Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer, the liberal candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, says she supports an independent and impartial judiciary, but she sat in judgement on cases concerning clients of her husband’s cleaning business.
WISN-AM radio personality Dan O’Donnell reported Monday that an analysis of Neubauer’s statements of economic interest shows the judge hearing 101 cases involving her husband’s former business clients. O’Donnell reported:
In 73 cases, Judge Neubauer sat on a case involving a public sector client (such as a municipality like the City of Kenosha or an executive department of state government such as the Department of Veterans Affairs). In 28 cases, she sat on cases involving private sector clients including Associated Bank, Froedtert Hospital, Abbot Labs, Walgreen Co., and Best Buy.
In 79 of those 101 total cases, Neubauer joined the majority in ruling in favor of a Kranz client. In 31 of those rulings, Neubauer herself wrote the majority opinion.
O’Donnell wrote that it was unclear whether Neubauer’s husband Jeffrey Neubauer had an “economic interest” in the cases because the judge stopped disclosing her husband’s clients from 2010 until the business was sold in 2017. The clients in question were on the judge’s 2009 financial disclosure statement.
SCOTUS Justices Question Judicial Overreach into Redicsticting
by Owen | 1529, 26 Mar 19 | Law, Politics | 1 Comment
You could easily go broke betting on SCOTUS rulings, but this was a positive line of questioning.
At issue is when politicians go too far in drawing lines for partisan gain, and it could be one of the most consequential cases of the court’s term. The justices could, for the first time, establish a standard to decide when politicians go too far in drawing lines for partisan gain, or the court could slam the doors shut on such claims of extreme gerrymandering.Chief Justice John Roberts suggested at one point that it would be hard for the court to police the use of partisanship in map drawing, when the process is intrinsically political. Justice Samuel Alito emerged as the most vocal critic of the court’s involvement, often picking apart the manageability of tests that were presented to the court and worrying that every single dispute in the future would have to be resolved by the judiciary.Justice Brett Kavanaugh — whose vote could be key — said he would not “dispute” that extreme partisan gerrymandering has become a problem that was especially evident in a map drawn in his home state of Maryland. But he also questioned if the courts should stay out of the issue because states are reacting with their own initiatives.It was a sentiment shared by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said states have “provided remedies in this area.”
Justice Department Believes All of Obamacare is Unconstitutional
by Owen | 1502, 26 Mar 19 | Law, Politics | 0 Comments
I disagree. Some of Obamacare is atrocious policy, but not unconstitutional. However, the Obamacare law does not have a severability clause, so the whole thing could be thrown out if even one part is unconstitutional.
The Trump administration now believes that the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down, a major shift in the federal government’s position and one that could endanger health coverage for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions.
In a letter on Monday night, the justice department said it is now backing a Texas judge’s controversial December ruling that the healthcare law known as Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Throwing out the law would end healthcare coverage for millions of people – getting rid of publicly subsidized health insurance plans sold on exchanges, the expansion of Medicaid, protections for people with pre-existing conditions, and rules letting children stay on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26.
“The Department of Justice has determined that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed,” wrote Joseph Hunt, the assistant attorney general, and other lawyers in the new court filing.
Until this week, the government’s position was that only part of the law – like its rules prohibiting insurance companies from denying health insurance or charging more to people with pre-existing conditions – should be struck down.
Charges Dropped Against Smollett
by Owen | 1142, 26 Mar 19 | Law | 5 Comments
Once again, money and power triumph over justice.
Cook County State’s Attorney has dropped the charges against actor Jussie Smollett.
Here’s what prosecutors said in a statement:
“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”
So if I volunteer a bit and agree to pay the city a bunch of money, they will drop charges against me? How many other crooks get this kind of pass?
Chicago is being what Chicago is.
The thumb on the scales
by Owen | 0645, 26 Mar 19 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 61 Comments
My column for the Washington County Daily News is in print and on line. Here’re the highlights, but be sure to pick up a copy to read the whole thing!
If there was any doubt as to the importance of the upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court election, the outrageous ruling by rogue Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess should vanquish it. The leftists have shown that they are willing to use the power of the judicial branch to advance their radical agenda without scruples or remorse. Against such an onslaught, a Supreme Court comprised of strict constitutionalists serves as the last bastion against the judicial usurpation of our representative government.
[…]
Judge Niess’ ruling was not based on law. It was based on advancing a liberal political outcome.
If you wondered what that outcome was, DemocratsGov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul quickly confirmed it as they moved swiftly after the ruling to withdraw the state from the federal Obamacare lawsuit and begin the process of replacing the 82 people appointed by Gov. Scott Walker who were confirmed in that session.
[…]
Thankfully, Dane County Judge Niess’ ruling will likely be stayed by an appeals court this week before being completely overturned. If Dane County voters have any fidelity to the rule of law, Niess will be run off the bench for his blatant abuse of power. He is a disgrace.
The judicial system is designed to correct for rogue and incompetent judges by allowing bad decisions to be appealed through multiple higher courts. But if the same rabid partisanship that infects Judge Niess is permitted to spread to the Supreme Court, the Legislature and governor will be relegated to merely being entertaining political theater because the austere tyrants in black robes will make all of the real decisions.
Judge Niess, Governor Evers, and Attorney General Kaul tipped their hands to how they will neuter the power of the Republican-led Legislature if the radical leftists take control of the state Supreme Court. They will follow the path of the leftist horde after Governor Walker was elected. They will get a fellow traveler on the Dane County bench to rule laws they do not like as unconstitutional, and then act by judicial and executive fiat. Except this time, instead of the Supreme Court overturning bad rulings and showing deference to the Constitution and the tenets of representative government, a leftist-dominated court will set the leftist agenda into stone.
On April 2, or anytime this week via early voting, it is critically important that Wisconsin elect Judge Brian Hagedorn to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He has demonstrated the appropriate humility, firm adherence to the Constitution, and deference to representative government necessary to protect the individual rights of Wisconsinites. If the Supreme Court is to remain a bulwark for individual liberty and representative government, we need to elect justices like Brian Hagedorn who believe in those principles.
Bump Stocks Made Illegal
by Owen | 0829, 22 Mar 19 | Firearms, Law, Politics | 1 Comment
This is clearly unconstitutional. Irrespective of your opinion about bump stocks, the 5th Amendment specifically prohibits the government from seizing private property without due process of law and just compensation. This isn’t about the 2nd Amendment. It’s about the 5th.
The bump stock — the attachment used by the killer during the 2017 Las Vegas massacre to make his weapons fire rapidly like machine guns — will become illegal on Tuesday in the only major gun restriction imposed by the federal government in the past few years, a period that has seen massacres in places like Las Vegas; Thousand Oaks, California; Sutherland Springs, Texas; and Orlando and Parkland, Florida.
Unlike with the decade-long assault weapons ban, the government isn’t allowing existing owners to keep their bump stocks. They must be destroyed or turned over to authorities. And the government isn’t offering any compensation for the devices, which can cost hundreds of dollars. Violators can face up to 10 years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.
Dane County Judge Blocks Legislation
by Owen | 1634, 21 Mar 19 | Law, Politics | 23 Comments
If there is anything that should get conservatives off of their collective asses to vote for Hagedorn for Supreme Court, one would hope this would be it.
MADISON – A Dane County judge on Thursday blocked a series of laws that limited the powers of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul.
Within hours, Evers and Kaul used the decision to try to get Wisconsin out of a multistate lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act that their Republican predecessors joined. Until the judge’s ruling, Republican lawmakers were able to prevent them from doing that.
This ruling will be overturned… eventually. If the Appeals Court doesn’t do it, the Supreme Court will. We saw this exact pattern over and over again after Walker assumed office. Law passes. Liberals sue. Dane County judge rules against law. Appeals Court or Supreme Court overturns Dane County Judge.
That is, of course, assuming that the activist liberal judges don’t take over the Supreme Court. If that happens, then you will see a series of lawsuits where concealed carry, right to work, etc. are all thrown out by an activist Supreme Court. And if you think that Attorney General Josh Kaul will defend Wisconsin’s laws, think again. Look at what he just did. Liberals are perfectly happy ruling by judicial fiat.
Vote for Hagedorn.
Legislature to Defend Life
by Owen | 0750, 14 Mar 19 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments
The GOP-controlled Legislature is seeking to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion laws because Republican lawmakers don’t have confidence Attorney General Josh Kaul will defend the laws adequately.
The intervention, which is pending a committee vote, reflects a broader strategy Republicans are taking to circumvent a Democratic attorney general they distrust to defend the state’s laws faithfully. Kaul in a court filing in February said the Department of Justice would represent the state in the lawsuit, and his spokeswoman previously signaled he would defend state law.
Republican lawmakers have already said they plan to participate in other contentious cases challenging the state’s political maps and the state’s lame-duck laws curbing some of the governor’s and attorney general’s powers.
Kaul has already made it abundantly clear that his liberal activism will trump (pardon the pun) his duties to defend properly passed Wisconsin laws. This way, we at least know that Wisconsin’s laws will get a robust defense. And if Kaul surprises us and offers that muscular defense, then it’s no harm done, right?
School Choice Under Assault
by Owen | 1726, 4 Mar 19 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 1 Comment
In Evers’ budget proposal and on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Vote for Brian Hagedorn.
Wisconsin’s very successful and popular school voucher programs are currently under assault by Democratic Governor Tony Evers who last week called for a freeze in the voucher program. For now, the legislature – led by Republican leadership – will stand firm against Evers.
But, depending on the outcome of the upcoming elections, school choice could face a much bigger threat – the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Wisconsin has an incredibly successful school voucher program; around 40,000 low-income, predominantly minority students use a school voucher to attend a private school of their choosing. In Milwaukee, 84 percent of private schools in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program are identified as religious. Many of those schools are incredibly successful, and according to a study, Catholic and Lutheran choice schools outperform traditional Milwaukee Public Schools on the state mandated math and reading tests. Religious education works in Milwaukee for many low-income students.
But, liberal judges and attorneys, for decades, have argued that school vouchers are unconstitutional and a violation of the Establishment Clause, which, in short, prohibits government from “respecting an establishment of religion.” This includes Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson who previously dissented in cases about the constitutionality of vouchers on those grounds.
So, given how Judge Lisa Neubauer has embraced the legacy and ideology of Abrahamson, voters deserve to know whether Neubauer believes the school voucher program is unconstitutional and should be ended for religious private schools.
DPI Ordered to Release Open Records
by Owen | 0653, 11 Feb 19 | Education, Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 6 Comments
This is the cultural norm in Wisconsin’s government education establishment. Delay, deflect, deny.
According to the lawsuit, WILL first requested three sets of ESSA-related records in August 2018, then sent a follow-up email the following month. A DPI employee said the request was in progress on Sept. 21, 2018.
WILL deputy counsel Thomas Kamenick followed up again on Nov. 12, and the request was partially fulfilled the following day. Portions of the request were denied for being “insufficiently specific” and “unreasonably burdensome,” and WILL send a narrowed request the following month, which DPI acknowledged on Dec. 13.
The most recent update from DPI, according to the lawsuit, was on Jan. 4, to notify WILL that the request was being worked on as a “priority,” but had been delayed due to the holidays and the election.
“For months, DPI has refused our request to turn over important records about ESSA. To make matters worse, they have no problem sharing these records with school district superintendents and instructing districts to keep them from the public,” Kamenick said in a statement. “Their attempt to hide how they are implementing federal law without proper legal authority should give parents and taxpayers alike cause for concern.”
Federal Court Stays Execution Because Murderer Couldn’t Have Imam in the Room
by Owen | 1936, 7 Feb 19 | Law | 45 Comments
This is an interesting case which illustrates why people hate lawyers.
A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked the execution of a Muslim inmate in Alabama after the state refused to allow his imam to be at his death instead of a Christian prison chaplain.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted an emergency stay of execution for 42-year-old Domineque Ray one day before he was scheduled to be put to death for the rape and murder of 15-year-old Tiffany Harville more than two decades ago in Selma, Alabama. The Alabama attorney general’s office has asked the United States Supreme Court to vacate the stay and let it proceed with the execution scheduled for Thursday evening, according to court documents.
“The central constitutional problem here is that the state has regularly placed a Christian cleric in the execution room to minister to the needs of Christian inmates, but has refused to provide the same benefit to a devout Muslim and all other non-Christians,” a panel of three district judges wrote in their decision Wednesday.
[…]
The Alabama Department of Corrections has agreed to exclude the prison chaplain from the death chamber, but a district judge on Friday denied Ray’s initial request for a stay of execution. The judge wrote that Ray waited “until the eleventh hour” to make his legal claim, it’s a matter of safety and security, and Ray’s imam, who is not a department of corrections employee, is “untrained, inexperienced and outside the state’s control.”
So the issue is that the prison has traditionally provided the condemned with spiritual comfort with a Christian chaplain in the death chamber. In this case, the condemned is Muslim, so he wanted an Imam. Fair enough. The prison said that the Imam can be in the visitors’ gallery, but not in the death chamber because he isn’t an employee and isn’t trained. That seemed like a reasonable accommodation, right? That wasn’t good enough for the Appeals Court, so justice will be delayed again.
What’s going to happen here? The prison only has two options. Either they can hire a spiritual leader from every faith or they just stop offering the condemned any religious comfort whatsoever in the room. Given the impracticability of the former, they will do the latter.
Meanwhile, the family of the poor little girl who was butchered by this beast will have to wait even longer for justice to be served because a bunch of lawyers are jerking around with something that could have been solved in a conversation.
Elect Hagedorn to protect Wisconsin’s conservative revolution
by Owen | 0646, 6 Feb 19 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments
Here is my full column that ran yesterday in the Washington County Daily News.
Wisconsin’s era of conservative reform came to an end with the election of Gov. Tony Evers. With a liberal governor, the conservative majorities in the Legislature are relegated to a rearguard action to defend the magnificent gains made in the last eight years. But the Legislature’s rampart might be flanked if Wisconsin’s liberals are able to seize control of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. They could do that next year unless Judge Brian Hagedorn is elected to the court this April.
When Scott Walker was elected in 2010, Wisconsin’s liberals made it clear that they could not abide the will of the people and allow conservatives to govern. A familiar pattern emerged: Republicans legally pass conservative legislation into law; liberals sue; Dane County judge invalidates conservative law; after appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns the Dane County judge and allows the law to take hold. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has consistently thwarted the liberals’ attempt to overturn conservative laws through the courts, so the liberals are determined to get the court back under their control.
Right now, four of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Justices are judicial conservatives. That means that they think the role of the court is to strictly interpret the law as written and respect the rights and responsibilities of the other two branches of government to enact the will of the people through legislation. By contrast, three of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court justices are judicial liberals, meaning that they take a more expansive view of the role of the court to enact their own wills to right wrongs, as they define them, with little regard for judicial restraint.
One of those three judicial liberals, Justice Shirley Abrahamson, is retiring and the election this April is to replace her. At first glance, this may appear to be a relatively inconsequential election. The balance of the court is not on the line. If the people of Wisconsin elect a judicial liberal, the balance of the court will remain the same. If the voters elect a judicial conservative, then the judicial conservatives strengthen their majority to a 5-2 split. Without much on the line, why worry, right?
The key is to look to April of 2020. In that election, incumbent Justice Dan Kelly will likely run for reelection. Kelly is one of the judicial conservatives on the court. The challenge for Kelly is that the presidential primary will be on the same ballot. President Donald Trump is unlikely to face a serious primary challenger, so Republican turnout will be light. Meanwhile, the Democratic primary for president portends to be hotly contested, so Democratic turnout will likely be massive. That does not bode well for a conservative judicial candidate on the ballot. Kelly faces a steep uphill climb that has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the rest of the ballot.
If Wisconsin’s voters replace Abrahamson with another judicial liberal and retain a 4-3 judicial conservative majority, it is exceedingly likely that the election of April 2020 will flip the court to a judicial liberal majority. If that happens, liberals will sue to overturn every conservative law passed in the previous decade and have the Supreme Court on their side. They cannot turn back the clock through the representative democratic process, so they will turn to the courts instead. Act 10, concealed carry, school choice, the repeal of prevailing wage, the Wisconsin REINS Act, voter ID, right to work, castle doctrine — all of it is at risk if judicial liberals gain control of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.
That is why Wisconsin must elect a judicial conservative to the Supreme Court this April. That judicial conservative is Appeals Court Judge Brian Hagedorn.
Hagedorn has served in a number of legal capacities since graduating from the Northwestern University School of Law. After three years in private practice, he worked as a law clerk for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman before going to work as an assistant attorney general. He worked as Gov. Scott Walker’s chief legal counsel from 2011 to 2015 during the time when many of Wisconsin’s most significant reforms in generations were passed into law. Since 2015, Hagedorn has been serving as a judge on Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals.
Hagedorn’s judicial philosophy is one of restraint and humble respect for the individual rights and the will of the people. As he says, “justices wear neutral robes, not capes.” That is exactly the kind of attitude Wisconsin needs on the court to protect our liberties and uphold constitutional laws that were dutifully passed by the representatives of the people.
Elect Hagedorn to protect Wisconsin’s conservative revolution
by Owen | 0904, 5 Feb 19 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 26 Comments
My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Log on or pick up a copy for the whole thing. Here’s a sample:
The key is to look to April of 2020. In that election, incumbent Justice Dan Kelly will likely run for reelection. Kelly is one of the judicial conservatives on the court.The challenge for Kelly is that the presidential primary will be on the same ballot. President Donald Trump is unlikely to face a serious primary challenger, so Republican turnout will be light. Meanwhile, the Democratic primary for president portends to be hotly contested, so Democratic turnout will likely be massive. That does not bode well for a conservative judicial candidate on the ballot. Kelly faces a steep uphill climb that has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the rest of the ballot.
If Wisconsin’s voters replace Abrahamson with another judicial liberal and retain a 4-3 judicial conservative majority, it is exceedingly likely that the election of April 2020 will flip the court to a judicial liberal majority. If that happens, liberals will sue to overturn every conservative law passed in the previous decade and have the Supreme Court on their side. They cannot turn back the clock through the representative democratic process, so they will turn to the courts instead. Act 10, concealed carry, school choice, the repeal of prevailing wage, the Wisconsin REINS Act, voter ID, right to work, castle doctrine — all of it is at risk if judicial liberals gain control of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.
That is why Wisconsin must elect a judicial conservative to the Supreme Court this April. That judicial conservative is Appeals Court Judge Brian Hagedorn.
Unions Sue to Centralize Government Power in the Executive
by Owen | 2009, 4 Feb 19 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 7 Comments
Now that the Executive Branch is controlled by Democrats
The plaintiffs include Service Employees International Union, Milwaukee Area Service and Hospitality Workers, American Federation of Teachers and Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals. Nine individual plaintiffs also are listed, including state Sen. Janet Bewley, D-Mason.
The suit contends the laws violate the state constitution by stripping powers from the executive branch. It asks a judge to bar state officials from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions.
The laws are “a clear attempt by one branch, the Legislature, upset by an electoral outcome affecting another branch, to undo the separation of powers” in the constitution, according to the complaint.
US Charges Huawei For Fraud and Theft
by Owen | 2134, 28 Jan 19 | Foreign Affairs, Law | 1 Comment
Good.
The US Justice Department has filed a host of criminal charges against Chinese telecoms giant Huawei and its chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou.
The charges against the world’s second largest smartphone maker include accusations of bank fraud, obstruction of justice and theft of technology.
The case could ratchet up tensions between China and the US, and impact the firm’s global expansion efforts.
Both Ms Meng and Huawei deny the allegations.
Ms Meng was arrested in Canada last month at the request of the US for allegedly evading sanctions on Iran.
“For years, Chinese firms have broken our export laws and undermined sanctions, often using US financial systems to facilitate their illegal activities. This will end,” said US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
UW Uses Federal Money to Pay off Loan
by Owen | 2220, 26 Jan 19 | Education, Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 3 Comments
Argh.
The University of Wisconsin System will use federal money to pay off bank loans taken out by the UW-Oshkosh Foundation, according to agreements released Friday.
The UW System paid $6.3 million to banks using federal money designated for administrative costs — meaning no state taxpayer money or tuition dollars, according to UW System spokeswoman Heather LaRoi. This money comes from reimbursements for administrative costs already incurred by the UW System related to federal grant activity at UW campuses.
At the close of fiscal year 2018, the UW System had about $9.5 million in federal money from this fund that had accrued over the last decade, according to LaRoi.
UW-Oshkosh will pay back the UW System $3.825 million in annual installments of $191,250 from January 2020 through July 2038, according to the agreement. The annual payments will be made with money from the Witzel biodigester, which turns organic waste into energy. The UW System Board of Regents assumed ownership of the biodigester along with the UW-Oshkosh Alumni Welcome and Conference Center.The payments related to the bankrupty case stem from a building projects controversy surrounding the university’s foundation, a nonprofit organization primarily funded through private donations and investments to help the university.
Remember that this is all because the former chancellor illegally backed loans by a private institution with taxpayer money. That private institution, the UW) Foundation, subsequently bought his house for way above market price. And in the end, who pays? The taxpayers. Meanwhile, take note that the UW System continues to horde slush funds.
This is also yet another example of how much of our money the federal government pisses away. Why in the world are they handing out millions to a university system for “administrative costs?”
SCOTUS to Hear 2nd Amendment Case
by Owen | 1857, 22 Jan 19 | Firearms, Law | 1 Comment
I’m struggling to understand how New York City can pass laws for things that people do outside of their jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up its first gun rights case in nine years, a challenge to New York City’s prohibition on carrying a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside the city limits.
[…]
Joining in support of gun rights, 17 states said the court should break its years-long silence and use the case to define the scope of gun rights under the Constitution and the level of scrutiny, or skepticism, judges should apply to gun laws.
New York’s ordinance allows people licensed to have handguns to carry them outside the home to gun ranges in the city. The guns must be locked and unloaded.
The city residents who filed suit want to practice shooting at target ranges outside the city or take their guns to second homes elsewhere in New York state.
Saudi Arabia Modernizes
by Owen | 2201, 7 Jan 19 | Foreign Affairs, Law, Technology | 1 Comment
Saudi Arabian courts will notify women by text message when their husbands have been granted divorces under a law that took effect Sunday.
The initiative is aimed at concerns that Saudi men were increasingly neglecting to tell their wives they were divorced.
Lawyer Somayya Al-Hindi told Okaz/Saudi Gazette that Saudi courts in the past heard many cases of Saudi women still living with their ex-husbands without realizing they had been divorced.
Citizens Resist Boulder’s Gun Registry
by Owen | 1137, 6 Jan 19 | Firearms, Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 6 Comments
Good for them. Now they need to vote the fascists who passed this ordinance out of office.
BOULDER, Colorado — Boulder’s newly enacted “assault weapons” ban is meeting with stiff resistance from its “gun-toting hippies,” staunch liberals who also happen to be devoted firearms owners.
Only 342 “assault weapons,” or semiautomatic rifles, were certified by Boulder police before the Dec. 31 deadline, meaning there could be thousands of residents in the scenic university town of 107,000 in violation of the sweeping gun-control ordinance.
“I would say the majority of people I’ve talked to just aren’t complying because most people see this as a registry,” said Lesley Hollywood, executive director of the Colorado Second Amendment group Rally for Our Rights. “Boulder actually has a very strong firearms community.”
The ordinance, approved by the city council unanimously, banned the possession and sale of “assault weapons,” defined as semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip, folding stock, or ability to accept a detachable magazine. Semiautomatic pistols and shotguns are also included.
Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.
Trump Bans Bump Stocks
by Owen | 2125, 18 Dec 18 | Firearms, Law, Politics | 9 Comments
Banning these won’t stop a single killing. It’s stupid and useless.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration Tuesday banned bump stocks, the firearm attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns and were used during the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
The regulation gives gun owners until late March to turn in or destroy the devices. After that, it will be illegal to possess them under the same federal laws that prohibit machine guns.
I also believe that implementing the law in this fashion would be a violation of the 5th Amendment: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”