Surprise: Smithfield Foods Pulls Out Of California Over Pork Law

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 3:00 pm

I said this would happen. Here’s the backstory (via Green Jihad)

At the beginning of next year, California will begin enforcing an animal welfare proposition approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2018 that requires more space for breeding pigs, egg-laying chickens and veal calves. National veal and egg producers are optimistic they can meet the new standards, but only 4% of hog operations now comply with the new rules. Unless the courts intervene or the state temporarily allows non-compliant meat to be sold in the state, California will lose almost all of its pork supply, much of which comes from Iowa, and pork producers will face higher costs to regain a key market.

The courts did not intervene, particularly over the notion that other states must comply with the California rules to sell products

But, it won’t jump by 60%, it would go to zero in most cases, as producers would simply avoid selling pork products in California. No bacon, sausage, barbecue, pork dumplings, or anything else that would be affected. That’s simply the easiest thing to do, is it not? Some products will be sold, and the prices will certainly jump way more than 60%. Is that realistic? Because that’s what the law says. Even if they want to sell it, the law says they can’t.

And now

Smithfield Foods to shutter California meat-packing plant

unintended consequencesMeat-packing giant Smithfield Foods said Friday it will close its only California plant next year, citing the escalating cost of doing business in the state.

The Farmer John meat-packing plant in Vernon, an industrial suburb south of Los Angeles, will shut down in February, with its 1,800 employees receiving severance and job placement support along with bonuses for those who choose to stay on the job until the closure, said Jim Monroe, vice president of corporate affairs.

Some workers, who on average earn about $21 per hour, also will have opportunities to relocate to other facilities owned by the Virginia-based Smithfield Foods Inc.

The Vernon plant slaughters pigs and packages products such as ham and bacon. Some operations will be moved to other facilities in the Midwest, but the overall reduction in processing capacity is prompting Smithfield to reduce its sow herd in Utah. The company also said it is exploring ways to exit its farms in California and Arizona.

Reducing/moving operations in those other states is a direct reflection on the California law, because they just won’t need that much product for California now.

Monroe said operating costs in California are much higher than in other areas of the country, including taxes and the price of water, electricity and natural gas.

“Our utility costs in California are 3 1/2 times higher per head than our other locations where they do the same type of work,” he said.

The ABC piece mostly ignores Proposition 12, but, that is the primary driver of what Smithfield Foods is doing, jacking up the price of operations and goods. But, hey, this is what you wanted, Californians. Suck it up, no complaining. And you know they won’t be the first.

Read: Surprise: Smithfield Foods Pulls Out Of California Over Pork Law »

Posted in Food and Drink, Global Warming, Liberal World | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a canal dug to reduce carbon pollution related flooding, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Green Jihad, with a post on the left ignoring violence that benefits them.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Wants To Remove All Liability Protections On Firearms

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 10:30 am

Now, why do the gun grabbers want to do that?

Don’t Add Curbs on Guns. But Repeal Liability Protections for Gun Makers and Sellers.

As a lifelong sportsman with a personal history rich with shotguns, pistols and rifles, I understand why so many of my fellow gun owners — especially the ones who have been spoon-fed fear and angst from organizations they trust — are hesitant to engage in a political discussion that began long before the actor and Second Amendment activist Charlton Heston equated guns with human dignity and liberty.

Debates about guns seem to get lost in the weeds of our decades-long disagreements, while every attempt at compromise — including the current effort in the Senate — falls short of what is desperately needed.

Does anyone believe that Todd Tanner has a personal history with firearms?

With that in mind, I’d like to offer a suggestion that may anger many of those who hear it but could, with luck, spark a fruitful discussion in the weeks and months ahead: Democrats should stop trying to institute new gun laws. They should side with Republicans and agree to curtail any further attempts to restrict gun purchases, or to outlaw guns that are currently legal.

At the same time, Republicans should work with Democrats to eliminate all liability protections for gun and ammunition manufacturers and anyone who sells guns.

Why in the hell would Republicans work with Democrats on this?

We live in the United States of America, and we should all understand that every freedom comes with a price. In this case, that price is personal responsibility. People harmed by gun violence should have the right to go to court to hold gun manufacturers and sellers legally and financially responsible. (snip)

Unfortunately, this approach won’t save every child, grandmother, parishioner and teacher from the apocryphal bad guy with a gun. As we’re seeing in Congress right now, attempts at a solution prove inadequate to the task. But it would certainly deter the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic assault weapons, and it would help us shift from a culture that produces far too much pain and death toward one where guns are once again mere tools for hunters and target shooters.

The only idea here is to be able to sue gun manufacturers along with gun sellers, both stores and private transactions. Why? To drive them out of business. To stop any private citizen from selling their guns. And, if you’ll notice, Todd Tanner now adds “legally” to the Talking Point, which would hold all those who make and sell guns criminally liable when their product is used in a criminal manner. Or even accidental. Because the goal here is to eliminate firearms from the hands of private citizens. If the gun makers and sellers are out of business there will be no product. No manufacturer will want to legally sell in the U.S. The only ones getting guns will be criminals via a black market. If the gun grabbers cannot legislate guns away directly, they’ll do it indirectly.

This was the NY Times yesterday

What It Took for a Country With a Strong Gun Culture to Give Them Up

…

It’s easy to imagine his mind lingering on Australia. After a bitter fight with rural gun owners and conservative activists, Australia introduced sweeping measures to restrict gun access in the wake of a 1996 shooting that left 35 dead. The reforms were truly comprehensive in scope and included a ban on all automatic and semiautomatic shotguns, stringent licensing and permit requirements, and the introduction of compulsory safety courses for all gun owners, who were also required to provide a genuine reason for owning a firearm that could not include self-defense. The federal government also announced a gun amnesty and federal buyback that led to more than 650,000 weapons being surrendered to the police and destroyed.

It wasn’t just shotguns, but, almost all guns. Of course, only around 35% of the preported guns were turned in. But, Democrat gun grabbers, many of them who own firearms and/or are protected by people with firearms, some that the average person cannot legally own, would have a tough time legsilating them away directly, so, they can do it indirectly with the end of liability.

Read: NY Times Wants To Remove All Liability Protections On Firearms »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Is The Climate Scam Keeping You Up At Night? You Might Have Climate Crazy

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 7:00 am

Harvard Health says this is totally not a mental illness. Well, they might be right, if you consider losing your shit over what is mostly natural and becoming a cult member who refuses to practice what you preach not a mental illness

Is climate change keeping you up at night? You may have climate anxiety

A forest fire in northern California and a mile-long glacier breaking apart appear in your news feed. The stark reminders of climate change are constant, and may cause additional stress to your daily tasks. For example, in surveying your shopping cart filled with wipes, sandwich bags, and packets of baby food, you may question your choices, knowing that the plastic in those items will never break down completely. You may feel guilty about driving the short distance to the store, or you may struggle to stop worrying about how your actions will affect future generations.

What is climate anxiety?

Climate anxiety, or eco-anxiety, is distress related to worries about the effects of climate change. It is not a mental illness. Rather, it is anxiety rooted in uncertainty about the future and alerting us to the dangers of a changing climate. Climate change is a real threat, and therefore it’s normal to experience worry and fear about the consequences. Anxiety about the climate is often accompanied by feelings of grief, anger, guilt, and shame, which in turn can affect mood, behavior, and thinking.

Or, maybe it is mental illness, people buying into a doomsday cult, letting a bunch of grand high poohbahs scare the crap out of them without bothering to do any real research. Some of you might remember the doomy prognostications they put out for Y2K. It did look scary, but, if you did any research, you realized all that was necessary was a little software upgrade. Or, how about the doomy prognostications of NYC under water by 2000? That the Arctic would be ice free? All those tipping points? Peak oil? All the ones of a coming ice age? How about Maldives underwater by 2018? People bought into these without thought.

According to a survey by the American Psychological Association, more than two-thirds of Americans experience some climate anxiety. A study published by The Lancet found that 84% of children and young adults ages 16 to 25 are at least moderately worried about climate change, and 59% are very or extremely worried. This makes sense, as children and young adults will disproportionately suffer the consequences of environmental changes. A 2021 UNICEF report estimates that one billion children will be at “extremely high risk” as a result of climate change. Children and young adults are also particularly vulnerable to the effects of chronic stress, and climate anxiety may affect their risk of developing depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.

Perhaps the climate cult should stop scaring the kids, making them mental messes.

How can you help a younger person?

Climate anxiety disproportionately affects children and youth. To be an ally for a child, adolescent, or younger adult with climate anxiety, you can consider showing your support in the following ways:

  • Validate their concerns. “I hear you, and it makes sense that you are worried (or angry) about this issue.”
  • Help direct their efforts to advocacy groups. Spend time together researching organizations that they can get involved with.
  • Educate yourselves on steps you both can take to minimize your impact on the environment.
  • Support your loved one’s decisions to make changes to their lifestyle, especially changes they can witness at home.
  • Spend time in nature with your family, or consider planting flowers or trees.

How about not validating their concerns which makes it worse. Tell them to do some research to see if what they’re being told is true.

Read: Is The Climate Scam Keeping You Up At Night? You Might Have Climate Crazy »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Putin Price Hike Here Means Russia Making High Revenue From Exports

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 6:45 am

Weren’t all those sanctions supposed to cripple Russia? Biden and his Democrat Comrades keep telling us what we’re experiencing is the Putin price hike (behind the NY Times paywall here)

Russia’s Oil Revenue Soars Despite Sanctions, Study Finds

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered global condemnation and tough sanctions aimed at denting Moscow’s war chest. Yet Russia’s revenues from fossil fuels, by far its biggest export, soared to records in the first 100 days of its war on Ukraine, driven by a windfall from oil sales amid surging prices, a new analysis shows.

Russia earned what is very likely a record 93 billion euros in revenue from exports of oil, gas and coal in the first 100 days of the country’s invasion of Ukraine, according to data analyzed by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a research organization based in Helsinki. About two-thirds of those earnings, the equivalent of about $97 billion, came from oil, and most of the remainder from natural gas.

“The current rate of revenue is unprecedented, because prices are unprecedented, and export volumes are close to their highest levels on record,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst who led the center’s research. (snip)

“We’re asking the world to do everything possible in order to cut off Putin and his war machine from all possible financing, but it’s taking much too long,” Oleg Ustenko, an economic adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, said from Kyiv about President Vladimir Putin of Russia. (snip)

“You can stop importing Russian caviar and Russian vodka, and that’s good, but definitely not enough. You need to stop importing Russian oil,” he said.

So, we in the U.S. are paying for the sanctions, that mostly avoid Russia fossil fuels, that aren’t really doing much, and Russia is making money hand over fist selling to India and other countries. Good plan!

(Financial Times) In his State of the Union address days after Vladimir Putin’s forces invaded Ukraine, President Joe Biden listed measures the US was taking to punish Russia in a “battle between democracy and autocracy”. Yet as the west has sought to isolate one autocrat, it has been forced to seek help from others: Saudi Arabia and its fellow absolute monarchies in the oil-rich Gulf. (snip)

To damp sky-high petrol prices ahead of US midterm elections, Biden is having to turn to a state he pledged to treat as a pariah. Washington has urged Saudi Arabia, Opec’s de facto leader, to raise production. This month, the kingdom and its allies in Opec+, which includes Russia, finally announced a modest acceleration of output.

The White House credited Saudi Arabia for “achieving this consensus among the group members”. Biden is considering visiting the kingdom. That would mean sitting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — whom US intelligence concluded had authorised the operation to “capture or kill” journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered four years ago.

The energy crisis is increasing the leverage of MBS and other Gulf leaders. Only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, another autocratic state, have the spare capacity to significantly boost oil production. Neighbouring Qatar, the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas, is meanwhile being courted by European governments and energy companies. While the world frets about energy supplies and inflation, the Gulf is enjoying a boom as the west’s reliance on its hydrocarbons only deepens.

If only there was some other solution instead of looking to Saudi Arabia.

Read: Good News: Putin Price Hike Here Means Russia Making High Revenue From Exports »

Posted in Energy, Joe Biden | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Are Very Worried That SCOTUS Ruling Could Defang The Federal Government

By William Teach June 13, 2022 – 3:00 pm

In case you didn’t know, we are awaiting a Supreme Court decision on a climate crisis (scam) case. I have a feeling that it might not be a win for either side, because Congress, unfortunately, writes laws that are very broad and give Executive Office agencies wide latitude to apply them to issues they were never meant to address. Consider the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. Contraception appears nowhere in the bill. So, where did the mandate come from? No one knows. But, HHS may have used tiny language to do it, from Ocare bill or another bill. Regardless, this case has made the Statists very concerned….you know, the same people who called Donald Trump a Fascist

How SCOTUS’ upcoming climate ruling could defang Washington

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling this month hobbling the Biden administration’s efforts to rein in greenhouse gases — but its impact could weaken Washington’s power to oversee wide swaths of American life well beyond climate change.

The upcoming decision on the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate oversight offers the conservative justices an opportunity to undermine federal regulations on a host of issues, from drug pricing and financial regulations to net neutrality. Critics of the EPA have clamored for the high court to do just that, by declaring it unlawful for federal agencies to make “major” decisions without clear authorization from Congress.

The Supreme Court and several Republican-appointed judges have invoked the same principle repeatedly during the past year to strike down a series of Biden administration responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Liberal legal scholars worry that the EPA case could yield an aggressive version of that thinking — unraveling much of the regulatory state as it has existed since the New Deal.

That has implications for other major rules that President Joe Biden’s agencies are writing or defending in court, including wetlands protections, limits on car and truck pollution, insurance coverage for birth control under Obamacare, and even the Trump administration’s attempts to lower drug prices.

It’s one thing to take writing in a Congressional bill to make a small rule. And this is Congresses fault for failing to make legislation targeted. They too often want the Big Bill!!!!!, which leads to this garbage. Doing a massive rule is something entirely different, as that is something Congress needs to explicitly pass. Those in favor of Central Government Planning are worried that the ability of Los Federales in the Executive Branch, which is tasked with enforcing law, not making it up, will be reigned in.

Supreme Court climate case might end regulation

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming days or weeks that could curtail EPA’s ability to drive down carbon emissions at power plants.

But it could go much further than that.

Legal experts are waiting to see if the ruling in West Virginia v. EPA begins to chip away at the ability of federal agencies — all of them, not just EPA — to write and enforce regulations. It would foreshadow a power shift with profound consequences, not just for climate policy but virtually everything the executive branch does, from directing air traffic to protecting investors.

If it’s a resounding win for West Virginia it won’t stop the agencies for writing regulations, it will simply require them to write rules that are explicitly required per Congressional law. Ocare gave HHS the ability to determine what is considered full time work and which size companies are affected. It’s in the bill. Even though Congress should have determined that. What if the Trump admin had determined that Ocare only affects companies with a million employees? It would have been legitimate and authorized.

This is making the Statists very, very concerned.

Read: Warmists Are Very Worried That SCOTUS Ruling Could Defang The Federal Government »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 13, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a cabana by the sea which will soon be wiped out be extreme waves, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Rio Norte Line, with a post on food shortages.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Bidenflation: It’s Now Rooted In Necessities Of Life

By William Teach June 13, 2022 – 10:30 am

We’re now at the point where there are really no good solutions

Opinion: Inflation is now rooted in the necessities of life. Which means the Fed has little hope of lowering the cost of living without throwing millions out of work

There’s no escaping the ravages of inflation. Far from “peaking” as some hoped, the consumer price index accelerated in May, rising at a 12.3% annual rate, the government reported Friday. Not only are the costs of necessities becoming more unaffordable, so are the costs of escaping by taking a vacation or by curling up on the couch with a video.

Inflation has become embedded in the economy and it’s affecting more of the goods and services, especially the items that we can’t do without: Shelter, food, clothing, transportation, and health care.

As I wrote last month, the rising cost of renting or owning a primary residence is particularly worrisome. It’s the biggest item in the consumer-price index’s market basket. What’s more, the price of shelter is “sticky’—meaning once it goes up, it stays up.

It’s persistent, which is the opposite of “transitory.” That’s a big problem for American consumers, not to mention the headaches it creates for policy makers at the Federal Reserve who are assigned the job of bringing down inflation to tolerable levels.

Flexible prices (items that change prices frequently, such as gas and food) have long been driving inflation, but sticky prices (infrequent changes in prices, such as rents or subscriptions) have become a real contributor in recent months. The sticky prices CPI, produced by the Atlanta Fed based on data from Friday’s CPI report, rose at an annual rate of 7.5% in May and is up at a 6.8% annual rate over the past three months, a 40-year high.

You get things like fuel (up 4.1% in June), foods and beverages (1.1%), household energy (3.7%), and airline fares (12.6%) are big drivers. Vehicles were up .9%, but, really, they mostly hit their big peaks. Now it’s smaller increase, mostly to do with fuel costs of delivery and transportation

The Fed is trying to reduce demand for these items by raising interest rates, but it’s hard to see how that will work. On the margin, people can cut back. They can buy cheaper items at the grocery store, or squeeze another year’s life out of the old truck, or move in with a friend, but they’ll still need to eat and have a roof over their heads and heat the house and get to work. These are necessities, not luxuries.

Prices are rising for these items not because demand for them has suddenly surged, but because the supply has been constrained, frequently by global forces, including the COVID pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and other factors, including droughts and heat waves.

It’s a good point: demand is not higher, it’s that the supply is constrained, much like with available fuels. And, we all know that this is occurring around the world, it’s not just the U.S. It’s just that our inflation is one of the worst in the 1st World

For the most part, inflation is being caused by shortages of supply, not excesses of demand. But the only way the central banks can bring supply and demand back into balance is to destroy demand by any means necessary.

In practice, that means millions of people around the world will be required to lose their jobs. But I thought the problem was a shortage of workers…

Well, that sounds fun. I know we, and most other dealers, are at about 65 to 70 percent staffing in all departments. There’s no need for more. How many times have you gone to a fast food place and it’s drive through only? I wanted speakers installed in my car, the available appointments are over two weeks out, when you could buy the product and it would be installed right there before COVID.

‘Prices will not come back down’: Americans dip into their savings to cope with record-high inflation

Americans accumulated extra savings during the pandemic, but that money is fast dwindling because of inflation.

Some 70% of Americans are using their savings to cover rising prices, a recent Forbes Advisor survey of 2,000 U.S. adults concluded. Among those polled, older adults were more likely to say they have left their savings intact.

In fact, the personal savings rate for April 2022 hit 4.4% — the lowest level since September 2008 — down from 6% at the beginning of the year, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a department of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

And the political elites do not care a bit.

Read: Bidenflation: It’s Now Rooted In Necessities Of Life »

Posted in Economy, Joe Biden | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

To Get Net Zero Mining Has To Double Or Something

By William Teach June 13, 2022 – 7:15 am

So, it’s not OK to mine for oil, coal, and natural gas, but, it’s fine to create massive environmental messes, often with the use of child labor, for Net Zero?

Climate change: Investment in mining ‘needs to nearly double’ to achieve net zero, BofA says

Current levels of metals needed to decarbonize economies won’t be sufficient to reach climate targets, a recent Bank of America (BAC) note cautioned, and investment in mining needs to double by 2050 in order to satisfy the growing demand for low carbon technologies.

“Raw material markets are tight already and will likely get tighter going forward,” the analysts wrote. “Based on the current resource endowment and market balances, we don’t expect the 1.5°C global warming target to be achieved by 2050: 1.7-1.8°C looks likely. One solution to resolving shortages and constraints, as ever, lies in investment.”

The cost of shifting from fossil fuels to low carbon alternatives won’t be cheap, the note stated, citing UN estimates that adoption will cost developing countries alone $140-$300 billion per year by 2030.

“To prevent metal shortages and achieve net zero, mining [capital expenditure] needs to nearly double,” the analysts stated.

Due to the urgent nature of addressing the climate crisis, returns could be sizable. Using somewhat simplified calculations, the analysts suggested “the return on mining investment could be an impressive +94- 317%.”

Who’s going to pay for this? That’s right, you! Bet the climate cultists didn’t see that coming. Or that a bunch of bankers, investors, and rich folks are going to make more money off your suffering.

Although many of the technologies needed to achieve net-zero targets have been developed, scaling these technologies will require vast amounts of minerals and metals relative to current levels. Between 2020 and 2030, for instance, the analysts contend that nickel demand could grow by 40% while lithium demand could increase by 38%.

In other words, it appears that demand will outstrip supply unless mining capacity increases — and that supply-demand imbalance could impact how rapidly decarbonization occurs.

Which would seriously drive up the price.

Child labour, toxic leaks: the price we could pay for a greener future

…

But scientists warn there will be an environmental price to pay for this drive to create a world powered by green technology. Prospecting for the materials to construct these devices, then mining them, could have very serious ecological consequences and major impacts on biodiversity, they say. (snip)

Metals such as lithium and cobalt provide examples of the awkward issues that lie ahead, said Herrington. Both elements are needed to make lightweight rechargeable batteries for electric cars and for storing power from wind and solar plants. Their production is likely to increase significantly over the next decade – and that could cause serious ecological problems.

In the case of cobalt, 60% of the world’s supply comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo where large numbers of unregulated mines use children as young as seven as miners. There they breathe in cobalt-laden dust that can cause fatal lung ailments while working tunnels that are liable to collapse.

Good job, Warmists

Read: To Get Net Zero Mining Has To Double Or Something »

Posted in Climate Cult, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Bipartisan Group Of Senators Comes Out With Gun Laws

By William Teach June 13, 2022 – 7:00 am

Most of these will not satisfy either side, especially the leftist gun grabbers. Nor would most of these have stopped any of the shooters

Bipartisan Gun Deal Announced: No ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, No Raised Minimum Rifle Age

A bipartisan group of senators announced a deal on gun control legislation Sunday in the wake of recent mass shootings — though the compromise excludes President Joe Biden’s “assault weapons” ban and a raised minimum age for rifle purchases.

The deal includes Republican priorities such as expanded mental health services and school safety. It nods to Democratic priorities by adding expanded background checks for those under the age of 21, who will now have juvenile records screened before gun purchases.

A press released from the bipartisan group outlines the contours of the proposed legislation (original emphasis) :

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Cory Booker (D- N.J.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) issued the following statement:

“Today, we are announcing a commonsense, bipartisan proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country. Families are scared, and it is our duty to come together and get something done that will help restore their sense of safety and security in their communities. Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons. Most importantly, our plan saves lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We look forward to earning broad, bipartisan support and passing our commonsense proposal into law.”The proposal includes:Support for State Crisis

But of course North Carolina’s two weenie Senators joined in. Burr has almost always been a disappointment, plus, he’s retiring. Tillis started strong, has gone complete RINO. Anyhow, this is what they are proposing

Intervention Orders
?     Provides resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others, consistent with state and federal due process and constitutional protections. (The intervention orders are pretty much in every state anyhow, and are not the the red flag laws which blow off due process that Democrats want. This is just a way to get the feds more involved in state affairs. )

Investment in Children and Family Mental Health Services
?     National expansion of community behavioral health center model; major investments to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs; and other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery. (This is just a way to get the feds more involved in state affairs. )

Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence
?     Convicted domestic violence abusers and individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders are included in NICS, including those who have or have had a continuing relationship of a romantic or intimate nature. (Shouldn’t they already be in the NICS? Typically, yes, but, it requires reporting)

Funding for School-Based Mental Health and Supportive Services
?     Invests in programs to expand mental health and supportive services in schools, including: early identification and intervention programs and school based mental health and wrap-around services. (This is just a way to get the feds more involved in state affairs. )

Funding for School Safety Resources
?     Invests in programs to help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools, support school violence prevention efforts and provide training to school personnel and students. (This is just a way to get the feds more involved in state affairs. And Dems will think this sounds dangerously close to LEOs in schools, which they’re against)

Clarification of Definition of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer
?     Cracks down on criminals who illegally evade licensing requirements. (Um, shouldn’t that be happening already? Pretty sure there’s law on this now, but, this will allow Democrats to wipe out lots of dealers)

Telehealth Investments
?     Invests in programs that increase access to mental and behavioral health services for youth and families in crisis via telehealth. (This is just a way to get the feds more involved in state affairs. )

Under 21 Enhanced Review Process
?     For buyers under 21 years of age, requires an investigative period to review juvenile and mental health records, including checks with state databases and local law enforcement.

Penalties for Straw Purchasing
?     Cracks down on criminals who illegally straw purchase and traffic guns. (Um, we already have laws on this. Perhaps they should ask Joe about the Fast and Furious gun running program his boss, Barack Obama, ran)

I know many Conservatives might disagree, but, the only one on here which really makes sense is the under 21 enhanced review process. There certainly could be things in a juvenile record which would stop the purchase. But, they’ll have to be very careful on this in terms of violating a lot of laws that protect juvenile records. Perhaps a check with local law enforcement and prosecutors and judges could determine if it is necessary to open up the juvenile records.

The question here is whether there are enough votes to break the 60 vote threshold. Might not even be enough to hit 51. This is not gun grabbing enough for Democrats. Also, the danger here is giving Dems an inch, because then they’ll want a lot more quickly.

Read: Bipartisan Group Of Senators Comes Out With Gun Laws »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 22 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove