More from the communist in chief:

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration’s “Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

[ … ]

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

[ … ]

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

Let’s cover the list.  No more American Rifleman Magazine (since it has technical data in it), no more descriptions over forums for how to reload or what recipe is best for certain situations, no more tactical training videos over YouTube, no more posting of results of ballistic gelatin, no more gun reviews, no more descriptions of how to field strip and clean firearms, and on and on the list goes.

It won’t work.  Obama will be defeated, now and in eternity.  Just like gun control doesn’t stop the availability of guns, Obama can’t stop the sharing of information.  And for his totalitarianism, Mr. Obama has earned a place in hell on judgment day.  In the mean time, the administration has declared war on you and your freedoms.  This is the next battlefield.

David Codrea:

Well, that was quick. At least it shows they can move when motivated. They fired me, and warned me not to show anyone the termination notice because that would violate a confidentiality agreement.  I’ll match their agreement violations over the years against mine if they want to pursue this, because I maintain this is definitely in the interests of pursuing a story about cheesy Examiner.com practices …

I think there is more to the story and told David so.  He doesn’t think so, and relates it to the silly editorial practices they have implemented.  Well, if I’m right, something has happened behind the scene they want to hide by administrative smoke.  If David is right, Examiner is very conflicted and confused.

Go read the new rules they put on him.  No new research conducted only by the writer, but no link baiting.  Use of only material that is already published by one of the large media outlets (my interpretation), but things that are only newsworthy.

I don’t think Examiner understands how this new media thing works.  If it weren’t for blogs and alternative media, the crap published by the MSM would go unchallenged except for comments.  And the comments are brutal, to be sure.  They are the best editor the MSM could get.  But I’ve used combinations of MSM links to show inconsistency, used analysis to draw larger conclusions based on both my own work and the MSM’s work, used information acquired by FOIA requests I made, done direct interviews, and so on.  It takes all of this to do good work, and Examiner is preparing itself for meaninglessness.  It was close anyway.

No one will read them, or if they do, it will be spineless and boring milquetoast.  Goodbye to Examiner.  As for David, he will survive, and he’s too good for the goobers over at Examiner.  I’m done with Examiner, and I’ll keep following David wherever he goes.  Good riddance to unnecessary baggage, and a new beginning to a friend.

KFSM/KXNW:

Benton County Sheriff Kelley Cradduck says his deputies will not arrest anyone who openly carries a handgun.

“As long as the law is written as it is then we will not arrest any citizen for simply exercising their right to open carry,” the sheriff wrote on his Facebook page on Monday (June 1).

Cradduck said he posted his views on the issue because an overwhelming number of people have asked for his thoughts about open carry.

People committing crimes while openly carrying a handgun will still find themselves on the wrong side of the law, he noted.

“If there are other exigent circumstances involved, such as they are committing a crime while openly carrying, then they stand a good chance of being charged for whatever crime they committed, along with the charge of carrying a firearm without a concealed handgun license,” he wrote.

The controversy whether open carry is legal in Arkansas began after a bill was passed in the 2013 legislative session containing language some believe allows for open carry of handguns.  Dustin McDaniel, who was the attorney general at the time, said open carry of handguns is illegal in the state.

However, the current attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, said she believes the law, known as Act 746, allows for open carry.

“I interpret it to mean an individual may carry so long as he or she does so without the intent to unlawfully employ it against another person,” she told 5NEWS in a prepared statement on Monday. “But anytime law enforcement and citizens disagree on a law we need to ensure there is clarity to protect our citizens. I am committed to working with the General Assembly to clarify any confusion surrounding Act 746 and its intent.”

Cradduck said in his Facebook post that he will stand by his position until state legislators approve a measure clarifying the law.

“Until the legislative bodies come together and write the law very clearly stating if and where you may or may not openly carry without a license, then I will not permit my deputies to arrest individuals who are carrying their firearms in an open fashion,” he wrote.

In 2013, Washington County Sheriff Tim Helder said he agreed with then-Prosecuting Attorney John Threet that open carry is permitted. Threet, who later won election as a Circuit Court judge, said he didn’t plan on prosecuting gun owners who openly carry firearms in Washington County. Helder said he would use Threet’s opinion in instructing his deputies on the legality of firearm open carry.

In the comments to Communist Art Acevedo Kills Constitutional Carry In Texas we discussed the various exigencies and vicissitudes of what LEOs think, how judges are likely to decide cases before them and other issues surrounding open carry when the law isn’t clear.

In Texas the lack of a provision prohibiting LEOs from stopping open carriers to demand evidence of permit will be a problem, I predict.  In Arkansas we see now the problems associated with muddled laws.  A note to legislators is in order.  You aren’t doing anyone any favors by muddling the laws.  Not LEOs, not judges, not the people.  No one benefits because of your vacillation.

The Salt Lake Tribune:

Dillon Taylor was not armed when a Salt Lake City police officer shot him to death outside a convenience store.

But in that moment on Aug. 11, Officer Bron Cruz had good reason to think Taylor was pulling a gun out of his pants, Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill ruled on Tuesday.

Taylor, 20, and the two men he was with matched the descriptions of a 911 caller who said three men had “flashed” a gun. And Cruz saw them “making a scene” on their way to the 7-Eleven near 2100 S. State Street.

Confronted by officers, the two men with Taylor held up their hands, while Taylor alone was “noncompliant.”

Body-cam video shows that Taylor turned toward officers with his hands in his pants before hoisting his shirt — a gesture officers are trained to recognize as a possible weapon-draw.

“Nothing that Mr. Taylor did assisted in de-escalating the situation,” Gill said. “If anything, it escalated things.”

Taylor’s shooting was justified, Gill said, not because he posed an actual threat, but because Cruz reasonably perceived a threat.

I said in comments here that “I don’t trust most LEOs when it comes to muzzle discipline … There are many reasons for my mistrust, one having to do with sympathetic muscle reflexes (see here and here).”  I would not have done anything with my hands (as did Taylor), but that doesn’t change the fact that the LEO was too quick to shoot.  You be the judge.

Another thing we learn is that even with body cameras, judges most often will side with LEOs.  A corrupt system will always be corrupt, regardless of whether people see it in motion pictures.

The News & Observer:

… the most contentious part of the bill would phase out the system requiring handgun buyers to get permits from their local sheriff.

Now handgun buyers must get a permit from the sheriff, who does a background check. The bill would end that program by 2021 and grant exceptions in the meantime.

Supporters say most handgun buyers would be subject to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. They say the federal system would offer a more standardized, less arbitrary system.

The bill “in no way attempts to remove background checks,” Schaffer told the committee. “On the contrary, it’s designed to strengthen background checks.”

Paul Valone, director of Grass Roots North Carolina, a pro-gun group, told lawmakers it was time to end what he called “the Jim Crow-era pistol permitting system (that’s) archaic and arbitrary.”

Jeff Brown, the group’s legislative director, also criticized the current system. “Who would put up with arbitrary and capricious decisions about whether you get driver’s licenses?” he said.

But critics urged lawmakers to keep the current system in place.

“If we do away with the pistol permit process, domestic violence abusers, the dangerously mentally ill, convicted felons and minors would all be able to buy guns from unlicensed dealers,” said Becky Ceartas, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence.

In an interview, Eddie Caldwell, executive vice president and general counsel of the sheriffs association, said the current system has several advantages.

He said sheriffs have access to more criminal history than does the national system. The only crimes reported to NICS are those for which someone was finger-printed. That doesn’t include misdemeanors such as simple assault, stalking, and many offenses involving domestic violence.

“The pistol permitting law provides much greater safety to the public than a NICS check,” Caldwell said.

He said it also protects gun sellers from unknowingly selling to a convicted felon. And even unlicensed dealers who aren’t required to use the national background check must get a sheriff’s permit.

That’s one reason the North Carolina Coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, whose 10 mayors include Democrat Dan Clodfelter of Charlotte, urged lawmakers to reject the bill.

“To protect the lives of our constituents, we must be empowered to enforce our gun laws, and our background check system is a vital law enforcement tool,” they wrote.

McCrory spokesman Ryan Minto told the committee the governor opposes the repeal of the current pistol permitting system and could not support the bill “in its current form.” The governor vetoed two unrelated bills last week.

Thus does Pat McCrory side with racist laws designed to keep blacks from getting guns.  And thus does he side with Sheriffs who want to keep the power to grant or deny God-given rights and at the same time raise revenue for their SWAT teams, new vehicles (I wish I had a brand new Dodge Charger), tactical equipment, increased salaries, and other things they should do without.

Pat shouldn’t ever ask for anything from me again, including a vote.  I’ll oppose him at every juncture.  He has now declared himself the enemy of liberty.  It didn’t take long to show himself to be a collectivist.

Texas Tribune:

Texas police chiefs are urging Gov. Greg Abbott to veto legislation repealing certain handgun restrictions in Texas if lawmakers do not remove a controversial provision the chiefs fear would allow criminals to carry firearms without repercussions.

If the provision stays on the bill, the only responsible thing for Abbott to do would be to veto it, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said at an impromptu news conference organized as the legislation faces what could be a final vote in the House on Wednesday. “You can’t be the party of law and order and not listen to your police chiefs,” he said.

[ … ]

Flanked by about a dozen law enforcement leaders from around the state, Acevedo said Wednesday that the legislation would “handcuff” police officers, endangering both them and the communities they protect.

“The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!”  Art Acevedo is a communist and liar.  He knows that other traditional open carry states like North Carolina (where simply openly carrying a gun does not constitute legitimate reason for a stop) don’t have the problems he says will come from constitutional carry in Texas.

But a little background is in order.  The House and Senate both managed to tack on a provision that LEOs couldn’t stop open carriers and ask for proof of concealed carry permits.  Communist Art Acevedo was successful and this provision was killed.

After a week of hand-wringing over a controversial amendment — and what proved to be empty threats of a Democratic filibuster — the measure sailed through both chambers of the Legislature on Friday afternoon. The vote in the House was 102 to 43; in the Senate, 20 to 11.

[ … ]

Last week, the bill’s passage was temporarily delayed when the Senate unexpectedly revived a provision that would limit the power of police officers to ask those carrying handguns visibly for a permit.

The so-called “cop stop” amendment had support from some Democrats who said it would help prevent racial profiling, as well as conservatives who said it was necessary to protect the public against unreasonable searches and seizures. But it stirred vocal criticism from the state’s police chiefs, some of whom held an impromptu news conference at the Capitol to urge Abbott to veto the bill if the language stayed in.

And so they listened to the LEOs and the provision was killed.  As a side note, LEOs have no business whatsoever engaging in advocating laws or policy.  LEOs are tasked with certain things, and making law isn’t one of those things.  There should be contractual obligations prohibiting this kind of advocacy.

As for the law makers who listened to communist Art Acevedo, you are communist scumbags along with Art Acevedo.  Every politician who allowed or in any way encouraged or advocated such a sellout of liberty is not only a racist, bowing their knee to Jim Crow laws, but a waste of the very space your bodies occupy.  You are worthless as men and leaders of men, preferring to relinquish your God-given duties to protect the rights of all men in favor of acceptance by other men.  You have exchanged good for evil, and continue to support a totalitarian government in both idea and statute, and God will have His day for you in the final white throne court.  You who worship men rather than God – that will be a terrible day.

It would have been better for the law to have failed, and for the good people of Texas to wait for true liberty rather than scramble after the crumbs that fall from the master’s table.  Color me unimpressed with any of the politicians in Texas, and I still wait for a leader to emerge who will respect God-given rights.  At the moment, I don’t see one.