"I can't wait to kick your door in." Says cop in Connecticut. *video*

Connecticut Cop says he can't wait to kick in doors to confiscating weapons. Bloodshed will happen because of this unconstitutional law.

Read More

Now New Jersey Threatens to Ban Common .22 Rifles, Confiscate Guns

From: Bearingarms.com

Do anti-gun Democrats in New Jersey live in a vacuum? Are they completely unaware of the problems unfolding in New York and Connecticut with their gun registration/confiscation schemes?

Or are they simply too power-mad to care?

The New Jersey Assembly’s Law and Public Safety Committee was scheduled to hold a public hearing on Monday (postponed for snow) about a bill that reduces the maximum magazine capacity from 15 to 10.

Since the legislation covers both detachable and fixed magazines, it has the effect of to banning popular, low-caliber rifles.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs gave the draft legislation to top firearms experts in the country to determine what guns would fall under the expanded ban.

They discovered that the bill would affect tube-fed, semi-automatic rifles because the magazine cannot be separated from the gun

Thus, the experts found that at least 43 common rifles would suddenly be considered a prohibited “assault firearm,” such as the .22 caliber Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190.

Just having one such gun would turn a law-abiding owner into a felon overnight.

Anti-gun state legislators are losing their collective minds. If they aren’t careful, that might not be all they lose.

Read More

Bloomberg's latest stats on school gun violence ignore reality

Are schools and colleges dangerous places, with lots of gun violence?

Some groups paint a picture of these places being particularly unsafe. Supposedly both murders and firearm suicides are very common at educational institutions. Last Wednesday, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s two groups, Moms Demand Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, jointly released a reportthat received massive uncritical news coverage.

Notice anything wrong in this picture? 

They claimed that 44 shootings occurred in schools and colleges nationwide since the Newtown, Conn. massacre on Dec. 14, 2012 and Feb. 10 of this year. Out of the 44 shootings, a total of 28 died. To dramatize their numbers, Bloomberg’s groups emphasized that one of these attacks occurred every 10 days.

But their statistics are not what they seem. Included in the numbers are suicides. Also included are late night shootings taking place in school parking lots, on their grounds or even off school property, often involving gangs. As “shootings,” they also include any incident where shots were fired, even when nobody was injured.

Look at some of the cases included in their misleading statistics:

• A student at Eastern Florida State College retrieved his gun from his car when two men attacked him. One of the men was striking the student with a pool cue, and the student fired his gun wounding him. The gun was legally stored in the student’s car and the police found that he had acted in self-defense.
• A 19-year-old was killed at 9pm in a field near the Hillside Elementary School in San Leandro, California.
• A professor at the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology committed suicide in an empty classroom.
• A 23-year-old man committed suicide late at night on school grounds when no one was around the Algona High/Middle School in Iowa.
• A 38-year-old man was shot to death at 2am on the grounds of the Clarksville, Tennessee High School.
• A 19-year-old man committed suicide in the parking lot of a Portland, Maine high school. No one at the school was threatened.
The list goes on and on. Overall,

• About 40 percent of the deaths (11 out of 28) were suicides.
• Out of the 28 K-12 school shootings, at least four, possibly as many as eight, were gang shootings. Several of the college cases probably also involved gangs.
Indeed, gangs are a major problem. But they aren’t just a threat off school campuses. And some schools just happen to be located near dangerous areas, so the gang activity spills over to school grounds. Linking such violence to the Newtown tragedy is highly misleading.

Also, some perspective is needed. Contrary to what many people believe, high school shootings have actually been falling over the last two decades. To illustrate this let’s compare the five school years 1992-93 to 1996-97 with the five school years from 2008-09 to 2012-13. During the first period, the number of non-gang, non-suicide shooting deaths averaged 25 a year. During the recent five-year period, it averaged less than half that, 10 per year – and that figure does include the horrific Newtown massacre.

To put these numbers in perspective, there are about 50 millionyoung people between the ages of 6 and 17. Another 21 millionpeople are enrolled in colleges.

One of the motivations behind the report put out by the gun control groups was that the media was ignoring these so-called “mini-Newtowns.” Yet, all of these cases received extensive coverage. A gun at a school (or even near a school) is considered newsworthy. For example, USA Today ran at least one story on 24 of these cases.

Scaring Americans may be Bloomberg’s only tool for drumming up support for gun control laws. But it ultimately shows how little faith that gun control advocates have in their case.

Source: Foxnews.com

Read More

Stolen Passports Point to Terrorism in Missing Airliner.

The use of stolen passports by two passengers to board a Malaysian airliner that vanished over the South China Sea raises concerns that terrorists may have caused the jet's apparent crash, say former U.S. security officials who specialize in transportation safety.

Use of stolen passports is a tactic of terrorists trying to avoid detection, while groups including al-Qaeda have sought to crash airplanes into oceans to cover up evidence, according to the experts. Oil slicks discovered yesterday in the Gulf of Thailand by Vietnam's military suggested the Boeing Co. (BA) 777-200 jetliner may have crashed there.

No evidence exists of terrorism at this point, said a U.S. official following the case who asked not to be identified because the investigation is in its early stages. Yet as the probe continues, investigators are likely to consider the two passengers "instant suspects" and will try to establish their real identities, said John Magaw, a former administrator of the Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

"That raised huge red flags -- the stolen passports and the plane crashing over water," said Magaw, who also was director of the U.S. Secret Service and now serves as a security consultant. "Those two things right there are highly, highly, highly suspicious."

The timing of a possible explosion over water "would indicate they were trying to destroy as much evidence as possible and to make it that much harder to trace," he said.

The Malaysian Airline System Bhd. (MAS) plane, en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, was carrying 239 people, including 153 Chinese passengers and three U.S. citizens, according to the airline and U.S. State Department.

Kip Hawley, a former administrator of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, said the stolen-passport report and the prospect the plane crashed into the Gulf of Thailand "makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."

"It sounds like a lot of other plots," he said, referring to one in 2006 involving terrorists who wanted to down jetliners in the Atlantic Ocean by using liquid explosives. That plan was foiled by U.S. and British officials.

Hawley said that based on his experience, U.S. authorities will be looking for evidence that, if an onboard bomb brought down the Malaysian jet, it may have been a test run for a larger attack on multiple planes, as envisioned by various terrorist groups.

The governments of Italy and Austria confirmed that two passports used to board the flight were previously reported stolen by citizens of their countries. After investigators determine the identity of those who used the passports, they will check to see if they were on watch lists of suspected terrorists, Magaw said.

Hawley, a consultant and author of "Permanent Emergency," a book about his time at the TSA, said he has been especially concerned about bombs hidden in the shoes of passengers because they are powerful enough to bring down aircraft and security officials have grown lax about checking footwear.

U.S. security officials last month cautioned airlines about a credible threat posed by shoe bombs.

Hawley said he expects that U.S. authorities, working with counterparts in China and Malaysia, will be particularly interested in how the Malaysian checkpoints worked and whether they properly scanned shoes for explosives.


He said U.S. authorities will also be checking satellite images to see if they detected an explosion on the plane.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. National Security Council, Caitlin Hayden, said in a statement yesterday that "the United States Government is in communication across agencies and with international officials to provide any appropriate assistance in the investigation."

She also said U.S. officials "believe it is too early to comment on the causes" of the plane's disappearance. Her comments were followed by an announcement by the National Transportation Safety Board that it was sending a team of U.S. aviation-accident investigators to assist in the probe of Flight 370, joined by experts from the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing.

Magaw and Hawley stressed that the jet's apparent crash could have been caused by other problems, ranging from pilot error to a failure of the airliner's systems.

Nations hunting for the plane had little to go on, with no distress calls, emergency-beacon signals, bad weather or other signs why an airliner would lose touch in one of the safest phases of flight.

Malaysia has been vulnerable to terrorist activity and has been used as a transit and planning hub for terrorists, according to a 2012 report by the U.S. State Department. Still, the department said the country hasn't suffered a serious terrorism incident for "several years."

The country doesn't require an entry visa for citizens of most countries on short-term visits, although it introduced a biometrics system in 2011 to record the fingerprints of travelers at its ports of entry, according to the State Department.

Read More

NY Town Takes Man to Court Over Refusal to Remove Pro-Second Amendment Sign

A town in western New York state is pursuing charges against a man for refusing to remove a pro-Second Amendment sign from his property, an order the man and his lawyer are calling unconstitutional.

It all started last October when Hamburg resident Scott Zwierucha began displaying a sign on his fence showing support for his county’s sheriff, who stood up to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and said he would not enforce unconstitutional gun laws or ammo restrictions.
“Sheriff Howard- Fighting for Your Rights,” read Zwierucha’s first sign, commending Sheriff Timothy B. Howard for displaying remarkable spine in the face of fierce political pressure.
Zwierucha received a notice from the town for that sign in November, but says when he went to speak with the Town Supervisor he was told it was fine as it was constitutionally protected free speech.

But on Jan. 14, Zwierucha received another notice advising him to remove the sign.
At that point, Zwierucha switched to different signage, a large banner that displayed in bright, bold letters the message, “NY IS NOT S.A.F.E.!! STOP CUOMO – PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS!!”

The sign of course referred to New York’s notoriously draconian anti-Second Amendment law rammed through the state legislature in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, which it turned out was so poorly crafted it actually turned police into criminals overnight.
In early February, Zwierucha received a summons indicating he had violated one of the town ordinances, specifically one dictating that “No images or language shall be painted, affixed to the outward side of any fence or directed at neighboring properties for any reason.”

Ironically, the town sent only him the second notice the day after the town board majority “flipped Democrat,” according to Zwierucha. His suspicions are sound considering our reportage of anti-gun democrats in the New York state Senate who had originally proposed gun confiscation be included in the SAFE Act.

“It in no way causes a problem for anyone,” Zwierucha told Buffalo News. “This is a first amendment issue. There are fences with commercial messages on it all over town,” he said.
It’s on this basis Zwierucha’s lawyer, Jim Ostrowski, wants the city to dismiss the case.

“You have an absolute right to have a political sign on your property in spite of any local laws to the contrary. . Off the public right of way you can have any sign you want and that’s been ruled on by the Supreme Court,” Ostrowski said during an interview with WBEN’s Hardline program.
Ostrowski may be referring to Ladue v. Gilleo, which in 1994 found a city law which prohibited a war protest sign in the window of a home was unconstitutional.

Gun rights groups, such as SCOPE and the Shooter’s Committee on Public Education, are already planning to hold a rally outside of the courthouse on Friday morning before the case is taken up by a judge.

From: Infowars.com

Read More

Report: D.C.'s Green-Approved Buildings Using More Energy.

Washington, D.C. may have the highest number of certified green buildings in the country, but research by Environmental Policy Alliance suggests it might not be doing much good.

The free-market group analyzed the first round of energy usage data released by city officials Friday and found that large, privately-owned buildings that received the green energy certification Leadership in Energy Design (LEED) actually use more energy than buildings that didn’t receive this green stamp of approval.

LEED is the brainchild of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a private environmental group.

Washington, D.C.’s Department of Environment made the capital the first city in the nation to mandate LEED certifications in the construction of public buildings. The standards are now being phased in.

The results are measured in EUI’s, a unit that relates a building’s energy consumption to its size; the higher the number, the more energy is expended by a smaller building.

Take the Green Building Council’s Washington headquarters. Replete with the group’s top green-energy accolade, the platinum LEED certification, the USGBC’s main base comes in at 236 EUI. The average EUI for uncertified buildings in the capital? Just 199.

Certified buildings’ average comes in at 205 EUI, still less efficient than that didn’t take home the ultimate green trophy.

“LEED certification is little more than a fancy plaque displayed by these ‘green’ buildings,” charged Anastasia Swearingen, LEED Exposed’s lead researcher on the project. “Previous analyses of energy use by LEED-certified buildings have consistently shown that LEED ratings have no bearing on actual energy efficiency.”




Swearingen told The Daily Caller News Foundation the system doesn’t take into account any proof of energy efficiency. The LEED model grades buildings on ideal conditions — the certification is based on “if everyone shuts their blinds, turns off their computers at the end of the day, makes sure the lights are off — but it doesn’t factor in how much energy is really used after it’s actually occupied,” Swearingen contended.

In its own report released with the data, even the city’s Department of Environment acknowledged the concerns raised by the “dependence on a third-party organization, over which the government has no oversight, to set the District’s green building standards.” But while it understands the risks, the D.C. government continues to mandate the ratings for public buildings — and get cash from the program.

The city has collected $5.2 million in permit fees from the program since 2010.



Source: Dailycaller.com

Read More

How Did The Maryland Transportation Police Know An Unarmed Man From Florida Was A Concealed Carry Gun Owner Before They Pulled Him Over?

Source: personalliberty.com

A Florida man was traveling South with his family on the way home from a wedding in New Jersey when the Maryland Transportation Authority Police (MTAP) began tailing his Ford Expedition. After about 10 minutes, the police pulled him over and told him they knew he owned a gun. They demanded he produce it for them on the spot — even though the firearm was locked away in a safe 1,000 miles away.

John Filippidis of Hudson, Fla., told The Tampa Tribune he wasn’t speeding or doing anything illegal when the cops took an interest in his car. In fact, he’d intentionally left his Kel-Tec .38 pistol locked up at home precisely because he understood the potential legal headaches that can arise when traveling through multiple State jurisdictions with a firearm.

“I know the laws and I know the rules,” he said. “But I just think it’s a better idea to leave it home.”

So when the Maryland police pulled him over, they took his license and registration back to the patrol cruiser, then returned to the car and ordered him to get out. Here’s the Tribune’s narrative:

Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

“At home in my safe,” John answers.

“Don’t move,” says the officer.

Now he’s at the passenger’s window. “Your husband owns a gun,” he says. “Where is it?”

First Kally [John’s wife] says, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later she says, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

The officer came back to John. “You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”

Of course, John couldn’t show him what didn’t exist, but Kally’s failure to corroborate John’s account, the officer would tell them later, was the probable cause that allowed him to summon backup — three marked cars joined the lineup along the I-95 shoulder — and empty the Expedition of riders, luggage, Christmas gifts, laundry bags; to pat down Kally and [daughter] Yianni; to explore the engine compartment and probe inside door panels; and to separate and isolate the Filippidises in the back seats of the patrol cars.

Ninety minutes later, or maybe it was two hours — “It felt like forever,” Kally says — no weapon found and their possessions repacked, the episode ended … with the officer writing out a warning.

The incident left Filippidis angry and embarrassed, outraged that his children had to endure the unnecessary ordeal while watching the police treat their father like a criminal. And he has no idea how the Maryland Transportation Authority Police knew about his lawful firearm, obtained and maintained in the State of Florida.

MTAP wouldn’t comment to the Tribune, citing an internal investigation into the matter. The police captain who supervises the officer who made the stop has apologized to Filippidis, along with an MTAP Internal Affairs officer.

But Filippidis still doesn’t know why he was stopped, how any of them knew that he was a lawful gun owner in Florida or why it made any difference to the police once they had him in their sights.

Read More

MEET THE COMPANY THAT CAN TRACK EVERYWHERE YOU'VE BEEN AND TELL POLICE ABOUT IT

Source: alternet.org

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security called for bids on a national license plate tracking system. The database would contain information from license-plate-reader cameras that scan and log passing cars and assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in hunting down "criminal aliens and absconders," according to the contract proposal. As the Washington Post pointed out, DHS failed to address the privacy issues that might arise from recording the movements of anyone who's ever been in a car.

After the bid unleashed a torrent of criticism and bad publicity, DHS canceled the contract proposal and claimed that ICE leadership didn't even know about this effort to up their game. Everyone relaxed; DHS was not trying to build a database of everybody's vehicular movements after all. As it turns out, DHS didn't need a national license-plate database, because such a database already exists. It's run by a private company called Vigilant Solutions and ICE and other law enforcement agencies have been dipping into it for years, according to documents obtained by ACLU Massachusetts.

According to its website, Vigilant "creates intelligence by merging previously disparate data sets such as fixed and mobile license plate recognition, public records, facial recognition, and more." In its spare time, it's suing the state of Utah for passing a law restricting the collection of license plate data.

AlterNet spoke with Kade Crockford, director of the Technology for Liberty program at the Massachusetts ACLU, about Vigilant Solutions, law enforcement abuses of privacy and the dangers posed by license plate reader databases.

Tana Ganeva: Why do you think there was so much confusion around this story and what should people know?

Kade Crockford: I'm not sure why there was so much confusion about the story. The first references to it I saw were from the right-wing blogosphere and basically the headlines were things like, "DHS plans to build massive license plate reader database!" Naturally I was interested in that because it is a pet obsession of mine. And so I clicked on the solicitation for bids and I actually read it—unlike that many people who wrote about it. And it was pretty clear to me that in fact no, DHS did not intend to build its own nationwide license plate reader database. The solicitation read almost exactly like it was written by the company Vigilant Solutions, a description of a database the company already offers law enforcement nationwide.

So my assumption is that in fact what DHS was doing was going through a relatively mundane bureaucratic procedure that they have to go through in order to apportion funds for the purchase of more subscriptions to this database.

As a document we posted to the ACLU website shows, ICE has been tapping into this database for years. Law enforcement all over the country has been tapping into it. The FBI more than likely does as well. It holds about 2 billion individual license plate records in it, and according to the company it grows almost 100 million plate reads per month and those numbers are just going to keep going up. So ultimately what we're looking at is a database that contains billions of records and law enforcement has access both for free on a tier one subscription plan, which allows a limited number of searches per week or month and then a tier two subscription service that they have to pay for, which I believe gives unlimited search of the database.

So it's false to say that this database is not actually happening as a result of DHS withdrawing the solicitation. More than likely DHS is going to in fact pursue more subscriptions to this database. I would be very, very surprised if [Homeland Security Secretary] Jeh Johnson instructs ICE to never use this database again. I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding about some of the basic facts about the state of license plate tracking technology today.

TG: How is the database being used?

KC: In the documents we obtained they're using it to do what ICE does, which is to hunt people down to deport them. There's one reference in the document about an ICE agent who was looking for this mother and her two kids to deport the mother. But he couldn't find her because she wasn't living at the address they had on file for her. But thank God for the Vigilant Solutions database, which contained records of her license plate and so this ICE agent staked out the house where her car was last seen by the surveillance system and sure enough, there she was, and success story—he separated this mother from her children and deported her.




And police are using license plate readers for a variety of purposes. We found a couple years ago in one of the reports the AP published about the NYPD spying on Muslims. The NYPD was using license plate readers, parking them outside of mosques to collect records of every person who drove to the mosques.

But your imagination is the limit in how police can use this information, for legitimate purposes and illegitimate purposes. I'm sure that police departments are using them in the way they say they are, to track down people they suspect of criminal activity, but frankly I would be very surprised if police departments were also not using them to track dissidents and ex-girlfriends and all the other abusive ways information can be used inappropriately.

TG: Groups that defend the technology say there's nothing to worry about, it's just to track stolen cars or bad guys. And the technology doesn't sound that bad—it's just taking pictures of your license plate.

What should people know about how the data is collected and used? What are the ramifications of having a giant national database of license plate information?

KC: Ultimately, as the technology proliferates and we get to the point where we are now with surveillance cameras in urban areas—they are everywhere. The same is going to be true with license plate readers soon and once that happens law enforcement or anybody else with access to these private databases are going to be able to enter someone's license plate number into a database and up will pop a map showing where you've driven over a period of years or decades, depending on how long these companies retain the information.

As of right now, my assumption is that they retain it indefinitely. We've heard nothing from the company about them deleting this information after a certain amount of time. What we're really looking at is a massive retroactive location tracking system: completely warrantless, completely suspicionless, targeted at the entire population.

And if I need to spell out why that's a problem for people, then really that's a problem.

We have a Fourth Amendment in the United States, which protects us from unwarranted intrusion into our private life unless the government has reason to believe we're up to no good and shows that reason to a judge and gets a warrant.

We're finding that in the absence of legislators updating the law to reflect the kind of technologies we use to communicate and the technologies that law enforcement uses to spy on us, courts are hashing out how to apply the Fourth Amendment, and the First Amendment in the digital age and it's a very uneven playing field right now. There are some places in which there are more restrictive laws as a result of courts ruling that certain law enforcement techniques can only be done with warrants, and there are other places in the country where it's the Wild West, there are no meaningful restrictions.

And license plate readers are one area in which we think it's very obvious that if we wait for some sort of case in which somebody's brought up on charges that were based off of retroactive long-term location tracking through a license plate reader, of course they'll make the same kind of judgements they've made about cell site location information for example, which is a good thing in a sense, but we don't want to wait for someone's rights to be violated before we actually fix the law.

We believe that it's legislators' responsibility to step up to the plate and regulate these tools. Contrary to the claims of companies like Vigilant Solutions, which profit from hits to people's privacy, the ACLU's position is not that we oppose all uses of license place readers. I understand that there are probably a lot of people who do, and I sympathize with them, but our position is in fact that there's a compromise that can be made. That there are reasonable interests on the law enforcement side, in retaining even non-derogatory license plate data for a couple of days. A week or two tops. Because it's possible that in the event of a serious crime, a rape, a murder, that information will be incredibly useful to law enforcement agencies, to see who's in the area at the time of this crime, and that's OK—we acknowledge that.

What is not legitimate and not OK is for law enforcement to be tracking innocent people's movements over a period of months or years or decades or indefinitely. This is not acceptable in a free society, and we believe that courts are ultimately going to make that judgment. It's just that we shouldn't wait five or 10 or 20 years until the courts get this question before them. We should act now to update the law to just require the same thing that we want of cops when they go to a cell phone company to get information about where our cell phones have been.

Our argument is that that should be protected by a warrant, and the same should go for license plate data. If the cops collect it themselves, they should only be able to retain it for a limited amount of time. Again, days or weeks, not months or years. And if they're getting it from a private company like Digital Solutions that they should have to get a warrant for that, in the same way that you have to get a warrant to go to AT&T and demand cell site location information.

TG: What are the ramifications of having private companies collect this kind of data?

KC: It's really tricky because in a sense it allows law enforcement to obtain access to months or years or even decades of this information through a sort of back door. And that's why need to make sure there's a warrant protection in there. So Vigilant is obviously the leader in this field, it's the company we have to worry about right now (it also has a sister corporation called Digital Recognition Network that sells this information to insurance companies).

Anyway, they're suing the state of Utah right now, citing a First Amendment claim, because the state of Utah passed a very restrictive bill that says that private companies can't collect this information, so this is a real problem where maybe the First and Fourth Amendments do conflict in a way, but that doesn't mean that we as data subjects, essentially, should completely lose our right to privacy and information showing very detailed maps of where we've been over a period of months or years, so the question of exactly how to regulate privately held data sets is a very complicated one and one that people are trying to work out.

But the very immediate answer to the problem of law enforcement's deployment of this tool is to require police to get a warrant before they access this data because that would essentially prevent police from doing what they do now, which is simply log onto this website and perform searches. As far as we know, there's nothing stopping police officers from making 1,000 searches a day if they want to, if they have paid for the access. So we want to prevent those kinds of fishing expeditions.




Even though it's disturbing and very creepy that a private company is tracking you and selling this data to other companies, Vigilant Solutions can't lock you up and the police can. And so it's critical that we deal with this immediately. The much more difficult question of how to regulate privately held data sets we're really just beginning to grapple with. And there are some sort of consumer protection analogues that we might want to think about, but right away the law enforcement question is easy to deal with, and we should deal with it.

TG: What are other states doing to restrict police use of license plate data?

KC: New Hampshire's law bans license plate readers almost entirely front the state, including police use of them. The only license plate readers that are used in the state are at certain bridges. But cops are even prevented from using them in New Hampshire. There are department policies in places like Ohio, with the Ohio state troopers—they don't keep any plate data unless it's a hit, shows evidence of a crime.

So police departments throughout the country are using this technology in very different ways. A good way of explaining the two different ways to use the tool is, one of them is what the Ohio state patrol is doing, which is to automate a process that law enforcement has always done which is to check license plates against lists of stolen cars, etc. And to go after the people if there's some sort of allegation. The second way of using license plate readers is what Vigilant is doing, and what many law enfacement agencies around the country are doing, which is to use them as intelligence tracking databases. And that is the piece of this technology that we think incompatible with a free society.

Even something that's not suspicious, like where your girlfriend was last night or to see where the journalist who's been bothering you about the license plate readers has been hanging out, to see if you can catch them drinking at a bar.

That actually happened in Canada. There was a journalist who was getting under the skin of a police department and they used a license plate reader and discovered this journalist hung out at a certain bar and they sent a cop there hoping to catch the journalist driving drunk. Again, your imagination is really the limit over how you can use this information. And that's precisely the problem, so we need to have judicial involvement and for there to be specific evidence of a crime instead of just this free-for-all.

TG: There are various efforts at the state level to regulate these different types of mass surveillance, but at the federal level the pull seems to be in the opposite direction.

KC: Congress has moved in the wrong direction since 9/11, breaking down barriers between different law enforcement agencies, making it easier for agencies to share information about perfectly innocent people, the creation of massive domestic database storage. There's the National Counterterrorism Center, which is run by the CIA but staffed by members of all sorts of domestic law enforcement agencies. So Congress has moved in the wrong direction.

But I do think there's a huge role for state legislators to play here. Obviously when state legislators enact laws to protect people's privacy from unwarranted cell phone tracking, or license plate tracking, or drone surveillance—that does not restrict the FBI and DHS from doing those things in the states. So that's a major problem. Particularly given the level of coordination and organization between state and federal law enforcement at this point. So even if we pass local and state laws, state cops might be able to get around them just by calling up their buddy at the FBI and asking them to do the surveillance for them because they can't do it without a warrant, but the FBI can.

We need Congress to act to bring the Fourth Amendment into the digital age. In the absence of Congress acting, the courts are doing it, and the problem with that is that it's giving law enforcement a patchwork of laws. In order not to just protect people's privacy but lessen headaches for people trying to understand the state of the law, and for law enforcement trying to apply it, we absolutely need a uniform federal law reform.

Read More

Penn & Teller call bullshit on gun control

Read More

CA gun shop gains critizism from NRA for selling Smart Guns.

By Michael S. Rosenwald 
-washingtonpost.com


The California gun store that put the nation’s first smart gun on sale is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.

Attacks in online forums and social networks against the Oak Tree Gun Club have prompted the store to back away from any association with the Armatix iP1 smart gun. The protests threaten the nascent smart gun industry, which received a jolt of support recently when a group of Silicon Valley investors offered a $1 million prize for promising new technology.

Video
Not long ago smart guns, personalized weapons that only fired for authorized users, were seen only in the movies. Today, after millions of dollars and more than 10 years of research, there are finally smart guns for the public. But there are only two viable systems available for the public to purchase. The Washington Post's Mike Rosenwald talks about the reason why and the future of the technology.
Not long ago smart guns, personalized weapons that only fired for authorized users, were seen only in the movies. Today, after millions of dollars and more than 10 years of research, there are finally smart guns for the public. But there are only two viable systems available for the public to purchase. The Washington Post's Mike Rosenwald talks about the reason why and the future of the technology.
Graphic
Firearms manufacturers use digital technology to make guns safer. Click Here to View Full Graphic Story
Firearms manufacturers use digital technology to make guns safer.
Click here to subscribe.

The vitriol began almost immediately after The Washington Post reported last month that the Armatix iP1 smart gun was for sale at the pro shop. Electronic chips inside the gun communicate with a watch that can be purchased with the gun, making it impossible to fire without the watch. Gun control advocates, who believe smart guns could reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings, marked the moment as a milestone.

“These people are anti-gunners,” someone said of Oak Tree on the store’s Facebook page, adding, “I will never step foot in this dump.” On Yelp, a user wrote, “If you care about the ability to exercise your [Second Amendment] rights, I would suggest that you do not continue to frequent this place.”

The protests are fueled by worry that being able to purchase the iP1 will trigger a New Jersey law mandating that all handguns in the state be personalized within three years of a smart gun going on sale anywhere in the United States. Similar mandates have been introduced in California and in both chambers of Congress.

Oak Tree, which is located outside of Los Angeles, owes New Jersey an apology, a Facebook poster wrote.

The opposition has apparently shaken Oak Tree, one of the largest gun stores and shooting ranges in California.





Gun rights advocates and Armatix executives have been mystified by the store’s response, which has been to deny ever offering the gun and apologizing for any confusion in several places online, including to a gun rights advocate at Examiner.com.

The denials come despite Oak Tree owner James Mitchell’s extensive comments about why the gun was put on sale there. Armatix executives also provided The Post with two photos of the gun for sale in a gun cabinet at the facility, as well as multiple photos of customers shooting the iP1 at an event in a specially designed firing range with large Armatix signs.

Saying that “we’ve been helping the company get the gun introduced here out West,” Mitchell told The Post earlier this month: “I walk in a delicate line because I am an extremely pro-gun conservative type person. But I’m also logical, you know.” He said the technology, if accepted, could “revolutionize the gun industry” and provide a compromise between gun rights advocates and gun control supporters.

Mitchell has apparently discovered that gun rights advocates have little appetite for smart-gun technology.

The protests echo what Smith & Wesson endured after it signed a landmark gun control agreement with the Clinton administration in 2000 that called for the company to research and introduce smart guns. Boycotts of the company’s products nearly put it out of business.

“The minute you touch guns, you are going to get a huge response from the gun lobby,” said John Rosenthal, the founder of Stop Handgun Violence, a Boston area organization advocating for smart guns. “The concern of the gun industry is that if you personalize guns, then you are going to put a regulation on an industry that has none.”

Oak Tree executives did not respond to numerous requests for comments about the backlash and why they were now denying carrying the gun. Reached by phone, Mitchell said, “Not taking any phone calls. Thanks.” Then he hung up.

Belinda Padilla, president of Armatix’s U.S. operation, described a “mind-blowing” set of events following The Post’s original story. At first, she said Oak Tree officials, who lease her an office at the facility, were “ecstatic” with the coverage, telling her they needed more guns in the store because a TV news crew was coming to film a report.

But that tone quickly changed. Padilla said Mitchell told her that he had received phone calls from gun rights groups questioning the gun’s sale and that he had canceled the TV interview.

The National Rifle Association, a fierce opponent of smart-gun technology, did not return several requests for comment on whether it called Oak Tree. The National Shooting Sports Foundation denied calling Oak Tree.

Mitchell “was clearly distraught,” Padilla said. “I told him, ‘It’s going to be okay. You’re doing the right thing.’ Then it just got worse.”

Padilla, whose company has a federal firearms license registered to Oak Tree’s address, soon discovered that Armatix hats and other merchandise were put away. The special firing range that she and Oak Tree outfitted, painted blue with a large Armatix sign, was repainted. When she took a client to buy the gun at the store, she was told there were “computer glitches.”

Though she said she is “disappointed to say the least” about Oak Tree’s reaction, Padilla also said she felt bad for Mitchell.

“It’s sad, because at the end of the day, he was trying to do something good, which is provide choice for those people that want safety,” Padilla said.

But many customers and gun rights advocates don’t see it that way. Even though many smart-gun proponents, including the Silicon Valley group offering the $1 million prize, say the market should decide whether the technology is accepted, a fear of mandates looms.


“People have a reasonable suspicion that anti-gun governments will work toward mandating this unproven technology,” said Brandon Combs, president of the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, a Second Amendment advocacy group. Gun owners, he said, find it “purely offensive.”

And many Oak Tree customers have loudly made that known.

David Simantob, a member of the gun range, said in an e-mail: “Oak Tree’s association with Armatix the last year was never satisfactorily explained, and their recent back pedaling trying to explain it away has unfortunately created an even bigger problem for those of us who care about our Second Amendment rights.”

Read More

Federal Reserve President finally acknowledges how bad quantitative easing is..

Philadelphia Federal Reserve President Charles Plosser is "very worried" about the potential for unintended consequences of the Fed's massive quantitative easing program.

Plosser told CNBC that the U.S. was still suffering from "lasting effects" of the recession and "may never return" to its previous growth rates—and warned that policy should not bet on growth returning to previous rates, saying it could be "many, many years." 

Fed's Plosser: We need to begin to get rid of QE)

With gross domestic product expanding at a 2.4 percent annual rate, according to the Commerce Department last Friday, Plosser said that the country was "pretty close" to its steady state growth and may never get back to where it once thought it could be. "To keep trying to think that we're going to do that, means that we keep trying to overplay our hand in terms of policy," he added.

Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Plosser, a noted hawk at the Federal Open Market Committee, expressed concerns over the unwinding of the central bank's asset purchases. The Fed has undergone three stages of quantitative easing (QE) since the finical crash of 2008 in an effort to increase liquidity and stimulate lending. Its bond purchases of $85 billion-a-month last year have been dialed back at recent policy meetings, with $65 billion added to the economy this month as the Fed proceeds towards the exit door. 

"I am very worried about the potential for unintended consequences of all this action. And it's very difficult for us to know because we've never done this before," Plosser said, adding that the curbing of this extra liquidity in the global economy would be "very challenging".

"Sometimes if you don't have Plan B, you don't have a plan," he warned.

Central banks across the world have followed the Fed's lead by injecting more cash into the system, with the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan both embarking on QE with benchmark interest rates at record lows. Plosser said that there is a lot of pressure on central banks around the globe and expectations of what these banks can do have risen to "unhealthy highs."

"I would lie to see over time, central banks to gradually pull themselves in to the background, because we are not the 'panacea,' we are not the 'silver bullet,' " he said.

The current unwinding of the Fed's asset purchases has caused wobbles in emerging market currencies. U.S. investors that once searched the world for a high yield on their assets are now returning home in expectation of more normal monetary conditions.




On two different occasions, countries including Brazil, Turkey and India have seen weakness in their currencies with analysts claiming that the moderation of easy money as being a key reason.

Plosser said that monetary policy is primarily a domestic policy and problems and challenges arise when other countries decide to tie their monetary policy to another country in some form or fashion.

He added that Fed Chair Janet Yellen, and her predecessor Ben Bernanke, have managed to get this policy just right, stating that they should focus first and foremost on the U.S. economy.

"The best thing the U.S. can do for the global economy is have a strong economy itself...over the longer run that will make for a much healthily world economy," he said.
- See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_34993.php#sthash.dNofZTjS.dpuf

Read More

Full video of 9/11 attack captured from space to be shown for first time

A British news channel is preparing to broadcast video footage of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks captured from outer space for the first time in the coming weeks.

Channel 4, a public service television station based in the United Kingdom, has announced that it will show footage from that Tuesday morning captured from the International Space Station by Frank Culbertson, the only American on board the ISS. When Culbertson was notified that something had occurred in New York, he realized they would be passing over the city soon.

“I zipped around the station until I found a window that would give me a view of New York City and grabbed the nearest camera,” he told Space.com last year. “The smoke seemed to have an odd bloom to it at the base of the column that was streaming south of the city. After reading one of the news articles we just received, I believe we were looking at New York around the time of, or shortly after, the collapse of the second tower.”

“I didn’t know exactly what was happening, but I knew it was really bad because there was a big cloud of debris covering Manhattan,” he went on. “That’s when it really became painful because it was like seeing a wound in the side of your country, your family, your friends.”

Culbertson learned hours after the attack that his friend, Chic Burlingame, was one of the pilots who died in the attack. Burlingame was steering American Airlines Flight 77, the aircraft that was eventually flown into the Pentagon in Washington DC.

Despite sitting more than 200 miles above the scene, Culbertson captured the images that have been replicated thousands of times across the media. The footage, which has never been broadcast to the public, will be aired on March 16 as part of a documentary series focusing on the lives of astronauts.

“Not every frame has been seen before, so every frame that was shot on that day is in the show,” Tom Brisley, the creative director of the Channel 4 project, told the Guardian.

At one point, Culbertson plays the Taps trumpet call as a tribute to the day’s events. He will also be interviewed throughout the film to explain what it was like to have such a unique view.

Culbertson wrote a letter on September 12, reflecting on the events that took place the previous day.

“I couldn’t even imagine the particulars, even before the news of further destruction began coming in,” he wrote. “Other than the emotional impact of our country being attacked and thousands of our citizens and maybe some friends being killed, the most overwhelming feeling being where I am is one of isolation.”

But as the September 11 attacks turned into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a number of researchers at universities across the US have warned that media consumers who repeatedly expose themselves to such gruesome images could be putting themselves at risk of psychological damage.




Roxanne Cohen Silver, a professor of psychology and social behavior at UC Irvine, said that people who spent four hours or more soaking up 9/11 or Iraq War coverage were more likely to experience acute stress.

“The results suggest that exposure to graphic media images may be an important mechanism through which the impact of collective trauma is dispersed widely,” Silver said, as quoted by the university’s website. “Our findings are both relevant and timely as vivid images reach larger audiences than ever before through YouTube, social media and smartphones.”

Source: RT.com

Read More

WISCONSIN SHERIFF WARNS OF SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION IF GUN CONFISCATION LAWS ARE PASSED

- Joe Newby - Examiner.com

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke warned of a second American revolution if gun control and gun confiscation passed and said he would not enforce laws requiring confiscation in his county while speaking with Alex Jones, Infowars reported Tuesday.

“First of all, to me that would be an act of tyranny," he said of the gun control measures currently under consideration. "So the people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.”

“The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison," he added.

In January, Clarke issued a public safety message urging citizens to get training from a certified gun safety course so they could properly defend themselves.

"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family," he said in the ad.

Across the country, law enforcement officers, state legislators and firearm manufacturers have responded to attempts to pass gun confiscation laws at the federal and state level.

A growing number of gun makers have said, for example, that they would no longer do business with the State of New York after lawmakers passed strict gun control laws.

Responding to a gun confiscation bill in Missouri, a GOP state representative proposed making it a felony to introduce gun control measures.




In Washington State, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would nullify federal gun control laws in that state.

For many, the numerous gun control measures being considered have nothing to do with gun safety, and Sheriff Clarke agreed.

“This is about attacking the Second Amendment, it’s about going after the wrong crowd," he said. According to the sheriff, much of the violence he sees is not committed by criminals using the guns lawmakers want to ban.

“Government control cannot go on as long as people have some sort of ability to say ‘hey wait just a doggone minute,'" he added. “That’s what the government fears, they don’t really fear the criminals, they support the criminals. What they fear is a law abiding person.”

Read More

If you lost healthcare coverage because of Obama Care "you are a liar" According to Harry Reid.

Harry Reid has asserted that the stories of Americans who lost coverage, or had to pay more, or had to find new doctors under the Affordable Care Act are all lies. Even for Harry Reid, that’s absolutely preposterous. No one has lost coverage, had to pay more or find new doctors under Obamacare? Really?

Harry, it’s been amazingly well documented, even by your allies in the media.

The group Americans For Prosperity, an organization that receives some of their funding from the Charles and David Koch brothers, has been running ads with people adversely affected by Obamacare. By the way, according to Harry Reid, the Koch brothers are apparently evil incarnate for spending money on political ads, but George Soros is a hero. So is Warren Buffet. AFP is a horrific organization, but the Labor Unions, the Tides Foundation and the Center For American Progress are perfect. Just a quick reminder.


Anyway, from the Senate floor, Reid called all of the ads that are being run, lies. Every one of the ads that AFP had run, were lies? Obviously then, not just the Koch brothers you despise, but all of the people in those ads, were liars?

Later that day however, he returned to the floor, and said: “I can’t say that every one of the Koch brothers’ ads are a lie, but I’ll say this … the vast, vast majority of them are.”......


Continue Reading at The Blaze

Read More

Border Agents Make Up Reasons to Shoot at Motorists.

From: Policestateusa.com


A scathing report of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has revealed that agents have adopted a devious technique for justifying shooting at drivers. The findings show that agents have deliberately stepped in front of cars to manufacture an excuse to open fire, or have claimed that moving vehicles were an imminent threat when they weren't.

The agency has attempted to whitewash the findings by omitting the most damaging portions when submitting the report to congressional oversight committees, the LA Times reported.

“It is suspected that in many vehicle shooting cases, the subject driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force,” the report reads. In some cases, “passengers were struck by agents’ gunfire.”

The report stated that agents have purposely stood in the road in front of people trying to avoid arrest; drivers who posed no direct threat to agents or others.

The report points out that opening fire on a moving vehicle is dangerous to passengers, bystanders, and the agents themselves. It stated: “It should be recognized that a half-ounce (200-grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000-pound moving vehicle, and if the driver … is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat.”

Additionally, the agency was ripped for keeping its offending agents anonymous and rarely disciplining them after a shooting. It was said that CBP exhibits a “lack of diligence” in investigating its own wrongdoing.

Valeria Alvarado did not leave her car alive when she encountered U.S. Border Patrol. (Source: ABC News) Valeria Alvarado did not leave her car alive when she encountered U.S. Border Patrol. 
One of Border Patrol’s recent exploits was the shooting of a 32-year-old mother of five from California. The woman, Valeria Alvarado, was killed when a federal agent unloaded a magazine into her face and torso through her windshield while driving. Officials said that the unnamed agent was “hit” and “carried several hundred yards” on the hood of Alvarado’s car. But several witnesses say the exact opposite — that the woman was moving in reverse, away from a man wearing plain clothes and threatening her with a gun. They say the man opened fire on her as he advanced toward the car.

“From my apartment I could see a car stop in the middle of the street, and a guy coming and walk in front of the car and shooting about 12 times. It was a horrible thing to see,” a female witness named Prince Watson told CBS-8 News. “He just went up, shot her, in plain clothes with no identification, no badge, nothing.” Watson said that she believed the woman was scared of the aggressive behavior of the unidentified man. “Without her even able to say a word — I didn’t hear anything — he just came across and shot, many times,” she explained.




The multiple witness accounts were ignored and the “oncoming vehicle” defense was accepted as truth from the agent whose identity remains concealed.

The independent report recommended that CBP teach its agents to get out of the way instead of standing firm and opening fire on a moving vehicle, and that it should ban shooting at cars unless the occupant was actually trying to kill them through other means. Border Patrol rejected the recommendations to change policy, stating that drug smugglers would purposely try to run over agents if they knew that agents were not supposed to shoot at cars.

The report also delves into the issue of Border Patrol agents shooting up Mexican kids and claiming that they threw stones. One boy was found riddled with 8 bullet holes in the back. The killer CBP agent was given a pass, and remains anonymous and at large.

Read More

N.Korea poses 'growing' threat to US: Pentagon

Source: Yahoo News

Washington (AFP) - North Korea poses a mounting threat to the United States due to its pursuit of long-range missiles and nuclear weapons, the Pentagon said Tuesday in its latest strategy document.

The North represents "a significant threat to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia and is a growing, direct threat to the United States," said the Quadrennial Defense Review, an update of the military's global strategic outlook.

US forces would continue to collaborate closely with South Korea's military "to deter and defend against North Korean provocations," it said.

The release of the Pentagon's strategic review came as North Korea flexed its military might three times over the past week, firing short-range Scud missiles and rockets into the sea. The test launches were timed to coincide with joint US-South Korean drills that Pyongyang opposes.

The strategy document said the United States will seek to stay ahead of the threat of ballistic missile arsenals in Iran and North Korea, noting plans to bolster the number of ground-based interceptors on US soil from 30 to 44 while investing in better sensors.

The US administration also is deploying a second powerful surveillance radar in Japan to provide early warning of any missile launched by North Korea, it said.

North Korea has pressed ahead with its missile program but experts have voiced skepticism over its claims to have a working inter-continental ballistic missile.




To promote "stability" in the region, US forces will keep up "a robust footprint in Northeast Asia while enhancing our presence in Oceania and Southeast Asia," the review said.

Although Washington's much-touted strategic "rebalance" to the Asia-Pacific region has been criticized as more hype than substance, senior Pentagon officials insisted the review and a new budget proposal released Tuesday showed a commitment to the shift.

US officials cited ship building plans, deployments of marines to Australia and an expansion of joint military training and drills.

"We will continue our contributions to the US rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, seeking to preserve peace and stability in a region that is increasingly central to US political, economic, and security interests," the review said.

At the same time, the US military would retain an "enduring" presence in the Middle East and the Gulf, where some 35,000 troops are stationed, while also keeping up ties to "stalwart" allies in Europe.

The document was drafted before the current crisis erupted in Ukraine, with pro-Russian forces taking de facto control over the Crimean peninsula.

Read More

Interpol Chief says "More guns equal less crime."

Source: WND.com

WASHINGTON – As the United Nations seeks to push its global anti-gun campaign – through a treaty U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry just signed – the chief of the International Criminal Police Organization, or Interpol, believes open societies can be protected from terrorists by citizens defending themselves with guns, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The U.N. effort in the U.S. is expected to be dead on arrival at the U.S. Senate, which would have to ratify the treaty. The United States for years has refrained from signing it, until now.

Mindful of the recent terrorist attack at the Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said that armed citizens in open societies need to be able to defend themselves and others against terrorist attacks.

In the Sept. 21 shopping mall attack, considered to be a “soft target,” some 72 people were killed, including five of the attackers from the Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab. While five of the dead were members of the Kenyan military, 61 were civilians.

Noble said in a report on ABC the attack on the mall marks an “evolution in terrorism.” Instead of targets like the Pentagon and other high-security locations, attackers have begun to focus on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people.

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem (of terrorism),” Noble told ABC. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry, you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

Such enclaves could include places where people generally gather, such as at malls, theaters, supermarkets, town squares and churches. But putting these locations under a high level of security would keep people from going to them.




“Ask yourself,” Noble said. “If that was Colorado, if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly? What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control.

“You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’” Noble asked. “This is something that has to be discussed.”

Gun control in the U.S. has been a dominant issue following a series of mass shootings, including the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed, and the grade school in Newtown, Conn., where 26 people, including 20 children were killed.

In light of the terrorist threat worldwide, Noble questioned the idea of gun control.

He said that members of law enforcement since the Westgate Mall attack are very alarmed over the prospect of similar attacks and have issued a warning.

Al-Qaida, to which al-Shabaab belongs, recently issued a call for “brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups,” as was the case at Westgate.

Read More

Gun Stolen By Dillinger Gang To Be Returned To Auburn,Indiana P.D.

AUBURN, Ind.- Thursday, Special Agent in Charge Robert A. Jones of the Indianapolis Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation will return a very important piece of history that had been stolen over 80 years ago from the city’s Police Department.

On October 14, 1933, members of the John Dillinger gang entered the Auburn Police Department and proceeded to rob the department of bullet proof vests, ammunition, and several firearms, including a .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine gun.

Digital Daily – subscribe to our daily newsletter
Shortly after the heist, the Thompson was recovered by the Tucson, Arizona Police Department from Dillinger and his gang. The Tucson Police eventually transferred the Thompson to the FBI where it remained for over 45 years until discovered and plans were made to return it to its rightful owners.

The Officers of Auburn Police Department have initiated plans to preserve and display this piece of history for all to enjoy when visiting Auburn and sharing in its diverse, small town history.
Special recognition goes to retired Auburn Police Sergeant Edward McDonald for all of his efforts in attempting to locate and secure the return of the Thompson. Unfortunately, Sgt. McDonald passed away last year before getting the opportunity to see the Thompson returned to the police department he served for so many years.

Read More

Indiana moves in the right direction to protect students at school.

Source: NRA.org

INDIANAPOLIS- The Indiana House of Representatives approved legislation Monday that would allow guns in school parking lots.

In the 74-24 vote, the House says parents, teachers and other adults should be allowed to carry firearms in their vehicles on school property.
Digital Daily – subscribe to our daily newsletter
Restrictions in the bill would limit the transportation of guns onto school grounds to glove compartments, trunks or elsewhere out of sight.
Students who participate in shooting clubs or similar organizations will be allowed to bring guns to school grounds with the school's permission.
Indiana law would still prohibit guns from being brought into school buildings. As of now, it is a felony to do so.
The bill now heads back to the State Senate for that chamber's final vote.

Read More

Need a laugh? Watch this video. WARNING: possible offensive content.

I apologize in advance to anyone who might be offended by this, but it got everyone laughing here.  

Read More