Friday, March 22, 2019


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
New Zealanders — men as well as women — are also being asked to wear the hijab this Friday. The shock and horror that Jacinda Ardern and other New Zealanders are feeling over the attack is understandable. The good intentions of these initiatives are obvious. Unfortunately, however, it will henceforth be difficult, if not completely impossible, to discuss the jihad threat in New Zealand; anyone who does so will be accused of fueling the hatred that led to the Christchurch massacre. 
So it can reasonably be expected that in the coming years, New Zealand will be a hospitable place for jihadis and Sharia supremacists, and any resistance to their initiatives will be stigmatized into insignificance.
“NZ Prime Minister orders national broadcast of Muslim call to prayer this Friday,” Michael Smith News, March 21, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
On television.
On radio.
In the New Zealand Parliament and government buildings.
There’ll be no escaping Islam’s Adhan (Muslim call to prayer) this Friday, the Muslim sabbath.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced a two-minute silence will be observed on Friday to mark a week since the Christchurch mosque shootings.
Ms Ardern spoke at a press conference in Christchurch this afternoon when she made the announcement.
“I know from many there is a desire to show support to the Muslim community as they return to mosques, particularly on Friday.
“There is also a desire amongst New Zealanders to mark the week that has passed since the terrorist attack.
“To acknowledge this, there will be a two-minute silence on Friday. We will also broadcast nationally via TVNZ and RadioNZ the Call to Prayer.”…
_______________________________________________________________ SEE ALSO: -zealand-plays-into-terrorist-s-hands-embraces-censorship-in-wake-of-deadly -attacks?vsmaid=3922&vcid=3987 

"Allahu Akbar": New Zealand Recognizes Muslim Call to Prayer as News Anchors Wear Hijabs


Mosque leader calls on governments to ban 

“hate speech”



Colleges and universities that won’t protect free speech may lose federal research grants

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
President Trump signed an executive order yesterday directing the nation’s colleges and universities to defend free speech on campus or lose federal research funding.
“In America, the very heart of the university’s mission is preparing students for life as citizens in a free society,” the president said March 21 in the East Room of the White House.
“But even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and to the First Amendment. You see it all the time. You turn on the news and you see things that are horrible.”
Trump continued:
Under the guise of “speech codes” and “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings,” these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity, and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today. These are great people.
All of that changes starting right now … Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions. And that’s exactly what they are: anti-First Amendment. Universities that want taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech.
Addressing college students and recent graduates on the stage beside him who fought for free speech on campus, the president added:
You refused to be silenced by powerful institutions and closed-minded critics, of which there are many. You faced down intimidation, pressure and abuse. You did it because you love your country and you believe in truth, justice, and freedom.
Trump signed the document, titled an Executive Order on Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities, during a ceremony. He described the order as “the first in a series of steps we will take to defend students’ rights” and said it was intended to combat “ideological intolerance on campus.”
The order declares that it is the policy of the federal government to “encourage institutions to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions[.]”
The order directs the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy, and Education; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Science Foundation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.”
The order also, among other things, demands greater transparency in the world of student loans. It directs the Office of Federal Student Aid to develop “a secure and confidential website and mobile application that informs Federal student loan borrowers of how much they owe, how much their monthly payment will be when they enter repayment, available repayment options, how long each repayment option will take, and how to enroll in the repayment option that best serves their needs.”
Trump teased the executive order March 2 during a speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
“We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous,” he said at the time.
“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden [Williams] and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don’t, it will be very costly.”
Trump was referring to Hayden Williams, a conservative victim of leftist violence on UC Berkeley campus, who was standing beside him on the CPAC stage.
Since Trump was inaugurated his administration has been using legal resources to insist that institutions of higher learning protect freedom of expression on their campuses.
In September 2017, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest to support students Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford in their lawsuit against Gwinnett College in Georgia. The college had an oppressive policy that prevented the communication of religious messages and the distribution of religious material on campus – even in the campus' so-called free speech zones.
“A national recommitment to free speech on campus and to ensuring First Amendment rights is long overdue,” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at the time. “Which is why, starting today, the Department of Justice will do its part in this struggle. We will enforce federal law, defend free speech, and protect students’ free expression.
When Kevin Shaw, a student at Pierce College in Los Angeles, was informed he would only be permitted to distribute Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution in a limited free speech zone on campus, he filed a lawsuit. The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in support of Pierce in late 2017. The case was settled the following year. The college agreed to expand the free speech zone.
In December 2018, UC Berkeley agreed to compensate Young America’s Foundation and Berkeley College Republicans for trampling the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of conservative speakers and students on its campus. The Trump administration sided with campus conservatives against the school. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on behalf of the two groups. The department “will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand said at the time.
Will President Trump’s new executive order improve the situation on the nation’s college and university campuses?
It can’t hurt.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:Virginia – VIRGINIA-( This Tuesday, March 26, 2019, the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee is going to be hearing a Red Flag gun-control/gun confiscation bill put in by Florida Republican Marco Rubio.  Yes, the Republican controlled Senate is going to hear a bill that a Republican put in.
President Trump said right after the Florida school massacre that he thought Red Flag laws were a good idea.
We need to let our Senators, hear from us on this AND the President and Vice President, too.  I think the President can be swayed if he learns the truth about what Red Flag laws really do and don't do.  The Vice President might be able to help, as he as the President's ear.
I know, I know – we in Virginia are not likely to sway either of our Senators.  But by reminding them in large numbers that we are here, we don't want any more gun control, and we are watching, that might at least slow down any pro-active gun control coming from them.  I'm thinking a Virginia Citizens Defense League protest at some of their district offices this year might also be in order.
Thanks to our sister organization, the Arizona Citizens Defense League, for setting up a special version of their Congressional contact system for us Virginians to use.  The Board is considering getting our own Congressional contact system.
Click here to send the pre-written message to Senators Kaine, Warner, President Trump, and Vice President Pence (NOTE:  uncheck “Email Opt-in” if you don't want to get future emails from the Arizona Citizens Defense League):
Let's get a few thousand emails headed their way to get their attention and to educate them as well!  We dare not ignore Red Flag bills.
Let's contact the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, so he knows that gun owners do NOT want Red Flag laws.  He can help keep the bill from getting a Floor vote if it clears the committee.
Here's a link to his contact form on the web:
For the Topic, select “Congressional Rules and Procedures”
Suggested subject: “Please do not let any ‘Red Flag' gun bills get a vote on the Senate Floor!
Suggested message:
Extreme Risk Protection Orders, also known as “Red Flag” laws, such as S. 7, are about gun confiscation, not public safety.
Red Flag laws leave the “dangerous” person free to kill himself or others, as the law merely takes away his guns (assuming the police even find all his guns).  If a person is too dangerous to have guns, how is anyone safer if he is still walking around with the rest of us?  Red Flag laws also violate due process, as the accused doesn't have his day in court for weeks after his property (guns) has already been taken and he then has the almost impossible task of proving he's not dangerous.  How do you prove a negative?
Protect America's gun owners and the Constitution – don't let S. 7, or any other Red Flag bills, get to the Floor!

Virginia Citizens Defense LeagueAbout Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
For more information, visit:

Chuck Baldwin’s Open Letter To Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Et. Al Regarding Tyrannical Gun Laws

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin conducting hearings next Tuesday, March 26, on Senate Bill 7, the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019—otherwise known as a national “red flag” gun confiscation bill. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio (R-FL). If this gun confiscation bill passes the U.S. Senate, it will most certainly pass the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, and President Donald Trump absolutely WILL sign it into law.
I am writing this open letter to Senators Rubio and Graham, President Trump and the untold numbers of legislators, judges and lawmen that will be working together to facilitate and execute the confiscation of the arms of innocent American citizens—citizens who have not even been charged with a crime.
I have purchased a full-page ad in the capital city newspaper in my home State of Montana, the Helena Independent Record, in which the following letter will appear this Sunday, March 24. I urge readers to feel free to use, copy, promote, publish, etc., this open letter in an attempt to bring this information to the attention of as many people as possible.
The GOP faithful are mostly in denial about what Donald Trump and many Republican senators are up to. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia.
If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms. It will not matter that they have not committed a crime; it will not matter that they have not been charged with a crime; and it will not matter that they have never even threatened to commit a crime. And they won’t even realize that it’s happening until the SWAT team bangs on their door at 5am to seize their guns.
The letter below is an in-depth, passionate appeal to everyone involved to STOP S.7 from becoming law. The letter speaks for itself.
Again, I urge everyone to take this open letter and get it into the hands of as many people as you can. If the American people do not arise in massive numbers against this bill, it WILL pass. We are getting NO HELP on this from the NRA or the vast majority of so-called pro-Second Amendment Republicans. Ron Paul, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a few others are trying to warn the American people about this communistic bill. But that’s about it.
I beg you, folks, distribute this open letter to your friends, your family members, your neighbors, your sheriffs, your chiefs of police, your legislators, your local judges—distribute this letter to EVERYONE. We don’t have much time. And I mean that literally.
[Begin my open letter to Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, et. al]
I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I say what I’m about to say.
“Red flag” gun confiscation laws violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.
Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.
You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.
Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote:
Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.
This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.
Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?
There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.
Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.
“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.
Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.
And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.
It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.
Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.
Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.
So much for equal justice under the law.
It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.
Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:
  1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all.The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.
  2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person.The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.
  3. Using a very low standard of proof.The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.
  4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner.The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.
The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.
We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.
I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.
Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?
At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.
Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community.
Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?
In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.
As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.
I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.
Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country.
“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Arizona -( -In 2019, Missouri Senator Eric Burlison, Representative Jered Taylor, and representative Jeff Pogue have introduced versions of the Second Amendment Protection Act or SAPA.  Here is a link to SB 367 introduced by Senator Burlison.
The bill uses several legal and Constitutional strategies to protect Second Amendment rights from infringement by both the Federal government and various Missouri governments.
The principle Constitutional strategy is the anti-commandeering doctrine, which has been well established in Constitutional law and in the Supreme Court cases of New York v. United States (1992, decided 6-3) and Printz v. United States (1997) and  Independent Business v. Sebelous (2012).
These cases validate the doctrine that the Federal government has no power to force state agencies or officers to do what the Federal government orders them to do. The Federal government can require actions for the state to receive funds from the Federal government, but that is all.
Legislatively, the bill would protect Second Amendment rights by refusing to allow any state officers to enforce any Federal laws considered infringements on Second Amendment rights by the definitions of the bill.  Those include any taxes, stamps, or fees exclusively applied to firearms, accessories, or ammunition.  It applies to any registration or tracking of those items.
No person would have the authority, under the State of Missouri, to enforce those measures.

The proposed bill has teeth.

Text from MO SB 367, the MO Second Amendment Act Takes No Prisoners
Text from MO SB 367, the MO Second Amendment Act Takes No Prisoners
Anyone who deprives a citizen of Missouri of Second Amendment rights under color of law would be subject to lawsuit or other redresses. Sovereign, official or qualified immunity would not apply.  State officers who violate the law would be ineligible for employment by the state in any law enforcement or law enforcement supervisory capacity, or by any political subdivision of the state.
This is a very tough, very comprehensive bill.
It seems to nullify several existing federal statutes, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady law. Such measures could be enforced by federal agents, but not by people employed by the State of Missouri or its political subdivisions.  Very few cases could be brought by Federal Agents alone.
This is not the first time SAPA has been pushed in Missouri.  In 2013, a very similar bill to SB 367 was passed by the House and the Senate. Governor Jay Nixon vetoed it. A veto override failed because two senators switched their votes.
In 2014, a similar bill had passed the House. It looked likely to pass the Senate, but legislative maneuvering by the House leader, John Diehl allowed for an amendment of the bill just minutes before the end of the session. According to
John Diehl chose none of those options. Instead, he waited, and waited, until 5:40 pm when there was only 20 minutes left, to pass an amended HB 1439 and send it to the Senate. That made the bill an easy target for a liberal filibuster. HB 1439 was on the senate floor with ultra-liberal Sen. Jolie Justus filibustering it when the final bell rang on the last day of the year's legislative session..
The final entry on HB 1439's Action page tells the rest of the story: “Taken Up – Time expired pursuant to the Constitution.” John Diehl purposely killed the Second Amendment Preservation Act and tried to make it look like it was the Senate's fault.
Several of the key players who opposed SAPA in 2013 and 2014 are gone. John Diehl resigned over a sex and text scandal. Senators who opposed the bill have left.
Both the current Governor, Mike Parson, and Lt. Governor Mike Hehoe supported the bill previously.
Exactly what will happen if the bill passes is unknown.
If signed into law I am sure law enforcement officers in Missouri will not be sending people found with short barreled rifles or silencers to the BATFE for prosecution since under this law they would lose their jobs.
Exactly what else will happen remains to be seen.

Bonus Video Explanation of SB 367

About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
America’s top military officer stressed that Google’s ventures in China are aiding its military and communist regime’s ability to control its people.
Companies doing business in China are required to have a cell of the Communist Party present, said Gen. Joseph Dunford during a forum at the Atlantic Council in D.C. Thursday.
“That will to lead to intellectual property from that company finding its way to the Chinese military,” said Dunford. “This is not about me and Google.”
“This is about us looking at the second and third-order effects of our business ventures in China, China’s form of government, and the impact that’s going to have on the United States’ ability to maintain a competitive military advantage and all that goes with it.”
Last year, Google drew the ire of politicians like Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for refusing an artificial intelligence contract with the Pentagon less than a year after starting an AI research center in China.
“All of it will be shared with the military and with the repressive forces that are doing this,” said Rubio. “[Google] doesn’t want to give AI technology to the [U.S.] military because, God forbid, we may use it someday to target a terrorist or someone who wants to harm America. But [Google] has no problem opening up a center of AI in China, knowing full well how anything you do in China — if it’s a benefit to the military, they’re going to use it; if it’s a benefit to the security services, they’re going to use it.”
Correspondingly, Dunford further expressed his concern on how China is using developments in artificial intelligence to “control” the vast majority of its people, indirectly referring to the country’s Orwellian social creditsystem that blacklists people based on “trustworthiness.”
“My concern when you think about things like artificial intelligence… They’re gonna help an authoritarian government assert control over its own population,” said Dunford. “What China is able to do is identify patterns of behavior amongst people and determine who’s reliable and who’s not reliable.”
“There is no question in my mind that China will leverage technology to assist the 6% of the Chinese population in controlling the other 94%.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the law means what it says.
The nut of its 5-4 ruling in Nielsen v. Preapis this: Pursuant to federal law, immigration authorities must detain, without the possibility of release on bond, a deportable criminal immigrant until his immigration status is settled. And no matter long how he was free from custody for the criminal offense, the government can lock him up again.
Those who don’t want to read the whole decision can skip down to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s laconic concurring opinion.
The Case Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Samuel J. Alito explained that the case involved plaintiffs who challenged the federal law, passed in 1996, that says criminal immigrants must be arrested “‘when [they are] released’ from custody on criminal charges and ... must be detained without a bond hearing until the question of their removal is resolved.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law requires immigration authorities to arrest those criminal foreigners nearly the minute they are released, say, from jail. In other words, immigration cops can’t arrest a criminal immigrant a year after his release.
Alito wrote that “four other Circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”
The question the court had to settle, Alito wrote, was whether or not “the executive branch’s mandatory duty to detain a particular noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody remains mandatory if the executive branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody.”
That, he wrote, can’t be, because Congress cannot have intended that immigration authorities lose their legal power to detain a criminal alien “if the executive branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen because of resource constraints or because the executive branch cannot immediately locate and apprehend the individual in question.”
“Especially hard to swallow,” Alito continued, is the notion that “for an alien to be subject to mandatory detention ... the alien must be arrested on the day he walks out of jail (though respondents allow that it need not be at the jailhouse door — the ‘parking lot’ or ‘bus stop’ would do).”
Why is that hard to swallow?
Assessing the situation in realistic and practical terms, it is inevitable that respondents’ unsparing deadline will often be missed for reasons beyond the Federal Government’s control.... To give just one example, state and local officials sometimes rebuff the Government’s request that they give notice when a criminal alien will be released. Indeed, over a span of less than three years (from January 2014 to September 2016), the Government recorded “a total of 21,205 declined [requests] in 567 counties....
Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that Congress made the Secretary’s mandatory-detention authority vanish at the stroke of midnight after an alien’s release.
Thus, Alito wrote, “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.”
Kavanaugh’s Opinion In less than 600 words, Kavanaugh explained the “narrowness of the issue before us” and, in particular, to emphasize “what this case is not about.”
The case was not about the authority of the government to deport criminal immigrants, or “whether Congress may mandate that the Executive Branch detain noncitizens during removal proceedings or before removal, as opposed to merely giving the Executive Branch discretion to detain.”
Rather, Kavanaugh wrote, “the sole question” is whether immigration authorities’ “duty to detain a particular noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody remains mandatory if the Executive Branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody.”
Noting that the question before the court was strictly statutory, not constitutional, with regard to the 1996 immigration law, Kavanaugh explained that “it would be odd [if the law] mandated detention of particular noncitizens because the noncitizens posed such a serious risk of danger or flight that they must be detained during their removal proceedings,” yet “allowed the noncitizens to remain free during their removal proceedings if the Executive Branch failed to immediately detain them upon their release from criminal custody.”
But the law “does not require such an odd result,” he continued. “On the contrary, the relevant text ... is relatively straightforward, as the Court explains. Interpreting that text, the Court correctly holds that the Executive Branch’s detention of the particular noncitizens here remained mandatory even though the Executive Branch did not immediately detain them.”