so that we can support law enforcement and save innocent lives.  And I noticed recently, where Democrats — Nancy Pelosi, as an example — are trying to defend MS-13 gang members.  I called them “animals” the other day, and I was met with rebuke.  They said, “They are people.”  They’re not people.  These are animals, and we have to be very, very tough.  (Applause.)

So I’d now like to turn this over to a man — really, he has been a great friend of mine — a tremendous supporter — and I’ve always been a supporter of his, Peter King.  He does an incredible job, and nobody knows this situation and this horror show, and these laws — how bad they are — worst in the world — better than Peter King.  Peter.

REPRESENTATIVE KING:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you very much.  And let me say what a — (applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE KING:  Mr. President, what an honor it is to have you back here on Long Island.  As you say, you’re a neighbor.  You were in Suffolk County last year; Nassau County this year.  And you, more than anyone in the country, is highlighting the evil of MS-13.  So I congratulate you.  I thank you for leading this effort.  It’s a — they are horrible, vicious, rotten murderers.  And you are really leading the charge.  And thank you for doing this.  Thank you for assembling all of us here today.  And thank you for mobilizing all the efforts of the federal government behind this.  So thank you very much.

Also, on a somewhat jocular note, let me tell Laura Curran — I want to thank her — I’ll be giving visas to Donovan and Zeldin, to let them into Nassau County.  (Laughter.)  I promise you I’ll get them out of here as soon as I can.  Okay?  (Laughter.)

CURRAN:  They can stay as long as they want.

REPRESENTATIVE KING:  Okay.  This is a very serious issue.  To have these family members here.  I’ve worked with them; I know what they’ve gone through.

And for anyone who wants to minimize the danger of MS-13, just ask Commissioner Hart, Commissioner Ryder.  They know firsthand exactly what this is all about.

Let me also commend ICE for the great job that they do.  Tom is here and he’s done excellent work in Suffolk County and in Nassau County, working with our Nassau and Suffolk Country Police.

So, Mr. President, you have experts here that can talk.  I just want to, again, thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you’re doing.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you very much, Peter.  (Applause.)

I do want to say, and I have to pay great tribute to ICE and Border Patrol.  But ICE came in and they are doing a job.  We are taking them out by the thousands.

Now, if we had laws that were proper, they wouldn’t be coming back to the extent, but they’ve taken them out by the thousands.  And it’s way down, but it’s still far too much.  And it’s unacceptable.

So I thought maybe what we’ll do is we’ll go around the table, say a few words, if you might.  We’ll start right here.  You have done a fantastic job and we appreciate it.

Let’s go.  Why don’t we start?  Thank you, John.

CRONAN:  Thank you, Mr. President.  On the very day that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was sworn in, you signed an executive order with a very clear directive: reduce crime in America.

And it is my honor to support carrying out your mandate by helping to bring MS-13 to justice and by working to dismantle this gang that’s terrorizing our communities.  I know people in this room are very familiar with the horrifying stats, but MS-13 is one of the most violent and formidable threats that our country faces today.

MS-13 leaders may operate out of prisons in El Salvador but the gang is alive and well in our streets.  It is estimated there are 10,000 MS-13 members in the United States; 2,000 are estimated to be right here in Long Island.  And their ranks are continually being refilled with new emissaries from El Salvador.  MS-13 is infiltrating our high schools, our middle schools, even our elementary schools.

The gang’s brutality, as you alluded to, Mr. President, just cannot be captured by words.  You mentioned their motto, “Kill, Rape, Control.”  They live by that motto.  They kill — murdering their victims, murdering them with machetes, chains, knives, bats, firearms.  They rape — gang-raping young girls, selling them for sex.  They control — killing not just rival gang members but also fellow MS-13 members who are suspected of being cooperators with law enforcement or violated gang rules.

For example, in March, an MS-13 member named Elmer Lopez pled guilty to murdering a fellow gang member who was suspected of cooperating with law enforcement.  Lopez and his cohorts brought their victim to a secluded wooded area in Brentwood, maybe about 15 miles from here, where they took turns slashing and stabbing him to death.  Mr. President, the victim’s skeletal remains were discovered more than four months later.

A few months ago, an MS-13 member, Raul Landaverde-Giron, who also is facing federal charges for illegally — allegedly illegally reentering the company [sic] after he was deported.  Landaverde-Giron was convicted of murdering someone who had fled El Salvador, for Maryland, to avoid a kill order from MS-13.  Landaverde-Giron and his fellow thugs lured that victim to the woods, shot him in the head, and stabbed him in the face and neck.  For his role in the murder, Landaverde-Giron received a promotion from MS-13.

Well, Mr. President, thanks to our criminal justice system, he will also be receiving a mandatory life sentence.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Great.

CRONAN:  And to give one other example, Mr. President — last November, Yerwin Hernandez-Ordonez, a Honduran national, who was illegally in the United States, was sentenced for his role of an MS-13 murder in Virginia.  Hernandez-Ordonez oversaw two young MS-13 recruits.  They were tasked with murdering a rival gang member to gain admission into MS-13.

After two failed attempts to shoot the victim, the victim almost managed to flee.  But Hernandez-Ordonez made sure he didn’t get away.  He chased him down, caught him, and brought him back.  The two recruits then shot their victim in the head and were initiated into MS-13 later that same day.

Mr. President, these and the disgraceful examples that you mentioned in your opening remarks are just a small sample of the unspeakable violence of MS-13.  But we are hitting MS-13 hard, with targeted prosecutions across the country, including right here in Long Island.  We are surging federal prosecutors, surging them to the border to prosecute immigration offenses; surging them to U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country to prosecute violent crimes.  We are working with our partners in Central America — work that has resulted in thousands of arrests of MS-13 members.

We want these savages incapacitated before they can try to cross over our borders.  We cannot — and we will not — permit our country to be a playground for MS-13 to pursue its murderous mission.  Dismantling violent gangs is a top priority of this Department of Justice, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and it will remain such as we continue to use all law enforcement tools at our disposal to rid our streets of the scourge of MS-13.

Thank you, Mr. President.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, John.  Great job.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Great job, John.

Tom?

HOMAN:  Mr. President, I want to — first of all, I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue.  I want to thank the Secretary.  I couldn’t ask for two better bosses that take border security and public safety more seriously than you all.

I also want to give a shout-out to law enforcement officers in this room, the ones that carry a badge and gun every day and put their lives on the line for the communities.  We got a President — unprecedented support for law enforcement, and I thank you guys.  As a 33-year veteran of law enforcement, you’re doing a tremendous job.  You got the backs of law enforcement.  You got their six recruits here.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

HOMAN:  Now, I’m much older and blinder than John, so I got to wear my glasses, because there are some important numbers I want to read to back you up on the statements you made coming here, because a lot of times you’re questioned about it.  So I want to read some numbers.

I want to thank Rod and John for partnership.  They are stepping up.  We are prosecuting more MS-13 members and gang members in the history of ICE.  ICE is working hard to ensure the United States does not become a safe haven for these criminals.  HSI — our criminal investigators at HSI have continued to attack the efforts of MS-13 here, domestically and abroad, which I’ll speak to in a minute.

We have doubled our arrests of MS-13 members under your command, President Trump.  In FY17, the first year, HSI and ICE arrested 896 MS-13 leaders, members, and associates.  They totally arrested — they arrested another 4,800 total gang members throughout the United States, to include MS-13.

Since FY16, ICE has removed nearly 11,000 criminal gang members.  Specifically about New York — the target of MS-13 on Long Island is one of the primary goals of ICE because New York is under attack.  With a cooperative focus on sources and intelligence — our on ongoing initiative — we arrested, in the past year, 300 MS-13 criminal arrests here on Long Island, and more than 40 percent of those we have verified are unaccompanied alien children.  So it is a problem.  There is a connection.

MS-13 terrorizes communities and they commit violent crimes, as you said.  I know you’ve been taken a hit on your comments about animals and MS-13, but I think you’re being kind.  Animals kill for survival; MS-13 kills for sport.  They kill to terrorize, and there’s a big difference there.

We want to push our borders South, so we’re attacking MS-13 where the command and control is in El Salvador.  Our attaché offices in Central America are working very closely with the federal police in El Salvador, along with El Salvadorian prosecutors.  We have arrested and taken off the streets in El Salvador hundreds of MS-13 gang members.

We just did a trip down there.  We took local law enforcement and some prosecutors down there to meet with the federal police and the prosecutors who we’ve totally vetted, they are part of our vetted unit, and we trained them.  We went to one of the prisons down there, where 70 percent of the population in that prison is MS-13 gang members.  These are the worst of the worst.  And because of ICE’s work along the Bureau and Department of Justice, our intelligence and our evidence supplied to the officials in El Salvador put most of their people in that prison — which, if you think about it, we prevented many of these people from getting to the United States, and took them out right there in El Salvador.

We’ll continue to do that.  We’ll continue to work along our Salvadorian and Central American partners to play the away game, and stop most of them before they get there.  I can tell you that ICE is not going to stop making this a priority until we totally dismantle this organization.  We won’t rest until that’s happened.

So I want to thank you again for your leadership.  ICE is on the job.  ICE isn’t going away.  New York, despite your Governor’s comments about ICE, ICE has done a lot for this state, and we’ll continue doing a lot for this state.  We’ve taken nearly 5,000 criminal aliens off the street in New York, and we’re not going anywhere.  We’re going to be here and do our job, and try to make this the safest place that the community is going to have.

Thank you very much.  Appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Tom.  (Applause.)  Thank you, Tom.  Great job.  Thank you.

Rod.  Thank you.

ROSENSTEIN:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Under your leadership, Attorney General Sessions has made violent crime and illegal immigration a top priority for the Department of Justice, and we’re making tremendous progress.  We’re working in coordination with Homeland Security and with our other federal partners, as well as state and local law enforcement.

The feedback that we’re getting, as Tom mentioned, around the country, is that state and local law enforcement appreciate their partnership.  It’s an unprecedented level of coordination with federal law enforcement around the country, particularly on this challenge of violent crime and MS-13.

John mentioned that some of the recent cases, the horrific cases we’ve handled in the Department of Justice.  I saw this firsthand when I was U.S. Attorney in Maryland in 2005.  We began using federal racketeering statutes to try and dismantle the MS-13 gang, and we had tremendous success for quite a few years.

What we found in recent years is a resurgence of MS-13 in Maryland, in the D.C. area, and it was fueled by illegal immigration and particularly by the challenge of unaccompanied minor children.  And there are several loopholes in federal law that facilitate this.  They create a particular problem for Homeland Security and for us, with regard to unaccompanied children who enter the United States illegally.

The first is that they are not eligible for expedited removal, which means that — you know, most aliens who enter the United States, if they’re caught within 14 days, within about 100 miles of the border, they can be removed in an expedited basis without needing to see an immigration judge.

But under federal law, all unaccompanied alien children, regardless of nationality, they have to go before a judge.  They cannot be subject to expedited removal proceedings.

The second challenge is that almost all unaccompanied children are released from custody, even if they want to go home.  And the reason for that is that there’s an exception for aliens from Mexico and Canada.  They’re permitted to withdraw their applications and return home.

But for other countries, even if those aliens request to go home, we’re not allowed to do it.  We’re required to put them in immigration proceedings.  And in addition to that, Homeland Security is required to turn them over to HHS within 72 hours, as a result of federal law.  It can take months and sometimes years to adjudicate those claims once they get into the federal immigration court system, and they often fail to appear for immigration proceedings.  In fact, approximately 6,000 unaccompanied children each year fail to appear when they’ve been summoned.  They’re released and they don’t show up again.

The third challenge is a consent decree entered by the government in 1997, which continues to burden our efforts to enforce immigration laws.  Under that consent decree, INS, at the time, agreed that illegal alien children would be subject to special rules, special judicial supervision that handicaps DHS’s ability to detain and promptly remove unaccompanied alien children.

And the fourth challenge that we face is that, once released, as you mention, many of them never come back again.  With very few exceptions, once those unaccompanied alien children are released into the community, even if they’re gang members, they will generally remain in the United States.  They frequently abscond and fail to appear for their removal hearings.  Approximately 90 percent of all removal orders each year result from a failure to appear at a hearing.

And according to Homeland Security statistics, less than 4 percent of illegal alien children are ultimately removed from the United States.  So most of them, once they’re released, they’re here to stay.

The consequence of these loopholes, Mr. President, is that, although we’re doing everything we can to combat crime in the United States, we’re letting people in who are creating problems.  We’re letting people in who are gang members.  We’re also letting people in who are vulnerable.  Many of these alien children, who have no parents, no family structure — we’re releasing them into communities where they’re vulnerable to recruitment by MS-13.

And so some of these kids who come in without any gang ties develop gang ties as a result of the pressure that they face from people that they confront in the communities.

So we’re hopeful, Mr. President, that we can get some assistance from the Congress in closing some of these loopholes so that our law enforcement officers won’t have to work so hard, and so we won’t have more victims like Kayla and Nisa.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  And I think that’s great, Rod.  And I think it’s happening.  I mean, I’m seeing a willingness, even, to a certain extent, by the Democrats.  They’re starting to come around, but it’s brutal.  It’s brutal.  As you know better than anybody, it’s a tough situation.  We need the laws enhanced very substantially and very quickly.

Thank you, Rod, very much.  Very nice.  (Applause.)

Patrick.

COMMISSIONER RYDER:  Mr. President, first of all, on behalf of all our Nassau County police officers — and I think I can speak for every officer in this room and in this country — we know we have a President that has our back and supports us every single day when we go out and do the mission that we are tasked to do.

We have about 500 identified MS-13 members in Nassau County.  About 250 of them are active.  And we do that through — everything is evidence-based and through intelligence-led policing.

Last year, in 2017, we had six kids that were murdered in Nassau County by MS-13.  Of those six, one was shot in the face, one was shot in the back of the head, four of them were violently butchered by machetes, and buried in shallow graves throughout our county.

Those victims, three of them were 15 years of age.  Two of them were 18.  Out of the six people that committed these murders, nine people were arrested last year.  Seven of the nine that were arrested were undocumented in this country.  So we have a population of 1.3 million people here in Nassau County; 17 percent Hispanic makeup.  I’ve been to these communities.  I’ve spoken to these people.  I’ve addressed them at town hall meetings.  And our pop cops have been there.  They’re good hard-working people in the community.

Ninety percent of the crime is done by ten percent of the population.  MS-13 is making up a good percent of that 10 percent in that community.  We need to go out at an intelligence way to attack it.  We need to go out with evidence-based approaches.

What I would like to see here in Nassau County — we have a great partnership with Homeland, we have a great partnership with ICE.  They’ve done nothing but support us.  Our U.S. Attorney’s Office and our District Attorney’s Office has been great in the prosecutions.

We need to get a little bit better on our intelligence sharing and information, and that starts at the border where that information can flow up into the states that we know who, why, when, how.  And again, that gives us a better way to approach it, so we don’t burn the bridges and the relationships with those communities that we spent so much time building, that we — they want to come to us and support us.

And the youth programs in those communities — whether it’s a police youth academy, a PAL program — they’re the kids that are being influenced and turned into the gangs, as you heard before.  They’re the kids that we need to reach now, not later — now — before some of these gang members push them into it.

Most of the murders that have occurred here in Nassau County were done because somebody wanted to get into the gang, and part of the initiation was to kill and take a body.  And these are innocent kids that we are out there, lured into these wooded areas with alcohol and the potential of sex and drugs.

If our intelligence is better, if our evidence-based approach is better, and our community relations stay strong, we can make a difference and turn the tide on that.

And we’re going to look to you for all that help, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, Patrick.  That’s great.  I appreciate it.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Great job.  Really good.  You’ve done a fantastic job.

Robert and Elizabeth, we’re going to save you for a couple of minutes.  We want to hear from a couple of these politicians first.  Right?  (Laughter.)  And then we’re going to get to the real story.  We appreciate it.

Dan, go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE DONOVAN:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And I’d remind you, we’re public servants; we’re not politicians.  (Laughter.)

But thank you for your leadership here.  This is our second visit.

THE PRESIDENT:  You are.  (Laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE DONOVAN:  This is our second visit here to Nassau County.  This is the second time that, through your leadership, you came here — because this community is hurting.

Behind you is a sign that says, “Secure our borders, protect our communities.”  That’s one sentence with a comma in it.  If we do one, we achieve the other.  And it’s the one thing that you’ve been trying to do for the 15 months that you’ve led this nation.  We need border security.  We need tougher immigration laws.  We need to help communities like this.

The examples — I was a prosecutor for 20 years, Mr. President.  I was eight years in the Manhattan’s DA’s Office.  I was Deputy Chief of the Narcotics Bureau where we saw vicious gang assaults and murders.  I was 12 years as the Staten Island District Attorney, as you know.  I have never seen the viciousness like you just described in your opening remarks.

We’re here to help.  These brave people — Pat, John, Rod, the folks on the ground — they’re enforcing laws, but we have to make the laws.  And we learn a lot by listening.  That’s why I’m so grateful that you’re holding this roundtable because a lot of what Lee, Pete, and I will do when we go back to D.C. is take the information we learn here and implement them into our laws.

On the way up with you, the Secretary was describing to us how after someone, a criminal, is convicted and they’re illegal — if their home country doesn’t take them back in six months, we have to release them back in the community.  Well, what country would take back these people that our fellow crime fighters have just described?  Nobody would take them back.  We have to change those laws, Mr. President.

Thank you for your leadership.  Thank you for your commitment to protect our nation.  And thank you for your support of our law enforcement officers.

THE PRESIDENT:  Good.  Thank you very much, Dan.  (Applause.)

And just before — thank you, Dan — just before we get to the Secretary, I have to say that many of these countries we give tremendous amounts of aid to — tens of millions of dollars.  And we’re working on a plan to deduct a lot of the aid, because I happen to believe it’s not so hard.  You know, they’ll let you think that they’re trying to stop this.  They’re not trying to stop it.  I think they encourage people from leaving.  They don’t want the people.  They don’t want the people that we’re getting in that country.

So we’re going to work out something where every time somebody comes in from a certain country, we’re going to deduct a rather large amount of money from what we give them in aid — (applause) — if we give them aid at all, which we may not just give them aid at all.  Because despite all of the reports I hear, I don’t believe they’re helping us one bit.  And maybe that’s the way life is, but they’re not helping us a lot based on the fact that we know where these people are coming from.

So we’re looking at our whole aid structure, and it’s going to be changed very radically.  It’s already started.

All right.  Thank you very much, Dan.  Secretary Nielsen.  (Applause.)

SECRETARY NIELSEN:  Yes, sir.  Thank you.  I might just talk loudly, if that works.

So I just want to thank you, as always, for your leadership on behalf of the largest law enforcement agency in the federal government.  We so appreciate your leadership, your support.

I know Tom, and Tom’s folks do — I always tell them that I will always empower them and support them, but you enable me to do that.  So we thank you always for your leadership.

I want to thank the commissioners.  I want to thank the members of Congress here.  And most importantly, my thoughts and prayers continue to go out the families that are here today.  This obviously should never have happened, and we will leave no stone unturned until we combat it.

I do want to say, horrifyingly, to knit together everything that folks have said before: Seven of the thirteen gang members that murdered these lovely girls were unaccompanied alien children that came into the country.  And the problem with that is, is they come in, they’re recruited, as was described by the Commissioner, but they also come in and they pay a debt.  The smugglers require them to serve in the gangs to pay the debt for the smuggling.

So they’re either forced to join the gangs, or they’re tricked into joining the gangs, or they’re recruited to join the gangs.  So there absolutely is a tie between all the loopholes the Deputy Attorney General described and the resurgence of these gangs in our communities.

The other two loopholes I might have just mentioned; one was just mentioned.  The other one is that we still cannot bar known gang members from coming into our country.  We have to change the law.  We know who they are, we know what they do.  We do not, under the law, have the ability to make them inadmissible on the face of being a gang member.  So we have to change that.

So DHS, as the Director knows, we’re leaving no stone unturned, as I said.  We’re securing our borders.  We’re building your wall.  We’re increasing technology.  You’ve deployed the National Guard.  We have 3,000 apprehensions that are attributed in addition to the fact that the National Guard is there.  We’re enforcing the law.

I also would like to join the Director in thanking everyone here that represents law enforcement for putting your lives on the line every day to help our communities.  (Applause.)  You have tremendous thanks from all of us.

The arrests, under your leadership, are up 42 percent.  So the men and women that you have empowered are out there doing their job every day.  We’re cracking down on fraud.  We have a 315 percent increase in adults who are using children to pose as a family to come into this country illegally.  We cannot have that.  So we’re cracking down on fraud.  We’re cracking down on adults who pretend to be children to come in, because they know that’s a loophole.

And we’re certainly cracking down on the false asylum.  If you want to come here for family reunification, that’s not asylum.  If you’re coming here to seek a job, that’s not asylum.  Those are not legitimate reasons under the law of the United States.  We will not grant you asylum.

We are going after the gangs.  Director Homan talked a lot about that.  We’re protecting children.  We need to protect all the children that do come here.  So we’re increasing background checks to make sure that when we do, through HHS, hand over a child to a sponsor or alleged family member, that they are, in fact, either a family member or somebody who is not a convicted criminal, smuggler, or trafficker.

And finally, we’re pressing Congress, and I will continue to do that.  I had many conversations on the Hill this week.  I have made it my duty.  I appreciate the members being here for that reason.  But we will close these loopholes, and we will take our communities back under President Trump.

So thank you all for being here.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Kirstjen.  Thank you.  Great job.  Thank you.  And thank you for the really great job you’re doing.  I really appreciate it.  Not easy.  Not easy.

Lee?

REPRESENTATIVE ZELDIN:  Mr. President, thank you for coming back, again.  This is your second time in less than a year that you’re on Long Island for this purpose.  And the message that gets sent to the victims of MS-13 is certainly being heard and felt by them.  And the message is being heard and felt by the law enforcement officers here on Long Island, who MS-13 has been threatening.  It sends a strong message not only to Long Islanders who care about our community and our public safety, but it also sends a strong message all throughout our entire country.  It’s really important when you run for office that you’re able to keep your promises.  And the effort that you have been showing to ensure the defeat of MS-13 is incredibly important, and it’s recognized.

I was, last week, in Jerusalem, where we were moving an embassy and a promise was being kept.  I was in the Middle East last Christmas, visiting our troops, where ISIS is almost completely wiped off the map in Iraq and Syria.  It’s so important for us to keep our promises.

The message is being sent not to just Long Islanders, but all throughout the entire country.

You have to, when wanting to eliminate a threat, be willing to identify it.  And what we saw with the reaction to — the California sheriff asked you about MS-13, and you responded immediately to that remark and called them “animals.”  And as our Acting ICE Director said, that was a nice way of putting it.  But if you’re not willing to even identify the threat, you have no chance of eliminating it.  Same thing if you want to get rid of the heroin and opioid abuse epidemic — another promise that you’re keeping.

Locally, we have seen many indictments coming down from a great local U.S. attorney’s office.  There is a U.S. attorney here, Rich Donoghue, who I’m a little biased towards.  He’s a former 82nd Airborne Division Paratrooper.  But we’re seeing indictment after indictment come down here in the Eastern District, and it’s a product of all of the people who are here at this table, who work for them, working at every level of government.  And we’re about to hear from Ms. Hart, our new police commissioner in Suffolk.  Everyone working together to ensure that this is accomplished is critical.

This issue should transcend partisan politics.  And unfortunately, it’s not right now in Congress.  Nancy Pelosi recently took nine hours on the House floor to celebrate the humanity and the behavior that encompasses what has torn apart the hearts of our families who are here.  As far as sending messages, it’s also an important message to send to congressional Democrats.  You have shown a willingness to compromise on this issue, an uncomfortable — you have put your neck way out there.  And you’re — in a way, you end up negotiating against yourself when the congressional Democrats just refuse to work with you.  It’s obstructionism.

There are people who are in Congress who have pledged to oppose and obstruct everything and anything, saying they cannot work with you, because if they work with you, they’ll legitimize your Presidency.  You were elected President of the United States.  They were elected to serve in Congress.  They took an oath.  They need to protect our constituents here, and they need to protect their own.  They need to work with you, because you’re putting your neck out there on the line.  They need to do it, as well, even if they’re taking a tough vote from their constituency.  (Applause.)

As far as policy issues, we stand with you for stronger border security and interior enforcement.  We agree that there is a need to end catch and release, to end this use of visa lottery.  Beyond just the worst offenses that we’ve heard a lot about are all the other offenses that aren’t the high-profile incidents that we hear about in the national media.  It’s the drug trafficking that takes place here on Long Island and elsewhere.  It’s the sex trafficking that takes place on Long Island and everywhere all throughout our entire country.

So all these policy issues are really important.  Securing entryways is important not just to keep out people who shouldn’t be entering our country illegally, but also keeping things out of our country that should not be entering our country illegally.

And as you know well — and I appreciate your leadership on the heroin-opioid abuse epidemic — that is something that has been a huge impact on Long Island as well.

Finally, we discussed it once before, when you — also, and I like to report back to my constituents: This isn’t just something that we’re talking about while you’re able to come here to Long Island, but also meetings that have taken place at the White House and other efforts that are underway.

But there is a need to have a tool given to our Justice Department, in my opinion, to be able to end our Homeland Security, to be able to revoke the naturalization of someone who, it turns out that they were engaged in gang violence before they received their naturalization.

Or if it’s six months later or two years later, they engage in gang violence, they should have their naturalization revoked.  I introduced, after our last meeting, the Protecting Our Communities from Gang Violence Act, H.R. 5065.  I look forward to working with you on all of this, and I just really want to thank all of the fine, distinguished people who are here at this table.

And also, to everyone watching at home who is standing with our President, it’s an important message to send: Whether you vote for a President or not, his success is our success as Americans.  (Applause.)  And as Americans, you should be rooting for this man to be successful as President of the United States.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Lee.  Thank you.

And you bring up a name, U.S. Attorney Donoghue.  Where are you, please?  U.S. Attorney.

REPRESENTATIVE ZELDIN:  He’s out of the country.

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, okay.

REPRESENTATIVE ZELDIN:  Otherwise he would be here.

THE PRESIDENT:  I was just trying to figure out why we didn’t introduce him — only because he’s not here.  But he’s doing a great job.

REPRESENTATIVE ZELDIN:  Yes, he is.

THE PRESIDENT:  Good.  Thank you very much.

Geri.

COMMISSIONER HART:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today on this important topic.  I represent the hardworking men and women of the Suffolk County Police Department, and I echo my partner Patty (ph) Ryder’s sentiments to thank you for your leadership on this critical issue.

Just two years ago, in 2016, Suffolk County experienced some of the most devastating and tragic events in our county’s history.  On September 13th, 2016, Nisa Mickens and Kayla Cuevas, two beautiful young girls, were killed in a senseless, violent, and outrageous manner.  These high school students were murdered shortly after one of the girls had argued with an MS-13 member in school.

Days later, the skeletal remains of three young men were discovered in Brentwood, all of whom are believed to have been murdered by MS-13.  Over the next few months, the murders continued, and culminated, in April of 2017, with the quadruple homicide in Central Islip.

These killings shook our communities and sparked a commitment among the Suffolk County Police Department to form a gang eradication strategy to protect our residents and get these MS-13 members off our streets.

As a result, the Suffolk County Police Department has worked extensively with all our law enforcement partners to implement a multi-prong strategy: enhanced and targeted police presence; increased collaborative efforts to gather, collect, and share intelligence; relentless targeting and enforcement of known MS-13 gang members for arrest, prosecution, and removal; federal prosecutions of MS-13 gang members and its leadership, under the RICO Statute; a strong emphasis on community relations; and significant investments in gang prevention and intervention strategies, with a particular focus on unaccompanied alien children.

Since September of 2016, the Department’s multifaceted approach has resulted in 355 arrests of 235 MS-13 gang members.  There has not been an MS-13 murder in Suffolk County since April of 2017.  MS-13 sustains itself by constantly recruiting new members, and particularly minors.  MS-13 members recruit children placed in communities in Suffolk County through the UAC program.

Since 2014, 4,965 UACs have been placed in Suffolk County, making it the largest recipient of UACs in the nation.  While the vast majority of these children live law-abiding lives, many of them are susceptible to gang recruitment.  They are young, alone; adjusting to a new country, culture, and language; and are seeking a sense of belonging.

This is compounded by the fact that the sponsors of these children, in some cases, prove not to be suitable guardians.  The current vetting and screening system of sponsors is in dire need of improvement.  It’s vital that, if the federal government places UACs in our community, it’s only after proper screening of sponsors followed by measures to ensure proper guardian compliance.  Your assistance in this oversight would be crucial.

As I mentioned, the Suffolk County Police Department has enhanced and targeted police presence and patrols in affected areas in order to effectively destabilize this gang.  We will continue to utilize this strategy and assign manpower wherever it’s needed.  We will not let up.  The Department is committed to eradicating MS-13 from our community.

We are grateful for the commitment and support of the President and the federal government on this important matter.  Within the last year, the Suffolk County Police Department received a grant of $500,000, through the Project Safe Neighborhoods, and I thank you for that.

However, we could certainly use additional funding to assist in offsetting additional policing efforts and costs moving forward.  I can’t miss out on that opportunity.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  You’re right.

COMMISSIONER HART:  Mr. President, we appreciate this opportunity to speak with you.  We are committed to having this dialogue further, in order to protect and serve all the residents of Suffolk County.  And I thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you very much, Geri.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  And you’re right, and you should get more.

I think what we’ll do is we’ll close it out with Peter later.  But, Robert, I would love to hear from you.  Would love to hear from Elizabeth.  Maybe you go ahead.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

MICKENS:  I’d like to say thank you, Mr. President, for all the hard work that you’ve been doing since you got into office, with help eradicating this gang, help bringing some type of peace to our home — even though it’s still not going to be the same.

For those who don’t know, who haven’t been through this, we have to go through every day.  It’s an ongoing struggle.  It’s not easy for us, especially me, to wake up, look down the hallway, and not see my daughter laying in her bed or me waking her up for school in the morning.  It’s very difficult.

You know, we missed two birthdays of hers.  This would have been they’re graduating year, this year.  And it’s very sad that all these loopholes for all these past couple of years, decades that have been allowing these criminals to come into our country, into our towns, and into our states and do whatever they want, and they feel they could get away with it.

That’s why, Mr. President, I’m glad that you’re at the forefront of this fight and that you’re taking this very seriously.  This is a fight, in my opinion, that should have been happening a long time ago.  I don’t know why it hasn’t.  But thank you for doing what you’re doing right now.  And I do honor what you’re doing, and I believe that you are going to do your best to eradicate this gang and all other gangs.

You know, it’s one thing for children to have a little argument, a little fist fight — walk away the next day.  But to murder another student, your fellow classmate that you see every day, you’re not — in my opinion, you’re not an ordinary human.

You know, whatever they believe to make them do this, to make them gain recognition inside their gang, then come later on to find out that if they do something wrong they will be eliminated also by their own gang members.

These children are not using they head.  I’m not sure if it’s because they’re alone, they’re scared, they’re being pressured.  It’s a lot.  But these children, they really need to stop hurting each other.  Because if these children are our future, we’re not going to have a future.  We really won’t.

And I really do believe that, with the President’s help, and Nassau and Suffolk County Commissioner, and to the other 49 states, we will win this war against MS-13 and other gangs, because our streets should not have to be bloodshed.  Our streets should be filled with children riding bikes, playing kickball, basketball, baseball, whatever they love to do to make them happy.

Us, as parents, should not have to bury our child.  And it’s just hard.  It really is hard.  You know, there’s people every day who question what the President says, and I try to explain to them the best that I can, but they’re not seeing the bigger picture.  It hit home with him because he’s a fellow Long Islander.

And we can’t have children kill children anymore.  You know, we — it’s going to be a division amongst communities, eventually, if this doesn’t stop.  There’s already a division now between protestors and the ones who are sticking behind our President.

As far as the protestors, they’re not seeing the bigger picture because they’re not living the life that we have to go through every day.  If they were to see how we have to live every day, wake up — sometimes I forget and I feel that she is in her room, and I’m ready to go pick on her or do something that a father and daughter would normally do.  They don’t — they’re not living through that.  They’re not living through the pain where, okay, for a while we could be fine; the next thing you know, something that would spark a memory of our loved one, and it could bring us back to times and places that we try not to remember that’s still going to be in our mind until the — you know, until we rest in peace.

And what they have done to us — we have learned to take a tragedy into something positive.  We’re standing here — we’re sitting here, we’re giving speeches, we give comments, we give our concerns, we try to stay active in the community just to reach out to those who may be afraid to speak up or to say something.

And it’s very important for us people in the community to come together with our local law enforcement to help get rid of these members off our streets, out of our schools.  Put them where they belong: in prison.  (Applause.)

And I would like to say, thank you to everybody up here on the panel for all the hard work and the dedication that you’re putting forward to this.

Obviously, this is a very touching subject because there’s immigration involved, but they have to realize America is based off of immigration.  Everybody who came here as an immigrant wanted the American Dream.  The American Dream is still there.  But if you’re going to come here with acts of violence, you can stay in your own country with that, because we don’t need it here anymore.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Robert.  So beautiful.  Thank you, Robert.  Incredible.  That’s incredible.  Thanks.

And the American Dream is coming back bigger and better than ever.  You know that.

And I have to say, the protestors, they’re not so big anymore.  They’re dwindling.  They’re getting it.  Everyone is getting it.  And what you just said is beautiful, and we appreciate it.  Thank you.  Really nice.

Elizabeth, would you like to say something?  (Applause.)  And thank you, Robert.

ALVARADO:  Every day I wake up, I feel like she’s coming home.  But we have to help our children.  We have to educate them.  We have to, you know, look into the schools and make sure that your kids are okay.

My daughter was only 15 years old, and she act like a 30-year-old.  She already knew what she wanted in her life.  And at 5:23, every day of my life, I feel like she’s going to come through that door.  But I know she’s not.

And for her legacy, I will try to do the best I can to educate parents, children, little kids.  If you need to talk to me, and you’re scared, I’m here.  I will always be here, because my daughter wants me to be here.  And I miss her very much.  There’s not one day that goes by that I don’t think about her.

So I just hope that my message comes out, that we all need to be educated on how MS-13 is.  I appreciate everybody’s love and friendship, and meeting the President.  Who would ever thought that I would do that?  But I met remarkable people in my journey, and I hope they stick by me so that we can put a closure to this.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Elizabeth.  Beautiful.  Thank you, Elizabeth.  We will stick by you, too.  We will stick by you.  Thank you very much.

Freddy, do you want to start?  Evelyn, go ahead.

RODRIGUEZ:  I want to thank you for having us here today to discuss what’s been going on here on the Island and throughout the United States.

PARTICIPANT:  Check the mic.

RODRIGUEZ:  Sorry.  I want to thank everyone for being here.  And, Mr. President, thank you again for listening to us and our needs in eradicating these MS-13 individuals.

My daughter Kayla was a beautiful girl.  She had dreams, and they took that away from her.  That’s not right.  And how these kids were murdered, tortured, is unacceptable.  We should not be tolerating this behavior at all whatsoever.

Law enforcement, thank you so much for your hard work and dedication in keeping our kids safe, our communities, and working together as one and helping out each other with information that you guys receive.  And again, thank you, Donald Trump, for supporting our law enforcement to the fullest capacity that they need.

You said the other day that these individuals are animals.  You’re correct.  They are animals in how they kill, how they get these kids and they torture them.  No child should ever, ever have to suffer.  As parents, we have to endure that pain, that numbness every day of our lives.

My daughter, Nisa supposed to be graduating in a couple of weeks.  We’re supposed to be getting, you know, graduation outfits, having a party.  We’re unable to do that.  No parent should ever have to go through this, at all.  We have families here from the four boys from Central Islip: Jose Peña, Jorge (inaudible), Michael, and Jefferson.  Their families are suffering every day, but they thank you for your hard work in trying to make the situation a little bit better.

THE PRESIDENT:  Please stand.  Please.  Please.  (Applause.)

RODRIGUEZ:  People have to realize that these situations originate in school.  It plays out in school, and it comes out into the streets.  We need to focus on what’s happening in the schools.  We have to put in professional educators in there to help the teachers, the school administration how to handle this.  They say they know how to handle it; they really don’t.

Two years, as you’ve heard before, I was fighting with the school district — two years, for my daughter — and they did nothing.  In fact, they lied in my face.

So we can’t tolerate that behavior either, in the schools.  When there’s a problem, they need to notify.  When there’s a threat, they need to notify law enforcement immediately.  They need to get help.  And if they say they have it under control, they’re basically lying in your faces.  They do not have this under control.

These people, these individuals, they know what they’re doing.  They know how to work.  At one point they were called “organized crime.”  They know how to work it.  We need to stop it.

All originates in school, and it plays out in the streets.  And a lot of these kids are innocent.  They don’t know, they don’t have the guidance.  These kids are coming in unaccompanied.  They don’t know who to turn to.  They’re afraid.  They’re coming from a country that they were afraid with their law enforcement — people they couldn’t trust.

Here, we have to make sure that the resources and the programs are there for them.  And the ones that are coming in here unaccompanied, being sponsored, we need to investigate the sponsors to make sure they’re legit.  And that one phone call that they do for a follow up — has to be more than that.  Home visits — making sure that these kids are going in a straight line, they’re not going off of that straight line.  They need to follow rules.

Whether you’re black, white, Hispanic, green, purple, alien out of this space, there is a consequence.  When you do a crime, there’s a consequence.  You’re not going to get off easy.  And especially, especially when you murder a child.  That is unacceptable.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  Freddy?  Please.

CUEVAS:  First and foremost, Mr. President and everybody on this panel — there’s too many names I can say at once — I would like to say, thank you, from the bottom of my heart.  This is the third time that you visit Long Island — second time, excuse me — and I appreciate everything and all the efforts that everybody is doing back in D.C. as well.

And also would like to thank Peter King as well, for giving us this privilege to have all the heads of the departments and states to come here and realize the problem that we’re enduring.

My daughter was a beautiful girl.  She was a person that was — had achievements, had goals.  And those were taken from her.  She’s not here no longer because of the situation that these individuals — like you said, I think that you used the correct word, “animals,” that they are — took her away from us and destroyed her dream.

We appreciate everything that’s being done, and we just need to tackle the issue stronger.  And hopefully we can eliminate them and make sure that it doesn’t happen again to any of the families or anybody else within our world.

Thank you once again everyone.  Appreciate it.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you.

Peter.

REPRESENTATIVE KING:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Again, let me thank you for doing this.  And let me also acknowledge our Town Supervisor Joe Saladino, who is here today and doing a great job.  (Applause.)

And, Mr. President, all I can say is, first of all, thank you for doing this.  It’s beyond description the good you’re doing by this.  I think this is one of the most important and significant events ever on Long Island because it addresses an issue which local people have been facing for a long time.  But for the first time, the federal government at your level — the U.S. Attorney has always been trying, and ICE, and others — but no one from your level has ever, ever given the attention you have.

So I want to thank you very much for what you’re doing.  Thank you for your dedication.  Thank you for always being there.  And they can protest all they want.  We’re with you.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Peter.  (Applause.)

Well, I just want to — I really want to thank all of the families.  And Robert, Elizabeth — so beautiful.  Thank you very much.  I really appreciate that.  That was incredible.  And Freddy, Evelyn, thank you very much.

CUEVAS:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT:  Not much you can say other than we are really working hard on this problem.  This is a horrible problem.  We’re bringing them out, and our people are rougher than them.  That’s the only language they understand.  It would be wonderful if we could talk nicely and softly, but the only language they understand is that toughness.  And, Tom, you’ve displayed it; your people have displayed it.  Everybody up here has displayed it.  Everybody.

But the records are being set, but they still keep coming in.  We need immigration laws.  We need strong laws.  And we’re going to get them.  It’s moving.  It’s harder and harder for the Democrats to fight it.  Look, I’d like to say it’s just people doing it.  They happen to be Democrats.  They’re very well unified in this regard, but they’re starting to break up now.  Finally, they’re starting to break up.

And the other day was actually a great day, when they were coming to the defense of MS-13.  They’re coming to the defense, and that was the end of them because nobody, nobody understood it.  Nobody.  When they started rationalizing, and — maybe it was the way they grew up.  And maybe it was, but we’re stuck with a big problem.

Again, you heard the numbers.  You heard what a number of the folks have said.  We’re taking them out by the thousands, by the thousands.  And they’re being thrown out of the country.  They’re being put in jails.

When they’re put in jails, that costs us a fortune for years, and years, and years as a country.  But when we throw them out, they go back on the streets; they don’t go anywhere.  The countries don’t want them.  In some cases, the countries don’t take them.  But now, with us, they take them.  With the previous administration, they’d say, “No, we don’t want them.”  With us, it’s a much different deal.  They take them, but you don’t know what they do with them.  Do they let them out?  Do they put them in jail?  Are they incarcerated?  They’re murderers, in many cases.  Are they incarcerated?

So we’re very tough, but we’re getting a lot tougher.  But we do need law changes.  We need those laws to change.  Because we can be really smart and we can really know what we’re doing — which we do — these are all incredible professionals, every one up here; incredible professionals.  But when the laws are no good, the laws are horrible, there’s not much you can do beyond what we’re doing.

We’re down on immigration crossing the border — more than 40 percent.  We were actually down 77 percent.  Our economy is doing so well, people are coming across the border.  The economy is — it’s one bad thing about having a great economy, frankly.  But the economy is doing so well that people are crossing the border.  In many cases, they’re crossing for reasons of good, but in many cases they’re crossing for reasons of really, really bad.

But these people are incredible people.  And I want to thank you all for being here, too.  I know what you’ve gone through.  I just want to thank you very much for being here.

We are making tremendous strides.  We will continue.  And in a not-too-distant future, I feel totally confident that this product — this problem will be eradicated.  We’re not going to have this problem.  I essentially grew up on Long Island.  And when I hear Hempstead and Mineola and all of the places that I know so well, that you can’t walk outside — this used to be where you’d leave your doors unlocked, you’d leave your windows open, always.  And you have gang members now that are so rough, people are afraid to go outside.

We have these trucks coming in; they used to call them “paddy wagons.”  I don’t know what they call them anymore.  What do they call them, Tom?  But we have the ICE guys coming in, and I’ll tell you something — the ICE guys are a lot rougher than the MS-13 guys.  They’re rougher, they’re tougher, and they’re meaner.  (Applause.)  And they throw them into — I don’t want to mention the name of a town, but a town that I know very well.  They throw these guys into these wagons, these rolling jails.  And you have people applauding.  It’s almost like a war, where you’re getting rid of somebody that’s occupying your nation.

And for me to go through and be in this position, and see towns that I’ve known all my life — I grew up here; I know every one of the towns — and it’s unthinkable that it’s almost like an occupied territory, where your children are afraid to go out, and in many cases, if they go out, bad things happen.

But when you see the scene — and I saw it, Tom; I saw it — of guys being thrown right into these wagons, being taken away, and the crowd is cheering — cheering.  And in one way it’s beautiful, and another way it’s terrible that we’re having to even conceivably do that, especially in a place that you’ve known so well all your life that was safe.

I just want to thank the law enforcement, because what they go through and the restrictions that are put on them are incredible:  They got to be nice; they can’t be too tough.  They have to be gentle.  They can’t touch, they can’t do anything.  And they do an incredible job.  And people understand it.

And to law enforcement — I have to tell you, because I’ve gotten to know the heart of this country maybe better than anybody, and that’s why I’m here.  The people out there love you and respect you.  You may read a lot of stuff.  I will tell you, you are the most respected people there are.  (Applause.)  And on behalf of everybody, I want to thank you very much for what you do.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

END

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-roundtable-discussion-immigration-bethpage-ny/

Story 2: Governor Abbott Roundtable Meeting in Stopping Mass Shootings in Gun Free Zones Such As Texas Santa Fe High School Shootings With 10 Dead and 14 Wounded –Videos

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Second day of Santa Fe shooting roundtable covers mental health and gun regulation

Texas official on school shooting: ‘We cannot…say it’s the gun – it’s us as a nation’

Gov. Abbott leads roundtable discussion on school safety

Alerrt active shooter training may have saved lives in Santa Fe

 

Texas Lt. Governor: Need armed teachers, fewer school entrances

Word for Word: Texas Gov. Abbott: “We Need to Do More Than Just Pray” (C-SPAN)

WATCH: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott delivers remarks on Santa Fe school shooting

Police chief discusses school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas

Shooting survivor says shooting was inevitable

Lawyers for Texas shooting suspect speak out

Here are the Texas shooting victims’ stories

New details emerge on how the Texas school shooting was carried out

Pres. Donald Trump remarks on Santa Fe school shooting in speech at the Prison Reform Summit

 

Santa Fe High school shooter studied previous mass shootings and used tactics from them in his own massacre

  • Dimitrios Pagourtzis burst into an art classroom with shotgun, yelling ‘surprise’ 
  • The 17-year-old is in custody and investigators revealed he studied massacres 
  • Among those killed are an art teacher, investigators trying to work out motive
  • Pagourtzis acted alone, spared students he liked so they could tell his story

A teenager who opened fire in a Texas high school killing ten people studied previous mass shootings and used them when carrying out his own massacre, it was reported.

Dimitrios Pagourtzis, a 17-year-old Santa Fe High School junior, allegedly burst into an art classroom yelling ‘Surprise!’ while brandishing his father’s shotgun and pistol, before opening fire and gunning down students and teachers.

He was taken into custody Friday morning and two other ‘persons of interest’ have also been interviewed by investigators.

Dimitri Pagourtzis, 17, is being held without bond in Galveston County Jail in Texas

Dimitri Pagourtzis, 17, is being held without bond in Galveston County Jail in Texas

Memorials have sprung up around Santa Fe, Texas for those killed in the high school massacre

Two teachers and eight pupils were killed when Pagourtzis allegedly burst into a classroom and yelled ‘surprise’

A source told ABC News Pagourtzis ‘studied previous mass shootings and used aspects of those [attacks] in his own shooting’.

Investigators have also determined that they don’t expect to charge anyone else besides the alleged shooter, sources said.

Substitute teacher Ann Perkins, 64, art teacher Cynthia Tisdale and students Sabika Sheikh, Chris Stone, Kim Vaughan, Angelique Ramirez, Aaron Kyle McLeod, Christian Garcia and Shana Fisher have been confirmed dead.

Pagourtzis also said he spared the students he liked so he could ‘have his story told,’ according to court documents.

Police are now trying to piece together what motive ‘quiet’ Pagourtzis had for carrying out the shooting, the 22nd school shooting in 2018 alone.

A church service was held at Arcadia First Baptist Church near Santa Fe High School on Sunday to honor the lives lost

Angelique Ramirez

Angelique Ramirez (left) and Kim Vaughan (right) were confirmed dead by friends and family on Friday evening

Pagourtzis (circled) was a member of a traditional Greek dance group with a local church

Pagourtzis (circled) was a member of a traditional Greek dance group with a local church

Texas Governor Greg Abbott said Pagourtzis wrote about planning the attack in journals on his computer and in his cellphone that police obtained.

‘Not only did he want to commit the shooting but he wanted to commit suicide after the shooting,’ Abbott said, adding that Pagourtzis told authorities he ‘didn’t have the courage’ to take his own life.

How the Santa Fe High School shooting unfolded

7.32am – Law enforcement responded to reports of an active shooter

8.02am – Dimitrios Pagourtzis surrenders to cops

8.05am – President Donald Trump tweets ‘School shooting in Texas. Early reports not looking good. God bless all!’

8.13am –  Santa Fe Independent School District confirms there was an active shooter and the district has initiated a lockdown

8.30am – Santa Fe High School is evacuated

9am – Assistant Principal confirms the shooter had been arrested

9.15am – Suspected explosive devices are found

10am – Law enforcement confirms eight people are dead

10.45am – Death toll updated to between eight and 10

11.18am –  Santa Fe ISD says explosives were found at the high school

Pagourtzis played on the high school’s junior varsity football team and was a member of a traditional Greek dance group with a local Orthodox church.

Acquaintances described him as quiet and unassuming, an avid video game player who routinely wore a black trench coat and black boots to class.

Friends said he had been bullied, including by coaches who told him he ‘smelled bad’.

The other students detained have not been named.

Police were hunting for explosive devices in two homes after finding pipe bombs scattered around the school in the wake of the shooting.

Pagourtzis used his father’s legally owned shotgun and .38-revolver in the massacre, officials said. It’s not clear whether the father knew his son had taken them.

The suspect’s father Antonios Pagourtzis, 63, runs a ship repair and industrial cleaning firm.

He was born in Greece and ‘liked’ NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesh on Facebook.

As well as killing 10, the shooting spree also injured 10 more, including John Barnes, 49, a retired Houston police officer now working as the Santa Fe resource officer who was first to confront the shooter.

The hero cop was shot in the arm and was hospitalized in critical condition after losing significant amounts of blood.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5752409/Santa-Fe-High-school-shooter-studied-previous-mass-shootings-used-tactics-massacre.html#ixzz5GSXCp5IA

 

Mass shootings in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total U.S. deaths by year in mass shootings: 1982 to 2016.[1]

Map of mass shootings in 2015.

There is no fixed definition of a mass shooting,[2] but a common definition is an act of violence — excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization — in which a gunman kills at least four victims. Using this definition, one study found that nearly one-third of the world’s public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012 (90 of 292 incidents) occurred in the United States,[3][4] which has more mass shootings than any other country.[5][6][7][8] Using the same definition, Gun Violence Archive records 152 mass shootings in the United States between 1967 and May 2018, averaging eight fatalities per incident when the perpetrator’s death is included.[9]

The overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male and act alone,[10] and they generally either commit suicide or are restrained or killed by law enforcement officers or civilians.[11]

Definition

There is no fixed definition of a mass shooting in the United States.[2] The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law by Congress in January 2013, defines a “mass killing” as one resulting in at least 3 victims, excluding the perpetrator.[12][2][13][14] In 2015, the Congressional Research Service defined a mass shooting as “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity”.[15] A broader definition, as used by the Gun Violence Archive, is that of “4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter”.[16] This definition, of four people shot regardless of whether or not that results in injury or death, is often used by the press and non-profit organizations.[17][18][19][20][21]

Frequency

Memorial at the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which resulted in 59 deaths and 851 non-fatal injuries.

Studies indicate that the rate at which public mass shootings occur has tripled since 2011. Between 1982 and 2011, a mass shooting occurred roughly once every 200 days. However, between 2011 and 2014 that rate has accelerated greatly with at least one mass shooting occurring every 64 days in the United States.[22]

In recent years, the number of public mass shootings has increased substantially, although there has been an approximately 50% decrease in firearm homicides in the nation overall since 1993. The decrease in firearm homicides has been attributed to better policing, a better economy and environmental factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline.[23] However, this does not account for an increase in firearm injuries or suicides, nor explain the increase in mass shootings.

Differing sources

A comprehensive report by USA Today tracked all mass killings from 2006 through 2017 in which the perpetrator willfully killed 4 or more people. For mass killings by firearm for instance, it found 271 incidents with a total of 1,358 victims.[24] Mother Jones listed seven mass shootings, defined as indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed,[25] in the U.S. for 2015.[26] An analysis by Michael Bloomberg’s gun violence prevention group, Everytown for Gun Safety, identified 110 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which at least four people were murdered with a firearm, between January 2009 and July 2014; at least 57% were related to domestic or family violence.[27][28]

Other media outlets have reported that hundreds of mass shootings take place in the United States in a single calendar year, citing a crowd-funded website known as Shooting Tracker which defines a mass shooting as having four or more people injured or killed.[19] In December 2015, The Washington Post reported that there had been 355 mass shootings in the United States so far that year.[29] In August 2015, The Washington Post reported that the United States was averaging one mass shooting per day.[30] An earlier report had indicated that in 2015 alone, there had been 294 mass shootings that killed or injured 1,464 people.[31] Shooting Tracker and Mass Shooting Tracker, the two sites that the media have been citing, have been criticized for using a broader criteria — counting four victims injured as a mass shooting — thus producing much higher figures.[32][33]

Contributing factors

Several possible factors may work together to create a fertile environment for mass murder in the United States.[34] Most commonly suggested include:

  1. A history of adverse childhood experiences (e.g., abuse of children emotionally, physically, sexually) leading to adult criminality[35]
  2. The desire to seek revenge for a long history of being bullied.[36]
  3. Desire for fame and notoriety.[34][3]
  4. The copycat phenomenon.[3]
  5. Failure of government background checks due to incomplete databases and/or staff shortages.[37][38]
  6. Higher accessibility and ownership of guns.[34][3][39] The US has the highest per-capita gun ownership in the world with 88.8 firearms per 100 people; the second highest is Yemen with 54.8 firearms per 100 people.[34]
  7. The widespread chronic gap between people’s expectations for themselves and their actual achievement,[34] and individualistic culture.[40]
  8. Mental illness[41][42][43] and its treatment (or the lack thereof) with psychiatric drugs[44]. This is controversial. Many of the mass shooters in the U.S. suffered from mental illness, but the estimated number of mental illness cases has not increased as significantly as the number of mass shootings.[3]

Weapons used

Several types of weapons have been used in mass shootings in the United States including rifles, handguns, and shotguns. In contrast to the rest of the world, where the perpetrator typically has only one gun, more than half of US mass shootings are committed with multiple weapons.[3] While pistols are by far the most prevalent weapons in US mass shootings,[45] AR-15 style rifles have been used in a number of the deadliest incidents, and have come to be widely characterized in the mainstream media as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[46][47][48][49][50]

Deadliest mass shootings

The following mass shootings are the deadliest to have occurred in modern U.S. history (1949 to present). Only incidents with ten or more fatalities are included.[51]

dagger Was previously the deadliest mass shooting
Incident Year Deaths Injuries Type of firearm(s) used Ref(s)
1 Las Vegas shooting 2017 59 (inc. the perp.) 851 Semi-automatic rifles [52][53]
2 Orlando nightclub shooting dagger 2016 50 (inc. the perp.) 58 Semi-automatic rifle and pistol [52][53]
3 Virginia Tech shooting dagger 2007 33 (inc. the perp.) 23 Semi-automatic pistols [52]
4 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012 28 (inc. the perp.) 2 Semi-automatic rifle and pistol [52]
5 Sutherland Springs church shooting 2017 27 (inc. the perp.)[nb 1] 20 Semi-automatic rifle [54][53]
6 Luby’s shooting dagger 1991 24 (inc. the perp.) 27 Semi-automatic pistols [52]
7 San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre dagger 1984 23 (inc. the perp.)[nb 2] 19 Multiple types of firearms [52]
8 University of Texas tower shooting dagger 1966 18 (inc. the perp.)[nb 3] 31 Multiple types of firearms [52]
9 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting 2018 17 17 Semi-automatic rifle [55]
10 San Bernardino attack 2015 16 (inc. both perps.) 24 Semi-automatic rifles [52][53]
11 Edmond post office shooting 1986 15 (inc. the perp.) 6 Semi-automatic pistols [52]
Columbine High School massacre 1999 15 (inc. both perps.) 24 Multiple types of firearms [56]
13 Binghamton shootings 2009 14 (inc. the perp.) 4 Semi-automatic pistols [56]
Fort Hood shooting 2009 14 [nb 4] 33 (inc. the perp.) Semi-automatic pistols [56]
15 Camden shootings dagger 1949 13 3 Semi-automatic pistol [56]
Wilkes-Barre shootings 1982 13 1 Semi-automatic rifle [56]
Wah Mee massacre 1983 13 1 Multiple types of firearms [57]
Washington Navy Yard shooting 2013 13 (inc. the perp.) 8 Semi-automatic pistol and shotgun [56]
19 Aurora shooting 2012 12 70 Multiple types of firearms [56][53]
20 Easter Sunday massacre 1975 11 0 Semi-automatic pistols and revolver [58]
Geneva County massacre 2009 11 (inc. the perp.) 6 Multiple types of firearms [56]
22 Palm Sunday massacre 1984 10 0 Handguns [59]
GMAC shootings 1990 10 (inc. the perp.) 6 Semi-automatic rifle [52]
Atlanta shootings 1999 10 (inc. the perp.) 13 Semi-automatic pistols and revolver [52]
Red Lake shootings 2005 10 (inc. the perp.) 5 Semi-automatic pistols and shotgun [56]
Umpqua Community College shooting 2015 10 (inc. the perp.) 8 Semi-automatic pistols and revolver [56]
Santa Fe High School shooting 2018 10 13 Shotgun and revolver [60]

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ The fatality total includes an unborn child.
  2. Jump up^ The fatality total includes an unborn child.
  3. Jump up^ The fatality total includes an unborn child.
  4. Jump up^ The fatality total includes an unborn child.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott touts immediate plans to stop school shootings, but avoids talk of a special session

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott hosted his first of three roundtable discussions on gun violence at the Capitol Tuesday.

Gov. Greg Abbott (top center, in front of U.S. flag) held the first of three roundtable discussions on school safety in Austin on May 22, 2018, in the aftermath of the Santa Fe high school shooting.  Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune

After a closed door meeting Tuesday on school safety and gun violence, Gov. Greg Abbott proposed a series of initiatives to prevent future school shootings, though he largely avoided talk of a special legislative session to immediately pass new laws.

The roundtable discussion was the first of three scheduled this week to discuss school safety and gun violence following a massacre at Santa Fe High School last week.

Abbott, a Republican, listed off numerous ideas and suggestions that came out of the three-hour meeting, but focused on four specific ideas that he said could be implemented before students come back to school next fall.

They included trying to provide a grant to the Texas School Safety Center to train local school districts and law enforcement agencies on collaboration, creating a statewide threat assessment system, expanding a Lubbock program aimed at preventing at-risk students from committing violent acts and creating a list of recommendations for all schools on how they can immediately make their schools safer, like re-evaluating entrances and exits and placing law enforcement inside schools.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

“They’re going to be some of the simplest but most effective strategies that can be employed to make sure that our schools are safer places when our kids walk into those schools next August,” Abbott told the press after the meeting.

Other ideas that Abbott mentioned were increasing the number of school counselors, creating incentives for students to share information about potential threats and evaluating an expansion of a state program that arms teachers. He also spoke of a vague idea of mandating parent training to prevent shootings and spoke at length about creating an app that would allow students, parents and law enforcement to monitor school security cameras.

The governor focused largely on what could be done without legislative approval. When asked if a special session was needed to combat the issue of school shootings, as several politicians have suggested, he brushed it off.

“That’s a process question,” he said. “Right now we’re focused on substance issues. We need solutions first.”

Attendees of Tuesday’s discussion included leaders from the Texas House and Senate and the heads of the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Department of Public Safety. There were also local law enforcement and school officials, including the district attorney who will lead the prosecution against 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtzis, the accused shooter in Friday’s killings.

Most of them expressed optimism after the meeting.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — who raised some eyebrows when he mentioned shortly after the shooting Friday that a possible solution could be to remodel Texas schools to limit the number of entrances and exits — said the meeting exceeded expectations.

“You could feel a unification of voices around the issues he discussed from various school districts and law enforcement,” he told The Texas Tribune.

State Sen. Joan Huffman, a Republican from Houston who leads the State Affairs Committee, and her colleague, Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat and chair of the Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee, both echoed Patrick’s optimism after the meeting and were happy with many of the proposals. But Whitmire said they’ll have to be careful to avoid a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.

He said that’s especially true when talking about parental involvement; one idea was mandating parental training. It’s important to understand Houston is different than Round Rock, Whitmire said.

“I know a school district in the Houston area that’s got 20,000 students who’ve got undocumented parents,” he said. “So when we try to incorporate parent involvement and hold parents accountable, you’ve got to face reality that some parents are not welcome to the school.”

Wednesday’s discussion will focus on gun regulations, mental health solutions and underlying causes of gun violence, Abbott said just before Tuesday’s meeting. It will include advocates both for and against further gun restrictions, mental health experts and social media experts, he said.

Thursday will be a day for the victims of mass shootings in Texas, including the school shooting in Santa Fe that killed 10 and one at a church in Sutherland Springs last fall that killed 26. The exact list of attendees for Thursday has not yet been released.

Democrats have largely welcomed a discussion on gun violence but criticized the effectiveness of any changes currently proposed by Republican leadership. State Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Friday that the state should also pass universal background checks and require the reporting of stolen guns.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

And in a news release Tuesday morning, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, said excluding several groups who want stricter gun regulation, including Moms Demand Action and March for Our Lives, will limit the potential for meaningful action. Texas Gun Sense, which advocates for further gun restrictions, is expected to attend Abbott’s discussion Wednesday.

After the meeting Tuesday, Abbott said the results of the roundtable shows that politician’s actions are already more than just talk.

“We came up with very solid solutions, and now it’s just a matter of implementing those solutions,” he said

Read related Tribune coverage:

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/22/texas-gov-greg-abbott-discusses-santa-fe-shooting-and-school-safety-be/

 

Story 3: President Trump Delivers Keynote Address at Susan B. Anthony List 11th Annual Campaign for Life Gala — Videos

President Trump delivers address at Campaign for Life Gala

Susan B. Anthony List’s 2018 Mission: Elections for Life

President Trump Delivers Remarks at the Susan B. Anthony List 11th Annual Campaign for Life Gala

 

President Trump Delivers Remarks at the Susan B. Anthony List 11th Annual Campaign for Life Gala

Susan B. Anthony List

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Susan B. Anthony List
SBAList.jpg
Founded February 4, 1993
Re-organized 1997
Founder Rachel MacNair[1][2]
Type 501(c)(4) non-profit
Focus Anti-abortion political advocacy
Location
Area served
United States
Members
c. 365,000
Key people
Marjorie Dannenfelser(President)
Emily Buchanan (Executive Director)
Website http://www.sba-list.org

The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit[3] organization that seeks to reduce and ultimately end abortion in the U.S.[4] by supporting anti-abortion politicians, primarily women,[5] through its SBA List Candidate Fund political action committee.[6][7] In 2011, it reported it had 333,000 members.[8]

Founded in 1993 by sociologist and psychologist Rachel MacNair, the SBA List was a response to the success of the pro-choice group EMILY’s List, which was partly responsible for bringing about the 1992 “Year of the Woman” in which a significant number of women, all pro-choice, were elected to Congress. MacNair wished to help anti-abortion women gain high public office. She recruited Marjorie Dannenfelser and Jane Abraham as the first experienced leaders of SBA List. Dannenfelser is now president of the organization and Abraham is chairwoman of the board. Named for suffragist Susan B. Anthony, SBA List identifies itself with Anthony and several 19th-century women’s rights activists; SBA List argues that Anthony and other early feminists were opposed to abortion. Regarding Anthony’s beliefs, the SBA List has been challenged by scholars and pro-choice activists. Anthony scholar Ann D. Gordon and Anthony biographer Lynn Sherr write that Anthony “spent no time on the politics of abortion”.[9]

Founding

The formation of the SBA List was catalyzed in March 1992 when Rachel MacNair, head of Feminists for Life, watched a 60 Minutes television documentary profiling IBM-heiress Ellen Malcolm and the successful campaign-funding activities of her Democratic pro-choice group EMILY’s List.[10][11] MacNair, a peace activist and anti-abortion Quaker, was motivated to organize the Susan B. Anthony List for the purpose of countering EMILY’s List by providing early campaign funds to anti-abortion women candidates.[1][10] Led by FFL and MacNair, 15 anti-abortion groups formed an umbrella organization, the National Women’s Coalition for Life (NWCL), which adopted a joint anti-abortion statement on April 3, 1992.[12]

Also inspired by EMILY’s List, in 1992, the WISH List was formed to promote pro-choice candidates who were members of the opposing Republican Party.[13] In November 1992 after many of the pro-choice candidates won their races to create what was termed the “Year of the Woman“, MacNair announced the formation of the SBA List, describing its purpose as endorsing and supporting women who held anti-abortion beliefs without regard to party affiliation.[14] MacNair determined to challenge the EMILY’s List and the WISH List notion that the top female politicians were primarily pro-choice.[15][16] She said the SBA List would not support right-wing political candidates. “We want good records on women’s rights – probably not Phyllis Schlafly“.[14] The NWCL sponsored the SBA List with $2,485 to create it as a political action committee (PAC)[17][18][19] on February 4, 1993, listing MacNair as the first secretary; the group operated out of MacNair’s office inside a crisis pregnancy center on East 47th Street in Kansas City, Missouri.[19][20][21] The first SBA List public event was held the same month at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the National Woman’s Party.[22] Organized by founding board member Susan Gibbs, the “kickoff” event raised “more than $9000”.[23]

Susan B. Anthony and early feminist connection

MacNair named the SBA List after the famous suffragistSusan B. Anthony.[24][25] The leaders of the SBA List say that Anthony was “passionately pro-life”.[26][27] According to the SBA list, Susan B. Anthony “called abortion ‘child murder'”[28] This topic has been subject to a modern-day dispute about Anthony’s views on abortion, with scholars and pro-choice activists “concerned that their heroine is being appropriated”.[29] While Anthony deplored abortion, she never worked against it.[9][30] Anthony scholar Ann D. Gordon and Anthony biographer Lynn Sherr say the quotes SBA List cites are misattributed or taken out of context. Gordon said that Anthony “never voiced an opinion about the sanctity of fetal life … and she never voiced an opinion about using the power of the state to require that pregnancies be brought to term”.[29]

History

Early activities and re-organization[edit]

Founding board member Susan Gibbs, later the communications director for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, said, of the early years for the SBA List, “None of us had political experience. None of us had PAC experience. We just had a passion for being pro-life.”[22] Shortly after its founding, experienced political activists Marjorie Dannenfelser and then Jane Abraham were brought on board — Dannenfelser served as executive director, leading the organization from her home in Arlington, Virginia.[31] In 1994, the SBA List was successful in helping 8 of its 15 selected candidates gain office.[22] In 1996, only two challengers who were financially backed were elected, while five SBA-List-supported incumbents retained their positions; a disappointing election for the group.[10][22]

In 1997, the SBA List was re-organized by Dannenfelser and Abraham into its current form as a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization with a connected PAC, the SBA List Candidate Fund.[6] Abraham became president and Dannenfelser held the position of Chairwoman of the Board.[32] The rules for endorsing and financially supporting candidates were tightened: in addition to the politician having to be female, she must have demonstrated a pro-life record (a simple declaration was not enough), and she must be seen as likely to win her race.[10] In 1998, the SBA List began backing male pro-life candidates as well, endorsing three men in a pilot program.[22] One of the three won election to office: Republican Peter Fitzgerald who received $2,910 from the SBA List to assist him in his $12.3 million win over pro-choice Democrat Carol Moseley Braun in a battle for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois.[33][34][35] Abraham served as president from 1997 until 2006 when Dannenfelser became president.

In 2000 the SBA List contributed $25,995 to pro-life candidates in contrast to the pro-choice candidates who received $608,273 from the WISH List or $20 million from EMILY’s List.[36][37]

Recent history

Contributions from supporters grew by 50% from 2007 to 2009.[38] As of December 2009, the SBA List had outspent one of its pro-choice counterparts, the National Organization for Women, in every election cycle since 1996.[39]

In April 2003, Representative Marilyn Musgrave (left) received an award from SBA List President Jane Abraham.

Former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave joined the SBA List in March 2009 and works as a project director and spokesperson.[40] Musgrave had previously been given a pro-life award in 2003 by the SBA List. The organization tried to keep abortion coverage out of any health care reform legislation in 2009 and 2010.[41] It had targeted Senator Bob Casey to ensure abortion was not covered in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[42][43]and lobbied for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to H.R. 3962[44] The group criticized Senator Ben Nelson for what it called a “fake compromise” on abortion in the PPACA[45] and condemned the Christmas Eve passage of the Senate bill.[46]

The group had planned to honor Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) at its March gala, but after Stupak’s deal with President Obama, in which Obama would issue an executive order banning federal funding for abortion under the bill,[47]Stupak was stripped of his “Defender of Life Award” three days before the gala because of the SBA List’s doubts, shared by the most prominent pro-life groups, about the effectiveness of the Executive Order.[48][49] Stupak had told Dannenfelser, “They [the Democratic leadership] know I won’t fold. There is no way.”[50] On the day of the vote, Dannenfelser said she promised Stupak that the SBA List was “going to be involved in your defeat”.[50] In a statement, Dannenfelser said, “We were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform. We will no longer be doing so…Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this health care bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.'”[47] No one received the award in his place, and Dannenfelser instead used the occasion to condemn Stupak.[51] The group dropped its plans to help Stupak fend off a primary challenge[51] from Connie Saltonstall, who was running on a pro-choice platform.[52] Stupak later dropped out of the race, announcing his retirement from Congress.[53]

In 2010, the SBA List hosted events featuring prominent pro-life political figures as speakers, including Sarah Palin, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Michele Bachmann.[54][55]

In August 2010, to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, the SBA List held a colloquium at the Yale Club of New York City, billed as “A Conversation on Pro-Life Feminism”.[56][57] The event featured a panel of five scholars in the fields of law, philosophy, history, political science and sociology, who discussed various concepts of feminism and the possibility of broadening the spectrum of pro-life political candidates to include those with more centrist fiscal views.[56][58]

An SBA List project, “Votes Have Consequences”, was headed by former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave and was aimed at defeating vulnerable candidates in 2010 who did not vote pro-life on key issues, such as health care reform.[59] Under this project, the group endorsed Dan Coats of Indiana for Senate against Rep. Brad Ellsworth, who had voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[60] In January 2011, along with Americans for Tax Reform and The Daily Caller, the organization sponsored a debate between candidates for chair of the Republican National Committee.[61]

Peter Roff writing for U.S. News and World Report credited the SBA List for the passage in the House of an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood of federal dollars for fiscal year 2011.[62] Writing for In These Times, social media activist Sady Doyle wrote that in striving against Planned Parenthood, the SBA List registered its priority as ending abortion rather than helping women prevent unwanted pregnancies.[63]

In March 2011, the SBA List teamed with Live Action for a bus tour through 13 congressional districts either thanking or condemning their representatives for their votes to defund Planned Parenthood of tax dollars in the Pence Amendment. In response, Planned Parenthood launched its own tour to follow the SBA List bus.[64] The SBA List also bought $200,000 in radio and television ads backing six Republicans who voted to defund Planned Parenthood in response to a $200,000 ad buy by Planned Parenthood against the Pence Amendment.[65]

In July 2011, the SBA List held a rally in New Hampshire supporting the New Hampshire Executive Council‘s decision to cut off state funding for Planned Parenthood.[66] Spokeswoman Marilyn Musgrave, a former United States congresswoman, said the Council’s decision “really will save unborn lives”.[66] The SBA List has lobbied for passage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a federal bill which would ban abortions after 20 weeks.[67] Also in 2011, the SBA List founded the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Named after Charlotte Denman Lozier, the Institute has served as the SBA List’s research and education institute ever since.[68]

Strategies

The SBA List employs many strategies in order to attract the public to its mission. Lawyer and Scholar Tali Leinwand explains that the SBA List encourages Republicans not to endorse personhood amendments, and attempts to link the pro-life movement to less controversial causes like opposition to the Affordable Care Act.[69] These strategies, Leinwand argues, attempt to de-stigmatize the pro-life movement.[69]

Elections

The SBA List Candidate Fund primarily endorses pro-life women, and pro-life men running against pro-choice women.[70]

2006 elections

The 2006 midterm elections were very successful for the SBA list. They won 21 of the 38 contests that they endorsed.[71]

2008 presidential election

Sarah Palin on the campaign trail in 2008

The SBA List gained renewed attention during the 2008 presidential election following Sarah Palin‘s nomination for Vice President. They had endorsed her 2006 run for governor of Alaska.[72] In 2008, the SBA List also started a social networking site and blog called “Team Sarah”, which is “dedicated to advancing the values that Sarah Palin represents in the political process”.[73]

Palin headlined the organization’s 2010 “Celebration of Life” breakfast fundraiser, an event which got extensive media coverage and in which she coined the term “mama grizzly“.[74][75][76][77]

According to Politico, Palin’s criteria for endorsing candidates is whether they have the support of the Tea Party movement and whether they have the support of the SBA List.[78]

2009 elections

In September 2009, in a special election to fill an empty House seat in upstate New York, the group endorsed the pro-life third-party Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman over the pro-choice Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, on the stated basis that Scozzafava was an “abortion radical who does not represent the views of the growing majority of pro-life American women”.[79][80] The SBA List joined forces with the National Organization for Marriage in support of Hoffman, spending over $100,000[81] printing literature, making phone calls, and flooding the district with volunteers from across the country.[82]

2010 elections

For the 2010 elections, the SBA List planned to spend $6 million[83] (including $3 million solely on U.S. Senate races[84]) and endorsed several dozen candidates.[85] The SBA List spent nearly $1.7 million on independent expenditure campaigns for or against 50 candidates.[86]

The SBA List conducted a 23-city bus tour to the Congressional districts of self-described pro-life Democrats in OhioIndiana and Pennsylvania who voted for the health care reform bill and to rally supporters to vote them out.[87][88][89] The bus tour attracted counterprotests at some stops, such as one in Pennsylvania where a group called Catholics United accused the SBA List of lying about health care reform.[90]

The organization launched a “Life Speaking Out” petition to urge the Republican Party to include opposition to abortion in its Pledge to America.[91][92] The petition was sent with over 20,000 signatures on it.[93][94]

The organization especially focused on the California Senate race where Carly Fiorina challenged incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer.[95] The group spent $200,000 in support of Fiorina’s campaign during the Republican primary and expected to spend another $1 million for the general election campaign against Boxer.[96] The SBA List partnered with the National Organization for Marriage to air Spanish language TV commercials attacking Boxer’s positions on abortion and gay marriage.[97] The two groups bought $200,000 worth of airtime for the commercial to air in the markets of Los AngelesFresno, and San Diego.[98] However, Boxer prevailed over Fiorina in the November 2010 election.[99]

Other notable endorsements included Sharron Angle, who unsuccessfully[100] challenged incumbent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada; the SBA List endorsed Angle despite having previously endorsed Angle’s primary opponent, Sue Lowden.[101][102] In September 2010, the SBA List launched a $150,000 campaign on behalf of New Hampshire Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte for the Republican primary.[103] Ayotte won the primary to become the nominee,[104] and later prevailed in the general election.[105] In October 2010, the SBA List endorsed Joe Miller, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Alaska.[106] The SBA List endorsed Miller after Sen. Lisa Murkowski decided to stage a write-in campaign after losing the Republican primary to Miller, and they launched a $10,000 radio campaign to air ads attacking Murkowski for turning a “deaf ear” to the will of voters who voted her out in the primary.[107] Murkowski defeated Miller, who conceded after two months of court battles over contested ballots.[108] 36 of the SBA List’s 2010 endorsed candidates were elected.[109]

Driehaus political ad litigation

In the 2010 campaign, the organization purchased billboard advertisements in the district of Rep. Steve Driehaus of Ohio that showed a photo of Driehaus and intoned, “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion”[110] The advertisement referred to Driehaus’s vote in favor of the health care overhaul bill.[111][112] The SBA List has taken the position that the legislation in question allows for taxpayer-funded abortion, a claim which was ruled by a judge to be factually incorrect.[113]

In response, Driehaus, who represented Ohio’s heavily pro-life[110] 1st congressional district, filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC), claiming the advertisements were false and violated Ohio election law.[114] The OEC ruled in Driehaus’ favor in a probable cause hearing on October 14, 2010.[115] In response, the SBA List asked a federal judge to issue an injunction against the OEC on the grounds that the law at issue stifles free speech[114][116] and that its ads were based on the group’s own interpretation of the law.[113] The ACLU of Ohio filed an 18-page amicus brief on the SBA List’s behalf, arguing that the Ohio law in question is “unconstitutionally vague” and has a “chilling” effect on the SBA List’s right to freedom of speech.[117][118] A federal judge rejected the SBA List’s federal lawsuit on abstention grounds and allowed Driehaus’s OEC complaint to move forward.[111][119]

After the OEC complaint was filed, the SBA List began airing a radio ad in Driehaus’s district in which Dannenfelser stated that the group “[would] not be silenced or intimidated” by Driehaus’s legal action.[120] Driehaus persuaded the billboard company to withdraw the SBA List’s advertisement, which was never erected.[112] Driehaus lost the seat to Steve Chabot, the incumbent whom Driehaus had defeated two years earlier, in the November general election. Driehaus sued the SBA List in a second case on December 3, 2010, accusing the organization of defamation that caused him a “loss of livelihood”,[121] arguing the “First Amendment is not and never has been an invitation to concoct falsehoods aimed at depriving a person of his livelihood”.[112] The SBA List countered by stating the organization would “continue to defend the truth and the right to criticize our elected officials”.[112]

The List continued to seek to have the law in question overturned; the ACLU joined in the organization’s fight against the law.[122] On August 1, 2011, judge Timothy Black dismissed the SBA List’s challenge to the Ohio law, holding that the federal court lacked jurisdiction since the billboards were never erected and the OEC never made a final ruling[123] and denied a motion for summary judgment by the List in the defamation case, allowing Driehaus’s defamation claims regarding other SBA List statements to go forward.[124] Black also directed the SBA List to desist from claiming on its website that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) subsidized abortion as the law does not directly mention abortion.[125] SBA List argued that its statements were opinions and were thus protected, but the court rejected this argument given that SBA List itself had claimed that this was a “fact”.[126][127]

On August 19, 2011, the SBA List appealed the decision on the Ohio law to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.[128] In May 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the SBA List could not challenge the law under the First Amendment.[129] On August 9, 2013, the SBA List petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the law.[130][131] On January 10, 2014, the Supreme Court accepted the case. The Court heard the case on April 22, 2014.[132]

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in SBA List’s favor, allowing them to proceed in challenging the constitutionality of the law.[133]

On September 11, 2014, Judge Timothy Black of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio struck down the law as unconstitutional.[134] Black said in his ruling, “We do not want the government (i. e., the Ohio Elections Commission) deciding what is political truth — for fear that the government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide.”[135]

2011 elections

In October 2011, the SBA List announced it would involve itself in the 2011 Virginia state Senate elections, endorsing challengers Bryce Reeves against Edd HouckCaren Merrick against Barbara Favola for an open seat, Patricia Phillips against Mark Herring, and incumbent Sen. Jill Vogel in an effort to give control of the Senate to pro-lifers to stop the state Senate from being a “graveyard for pro-life legislation”.[136] It also announced it was spending $25,000 against Sen. Edd Houck to expose his “extreme record on abortion”.[137]Merrick and Phillips lost, but Vogel won re-election and Reeves defeated Houck by just 222 votes.[138]

2012 presidential election

In June 2011, the SBA List unveiled a pro-life pledge for 2012 Republican presidential candidates in which signers commit to appointing only pro-life judicial nominees and cabinet members, preventing taxpayer funding of abortion, and supporting legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the fetal pain concept.[139] Candidates Rick PerryTim PawlentyMichele BachmannNewt GingrichRick SantorumThaddeus McCotterHerman Cain, and Ron Paul all signed the pledge, but Mitt RomneyJon Huntsman, Jr., and Gary Johnson declined. Romney’s refusal (he said the pledge might have “unintended consequences”) sparked heated criticism from the SBA List, some of the other candidates, and political observers given Romney’s past support for legalized abortion.[139][140][141] Huntsman said he would not sign any pledges from political groups during the campaign[142] and was criticized by the SBA List as well.[142] Cain initially said he agreed with the first three parts, but objected to the wording in the pledge which said he would have to “advance” the fetal pain bill; he said he would sign it but Congress would have to advance it.[143] Cain later signed the pledge in November 2011.[144] Johnson, who is pro-choice, declined.

The SBA List embarked on a Values Voter Bus Tour in Iowa with the Family Research Council and National Organization for Marriage from August 9–12, 2011, ending the day before the critical Iowa Straw Poll.[145] The tour visited 22 cities and was joined by Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Santorum as well as Iowa Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds and Reps. Steve King and Louie Gohmert, among other “state and national leaders”.[145][146]

The SBA supported Rick Santorum in the 2012 Republican Party Presidential Nomination by buying $150,000 of advertising for the candidate in Michigan, and organizing a bus tour for the Santorum and his campaign throughout Michigan.[147] After Mitt Romney became the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, the SBA List declared that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was unqualified for Vice President due to her describing herself as “mildly pro-choice”.[148][149]

In August, SBA released an ad featuring pro-life activist Melissa Ohden who says she survived an abortion in 1977. The ad criticized Barack Obama, claiming that while serving in the Illinois Senate, he voted four times to deny medical care to infants born alive during failed abortion procedures.[150][151] In a 2008 analysis, FactCheck drew a mixed conclusion overall, finding both the SBA List and Obama had made misleading and/or inaccurate comments regarding Obama’s voting record on the topic in question while he served in the United States Senate.[150][152]

2013 Virginia gubernatorial election

The SBA List made the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election a priority for 2013, endorsing Ken Cuccinelli and pledging to spend $1.5 million in the election through its Virginia PAC, Women Speak Out. Cuccinelli was defeated narrowly in the general election by the pro-choice Democrat, Terry McAuliffe.[153][154]

2014 elections

The SBA List is seeking to spend $8 million to $10 million on elections in 2014.[155]

2016 elections

The SBA List spent $18 million in the 2016 elections.[156]

2017 elections

The SBA List endorsed Greg Gianforte in the special election for Montana’s at-large congressional seat in May 2017, and knocked on 31,000 doors to drive voter turnout in the election.[157] SBAL also endorsed Karen Handel in the June 2017 special election for Georgia’s 6th congressional district, spending $90,000 to support Handel.[158]

2018 elections

The SBA List typically endorses Republicans, but in 2018 they endorsed Democrat Dan Lipinski in a primary election against a pro-choice woman named Marie Newman, spending six figures on advertising, direct mail, and a 70-person canvassing team to turn out voters for Lipinski in the primary in March 2018.[159][160] Lipinski is one of the few Democrats left that the group considers an ally, and Dannenfelser called him “a pro-life hero of legendary courage and integrity”.[161][159] According to an SBA List spokeswoman, the group told Lipinski after he voted against the Affordable Care Act due to concerns over taxpayer funding of abortion that they would always be there to fight for him if he ever came under fire,” and said Lipinski “is the model for how we want pro-life Democrats to act in Congress, to choose pro-life principles over party when those two things clash.”[161] Lipinski won the primary by roughly 2,000 votes, and the SBA List, which knocked on 17,000 doors in the district to support Lipinski,[162] was credited with helping to pull him across the finish line.[163][161]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_List

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops 1046, March 19, 2018, Story 1: Obese Trump’s War on Opioids: U.S. Government’s War on Drugs Like War on Poverty Is A Failure — Obesity Is The Number One Killer of Americans — Government Obesity — Making Americans Healthy Again — Videos

Posted on March 19, 2018. Filed under: American History, Beef, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Diets, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Environment, Eugenics, Fiscal Policy, Food, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Illegal Drugs, Insurance, Investments, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Media, Medicare, News, Nutrition, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Senate, Social Networking, Tax Policy, United States of America, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

The Pronk Pops 1046, March 19, 2018, Story 1: Obese Trump’s War on Opioids: U.S. Government’s War on Drugs Like War on Poverty Is A Failure — Obesity Is The Number One Killer of Americans — Government Obesity — Making Americans Healthy Again — Videos

In Speech On Opioid Crisis, President Trump Proposes Death Penalty For Drug Traffickers | NBC News

President Trump Opioid Crisis Speech 3/19/18 Manchester, NH

Rep. Tim Ryan: Trump’s order on opioid crisis not enough

The Facts on America’s Opioid Epidemic

Opioid addiction is the biggest drug epidemic in U.S. history. How’d we get here?

Medical industry an accomplice in opioid epidemic?

HHS secretary on Trump’s plan to fight the opioid crisis

Why Is There an Opioid Crisis?

Who Profits from the Opioid Crisis? Meet the Secretive Sackler Family Making Billions from OxyContin

Why The War on Drugs Is a Huge Failure

America’s 40-year war on drugs

Published on Jun 17, 2011

It has been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs in America. The U.S. now spends $15 billion per year on the battle. Sharyl Attkisson looks at whether it’s worth fighting anymore.

How the opioid crisis decimated the American workforce

Breaking Bad – Walt and Jesse say goodbye (“Say Something” music video)

Breaking Bad’s Final Scene – Walter White’s Death

Locked Up In Here

Don’t Mess With ‘Top Bitch’ Of The Retirement Home | South Park

South Park Does The Opioid Crisis Explained

Overweight World – Obesity Facts and Statistics

This is What’s Causing the Obesity Epidemic

Remedying the world’s obesity crisis

The Obesity Epidemic

Sugar — the elephant in the kitchen: Robert Lustig at TEDxBermuda 2013

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 1): An Epidemic for Every Body

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 2): Sickeningly Sweet

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 3 Trailer): Hunger and Hormones – A Vicious Cycle

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 4): Sugar – A Sweet Addiction

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 5): Generation XL

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 6): A Fast-Paced Fast Food Life

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 7): Drugs Cigarettes Alcohol…and Sugar?

The Skinny on Obesity (Extra): Four Sweet Tips from Dr. Lustig

The Skinny on Obesity (Extra): Diet and Lifestyle Tips from UCSF Experts

 

America’s Obesity Epidemic: What They Don’t Tell You!

What is obesity? – Mia Nacamulli

Obesity in America

One Third of Americans Are Obese

Obesity Epidemic Growing Among US Women

WHICH COUNTRY HAS BIGGEST OBESITY PROBLEM? BBC NEWS

Solutions for the obesity epidemic | Liesbeth van Rossum | TEDxErasmusUniversity

The Science of Addictive Food

The Weight of the Nation: Part 1 – Consequences (HBO Docs)

The Weight of the Nation: Part 2 – Choices (HBO Docs)

The Weight of the Nation: Part 3 – Children in Crisis (HBO Docs)

How to do Intermittent Fasting for Serious Weight Loss

5 Tricks to Make Intermittent Fasting Work Faster

The 3 Huge Intermittent Fasting Mistakes

Acceptable Liquids with Intermittent Fasting

Intermittent Fasting WITHOUT doing Keto?

Insulin, Insulin Resistance & Belly Fat: SIMPLIFIED

How to Burn the Most Fat

How to Lose Belly Fat: FAST!

#1 Top Food to Burn Belly Fat Tip

The Best Fat Burning Exercise

The 2 Types of Exercise for Belly Fat

Burn 450 Percent More Belly Fat

How to Trigger Your Fat Burning Hormones

Keto and Intermittent Fasting: the Big Overview for Beginners

Key Foods on a Ketogenic Diet

The Ketogenic Diet & Dairy (Milk, Yogurt & Cheese)

Dr. Berg Turns 50 – Explains What He Eats and His Nutrition

What Does 7-10 Cups of Salad Look Like?

Don’t Like Vegetables? Try This!

The REAL Reason Apple Cider Vinegar Works for Losing Weight – MUST WATCH!

The 7 Foods You Must NEVER Ever Eat!

How to Lower Cortisol

What Triggers Human Growth Hormone (HGH)?

The Ultimate Joint Healer: Growth Hormone

What Boosts More Growth Hormone: Intermittent Fasting or HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training)?

9 Top SuperFoods on the Planet

What Protein is Best?

{youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgYAJqOeYRk]

The Perfect Diet

The Top Symptoms of a Potassium Deficiency

The Top Symptoms of a Magnesium Deficiency

Calcium & Magnesium Absorption Basics

The Best and Worst Type of Calcium

The Dangerous State of Too Much CALCIUM!

Serious Side-Effects from Excess Calcium (Soft-Tissue Calcium) by Dr. Berg

Is Your Calcium Supplement Killing You?

Why all of a sudden is everyone deficient in vitamin D?

POTASSIUM: The MOST Important Electrolyte – MUST WATCH!

Forget The Calories, Just Reduce Sugars

Sugar Toxicity

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1046

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017, Story 1: Mass Murderer Steve Paddock Was Prescribed A Very Addictive Anti-anxiety Drug Valium or Diazepam (Benzodiazepines) — Possible Adverse Effects of Benzodiazepines or Benzo Include Disinhibition and Aggressive Behavior — Benzos Are The Most Prescribed and Abused Drug in United States — Videos — Story 2: The Mass Murderer’s Former Girlfriend, Marilou Danley Is Now “A Person of Interest” — Flies Back To United States From Phillipines and Met By FBI To Answer Questions — Fully Cooperating With FBI — Knew Nothing of Friend’s Plans — The Criminal Investigation of Las Vegas Mass Murderer Killed 58 — 47 Fire Arms Recovered From Murder’s Hotel Room (23), Home (19), and Reno Home (7) — Videos — Story 3: Gun Grabbing Baby Killing Democrat Advocates vs. Pro Life and Pro Second Amendment Advocates — Real Aim of Gun Grabbers : Confiscate All Guns and Repeal Second Amendment — Gun and Ammunition Sales Booming — Make My Day  — Lying Lunatic Left Lies of Jimmy Kimmel — Videos

Posted on October 4, 2017. Filed under: Abortion, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Assault, Benghazi, Biology, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Chemistry, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Eugenics, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Genocide, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Killing, Knifes, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Lying, Media, Medical, Medicare, Monetary Policy, Movies, National Interest, Networking, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Privacy, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rifles, Scandals, Science, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Security, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

 

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for list of psychotropic drugs

Story 1: Mass Murderer Steve Paddock Was Prescribed A Very Addictive Anti-anxiety Drug Valium or Diazepam (Benzodiazepines) — Possible Adverse Effects of Benzodiazepines or Benzos Include Disinhibition and Aggressive Behavior — Benzos Are The Most Prescribed and Abused Drug in United States — Videos —

Image result for drug valium diazepam

Psychiatric Drug Links to Violent Behavior

Psychiatric Drugs Homicide and Suicide The Connection

Vegas shooter was reportedly prescribed anti-anxiety meds

LAS VEGAS SHOOTER WAS ON VALIUM – HERE’S WHY IT MATTERS

Valium (Diazepam) Review and Side Effects

What Are The Side Effects Of Valium? | Learn The Dangerous Valium Side Effects Now!

Top 10 Most Abused Prescription Drugs

00:57 #10: Dilaudid [aka Hydromorphone]

01:56 #9: Soma [aka Carisoprodol]

02:45 #8: Ambien [aka Zolpidem]

03:48 #7: Valium [aka Diazepam]

04:52 #6:  Fentanyl

05:53 #5: Xanax [aka Alprazolam]

07:05 #4: Adderall

08:28 #3:Codine

09:26 #2: Vicodine

10:50 #1: OxyCotin [OxyCodone]

‘As Prescribed’ – Trailer for Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Documentary

The Many Faces of Benzo (Ativan Klonopin Xanax Valium) Withdrawal

What are Benzodiazepines? Benzo Facts and Effects

Facts You Should Know About Benzodiazepine Abuse

Psychiatric Drugs Are More Dangerous than You Ever Imagined

How I got myself off valium – Benzodiazepine

Valium withdrawal symptoms – benzodiazapines really are awefull to kick -Part 1 of 2)

Valium withdrawal symptoms – benzodiazapines really are awefull to kick – Part 2 of 2)

GABA Neurotransmitters, Anxiety, and the Dangers of Benzodiazepines

Dr. Von Stieff explains the dangers of what benzodiazepines do and how these GABA drugs, like Xanax and diazepam, can lead to prescription addiction and even cause alcoholics to relapse. Learn how benzodiazepine effects on GABA neurotransmitters can actually incite anxiety.

Alcohol Effects and Neurotransmitters: The GABA and Glutamate Balance

GABA Neurotransmitters and Glutamate

Relapse Prevention: Overcome Fear and Anxiety Attacks and Prevent Panic Attacks

MY BENZO EXPERIENCE: What it Feels Like to Take a Benzodiazepine for Anxiety

Some days I wake up with nearly crippling anxiety for no apparent reason. This was one of those days unfortunately and after suffering through my physical symptoms for many hours like I often do, I decided to take 1 mg of Ativan (Benzodiazepine) and film my experience on it and how it affected my anxiety.

The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging – Making a Killing – Full Documentary

SSRI Drugs are Dangerous!

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

Prescription for Mayhem: SSRI’s and The War on Drugs

#LasVegasShooting Live Stream Update: Dissecting the Preposterous, the Possible and the Probable

Psych Meds and Big Pharma and the Link to Shootings

19. Aggression III

May 14, 2010) Robert Sapolsky continues his neurobiological exploration of human aggression. He discusses correlations between neurotransmitter prevalence and aggression levels, aggressive activity differences from genetic variance, societal factors and application, amplification from alcohol, and crime and punishment.

20. Aggression IV

“Behave” by Robert Sapolsky, PhD

By Kyle Feldscher |   

Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug Valium in June, a drug that has aggressive behavior as a possible side effect.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Paddock was prescribed the medication in June. He was supposed to take one pill per day and fulfilled the prescription on the same day it was written.

“If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive,” said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center, told the newspaper. “It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. … It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people … they become aggressive instead of going to sleep.”

Paddock killed 59 people and injured more than 500 others when he opened fire with high-powered rifles from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Hotel late Sunday night. He shot into a country music festival taking place on the street below.

Officials continue to investigate the incident, the largest mass shooting in American history.

Questions remain over whey Paddock wired $100,000 to the Philippines just before the shooting. The island nation is the home country of his girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.

He also reportedly gambled with more than $10,000 during the day before the shooting.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-months-before-killing/article/2636485

 

Stephen Paddock was prescribed anti-anxiety medication Valium which can trigger aggressive behavior four months before Las Vegas massacre

  • Stephen Paddock was prescribed anti-anxiety medication in June, records show
  • He was taking tablets of diazepam – or Valium – which can trigger aggression
  • It is not known why he was prescribed the drug or whether he had anger issues
  • Former neighbors said Paddock was a reclusive weirdo, while coffee shop workers said he was often rude to girlfriend Marliou Danley 
Stephen Paddock, the man behind America's worst ever mass shooting, was prescribed Valium months before the massacre

Stephen Paddock, the man behind America’s worst ever mass shooting, was prescribed Valium months before the massacre

Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed an anti-anxiety medication four months before shooting 58 people dead and wounding more than 500.

Paddock was prescribed 50 10 milligram diazepam tablets – also known as Valium – on June 21 by Vegas doctor Steven Winkler, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.

Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug that can trigger aggressive behavior in people with underlying behavioral problems, multiple studies have shown.

It is not known why Paddock was prescribed the drug, or whether he had any behavioral issues.

Multiple people who knew him, including his own brother Eric, say he displayed no outward signs of aggression and did not appear as the kind of person who would carry out a mass shooting.

Staff at Dr Winkler’s office would not confirm to the Review-Journal if Paddock had been a patient, and said the doctor would not be answering questions.

One study conducted in Finland, and another in Australia and New Zealand, linked the use of benzodiazepines – the class of drugs to which diazepam belongs – to increased instances of aggressive behavior.

On Sunday Paddock used a vantage point from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel to slaughter 58 people and wound more than 500 using high-powered rifles

On Sunday Paddock used a vantage point from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel to slaughter 58 people and wound more than 500 using high-powered rifles
Paddock’s medical history was revealed as more information emerged about America’s worst-ever mass shooter.

On Tuesday investigators said he wired $100,000 to the Philippines before carrying out his massacre, the same country that girlfriend Marilou Danley was visiting at the time of the killings and where she is believed to have been born.

FBI agents met Danley as she arrived back in the US from Manila on Tuesday and said she is a ‘person of interest’ in their investigation. 

Investigators have not revealed where or to whom the $100,000 was sent.

The news emerged after actress and Scientologist Kirstie Alley put out a series of tweets claiming a common denominator in mass killings – aside from guns – are psychiatric drugs.

‘We have to solve the mystery of why there were no ‘shooters’ or almost 0 before the 1980’s. I know one common denominator other than guns,’ Alley tweeted Monday.

‘One additional common denominator of ‘shooters’ is USA’s mass usage of psychiatric drugs. A % do have side effects of VIOLENCE & SUICIDE,’ continued the outspoken actress.

Elsewhere workers at a Starbucks in the town of Mesquite, where the couple lived, shed some light on their relationship – saying that Paddock was always rude to Danley whenever the pair came to the shop.

SIDE EFFECTS OF DIAZEPAM (VALIUM)

For most patients, these are the typical side effects:

  • drowsiness
  • tired feeling
  • dizziness
  • spinning sensation
  • fatigue
  • constipation
  • loss of balance
  • memory problems
  • restlessness
  • irritability
  • muscle weakness
  • nausea
  • drooling
  • dry mouth
  • slurred speech
  • blurred vision
  • double vision
  • skin rash
  • itching
  • lost interest in sex

However, the pamphlet that accompanies the medication tells patients to call their doctor if they experience the following symptoms:

  • thoughts about suicide or dying
  • new or worse anxiety
  • trouble sleeping (insomnia)
  • acting on dangerous impulses
  • attempts to commit suicide
  • feeling agitated or restless
  • new or worse irritability
  • an extreme increase in activity and talking (mania)
  • new or worse depression
  • panic attacks
  • acting aggressive, being angry, or violent
  • other unusual changes in behavior or mood

Mendoza said the abuse came when Danley would ask to use his casino card to purchase their drinks.

‘He would glare down at her and say, “You don’t need my casino card for this. I’m paying for your drink, just like I’m paying for you,'” Mendoza recalled.

She told the Los Angeles Times that Danley would then cower behind him and softly say, ‘OK’.

Meanwhile a former neighbor of Paddock’s from his time living in Reno described him as a reclusive ‘weirdo’ who barely spoke to anyone else on the street.

‘He would keep his face down, avoid all conversation and was just very unfriendly and strange,’ Susan Page told The Sun.

Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest Festival from a suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel on Sunday night with multiple rifles, some of which had been modified to effectively fire on full-automatic mode.

During an estimated 72 minute shooting spree he killed 58 people and wounded 527 in America’s worst ever mass shooting.

Paddock then took his own life as police breached the door of his hotel room.

Officers say they found 23 guns inside the room, most of them rifles, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition.

At Paddock’s home in nearby Mesquite they found another 19 weapons, along with explosive tannerite and fertilizer which can be used to make bombs.

Investigators have been unable to determine a motive for the attack, and the FBI says there is no evidence linking Paddock to any foreign terror organization despite ISIS claiming responsibility.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4947276/Stephen-Paddock-prescribed-Valium-Vegas-massacre.html#ixzz4uatJjYxV

 

 

Drug- Induced Behavioural Disinhibition

Incidence, Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications

Adverse Effects

Summary

Behavioural disinhibition implies the loss of restraint over some form of social behaviour. Such disinhibition can be drug induced and, on rare occasions, lead to extreme acts of aggression or violence. Examples of behavioural disinhibition are often considered paradoxical and rare reactions to drugs, but they may in fact be a more severe behavioural manifestation of a general effect that the drug has on emotions and behaviour. However, the incidence of drug-induced behavioural disinhibition varies considerably and cannot be estimated accurately, as accounts stem mainly from case reports rather than from controlled clinical trials. Adverse effects of drugs are rarely, if ever, the sole focus of clinical studies, although they are now monitored more rigorously in controlled trials.

There are numerous anecdotal case reports in the literature of behavioural disinhibition occurring during administration of benzodiazepines, and recent controlled trials have addressed this issue. The incidence varies with the population studied, but tends to be higher in patients with pre-existing poor impulse control. Alcohol (ethanol) potentiates the disinhibiting effect of benzodiazepines. Aberrant forms of disinhibited behaviour may be accompanied by memory loss.

Disinhibition has also been reported after treatment with tricyclic antidepressants, and reports are now appearing that describe disinhibition in patients who have been treated with selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) reuptake inhibitors. These include incidents of akathisia, suicidal urges, agitation, hyperactivity and mania. They are more prevalent in children and those with learning disabilities.

Disinhibition is rare with antipsychotics and non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants but some isolated case reports contain descriptions of such reactions with newer compounds.

The most important drug variable in drug-induced behavioural disinhibition is dosage, although mode of administration is also important. Discontinuation of the drug is usually expected to resolve behavioural reactions, but in certain cases drug withdrawal may precipitate a reaction. In order to minimise drug-induced behavioural disinhibition, it is essential to always use the minimum dosage necessary, to increase the dosage gradually and to monitor the effects carefully. Multiple drug use should be avoided whenever possible.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00023210-199809010-00005

 

Disinhibitory reactions to benzodiazepines: A review

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Volume 49, Issue 5, May 1991, Pages 519-523

Abstract

This article reviews some of the important aspects of benzodiazepineinduced disinhibitory reactions. Although reactions of this type are relatively rare, they may sometimes manifest themselves in aggressive behavior accompanied by suicidal or homicidal tendencies. It appears that these reactions occur more commonly in younger patients, although the elderly (above 65 years) may also be at risk. Many mechanisms have been postulated, but none truly explain how these reactions arise. The concept that central cholinergic mechanisms may play a role, however, remains attractive and stems primarily from physostigmine’s ability to successfully reverse this type of reaction. The potential role of the benzodiazepine antagonists, eg, flumazenil, in reversing disinhibitory reactions is also discussed. Apart from patients who previously exhibited poor impulse control, there are no reliable indicators for recognizing potential candidates for this type of reaction. To minimize the occurrence of disinhibitory reactions, some guidelines, which include the avoidance of certain drug combinations, the use of low doses of benzodiazepines, slow incremental intravenous administration, and good rapport with patients, are presented.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027823919190180T

 

Benzodiazepines

What are Benzodiazepines

Benzodiazepines are a class of agents that work on the central nervous system, acting selectively on gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABA-A) receptors in the brain. GABA is a neurotransmitter that inhibits or reduces the activity of nerve cells (neurons) within the brain. Benzodiazepines open GABA-activated chloride channels, and allow chloride ions to enter the neuron. This makes the neuron negatively charged and resistant to excitation.

All benzodiazepines work in a similar way but there are differences in the way individual benzodiazepines act on the different GABA-A receptor sub-types. In addition, some benzodiazepines are more potent than others or work for a longer length of time. Because of this, some work better than others in particular conditions. Benzodiazepines may be used in the treatment of anxiety, panic disorder, seizures, or sleep disorders. They may also be used as a muscle relaxant, during alcohol withdrawal, or before surgery to induce relaxation and amnesia (memory loss).

List of Benzodiazepines:

Filter by:
— all conditions —
Alcohol Withdrawal
Anxiety
Benzodiazepine Withdrawal
Bipolar Disorder
Borderline Personality Disorder
Burning Mouth Syndrome
Cervical Dystonia
Chronic Myofascial Pain
Cluster-Tic Syndrome
Depression
Dysautonomia
Endoscopy or Radiology Premedication
Epilepsy
Hyperekplexia
ICU Agitation
Insomnia
Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome
Light Anesthesia
Light Sedation
Meniere’s Disease
Migraine Prevention
Muscle Spasm
Nausea/Vomiting
Nausea/Vomiting, Chemotherapy Induced
Night Terrors
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Opiate Withdrawal
Panic Disorder
Periodic Limb Movement Disorder
Restless Legs Syndrome
Sedation
Seizure Prevention
Seizures
Sleep Paralysis
Status Epilepticus
Tardive Dyskinesia
Temporomandibular Joint Disorder
Tetanus
Tinnitus
Drug Name DownUp( View by: Brand | Generic ) Reviews Ratings DownUp
Zetran (More…)
generic name: diazepam
1 review
  
10
Prosom (ProMore…)
generic name: estazolam
2 reviews
  
9.7
Alprazolam Intensol (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
7 reviews
  
9.6
Doral (ProMore…)
generic name: quazepam
3 reviews
  
9.5
Niravam (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
12 reviews
  
9.5
Diazepam Intensol (More…)
generic name: diazepam
6 reviews
  
9.4
Librium (ProMore…)
generic name: chlordiazepoxide
115 reviews
  
9.1
Tranxene (More…)
generic name: clorazepate
9 reviews
  
9.1
Xanax XR (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
52 reviews
  
9.1
Klonopin Wafer (More…)
generic name: clonazepam
17 reviews
  
8.9
Xanax (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
637 reviews
  
8.9
Serax (More…)
generic name: oxazepam
12 reviews
  
8.8
Dalmane (ProMore…)
generic name: flurazepam
11 reviews
  
8.7
Klonopin (ProMore…)
generic name: clonazepam
578 reviews
  
8.7
Valium (ProMore…)
generic name: diazepam
206 reviews
  
8.7
Halcion (ProMore…)
generic name: triazolam
20 reviews
  
8.6
Diastat (ProMore…)
generic name: diazepam
2 reviews
  
8.5
Lorazepam Intensol (ProMore…)
generic name: lorazepam
9 reviews
  
8.3
Ativan (ProMore…)
generic name: lorazepam
317 reviews
  
8.2
Restoril (ProMore…)
generic name: temazepam
63 reviews
  
7.5
Tranxene SD (More…)
generic name: clorazepate
2 reviews
  
7.0
Tranxene T-Tab (ProMore…)
generic name: clorazepate
0 reviews
  
7.0
Versed (More…)
generic name: midazolam
29 reviews
  
5.4
Onfi (ProMore…)
generic name: clobazam
5 reviews
  
5.2
Diastat AcuDial (More…)
generic name: diazepam
1 review
  
5.0
Diastat Pediatric (More…)
generic name: diazepam
0 reviews Add rating

Story 2: The Mass Murderer’s Former Girlfriend, Marilou Danley Is Now “A Person of Interest” — Flies Back To United States From Phillipines and Met By FBI To Answer Questions — Fully Cooperating With FBI — Knew Nothing of Friend’s Plans — The Criminal Investigation of Las Vegas Mass Murderer Killed 58 — 47 Fire Arms Recovered From Murder’s Hotel Room (23), Home (19), and Reno Home (7) — Videos —

 

Image result for person of interest marilou danley

WATCH: Girlfriend of Las Vegas shooter releases statement through lawyer

Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend thought him ‘kind & caring’

Steyn: Vegas shooter’s social media profile ‘weirdly blank’

Scott Adams offers another hypothesis on Stephen Paddock’s motivation

Scott Adams rules out some theories on the Vegas gunman

Scott Adams talks about the Vegas shooter and does an FBI profile on him

Scott Adams: FBI profile and possible motivation – Part 2

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | SPECIAL REPORT FROM THE LAS VEGAS W/ SEAN HANNITY

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | LAS VEGAS INCIDENT PUTS FOCUS ON GUN CONTROL DEBATE

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | DISCUSSING THE LAST NIGHT IN VEGAS W/ LOU DOBBS

Who Is Marilou Danley, Girlfriend Of Las Vegas Shooter? | NBC Nightly News

Las Vegas shooter’s girlfriend: Who is Marilou Danley?

Marilou Danley: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Who is Marilou Danley?

Person of Interest: Season 1 Trailer

Person of Interest | Flashbacks S1-S4 | somewhat HD

 

Las Vegas Strip shooter prescribed anti-anxiety drug in June

Las Vegas massacre probe turns to gunman’s girlfriend in Philippines

by Reuters
Wednesday, 4 October 2017 02:36 GMT

ABOUT OUR HUMANITARIAN COVERAGE

From major disaster, conflicts and under-reported stories, we shine a light on the world’s humanitarian hotspots

(Recasts with latest law enforcement news conference, officials say death toll confirmed at 58 plus the gunman, 12 weapons found in hotel suite equipped with ‘bumper stocks’, 47 guns recovered altogether, purchased in four states, crime scene photos are authentic, paragraphs 1, 11-12, 15, 17)

* Live-in companion sought for questioning

* Wire transfer of $100,000 under examination

* Trump calls gunman ‘a sick, demented man’

* Killer amassed dozens of weapons, explosives, ammunition

* Massacre stirs gun control debate

By Sharon Bernstein and Alexandria Sage

LAS VEGAS, Oct 3 (Reuters) – The investigation into the motives of a Las Vegas retiree who killed 58 people in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history turned on Tuesday to the gunman’s girlfriend in the Philippines, where she turned up after the massacre, authorities said.

Stephen Paddock, who killed himself moments before police stormed the hotel suite he had transformed into a sniper’s nest on Sunday night, left no clear clues as to why he staged his attack on an outdoor concert below the high-rise building.

But law enforcement authorities were hoping to obtain some answers from a woman identified as Paddock’s live-in companion, Marilou Danley, who Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said was a “person of interest” in the investigation.

Lombardo, who said on Monday Danley was believed to be in Tokyo, told reporters on Tuesday she had been located in the Philippines and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in the process of trying to bring her back to the United States.

“We are in conversations with her,” he told an afternoon news briefing. He reiterated police had no other suspects in the shooting itself.

Danley, an Australian citizen reported to have been born in the Philippines, had been sharing Paddock’s condo at a retirement community in Mesquite, Nevada, about 90 miles (145 km) northeast of Las Vegas, according to police and public records.

Investigators were examining a $100,000 wire transfer Paddock, 64, sent to an account in the Philippines that “appears to have been intended” for Danley, a senior U.S. homeland security official told Reuters on Tuesday.

The official, who has been briefed regularly on the probe but spoke on condition of anonymity, said the working assumption of investigators was that the money was intended as a form of life insurance payment for Danley.

The official said U.S. authorities were eager to question Danley, who described herself on social media websites as a “casino professional,” mother and grandmother, about whether Paddock encouraged her to leave the United States before he went on his rampage.

The official said investigators had also uncovered evidence that Paddock may have rehearsed his plans at other venues before ultimately carrying out his attack on the Route 91 Harvest country music festival from the 32nd floor suite of the Mandalay Bay hotel on the Las Vegas Strip.

ARSENAL RECOVERED

Fresh details about the massacre and the arsenal Paddock amassed emerged on Tuesday.

Police said Paddock strafed the concert crowd with bullets for nine to 11 minutes before taking his own life, and had set up cameras inside and outside his hotel suite so he could see police as they closed in on his location.

A total of 47 firearms were recovered from three locations searched by investigators – Paddock’s hotel suite, his home in Mesquite, and another property associated with him in Reno, Nevada, according to Jill Snyder, special agent for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Snyder said 12 of the guns found in the hotel room were fitted with so-called bump-stock devices that allow the guns to be fired virtually as automatic weapons. The devices are legal under U.S. law, even though fully automatic weapons are for the most part banned.

The rifles, shotguns and pistols were purchased in four states – Nevada, Utah, California and Texas – Snyder told reporters at an evening news conference.

A search of Paddock’s car turned up a supply of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be formed into explosives and was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal office building that killed 168 people, Lombardo said earlier.

Police also confirmed that photos widely published online showing the gunman’s body, his hands in gloves, lying on the floor beside two firearms and spent shell casings, were authentic crime-scene images obtained by media outlets. An internal investigation was under way to determine how they were leaked.

Video footage of the shooting spree on Sunday night caught by those on the ground showed throngs of people screaming in horror, some crouching in the open for cover, hemmed in by fellow concert-goers, and others running for cover as extended bursts of gunfire rained onto the crowd of some 20,000.

Police had put the death toll at 59 earlier on Tuesday, not including the gunman. However, the coroner’s office revised the confirmed tally to 58 dead, plus Paddock, on Tuesday night.

More than 500 people were injured, some trampled in the pandemonium. At least 20 of the survivors admitted to one of several hospitals in the area, University Medical Center, remained in critical condition on Tuesday, doctors said.

The union representing firefighters disclosed that a dozen off-duty firefighters who were attending the music festival were shot while trying to render aid to other spectators, two of them while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on victims.

“This is a true feat of heroism on their part,” said Ray Rahne of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

WHAT DROVE GUNMAN?

But the central, unanswered question to the bloodshed was what drove the gunman’s actions.

Federal, state and local investigators have found no evidence that Paddock had even incidental contacts with foreign or domestic extremist groups, and reviews of his history showed no underlying pattern of criminal behavior or hate speech, the homeland security official said.

While investigators had not ruled out the possibility of mental illness or some form of brain injury, “there’s no evidence of that, either,” the official said.

Paddock’s brother, Eric, has said he was mystified by the attack.

“It just makes less sense the more we use any kind of reason to figure it out,” Eric Paddock said in a text message on Tuesday. “I will bet any amount of money that they will not find any link to anything … he did this completely by himself.”

He said the family did not plan to hold a funeral for his brother, who was not religious, saying it could attract unwanted attention. He described his brother as a financially well-off enthusiast of video poker and cruises, with no history of mental health issues.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that Paddock had been “a sick man, a demented man.”

GUN DEBATE STIRRED

The attack stirred the fractious debate about gun ownership in the United States, which is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and about how much that right should be subject to controls.

Sunday’s shooting followed the massacre of 26 young children and educators in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, and the slaying of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando last year.

The latter attack was previously the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Democrats reiterated what is generally the party’s stance, that legislative action is needed to reduce mass shootings. Republicans, who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, argue restrictions on lawful gun ownership cannot deter criminal behavior.

“We’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by,” said Trump, who strongly supported gun rights during his presidential campaign.

Paddock seemed unlike the troubled, angry young men who experts said have come to embody the mass-shooter profile in the United States.

Public records on Paddock point to an itinerant existence across the U.S. West and Southeast, including stints as an apartment manager and aerospace industry worker. He appeared to be settling in to a quiet life when he bought a home in a Nevada retirement community a few years ago.

(Additional reporting by Lisa Girion in Las Vegas, Jonathan Allen and Frank McGurty in New York, John Walcott, Susan Cornwell, Doina Chiacu and Jeff Mason in Washington, Bernie Woodall in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Jon Herskovitz in Austin, Texas and Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; Writing by Steve Gorman and Scott Malone; Editing by Frances Kerry, Jonathan Oatis and Andrew Hay)

http://news.trust.org/item/20171003193434-ladhk

 

Las Vegas shooting suspect’s girlfriend is ‘person of interest’, says sheriff

  • Marilou Danley was in Philippines at time of shooting and remains there
  • Stephen Paddock placed cameras inside and outside his hotel room
The Clark County sheriff Joe Lombardo, flanked by Las Vegas’s Mayor Carolyn Goodman, left, and US representative Dina Titus, speaks during a news conference on Tuesday.
 The Clark County sheriff Joe Lombardo, flanked by Las Vegas’s Mayor Carolyn Goodman, left, and US representative Dina Titus, speaks during a news conference on Tuesday. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend is “a person of interest” in the criminal investigation into America’s worst mass shooting, police said on Tuesday.

Sheriff Joseph Lombardo of Clark County said detectives are in contact with Marilou Danley, who was travelling in the Philippines at the time of the massacre and remains there. “The investigation with her is ongoing and we anticipate some further information from her shortly,” he told reporters. “Currently she is a person of interest.”

Lombardo declined to comment on an NBC news report that 64-year-old Paddock wired $100,000 to an account in the Philippines some time in the week before the attack.

Paddock opened fire from the windows of his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, killing 59 people – all but three of whom have been identified – and injuring more than 500 at a country music festival. Police stormed his room and found he had killed himself.

Lombardo said the first report to police came at 10.08pm and Paddock continued to fire for nine minutes. The sheriff also told a press conference Paddock had set up cameras inside and outside his room, including one on a food service trolley. “I anticipate he was looking for anybody coming to take him into custody,” he said.

The evidence offers an insight into Paddock’s careful planning of the shooting. Lombardo said: “I’m pretty sure he evaluated everything that he did in his actions, which is troubling.”

Police have said they found 23 guns in Paddock’s room at the hotel. The sheriff added: “We are aware of a device called a bump stock that enables an individual to speed up the discharge of ammunition.” Bump stocks can be used to modify guns and make them fire as if they were fully automatic.

He also said authorities had completed their investigation at the gunman’s property in Reno, finding five handguns, two shotguns and a “plethora” of ammunition.

Paddock’s motive remains unknown. “This person may have radicalised, unbeknownst to us, and we want to identify that source.”

The sheriff said the number of people injured would go down slightly because of some double counting. “We also had very heroic acts of people attending the event … Citizens providing medical aid and transport for people to get to the hospital.”

Lombardo added: “It’s an ongoing investigation and when I say I don’t know, I may know … I assure you this investigation is not ended with the demise of Mr Paddock.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/03/las-vegas-shooting-girlfriend-marilou-danley-person-of-interest-sheriff

 

Person of interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Person of interest” is a term used by U.S. law enforcement when identifying someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. It has no legal meaning, but refers to someone in whom the police are “interested,” either because the person is cooperating with the investigation, may have information that would assist the investigation, or possesses certain characteristics that merit further attention.

While terms such as suspecttarget, and material witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions, person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[1]Unsub is a similar term which is short for “unknown subject” (used often, for example, in the TV show Criminal Minds). Person of interest is sometimes used as a euphemism for suspect, and its careless use may encourage trials by media.

With respect to terrorism investigations, Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times: “Law enforcement officials say that the term simply reflects the new tactics required to fight terrorism. But some legal scholars say officials are trying to create a more benign public image, even as their power expands.”[2]

History

According to Eric Lichtbau in the New York Times:

The term has an ugly history; in the 1960s American law enforcement officials began creating secret dossiers on Vietnam War protesters, civil rights leaders and other persons of interest…The vaguely sinister term has been applied to targets of terrorisminvestigations, the chief suspect in the murder of the Baylor basketball player Patrick Dennehy and Steven J. Hatfill, the scientist who has figured prominently in the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacksAttorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft is often credited with popularizing the person-of-interest label, having used it [in 2002] to describe Dr. Hatfill.[2]

The term was used widely in mass media at least as early as the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing in reference to Richard A. Jewell. Its initial uses aroused controversy, but it has since seen increasingly regular use.[1] Jewell later remarked on the use of the term:

Question: Do you believe that the public will formulate the same idea about that person’s involvement in criminal activity upon hearing the term “person of interest”? Is this just a euphemism, just another way of saying “suspect”?

Jewell: I’d say so. The public knows what’s going on. Because of what happened to me, things have changed. It has definitely changed the way the media in Atlanta refer to people that are arrested or are suspects. And I’ve seen it on some of the national channels like Fox NewsNBC and CNN. They’ve all changed. Go back before 1996, at a shooting or a murder and see how they refer to the person whom they’re arresting in the incident. Compare that with something that’s recent and look at the difference. What happened to me is a factor in that change.[3]

Hatfill v. Ashcroft

The use of the term became widely critiqued when United States Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft used it in a press conference when asked if Dr. Steven J. Hatfill was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks case. In 2002, Hatfill’s attorney filed a complaint with the Justice Department‘s Office of Professional Responsibility, arguing that “the term is not recognized in law or criminal procedure and that Ashcroft did not have the right ‘to preside over the public shredding of [Hatfill’s] life. This is un-American. Mr. Ashcroft owes Dr. Hatfill an apology.'”[4] Hatfill sued the Department of Justice for violation of federal privacy law; the case was settled in 2008 for $5.8 million.[5]

Definition

Normal Justice Department parlance for subjects of investigation includes “suspect,” “subject” and “target.” Each has specific meanings relevant to different levels of investigation. SenatorChuck GrassleyRepublican of Iowa, wrote to the Attorney General for clarification of the unfamiliar phrase in September 2002. In December of that year, Nuclear Threat Initiative‘s Global Security Newswire summarized the response as follows:[6]

… the U.S. Justice Department has said that it did not intend for Hatfill to come under such intense media scrutiny by describing him has a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation, according to department letters sent to Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), which were released yesterday. … The department did not intend to cause any harm to Hatfill when it described him as a person of interest, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said in one of the letters. Instead, the department meant “to deflect media scrutiny” and “explain that he (Hatfill) was just one of many scientists” who had cooperated with the FBI investigation, Bryant said.

Grassley said yesterday that he appreciates the department’s replies to his inquiries. “I also appreciate the department’s candidness that the action regarding Mr. Hatfill and his employment is unprecedented,” Grassley said in a statement, and that “there is no … formal definition for the term ‘person of interest.’

See also

References

Story 3: Gun Grabbing Baby Killing Democrat Advocates vs. Pro Life and Pro Second Amendment Advocates — Real Aim of Gun Grabbers : Confiscate All Guns and Repeal Second Amendment — Gun and Ammunition Sales Booming — Make My Day  — Lying Lunatic Left Lies of Jimmy Kimmel — Videos

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for leading of blacks

Image result for leading killer of blacks is abortion

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Hannity 10/4/17 | Fox News Today October 4, 2017

Tucker Carlson Tonight 10/4/17 – Tucker Carlson Fox News October 4, 2017 TRUMP, REX TILLERSON

Tucker Carlson; Blasts Hillary Clinton over Gun Control Tweet moments after attack..!

Tucker Carlson; Blasts Hillary Clinton over Gun Control Tweet moments after attack..!

LAS VEGAS SHOOTER WAS ON VALIUM – HERE’S WHY IT MATTERS

Las Vegas Massacre: John Lott discusses gun laws and ownership

John Lott: The War on Guns

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

John Lott, Jr.: Why gun bans don’t work

John Lott: Evidence proves owning a gun is the best way to protect your family

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

In a talk given on the very day a gunman was apprehended at the University of Austin, American senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and gun rights expert John Lott explains why guns bans only serve to increase gun crime rates, why the pilots should be armed, and how statistics prove that since the DC handgun ban was lifted, there has been a dramatic drop in the murder rate. Lott points to his research which proves that there isn’t a place in the world where a gun ban lowers gun crime, in fact stricter firearms regulation habitually leads to an increase in murder rates, because the only people who follow such regulations are law-abiding citizens who turn in their guns and thus leave themselves vulnerable to armed criminals who don’t obey the law. Speaking on the subject of pilots being armed, Lott points out that up until 1979, pilots were mandated to carry with them a loaded handgun and throughout decades of this policy there is not one example handguns causing a problem on an airliner, demolishing the innumerable “what if” hypothetical arguments of those who oppose arming the pilots, as well as the arguments against having concealed carry on college campuses. Lott details statistics that show since the Washington DC handgun ban was lifted, there has been a huge drop in murder rates, a fact that has received virtually no news coverage in the anti-second amendment establishment media. Crimes using guns since the ban was lifted fell by about three times as fast as other crimes not involving guns. Alternatively, since the Chicago gun ban in 1982, Lott documents how gun crime soared in both Chicago and surrounding areas.

Ben Shapiro Responds To Jimmy Kimmel

REBUTTAL: Everything Wrong With Jimmy Kimmel’s Las Vegas Rant | Louder With Crowder

Top 5 Gun Control Myths Debunked! | Louder With Crowder

HIDDEN CAM: “Gun Show Loophole” Exposed!

Obama’s Gun Control Town Hall Lies | Louder With Crowder

Vox Rebuttal: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked

Gun Contol Penn and Teller Bull Shit

Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine

Penn & Teller on Gun Control

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

REBUTTAL: Everything Wrong With Jimmy Kimmel’s Las Vegas Rant | Louder With Crowder

  • Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.

    Close up image of the Second Amendment

    The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

    The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

    In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”[10][11]

    In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings 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” and that its protection is not limited to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.[15]

    Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[16]

    Contents

     [show

    Text

    There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.[25][26]

    One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified.[27][28][29][30][31] As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert, the amendment says:[32]

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to show only the text that would later be edited and ratified as the Second Amendment

    Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State:[33]

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Pre-Constitution background

    Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689

    The right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded in English law as an auxiliary to the long-established natural right of self-defense, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.[34] The English Bill of Rights of 1689 emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants William III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.[35] The bill states that it is acting to restore “ancient rights” trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[36] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was “clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia” and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[37]

    The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. This document states: “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”[38] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[39] Nevertheless, the English Bill of Rights remains an important constitutional document, more for enumerating the rights of Parliament over the monarchy than for its clause concerning a right to have arms.

    The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:

    Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) … by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) … thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) … That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[38]

    The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.[40][41]

    The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as “allowed by law.” This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.[42] There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 1688–89 actually were, and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the English Bill of Rights did not represent new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did “little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed [sic].”[43]Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.[44] In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a natural right of the subject that was “also declared” in the English Bill of Rights.[45][46]

    The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[47]

    Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court decided in Heller). Some in the United States have preferred the “rights” argument arguing that the English Bill of Rights had granted a right. The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question. Peoples all around the world since time immemorial had armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements had been extended to the protection of the state.[48] Without a regular army and police force (which in England was not established until 1829), it had been the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night and to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[49]

    Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

    Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.[50]

    Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]

    • enabling the people to organize a militia system.
    • participating in law enforcement;
    • deterring tyrannical government;[59]
    • repelling invasion;
    • suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[60][61][62]
    • facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

    Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.[63]

    During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, including many who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build up, the British Parliament established an embargo on firearms, parts and ammunition on the American colonies.[64]

    British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone’s summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.[65] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.[65] Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars’ interpretation of Blackstone.[66]

    The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:

    Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[65]

    The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with regular French army and naval forces and various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[67] They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown on an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion.[68] Anti-federalists on the other hand took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Constitutional Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[69][70] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[71]

    Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison “did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.”[72]In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison’s intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[73]

    One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when “the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”.[74] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[75] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:

    [I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[75][76]

    Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[77][78]Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 “the Right of the People to…institute new Government”) and the Constitution of New Hampshire (stating in 1784 that “nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind”).[79]

    There was an ongoing debate beginning in 1789 about “the people” fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of “the people” (as described by the Federalists) related to the increasingly violent French Revolution.[80] A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[81] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[65] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.[82][83]

    Drafting and adoption of the Constitution

    James Madison (left) is known as the “Father of the Constitution” and “Father of the Bill of Rights”[84] while George Mason (right) with Madison is also known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights”[85]
    Patrick Henry (left) believed that a citizenry trained in arms was the only sure guarantor of liberty[86] while Alexander Hamilton (right) wrote in Federalist No. 29 that “little more can be reasonably aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed …”[76]

    In March 1785, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference to fashion a remedy to the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New JerseyNew YorkPennsylvaniaDelaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[87][88]

    • interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
    • sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection;
    • a national militia to repel foreign invaders.

    It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states’ militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[89] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States by doing the following:[90]

    • raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
    • provide and maintain a navy;
    • make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    • provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    • provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

    Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[91] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[92][93] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution’s adoption. This compromisepersuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[94] The Constitution was declared ratified on June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[95] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and was adopted on December 15, 1791.

    Ratification debates

    The debate surrounding the Constitution’s ratification is of practical importance, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.[96]

    The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[97] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[98]though Whitehill’s language was never debated.[99]

    There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states’ reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[100][101]

    In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[102]

    A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is “a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved … Is it possible … that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?”[103] Noah Webster similarly argued:

    Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[104][105]

    George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them … by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[104][106]

    Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights”, which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[107]

    Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[108]

    While both Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed …”[104][109]

    By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

    Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[104]

    Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

    James Madison‘s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[110]

    On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison’s motion,[111] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[112] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[113]

    In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before “shall not be infringed” and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[114]

    By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to “be passed upon distinctly by the States.”[115] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

    A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[116]

    The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words “for the common defence” next to the words “bear arms” was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[117] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

    A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[118]

    On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

    Militia in the decades following ratification

    Ketland brass barrel smooth bore pistol common in Colonial America

    During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[64] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid – held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using billy clubs as their sole defensive weapons.[64] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantesassumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[64] On May 8, 1792, Congress passed “[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States” requiring:

    [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[119]

    The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers “that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound.”[119] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65 percent.[120] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section 2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. And though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[121] None is mentioned in the legislation.[119]

    The Model 1795 Musket was made in the U.S. and used in the War of 1812

    The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[122] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[64] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[64] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and Vice-President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[64] Congress did subsequently pass “[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines” on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[123]Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia’s poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C., and the burning of the White House in 1814.[121]

    Scholarly commentary

    Early commentary

    William Rawle of Pennsylvania (left) was a lawyer and district attorney; Thomas M. Cooleyof Michigan (right) was an educator and judge.
    Joseph Story of Massachusetts (left) became a U.S. Supreme Court justice; Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania (right) was a political economistand delegate to the Continental Congress.

    Richard Henry Lee

    In May of 1788, Richard Henry Lee wrote (Wikiquote link) in Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer #169 or Letter XVIII regarding the definition of a “militia.”

    George Mason

    In June of 1788, George Mason addressed (Wikiquote link) the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding a “militia.”

    Tench Coxe

    In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[124]

    As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[125][126]

    Tucker/Blackstone

    The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone‘s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.[127] Tucker wrote:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty … The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[128]

    In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government” and “whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.” Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”[127] Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker’s annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins.[129]

    Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans “never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”[127]

    William Rawle

    Tucker’s commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of William Rawle in his landmark text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England’s “arbitrary code for the preservation of game,” portraying that country as one that “boasts so much of its freedom,” yet provides a right to “protestant subjects only” that it “cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence” and reserves for “[a] very small proportion of the people[.]”[130] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

    No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[131]

    Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle said:[132]

    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[132][133]

    Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. He did warn, however, that “this right [to bear arms] ought not…be abused to the disturbance of the public peace” and, paraphrasing Coke, observed: “An assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace.”[130]

    Joseph Story

    Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution[134] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment’s clear meaning:

    The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[135][136]

    Story describes a militia as the “natural defence of a free country,” both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a “moral check” against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.[136]

    Lysander Spooner

    Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.[137] Spooner’s theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.[138] An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a “right of resistance” is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.[139]

    The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves.[140]

    Timothy Farrar

    In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was “in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.”:[126][141]

    The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to “life, liberty, and property,” to “keep and bear arms,” to the “writ of habeas corpus” to “trial by jury,” and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

    Judge Thomas Cooley

    Judge Thomas Cooley, perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment,[142][143] and he explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the “right of the people”:

    It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.[144]

    Late 20th century commentary

    Assortment of 20th century handguns

    In the latter half of the 20th century, there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[145] The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”). Scholars advanced three competing theoretical models for how the prefatory clause should be interpreted.[146]

    The first, known as the “states’ rights” or “collective right” model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, citizens “have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard”.[126] Advocates of collective rights models argued that the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias, rather than to secure an individual right to possess firearms.[147] Prior to 2001, every circuit court decision that interpreted the Second Amendment endorsed the “collective right” model.[148][149] However, beginning with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion United States v. Emerson in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.[150]

    The second, known as the “sophisticated collective right model”, held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.[151][152] Some scholars have argued that the “sophisticated collective rights model” is, in fact, the functional equivalent of the “collective rights model.”[153] Other commentators have observed that prior to Emerson, five circuit courts specifically endorsed the “sophisticated collective right model”.[154]

    The third, known as the “standard model”, held that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.[126] Supporters of this model argued that “although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms”.[155] Additionally, scholars who favored this model argued the “absence of founding-era militias mentioned in the Amendment’s preamble does not render it a ‘dead letter’ because the preamble is a ‘philosophical declaration’ safeguarding militias and is but one of multiple ‘civic purposes’ for which the Amendment was enacted”.[156]

    Under both of the collective right models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[157] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[158] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[159] However, under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example – one of many reasons for the amendment.[45] This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[160]

    The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001), along with the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[161] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such linguistic constructions were widely used elsewhere in the late eighteenth century.[162]

    Meaning of “well regulated militia”

    The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”.[163] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[164]

    In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about “organizing”, “disciplining”, “arming”, and “training” of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:

    If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security … confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority … [but] reserving to the states … the authority of training the militia … A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss … Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.[76]

    Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller: “In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the ‘natural right of self-defence’ and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right”:

    Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[165]

    Justice Stevens in dissent:

    When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to p. 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.[166]

    Meaning of “the right of the People”

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

    Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people” – those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[167]

    An earlier case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), dealt with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are “the People” when referred to elsewhere in the Constitution:[168]

    The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people” … While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

    There were several different reasons for this amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them; if protecting militias had been the only reason then the amendment could have instead referred to “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms” instead of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.[169][170]

    Meaning of “keep and bear arms”

    In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term “to bear arms” implies only the military use of arms:

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context – that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[167]

    In a dissent, joined by Justices SouterGinsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

    The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”.[171]

    Supreme Court cases

    In the century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times.[172] The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. A notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside.[173] In the Dred Scott decision, the opinion of the court stated that if African Americans were considered U.S. citizens, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”[174]

    State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the “individual rights” model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the “collective rights” model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The “collective rights” model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.

    The Supreme Court’s primary Second Amendment cases include United States v. Miller, (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

    Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model, the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which militias have historically been armed, as the Supreme Court in Miller said:

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[175]

    Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the Supreme Court in Heller said:

    A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.[176]

    United States v. Cruikshank

    In the Reconstruction Era case of United States v. Cruikshank92 U.S. 542 (1875), the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty black people in what was known as the Colfax massacre and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, “[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States.”[177]

    The Court stated that “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ……”[178] Likewise, the Court held that there was no state action in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:

    The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.[179]

    Thus, the Court held a federal anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute to be unconstitutional as applied in that case.[180]

    Presser v. Illinois

    In Presser v. Illinois116 U.S. 252 (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with the declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as a violation of Illinois law that prohibited public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the governor.[64][181]

    At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right “cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.” This decision upheld the States’ authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.[64] However the court said: “A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force.”[182]

    Miller v. Texas

    In Miller v. Texas153 U.S. 535 (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death with an illegally carried handgun in violation of Texas law. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law:[64] “As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law.”[183]

    Robertson v. Baldwin

    In Robertson v. Baldwin165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated in dicta that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment:

    The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.[184]

    United States v. Miller

    In United States v. Miller307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons:

    Jack Miller and Frank Layton “did unlawfully … transport in interstate commerce from … Claremore … Oklahoma to … Siloam Springs … Arkansas a certain firearm … a double barrel … shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length … at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce … not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code … and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order … as provided by Section 1132C …”[185]

    In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated “the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.”[186] As the Court explained:

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[187]

    Gun rights advocates claim that the Court in Miller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of “ordinary military equipment.”[188] They also claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon’s suitability for the “common defense.”[189] Law professor Andrew McClurg states, “The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact.”[190]

    District of Columbia v. Heller

    Judgment

    The Justices who decided Heller

    According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,[191] in District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:[191][192]

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp. 2–53.[191][192]

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. pp. 2–22.[191][192]
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. pp. 22–28.[191][192]
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. pp. 28–30.[191][192]
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. pp. 30–32.[191][192]
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.[191][192]
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp. 47–54.[191][192]
    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. pp. 54–56.[191][192]
    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. pp. 56–64.[192]

    There are similar legal summaries of the Supreme Court’s findings in Heller.[193][194][195][196][197][198] For example, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up Heller’s findings and reasoning:

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever “in-depth examination” of the second amendment’s meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (id. at 592); that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense” (id. at 628); that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” (id. at 628); and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[199]

    Notes and analysis

    Heller has been widely described as a landmark decision.[200][201][202][203][204] To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said:[205]

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[206]

    The Court’s statement that the right is limited has been widely discussed by lower courts and the media.[207][208][209][210][211] The majority opinion also said that the amendment’s prefatory clause (referencing the “militia”) serves to clarify the operative clause (referencing “the people”), but does not limit the scope of the operative clause, because “the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’….”[212]

    Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said:

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.[213]

    Stevens went on to say the following:

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.[214]

    This dissent called the majority opinion “strained and unpersuasive” and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation. In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens’ interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms” was referred to as a “hybrid” definition that Stevens purportedly chose in order to avoid an “incoherent” and “[g]rotesque” idiomatic meeting.[214]

    Justice Breyer, in his own dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that “the amendment protects an ‘individual’ right – i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred”.[215]

    Regarding the term “well regulated”, the majority opinion said, “The adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[164] The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[216] The majority opinion also stated that:

    A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.[217]

    The dissenting justices were not persuaded by this argument.[218]

    Reaction to Heller has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision.[192] The majority opinion made clear that the recent ruling did not foreclose the Court’s prior interpretations given in United States v. CruikshankPresser v. Illinois, and United States v. Miller though these earlier rulings did not limit the right to keep and bear arms solely to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia (i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes).[192]

    Heller pertained to three District of Columbia ordinances involving restrictions on firearms amounting to a total ban. These three ordinances were a ban on handgun registration, a requirement that all firearms in a home be either disassembled or have a trigger lock, and licensing requirement that prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, such as from one room to another.

    Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster…. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the District’s licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumed that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and did not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”[192]

    Justice Ginsburg has been a vocal critic of Heller. Speaking in an interview on public radio station WNYC, she called the Second Amendment “outdated,” saying:

    When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function … If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only – and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.[219]

    McDonald v. City of Chicago

    On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), held that the Second Amendment was incorporated, saying that “[i]t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”[220] This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[14] It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five Justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth Justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.[221]

    Justice Thomas noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to “citizens” whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any “person”, and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision.[222] After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause.[222]

    In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

    Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[199]

    Caetano v. Massachusetts

    On March 21, 2016, in a per curiam decision the Court vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self defense. The Court reiterated that the Heller and McDonald decisions saying 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”, that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”, and that the protection is not restricted to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.[15][223]

    United States Courts of Appeals decisions before and after Heller

    Before Heller

    Until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), United States v. Miller (1939) had been the only Supreme Court decision that “tested a congressional enactment against [the Second Amendment].”[224] Miller did not directly mention either a collective or individual right, but for the 62-year period from Miller until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson (2001), federal courts recognized only the collective right,[225] with “courts increasingly referring to one another’s holdings…without engaging in any appreciably substantive legal analysis of the issue”.[224]

    Emerson changed this by addressing the question in depth, with the Fifth Circuit determining that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[224] Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit conflicted with Emerson in Silviera v. Lockyer, and the D.C. Circuit supported Emerson in Parker v. District of Columbia.[224] Parker evolved into District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

    After Heller

    Since Heller, the United States courts of appeals have ruled on many Second Amendment challenges to convictions and gun control laws.[226][227] The following are post-Heller cases, divided by Circuit, along with summary notes:

    D.C. Circuit

    • Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 – On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures, the prohibition on assault weapons, and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.[228] On September 18, 2015, the D.C. Circuit ruled that requiring gun owners to re-register a gun every three years, make a gun available for inspection or pass a test about firearms laws violated the Second Amendment, although the court upheld requirements that gun owners be fingerprinted, photographed, and complete a safety training course.[229]
    • Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 – On July 25, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled that a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a “good reason” to carry a handgun in public was essentially designed to prevent the exercise of the right to bear arms by most District residents and so violated the Second Amendment by amounting to a complete prohibition on firearms possession.[230]

    First Circuit

    • United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) – On August 31, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the conviction of a juvenile for the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 5032, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights under Heller. The court cited “the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns” and observed “the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms – those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public.”[231]

    Second Circuit

    • Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 11-3942 – On November 28, 2012, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s may-issue concealed carry permit law, ruling that “the proper cause requirement is substantially related to New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention.”[232]

    Fourth Circuit

    • United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2009) – On August 4, 2008, the Fourth Circuit upheld as constitutional the prohibition of possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.[233]
    • United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) – On December 30, 2010, the Fourth Circuit vacated William Chester’s conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).[234] The court found that the district court erred in perfunctorily relying on Heller’s exception for “presumptively lawful” gun regulations made in accordance with “longstanding prohibitions”.[235]
    • Kolbe v. Hogan, No. 14-1945 (4th Cir. 2016) – On February 4, 2016, the Fourth Circuit vacated a U.S. District Court decision upholding a Maryland law banning high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles, ruling that the District Court was wrong to have applied intermediate scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the higher strict scrutiny standard is to be applied on remand.[236] On March 4, 2016, the court agreed to rehear the case en banc on May 11, 2016.[237]

    Fifth Circuit

    • United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) – On June 30, 2008, the Fifth Circuit upheld 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l), which bans weapons on postal property, sustaining restrictions on guns outside the home, specifically in private vehicles parked in employee parking lots of government facilities, despite Second Amendment claims that were dismissed. The employee’s Second Amendment rights were not infringed since the employee could have instead parked across the street in a public parking lot, instead of on government property.[238][239]
    • United States v. Bledsoe, 334 Fed. Appx. 771 (5th Cir. 2009) – The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of a U.S. District Court decision in Texas, upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits “straw purchases.” A “straw purchase” occurs when someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a strict scrutiny standard of review.[233]
    • United States v. Scroggins, 551 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2010) – On March 4, 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Ernie Scroggins for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court noted that it had, prior to Heller, identified the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, and had already, likewise, determined that restrictions on felon ownership of firearms did not violate this right. Moreover, it observed that Heller did not affect the longstanding prohibition of firearm possession by felons.

    Sixth Circuit

    • Tyler v. Hillsdale Co. Sheriff’s Dept., 775 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2014) – On December 18, 2014, the Sixth Circuit ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to firearms regulations when regulations burden “conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment right, as historically understood.”[240] At issue in this case was whether the Second Amendment is violated by a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits possession of a firearm by a person who has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. The court did not rule on the provision’s constitutionality, instead remanding the case to the United States district court that has earlier heard this case.[241] On April 21, 2015, the Sixth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc, thereby vacating the December 18 opinion.[242]

    Seventh Circuit

    • United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2009) – Steven Skoien, a Wisconsin man convicted of two misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, appealed his conviction based on the argument that the prohibition violated the individual rights to bear arms, as described in Heller. After initial favorable rulings in lower court based on a standard of intermediate scrutiny,[243] on July 13, 2010, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled 10–1 against Skoien and reinstated his conviction for a gun violation, citing the strong relation between the law in question and the government objective.[243] Skoien was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison for the gun violation, and will thus likely be subject to a lifetime ban on gun ownership.[244][245] Editorials favoring gun rights sharply criticized this ruling as going too far with the enactment of a lifetime gun ban,[246] while editorials favoring gun regulations praised the ruling as “a bucket of cold water thrown on the ‘gun rights’ celebration”.[247]
    • Moore v. Madigan (Circuit docket 12-1269)[248] – On December 11, 2012, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. This was an expansion of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald, each of which referred only to such a right in the home. Based on this ruling, the court declared Illinois’s ban on the concealed carrying of firearms to be unconstitutional. The court stayed this ruling for 180 days, so Illinois could enact replacement legislation.[249][250][251] On February 22, 2013, a petition for rehearing en banc was denied by a vote of 5-4.[252] On July 9, 2013, the Illinois General Assembly, overriding Governor Quinn’s veto, passed a law permitting the concealed carrying of firearms.[253]

    Ninth Circuit

    • Nordyke v. King, 2012 WL 1959239 (9th Cir. 2012) – On July 29, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated an April 20 panel decision and reheard the case en banc on September 24, 2009.[254][255][256][257] The April 20 decision had held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, while upholding an Alameda County, California ordinance that makes it a crime to bring a gun or ammunition on to, or possess either while on, county property.[258][259] The en banc panel remanded the case to the three-judge panel. On May 2, 2011, that panel ruled that intermediate scrutiny was the correct standard by which to judge the ordinance’s constitutionality and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[260] On November 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the panel’s May 2 decision and agreed to rehear the case en banc.[261][262] On April 4, 2012, the panel sent the case to mediation.[263] The panel dismissed the case on June 1, 2012, but only after Alameda County officials changed their interpretation of the challenged ordinance. Under the new interpretation, gun shows may take place on county property under the ordinance’s exception for “events”, subject to restrictions regarding the display and handling of firearms.[264]
    • Teixeira v. County of Alameda, (Circuit docket 13-17132) – On May 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the right to keep and bear arms included being able to buy and sell firearms. The court ruled that a county law prohibiting a gun store being within 500 feet of a “[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served” violated the Second Amendment.[265]

    See also

    Notes and citations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 834, February 8, 2017, Story 1: President Trump’s Order To John Kelly, Department of Homeland Security, –“Secure the Borders” — Pause For Vigorous Vetting — Videos — Story 2: Senator Warren Defames and Lies As Did Coretta Scott King In Her Letter About Senator Sessions — Rule 19 — Objection — Senator Take You Seat — Three Cheers! — Story 3: Awaiting 9th Circuit Three Judge Panel Decision –Videos

Posted on February 8, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, College, Communications, Congress, Consitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Empires, Employment, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Libya, Life, Media, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Polls, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Security, Senate, Social Science, Somalia, Success, Sudan, Syria, Taxation, Taxes, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom, Yemen | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 834: February 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10,  2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Story 1: President Trump’s Order To John Kelly, Department of Homeland Security, –“Secure the Borders” — Pause For Vigorous Vetting — Videos —

Image result for john kelly dhs

Image result for cartoons about ban travel 7 countriesImage result for john kelly dhs
Image result for john kelly dhs

Image result for john kelly dhs

President Trump Interview With Bill O’Reilly Super Bowl Sunday

DHS: Trump’s travel ban is necessary, lawful

DHS Secretary John Kelly: ‘This Is All On Me’…Should Have Talked To Congress About Immigration Order

Published on Feb 7, 2017

The abrupt rollout of President Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending immigration from seven terror-prone countries “is all on me,” Homeland Security Secretary Jack Kelly told a congressional hearing on Tuesday. Although the executive order was developed before his confirmation, Kelly told the House Homeland Security Committee that just after his inauguration, he met with his (small) staff and made some changes. The order took effect on Friday evening, and “the thinking was to get it out quick,” so people with bad intentions would not have time to “jump on an airplane and get here.”

Kelly told the committee, “In retrospect, I should have — this is all on me, by the way — I should have delayed it just a bit, so that I could talk to members of Congress, particularly the leadership of committees like this, to prepare them for what was coming, although I think most people would agree that this has been a topic of President Trump, certainly during his campaign and during the transition process.” Kelly also noted that as Customs and Border Patrol officials began to implement the order, adjustments were quickly made to “fine-tune it.”

“Although the immigration pause has been an “inconvenience,” Kelly said everyone delayed or denied entry was treated “humanely.” He denied reports that people were made to stand up for hours on end or that people were insulted. “But going forward, I would have certainly taken some time to inform the Congress, and that’s certainly — that’s something I’ll certainly do in the future.” Kelly said the Trump administration is not contemplating adding additional countries to the list of seven, but the administration is looking at additional vetting processes to be sure they know who is coming into the country.

Homeland Secretary John Kelly I should have consulted Congress on travel ban

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly Defends Travel Ban

Kelly: ‘Thousands’ Of ISIS Could Enter US; 2-7-2017

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly testifies before a congressional committee on US border security, explaining that Islamic terrorists have access to fake documents (and counterfeit document production tools) to enter Europe and then the US.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly Testifies on Border Security. Feb. 7. 2017.

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly will appear before the House Homeland Security Committee w

FULL – Homeland Security Nominee General John Kelly CRUSHES IT at Confirmation Hearing

Gen Kelly Briefs Press on SOUTHCOM Issues

Gen Kelly Briefs Pentagon Press

Published on Mar 12, 2015

℠2015 – General John Kelly, Commander of U.S. Southern Command briefs the Pentagon press corps on issues such as fiscal readiness, the drug trade, and terrorism.

2014 California Gold Star Parents – General John F. Kelly, USMC – Full Version

Donald Trump launches blistering attack on judges in ‘disgraceful’ travel ban hearing and calls it ‘a sad day’

Watch | Donald Trump launches blistering attack on judges

 By 

Donald Trump has angrily denounced the three judges hearing his travel ban appeal, describing the process as “disgraceful” and saying it was a “sad day” for the United States.

Addressing a conference of police chiefs, Mr Trump told the crowd he had listened to Tuesday’s hearing with dismay.

“I won’t say the court was biased. But so political,” he said.

Mr Trump attempted to litigate the case himself, reading at length from a document and commenting on how it proved the legal foundations of his travel ban – which was halted on Friday.

Mr Trump went on: “I listened to lawyers on both sides last night, they were talking about things that had nothing to do with it.

“It’s so sad when you read something so perfectly written and so clear to anybody. I watched last night in amazement and I heard things I couldn’t believe.

“I don’t ever want to call a court biased so I won’t call it biased, and we haven’t had a decision yet, but courts seem to be so political. “But it would be so great for our sysem if they could read something and do what’s right.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/donald-trump-dismisses-travel-ban-hearing-politics-us-waits/

Homeland Security secretary says a border wall won’t be built all at once

The nation’s top Homeland Security official portrayed himself Tuesday as a steward of President Trump’s vision for border security as he laid out a path to fruition for some of Trump’s most bombastic campaign promises.

In his first appearance on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly described plans for safeguards along the border that were more piecemeal than the “big, beautiful wall” Trump has touted.

Kelly said his agency would first build sections of wall and fencing where border agents see an immediate need and fill in gaps with ground sensors, surveillance blimps and other technologies that help detect illegal border crossings, emphasizing that the government lives in “a world of finite time [and] resources.”

“We’re not going to be able to build a wall everywhere all at once,” Kelly told the House Homeland Security Committee, adding that Border Patrol agents told him they preferred barriers they could see through rather than a solid wall.

But Kelly also said measures for the “extreme vetting” of travelers were under consideration that go further than visa officers ever have. The Homeland Security Department may demand that some visa applicants trying to enter legally hand over passwords to their social media accounts before flying to the U.S.

“They don’t want to cooperate, they don’t come in,” Kelly said.

In three hours of testimony, Kelly filled in specifics on several national security goals Trump has broadly set. And like a soldier carrying out orders, Kelly, a retired Marine general, shouldered the blame for the haphazard rollout of the president’s order temporarily blocking entry for refugees and all travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, even though he was largely left out of crafting the decree.

“The thinking was to get it out quick so that potentially people that might be coming here to harm us would not take advantage of some period of time that they could jump on an airplane,” Kelly said.

In retrospect, he said, “I should have delayed it just a bit” to prepare lawmakers and the public for the changes that were coming.

The confusion surrounding its implementation is “all on me,” Kelly said, putting himself in the awkward position of apologizing for the execution of a directive he didn’t see until the week it was issued and wasn’t told was coming until the day before it was signed.

Live coverage: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing over Trump’s travel bans »

The writing of Trump’s order was limited chiefly to a handful of senior White House advisors, including Stephen K. Bannon and Stephen Miller, and agency lawyers. Lawmakers of both parties condemned the White House over its implementation.

The White House officials who directed the rollout should have come before the committee to “answer for this debacle” rather than Kelly, said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the panel.

Even committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who advised Trump on the travel restrictions during the transition and defended the president’s decision to implement them, criticized how the directive was put into action.

“The rollout of this executive order has been problematic. It has caused confusion here in Congress, across the country and around the world,” McCaul said.

Homeland Security officials were forced in the hours after the order was signed to scramble to issue instructions to border agents. Amid the uncertainty, some border agents blocked lawful permanent residents from entering the country.

Kelly defended his department’s work and insisted that Customs and Border Protection officers were not to blame for the chaos that unfolded at airports, saying the turmoil was not in immigration lines but in arrival halls flooded with protesters and frustrated relatives of people blocked by the order.

Civil liberties advocates and Democrats have criticized the president’s order as unfairly targeting Muslims, pointing to Trump’s repeated calls during the campaign to block Muslims from the U.S.

A lawsuit attempting to overturn Trump’s travel ban appeared to be on the fast track to the Supreme Court. Judges on the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday.

Travelers from the countries targeted by Trump’s temporary ban — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — have hurried to board flights to the U.S. during what might be a brief window to enter the country while the legal challenges play out.

McCaul was adamant the order didn’t target a religious group. “This is not a Muslim ban, and even the suggestion that it is will alienate our allies and embolden” terrorists, he said.

Nonetheless, the administration is also looking at ways to step up background checks on citizens from the seven countries before they travel, such as demanding social media account passwords, Kelly said. Most of those nations have unreliable police forces or lack identity systems to help confirm travelers are who they say they are, he said.

“It is very hard to truly vet these people in these countries,” Kelly said.

Trump’s Jan. 27 order also required the Homeland Security Department to give him a list within 30 days of other countries that do not provide adequate information to border officials, but the agency has stopped work on that part of the order while the courts review it.

“There is no additional list,” Kelly said after the hearing.

Kelly also laid out for lawmakers the lengthy timeline needed to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. Kelly said he wanted to see construction of a wall “well underway” within two years. Costs have been estimated at $12 billion to $38 billion.

And echoing White House complaints, Kelly strongly denied a report in the Washington Post that Bannon had asked him to keep in place the temporary ban on green-card holders being allowed into the U.S.

“Every paragraph, every sentence … was wrong,” Kelly said. “It was a fantasy story.”

Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) asked whether Kelly had concerns about political advisors pressuring him to act.

“I work for one man. His name is Donald Trump,” Kelly said. “He has told me one thing: ‘Secure the border.’”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kelly-travel-ban-20170207-story.html

John F. Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named John F. Kelly, see John F. Kelly (disambiguation).
John F. Kelly
John Kelly official DHS portrait.jpg
5th United States Secretary of Homeland Security
Assumed office
January 20, 2017
President Donald Trump
Preceded by Jeh Johnson
Commander of the United States Southern Command
In office
November 19, 2012 – January 16, 2016
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Douglas Fraser
Succeeded by Kurt Tidd
Personal details
Born John Francis Kelly
May 11, 1950 (age 66)
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.
Spouse(s) Karen Hernest
Children 3
Education University of Massachusetts, Boston(BA)
Georgetown University(MA)
National Defense University(MS)
Military service
Allegiance  United States
Service/branch  United States Marine Corps
Years of service 1970–1972
1972–1976 (inactive reserves)
1976–2016
Rank US Marine 10 shoulderboard.svgGeneral
Commands United States Southern Command
1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion
Multinational Force West
Battles/wars Persian Gulf War
Operation Desert Storm
Iraq War
1992 Los Angeles Riots
Awards Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit (2) with Valor

John Francis Kelly (born May 11, 1950) is the fifth and current United States Secretary of Homeland Security. He is a retired United States Marine Corpsgeneral and the former commander of United States Southern Command, the Unified Combatant Command responsible for American military operations in Central America, South America and the Caribbean. Kelly previously served as the commanding general of the Multi-National Force—West in Iraq from February 2008 to February 2009, and as the commander of Marine Forces Reserve and Marine Forces North in October 2009.[1] Kelly succeeded General Douglas M. Fraser as commander of U.S. Southern Command on November 19, 2012.[2] Kelly was succeeded by Navy Admiral Kurt W. Tidd on January 14, 2016.

Kelly became Secretary of Homeland Security in January 2017 under PresidentDonald Trump.

Early life and education

Kelly was born on May 11, 1950 in Boston, Massachusetts into an Irish Catholic family.[3][4] He grew up in the Brighton neighborhood of Boston.[4] Before he reached the age of 16, he hitchhiked to Washington State and rode the trains back, including a freight-hop from Seattle to Chicago.[4][5] He then served for one year as a United States Merchant Marine, where he says “my first time overseas was taking 10,000 tons of beer to Vietnam“.[6][5]

In 1970, when his mother told him that his draft number was coming up, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps.[3][4][5] He was discharged from active duty as a sergeant in 1972, after serving in an infantry company with the 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.[3][4][5] He was commissioned on December 27, 1975[3] as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps via Officer Candidates School.[1] In 1976, he graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston and, in 1984, he received a Master of Science degree in National Security Studies from the Georgetown School of Foreign Service.[3][7]

Career

Kelly returned to the Second Marine Division where he served as a rifle and weapons platoon commander, company executive officer, assistant operations officer, and infantry company commander. Sea duty in Mayport, Florida, followed, at which time he served aboard aircraft carriers USS Forrestal (CV-59) and USS Independence (CV-62). In 1980, then-Captain Kelly attended the U.S. Army’s Infantry Officer Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Georgia. After graduation, he was assigned to Headquarters Marine Corps in Washington, D.C., serving there from 1981 through 1984, as an assignment monitor. Kelly returned to the Second Marine Division in 1984, to command a rifle and weapons company. Promoted to major in 1987, he then served as a battalion operations officer.[1]

Kelly’s official U.S. Southern Command portrait

In 1987, Kelly transferred to the Basic School in Quantico, Virginia, serving first as the head of the Offensive Tactics Section, Tactics Group, and later assuming the duties of the Director of the Infantry Officer Course. After three years of instructing young officers, he attended the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and the School for Advanced Warfare, both located at Quantico.[1]

Completing duty under instruction and selected for lieutenant colonel, he was assigned as commanding officer, 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (1st LAR), 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, California. During his tenure, 1st LAR was called in to provide augmentation support for police in the city of Long Beach, California during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. Holding this command position for two years, Kelly returned to the East Coast in 1994, to attend the National War College in Washington, D.C. He graduated in 1995 and was selected to serve as the Commandant‘s Liaison Officer to the U.S. House of Representatives, Capitol Hill, where he was promoted to colonel.[1]

Kelly testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee

In 1999, Kelly transferred to joint duty and served as the special assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, in Mons, Belgium. He returned to the United States in 2001 and was assigned to a third tour of duty at Camp Lejeune, now as the assistant chief of staff G-3 with the Second Marine Division. In 2002, Kelly again served with the 1st Marine Division, this time as the assistant division commander. Much of Kelly’s two-year assignment was spent deployed in Iraq.[1] In March 2003, while in Iraq, Kelly was promoted to brigadier general, which was the first known promotion of a Marine Corps colonel in an active combat zone since that of another First Marine Division assistant division commander, Chesty Puller, in January 1951.[8]

In mid-April Gen. Kelly took command of the newly formed Task Force Tripoli and drove it north from Baghdad into Samarra and Tikrit.[9] During the initial assault on Baghdad, Kelly was asked by a reporter of The Los Angeles Times if (considering the size of the Iraqi Army and the vast supplies of tanks, artillery and chemical weapons available to Saddam’s forces) if he would ever consider defeat. Kelly’s archetypal response was, “Hell these are Marines. Men like them held Guadalcanal and took Iwo Jima. Baghdad ain’t shit.” [10]

Kelly briefing reporters at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia

His next assignment was as legislative assistant to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Michael Hagee. In January 2007 Kelly was nominated for major general,[11] and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 11, 2007.[12]

Kelly’s next assignment, in July 2007, was as commanding general, I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward).[13] On February 9, 2008 Kelly assumed command of the Multi-National Force–West in Iraq, replacing Major General Walter E. Gaskin.[14] After a year in Iraq Kelly returned to the States in February 2009.[15]

Kelly was the senior military assistant to the Secretary of Defense and personally greeted Secretary Panetta at the entrance to the Pentagon on July 1, 2011, Panetta’s first day as secretary.[16] Kelly succeeded General Douglas M. Fraser as commander of U.S. Southern Command on November 19, 2012.[2]

In a 2014 speech regarding the War on Terror, Kelly said:

“If you think this war against our way of life is over because some of the self-appointed opinion-makers and chattering class grow ‘war weary,’ because they want to be out of Iraq or Afghanistan, you are mistaken. This enemy is dedicated to our destruction. He will fight us for generations, and the conflict will move through various phases as it has since 9/11.”[17]

Kelly was succeeded by Navy Admiral Kurt W. Tidd on January 14, 2016.

Secretary of Homeland Security

Kelly is ceremonially sworn in prior to President Trump’s speech at DHS Headquarters on January 25, 2017. Kelly was actually sworn in a five days earlier.

On December 7, 2016, then President-electDonald Trump nominated Kelly to head the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a cabinet-level position.[18] People familiar with the transition said that Trump’s team was drawn to Kelly because of his southwest border expertise.[19] On January 20, 2017, Kelly was confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security by the United States Senate with a vote of 88-11.[20] On that evening, he was sworn in by Vice PresidentMike Pence.[21]

Personal life

In 1976, Kelly married Karen Hernest. They had three children: Robert M, John Jr, and Kathleen.[22]

In 2010, Kelly’s 29-year-old son, First Lieutenant Robert Kelly, was killed in action when he stepped on a landmine while leading a platoon of Marines on a patrol in Sangin, Afghanistan. The younger Kelly was a former enlisted Marine and was on his third combat tour, and his first combat tour as a U.S. Marine Corps infantry officer. At the time of his death, Robert Kelly was with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines. Robert Kelly’s death made John Kelly the highest-ranking military officer to lose a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan.[23] Kelly’s other son is a Marine Corps major.[24][25][26]

Awards and decorations

Combat Distinguishing Device.pngAward star (gold).png
Gold star

Award star (gold).pngAward star (gold).pngAward star (gold).png
Bronze oak leaf cluster

Bronze-service-star-3d.pngBronze-service-star-3d.png Bronze-service-star-3d.pngBronze-service-star-3d.png
Bronze star

Bronze-service-star-3d.pngBronze-service-star-3d.pngBronze-service-star-3d.png
Bronze-service-star-3d.pngBronze-service-star-3d.pngBronze-service-star-3d.pngBronze-service-star-3d.png Order of San Carlos - Grand Officer (Colombia) - ribbon bar.png
Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge.png
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal Legion of Merit w/ 1 award star and Combat V Meritorious Service Medal w/ 1 award star Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal w/ 3 award stars
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal Combat Action Ribbon Presidential Unit Citation (United States) Joint Meritorious Unit Award w/ 1 oak leaf cluster
Navy Unit Commendation Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation w/ 2 service stars Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal National Defense Service Medal w/ 2 service stars
Southwest Asia Service Medal w/ 1 service star Iraq Campaign Medal w/ 3 service stars Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbon w/ 4 service stars Navy & Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon Grand Officer of the Order of San Carlos (Colombia)[27] Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait)
Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge

See also

Immigration policy of Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Illegal immigration was a signature issue of President Donald Trump‘s presidential campaign, and his proposed reforms and remarks about this issue have generated headlines.[1] A hallmark promise of his campaign was to build a substantial wall on the United States-Mexico border. Trump has also expressed support for a variety of “limits on legal immigration and guest-worker visas”,[1][2] including a “pause” on granting green cards, which Trump says will “allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages”.[3][4][5] Trump’s proposals regarding H-1B visas have frequently changed throughout his presidential campaign, but as of late July 2016, he appears to oppose the H-1B visa program.[6] Trump has questioned official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the United States (between 11 and 12 million), insisting the number is much higher (between 30 and 34 million).

Positions on immigration

Trump has questioned official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the United States (between 11 and 12 million), asserting that the number is actually between 30 and 34 million.[7] PolitiFact ruled that his statement was “Pants on Fire”, citing experts who noted that no evidence supported an estimate in that range.[7] For example, the Pew Research Center reported in March 2015 that the number of illegal immigrants overall declined from 12.2 million in 2007 to 11.2 million in 2012. The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. labor force ranged from 8.1 million to 8.3 million between 2007 and 2012, approximately 5% of the U.S. labor force.[8]

Birthright citizenship

Trump proposes rolling back birthright citizenship – a historically broadened interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens – so as not to grant citizenship to US-born children of illegal immigrants (whom he refers to as “anchor babies“). The mainstream view of the Fourteenth Amendment among legal experts is that everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parents’ citizenship, is automatically an American citizen. [9][10]

Kate’s Law

Trump during his campaign promised to ask Congress to pass Kate’s Law to ensure that criminal aliens convicted of illegal reentry receive strong, mandatory minimum sentences. The law is named after Kate Steinle who was allegedly shot and killed in July 2015 by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who was deported by from the US a total of five times.[11]

A law authored in the House was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on July 29, 2015.[12] The Senate version of the bill was filibustered by the senate in July 2016.[13][14]

Border security

Trump has emphasized U.S. border security and illegal immigration to the United States as a campaign issue.[15][16] During his announcement speech he stated in part, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems…. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”[17] On July 6, 2015, Trump issued a written statement[18] to clarify his position on illegal immigration, which drew a reaction from critics. It read in part:

The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc. This was evident just this week when, as an example, a young woman in San Francisco was viciously killed by a 5-time deported Mexican with a long criminal record, who was forced back into the United States because they didn’t want him in Mexico. This is merely one of thousands of similar incidents throughout the United States. In other words, the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government. The largest suppliers of heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs are Mexican cartels that arrange to have Mexican immigrants trying to cross the borders and smuggle in the drugs. The Border Patrol knows this. Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico and, in fact, for many other parts of the world. On the other hand, many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally. I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me … and, just like our country, my organization is better for it.”[19]

A study published in Social Science Quarterly in May 2016 tested Trump’s claim that immigrants are responsible for higher levels of violent and drug-related crime in the United States.[20] It found no evidence that links Mexican or illegal Mexican immigrants specifically to violent or drug-related crime.[20] It did however find a small but significant association between illegal immigrant populations (including non-Mexican illegal immigrants) and drug-related arrests.[20]

In addition to his proposals to construct a border wall (see below), Trump has called for tripling the number of Border Patrol agents.[21]

U.S.–Mexico border wall proposal

Main article: Executive Order 13767
Further information: Mexico–United States barrier

Trump speaking about his immigration policy in Phoenix, Arizona, August 31, 2016.

Trump has repeatedly pledged to build a wall along the U.S.’s southern border, and has said that Mexico would pay for its construction through increased border-crossing fees and NAFTA tariffs.[22] In his speech announcing his candidacy, Trump pledged to “build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”[23][24] Trump also said “nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively.”[24] The concept for building a barrier to keep illegal immigrants out of the U.S. is not new; 670 miles of fencing (about one-third of the border) was erected under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, at a cost of $2.4 billion.[24] Trump said later that his proposed wall would be “a real wall. Not a toy wall like we have now.”[25] In his 2015 book, Trump cites the Israeli West Bank barrier as a successful example of a border wall.[26] “Trump has at times suggested building a wall across the nearly 2,000-mile border and at other times indicated more selective placement.”[27] After a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on August 31, 2016, Trump said that they “didn’t discuss” who would pay for the border wall that Trump has made a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.[28] Nieto contradicted that later that day, saying that he at the start of the meeting “made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall”.[29] Later that day, Trump reiterated his position that Mexico will pay to build an “impenetrable” wall on the Southern border.[30]

John Cassidy of The New Yorker wrote that Trump is “the latest representative of an anti-immigrant, nativist American tradition that dates back at least to the Know-Nothings” of the 1840s and 1850s.[31] Trump says “it was legal immigrants who made America great,”[32] that the Latinos who have worked for him have been “unbelievable people”, and that he wants a wall between the U.S. and Mexico to have a “big, beautiful door” for people to come legally and feel welcomed in the United States.[33]

According to experts and analyses, the actual cost to construct a wall along the remaining 1,300 miles of the border could be as high as $16 million per mile, with a total cost of up to $25 billion, with the cost of private land acquisitions and fence maintenance pushing up the total cost further.[27] Maintenance of the wall cost could up to $750 million a year, and if the Border Patrol agents were to patrol the wall, additional funds would have to be expended.[27] Rough and remote terrain on many parts of the border, such as deserts and mountains, would make construction and maintenance of a wall expensive, and such terrain may be a greater deterrent than a wall in any case.[27] Experts also note that on federally protected wilderness areas and Native American reservations, the Department of Homeland Security may have only limited construction authority, and a wall could cause environmental damage.[27]

Critics of Trump’s plan question whether a wall would be effective at stopping unauthorized crossings, noting that walls are of limited use unless they are patrolled by agents and to intercept those climbing over or tunneling under the wall.[27] Experts also note that approximately half of illegal immigrants in the U.S. did not surreptitiously enter, but rather “entered through official crossing points, either by overstaying visas, using fraudulent documents, or being smuggled past the border”.[27]

Mass deportation of illegal immigrants

Foreign born in US labor-force 1900-2015. Approximately 8 million of the foreign-born in the labor force were illegal immigrants in 2012.

Early in his campaign, in 2015, Trump proposed the mass deportation of illegal immigrants.[34][35][36] During his first town hall campaign meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, Trump said that if he were to win the election, then on “[d]ay 1 of my presidency, illegal immigrants are getting out and getting out fast”.[37]In June 2016, he stated that he would not characterize his immigration policies as including “mass deportations”.[38][39][40] However, on August 31, 2016, contrary to earlier reports of a “softening” in his stance[22][41][42][43][44], Trump laid out a 10-step plan reaffirming his hardline positions. He reiterated that all illegal immigrants are “subject to deportation” with priority given to illegal immigrants who have committed significant crimes and those who have overstayed visas. He noted that all those seeking legalization would have to go home and re-enter the country legally. [30][45]

Trump’s proposals for deportation also include a “Deportation Force”, modeled after the 1950s-era “Operation Wetback” program during the Eisenhower administration that ended following a congressional investigation.[46][36][46] Historian Mae Ngai of Columbia University, who has studied the program, has said that the military-style operation was both inhumane and ineffective.[36][46] Trump has said of his proposal: “We would do it in a very humane way.”[35]

According to a Washington Post analysis, if Trump’s criteria for immediate deportation as of September 2016 are met, the number of individuals prioritized for removal by ICE agents would range between about 5.0 and 6.5 million.[47] Analysts also noted that Trump’s mass-deportation plan would encounter legal and logistical difficulties, since U.S. immigration courts already face large backlogs.[35] Such a program would also impose a fiscal cost; the fiscally conservative American Action Forum policy group estimates that deporting every illegal immigrant would cause a slump of $381.5 billion to $623.2 billion in private sector output, amounting to roughly a loss of 2% of U.S. GDP.[48]Doug Holtz-Eakin, the group’s president, has said that the mass deportation of 11 million people would “harm the economy in ways it would normally not be harmed”.[35]

Proposed Muslim immigration ban

Trump frequently revised proposals to ban Muslim immigration to the United States in the course of his presidential campaign.[6] In late July 2016, NBC News characterized his position as: “Ban all Muslims, and maybe other people from countries with a history of terrorism, but just don’t say ‘Muslims’.”[6](Rudy Giuliani said on Fox News that Trump tasked him to craft a “Muslim ban” and asked Giuliani to form a committee to show him “the right way to do it legally”.[49][50] The committee, which included former U.S. Attorney General and Chief Judge of the Southern District of New YorkMichael Mukasey, and Reps. Mike McCaul and Peter T. King, decided to drop the religious basis and instead focused on regions where Giuliani says that there is “substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists” to the United States.[50])

Trump proposed a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States (the U.S. admits approximately 100,000 Muslim immigrants each year)[51] “until we can figure out what’s going on” in December 2015.[52][53][54][55] In response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, Trump released a statement on “Preventing Muslim Immigration” and called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on”.[56] Trump clarified how this would work in an interview with Willie Geist on in December 2015:

Geist: “Would airline representatives, customs agents or border guards ask a person’s religion?”
Trump: “They would say: ‘Are you Muslim?'”
Geist: “And if they said, ‘yes’, they would not be allowed in the country?”
Trump: “That’s correct.”[57]

Trump cited President Franklin Delano Roosevelt‘s use during World War II of the Alien and Sedition Acts to issue presidential proclamations for rounding up, holding, and deporting German, Japanese, and Italian alien immigrants, and noted that Roosevelt was highly respected and had highways named after him.[58][59][60][61] Trump stated that he did not agree with Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans, and clarified that the proposal would not apply to Muslims who were U.S. citizens or to Muslims who were serving in the U.S. military.[62][63] The measure proposed by Trump would be temporary,[53] until better screening methods are devised,[54] although the proposal had also been phrased in more controversial ways.[55]

In May 2016, Trump retreated slightly from his call for a Muslim ban, calling it “merely an idea, not a proposal”.[64] On June 13, 2016, he reformulated the ban so that it would be geographical, not religious, applying to “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies”.[64][65] Two hours later, he claimed that ban was only for nations “tied to Islamic terror”.[64] In June 2016, he also stated that he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter the United States.[64] In May 2016, Trump said “There will always be exceptions” to the ban, when asked how the ban would apply to London’s newly-elected mayor Sadiq Khan.[66] A spokesman for Sadiq Khan said in response that Trump’s views were “ignorant, divisive and dangerous” and play into the hands of extremists.[67]

In June 2016, Trump expanded his proposed ban on Muslim immigration to the United States to cover immigration from areas with a history of terrorism.[68] Specifically, Trump stated, “When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.”[68] According to lawyers and legal scholars cited in a New York Times report, the president has the power to carry out the plan but it would take an ambitious and likely time-consuming bureaucratic effort, and make sweeping use of executive authority.[69] Immigration analysts also noted that the implementation of Trump’s plan could “prompt a wave of retaliation against American citizens traveling and living abroad”.[69] In July 2016, Trump described his proposal as encompassing “any nation that has been compromised by terrorism”.[70] Trump later referred to the reformulation as “extreme vetting”.[71]

When asked in July 2016 about his proposal to restrict immigration from areas with high levels of terrorism, Trump insisted that it was not a “rollback” of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants.[72] He said, “In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territory.”[72] When asked if his new proposal meant that there would be greater checks on immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism, such as France, Germany and Spain, Trump answered, “It’s their own fault, because they’ve allowed people over years to come into their territory.”[73][74]

On August 15, 2016, Trump suggested that “extreme views” would be grounds to be thrown out of the U.S., saying he would deport Seddique Mateen, the father of Omar Mateen (the gunman in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting), who has expressed support for the Taliban.[75][76][77] On 31 August in Phoenix Trump would make a speech billed by then running-mate Pence as important and offering many details.[78] In the speech, Trump vowed “places like Syria and Libya” were “places from which immigration would be suspended” under his immigration plan.[79][80] Jeff Sessions at the time said the Trump campaign’s plan was “the best laid out law enforcement plan to fix this country’s immigration system that’s been stated in this country maybe forever”. [81]

Sessions is Trump’s nominee to be Attorney General of the Department of Justice. During confirmation-hearing testimony, he acknowledged supporting vetting based on “areas where we have an unusually high risk of terrorists coming in”; Sessions acknowledged the DOJ would need to evaluate such a plan if it were outside the “Constitutional order.”[82]

Other proposals

Trump has proposed making it more difficult for asylum-seekers and refugees to enter the United States, and making the e-Verify system mandatory for employers.[21]

Syrian refugees

Trump has on several occasions expressed opposition to allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S.—saying they could be the “ultimate Trojan horse[83]—and has proposed deporting back to Syria refugees settled in the U.S.[84][85] By September 2015, Trump had expressed support for taking in some Syrian refugees[84][86] and praised Germany’s decision to take in Syrian refugees.[87]

On a number of occasions in 2015, Trump asserted that “If you’re from Syria and you’re a Christian, you cannot come into this country, and they’re the ones that are being decimated. If you are Islamic … it’s hard to believe, you can come in so easily.” PolitiFact rated Trump’s claim as “false” and found it to be “wrong on its face”, citing the fact that 3 percent of the refugees from Syria have been Christian (although they represent 10 percent of the Syrian population) and finding that the U.S. government is not discriminating against Christians as a matter of official policy.[88]

In May 2016 interview with Bill O’Reilly, Trump stated “Look, we are at war with these people and they don’t wear uniforms….. This is a war against people that are vicious, violent people, that we have no idea who they are, where they come from. We are allowing tens of thousands of them into our country now.” Politifact ruled this statement “pants on fire”, stating that the U.S. is on track to accept 100,000 refugees in 2017, but there is no evidence that tens of thousands of them are terrorists.[89]

Presidential actions

On January 27, 2017, as part of a plan to keep out radical Islamic terrorism, Trump signed an executive order, titled “Protecting the Nation From Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals“, that suspended entry for citizens of seven countries for 90 days: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, totaling more than 134 million people.[90] The order also stopped the admission of refugees of the Syrian Civil War indefinitely, and the entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days.[91] Refugees who were on their way to the United States when the order was signed were stopped and detained at airports.[92]

Implicated by this order is 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182 “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S. Code § 1182 (Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952).

Critics argue that Congress later restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” (8 U.S. Code § 1152) The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).[93]

Many legal challenges to the order were brought immediately after its issuance: from January 28 to January 31, almost 50 cases were filed in federal courts.[94] Some courts, in turn, granted temporary relief, including a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) that bars the enforcement of major parts of the executive order.[95][96] The Trump administration is appealing the TRO.[96]

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump

Story 2: Senator Warren Defames and Lies As Did Coretta Scott King In Her Letter About Senator Sessions — Rule 19 — Object — Senator Take You Seat — Three Cheers! — Videos

Elizabeth Warren rebuked on Senate floor

Published on Feb 8, 2017

Elizabeth Warren rebuked on Senate floor while reading a letter written by Coretta Scott King to criticize Jeff Sessions.

Senator Warren On Jeff Sessions – Full Floor Speech

Story 3: Awaiting 9th Circuit Three Judge Panel Decision –Videos

Trump’s Immigration Ban Faces Contentious Court hearing (Common Sense)

Justice Department Argues Case To Reinstate President Trump’s Travel Ban To Appeals Court Judges

Judge James Robart stops Trumps Not A Muslim Ban

Washington v. Trump: Courtroom Highlights

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-834

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 774, October 12, 2016, Part 3 of 3: Story 1: Trump Won Debate and Will Win Election With Independents and White Voters! — Videos — Story 2: Trump Apology For Boys Being Bad Bus Boys Video — Big Lie Media Feeding Frenzy — Videos — Story 3: Guilty As Sin — Hillary Clinton — Verdict Announced On Election Day — Videos — Story 4: Back To The Issues The American People Care About? The Economy, Jobs/Unemployment, Federal Budget Deficits/National Debt, Affordable Health Care Insurance, Social Security, National Security, Terrorism, Illegal Alien Invasion of United States, Education, Abortion, Crime/Violence, Wages, Inflation and Taxes! — Videos

Posted on October 12, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Assault, Banking System, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, European History, Fast and Furious, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Gangs, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Insurance, Investments, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Libya, Life, Lying, Media, Middle East, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Science, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016