BREAKING News! First State To Implement Gun Ban Just Passes Bill

It has been almost a month since deranged gunman Nikolas Cruz walked into a Parkland, Florida high school, opened fire and killed 17 innocent people. Since that horrific day, the left has jumped on their soapbox demanding more gun control, blaming President Trump and the NRA for Cruz’s actions. As the gun debate continues to rage on social media platforms now, one state has just passed a controversial gun ban that has many people wondering if this is just the start of more infringement on our rights, while others applaud the stricter stance.

For years, the second amendment has been under fire by far-left extremists who are hell-bent on disarming the American people. Every time there is shooting in our country, the gun-grabbers latch onto the tragedy to push for more gun control by tugging at the heartstrings of the American people by using arguments that play on emotions rather than logic. Now, the state of Oregon has passed new legislation that would close the loop for unmarried men convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed a new bill that would prohibit domestic violence misdemeanor offenders to own a firearm.

Now, in the past, as we all know it is typically felons that are barred from owning weapons, which makes this bill all that much more concerning. A misdemeanor is a crime, but it is not a felony and restricting someone’s God-given right to arm themselves appears to be a slippery slope. The question that many people could ask is what other crimes could be deemed dangerous enough to strip a person of their gun rights, and where does this all end?

Here is more from Yahoo:

“Despite two attempts from Republican lawmakers to send the bill back to committee, Oregon Democrats on Thursday passed the first gun control measure since the deadly shooting at a Florida High School—and advocates say the measure is a huge step forward for single women.

The legislation, which passed 16-13, is designed to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” a gap in the law that women’s advocacy groups have been trying to close for more than two decades. The legal blind spot, created by lax wording, allows unmarried men who live alone to slip through a federal law preventing convicted domestic abusers from purchasing guns.

“What the boyfriend loophole means is that someone who is convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence who only dated their victim, never lived with or had a child together, is legally able to continue to purchase and possess guns,” April Zeoli, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University, told Newsweek.

The loophole stems from the 1996 federal law referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits people convicted of certain domestic violence crimes from owning a firearm. The law also makes it illegal to knowingly sell or give a gun to a person who meets that criteria, but limitations abound.

“Practically speaking, if you have two people who committed the same act of violence against their intimate partners and were both convicted, but one was married to their victim and the other had been dating their victim, only the one who was married would be prohibited from having access to guns,” Zeoli said.

As written, Oregon’s bill expands the prohibitions to include stalkers and people under a restraining order. Although it was on the agenda prior to the February 14 shooting at a Florida high school, Governor Kate Brown credited the groundswell of recent activism with helping it pass through the legislative chambers.

The bill seeks to protect victims of all genders but advocacy groups said its passage is an especially important step to protect single women living in the U.S. A nationwide study from the University of Pennsylvania analyzed more than 31,000 police reports and found that about 82 percent of intimate partner violence incidents included current or former dating partners, while less than 15 percent involved spouses. A majority of the victims in those cases were women, a statistical trend that is consistent across the U.S.”

Now, do not get me wrong I fully believe that if someone commits a violent crime, they should not be allowed to own a firearm, but a misdemeanor is whole other issue, and where will this slippery slope end.

It is possible that other states could see this as an opening to impose more restrictions on those that they deem a potential threat. So, in the end, while this bill seems to be shrouded in good intentions, it could lead to a mess that our founding fathers would wholly disapprove of, and for a good reason.

Source:The Hill,

Appeals Court Hands Trump A Travel Ban Win — DETAILS

A U.S. appeals court in California on Monday let part of President Donald Trump’s latest travel ban go into effect, ruling that the government can bar entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries if they have no connections to the United States.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially granted a Trump administration request to block at least temporarily a judge’s ruling that had put the new ban on hold. Trump’s ban was announced on Sept. 24 and replaced two previous versions that had been impeded by federal courts.

The action means the ban will apply to people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad who do not have connections to the United States.

Those connections are defined as family relationships and “formal, documented” relationships with U.S.-based entities such as universities and resettlement agencies. Those with family relationships that would allow entry include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

The ruling does not affect people from the two other countries listed in Trump’s ban, North Korea and Venezuela.

The state of Hawaii, which sued to block the restrictions, argued that federal immigration law did not give Trump the authority to impose them on six of those countries. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu ruled last month that Hawaii was likely to succeed with that argument.

Trump issued his first travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries in January, just a week after he took office, and then issued a revised one after the first was blocked by the courts. The second one expired in September after a long court fight and was replaced with another revised version.

Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Muslim militants. As a candidate, Trump had promised “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

Critics of the travel ban in its various iterations call it a “Muslim ban” that violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion.

The 9th Circuit is due to hear oral arguments in the case on Dec. 6. In a parallel case from Maryland, a judge also ruled against the Trump administration and partially blocked the ban from going into effect.

An appeal in the Maryland case is being heard on Dec. 8 by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several advocacy groups, including the International Refugee Assistance Project.

In announcing the newest travel restrictions, the White House had portrayed them as necessary consequences for countries that did not meet new requirements for vetting of immigrants and issuing of visas. Those requirements were shared in July with foreign governments, which had 50 days to make improvements if needed, the White House said.

A number of countries made improvements by enhancing the security of travel documents or the reporting of passports that were lost or stolen, the administration has said. Others did not, sparking the restrictions.

The Justice Department and Hawaii state officials could not immediately be reached for comment.