Posts Tagged ‘government overreach’

Darrell Issa is concerned about what else Eric Holder's DOJ has withheld from Oversight.
Darrell Issa is concerned about what else Eric Holder’s DOJ has withheld from Oversight.
Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

With the media and engaged citizens focused on critical mid-term elections, the Department of Justice turned over 64,000 pages of documents related to Operation Fast and Furious that it had previously claimed executive privilege for, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Responsibility announced Tuesday. Per the committee release, the production of the documents, compelled by court order, is further evidence the administration had no legitimate reasons for withholding them in the first place consistent with the purposes behind executive privilege, and their withholding was part of a continued effort to avoid disclosures “that embarrass or otherwise implicate senior Obama Administration officials.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/document-dump-shows-state-had-a-hand-fast-and-furious-redactions?CID=examiner_alerts_article

“…Magazine manufacturer Magpul has left Colorado as a result (although not before equipping Coloradans with tens of thousands of the soon-to-be-banned magazines–many of them for free–just before the law went into effect), taking their tax revenue and good jobs with them. But the political fallout went much further than that. State Senator John Morse (D), who as Senate President spearheaded the law, and Senator Angela Giron (D), became the first (and so far, the only) two Colorado senators to be kicked out of office on a recall vote (actually, the first two to have even faced a serious recall effort), despite an enormous funding advantage, courtesy of gun-hating billionaire and aspiring King of the Galaxy Michael Bloomberg. Then, when faced with her own recall vote–again because of her part in passing the magazine ban–Senator Evie Hudak (D) resigned her senate seat, so that, as per Colorado law, she would be replaced by a new senator from her own party, rather than lose the recall election to a Republican, thus shifting control of the senate.

The political fallout for Governor John Hickenlooper (D) has also been severe, to the point of causing him to flip-flop and waffle chaotically with regard to the ban–prompting the superbly ironic “Hickenlooper Blues” (do not cheat yourself out of the opportunity to watch the video).”

“According to the breathless “reporting” of CBS Denver’s Brian Maass, Colorado gun shops have found a couple methods of legally providing buyers with the ability to equip themselves with 30-round magazines. One way to do it is using parts kits:

In Colorado Springs at Old Colorado City Surplus, an Army Surplus store, a CBS4 producer bought two brand-new high capacity magazine “kits.”

The kits consist of the magazine hardware and a spring that needs to be inserted to make the unit operational.

The clerk opened the package, put it together in 24 seconds and sold CBS4 the 30 round magazine for $25.

According to the clerk, the kits are “selling really, really fast.” Another method is to sell 30-round magazines that have been modified in such a way as to limit their capacity to 15, but the modification is easily reversed by the buyer:”

“Restoring the magazine back to its standard, designed capacity of 30 rounds is as easy as popping a rivet out. This, of course, is without even delving into 3-D printed magazines. A magazines is, after all, little more than a box with a spring inside–it hardly requires a sophisticated factory to produce.

The CBS crew seems unconcerned about any prosecution they might face for possessing “illegal” magazines–perhaps they have secured for themselves the hallowed “David Gregory exemption” to onerous magazine bans.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/a-little-ingenuity-renders-colorado-high-capacity-magazine-ban-toothless

Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones have been named defendants in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the federal machine gun ban.
Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones have been named defendants in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the federal machine gun ban.
Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

A complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed Thursday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division. Plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.

“By imposing such a ban on an entire class of weapons, the statutes and regulations exceed the power of the United States,” the complaint states. It makes its case by citing violations of Article I of the United States Constitution, the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and “principles of federalism and dual sovereignty.

“[B]y arbitrarily ‘disapproving’ an already approved Form 1, Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and is an unjust taking; and violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the complaint continues. “Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against … unconstitutional provisions … declaring the ban on machine guns unconstitutional … and declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from unjustly taking property without Due Process.

http://www.examiner.com/article/lawsuit-challenges-federal-machine-gun-ban?CID=examiner_alerts_article

From Balko…

One of the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act was to broaden the “sneak-and-peek” power for federal law enforcement officials. The provision allows investigators to conduct searches without informing the target of the search. We were assured at the time that this was an essential law enforcement tool that would be used only to protect the country from terrorism. Supporters argued that it was critical that investigators be allowed to look into the lives and finances of suspected terrorists without tipping off those terrorists to the fact that they were under investigation.

Civil libertarian critics warned that the federal government already had this power for national security investigations. The Patriot Act provision was far too broad and would almost certainly become a common tactic in cases that have nothing to do with national security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/