Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91

      

By Vishal M


In March 2019, following large protests from farmers and environmental activists, the Indian government moved a planned $44 billion ‘green’ oil refinery project out of the ecologically sensitive Nanar region in Ratnagiri on the Konkan coast. Recently, calls from pro-refinery supporters to bring the project back to Ratnagiri have stoked fears among activists and farmers that the project will be reinstated in the area, causing damage to the environment and affecting livelihoods.


The joint venture between Saudi Arabian oil companies, Aramco and Adnoc, and Indian companies, Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation was originally relocated following protests from locals and activists who were critical of India’s continued investment in fossil fuels. The project was moved to Raigad, 100 kilometers from India’s financial capital, Mumbai, as the government announced acquiring 40 villages to kickstart the project.


On 28 July 2019, pro-refinery group Konkan Vikas Samiti (KVS) held a rally demanding that the project be reinstated in Ratnagiri, citing the economic opportunities it would bring to local communities.


         



      

A counter-protest was then held in response by an anti-refinery group to prevent the project. Activists claim India’s land acquisition acts were misused to get lands for the project from farmers. For Satyajit Chavan, convenor of Konkan Refinery Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, the umbrella body leading the protests, reviving the oil refinery project would spell trouble for the region:


We are being careful and alert to avoid resurrection of the project in Ratnagiri’s Nanar as it will destroy farmlands, mango orchards and pose a threat to the wildlife in the region. Investors in the region, who have vested interests are trying to revive the project and have politicized the issue despite the government canceling and relocating it under a gazette notification. This is dangerous.


Ratnagiri’s Nanar is known for rocky terrains and creeks that act as a breeding ground for various marine species. The region is also a prominent agricultural area, and thousands of farmers rely on mango orchards and fishing for their survival. Locals fear the region’s biodiversity and their livelihoods would be affected by pollution emanating from the refinery project.


Development ruse?


The project is estimated to require around 16,000 acres of land, leaving many local activists to question its claim to be a ‘green’ refinery and a requirement for an emerging economy like India.


“Despite moving the project location from Nanar to Raigad because of environmental impact, would it not create the same problem in Raigad as well?” Social activist Ulka Mahajan asked.


The governing party shifted the location but how can they bring it elsewhere and are people of Raigad dispensable? All these issues cannot be questioned in isolation and the government needs to answer if we really need the project and do a cost-benefit analysis.


While experts say the project, with an estimated output of 1.2 million barrels per day, could offer India steady fuel supplies, others are questioning the pollution it has the potential to generate in Maharashtra’s Raigad district. Questions about its impact on fishing hamlets and mango orchids have also been raised.


Prashant Jade, a farmer from Ratnagiri informed Global Voices:


Protests were instigated by groups affiliated with the government to prevent the project from moving out of Nanar. I don’t want this project to come here as Konkan is an eco-sensitive zone with diversity. We don’t follow pollution control norms in India as stringent as in Europe. The project is called green refinery but we know it will be polluting the local environment.


India’s land acquisition laws were manipulated, added Ulka Mahajan. India’s land acquisition laws mandated consent from at least 70 percent of the affected owners and also required a social impact test. Passed by the parliament in 2013, the law also quadrupled four-fold compensation for rural land, including farmland.





Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!
Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom




   #mc_embed_signup {clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 15px; }
         .cmhead{color: rgb(255,199,27); text-shadow: 1px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.5); text-align: center; font-size: 250%; font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: 700;}
         .cmsubhead{color: rgb(255,255,255); text-align: center; font-size: 150%; font-family: sans-serif;}
         .cmformhead{color: rgb(30, 29, 29); font-size: 160%; font-family: sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px;}
         #mc_embed_signup form { display: inline-block; background-color: #FFF; background-color: #FFF; margin-top: 20px; border-color: rgb(31, 31, 31);
    outline: none;
    background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
    opacity: 1;
    border-width: 3px;
    border-style: solid;
    border-radius: 5px;
    width:70%;
}
#mc_embed_signup input.email  {width: 90%; }
#mc_embed_signup input.button { width: 93%; background-color: rgb(246, 137, 34); border-bottom: 3px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.2); font-size: 160%;}
#mc_embed_signup .button:hover {background-color: #e67409;}
   /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
      We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */



   
         
Claim Your FREE Issue Today!
   
   


   





The 2013 central land acquisition faced four ordinances and they could not pass the bill in the parliament. Despite that, they are using the Land Acquisition Act in the name of large scale projects. We don’t know who will benefit since the law for the first time had helped weak and voiceless citizens raise their voices regarding their land.



There was some democratic space that gave a platform to voice concerns after social assessment surveys were conducted. This provision has been done away with in an amendment in the state laws. This is against the wishes of farmers and local communities, opines Mahajan.


India is an oil-dependent economy and over 80 percent of its demands are met from imports from the Middle East,  including Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Analysts say the Iran sanctions and lack of crude from Venezuela have hit the Indian economy, resulting in a slowdown of growth figures.


In 2015, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced a new alliance of nations on a large-scale expansion of solar energy use and said fossil fuels put the planet in peril. While India is trying to diversify and increase its investments into solar and wind energy, projects involving fossil fuels have continued to rise and receive investments unabated. According to Modi:


Solar technology is evolving, costs are coming down and grid connectivity is improving. The dream of universal access to clean energy is becoming more real. This will be the foundation of the new economy of the new century.


As India continues to invest locally in dirty fuels, activists and experts are left to question the government’s promises to the global community on climate change.




American Natural Superfood - Free Sample



A local environmental activist who worked with the government, on the condition of anonymity, said the project will put over 50,000 trucks between India’s financial capital Mumbai and the Western state of Goa for transport purposes, thereby increasing vehicular pollution and affecting local ecosystems.


For Mahajan, projects like these are short-sighted:


At the international level, they commit a lot about tackling climate change and focusing on renewables but here, they focus on export-driven trade and GDP and we have environmental losses and loss of livelihood. But will they achieve anything in the near future?



The sources for the story were interviewed by Vishal M for Global Voices


This article was sourced from GlobalVoices.org


Vishal M is an Indian journalist with a keen interest in foreign policy and science journalism.


Top image: Oil Refinery. Patrick Hendry via Unsplash (CC BY-SA 2.0)


Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.


Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   
92

      

By Brian Miller


The Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms, but both federal and state governments determine how citizens may legally exercise that right. And while both federal and state gun control laws regularly change, laws at the state level change more frequently and often without the media coverage that surrounds changes at the federal level.


This results in a constant challenge for gun owners to keep up with the latest state laws, especially for those who carry their weapons across state lines. Because while some states have more restrictions than others, state gun control policies across the country are diverse and can change quickly – too easily putting responsible gun owners on the wrong side of the law.


This guide is a timeline of major state gun control acts throughout the history of the United States – not only to help gun owners understand the state laws that have influenced our nation, but also to showcase how one state’s gun laws can set an example for others, creating a domino effect of gun control policy for the entire country.


         



      
Colonial America: Slavery Versus The Second Amendment

Pre-Constitution, the original Articles of Confederation established that “every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia.” The Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment holds that “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.” However, those rights were at that time granted specifically to white males.


Fear of slave and Native American uprisings prompted many colonial states to establish laws banning “free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians” from having firearms. By the antebellum period, southern states like South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi and even Delaware all had various laws denying guns to people of color and allowing search and seizure of weapons as well as punishment without trial. Crucial to all of this was the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford.


Previously a slave, Dred Scott sued for freedom based on the fact that he’d lived in the free state of Illinois and a free area within the Louisiana Territory for a decade. When his suit was unsuccessful in Missouri, he appealed to the federal courts. The contention was whether “a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves,” was a citizen with protections under the Constitution. The Supreme Court decision on Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857 denied “a free negro of the African race” citizenship – a milestone its issuer cited as “the most momentous event that has ever occurred on this continent,” excluding the Declaration of Independence. In that moment, those denied citizenship were also excluded from any of the rights associated with it.



After The Civil War: The Postbellum Era, Emancipation, Reconstruction, and the Black Codes

While President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves, President Andrew Johnson’s failing leadership brought with it all the struggles of the Reconstruction Era. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision still denied people of African descent citizenship.


Former Confederate states enacted Black Codes to define and restrict freedmen’s positions within society. Along with mandating legal responsibilities, land ownership rights, contract labor wages and harsh criminal laws, nearly all the Black Codes effectively and pointedly banned “persons of color” – anyone “with more than one-eighth Negro blood” – from possessing firearms. Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, Maryland, Alabama, North Carolina, Texas and Tennessee all enacted Black Codes, attempting to maintain the status quo and deny weapons to people of color.


The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments banned slavery, provided all citizens equal protection under the law and ensured voting rights for all citizens. The 14th Amendment was particularly important, as it defined citizenship as “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” overturning the Dred Scott decision, establishing people of color as citizens and overriding state statutes denying them the right to possess firearms based on their heritage.



Jim Crow South: The Supreme Court Cedes Gun Control to the States

Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State Acts In the following decades, a second civil war ensued as freed slaves sought to embrace their citizenship and formed freedmen militias to protect black communities and maintain political footing. The Jim Crow South, however, was equally intent on keeping firearms out of the hands of black Americans. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was founded in 1866 as a “social club,” and the Knights of the White Camelia and the White Brotherhood quickly followed. These white supremacist groups swept the South, their foremost demand that freedmen surrender their firearms.


Despite attempts to pass a federal law making the specific seizure of firearms “without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats” a felony, the language of the resulting Enforcement Acts was instead diluted to encompass obstructing civil rights, and the terror continued.


Tensions came to a head in 1873 in Louisiana, when armed white Democrats overpowered Republican freedmen militia at the Grant County Courthouse in what came to be known as the Colfax Massacre. Three whites died, but estimates indicate as many as 150 freedmen were killed – possibly more – most in the hours after they’d surrendered. Initially, three white men were prosecuted under the Enforcement Acts. But in 1876, the Supreme Court decision on the case – United States v. Kruikshank – dropped all charges, ruling that the power to protect citizens from private actions like those of the KKK resided with the states, not the federal government.


Southern states were quick to pass Saturday night special laws limiting handgun ownership through financial requirements that retained a racial bias. Tennessee had already enacted “An Act To Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide” in 1870, but simply reworked it for 1879’s “An Act to Prevent the Sale of Pistols.” It set the precedent by banning all handgun sales except expensive Army and Navy model handguns.


Arkansas followed in 1882 with an identical law, while in 1893, Alabama placed a heavy tax on handgun sales. In 1902, South Carolina limited handguns to law enforcement – often Klan members – while Mississippi followed a subtler path, requiring firearms dealers to maintain records available upon demand for handgun and handgun ammunition sales (with the intent to allow race-based confiscation). In 1907, Texas, like Alabama, decided to adopt a tax aimed at preventing both poor whites and blacks from being able to buy handguns.



Prohibition Era: Immigration, Organized Crime and Concealed Carry Laws

Concealed weapons of any kind have long been a controversial issue. As early as 1813, Kentucky law controlled concealed weapon carry, to include Bowie knives, sword canes and pocket pistols. Laws in Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee, for example, also retained language to control “how arms may be borne.” In 1897, the Supreme Court case Robertson v. Baldwin determined that laws controlling concealed carry did not violate the Second Amendment, stating “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court once again confirmed that ruling in Peruta v. County of San Diego.


The New York City of the early 1900s had no such laws, but was marked by European immigration, Tammany Hall, extensive organized crime and gun violence of all kinds. A newspaper article from the time cited the example of a grief-stricken Italian father fatally shooting the truck driver who’d accidentally run over his son. However, January 23, 1911, proved the tipping point when Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough used a concealed .32-caliber automatic pistol to assassinate novelist David Graham Phillips midday in Gramercy Park for an imagined slandering of his sister.


Supported by the Tammany Hall apparatus and effective August 31, 1911, the resulting Sullivan Act of 1911 mandated discretionary police-issued licenses to possess a handgun and made carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon a felony. While gun violence in fact escalated right into Prohibition, these two criteria formed the basis for many other states’ “may issue” gun laws requiring discretionary police-issued licenses to restrict gun ownership.


By 1987, only one state had unrestricted concealed carry – while eight were “shall issue,” 25 “may issue” and 16 “no issue.” In 2016, 10 states have unrestricted concealed carry, while 32 are “shall issue” and eight “may issue.” New York remains one of the few “may issue” states, and the Sullivan Act remains on the books as New York Penal Code Section 400.00 after more than a century.



Civil Rights Movement: The Black Panthers and Loaded Carry Laws

Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State Acts Ironically, the event that is ultimately credited as the cause of banned loaded carry took place in California without a single shot being fired. In 1960s America, civil rights issues were escalating. The assassinations of both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X in 1965 left black communities fearful, and torn between peaceful resistance and self-defense “by whatever means necessary.” Abusive, racially motivated policing practices in Oakland, California, gave rise to the Black Panther Police Patrols and their mission to monitor and challenge that brutality. Since citizens were by law permitted open loaded carry of registered guns, the Black Panthers patrolled armed.


When a predominantly white jury ruled the police killing of Denzel Dowell a justifiable homicide, it was perhaps the last straw. The first issue of The Black Panther Black Community News Service on April 25, 1967, focused not only on the killing of Denzel Dowell, but also other police atrocities. It questioned how a previously injured Denzel could have fled a police officer who knew him well enough to call him by name, why he was shot 10 times, and why the newspaper announced the verdict two hours before the jury did. It also listed three other police murders of black men and two police-administered beatings of a black woman and a 14-year-old black girl.


Meanwhile, dubbed the Black Panther Bill, the Mulford Act sought to ban loaded carry specifically to end Black Panther armed patrols. However, on May 2, 1967, 30 Black Panthers – 24 men and six women armed with a written manifesto and loaded weapons – gathered on the California State Capitol steps and entered the building, their destination the General Assembly to protest the impending legislation. They were admitted only to the legislature’s official viewing area and then were asked to leave, but they left with their guns still loaded.


While the event remained nonviolent, cities across the nation were experiencing intense race riots. The California legislature fast-tracked the Mulford Act, and then-Governor Ronald Reagan signed it into law on July 28, 1967, as California Penal Codes 25850 and 142-181. It prohibited individuals from publicly carrying a loaded firearm on their person or in a vehicle in an incorporated city or other prohibited areas. The act authorized peace officers to examine any firearm to determine whether it was loaded and deemed any refusal to comply as probable cause for arrest. It also prohibited anyone but law enforcement from possessing loaded firearms or deadly weapons within the Capitol.



The Cold War and the Advent of “Assault Weapons”

The latter half of the 20th century brought with it global conflicts – Vietnam, Korea and Iraq – and assault rifles. The easily recognizable AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis became the weapons of choice for military forces around the globe, their characteristics highly desirable to firearms enthusiasts.


While the guns take a lighter caliber bullet and typically fire with less range and power than a rifle, they offer valued traits like folding stocks, pistol and forward grips, large-capacity removable magazines and the capability of switching firing modes. With time, semi-automatic rifles have appeared as many different makes and models, often surprisingly affordable. Most notable is that with each ban and limitation, semi-automatic rifles become more popular.



The 1989 Stockton Massacre and California’s AWCA Response

Out of all the states, California is recognized as having the most restrictive gun laws. One of the primary catalysts was the Cleveland Elementary School shooting on January 17, 1989, during which Patrick Purdy used an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle to spray a playground full of children, killing five and wounding 32 before killing himself. Despite former weapons and robbery offenses, Purdy had easily bought the assault weapon in Sandy, Oregon, and brought it across state lines to the Stockton, California, schoolyard.


The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA), effective January 1, 1990, was California’s response and the first assault weapons act. It ultimately defined assault weapons within three categories, banned any transfer of the listed prohibited assault weapons, and required registration of any already in possession by the end of 1992. Any weapons not registered by that date were to be surrendered to law enforcement.



The 1993 101 Massacre and California’s Firearms Safety Act

Despite the legislation, on July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered the law firm of Pettit & Martin on 101 California Street in San Francisco to avenge his alleged loss of $300,000 in a land deal. Armed with two 9mm semi-automatic machine pistols, a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, Ferri killed eight and injured six in a 16-minute rampage before killing himself.


While the event was the impetus for the 10-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to 2004, in California, the effects have lasted much longer. Seeking to end gun manufacturer workarounds like changing model numbers, the state amended the Roberti-Roos Act’s assault weapons categories in 1999 by banning the manufacture, import or sale of semi-automatic rifles or pistols with certain characteristics as well as the transfer of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, effective January 1, 2000.


That same year, California limited handgun purchases to one during any 30-day period; Maryland, New Jersey and the District of Columbia have similar laws. It also passed the Aroner-Scott-Hayden Firearms Safety Act of 1999 to require child-safety locks on all guns, set handgun safety standards that dealers must meet, and repealed the immunity previously protecting gun manufacturers from victim lawsuits.



The 2012 Sandy Hook Massacre and New York’s SAFE Act

Reminiscent of the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, appalled the nation as an armed gunman once again took out his rage on school children. Adam Lanza killed his mother at home and then fatally shot 20 children and six staff members at the school before killing himself. He was armed with his mother’s AR-15 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle and two of her handguns – a Glock and a Sig Sauer.


On January 16, 2013, New York became the first U.S. state to act after the shooting when its legislature passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act. It required universal background checks for all firearms purchases, expanded its definitions of assault weapons, created a state database for handguns, and banned the sale or purchase of magazines that could hold more than seven rounds of ammunition.


On April 4, 2013, Connecticut and Maryland both enacted new restrictions to their existing gun laws: An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety and the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, respectively. Connecticut, too, required universal background checks for firearms purchases and banned magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Maryland banned assault weapons and magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.



The 2012 Aurora Massacre and Colorado’s Response

On July 20, 2012, James Eagan Holmes fired into an Aurora, Colorado movie theater showing of The Dark Knight Rises premier, killing 12 and injuring 70 amid tear gas from grenades he’d launched. He was armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P15-22 semi-automatic rifle fitted with a 100-round magazine, and a .40-caliber Glock. Holmes had bought all three guns legally between May 22 and July 6, from three different firearms stores – two Gander Mountains and One Bass Pro Shop.


Following other states’ earlier actions, on March 20, 2013, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper also signed into law three bills to prevent another mass shooting event. HB 13-1224 banned large-capacity magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition. HB 13-1229 required universal background checks for all firearms sales, and HB 13-1228 directed that applicants pay for the cost of the checks.



2013: 10 New California Gun Control Laws

Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State Acts Also in 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed 10 more different firearms-related bills:




AB-500 Firearms: DOJ checks.

AB-48 Firearms: Large-capacity magazines.

SB-683 Firearms: Firearm safety certificate.

SB-140 Firearms: Prohibited persons.

AB-1131 Firearms: Mental conditions.

SB-127 Firearms: Mentally disordered persons.

AB-231 Firearms: Criminal storage.

SB-363 Firearms: Criminal storage: Unsafe handguns: Fees.

AB-170 Assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles.

AB-539 Firearm possession: Prohibitions: Transfer to licensed dealer.

These bills extended weapon transfer waiting periods, added storage safety conditions and strengthened storage negligence laws, banned conversion kits for large-capacity magazines, required safety certificates for long guns, extended mental health-related prohibitions for firearms from six months to five years, made assault weapon permits individual-issue only, and prohibited individuals denied firearms from storing them with dealers.


SB-140 also appropriated $24 million to the Department of Justice to address the backlog in the Prohibited Armed Persons File database tracking more than 20,000 individuals prohibited from owning firearms.



2016: California’s “Gunpocalypse”

As 2015 drew to a close and the holidays approached, the tragic San Bernardino shooting stunned California residents and the nation. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people and injured 22 more at a Christmas party thrown by Farook’s employer at the Inland Regional Center on December 2.


Farook and Malik were armed with two .223-caliber semi-automatic rifles – a DPMS A-15 and a Smith & Wesson M&P15 – two 9mm semi-automatic pistols, at least four high-capacity magazines, well over a thousand rounds of ammunition and a pipe bomb. The incident ended with the homegrown terrorists’ sworn loyalty to ISIS’ leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a police vehicle chase, and a final shootout that left both perpetrators dead.


While Farook had legally purchased his handguns, another individual, Enrique Marquez, had purchased the rifles legally in 2011 and 2012, as Farook had reportedly feared he wouldn’t pass the background check needed for them.


The two rifles, however, were altered after the purchase in flat violation of California law: the Smith & Wesson for automatic fire and the DPMS to accept large-capacity magazines. Investigation of the couple’s home yielded a stockpile of another 4,500 rounds of ammunition, a dozen pipe bombs, and tools for making them.


Almost immediately, California assemblymen and senators introduced a packet of legislation. On July 1, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed six new gun control bills into state law, each seeking to close a firearms loophole: Assembly Bills 1695, 1511 and 1135 as well as Senate Bills 880, 1446 and 1235.


AB 1695


AB 1695, also known as “The Stop Illegal Gun Sales Act,” was an effort to stop the practices of “straw purchasers” – individuals able to pass background checks who procure guns for ineligible individuals, then report the firearms as lost or stolen to avoid accountability.


California’s penal code already listed falsely reporting to a member of law enforcement as a misdemeanor or felony. However, the bill specifically makes falsely reporting a firearm as lost or stolen a misdemeanor and imposes a 10-year ban on firearm ownership for those convicted of the offense. Violation of the 10-year period carries up to $1,000 in fines and up to a year in prison.


AB 1511


While the vast majority of firearms loaned from one person to another must go through a licensed dealer under AB 1511, prior to this bill Californians could lend a firearm to individuals they knew personally for infrequent periods of less than 30 days. The new bill has the same loan period limitations, but it restricts the lending of firearms to “a spouse or registered domestic partner, or to a parent, child, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild” related by “consanguinity, adoption, or steprelation.”


SB 880 & AB 1135


California passed two bills, SB 880 and AB 1135, that are substantively the same with minor wording differences like “specified attributes” as opposed to “several specified attributes.” Essentially, the new law closes the bullet button loophole. First, it redefines a “fixed magazine” as “an ammunition feeding device” that “cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.” Then, it extends the definition of assault weapons banned to any “semiautomatic centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine,” and has at least one of the previously established assault weapon attributes – such as a thumbhole stock for rifles or a second handgrip for handguns.


Much like previous legislation, the law prohibits the sale or transfer of assault weapons lacking a fixed magazine and mandates that all weapons already in possession up to and including December 31, 2016, must be registered with DOJ by January 1, 2018, for up to a $20 fee. Violation of the law is a felony punishable by up to one year in jail.


SB 1446


While the previous law prohibited the sale, gift or loan of large-capacity magazines, SB 1446 bans them altogether. Any manufacture, sale, transfer, gift or loan of a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is punishable by up to a year in jail. Possession of a large-capacity magazine entails a $100 fine for the first offense, $250 for the second and $500 for the third.


In addition, regardless of when the magazine was purchased, the owner cannot keep it in California. The magazine must be moved out of state, sold to a licensed dealer, destroyed or surrendered to law enforcement.


SB 1235


An interim and supersession measure prior to voter adoption of the Safety for All Act of 2016, SB 1235 is legislation to control all ammunition through an Automated Firearms System. Starting July 1, 2019, all sales and transfers of ammunition will be subject to checks of the purchaser’s presented identification against the Prohibited Armed Persons File as well as the Automated Firearms System, and must be reported to the Attorney General.


The legislation also requires, with some sporting club exceptions, a vendor license for all ammunition sales. Prior to this, controls – including mandatory face-to-face transactions – had been limited to handgun ammunition. However, handgun ammunition was changed to ammunition, and ammunition was redefined to be all-inclusive with “one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primer case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles.” Any person or business who transfers ammunition to someone ineligible to receive it is subject to $1,000 in fines and up to a year in prison.


Vetoed Bills


Governor Brown did, however, veto four submitted bills:




AB 2607 would have expanded the pool of individuals able to petition for a gun violence restraining order.

AB 1674 would have applied the 30-day handgun delivery limit to all firearms.

AB 1673 would have redefined firearm as any “frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body” clearly part of a functional weapon.

SB 894 would have tightened reporting regulations for lost or stolen firearms.


Red Flag Laws: The Implementation of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs)

Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State ActsAfter a wave of mass shootings in 2017 and 2018, one of the most fashionable pushes for gun control was the rise of so-called “red flag” laws, or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs).


These red flag laws are not as novel as people think. States like Connecticut got the ball rolling in 1999, when legislators passed the nation’s very first red flag law after a shooting took place at a State Lottery headquarters. States like Indiana (2005), California (2014), Washington (2016), and Oregon (2017) have followed suit in their implementation of red flags laws.


But the political environment completely changed in late 2017 and early 2018. A string of mass shootings like the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the Sutherland Springs church shooting, and the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting rocked the political environment like never before. This commotion played perfectly into the hands of the gun control crowd in the legacy media and political establishment.


Crises – real or perceived – are the lifeblood of government expansion. Following the words of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, gun control advocates did not let these crises go to waste.


Red flag laws received an added bump from these shootings. Like clockwork, states such as Florida, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Illinois  adopted their own red flag laws.


Red flag laws enable law enforcement to confiscate firearms from an individual who is considered a threat to themselves or others. However, these confiscatory actions can be taken based on simple allegations. An accusation from a family member, friend, or associate is enough of a justification for law enforcement officers to seize an individual’s firearms.


Potential for due process violations has emerged since red flag laws started gaining traction. Even the American Civil Liberties Union, who views the Second Amendment as a collective right as opposed to an individual right, has expressed concern about how red flags will essentially create Minority Report-like scenarios in America. Individuals could see their rights stripped just based on speculation on the part of petitioners and a judge.


Subsequently, the accused are compelled to take their accusers to court, even though the accused has never been charged with or convicted of a crime. To make matters worse, the defendant could have their weapons seized without even a hearing before a judge. Months could go by before a gun owner wins back his gun rights in court.


Even in their early stages of implementation, red flag laws generated controversy. Around 5 a.m. on November 5, 2018, two police officers approached 61-year-old Gary Willis’s house. Once at Willis’s door, they knocked and waited for Willis to respond. In a state of shock, Willis answered, and the two officers happened to be serving Willis a court order to turn his guns over to authorities in accordance with Maryland’s recently signed red flag law.


In a tragic turn of events, this encounter with law enforcement quickly got out of hand. A struggle ensued between Willis and the two officers, which resulted in Willis’s death. After this controversial shooting, Anne Arundel County Police Chief Timothy Altomare jumped to the police officers’ defense stating they “did the best they could with the situation they had.”


Maryland’s red flag law, which received Republican Governor Larry Hogan’s signature, was implemented in October 2018. In its first month, there were 114 firearms seizure requests.



2018: Bump Stock Bans

After the smoke cleared from the Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest shooting in U.S. history that left 58 people dead, gun control politicians were scrambling to find a scapegoat. And they were able to find one real quick – the bump stock.


Proponents of bump stock bans contended that this accessory allows for semi-automatic rifles to mimic automatic fire settings. However, some firearms experts such as Andrew Wickerham didn’t buy the uproar over bump stocks. Wickerham detailed his views on bump stocks in an interview for The Christian Science Monitor:


“I’ve always thought these bump stocks were just a novelty,” he says. “They’re not that good, and they’re hard as hell to control.”






Alas, modern-day politics are ruled by emotions, not facts. As a result, a number of states have embraced the latest wave of the gun control crusade.


Bump stocks had already been illegal in states like California since 1990. That being said, the push for bump stock bans remained dormant for a few decades until the fateful year of 2017 arrived. When it was discovered that the Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock used bump stocks to commit these atrocities, bump stock bans gained a second wind.


The following states have jumped in on the bump stock ban frenzy:



Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Maryland
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

California Expands Its Gun Control Regime

In 2018, California went on its own gun control spree after the dust settled from a series of national mass shootings.




SB 1100 raised the age for buying a shotgun or rifle in California from 18 to 21.

AB 2103 tightened training requirements, with at least eight hours of gun safety training for people applying for concealed handgun licenses.

AB 2526 added to the current red flag system, allowing law enforcement to request a gun violence restraining order verbally when there’s not enough time to carry out a written request.


A Nationwide Response to the Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting

Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State ActsPressured by the outrage from the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Governor Rick Scott signed SB 7026, which contains red flag provisions, raises the age to buy a firearm to 21, and imposes a three-day waiting period for all firearms purchases.


Like Nevada, the occurrence of a mass shooting on their own soil was too much for even supposedly “pro-gun” Republicans in Florida. 67 NRA A-rated Republicans ended up voting for this bill. But it wasn’t just Florida that saw a sweep of gun control after the Stoneman Douglas shooting – much of the country saw a ripple effect of gun laws that were unusually aggressive. These are a few of the states that saw some extreme change in gun regulation.


Illinois


Extended Waiting Period for All Firearms Purchases: Republican Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 3256 into law on July 16, 2018 – extending the waiting period for all firearms purchased to a minimum of 72 hours.


Under the previous Illinois law, only handguns were subject to a 72-hour waiting period, but so-called “assault weapons” like AR-15s and other long guns could be received in 24 hours.


New Jersey


Seizure of Firearms: A1181 requires licensed healthcare professionals to inform law enforcement about patients who they suspect could commit an imminent act of physical violence. Law enforcement officials then have the authority to determine whether the person should be barred from holding them.


Private Gun Sale Background Check: A2757 mandates background checks for all private sales and transfers of firearms. The only exceptions are those involving “immediate family.”


Justifiable Need to Carry Handgun: A2758 establishes a strict definition for the “justifiable need to carry a handgun” that private citizens must demonstrate should they desire to obtain a permit. For a private citizen to carry a handgun, they must obtain a handgun carry permit.


Permit applicants need to have the approval of the police chief in the municipality in which they live, as well as the approval of a Superior Court judge in their county of residence. For their application to be approved, the applicant must also submit a written certification highlighting a justifiable need to carry a handgun.


Ammunition Magazine Maximum Capacity: A2761 bans firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Gun owners who own magazines with more than 10 rounds can keep their firearms. However, they must register them and pay a $50 fee.


3D-Printable Gun Ban: On November 8, 2018, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed S-2465 into law – banning the purchase of firearm parts with the end goal of making a “ghost gun,” or a gun that does not have a serial number.


These ghost gun can be assembled with parts bought individually or as part of a kit, which can often be done through the internet. Any of these actions would be deemed illegal according to this new law.


The act of making a 3D-printable gun or distributing its blueprints would also be criminalized. Additionally, manufacturing, selling, or the mere possession of an “undetectable” firearm made from material that cannot be recognized by a metal detector is subject to criminal penalties.


Vermont


Firearms: S.55 expands background checks by requiring them for most private firearms sales, raises the age to buy a gun to 21, bans bump stocks, and limits the size of magazines for handguns to 15 rounds and 10 rounds for long guns.



2018: Oregon Gets “Sanctuary Counties”

Oregon was about to witness a potential ban on so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines in 2018. Thankfully for Oregon gun owners, Initiative Petition 43 failed to gather enough signatures by the deadline in order to be on the ballot.


Despite this bill’s failure, Oregon gun owners went the extra mile when they approved Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances in eight of ten counties. The counties that approved the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances have in essence become “sanctuary counties” where citizens have the right to own semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, regardless of state and federal laws on the books.



2018: Washington State Approves Stringent Gun Control

On November 6, 2018, Washington State moved the gun control needle even further when voters approved I-1639, one of the most powerful gun control initiatives in the country, with 59 percent of the vote. I-1639 expands the reach of background checks, raises the minimum age to buy semi-automatic rifles, establishes a waiting period for the purchase of these same rifles, and mandates the safe storage of all firearms.


Similar to Oregon, I-1639 has witnessed some pushback from counties outside its urban centers. Lewis County Sheriff Robert Snaza announced that The Lewis County Sheriff’s Office will not actively seek out individuals who violate the recently approved I-1639.



Universal Background Checks

Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State ActsAll firearms purchases from licensed dealers in the United States must go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This system came about as a result of the Brady Act, one of the most comprehensive forms of gun control passed at the federal level in the past three decades.


However, gun control advocates believe this is not enough. Since then, they worked to pass universal background checks (UBCs) at the state level. UBCs mandate all firearms sales and transfers be conducted through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). Depending on the state, gifts and loans could also require that FFLs process these activities.


For the first time in decades, gun control advocates scored a victory when their flagship, universal background check bill H.R. 8 successfully passed the U.S. House on February 28, 2019, on a 240-190 vote. Although this bill will likely not make it past a Republican-controlled Senate, universal background checks are now part of the federal gun control conversation. If enough momentum gathers at the state level, and the right political winds blow at the federal level, UBCs could become a reality in D.C. within the next decade.



California


In 1991, California became one of the first states to pass universal background checks. In other words, all gun sales must be conducted by a licensed dealer, including private sales and transfers. California’s universal background checks also banned individuals with certain misdemeanor convictions from purchasing and possessing guns. Plus, prospective gun owners must go through a 10-day waiting period to acquire handguns, rifles, and shotguns.


California authorizes the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to act as a point of contact. Firearms dealers are obligated to initiate the federally mandated background check by contacting the California DOJ. By law, any prospective buyer (or transferee or person being loaned) of a firearm is required to fill out an application to purchase the firearm (known as “Dealer Record of Sale” or “DROS” form) through a licensed dealer and send it to the DOJ. With very few exceptions, all firearms transfers conducted in California have to go through a licensed dealer.



Colorado


In the wake of the Aurora movie theatre massacre, the Colorado legislature took drastic action by passing gun control. The most notable signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper was Colorado’s universal background check law HB 1229.


In Colorado, all firearms transfers conducted by licensed dealers are processed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Under Colorado law, private sellers (who are not federally licensed dealers) must initiate a background check when transferring a firearm. In turn, prospective firearms purchasers in private sales must pass a background check before acquiring their weapon. The same process applies to regular firearms sales.



Connecticut


After the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, Connecticut took hardline measures on guns. Governor Dannel Malloy signed Bill No. 1160 into law – requiring that prospective gun buyers pass a background check for the sale of all firearms, which includes the private sale or transfer of long guns.


Handgun transfers cannot be carried out until the person, corporation, or firm conducting the transfer acquires an authorization number from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).


Before any firearm is transferred at a gun show, the transferee must also go through a background check.



Delaware


On May 8, 2013, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed HB 35 into law, which closes a “loophole” in state law by requiring background checks in connection with the sale or transfer of firearms between private parties. However, HB 35 mandates that background checks be conducted by licensed firearms dealers. Then, dealers must keep records of such background checks that comply with state and federal law.


In the case an unlicensed seller requests that the dealer conduct a background check on a potential buyer, licensed gun dealers are required to carry out the transfer of a firearm. The unlicensed seller and prospective purchaser are both required to appear together at the licensed dealer’s place of business to facilitate the background check and transaction.



District of Columbia:




Brave - The Browser Built for Privacy



Since passing the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, Washington, D.C. has had the strictest gun control in the nation. In D.C., the private sale and transfer of firearms is heavily regulated.


Private sellers must have a registration certificate to legally transfer a firearm. Additionally, they can only transfer legal firearms to licensed dealers. The chief of police is in charge of initiating background checks for the issuance of registration certificates, which an individual must have to own a firearm in D.C.



Maryland (UBCs for Handguns Only)


For private sales in Maryland, buyers must pass a background check for all handguns and “assault weapons” before taking possession of said firearms. The same process applies for individuals buying from a licensed gun dealer in. Long guns like shotguns and rifles are exempt from these requirements.



Nevada


In 2016, Nevada voters approved Question 1, which established universal background checks in the state.


However, then Attorney General Adam Laxalt proved to be an obstacle for the enactment of Question 1, because he claimed that the ballot initiative required the FBI to run the background check, thus making it impossible to enforce.


The Las Vegas and Parkland shootings changed the entire picture, with many states becoming re-energized in their push for enacting more gun control. At the time, the Nevada legislature lagged behind because it was not in session.


Fast forward to the 2018 elections, the political winds blew in the direction of gun control when Democrats achieved a trifecta in the legislature and Governor’s office. Additionally, Nevada saw Aaron Ford, who was financially backed by anti-gun oligarch Michael Bloomberg, assume the Attorney General position.


With firm anti-gun control of the Nevada State government, Governor Steve Sisolak signed SB 143, which requires that most firearms transfers in Nevada take place after a background check is realized. There are a few exceptions that exist for sales or transfers between immediate family members, some types of temporary loans, and for law enforcement.



New Jersey


For all handgun transfers within New Jersey, the transferee must have a permit to purchase a handgun, which is only valid for the acquisition of one handgun.


The transferee must possess a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPIC) for long gun (rifle and shotgun) transfers. One FPIC is all that’s needed for unlimited rifle and shotgun purchases, so long as the holder is eligible to possess the FPIC.


New Jersey is a full point-of-contact state for NICS. The New Jersey State Police (NJSP) act as the point of contact for the implementation of background checks.


Applications to obtain handgun permits or an FPIC must first go through NJSP or a local law enforcement body. These law enforcement agencies use NICS as well as other state and local records to check if prospective gun buyers are prohibited from possessing a firearm prior to them receiving a handgun permit or FPIC.



New York


New York has some of the strictest gun control in the nation. In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the SAFE Act in January 2013, which established New York’s current universal background check system.


With the exception of transfers between immediate family members, state law requires that licensed firearms dealers conduct a NICS check before any transfer, sale, exchange, or firearms disposal. The firearms dealer must then provide a report of the NICS background check to the state. The dealer must also keep a record of the NICS check in the case that law enforcement drops by for an inspection.


Under state law, any individual who intends to transfer a legal handgun, short-barreled rifle or shotgun must first inform the state police or, depending on the situation, licensing officers in New York City or Nassau or Suffolk Counties.


New York law has an explicit prohibition on certain forms of firearms disposal with the following language:


No person shall except as otherwise authorized pursuant to law dispose of any firearm unless he [or she] is licensed as gunsmith or dealer in firearms.



Oregon


On May 11, 2015, Governor Kate Brown signed SB 941 into law, establishing universal background checks in Oregon. Starting in 2000, Oregon passed legislation that mandated background checks at gun shows. SB 941 expanded upon this by including all private firearms sales, including online sales. Additionally, Oregon’s universal background law requires background checks for all firearms transfers. Some exemptions exist for family members and people who lend guns for hunting purposes.



Pennsylvania (UBCs for Handguns Only)


Pennsylvania only requires universal background checks for handguns. Private sellers are only allowed to sell handguns to an unlicensed purchaser via a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or county sheriff’s office, who are the ones responsible for initiating a background check.


The Pennsylvania State Police carries out all background checks in the state.



Rhode Island


The state of Rhode Island requires that licensed dealers and unlicensed sellers carry out background checks under the auspices of the state police or local chief of police. Every prospective firearms buyer must fill out an application form for the background check, which the seller then must hand over to the state police or local police chief. The law enforcement body has seven days to review the applicant’s background to see if it complies with state requirements.



Vermont


Vermont is an interesting outlier in gun policy. Although it is a state with de facto Constitutional Carry, thanks to language in its state constitution and subsequent court decisions that have upheld that language, Vermont saw numerous gun control bills signed into law by Republican Governor Phil Scott in 2018. One of the bills signed into law was Act 94, which established a universal background check.


In Vermont, all gun transfers, even those between private parties, must go through a background check. Vermont does not have a “point of contact” access to NICS, making the state dependent on the FBI for all background checks in the state. Like Nevada before its 2019 legislative session, Vermont’s UBC law has become unenforceable so far in its existence.



Washington


In 2014, Washington broke the mold by becoming the first state to pass universal background checks via voter referendum. In a resounding 60 to 40% vote, Washington State voters passed Initiative 594, which requires that all private firearms sales be carried out by a federally licensed firearms dealer. Local law enforcement departments function as state points of contact for the implementation of UBCs.


Before 2018, only handguns were covered under UBCs. But during the 2018 election cycle, Washington voters approved I-1639, which extends Washington’s UBC law to cover semi-automatic rifles.



The Second Amendment Stands Strong

Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State Acts Since 2013, successful federal gun legislation has been limited to the renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act, and states have taken note. While more restrictive states have continued to identify and attempt to close every loophole, many others have instead passed laws to strengthen the Second Amendment.


In 2015, the Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence tracked “1,323 bills related to firearms in the states.” Many of these laws related to hotbed social issues of today: domestic violence, background checks, guns in schools and on campuses, and concealed carry.


Domestic terrorism is another serious concern driving the debate about gun control. If history is any guide, attacks by “homegrown” terrorists will lead to stricter gun control measures as legislators try to calm the nation’s outrage and sense of vulnerability with more laws – despite terrorists already breaking existing laws.


The challenge for lawmakers at all levels is to ensure that rational wisdom prevails over emotion. We can close every loophole. We can regulate and litigate. But ultimately, unbalanced malcontents or violent terrorists may still win simply because they don’t play by any rules. And even the most well-intentioned laws may have unintended consequences.


Meanwhile, the Second Amendment, crafted by America’s Founding Fathers, stands quiet and powerful, with 27 simple words worthy of defining billions of others in our nation’s Supreme Court:


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.



This article was sourced from Ammo.com


Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.


Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   
93
Huffington Post General Discussion / 7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws
« Last post by administrator on August 10, 2019, 05:21:20 PM »

      

By Jon Miltimore


The Associated Press reports Congress is seriously considering red flag gun laws.


These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.


President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.


We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,


Trump said in a White House speech.


Red flag laws have garnered support from several conservative intellectuals, as well, including David French of National Review and Ben Shapiro.


Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.


         



      

Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.


Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?


“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”


The Washington Post reports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.


With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.



The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”


Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”



Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”


Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?



The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”


Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”




Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!
Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom




   #mc_embed_signup {clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 15px; }
         .cmhead{color: rgb(255,199,27); text-shadow: 1px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.5); text-align: center; font-size: 250%; font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: 700;}
         .cmsubhead{color: rgb(255,255,255); text-align: center; font-size: 150%; font-family: sans-serif;}
         .cmformhead{color: rgb(30, 29, 29); font-size: 160%; font-family: sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px;}
         #mc_embed_signup form { display: inline-block; background-color: #FFF; background-color: #FFF; margin-top: 20px; border-color: rgb(31, 31, 31);
    outline: none;
    background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
    opacity: 1;
    border-width: 3px;
    border-style: solid;
    border-radius: 5px;
    width:70%;
}
#mc_embed_signup input.email  {width: 90%; }
#mc_embed_signup input.button { width: 93%; background-color: rgb(246, 137, 34); border-bottom: 3px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.2); font-size: 160%;}
#mc_embed_signup .button:hover {background-color: #e67409;}
   /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
      We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */



   
         
Claim Your FREE Issue Today!
   
   


   





Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.



In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.


While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.



In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.


In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.


“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said.


“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.” Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.


Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.



As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.




Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!



I’m not the only writer to make the connection. In an article that appeared in Salon, Travis Dunn linked red flag laws “to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.”


If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.


The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.


Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers⁠—and police states⁠—than a free society.


It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.



Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Washington Times.


This article was sourced from FEE.org


Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.


Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


Image credit: Alt-Market


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
Pin



Previous post


      
   
94

      

By Tyler Durden


Jeffrey Epstein has died after having reportedly committed suicide in his jail cell, according to multiple news reports, after a gurney carrying what is believed to be Epstein was seen wheeled out of the Manhattan Correctional Center around 7:30 a.m., according to the New York Post.




The 66-year-old Epstein was was previously placed on suicide watch after he was found “nearly unconscious” inside his cell with ‘marks on his neck,’ according to a Post report from late July. Investigators questioned former Orange County police officer Nicholas Tartaglione, suspected of killing four men in a cocaine distribution conspiracy, in connection with the incident. The former cop claimed to have not seen anything nor touched Epstein.


         



      

Needless to say, today’s news is highly suspicious.


As the Wall Street Journal‘s Ted Mann notes, “Even the time of day in this story is shocking. The first check-in on a prisoner who had already attempted suicide once was not until 7:30 a.m.?”






The apparent suicide comes just hours after a massive trove of documents was unsealed in a case linked to Epstein, in which one of his victims said she was forced to perform sex acts with high-profile individuals, including former Maine Sen. George Mitchell (D), former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), money manager Glenn Dubin and MIT professor Marvin Minsky.


Virginia Giuffre, now an adult, says she was also sent to modeling executive Jean Luc Brunel and the late MIT scientist Marvin Minsky, according to parts of a 2016 deposition she gave. The testimony by Giuffre, who claims she was a “sex slave” for Epstein from 2000 to 2002, expands on her previous allegations, in court filings and tabloids, that she was forced to have sex with the U.K.’s Prince Andrew and Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz. Both men have strenuously denied those allegations. –Bloomberg


He was arrested on July 6 at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey on charges of sex-trafficking minors and subsequently denied bail.






Meanwhile, Epstein’s personal pilots had been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors in Manhattan last month, which could be used to corroborate accounts from Epstein’s accusers, as well as his travels and associates.


A conveniently timed sale


While prosecutors claimed that Epstein owns two private jets, the registered sex offender’s attorneys said in a court filing earlier this month that he owns one private jet, and “sold the other jet in June 2019.” Considering that he was arrested after returning from Paris in his Gulfstream G550, per Bloomberg, it suggests that Epstein sold his infamous and evidence-rich Boeing 272-200 known as the “Lolita Express” weeks before his arrest.



According to flight logs, former President Bill Clinton flew on the “Lolita Express” a total of 27 times. “Many of those times Clinton had his Secret Service with him and many times he did not,” according to investigative journalist Conchita Sarnoff – who first revealed the former president’s extensive flights on Epstein’s “lolita express” in a 2010 Daily Beast exposé.



Clinton claimed in a July statement that he only took “a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane” in 2002 and 2003, and that Secret Service accompanied him at all times – which Sarnoff told Fox News was a total lie.


“I know from the pilot logs and these are pilot logs that you know were written by different pilots and at different times that Clinton went, he was a guest of Epstein’s 27 times,” said Sarnoff.


“It would not be surprising to find that some of these flight logs…were likely designed to hide evidence of criminal activity—or perhaps later cleansed of such evidence,” wrote the lawyers for some of Epstein’s accusers in a 2015 court filing.



Investigators may be interested in asking Mr. Epstein’s pilots whether they witnessed any efforts by Mr. Epstein to interfere with law enforcement, according to legal experts. In recent court filings, prosecutors have accused Mr. Epstein of tampering with witnesses, an allegation that Mr. Epstein’s lawyers denied in court.


Federal prosecutors in Miami and Mr. Epstein’s lawyers in 2007 negotiated over the possibility of Mr. Epstein pleading guilty to obstruction of justice, including for an incident involving one of his pilots, according to emails that became public in civil lawsuits. –Wall Street Journal



Meanwhile, prosecutors confirmed in filings that there are “uncharged individuals” in Epstein’s case – which has just gone away.


And look what’s trending:




95

      

By Caitlin Johnstone


The always reliable NBC News has published an important and informative article titled “Russia-linked Twitter accounts promoted ‘doxxing’ over racial tension videos”, which uses fearless investigative insinuations and cutting-edge vagueness to inform readers that viral videos of Americans being racist are essentially a Russian fabrication.


The article’s four authors boldly document the shocking, bombshell findings of a Clemson University study that “almost 30 suspicious Twitter accounts” were involved in retweeting videos of racist behavior from white Americans, and, as alert readers should all be aware by now, “suspicious” is another word for “Russian”. Since we all know that racism has never been a problem in America and only Russian agents could possibly promote such an outlandish idea, we can safely assume that anyone we see sharing viral videos of white Americans being horrible to minorities is a subversive agent of the Kremlin.


         



      

Due to the need to protect Western democracy from the malign influence of Moscow, it has become increasingly necessary for patriotic citizens to call attention to these nefarious propagandists so that social media users don’t become hypnotized by their soul-corrupting memes. This is why you will very often see alert netizens sounding the alarm online whenever they catch someone doing something Kremliny, such as expressing skepticism of Western intelligence agencies or criticizing Kamala Harris. Here are five things you can do to avoid being caught in the crossfire of this vital information war and getting labeled a Russian agent yourself:


1. Always support all actions of the US military and its allies.


There’s only one person who benefits from skepticism toward the activities of Western military forces, and that’s Vladimir Putin. Nobody but a GRU agent would question the fact that our brave men and women in uniform are out there fighting for freedom and democracy in the highest interest of everyone involved. Our trusted leaders have never lied to us about what they are using the armed forces for, and they’re not about to start now.


This rule applies to news which demonstrates the need for military action as well. If the television tells you that Bashar al-Assad has dropped poison gas on an area full of children and video cameras, and you find your mind quibbling over details like the absence of any strategic reason for such a thing, just relax and keep watching. This is just your mind trying to turn you Russian. The TV will straighten you out.


2. Believe everything the news reporters tells you.


It is a known fact that Putin’s main goal in his hybrid warfare against truth and freedom is to weaken our trust in our institutions. That’s step one of his plot: weaken our trust in our institutions and media. Step two, well, nobody knows what step two is, but step three is the annexation of America and the EU into the Russian Federation.


The best way to thwart this sinister plot is therefore to place as much trust as possible in authoritative news bodies which, unlike Russian media, have no record of circulating fake news or propaganda at any time ever. There is a fully diverse range of trusted media outlets for you to choose from, varying all the way across the entire political spectrum from politically conservative outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, to highly progressive news outlets like The Washington Post and MSNBC. There’s something for everybody!


3. Accept Joe Biden as your Lord and Savior.




Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!
Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom




   #mc_embed_signup {clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 15px; }
         .cmhead{color: rgb(255,199,27); text-shadow: 1px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.5); text-align: center; font-size: 250%; font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: 700;}
         .cmsubhead{color: rgb(255,255,255); text-align: center; font-size: 150%; font-family: sans-serif;}
         .cmformhead{color: rgb(30, 29, 29); font-size: 160%; font-family: sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px;}
         #mc_embed_signup form { display: inline-block; background-color: #FFF; background-color: #FFF; margin-top: 20px; border-color: rgb(31, 31, 31);
    outline: none;
    background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
    opacity: 1;
    border-width: 3px;
    border-style: solid;
    border-radius: 5px;
    width:70%;
}
#mc_embed_signup input.email  {width: 90%; }
#mc_embed_signup input.button { width: 93%; background-color: rgb(246, 137, 34); border-bottom: 3px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.2); font-size: 160%;}
#mc_embed_signup .button:hover {background-color: #e67409;}
   /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
      We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */



   
         
Claim Your FREE Issue Today!
   
   


   





President Joe is happening. It’s like one of his famous neck kisses: you might not like it, you might not want it, but it’s happening. So you may as well get used to the idea. Don’t struggle against it. Don’t protest it. Don’t be Russian about it.


This rule also applies to the surrogate Joe Bidens waiting in the wings in case Plan A falls through. No objecting to President Kamala, President Liz or President Beto, either. If the DNC decides that that’s what’s best for you then you’ll vote for it and say thank you, you insolent little shits.


4. Kiss up to power, kick down at the oppressed.


Your government loves you. Your government would never do anything to harm you. Your government would never do anything to harm anyone. Anyone who criticizes your government or its friends is your enemy. They are Russian. They must be destroyed.


The unwashed masses want to take from your leaders what is rightfully theirs. The unwashed masses have been hypnotized by Russia. They do not know what is best for them. They are useful idiots. It is your job to correct their thinking, loyal citizen. Correct them as forcefully as necessary.


5. Believe all America’s problems started in January 2017.




Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!



It is common knowledge that the White House has been infiltrated by the Kremlin using a complex scheme involving hackers, Facebook memes, Trump Tower, and urinating Russian prostitutes. All of America’s problems began at that time, whether they be racism, gun violence, deportations, Republican Party corruption, or political divisiveness. Any attempt to trace any problems to any time prior to January 2017 or any location other than Moscow is Russian. If we get rid of the Putin Puppet, we solve all of America’s problems forever.


If you meticulously follow these five steps, loyal citizen, you can be sure to avoid ever being labeled a Russian agent. Probably. Maybe. Depends how obedient you are. I wouldn’t worry about it.


The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.


Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.


Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   
96

      

By Elias Marat


Top law enforcement officials in the state of Ohio are upset at lawmakers, accusing the politicians of accidentally legalizing cannabis throughout the state.


As a result, prosecutors are now upset that they are no longer able to prosecute misdemeanor marijuana cases as they previously could, according to WBNS. And now, Ohio prosecutors are either holding off on pursuing charges against those in possession of the plant or throwing them out altogether.


The controversy comes after the state decriminalized hemp last week. And while hemp and marijuana are both cannabis plants, the two are distinct because of the amount of THC—the psychoactive compound that intoxicates users—that they contain.


         



      

By legal definition, hemp is cannabis that contains less than 0.3 percent of THC. If it contains any more of the compound, it becomes subject to criminal laws beyond the state’s stringent medical marijuana program.


Jason Pappas, vice president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, complained:



Now we have to be able to distinguish the difference between hemp and marijuana.


That is not possible for a human being to do, that has to be done through crime analysis.



The hue and cry being raised by prohibitionist officials in the state appears to be a huge exaggeration and doesn’t amount to a free license for Ohioans to stock up on the buds.


Organically Grown CBD Oil and Products Available (Ad)


Yet, because of the new law, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has instructed prosecutors in a letter to hold off on marijuana criminal indictments until the cannabis can be tested. This has resulted in the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation labs buying and setting up new testing equipment while exploring the option of sending material to labs out of state until they get their hardware up and running in Ohio.


Louis Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, told USA Today:







At least for the next several months, it’s the de facto legalization of marijuana because there’s no way for law enforcement to tell what’s legal and what’s not legal.



Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein has announced that it has no plans to continue prosecuting marijuana misdemeanor cases. But he also doesn’t plan to drop any pending cases, either. Klein explained:


We cannot prove those beyond a reasonable doubt because we cannot make the distinction whether it is hemp or whether it is marijuana … So, just from a practical standpoint, because we can no longer prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, we’re no longer going to be prosecuting these cases because we do not have the resources to do so.


Cannabis has been subject to prohibitionist laws since 1937, when the plant was largely demonized and associated with Mexican immigrants amid rising racist and nativist attitudes supported by federal and local authorities and media outlets. During the 1970s, marijuana was depicted by authorities as a drug serving no medicinal purpose that was simply abused by delinquents seeking to get high.


A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 62 percent of U.S. residents, including 74 percent of millennials, favor an end to the prohibition of cannabis.




American Natural Superfood - Free Sample



In 1996, California became the first state to legalize cannabis for medical use, and over 34 states have since done the same. Eleven other states along with Washington, D.C. have freed the herb almost entirely for recreational purposes. Last month, New York State also finally decriminalized the plant, joining 18 other states that have done the same. However, the plant still remains illegal under federal law.


Under Ohio state law, the possession of up to 100 grams of cannabis is classified as a minor misdemeanor offense, according to marijuana reform group NORML.


However, the City of Cincinnati passed a municipal measure that went into effect on July 12 that eliminates criminal and civil penalties for marijuana possession. Cincinnati is one among a growing number of Ohio cities, including Athens and Toledo, that has sought to eliminate penalties for marijuana possession.



By Elias Marat | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com


Image credit: Pixabay


Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.


Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   
97

      

By Adam Schwartz


Biometric surveillance by companies against consumers is a growing menace to our privacy, freedom of expression, and civil rights. Fortunately, a federal appeals court has ruled that a lawsuit against Facebook for its face surveillance may move forward.


The decision, by the federal Ninth Circuit about an Illinois privacy law, is the first by an American appellate court to directly identify the unique hazards of face surveillance. This is an important victory for biometric privacy, access to the courts for ordinary people, and the role of state governments as guardians of our digital liberty.


Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act


The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008 (BIPA) is one of our nation’s most important privacy safeguards for ordinary people against corporations that want to harvest and monetize their personal information.


         



      

BIPA bars a company from collecting, using, or sharing a person’s biometric information, absent that person’s informed opt-in consent. BIPA also requires a company to destroy a person’s biometric information when its purpose for collection is satisfied, or within three years of the company’s last contact with the person, whichever is sooner. BIPA provides the strongest enforcement tool: a “private right of action,” meaning a person may file their own lawsuit against a company that violates their privacy rights.


The Illinois General Assembly explained, when passing BIPA, that “biometrics are unlike other unique identifiers” because they are “biologically unique to the individual.” As a result, “once compromised, the individual has no recourse, [and] is at heightened risk for identity theft.” Lawmakers also pointed out that the ramifications of biometric technology “are not fully known.”


In Rosenbach v. Six Flags (2019), the Illinois Supreme Court held that BIPA does not require a plaintiff to prove an injury beyond a violation of the statute itself. The court reasoned:


When a private entity fails to adhere to the statutory procedures, as defendants are alleged to have done here, the right of the individual to maintain their biometric privacy vanishes into thin air. The precise harm the Illinois legislature sought to prevent is then realized. This is no mere “technicality.” The injury is real and significant.


EFF filed an amicus brief in Rosenbach in support of this outcome, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Illinois, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, Illinois Public Interest Research Group, and Lucy Parsons Lab.


Patel v. Facebook


In 2010, Facebook launched its “Tag Suggestions” feature. It uses face recognition technology to match known faces in user profile pictures and other photos to unknown faces in newly uploaded photos. If this face surveillance system generates a match, then Facebook will notify the person who uploaded the photo and suggest a “tag.” If that person accepts the tag, then the person in the photo will be identified by name. Facebook imposed this face surveillance system on users by default. To avoid it, a user must affirmatively opt-out, which most users won’t do.


Facebook has migrated some of its users from its “Tag Suggestions” feature to its “Face Recognition” feature, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s recently filed consumer deception complaint against Facebook. The default remains application of face surveillance.


In 2015, Illinois residents filed a class action lawsuit in federal court called Patel v. Facebook. The plaintiffs allege that Facebook’s “Tag Suggestions” feature violates BIPA. They reason that this feature collects and uses their biometric information without their informed opt-in consent, and does not satisfy the statutory destruction deadline. Facebook removed the case from Illinois to California, where Facebook has its headquarters.


The Patel trial court denied Facebook’s motion to dismiss, and certified a class of Facebook users. The appellate court allowed Facebook to take an immediate appeal of the class certification decision.


“Standing” and Spokeo


The key issue on appeal in Patel was whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently shown that Facebook’s biometric surveillance caused them a concrete injury. The U.S. Constitution limits the federal courts to deciding “cases and controversies.” That means a plaintiff cannot sue a defendant unless they can show “standing,” meaning that the defendant has injured them in a concrete manner.


You’d think that when a company violates a person’s rights under a statute, and that statute provides that person a private right of action to sue that company, then that person automatically has constitutional standing. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a person in such circumstances might or might not have standing. This depends, among other things, on the legal history of the particular statutory interest at issue. EFF filed an amicus brief in Spokeo (along with CDT, the Open Technology Institute, and the World Privacy Forum) arguing that standing in such cases should be automatic, but that view did not carry the day.


Spokeo can sometimes be a barrier to the enforcement of consumer data privacy laws. For example, when a company’s negligent data security practices cause massive breaches of consumers’ personal information, the company may argue that the injured consumers cannot sue based solely on violations of data security statutes. Rather, the company may argue, the Constitution also requires them to show a financial or physical injury, such as identity theft. This is one of the problems in our legal system that limited the recently proposed settlement of the Equifax data breach litigation. (Don’t forget to file your settlement claim against Equifax.)


The New Appellate Court Ruling in Patel






On August 8, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Patel plaintiffs have constitutional standing to sue Facebook for violating their statutory privacy rights under BIPA. In doing so, the appellate court forcefully explained the hazards of face surveillance and the importance of BIPA’s privacy protections.


The court presented centuries of history of U.S. legal protections for privacy, sounding in the common law and the Constitution. For example, in the context of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “advances in technology can increase the potential for unreasonable intrusions into personal privacy.” The appellate court cited the Supreme Court’s protection of the public from home-intruding heat detectors in Kyllo v. United States (2001), GPS location tracking in United States v. Jones (2012), cellphone searches in Riley v. California (2014), and cell-tower location tracking in Carpenter v. United States (2018).


The court held that “an invasion of an individual’s biometric privacy rights has a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts.” Quoting Carpenter, the court explained that biometric information is “detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled.”


Most importantly, the appellate court explained the grave privacy threats posed by Facebook’s face surveillance:


Once a face template of an individual is created, Facebook can use it to identify that individual in any of the other hundreds of millions of photos uploaded to Facebook each day, as well as determine when the individual was present at a specific location. Facebook can also identify the individual’s Facebook friends or acquaintances who are present in the photo. Taking into account the future development of such technology as suggested in Carpenter, it seems likely that a face-mapped individual could be identified from a surveillance photo taken on the streets or in an office building. Or a biometric face template could be used to unlock the face recognition lock on that individual’s cell phone. We conclude that the development of a face template using facial-recognition technology without consent (as alleged here) invades an individual’s private affairs and concrete interests.


The appellate court also upheld the trial court’s certification of a class of Facebook users. Facebook reportedly plans to seek review by the full appellate court.


EFF filed an amicus brief in Patel regarding the privacy menace of face surveillance, along with the ACLU, its Illinois and California affiliates, CDT, and Illinois PIRG.


Lessons For Legislators


Especially after the new Patel decision, Illinois’ BIPA is one of the most important data privacy laws in the country. What lessons does BIPA hold for legislators who want to better protect their constituents from corporations that place their profits before our privacy?




Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!



First, a privacy law is only as strong as its enforcement tools, and the best enforcement tool is a private right of action. In many cases, government agencies can’t or won’t enforce a statute. So people must be free to protect their own rights by filing their own lawsuits.


Second, Congress must not pass a weak federal data privacy law that preempts stronger state privacy laws. Many big tech companies told Congress for years that they could self-regulate. Now some of them are asking Congress for regulation. What changed? They want to dodge Illinois’ BIPA and other state consumer data privacy laws, like California’s Consumer Privacy Act and Vermont’s data broker registration statute.


Thus, opposition to preemption and support for private enforcement are EFFs two most important demands, among our many proposals for new consumer data privacy legislation.


Next steps


The Ninth Circuit’s new ruling in Patel is a watershed in privacy law. It allows litigation to go forward challenging Facebook’s biometric surveillance of users absent their informed opt-in consent. It explains, more forcefully than any American appellate court opinion to date, the extraordinary privacy hazards of face surveillance. It holds that a loss of statutory privacy rights under Illinois BIPA is, by itself, a sufficient injury to show constitutional standing under Spokeo. And it clearly demonstrates the necessity of private rights of action, and why Congress must not preempt stronger state laws.


Most importantly, it shows what all of us must do now: contact our federal and state legislators, and demand that they enact strong consumer data privacy laws. Illinois BIPA, as strengthened by Patel, is a model for others to follow.



Adam Schwartz is a Senior Staff Attorney with the EFF’s civil liberties team.


This article was sourced from EFF.org


Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.


Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
Pin



Previous post


Next post



Be the first to comment on "Victory! Lawsuit May Proceed Against Facebook’s Biometric Surveillance"



   
      

Leave a comment Cancel reply

         
            

Your email address will not be published.


Comment


Name *



Website


         
         

      
98

      

By B.N. Frank


If there were clear warnings on cell phones to NOT hold or wear cell phones directly next to the body, do you think more people wouldn’t do this?  Do you think more people wouldn’t allow their children to do this?


Children are actually more vulnerable to harm caused by exposure to sources of cell phone radiation and WiFi. In fact, there is no “safe” level of exposure that has been scientifically determined for children or pregnant women.


Outside of the U.S., some government officials have already taken action to inform citizens of risks.  Berkeley, California stores are now required to provide printed guidelines and warnings to customers with the sale of cell phones.  This requirement was not easily won despite decades of research that has proven harm from exposure.


         



      

IEEE is one of many organizations that has weighed in on this issue:



Abstract:


In our publications, we have shown both from measurements and computer modeling that the specific absorption rate (SAR) reduces by 10%-15% for every millimeter separation of the cell phone on account of rapidly diminishing EM fields in the near-field region of the cell phone antenna. This rapid reduction of SAR depending on the antenna and its location on the handset has been shown, both computationally and experimentally, regardless of the phantom model such as a flat phantom suggested for SAR compliance testing of devices in contact with the body, for a sphere phantom, and for head-shaped models used for SAR compliance testing of cell phones. Unfortunately, our observations in the past were based on SARs of only three cell phones. Expecting that the SARs for cell phones may exceed the safety limits for body contact, cell phone manufacturers have started to recommend that the devices can be used at 5-25 mm from the body even though it is difficult to see how to maintain this distance correctly under mobile conditions. The National Agency ANFR of France recently released the cell phone SAR test data for 450 cell phones that measure 10-g SARs reducing by 10%-30% for each millimeter distal placement from the planar body phantom. Their data corroborate our findings that most cell phones will exceed the safety guidelines when held against the body by factors of 1.6-3.7 times for the European/ICNIRP standard or by factors as high as 11 if 1-g SAR values were to be measured as required by the U.S. FCC.












American Natural Superfood - Free Sample




Activist Post regularly reports about research and risks associated with exposure to all sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) or “Electrosmog.” For more information, visit our archives and the following websites.



Center For Safer Wireless
Center For Electrosmog Prevention
Clear Light Ventures
ElectromagneticHealth
EMF Safety Network
Environmental Health Trust
Generation Zapped
National Association for Children and Safe Technology
Parents for Safe Technology
Physicians for Safe Technology
SaferEMR
SafeTechForSchools

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.


Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   
99

      

By Aaron Kesel


Monsanto (Bayer) operated an intelligence-gathering “fusion center,” to discredit journalists and activists, including singer Neil Young, and paid Google to bury results in its search engine, The Guardian, reported.


Activist Post previously reported that Bayer/Monsanto — the formerly merged company of potentially two of the evilest businesses in history — had kept a file of 200 names, including journalists and lawmakers in hopes of influencing their positions on pesticides according to French prosecutors.


Now, The Guardian has an exposé on Monsanto going a step beyond by spying on journalists through use of a Fusion Center type operation and paying Google to hide negative results.


         



      

The Guardian reports:


The records reviewed by the Guardian show Monsanto adopted a multi-pronged strategy to target Carey Gillam, a Reuters journalist who investigated the company’s weedkiller and its links to cancer. Monsanto, now owned by the German pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, also monitored a not-for-profit food research organization through its “intelligence fusion center”, a term that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies use for operations focused on surveillance and terrorism.


         



      

The documents, originating from 2015 to 2017, were disclosed as part of one of numerous ongoing court battles on the health hazards of the company’s Roundup weedkiller.


According to The Guardian report, Monsanto also paid Google to promote search results for “Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam” that criticized her work. Further, Monsanto PR staff internally talked about putting pressure on the Reuters news agency, stating they should “continue to push back on [Gillam’s] editors very strongly every chance we get,” and were hoping “she gets reassigned.”


As this author reported for Activate Now, Bayer/Monsanto was recently faced with a jury concluding that its Roundup product causes cancer. The finding was according to a second U.S. jury who ruled its Roundup weed killer was a carcinogenic substance that caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s disease.


Another California man, Dewayne Lee Johnson, was awarded $289 million in August last year after a state jury found Roundup caused his own cancer. That award was later reduced to $78 million and is on appeal by Bayer.


Monsanto recently lost its third legal battle over its massively popular Roundup herbicide, facing a fine of $2.055 billion by a jury in San Francisco who ordered the chemical giant to pay Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, California, who said it caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.


The $2 billion in punitive damages and $55 million in compensatory is certain to be reduced by the trial judge or on appeal as David Levine, University of California, Hastings School of Law professor told the Associated Press, “There is zero chance it will stand.”


The Pilliods said they used Roundup once a week for nine months of the year for more than three decades before being diagnosed with cancer in 2011 and 2015, according to BuzzFeed News.


“We wish that Monsanto had warned us ahead of time of the dangers of using Monsanto and that there was something in the front of their label that said ‘Danger, may cause cancer,'” Alberta Pilliod said at the press conference. “It’s changed our lives forever. We can’t do the things that we used to be able to do, and we really resent Monsanto for that fact.”


Christopher Loder, a spokesman for Monsanto declined to comment on the existence of a fusion center, but said in a statement to The Guardian that the records show


…that Monsanto’s activities were intended to ensure there was a fair, accurate and science-based dialogue about the company and its products in response to significant misinformation, including steps to respond to the publication of a book written by an individual who is a frequent critic of pesticides and GMOs.


Loder added the documents were “cherry-picked by plaintiffs’ lawyers and their surrogates” and that the files did not contradict existing science supporting the continued use of glyphosate, “We take the safety of our products and our reputation very seriously and work to ensure that everyone … has accurate and balanced information.”


You know what the documents do show Loder? They illustrate that Monsanto was operating not as a corporation but as its own private intelligence service going after anyone who dared to criticize or challenge that its products caused health problems.


Activist Post has reported previously that Monsanto had Blackwater set up as its “Intel arm” by Cofer Black, the former head of the CIA’s counter-terrorism center. In 2008 Black traveled to Zürich to meet Kevin Wilson, a security manager for global issues at Monsanto. Black worked as the chairman for the Total Intelligence Consulting Company at the time, which was owned by Blackwater. During this meeting with Wilson, Black proposed to make Total Intelligence the “intel arm” of Monsanto.


Monsanto then hired Total Intelligence Solutions from 2008-09 under the agreement, contracting the firm to “infiltrate animal rights activist groups by having employees become legal members.” It also promised to monitor activists’ blogs and websites on Monsanto’s behalf.


As such it’s very interesting to know that Monsanto continued its intel operations after 2009, all the way up to at least 2017. Although it is unknown if Blackwater’s Total Intelligence was still involved in the monitoring operations.


Further, as a reminder to the reader, it is important to note: Monsanto is documented to have paid off Sir Richard Doll, a renowned cancer researcher, for 20 years. Doll received a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s for his research on Monsanto’s Agent Orange, finding the chemical didn’t cause cancer.


The Guardian also previously reported that Monsanto employed a number of corrupt tactics including ghostwriting studies (paying off researchers), interfering with regulatory agencies, refusing to conduct long-term safety studies all while spending millions of dollars on secretive PR campaigns to attack scientists and critics.


“Monsanto was its own ghostwriter for some safety reviews,” Bloomberg reported, and an EPA official reportedly helped Monsanto “kill” another agency’s cancer study. An award-winning  investigation in Le Monde details Monsanto’s effort “to destroy the United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible” to save glyphosate.






While Monsanto always insisted “glyphosate has a long history of safe use,” a study by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” back in 2015.


One year later, another organization, PAN, the Pesticide Action Network International, issued a 96-page report stating that glyphosate contaminates the Global Ecosystem. That same year the FDA suspended testing for glyphosate residues in food. Those foods, according to a subsequent report by Food Democracy Now! and the Detox Project, included many of America’s most popular foods including – cookies, crackers, popular cold cereals, and chips. The chemical was also found in several wines including organic wines, baby food and formula, breast milk and even tampons.


Glyphosate is also sprayed directly on many types of conventional crops before harvest, including wheat, oats, and barley. In all, glyphosate is used in some fashion in the production of at least 70 food crops, according to the EPA, including a range of fruits, nuts, and veggies.


Glyphosate was also listed as a carcinogen on California EPA’s Prop 65 list in July of 2017, while a study published in January of 2017 proved that chronic consumption of low levels of Roundup (which contains glyphosate) caused fatty liver disease in animals.


Meanwhile, in another study scientists have found that exposing rats to ultra-low doses of Roundup caused liver and kidney damage.


Another study done by the WHO and UN experts at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) conflicted the IARC report and found that “glyphosate did not cause cancer and pose a risk to humans.”


An additional report earlier this year by the European Chemical Agency agreed with the FAO study stating that glyphosate was “safe.”


Monsanto now (Bayer) has an obvious conflicting record on whether or not its glyphosate chemical is safe or not.


One may wonder why they chose to go with Bayer instead of Monsanto, as Bayer also has a nasty history. No one is forgetting anytime soon that Bayer sold tainted hemophiliac medicine which caused users to contract AIDS, sorry PR reps.


Bill Maher runs down both evil companies’ so-called “achievements” in the video below, which includes “giving heroin to children as medicine, creating Zyklon B, PCBs, Aspartame, DDT, Agent Orange and of course Roundup!”



Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bayer’s Roundup product isn’t the only product that causes problems; another commodity called Dicamba has also faced a backlash.




Brave - The Browser Built for Privacy



Dicamba has been under fire by farmers for causing widespread damage to their crops that are not GMOs designed to resist the chemical. Dicamba was even banned in Arkansas by the Plant Board, which Monsanto disputed and sued the group for acting outside its authority in prohibiting its herbicide’s use and failing to consider research Monsanto had submitted to federal regulators.


Dicamba is considered more toxic than glyphosate, but less toxic than 2,4-D, the third most common broadleaf herbicide. (Monsanto is working on crops that are resistant to 2,4-D, as well.) Yet, when used properly, dicamba is considered only mildly toxic to people, pollinators, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. There is no scientific consensus on whether it has cancer-causing properties, though the EPA says “Dicamba is not likely to be a human carcinogen.”


Then there is Monsanto’s product it canceled launching, called NemaStrike, which is designed to be applied to crop seeds to protect them from worms and other bugs. The launch was halted after reports indicated that it caused strange rashes on people who came into contact with the chemical.


There are now three cases against Bayer found to be guilty for causing cancer; a pending estimated 11,200 Roundup lawsuits by farmers, home gardeners, and landscapers; and a total of 13,000 plaintiffs claiming its glyphosate-based herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. There are also six more trials due to start this year alone in federal and state courts in the U.S.  Bayer is going to have a busy time with litigation, especially since this piles on top of a flood of lawsuits over waterways contaminated with PCBs (chemical compounds used in transformers, paints, sealants), and fresh cases emerging over Dicamba.


According to U.S. Right To Know’s Monsanto Trial Tracker, which is run by Carey Gillam the next trial (Gordon v. Monsanto) is fixed for August which will be against Sharlean Gordon, a cancer-stricken woman in her 50s, currently set for trial in St. Louis County Circuit Court on Aug. 19th. However, a news update on August 7th stated the trial in St. Louis may be delayed pending a potential settlement.


Because of these lawsuits, Monsanto is having its dirty laundry aired out exposing the tactics Monsanto used to deny cancer risk and protect its prized chemical Roundup.


Citizens are growing increasingly aware that companies like Bayer/Monsanto are bad for their health and the environment. It’s heartbreaking to see a chemical company involved with the poisoning of U.S. families still poisoning people decades later.


What’s more worrying is that Monsanto ordered Blackwater to harass private citizens, paid off researchers and has had a revolving door in the U.S. for policy. All of this truly shows the extent of the stain of corruption that Monsanto has manufactured and been allowed to continue.


Now we have evidence Monsanto paid off Google, scientists, academics and more. That’s not all, we have undeniable proof that Monsanto threatened its critics, and may have broken privacy laws by spying on journalists, and activists alike.


Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter.


Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.


Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


Image credit: Pixabay


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
Pin



Previous post


      
   
100

      

By Eoin Higgins


This is a developing story and may be updated.


(CD) Thousands of pages of documents related to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking of young girls were released Friday, opening the floodgates on one of the biggest scandals of 2019.


“Excellent,” tweeted producer Andy Lassner. “Shine that light as bright as possible on all of it.”


The documents (pdf) (pdf) (pdf), which were still being published at press time, detail years of abuse from Epstein and an alleged wide-ranging conspiracy spanning multiple countries and states, involving powerful people around the globe.


         



      

Friday’s document release caps a week of news around Epstein, the reclusive money manager whose friendships with President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, England’s Prince Andrew, and others have fueled interest in the case. Epstein is being held in New York City.


On Wednesday, L Brands CEO Les Wexner, whose company owns Victoria’s Secret and other brands and who was long connected to Epstein, claimed that Epstein had misappropriated large sums of money from Wexner and that the two had not been close since 2007.


“We discovered that he had misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family,” Wexner wrote in a letter to his charitable Wexner Foundation Community. “This was, frankly, a tremendous shock, even though it clearly pales in comparison to the unthinkable allegations against him now.”


The next day, a woman who claims Epstein raped her when she was 15 asked a Manhattan court to force Epstein to reveal the name of the woman who recruited her. The recruiter’s identity is needed, lawyers for Jennifer Araoz argued, because Araoz wishes to include her in a suit against Epstein.






The order came from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in July, as Courthouse News reporter Adam Klasfeld reported at the time. The ruling (pdf), written by Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes, determined that the release of the documents was in the public interest.


“We have long noted that the press plays a vital role in ensuring the public right of access and in enhancing ‘the quality and safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process,’” the July opinion reads. “When faithfully observing its best traditions, the print and electronic media ‘contributes to public understanding of the rule of law’ and ‘validates [its] claim of functioning as surrogates for the public.’”


Documents are still being uploaded for public perusal.


But they’re sure to have at least some people feeling nervous, as Klasfeld reported:


Epstein separately faces sex-trafficking charges that have heaped scrutiny on two U.S. presidents, Prince Andrew of England, and other titans from the legal, finance, scientific and business elite known to have been linked to him.




American Natural Superfood - Free Sample



And, as Klasfeld noted on Twitter, today’s dump isn’t everything.


“What’s been released today isn’t the entire tranche that the Second Circuit ordered unsealed last month,” said Klasfeld. “The majority of the unsealing will be performed by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska on remand, but make no mistake, this is quite a flood today.”


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]