Another Shooting

[Cackalacky]

Sorry Cack, I wasn't insinuating that you edited it and left the first part of it out. I think the person who took the video (one of the people with her) very likely filmed the entire encounter from the time police first arrived, but left out the part where they politely asked her to leave and only posted the aftermath where they forcefully restrain her and cuff her. That gives a very different narrative than showing the entire event and what led to her being cuffed. Other patrons say the police absolutely did ask her nicely to just leave and the problem started when she refused to cooperate and became belligerent.

Gotcha.

 

[IrishLax]

If this is the case then I have zero problems with what happened. But, anecdotally, I have been drunk in a Waffle House late night a shit ton of times and, with my friends, acted a damn fool (way worse than bitching about 50 cent sporks) and never had the cops called on us either. My buddy ripped one of their booths clean out of the slab one time roughhousing....for example.

Our place was always IHOP. This anecdote puts our shenanigans to shame lol...

Ironically, at our IHOP, a white kid got shot and killed by a cop over a skipped check -- Friends Hurt, Family Haunted After Va. Teen Is Slain by Officer

In 2006, this kind of crap from cops caused much less public ire and scrutiny. Cop walked uncharged despite his story being bullshit.

and FTR... in this and many other threads (more recently) I feel like people here think I post these things and actually hold the positions espoused by the links or info. I need to be clear that unless I expressly state my position, I am more than likely just providing info for discussion. In this case, I did not agree with McDoctor SJW. His tweet was very typical of many in my feed.

That's what I assumed, because I generally do the same thing. For example, I post right winger tweets for discussion sometimes, and vice versa. Not because I agree, but because it's emblematic of a viewpoint that might be worth discussing in a political thread.

My opinion on the tweet was that it was a little eye-rolly, but what really got me was that reading his other tweets he seemed self-righteous and smug... yet lacked any proper nuance. Like who hasn't seen someone acting like an idiot late night in a breakfast place and get kicked out? Why is this news? Why does it have to be contrasted to domestic terrorism? Just a big fucking reach with the only link being that they both occurred in a Waffle House.

 

[drayer54]

So you would like to repeal gun control legislation with a background check system rather than expand it to cover private sales so that criminals can obtain guns without a background check from any seller because background checks don't work all the time? Interesting logic.

Eighty-seven percent of non-gun owners and seventy-seven percent of gun owners favor a background check on all private sales and gun shows.
Americans’ views on guns and gun ownership: 8 key findings | Pew Research Center
1999

I'm not saying repeal background checks, I'm saying that mandating them on private transfers imposes more than it does good. We already ban straw purchases, prohibited possession, and knowingly selling to a prohibited person. This only adds a huge burden on the law-abiding majority (ME) and adds one more stupid rule to the books that won't be imposed. The only thing it does do is discourage gun sales, which is ultimately the goal of the anti-gun community.

The statistic on gun checks is great. It's a generic question and is unbelievably flawed. 50% of the people I know would freak out about it if they had it explained to them fairly.

While I support the NRA, their opinions are not necessarily my own. I work much closer to them than most, being on the exec committee of a state level NRA affiliated gun rights organization, and I know they would never hop on to something like this.

 

[Legacy]

I'm not saying repeal background checks, I'm saying that mandating them on private transfers imposes more than it does good. We already ban straw purchases, prohibited possession, and knowingly selling to a prohibited person. This only adds a huge burden on the law-abiding majority (ME) and adds one more stupid rule to the books that won't be imposed. The only thing it does do is discourage gun sales, which is ultimately the goal of the anti-gun community.

The statistic on gun checks is great. It's a generic question and is unbelievably flawed. 50% of the people I know would freak out about it if they had it explained to them fairly.

While I support the NRA, their opinions are not necessarily my own. I work much closer to them than most, being on the exec committee of a state level NRA affiliated gun rights organization, and I know they would never hop on to something like this.

You'll need to explain further. You are saying that some percent of law-abiding gun owners like you are against background checks on private sales because that would discourage gun sales? Why would law-abiding citizens who are not on prohibited persons lists resist measures that limit those people from acquiring guns? That makes less sense.

What do you disagree with the NRA on?

In 2009, there were over 4,000 gun shows a year. Do you have a most recent figure?
Gun shows in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

Research and studies
In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published "Following the Gun," its analysis of more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to have the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation, after corrupt FFL dealers. (Straw purchasers were the most common channel, but averaged a relatively small number of trafficked guns per investigation compared to corrupt FFLs and gun shows.)[9]:x-xi These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that:

A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations.[9]:17

ATF criminal investigations at gun shows
From 2004 to 2006, ATF conducted surveillance and undercover investigations at 195 gun shows (approximately 2% of all shows). Specific targeting of suspected individuals (77%) resulted in 121 individual arrests and 5,345 firearms seizures. Seventy nine of the 121 ATF operation plans were known suspects previously under investigation.[3]

Additionally, ATF Field Offices report that:

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered in connection with criminal activity. Bouchard said, "These figures do not take into account firearms that may have been sold at Richmond area gun shows by unlicensed sellers, as these transactions are more difficult to track."[4] It is noteworthy that the "in connection with criminal activity" category includes stolen guns later recovered from burglaries, but the report does not specify how many guns in the 400 gun figure cited were not guns used in the commission of a crime, but that were rather the fruits of criminal activity.

The Department of Justice reports, "after reviewing hundreds of trace reports associated with guns used in crime recovered in the New Orleans area and interviewing known gang members and other criminals, ATF Special Agents identified area gun shows as a source used by local gang members and other criminals to obtain guns."[3]
In 2003 and 2004, the San Francisco ATF Field Division conducted six general operations at Reno, Nevada, gun shows to investigate interstate firearms trafficking. During these operations, "agents purchased firearms and identified violations related to "off paper" sales, sales to out-of-state residents, and dealing in firearms without a license." The "ATF seized or purchased 400 firearms before making arrests and executing search warrants, which resulted in the seizure of an additional 600 firearms and the recovery of explosives."[3]

ATF's Columbus Field Division conducted its anti-trafficking operations based on intelligence from Cleveland police that "many of the guns recovered in high-crime areas of the city had been purchased at local gun shows." Subsequent gun show sting operations resulted in the seizure of "5 guns, one indictment, and two pending indictments for felony possession of a firearm." The state of Ohio is one of the top ten source states for recovered guns used in crime.[3]
The ATF's Phoenix Field Division reported that "many gun shows attracted large numbers of gang members from Mexico and California. They often bought large quantities of assault weapons and smuggled them into Mexico or transported them to California."[3] Garen Wintemute, a professor at the University of California at Davis, calls Arizona and Texas a "gunrunner's paradise."[15]

 

[goldandblue]

Also while "sovereign citizens" have their roots in white extremist groups it has weirdly transitioned into other subsets of society as well in recent years... remember this guy from the other thread? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-officer-tells-judge/?utm_term=.8421bbe231d3

So it's not a guarantee that this guy was specifically targeting blacks, but given the location and the "sovereign citizen" ties I would put it at like 99%. I don't think it was coincidence that he shot up a place full of black people. And it's completely accurate to call him a domestic terrorist with those links.

Now you can use the facts that he is white, and he killed several black people argument even him being or thinking he is a sovereign citizen as evidence to suggest that he is racially motivated in his murders. I'll deduct from the facts below that the man has some serious mental issues. Possibly along the lines of schizophrenia. You do realize the waffle house was less than a mile from his apartment right?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/23/nashville-police-hunt-for-waffle-house-shooter-as-details-of-background-emerge

Reinking was nearly naked, wearing only a green jacket, and brandishing an assault-style rifle when he opened fire in the parking lot at 3.25am on Sunday and then stormed the restaurant, police say. Four people were killed and four injured before a customer wrestled the gun away.

In May 2016, Reinking told deputies from Tazewell county, Illinois, that music superstar Taylor Swift was stalking him and hacking his phone, and that his family was also involved.

Another sheriff’s report said Reinking barged into a community pool in Tremont, Illinois, last June, and jumped into the water wearing a pink woman’s coat over his underwear. Investigators believed he had an AR-15 rifle in his car trunk, but it was never displayed. No charges were filed.

Last July, Reinking was arrested by the secret service after he crossed into a restricted area near the White House, saying he wanted to meet Trump. Reinking was not armed but at the FBI’s request police in Illinois revoked his state firearms card and seized four guns. The AR-15 used in the shootings was among the weapons seized.

Then, in August, Reinking told police he wanted to file a report on about 20 to 30 people tapping into his computer and phone, and people “barking like dogs” outside his residence. Reinking agreed to go to a local hospital for an evaluation after repeatedly resisting the request, a report said.

 

[ulukinatme]

.

 

[Legacy]

The NRA has a "Civil Rights Defense Fund" through which they support litigation.

Here are some lawsuits they support using the applicants lawyer's synopsis of the case:

WYOMING - Jose Antonio Lopez v State of Wyoming
The applicant's attorney informs as follows:
The Circuit Court in Teton County, Wyoming issued a protective order against the applicant for the past 3 years thus depriving him of his rights to possess and use the many firearms he has collected over the years.
In November 2014, the applicant's wife made alleged that the applicant had put an unloaded gun to her head and pulled the trigger and that the applicant hit his minor child. The Teton County Prosecutor brought felony charges of child abuse and aggravated assault against applicant. The applicant was found not guilty of the charges after a 3- day jury trial in April of 2015.
A Protective Order was issued, weapons confiscated and the PO has been renewed three times.

PENNSYLVANIA - Doe, et al. v. Wolf, et al.
Pennsylvania has enacted a mental health treatment scheme that allows physicians to commit citizens involuntarily for mental health treatment for up to five days without any judicial oversight. Pennsylvania law also prohibits anyone who has been involuntarily committed under this scheme from possessing firearms. The result is that law-abiding citizens are divested of their Second Amendment rights without having basic due process rights, including the opportunity to go before a court, examine witnesses, or present a case.

OHIO - Darrin Brodbeck v. State of Ohio.
The applicant's attorney relates the following pertinent facts:
The applicant, Mr. Darrin Brodbeck, is currently incarcerated, serving 23 to life, after being convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, Ms. Christine Turner, in June of 2006. He has been incarcerated since 2007, after being convicted of murder, domestic violence, and tampering with evidence.
Mr. Brodbeck has maintained his innocence, asserting that Ms. Turner accidentally shot herself while under the influence.
At the time of the incident, Mr. Brodbeck and Ms. Turner were in a heated argument. Both were intoxicated. Ms. Turner had a BAC of .21 and large amounts of cocaine in her system. The fight turned physical. Ms. Turner then shot herself.
When the police arrived, Mr. Brodbeck was taken into custody and accused of homicide. According to the police, Mr. Brodbeck had shot Ms. Turner in the hallway, then dragged her into the bedroom, and then back to the hallway. However, the applicant's attorney asserts there is no physical evidence of Mr. Brodbeck shooting Ms. Turner. The applicant's attorney argues that this is a case of a wrongful conviction based on misleading forensics, junk science, ineffective counsel, and police incompetence.

- Terry Lee Stimmel v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, et al. (formerly, Terry Lee Stimmel v. Loretta Lynch, et al.).
The applicant's attorney relates the following pertinent facts:
On November 1, 1997, the applicant, Mr. Terry Stimmel was arrested for domestic violence after a non-violent argument with his ex-wife. He pled no contest on November 6, 1997. He was never informed that he would be subject to a firearms disability. He did not receive any jail time and fully complied with the court's orders. He has been happily married to his current wife for twelve years and has not been arrested or convicted of a crime since the incident in 1997.

NEW JERSEY - State of New Jersey v. Michael A. Rivera, II.
The applicant's attorney relates the following pertinent facts:
Mr. Michael Rivera was a former resident of Florida who moved to New Jersey to reside with his girlfriend, Ms. Loraine Torres. Mr. Rivera possessed a New Jersey firearms purchaser identification card and a permit to carry issued by the State of Florida.
On May 21, 2015, Mr. Rivera was involved in a verbal altercation with Ms. Torres. The altercation became physical when, in an alleged attempt to harm herself, Ms. Torres attempted to swallow a bottle of pills. In an effort to physically restrain her from doing so, Mr. Rivera tazed Ms. Torres with a stun gun. The altercation ended when Mr. Rivera and Ms. Torres were separated by Ms. Torres' son.

MICHIGAN - Timothy Milko.
The applicant's attorney informs as follows:
The applicant owns and operates a gunsmithing, firearms, and outdoors shop. The applicant has a Michigan Concealed Pistol License, is a certified NRA instructor, has no criminal record, and has been found to be of good moral character.
The applicant and his ex-wife went through a divorce. They share joint custody of their children. The Oakland County Circuit Court, Family Division, issued a "consolidated order regarding custody and parenting time," which included the following restriction: "No guns of any kinds [sic] are to be present or in the presence of the children when the minor children are with Father during his parenting time in a vehicle and if in the home they are to be locked and out of sight." When the applicant challenged this restriction, a subsequent order provided that the applicant may also not hunt with his children.

-- Joshua Wade v. University of Michigan.
The applicant's attorney relates the following pertinent facts:
Mr. Wade works for the University of Michigan Credit Union. Mr. Wade holds a valid Michigan Concealed Pistol License. While open carrying in downtown Ann Arbor, Michigan, Mr. Wade encountered a campus police officer who told him if he brought his gun onto campus property he would be arrested. After researching the relevant gun laws, Mr. Wade determined that he could apply to the University of Michigan's Director of Public Safety for permission to carry a firearm on campus.

MARYLAND - Kolbe, et al. v. Hogan (Kolbe, et al. v. O'Malley).
This lawsuit is a challenge to Maryland's ban on popular semi-automatic rifles and magazines with capacities in excess of ten rounds enacted by the "Maryland Firearm Safety Act of 2013." The plaintiffs, a collection of Maryland individual citizens, firearms dealerships, and advocacy groups, including the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, created a strong record of fact and expert evidence demonstrating the challenged bans could not pass constitutional muster under any level of heightened scrutiny.
The District Court for the District of Maryland, in defiance of the United States Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions, as well as Fourth Circuit precedents, disagreed and followed the holding established by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Heller II (upholding DC's ban on so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines"), applying nominal intermediate scrutiny and holding that the state's interest in public safety outweighed any individual Second Amendment interests impaired by the Act.

ILLINOIS - People v. Shawna Johnson.
The applicant's attorney relates the following pertinent facts:
The Illinois State Police revoked Shawna Johnson's Firearms Owner's Identification ("FOID") card after learning of a 2001 misdemeanor battery conviction involving her ex-husband. Ms. Johnson had plead guilty to that charge after the prosecutor assured her that the conviction would not permanently prevent her from holding a FOID.
The issue is whether a circuit court can remove federal firearms disabilities for individuals who have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge.

IDAHO - State of Idaho v. Nicholas Brian Sunseri.
The applicant's attorney informs as follows:
On April 15, 2016, the applicant, Mr. Nicholas Brian Sunseri-who has no prior criminal history-was arrested and charged with domestic battery or assault in the presence of a child, and interfering with a 911 phone call. He was held in Kootenai County jail without bond over the weekend.
After spending the weekend incarcerated, he appeared, without the assistance of legal counsel, by video in front of an Idaho magistrate judge. The magistrate advised all defendants in the court room of their right to remain silent, their right to counsel, the appointment of counsel at public expense if the defendant could not afford an attorney, and the right to trial by jury.
When it was time for the applicant's case to be heard, the magistrate asked if the applicant recalled the aforementioned defendants' rights that the judge mentioned. The applicant indicated that he did. The magistrate then informed the applicant of the potential maximum punishment for conviction of domestic violence in front of a child; up to one (1) year in jail and a $1,000 fine. The magistrate conveyed the prosecuting attorney's plea offer; namely, the applicant's immediate release from jail - three (3) days already served - a $300.00 fine, and 2 years of unsupervised probation and the dismissal of charge for interfering with a 911 phone call.
The audio recording reflects that the applicant wanted to get out of jail as soon as possible, instead of continuing to be held without bond until the date of a future hearing, because the applicant needed get back to work, so as not to lose his job.
The applicant entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in Idaho. No one informed the applicant that by accepting this plea deal, he would permanently be deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the applicant was informed of the consequences of his domestic violence conviction, after obtaining counsel, he moved to withdraw the guilty plea, showing "just cause" by claiming that he was unaware of the impending loss of rights when entering that guilty plea. The motion was denied by the magistrate's court based upon Idaho law, which states that a magistrate judge need not advise a defendant of "collateral consequences."

CALIFORNIA - Bauer v Becerra (formerly, Bauer v. Harris).
This lawsuit seeks to have the current Dealer Record of Sale ("DROS") fee and other ancillary fees declared excessive and unconstitutional. The California Department of Justice uses the DROS fees to bankroll anti-gun programs unrelated to background checks. Because the California Department of Justice charges lawful firearm purchasers the DROS and related fees, and then uses the funds to finance unrelated programs, plaintiffs allege that the DROS fee violates the state constitutional prohibition on charging excessive fees to exercise fundamental rights.

Also see: Duncan, et al, v. Becerra; Flanagan, et al, v. Becerra, et al. (formerly Flanagan, et al. v. Harris, et al.); Rupp, et al, v. Becerra for challenges to California's gun control laws.
From:
https://www.nradefensefund.org/current-litigation.aspx

 

[drayer54]

You'll need to explain further. You are saying that some percent of law-abiding gun owners like you are against background checks on private sales because that would discourage gun sales? Why would law-abiding citizens who are not on prohibited persons lists resist measures that limit those people from acquiring guns? That makes less sense.

What do you disagree with the NRA on?

In 2009, there were over 4,000 gun shows a year. Do you have a most recent figure?
Gun shows in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

Why does it matter how many gun shows we have? They can have 10000 or 1000, it doesn’t matter. The only reason anti-gunners are pushing this law is to discourage gun ownership and try to chip away at their cause.

I disagreed with the NRA on their lofty opposition on bump stocks. I think the leadership (Mainly Wayne and a few board members) should be flushed.

Law-abiding citizens should oppose what is essentially nothing but a tax and a burden on gun sales.

 

[Legacy]

Why does it matter how many gun shows we have? They can have 10000 or 1000, it doesn’t matter. The only reason anti-gunners are pushing this law is to discourage gun ownership and try to chip away at their cause.

I disagreed with the NRA on their lofty opposition on bump stocks. I think the leadership (Mainly Wayne and a few board members) should be flushed.

Law-abiding citizens should oppose what is essentially nothing but a tax and a burden on gun sales.

Because you can't support a system that makes it easy for guns to be purchased by criminals. You have also have to support enforcement of existing laws for prosecution of these criminals. This shadow gun commerce, possession and transfer hinder that prosecution. Unless you consider U.S. Attorneys "anti-gunners", here are their recommendations.

- Allowing only FFL holders to sell guns at gun shows, so a background check and a firearms transaction record accompany every transaction
- Strengthening the definition of "engaged in the business" by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for "hobbyists," and lowering the intent requirement
- Limiting the number of individual private sales to a specified number per year
- Requiring persons who sell guns in the secondary market to comply with the record-keeping requirements applicable to Federal Firearms License holders
- Requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through a Federal Firearms License holder
- Establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of inventory belonging to FFL holders who surrender their license
- Requiring registration of non-licensed persons who sell guns
- Increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm without a background check, as required by the Brady Act
- Requiring gun show promoters to be licensed, maintaining an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFL holders and non-licensed sellers at gun shows
- Requiring one or more ATF agents be present at every gun show
- Insulating unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form

Obviously, these are law-abiding citizens, attempting to prosecute criminals and hindered without these changes.

The NRA is in staunch opposition to these recommendations by the U.S. Attorneys.

 

[Legacy]

Criminals and those intending to commit acts of domestic violence have resorted to not only private sales at gun shows but also sales from websites. The biggest on-line gun sales site is Armslist, which allows people who are prohibited from buying guns to easily acquire them. One merely needs to accept their terms verifying that you are not prohibited from buying a gun.
ARMSLIST - Firearms Classifieds

A new frontier in gun control: Can online sites be stopped from selling guns to criminals?
https://www.salon.com/2018/04/26/a-...es-be-stopped-from-selling-guns-to-criminals/

Armslist has defended itself from any liability with this terms of acceptance and backed by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Those protected private sales dealers do not need to be Federally Licensed Firearms dealers, who require background checks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

The NRA says this is not an issue and opposes any of these websites like Armslist from being required to perform any background checks, maintain records or facilitate law enforcement efforts to identify criminals using their site.

There are numerous examples of these gun sales through websites being used in crimes.
50 arrested after Chicago police infiltrate Facebook groups selling guns, drugs | abc7chicago.com

Most recently, a Wisconsin Court pf Appeals found that Armslist could be sued under the Common Decency Act despite the NRA-backed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The purchaser bought his weapon through Armslist and then murdered his ex-wife and two others.
https://www.reuters.com/article/leg...es-that-allow-private-gun-deals-idUSKBN1HR33Y

Gun dealers and manufacturers have further attempted through NRA-backed state legislation that allowed outside lobbying groups to sue municipalities over local gun laws called a "punitive pre-emption" bill to intimidate municipalities to address their gun violence problems. Those municipalities would be liable for all court and lawyer costs. The NRA lost in a Pennsylvania court recently.
https://everytown.org/press/major-n...-against-cities-over-local-gun-laws-rejected/

Another case from Wisconsin decided that a retail gun seller, Badger Guns, could be held liable to the tune of $6 million for negligence involving the shooting of two police officers in their heads. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fficers/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2219f738513b

The NRA and gun retailers opposed these lawsuits brought by the police officers and family of those murdered victims as well as fighting to maintain websites like Armslist to "protecting" Second Amendment rights that allow criminals easy access to weapons.

 

[drayer54]

Anyone else from IE going to Dallas for the freedom meeting?

 

[Legacy]

Texas leads the nation in gun deaths - 3,353 out of 38,658 nationally, counting homicides, suicides and accidental deaths of children. All three categories are rising in Texas. Texas gun deaths comprise 8.67% gun deaths nationally. As firearm deaths are decreasing in New York and California, firearm deaths are rising in states with lax gun laws such as Texas. California has the second highest gun death total - 3184 but with a much lower death rate (7.9 vs 12.1 for Texas). NY now has 900 firearm deaths (4.4 death rate). So living in Texas based on firearm death totals is almost three times more dangerous than living in New York. NYC has almost one tenth of the homicides it had in the early 1990s and is on pace to record the lowest homicide numbers since the '50s. Chicago has seen a decrease in firearm deaths for the 14th consecutive month.

Gun Violence stats in Texas
https://www.txgunsense.org/gun-violence-facts

CDC - Firearm Mortality by State
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Death Rate by State
Alaska 23.3
Alabama 21.5
Louisiana 21.3
Mississippi 19.9
Oklahoma 19.6
Missouri 19.0
Montana 18.9
New Mexico 18.1
Arkansas 17.8
South Carolina 17.7
Kentucky 17.5
Wyoming 17.4
Tennessee 17.1
Nevada 16.8
Arizona 15.2
Georgia 15.0
Indiana 15.0
Idaho 14.6
Colorado 14.3

Texas gun shows are a primary source for gun purchases and gun trafficking, especially military-grade weapons, by Mexican cartels and gangs to smuggle to Mexico. The cartels have a growing presence in Texas cities, too.

While people and drugs come north, guns pour south into Mexico
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/07/gun-running-bsp-part-4/

 

[Legacy]

Vista Outdoor considering dropping assault-style firearms, helmet, and SUP brands
https://www.snewsnet.com/news/vista-outdoor-weighs-dropping-savage-arms

The announcement comes only a few months after the global gun control debate that resulted in REI and MEC dropping Vista brands from store's shelves.

Today, Vista Outdoor Inc. reported that it’s exploring the idea of selling off Savage Arms, the maker of semi-automatic weapons and the brand that was at the heart of a boycott back in early March.

The announcement follows a tumultuous start to the year for Vista, when after a school shooting in Florida, REI and Canada’s Mountain Equipment Co-op dropped Vista’s outdoor brands, including CamelBak, Camp Chef, and Bollé, following major pressure from members.

“Many of you have told us you want us to immediately stop carrying products from any brands owned by Vista Outdoor, because of their support for the NRA and ownership of other brands that manufacture automatic weapons and ammunitions,” MEC wrote on Twitter on Feb. 26. “We’ve also heard from many of you who disagree: members who still want to be able to buy brands like CamelBak at MEC, and who think purchasing decisions should be up to individual consumers.”

All day we’ve been listening to our members through email, telephone, social media and in our stores. We have over 5 million outdoor-loving members and thousands of you have reached out to us today. We’re hearing lots of diverse opinions on this topic. Many of you have told us you want us to immediately stop carrying products from any brands owned by Vista Outdoor, because of their support for the NRA and ownership.

“This morning we learned that Vista does not plan to make a public statement that outlines a clear plan of action," said REI. "As a result, we have decided to place a hold on future orders of products that Vista sells through REI while we assess how Vista proceeds. Companies are showing they can contribute if they are willing to lead. We encourage Vista to do just that.”

Vista Outdoors though its subsidary, Butler Creek, is presenting at the NRA convention in Dallas a new ammunition loader with a 60 round count.

Butler Creek New Electronic Magazine Loader at NRA Annual Meetings
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/bu...-loader-at-nra-annual-meetings/#axzz5EKvcwZEJ

The new generation of loading is here. The ASAP Electronic Magazine Loader is the only product of its kind on the market, and made with serious competitors and training facilities in mind. Just fill the 60 round hopper with loose rounds, select the desired round count and press a button. The machine automatically orientates the ammunition and loads your magazine. Magazine loading does not get any easier.

“The new Butler Creek Electronic Magazine Loader is on the cutting edge,” said William Hemeyer, Butler Creek Senior Product Manager. “The new Electronic Magazine Loader represents our commitment to exceeding the expectations of accessory products used for magazine loading. For those looking for a fast and easy way to load rounds, the Butler Creek Electronic Magazine Loader is the perfect choice.”

Bump stock maker Slide Fire will stop taking orders and is shutting down its website

Slide Fire Solutions, the inventor and manufacturer of bump stocks, will no longer be selling the firearm accessories.
On its website Tuesday, Slide Fire Solutions said it "will cease taking orders for its products and shut down its website."

The company said it will process and ship all orders taken prior to May 20. The company did not say on its website what will happen to its factory in Texas.

 

[drayer54]

Just got home from NRA Annual Meetings. Great to see the potus and vp together at the big event. 15 acres of freedom was pretty good, I was out and about a lot and only saw one protestor. Met tons of big people in the industry. The energy was there. Very good show!

 

[dshans]

Just got home from NRA Annual Meetings. Great to see the potus and vp together at the big event. 15 acres of freedom was pretty good, I was out and about a lot and only saw one protestor. Met tons of big people in the industry. The energy was there. Very good show!

Were you carrying? Were you required to walk through a metal detector? Were you frisked? How many Secret Service Agents were there? Were there dogs sniffing your crotch and butt? Was the lone protestor armed with lethal poster board?

Are you satisfied with the taste of the NRA's butt?

 

[Legacy]

An all white crowd? Or were you able to connect with this local gun club?

https://hueypnewtongunclub.org/about

 

[loomis41973]

Just got home from NRA Annual Meetings. Great to see the potus and vp together at the big event. 15 acres of freedom was pretty good, I was out and about a lot and only saw one protestor. Met tons of big people in the industry. The energy was there. Very good show!

Nice.


Will be seeing MAGA Donald on Thursday...moved to Elkhart.

 

[Legacy]

Major Cities Chiefs Association

Major Cities Chiefs Association

Firearms Violence Policy
Adopted by Membership Vote

https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/firearms_violence_policy_2.pdf

The Major Cities Chiefs Association has been a strong advocate for sensible gun policy
for many years and has taken positions on a wide range of issues.

Legislative Positions
• Reinstate the assault weapons ban and encourage stiffer penalties for illegal guns
• Ban high capacity magazines (10+rounds)
• Ban internet ammo sales, require in-person transactions, records of sales and licensing of ammo vendors
• Oppose legislation that would require states to recognize any and all concealed carry permits
• Oppose legislation that further erodes ATF authority
• Prevent known terrorists from purchasing firearms
• Require unlicensed private dealers to do background checks at gun shows

Policy Statements
- Encourage aggressive federal prosecution of violent offenders using guns.
- Conviction in Federal Court generally results in stronger sanctions, removes the offenders from the streets and serves as a deterrent.
- Encourage mandatory reporting of all purchases, transfers and stolen firearms. This measure would assist law enforcement agencies with identification, criminal investigations and recovery of stolen firearms.
- Establish harsher penalties and aggressively prosecute straw purchasers, who are responsible for putting a substantial number of guns used in criminal acts. More aggressive prosecution with strong penalties would hold them accountable and act as a deterrent.
- Strengthen the national criminal instant background check system. The background check system does not have complete data at the current time.
- Mental health information, for example, is incomplete. The system needs to be improved.

These common sense, reasonable recommendations to politicians are similar to those of the Prosecuting Attorneys Group to enforce the laws and prosecute the law breakers and to help address the gun violence in America.

Also, the Major Cities Chiefs announce their stance on legislative bills such as
Major Cities Chiefs Denounce Combining Concealed Carry Reciprocity with the Fix NICS Act
https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/mcca_statement_on_ccr_and_nics_december_2017.pdf

 

[drayer54]

Were you carrying? Were you required to walk through a metal detector? Were you frisked? How many Secret Service Agents were there? Were there dogs sniffing your crotch and butt? Was the lone protestor armed with lethal poster board?

Are you satisfied with the taste of the NRA's butt?

I never carried. Mainly because I was never sober. I had more cigars and bourbon than the last year combined. Secret Service was thorough. Only place carrying was restricted was Trump/Pence thing.

Lots of agents. A few dogs. None sniffed me. Ironically the group that went out to confront the lone protestor was a group of black guys. The crowd was more diverse than years past.

I’m not sure how the butt should taste, but it was a hell of a party.

 

[drayer54]

Firearms Violence Policy
Adopted by Membership Vote

https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/firearms_violence_policy_2.pdf



These common sense, reasonable recommendations to politicians are similar to those of the Prosecuting Attorneys Group to enforce the laws and prosecute the law breakers and to help address the gun violence in America.

Also, the Major Cities Chiefs announce their stance on legislative bills such as
Major Cities Chiefs Denounce Combining Concealed Carry Reciprocity with the Fix NICS Act
https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/mcca_statement_on_ccr_and_nics_december_2017.pdf

Just because you list a bunch of absurd ideas and throw words like common sense and reasonable around doesn’t mean they are anything close to that.

We already have laws against killing, against shooting kids, against shooting people, against taking guns into the school, against straw purchases, against felons in possession, against unlawful possession, and a thousand other ideas.

These BS proposals are only a part of the radical, Yes RADICAL agenda to systematically break the Second Amendment until we are ultimately driven to knife control, like our old tyrants across the pond. Leftists never stop trying to ban things they don’t like and attacking MY rights.

Want common sense gun control? Repeal all the crap rules that simply don’t work. That’s common sense. Respect the right of the people to keep and bear arms like our founders intended.

 

[Legacy]

Just because you list a bunch of absurd ideas and throw words like common sense and reasonable around doesn’t mean they are anything close to that.

We already have laws against killing, against shooting kids, against shooting people, against taking guns into the school, against straw purchases, against felons in possession, against unlawful possession, and a thousand other ideas.

These BS proposals are only a part of the radical, Yes RADICAL agenda to systematically break the Second Amendment until we are ultimately driven to knife control, like our old tyrants across the pond. Leftists never stop trying to ban things they don’t like and attacking MY rights.

Want common sense gun control? Repeal all the crap rules that simply don’t work. That’s common sense. Respect the right of the people to keep and bear arms like our founders intended.

The radical agenda is what you and the gun lobbies continue to articulate. Less regulation will control gun violence? Enforcement without funding ATF or giving the Major Cities Chiefs or Prosecuting Attorneys or major health care groups what they consistently recommend and what has been proven to lower crime and gun violence. Hamstring gun sales reviews by the local and ATF law enforcement searches by legislation that makes reporting by states voluntary, only by Federally licensed dealers, and that the searches in that collection of sales in the ATF warehouse manual. No computer databases. Then throw up your hands and say "Repeal all the crap rules that simply don’t work". Those states that have stricter gun laws have lower homicides, suicides, guns used in domestic violence. They work and need reinforcing. 100,000 victims of gun violence annually - injuries and killings - will be reduced with your recommendations? As you or anyone "law-abiding" can walk in to a gun shop with minimal obstacles to buying weapons to kill Americans, so can criminals and other prohibited people. You don't even know that there are restrictions on weapons that communities can take, including those states and cities have made, that are constitutional in legal decisions since Heller. All those are the ones those groups - law enforcement and prosecution, health, Chambers of Commerce, etc, etc, etc. - advocate. Gun lobbies don't even represent the majority opinion of gun owners. Common sense and reasonable and constitutional are not on your side. Read the exceptions in Heller, written by Scalia, and understand what "well-regulated" means and has meant throughout history. Look in the mirror and see that you contribute to the problem and that you would be willing to kill other Americans if they institute gun regulations that work but "take away my rights". You have limitations on Second Amendment rights and communities and states have the right and obligation to institute measures for public safety and the health of their citizens, are not "RADICAL agenda to systematically break the Second Amendment until we are ultimately driven to knife control, like our old tyrants across the pond." Their have been good discussions between "gun rights" and "gun control" Americans. Look them up.

 

[drayer54]

More Proof The Left Really Does Want To Abolish Legal Gun Ownership

Supporters of increased gun control claim they want “common sense gun laws.” Yet, the left’s goal is and always has been the abolition of legal gun ownership by civilians.

The left knows that they cannot ban civilian firearms ownership directly. The U.S. Supreme Court put an end to that fantasy with the D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008. That ruling acknowledged that the Second Amendment was an individual right. It struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. But that did not put an end to the left’s desire to abolish civilian gun ownership.

But the mask sometimes slips off and their real goal of gun confiscation comes out in the open.

The most high-profile case of this is former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s call to repeal the Second Amendment. Stevens claims that it will make it much easier to enact gun control laws without. “It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world.” wrote Stevens.

But Stevens is not the only one who has called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Several writers on both the left and the center-right have called for it as well. But repealing the Second Amendment only enjoys the support of 20 percent of the population.

Many gun control advocates claim they do not support confiscating any guns already in circulation. But Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell ripped that mask off with an op-ed in USA Today. Swalwell calls for the forced buyback of all “assault weapons.” If you don’t comply with the buyback, Swalwell thinks you should be prosecuted.

But the anti-gunners won’t just stop at “assault weapons.” They don’t want you to own any type of firearm. That’s why they’re proposing restrictions on everything from ammunition to even how you can buy a gun.

The next front of the anti-gun movement’s attack on gun ownership is ammunition. Every gun fires it so it makes sense for gun banners to heavily restrict it. Democrats are pushing for background checks on all ammunition purchases. The problem with them is that the costs of background checks, anywhere from $20 to $40, can make a trip to the range a costly venture. It would price working class gun owners out of exercising a constitutional right.

But the anti-gun movement is not stopping there. They want to zone gun stores out of existence. Alameda County, California, has an ordinance banning gun stores within 500 feet of areas that include a residentially zoned district. There’s one catch to that ordinance, not a single lot in the county meets that rule.

Gun rights groups have sued the county, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with county. They have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court sides with Alameda County, local and county governments could virtually outlaw the sale of firearms.

The anti-gun movement isn’t content to just attack gun ownership legally. Following Alinsky’s rule of “freezing, polarizing, and personalizing the target,” they’re also using the culture to attack gun owners. Gun owners are portrayed as racist and violent. Young people who learn how to shoot are interrogated by police and even suspended from school. Parents who teach their kids gun safety are demonized on social media.

Finally, there is the economic war on guns. Gun manufacturers and their investors are being targeted for boycotts. YouTube has banned many gun videos on its platform.

New York State officials are pressuring banks and insurers to sever all ties with the gun industry. Already, Bank of America and Citigroup have announced new restrictions on gun dealers. Credit card companies are exploring ways to track gun purchases. Finally, several gun dealers, such as Dick’s Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart have announced plans to raise the minimum age to buy a gun to 21.

These attacks add up to the goal of abolishing legal civilian gun ownership. It is a way to achieve that goal without that pesky Second Amendment getting in the way.

Gun owners and supporters of the human right to self-defense need to fight back. Not only should any gun control measures be defeated, but also we need to go on the offense in the cultural and economic spheres. We should be highlighting examples of legal self-defense with firearms. Gun owners should celebrate things such as National Shooting Sports Month in August and encourage non-shooters to try shooting. We should work to eliminate some of the fear guns cause in society.

More Proof The Left Really Does Want To Abolish Legal Gun Ownership

 

[Legacy]

The "Left" and those who want to takeaway everyone's guns incude all Democrats, states like NY and California and all the other states who have restricted military-style weapons, advocate for increased background checks, ammunition restrictions, Citibank, Bank of America, Walmart, Dick's Sporting Goods, credit card companies, courts that rule against "gun rights", attornies, law enforcement, etc, etc. And Rep Govs like Mary Fallin, Ok, Phil Scott, Vermont, John Kasich, Ohio and Rick Scott, Florida.

Governor Mary Fallin vetoes bill to allow adults to carry handguns without a permit
https://m.newsok.com/article/559440...low-adults-to-carry-handguns-without-a-permit

Florida Governor Signs Gun Limits Into Law, Breaking With the N.R.A.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/florida-governor-gun-limits.html

67 Republicans With A-Ratings From the NRA Voted for the Florida Gun Bill
https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/florida-gun-bill-republicans-nra-a-rating/

Kasich signs executive order to improve state's gun background check system | TheHill

Kasich releases gun reform proposals for Ohio | TheHill

Gov. Scott signs VT gun bills, calling for civility, as protesters yell 'traitor'
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com...phil-scott-signs-laws-amid-protest/494166002/

Traitors everywhere.

We can't forget the American Medical Association and 51 other national specialty societies and state medical societies and the American Bar Association.
Preventing Violence - AMA
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/promoting-violence-prevention

AMA Calls Gun Violence “A Public Health Crisis”
For immediate release: Jun 14, 2016
https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-calls-gun-violence-public-health-crisis

American Bar Association, Standing Commitee on Gun Violence
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/policy.html

All in the "anti-gun movement"?

 

[dshans]

More Proof The Left Really Does Want To Abolish Legal Gun Ownership

Ahh, The Federalist.

Say no more.

 

[NorthDakota]

Calling a gun "military-style" is silly.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I have a problem with what the anti-gun crowd labels as an assault weapon. For most of my life an assault weapon was a military grade or fully automatic gun, such as an M-16 or an AK-47, or a weapon that had been modified or designed far beyond the scope of hunting or personal protection, such as a sawed off shotgun modified to hold a large number of shells or a gun modified with a bumpstock.

Today, it seems that anything beyond a bolt action .22 is referred to as an assault weapon by those with an anti-gun agenda. An AR-15 is nothing but a standard .223 hunting rifle dressed up to look like a military weapon. It fires the same cartridge at the same rate. It's like putting a spoiler, a loud muffler, and some racing decals on a Camry and calling it a high performance sports car.

It degrades the true meaning of the term, much like when some women claim anything and everything they don't like is rape. "Oh, he smiled at me. I felt raped!" "That man told me I looked nice. He raped me with his words!" Please, give me a break. Such hysteria and hyperbole distort the meaning of words and ideas until they have no real meaning any longer, and diminishes their value when they actually apply.

I'm all for keeping any weapon out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and I don't have a problem with banning true assault weapons, but the constant and quite disingenuous and dishonest cries of "Assault weapon, assault weapon!" from some quarters is a dishonest usage of the term assault weapon and is nothing more than a misleading attempt to use fear tactics and dishonesty to push an agenda.

 

[drayer54]

Calling a gun "military-style" is silly.

The best part is all of the bans that don't even hit the M1 Carbine or Garand. It's all about fear and control.

Completely ignore the fact that we used to have kids taking guns to school in their trucks with no issues. Completely ignore that we don't value human life anymore. Anything from abusive pornography to swiping on potential dates on top of the way we interact now is really telling how people view each other. But sure, blame the gun.

 

[Legacy]

Miitary-style or assault weapon are terms in common use to describe weapons which can be regulated by states and communities. Courts have repeatedly confirmed the ability of people to limit or ban them.

Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, from Heller vs the District of Columbia:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Judge Robert B. King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit for the majority on Maryland's assault weapons ban confirmed the ban saying that Maryland law enforcement officials could not identify a single case in which a Marylander had used a military-style rifle or shotgun, or needed to fire more than 10 rounds, to defend him/herself.
King wrote: “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision excluded from such coverage.” King added another constitutional principle is relevant: federalism, which allows state and local governments to enact their own laws. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to hear any state or federal ban on these weapons, since they are not constitutionally protected.

Gun Violence Laws and the Second Amendment: A Report of the American Bar Association
February 6, 2015, ABA Standing Committee on Gun Violence
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/GunViolenceWhitePaper_020615.pdf

As discussed below, the courts have held that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is
consistent with a wide variety of laws to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries in our nation.
Nevertheless, the ABA recognizes that confusion exists among the public, even among many
lawyers, regarding whether the Second Amendment provides an obstacle to sensible laws. In its
role as the nation’s preeminent legal organization, the ABA seeks to educate its members, as
well as the public at large, about the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Coincidentally, as
the ABA was researching this issue, so was a Task Force on Gun Violence of the New York
State Bar. In its draft report of January 2015, the Task Force also concluded that “[e]ven with
much unsettled about the precise contours of the Second Amendment, we expect most forms of
state and federal gun regulation will be upheld under the developing post-Heller case law.

In Heller, the Court identified a non-exhaustive list of “presumptively lawful regulatory
measures,” including “longstanding prohibitions” on firearm possession by felons and the
mentally ill, as well as laws forbidding firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings, and imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.13 The Court
also noted that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual
weapons” not in common use, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in
military service.

The Supreme Court, numerous other federal courts, the American Bar Association. What do they know about the Constitution? They, too, have an "anti-gun agenda" and are not "true patriots".

 

[NorthDakota]

Miitary-style or assault weapon are terms in common use to describe weapons which can be regulated by states and communities. Courts have repeatedly confirmed the ability of people to limit or ban them.


The Supreme Court, numerous other federal courts, the American Bar Association. What do they know about the Constitution? They, too, have an "anti-gun agenda" and are not "true patriots".

Is a handgun a military-style weapon? Shotguns? Sniper rifles? It's a very silly term that doesn't actually describe anything. Like Bishop said, if you throw a spoiler on a Camry is it a "high-performance sport car?"

Here is a Ruger mini 14.

Here is another mini 14.

Here is another....

You aren't going to do the following:

A.) Get people to stop using semi-automatic rifles.
B.) Stop selling them to each other
C.) Take them away from folks

People are going to just ignore any laws your folks somehow pass anyway.

 

[BGIF]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/12/europe/paris-stabbing-attack/index.html

Attacker yells 'Allahu Akbar,' stabs five in Paris before police take him down
By Steve Almasy and Eva Tapiero, CNN

Updated 9:24 PM ET, Sat May 12, 2018


Stabs five!

Was it an assault knife?

The media wing of ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement published online.

The Amaq News Agency said "the person who executed the stabbing in Paris is a soldier of the Islamic State." The statement also said the assailant acted in response to calls to attack anti-ISIS coalition countries

Any chance legacy can do a google search on ASSAULT SOLDIERS killing and wounding tourists and passers-by?