Sunday, November 18, 2018

Newsweek Writer: ‘Almost Every Single Person I’ve Ever Heard Of With An AR-15 Has Been A Mass Murderer’


Wow, thought Swalwell’s nuke comment was dumb, this lady’s trying to match him.
Via Twitchy:
If you read the headline to this piece, you know what it’s about.
And yes, if you never touch a gun yourself and only hear about them on the news when there’s a mass shooting, you might very well be deluded into thinking all AR-15 owners are mass murderers.
It’s not often that CNN reports on a man who goes to the range, fires his legally owned AR-15, and goes home and locks it in a gun safe.
We’re thinking Newsweek’s Nina Burleigh needs to get out more and hear from some law-abiding AR-15 owners.
Keep reading…

Thank You Nick and WZ

Saturday, November 17, 2018

‘Active Criminal Investigation’ Now Looking Into Election Fraud In Florida

It's about time. This crap has to cease. 

They’re in big trouble. Both Feds and state investigating them.

Via Politico:

After getting crushed in the 2018 midterms, the Florida Democratic Party is now playing defense after staffers sent altered state election documents to voters, a move state officials have asked federal prosecutors to investigate.

The issue arose after state party staff sent voters forms that are intended to fix vote-by-mail ballots that had been initially rejected. Those forms, which are official state documents, were sent with altered dates, leading the Florida Department of State to turn over the paperwork to several U.S. attorneys and request an inquiry into the “irregularities.”

After saying earlier in the week that the state officials were trying “divert attention” away from the Department of State, which is part of Gov. Rick Scott’s administration, the Democrats on Friday took a different approach: They lawyered up.

“Upon receiving notice of the allegations that the form was incorrect, FDP took immediate steps, including hiring an independent investigator to review the issues at hand,” attorney Mark Herron said in a statement provided by a party spokeswoman. “As soon as we know the results of the investigation we will advise you.”

Herron went to CNN to break the news Friday morning, one week after the vote-by-mail “cure affidavits” were sent to U.S. Attorneys Christopher P. Canova of the Northern District of Florida, Maria Chapa Lopez of the Middle District of Florida and Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida.

Information related to whose mail ballots were rejected is public information. It’s not uncommon for political parties or outside groups to use that information to reach out to voters who had a mail ballot rejected to encourage them to fix the issues. In most cases, the problem is because a voter did not sign the ballot.

To cure a mail-in ballot, voters needed to submit an affidavit on Nov. 5, the day before Election Day. But the altered version changed the date to Nov. 8, the deadline to cure issues with provisional ballots. It’s unclear if any voters availed themselves of the altered affidavit produced by party operatives.

Keep reading…

HT: Twitchy

Thank You Nick and WZ.

Dana Loesch Question On Gun Control Stops Eric Swalwell In His Tracks

#Moronsareus, or the 'Reasonable Gun Laws' crowd who again prove they have NO idea what they're talking about.

Scott Morefield, 11/16/2018

Democratic Rep Eric Swalwell tried to interact with NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch via Twitter Friday on the issue of assault weapons but stopped responding after Loesch asked one pointed question.
The exchange began when Swalwell replied to a Loesch tweet about his proposed assault weapons “confiscation” with “she’s not lying.”
Swalwell made news Friday by suggesting that the U.S. government could use nuclear weapons on its citizens if they resisted its gun confiscation efforts. (RELATED: Wisconsin Company Gives All Its Employees Handguns For Christmas)
Loesch responded to Swalwell’s tweet by asking if he would “limit the ban and confiscation to semi-automatic rifles” or include handguns as well.
To which Swalwell responded in the affirmative. He also sought to clarify his position by responding to a reporter’s question and cc’ing Loesch:
At which point Loesch asked the burning question that still, at the time of publication, remained unanswered by Swalwell.
“Can you explain to me the difference between assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles?” Loesch asked. “Is .223 ok but 30.06 not? Why?”
When Swalwell failed to respond, Loesch tried again.
When the question remained unanswered, the NRA spokeswoman launched into a few likely reasons why her question remained unanswered:
In conclusion, Loesch called out Swalwell’s reference to nukes — which he claimed was sarcasm — and pointed out the other flaws in his argument.
Follow Scott on Twitter
Tags : assault weapon dana loesch eric swalwell gun control

Thank You Ms Loesch, Mr Morefield and the DC. 

Democrat Eric Swalwell: If Gun Owners Defy ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, ‘The Government Has Nukes’

The Democrats have finally found someone they're OK with using nukes against.

1st instance of a Dem calling for the use of nuclear weapons against American Citizens for exercising a Constitutional Right.

AWR Hawkins Nov 16, 2018

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) defended a potential “assault weapons” buyback Friday afternoon, saying that if gun owners defy a legislative ban, “the government has nukes.”

The exchange began with conservative Twitter commentator Joe Biggs responding to a story on Swalwell’s Thursday op-ed in USA Today, titled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters.” “@RepSwalwell wants a war,” Biggs wrote. “Because that’s what you would get.”
Swalwell responded by noting the government’s nuclear arsenal, writing: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”
Biggs responded by asking, “So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow.”
Swalwell countered by asking Biggs to quit being “dramatic” about the casual reference to weapons of mass destruction:
On May 21, 2018, Breitbart News reported that Swalwell pushed an “assault weapons” ban that would be based on buybacks with criminal charges for those who did not comply. A similar buyback was used by the Australia government.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at Sign up to get Down Range at

Thank You Mr Hawkins and Breitbart. 

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Maryland Man Killed By Cops Trying To Take His Guns Under "Red Flag" Confiscation Law

Tyler Durden/
Thu, 11/15/2018 - 23:25

Authored by Mac Slavo via,

On October 1, 2018, Maryland’s new “red flag” gun law went into effect.

On November 5, 2018, the law claimed its first victim.

Officially called Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), “red flag” laws permit police, healthcare providers, or family members (or pretty much anyone, really – let’s be honest here) to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge decides to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner. After a set period of time, the guns are returned to the owner unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.

Proponents of the law say it should not be seen as a “gun grab.”

As of November 8 – just a little over a month after the law went into effect in Maryland – 114 red flag warrants had already been served across the state.

Proponents of the law also claim it will “save lives.”

However, a life has already been lost because of the law.

Gary J. Willis, a 61-year-old Maryland resident, was killed by police when they showed up at his home at 5 am to serve him with a court order requiring that he surrender his guns.

Anne Arundel County Police said Willis answered the door with a gun in his hand. He initially put the gun down by the door, but “became irate” when officers began to serve him with the order and picked up the gun again, police said.

Sgt. Jacklyn Davis, a police spokeswoman, said “A fight ensued over the gun.” Police claim that as one of the officers struggled to take the gun from Willis, the gun fired but did not strike anyone. Then, the other officer fatally shot Willis, who died at the scene. Neither officer was injured.

Davis said she did not know who had sought the protective order against Willis.

But Michele Willis, the victim’s niece, said this was a case of “family being family,” reports The Baltimore Sun:

She said one of her aunts requested the protective order to temporarily remove Willis’ guns.

Michele Willis said she had grown up in the house and had been there Sunday night to move out her son, who had been helping to care for her grandmother.

She said her uncle “likes to speak his mind,” but she described him as harmless.

“I’m just dumbfounded right now,” she said. “My uncle wouldn’t hurt anybody.”

Willis said the officers should have continued to negotiate with her uncle.

“They didn’t need to do what they did,” she said.

Police Chief Timothy Altomare said the fatal shooting was a sign that the law is needed:

“If you look at this morning’s outcome, it’s tough for us to say ‘Well, what did we prevent?’ ” he said. “Because we don’t know what we prevented or could’ve prevented. What would’ve happened if we didn’t go there at 5 a.m.?”

Can you wrap your head around that statement? I can’t.

As far as we know, Willis never harmed anyone. Yet, he is dead…because of a law that was supposedly enacted to save lives. If Willis had a history of violence or a criminal record, the police department would surely be talking about it, using it as justification for the man’s murder.

In reality, red flag laws are ripe for abuse.

In an article titled Gun Owners Must Oppose Red Flag Laws, Greg Pruett of Gun Owners of America warns,

A new wave of dangerous laws is being pushed across the United States. These laws don’t require due process and your rights are removed without a crime ever being committed. If this sounds familiar, then it may sound like something out of “Minority Report” with Tom Cruise. Sadly, it isn’t a Hollywood blockbuster, it’s the new America. At least it will be if you don’t fight back.

“Red Flag” laws, also known as “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” or Gun Violence Restraining Orders,” have now passed in 12 states. Even some Republican-controlled states (Indiana and Florida) have passed these laws. They are dangerous to freedom, unconstitutional, and should be more properly termed, “Gun Confiscation Orders.”

As of the time of this writing, 13 states have red flag laws: Connecticut, Indiana, California, Washington, Oregon, Florida, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Illinois. More are surely coming. Bad ideas tend to spread, and cries for stricter gun control have grown much louder and more common.

Red flag laws are implemented differently in states have have them. Some limit these gun confiscation orders to “immediate family” members, Pruett writes. “But some states, like Oregon, are already expanding their orders to include neighbors, medical professionals, teachers, and other school staff.”

There is one aspect of red flag laws that is particularly chilling, as Pruett explains:

Remember, no crime has been committed, and the person who loses their rights does NOT get to defend themselves before those rights are removed. Some have the audacity to call this “due process.” It’s not due process if you aren’t part of the process. Going to court after your guns have been removed, to petition to get them back, is also not due process.

According to the Capital Gazette (five people were murdered by a lunatic with a vendetta at the newspaper’s Annapolis location back in June), Altomare said of the 19 protective orders granted in Anne Arundel County, his officers have handled nine – and seized “around 33 guns” in the process.

The Capital Gazette also reports that Altomere said while he is “cautiously optimistic” the rate of protective orders won’t increase too rapidly, the department is building a storage facility specifically to accommodate the increase in seized firearms.

According to a report by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, Maryland is expecting 1,342 red flag petitions in the first year of the law being in effect.

How many more deaths by cop will we see in Maryland by October 2019, then?

How many people who have never committed a crime will have their Constitutional rights violated due to this law?

As Scott Boyd of NOQ Report warns,

All it takes is a good story and a sympathetic judge to take away someone’s guns. In this case, it was a relative of the deceased who filed the petition after an incident that occurred in the beginning of the week. We don’t know the details so there’s no way to judge, but the notion that this incident is proof the law is working is the type of circular reasoning gungrabbers will use to encourage more confiscations.

Boyd concludes,

Gary J. Willis isn’t dead because he tried to shoot someone. He is dead because someone convinced a judge that he might shoot someone, and now police are hailing this as a success. The PreCrime Departments are pleased with the results.

Red flag laws only benefit the government, and render “we the people” defenseless against the ever-growing police state.

Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge.

More murdering 'Opinion' granted the farce of law.

Litigation Update: ECT Device Manufacturer Issues Warning of "Permanent Brain Damage"

Connor M. Karen November 15, 2018 

Hi everyone. As you may have heard from Dr. Breggin’s recent update, after the judge told us that the case wasn’t a class action, our case on behalf of ECT victims Jose Riera and Deborah Chase settled favorably on the eve of trial. In a development that we didn’t expect, Somatics, LLC has now issued a warning of “permanent brain damage” in its new risk disclosures of October 19, 2018. I wanted to talk a little bit about the implications and how this might affect litigation going forward.

First, you might be curious if this warning (the words “brain damage” buried in the middle of a laundry list paragraph of risks) is enough to shield the manufacturer from future liability. The answer to that is maybe. In product liability law, the adequacy of the warning of a particular risk is a “question of fact” for a jury to decide at trial. That means that even if a jury decides that a manufacturer has included warning of a particular risk, the jury could decide that the warning was insufficient in that it wasn’t prominent enough, the text was too small, not enough attention was given to it, etc.

In my opinion, with respect to the unavoidable risk of brain injury that ECT presents, there needs to be a standalone page with huge red font and a hazard symbol that states “ECT, necessarily the application of sufficient electricity to the cranium to induce a major motor seizure, presents an unavoidable risk of injury to the brain, and both the efficacy and safety of the treatment remain intensely controversial to this day.” We will keep bringing cases against ECT device manufacturers until either the manufacturers start providing that warning, or a jury states that their warning of brain damage is adequate.

That being said, their disclosure will still have effects on future litigation. First, my father DK and I think that this makes the case of anyone who underwent ECT within the statute of limitations — two years before 10/19/18, their date of disclosures — MUCH stronger, as they spent the entire litigation vehemently denying that brain injury was even a possible result of ECT. They basically put their foot in their mouth. (You still might have a good case if you underwent the “treatment” outside the statute of limitations — the arguments just take on a different nature, and we have to take a good look at your case to know whether we can help.)

Also, we think this makes individual medical malpractice cases against psychiatrists and hospitals much stronger. Somatics, LLC’s new disclosure would appear to take the legal force away from their claim that brain damage doesn’t occur from ECT, and winning medical malpractice cases over failure to give informed consent seems to me to be much more of a possibility.

One more interesting point to note: on page 4 or 5 of their disclosures, they state that the FDA “Approved” the Thymatron in 1984. This is false, as the Thymatron was grandfathered in as “substantially equivalent” to a pre-1976 ECT device through the “premarket notification” process, NOT given official premarket approval by the FDA. Further, the FDA’s regulations state:

“Any representation that creates an impression of official approval of a device because of complying with the premarket notification regulations is misleading and constitutes misbranding.” 21 C.F.R. sec. 807.97.

In essence, Somatics, LLC is representing to the public that the FDA has approved its device based on premarket notification, which the FDA’s regulations state is misleading, and constitutes misbranding. Misbranding is significant — if your device is misbranded, it can’t be manufactured or distributed. I’m not sure exactly how this will play out, but you can be sure we will be thinking of creative ways to get the Thymatron’s misbranding in front of future judges to see what shakes out.

I’m happy to answer any questions anyone has here in the comments. I’m also considering doing an AMA on Reddit soon.

If you suffer injury from electroconvulsive shock therapy, please fill out the questionnaire on or send an email to Justice for ECT victims has been long delayed, and we think we can help bring it to you.

Previous articleFelitti and Burke Harris Inspire 850+ at National ACEs Conference

Connor M. Karen
Connor M. Karen, Esq. is a graduate of UC Davis School of Law, California Bar admittee, and winner of the 2017 national law student class action writing competition hosted by American Association for Justice. Connor's entry was a paper on class certification of injuries caused by violations of FDA regulations. Connor and Jim Truxaw, Esq. conceptualized and drafted the linked litigation documents.

Thank You Mr Karen and MIA.

Monday, November 12, 2018

Court Upholds Appeal by Patients Prescribed ECT Against Their Will

Nov 7, 2018

From The Guardian: “A court in Victoria [Australia] has strengthened protections for mental health patients fighting forced electroconvulsive shock therapy, ruling that treatment orders cannot undermine a person’s human rights.

The court upheld an appeal brought by Victoria Legal Aid against two decisions in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Vcat) and the Mental Health Tribunal that two patients who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia be subject to a course of ECT against their will.

Legal Aid’s acting program manager, Hamish McLachlan, said the appeal decision did not mean an end to compulsory ECT, but people subject to involuntary treatment orders would now have greater control over their care.

‘What the supreme court has said is that mental health patients need to be treated on an equal basis with all other members of the community,’ he said.

Both patients were held under a compulsory treatment order, authorised by the Victorian Mental Health Act, which states that treatment can only be imposed upon a person without their consent if they are incapable of giving consent and if there is no less restrictive way for that person to be treated. At all times treatment must be compatible with the person’s human rights.

In a 110-page judgment handed down in the supreme court in Melbourne on Thursday, Justice Kevin Bell said Vcat had misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the legislation and had failed to respect the two patients’ human rights.

He said the 2014 legislation was ‘a paradigm shift away from best-interests paternalism towards recognition of persons having mental illness as equal rights-bearers, not dependent welfare cases.’

Bell said the standard applied by the tribunal to determine whether the patients were capable of giving informed consent was higher than would be expected of a person who was not subject to an involuntary mental health treatment order, and was therefore discriminatory.”

Article →

Thank You MIA and the Guardian.