90 Miles From Tyranny

Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Nipple Rings Cuomo (aka Dr. Death) Went For The Wrong Kind Of Aide....

Governor Andrew Cuomo Shows Of His Pierced Nipples....

Former Cuomo Adviser Accuses NY Gov Of Sexual Harassment: ‘I Am Not The Only Woman’

Former Staffer Accuses Gov. Andrew Cuomo of Sexual Harassment

Dr. Death...

Breaking: NRA, NSSF Warn Dems Could Move On Gun Control In Days

Both the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation are ringing the alarm bells over impending moves by Democrats to ram through gun control legislation in the House in the coming days. In a tweet on Monday afternoon the NRA issued a warning that Nancy Pelosi plans to take up gun control as early as next week.

Like the NRA, I’ve also heard that Democrats in the House could bypass the Judiciary Committee completely and bring the bill or bills directly to the floor for a vote.

So, what bills are the most likely candidates to be voted on? Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the NSSF, believes that Rep. Jim Clyburn’s Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021 could be part of any gun control package that the House takes up. In a statement, Keane said that if the bill is the same as the version introduced in the previous session of Congress, the organization will be “as opposed to it now” as they were then.

This bill increases the burden on small business firearm retailer owners and flips the burden of proof on its head. This would make it incumbent upon the law-abiding citizen to prove his or her innocence to the government to exercise their Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm instead of the government being responsible for proving an individual is prohibited. This could potentially deny a law-abiding citizen their rights for up to a month, while they are saddled with the burden of proving their innocence. That’s un-American.

“Rather than placing further burdens on retailers and law-abiding gun owners, Congress should focus on adequately resourcing NICS. NSSF is the only organization that has successfully advocated for NICS to have the necessary resources to perform its mission in a timely manner.”

This is not a “universal background check bill,” but rather legislation that would allow the FBI to put a hold of up to 30 days on the transfer of a firearm, instead of the three currently allowed by law.

However, I’ve also heard from some sources on the Hill that a universal background check measure could also be introduced next week. At the moment, we have no idea what exactly Nancy Pelosi may try to ram through the House, but it appears as if we could see more than one piece of anti-gun legislation on the House floor with a matter of days.

Gun control groups have been pressuring Joe Biden to start moving on his gun control agenda, and I’ve thought for some time that it might be the next priority after the COVID relief bill gets to his desk. I have to admit, though, that I assumed Biden would issue executive actions rather than try to go to Congress first, given the uncertainty of success in the Senate, where Democrats would need to get 60 votes to secure passage. Howver, it’s also possible that Biden will sign one or more executive orders to coincide with the introduction of gun control legislation in the House.

A background check bill will certainly get the support of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, along with Republican Pat Toomey, but after that the math gets a little fuzzy for Chuck Schumer. He might be able to bring Susan Collins along, but I don’t know if Lisa Murkowski would be on board. After all, trying to abide by (much less enforce) a universal background check law in Alaksa would be virtually impossible. No one’s traveling hundreds of miles through the bush just to find...

Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,

Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.

If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.

Please Leave Silently Into The Night......

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,

from the beautiful to the repugnant,

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,

you could be inspired, you could be appalled.

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.

You have been warned.

Girls With Guns

Blogs With Rule 5 Links

Extremely Late!

The Other McCain has: Rule 5 Sunday: Cathryn Li

Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around

The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style

EBL has: Rule 5 And FMJRA

The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama

The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

The Left's Ability To Re-define Words Whenever It Suits Them, Is One Of The Totalitarian Tools They Use To Maintain Power And Control....

Why The Sociopath Left Uses Performative Anti-Bigotry To Bully And Intimidate Anyone Who Disagrees With Them....

The 'Drug Trafficker, Pimp, and Rapist Relief Act'

Hidden within President Biden's amnesty bill is a "sleeper" provision that grants amnesty to criminal aliens — or at least makes them eligible to seek it. The fact is, the difference is not that great, as I will explain. You could call it the "Drug Trafficker, Pimp, and Rapist Relief Act" (and include murderers, child sex offenders, and those who convicted of slavery, too).

You have to get down to section 1204, at p. 73, to find the provision, euphemistically named "Restoring Fairness to Adjudications". Sounds reasonable. Until you read it.

That section would add new waivers to sections 212(c) and 237(a)(8) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Let me give you some history to better explain how breathtakingly lenient those provisions are.

History of Section 212(c) of the INA

There had been a waiver in section 212(c) of the INA since 1952, but that was removed in 1996 by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Why was section 212(c) removed by IIRIRA?

Because it provided relief to some pretty unsavory criminal aliens. Here's how that provision read, from 1952 to 1990:

Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years, may be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General without regard to [their excludability under section 212(a) of the INA].

I will stop right there to explain what that means. The old 212(c) waiver was originally only available to aliens with green cards, and only then if they had been living in the United States for seven years. And it was originally meant to grant them a waiver if they were returning from abroad.

In 1976, however, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that it also applied to green card holders who had not left the United States, finding on due process and equal protection grounds that it was not fair to treat returning immigrants differently. That made section 212(c) waivers a form of relief from deportation.

In 2001, the Supreme Court held that: "The extension of § 212(c) relief to the deportation context has had great practical importance, because deportable offenses have historically been defined broadly." In other words, if you were a lawful permanent resident criminal who had not left the United States, until 1976, you were likely to be deported (because that is what Congress wanted).

And it was granted pretty liberally: Between 1989 and 1995, more than 10,000 aliens were granted 212(c) relief, many if not most because those green-card holders were deportable on criminal grounds. One immigration judge (IJ) before whom I appeared told me that she would usually grant it to an alien at least...