BLM: WE WANT YOUR HOME

BLM: WE WANT YOUR HOME

BLM: WE WANT YOUR HOME FOR REPRATIONS

Black Lives Matter crowd demands Seattle homeowners ‘give up’ property: ‘We coming for it’

Black Lives Matter activists in Seattle are demanding homeowners willingly give up their property to Black people,

As a form of reparations because they’re “coming for it” one way or the other.

Footage of the new demands was livestreamed Wednesday night by Concrete Reporting via the Periscope app and quickly spread across social media.

“Give up your house,” exclaimed one of dozens of activists marching through a neighborhood.

“Give black people back their homes.

You’re sitting their comfortably — comfortable as f— as if they didn’t help gentrify this neighborhood.

I used to live in this neighborhood and my family was pushed out and you’re sitting up there having a good time with your other white friends.”

Another clip from the event circulating on Twitter features a man saying, “We’re coming for it. Reparation time.”

The March continues months of Antifa and BLM protests, looting, and riots since the May 25 death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody.

“Mediocrity with a Megaphone:

Petulance on Parade,” tweeted Benjamin Boyce Thursday morning prior to an op-ed by the conservative blog Hot Air.

“We’re not quite to the French Revolution stage of dragging people out of their homes yet but we seem to be inching closer,”

observed writer John Sexton. “I wonder if this will catch on.

The left is already comfortable going into suburban neighborhoods for protests (and vandalism) of elected officials homes.

Singling out strangers seems like the next step. And it’s worth noting that this isn’t just harassment it’s explicitly racial harassment.”

Mr. Sexton noted that the group also took its gentrification grievances to King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay.

“I say this land transfer stuff is really important,” Mr. Zahilay said Wednesday.

“One of the pieces of the Black Lives Matter demands is economic justice for black people for indigenous people.

That needs to look like land transfer in my opinion because land is wealth.

Land gets you the facilities and the buildings that you need to take care of one another.”

DAWG SAYS: THE AGENDA IS CLEAR.


CALIFORNIA BAN ON MAGAZINES HALTED

CALIFORNIA BAN ON MAGAZINES HALTED

CALIFORNIA BAN ON MAGAZINES HALTED 9th CIRCUIT RULES

9th Circuit ends ban on high-capacity magazines

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday threw out California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines,

Saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection of the right to bear firearms.

“Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” appellate Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the panel’s majority.

California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment ,

The right to armed self-defense.”

He noted that California passed the law “in the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings,”

RULED MASS SHOOTING NOT ENOUGH

But said that isn’t enough to justify a ban whose scope “is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office said it is reviewing the decision.

“Until further proceedings in the courts, the stay on the injunction issued by the district court remains in place,” His office said in a statement.

“The Attorney General remains committed to using every tool possible to defend California’s gun safety laws,

And keep our communities safe.”

Becerra did not immediately say if he would ask a larger 11-judge appellate panel to reconsider the ruling by the three judges,

Or if he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He also did not immediately say if the state would seek a delay of the ruling to prevent an immediate buying spree if the lower court lifts its stay.

California Rifle & Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel called it “a huge victory” for gun owners

“and the right to choose to own a firearm to defend your family,” while a group that favors firearms restrictions called it

“Dangerous” and expects it will be overturned.

The ruling has national implications because other states have similar restrictions,

though it immediately applies only to Western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction.

GUN RIGHTS GROUPS WANT TO GET BEFORE THE UPPER COURTS FOR SOME TIME

Gun rights groups have been trying to get such cases before the nation’s high court now that it has a more conservative majority.

Aside from the magazine ban itself,

Michel and the unaffiliated Second Amendment Foundation said the case has legal implications for other gun restrictions,

Should it reach the justices because it could allow the court to clarify an obscure legal debate over what standard of review should be used.

“The Supreme Court seems inclined to do away with the complicated subjective tests that many courts have wrongly applied in Second Amendment cases

In favor of a clearer more objective ‘originalist’ approach that considers the text,

History and tradition of a law to determine what infringements might be tolerated,” Michel said in an email.

Friday’s ruling was a fractured decision partly because of that issue:

Two of the three judges voted to toss out the state’s ban, while the third judge dissented.

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn of Texas, who had been named the third judge on the appellate panel,

Said the majority’s ruling conflicts with decisions in six other federal appellate courts across the nation,

And with a 2015 ruling by a different panel of the 9th Circuit itself. She said she would have upheld California’s law based on that precedent.

“This ruling is an extreme outlier” given those earlier decisions, said Eric Tirschwell, managing director for Everytown Law,

The litigation team affiliated with Everytown for Gun Safety that favors firearms restrictions.

“We expect an en banc panel will rehear the case and correct this erroneous, dangerous, and out-of-step decision.”

Friday’s decision upholds a 2017 ruling by San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez,

Who blocked a new law that would have barred gun owners from possessing magazines holding more than 10 bullets.