Updated Trump administration ends DACA, with 6-month delay 07/10/2018

The Trump administration on Tuesday announced the “orderly wind down” of the Obama-era program that gave a deportation reprieve to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children – putting pressure on Congress to come up with a legislative alternative.

The Department of Homeland Security formally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, with a six-month delay for current recipients. According to Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, the interval is meant to give Congress “time to deliver on appropriate legislative solutions.”

“However, I want to be clear that no new initial requests or associated applications filed after today will be acted on,” Duke said in a written statement.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, speaking to reporters, blasted the Obama administration's "disrespect for the legislative process" in enacting the 2012 policy. He said the “unilateral executive amnesty” probably would have been blocked by the courts anyway.

“The executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions,” Sessions said, blaming the policy for the recent “surge” at the border. “Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.”

A day earlier, Sessions sent Duke a letter with his legal determination that the 2012 executive action was unconstitutional.

The Trump administration was facing a Tuesday deadline to make a decision on DACA or face legal action by Republican state AGs who hoped to force the president’s hand in discontinuing the program.

Administration officials cast their approach Tuesday at the least disruptive option.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had promised to terminate DACA, though he appeared to soften his stance since taking office. In ending the program with a six-month delay, Trump put the onus on Congress to pass a legislative fix.

According to DHS, no current beneficiaries will be impacted before March 5, 2018.

“Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!” Trump tweeted Tuesday morning.
daca

daca

In this Aug. 15, 2017, file photo, a woman holds up a signs in support of the Obama administration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, during an immigration reform rally at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

While some Republicans support the goals of the DACA program, many opposed the use of executive action to institute it, describing the move as a presidential overreach.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is among those who now supports the call to protect so-called “Dreamers” with legislation.

“I have always believed DACA was a presidential overreach,” he said in a statement. "However, I equally understand the plight of the Dream Act kids who -- for all practical purposes know no country other than America. If President Trump makes this decision we will work to find a legislative solution to their dilemma.”

On a conference call, administration officials said Tuesday they are still prioritizing criminal aliens for deportation. But they described the original DACA criteria as very broad and cited the legal determination of the Justice Department.

During the presidential campaign, Trump referred to DACA as “illegal amnesty.” However, he seemed to edge away from that stance in April when he told the Associated Press that DACA recipients could “rest easy.”

The DACA program was formed through executive action by former President Barack Obama in 2012, allowing recipients to get a deportation reprieve – and work permits – for a two-year period subject to renewal. Under the program, individuals were able to request DACA status if they were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. before turning 16 and have continuously lived in the country since June 15, 2007. Individuals must also have a high school diploma, GED certification, been honorably discharged from the military or still be in school. Recipients cannot have a criminal record.

Congress had been considering legislation to shield young illegal immigrants from deportation for years, dating back to the George W. Bush administration. Lawmakers tried again to pass a bill during the Obama administration, but couldn’t muster the votes amid flagging Republican support before Obama formed the program in 2012.

Nearly 800,000 undocumented youth are currently under the program's umbrella.

On Friday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said he supported a legislative solution to protect undocumented minors, but also urged the president to reconsider scrapping DACA.

"I actually don't think he should do that and I believe that this is something that Congress has to fix," Ryan said on radio station WCLO.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/05/trump-administration-end...

Views: 2631

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

President Trump Has a Clear Choice When It Comes to a DACA Amnesty

With the talk of yet another amnesty, which would be the eighth since 1986 and could be the largest ever, Congressional leaders are once again refusing to cut the number of green cards handed out every year.

Paul Ryan’s “compromise bill,” a sop to corporate lobbyists, would amnesty several million people, with subsequent amnesties inevitably to follow, while promising “border security” down the road. It would be up to future Congresses and Presidents to follow through on that promise.

That mandatory E-Verify is not part of Ryan’s amnesty bill proves that he and those who go along with him are not serious about ending illegal immigration and have no intention of ever holding criminal employers to account. E-Verify is overwhelmingly popular with the American people, and it is extremely effective. The former reason is why Rep Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) included it in his DACA bill. The latter is why Ryan left it out of his. The Speaker sides with employers who want to continue to hire illegal aliens in order to tamp down wages and working conditions in the United States.

The Ryan bill does eliminate some family-based chain migration categories, but it reallocates some of those visas to employment-based and puts other into what they are calling an “escrow” account. Also put in escrow are Diversity Lottery visas. This allows Ryan to claim that his bill eliminates the visa lottery and chain migration, while he is merely delaying handing them out. These green cards will go to amnestied aliens and children of certain guest workers. After all “eligible” aliens receive green cards, the escrow visa program will end, which will take 20 to 30 years, at least.

There will be $25 billion appropriated for border security, which includes funding for barriers. We’ve seen this ruse before. The Hoeven-Corker amendment pledged $30 billion for border security in order to win passage of the Gang of Eight bill through the Senate. Maybe all of the $25 billion for border security in Ryan’s bill will be spent accordingly and Trump will get his wall, but anyone who has been around Washington, D.C. for any length of time knows that almost certainly will not happen. Whether the wall is built or not, the amnesty is permanent.
President Trump Can Stand with the American People, Or He Can Side with K Street

President Trump changed the political dynamics on immigration in Washington, but candidates have been running on his immigration platform for the past three decades. The difference with Trump is that he is threatening to follow through on the promises he made on the campaign trail. It is difficult to believe now, but Barack Obama took the “hard line” on immigration when he emerged as a Presidential candidate in 2006. In office, President Obama made it his priority to use immigration to increase the economic and political power of the very narrow special interests he promised to eschew. He championed the Gang of Eight bill, which the Congressional Budget Office (p. 3) projected would reduce average earnings of American workers for two decades. And, he violated the law and the Constitution by establishing DACA after repeatedly admitting he did not have the authority to do so.

Donald J. Trump is President of the United States because of the American people are dissatisfied with federal immigration policy. President Trump has the choice to support legislation that would align with the strong majority of voters, or he can sign a bill that reneges on his promise to the American people.

It is clear that President Trump wants to sign an amnesty for DACA recipients. Many of those who voted for him will still support him if he does. What will anger the electorate is if President Trump does not do as much for the American people as he does for the illegal aliens who will benefit from amnesty.

Will President Trump sign a bill written by the authors of the Gang of Eight, and then gloat that he was able to sign an immigration bill President Obama wanted but could not get?
The Economy Is Better, But Far From Good

President Trump should get credit for the uptick in the economy that has occurred since his election. He should also recognize that he needs to do more to reverse a trend that won’t be reversed by tweets, or by signing a bill that has Paul Ryan’s imprimatur.

President Trump surprised many pundits by winning in Wisconsin, a state that has seen an increase in poverty despite “job growth.” Paul Ryan’s amnesty bill promises to cut immigration maybe in 30 years. How would that help workers in Wisconsin today?

The people who are pushing for mass immigration freely admit why they are doing so. Warren Buffet, who claims there is a “shortage of workers,” was asked whether it would be easier for his companies to attract workers if he raised wages for his employees. His answer:

Well, the people that [sic] are thinking about going into those jobs want to get it solved probably by higher wages [laughs] but the market system works towards solving problems like that. But it is absolutely true now that there are shortages of people in some fairly important type jobs.

What Buffet claims is absolutely false. A shortage of workers means just that –- a lack of people available to work. Buffett and Ryan prefer to create a labor market system that results in poverty wages for those doing “some fairly important type jobs.” There is a shortage of employers willing to pay a living wage. Here is a quote from former Vice-President Joe Biden’s chief economic advisor, onam Bernstein, demonstrating again that there is a broad center on immigration:

Employers are very quick to raise the specter of a labor shortage, but often it’s another way of saying they can’t find the workers they want at the price they’re paying…they are unwilling to meet the price signal the market is sending, so they seek help in the form of a spigot like immigration.

And this from President Clinton’s Labor Secretary, Robert Reich:

It should be noted that the term ‘labor shortage’ rarely means that workers cannot be found at any price. Its real meaning is that desired workers cannot be found at the price that employers and customers wish to pay.

What is Trump’s plan to deal with the effects of automation, which is already displacing workers in the fast food industry? How is he going to reverse the trend of a decreasing labor force participation rate? Will he follow Buffett’s advice and let the “market system” solve these problems?

The market system does not choose to use immigration policy to drive down the wages and working conditions for American workers. That’s a choice made by those who make immigration policy. What choice will President Trump make?

Paul Ryan chose not to include E-Verify or any actual cuts to immigration in his bill. President Trump has a clear choice about which bill can he sign.

ERIC RUARK is the Director of Research for NumbersUSA

Call your representatives

https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/president-trump-has-clear-choice-wh...

Call the White House.

202-456-1111

"President Trump is breaking his most important campaign promise by telling Congress he will sign any bill containing Amnesty for millions of illegals. Both these bills being voted on in Congress this week are AMNESTY! Tell President Trump to STOP SUPPORTING AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS!"

2. Call House Speaker Paul Ryan (202) 225-3031 and his political heir Rep. Kevin McCarthy (202) 225-2915 to say...

"Stop supporting bills with fake promises of enforcement to try to pass AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. BOTH OF THESE BILLS ARE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT MOST AMERICANS REJECT!"

3. Call Freedom Caucus director Rep. Mark Meadows and tell him...

(202) 225-6401

"North Carolina is a very conservative state that is upset that Rep. Meadows is fighting hard for illegal aliens instead of his own US citizens. Meadows should STOP SUPPORTING AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS

https://www.house.gov/representatives

Absolutely, there is no labor shortage in America... there is a problem with the wages being offered and paid for work.  People are unable and unwilling to work for a wage that will not provide for their basic needs... food, shelter, clothing, medical, and transportation.

Employers claiming they cannot find workers and need foreign labor... are actually looking to muzzle the OX (US LABOR)... These miscreants refuse to pay labor a wage sufficient to meet subsistence standards or to provide basic benefits to their workers... paid vacations, holiday and overtime pay, health insurance, etc. 

There are no jobs an American won't do... if paid sufficiently to meet their basic needs. What Ryan and company want are slaves.  They want dependent workers, who rely upon social welfare programs to round out their wages. They want dependent workers who live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to complain about pay or benefits.

In effect, Ryan and company are willing to supplement the wages of individuals by using taxpayer funds to subsidize their incomes... food stamps, housing assistance, utility assistance, etc.  Ryan sees nothing wrong with interfering with a Free Labor Market, by introducing huge numbers of foreign workers willing to work for slave wages, thus artificially driving down wages. 

This amounts to corporate welfare... government wage subsidies, which enable employers to hire workers at below sustenance standards... creating a working class that is living from paycheck to paycheck, and can not object to their poor working and living conditions... In effect, these low wage workers are slaves/peons to the system.. and Ryan and company want to keep them that way.

ICE Union Opposes Ryan Amnesty Plan

The National ICE Council has announced its opposition to the Ryan Amnesty plan that the House is scheduled to vote on later this week. ICE Union President Chris Crane wrote that if the Ryan Amnesty passed, "it will have significant negative consequences for public safety and interior enforcement in general."

Crane also expressed disappointment that House Republicans didn't consult with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers during the drafting of the legislation, the same way that the Gang of 8 didn't consult with ICE officers.

Here is the full text of the letter sent by the ICE officers:

It is my understanding that neither of the immigration bills currently being considered by Congress include staffing increases for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), while again increasing Border Patrol and CBP staff by 5000 officers each.

The Administration and Republican members of Congress are fully aware of the dire need for staffing increases within ERO. So keenly aware of the need for additional ERO officers, one of your first actions as our newly elected President was to sign an executive order authorizing 10,000 more ICE ERO officers. So keenly aware of the dire need for additional ERO officers, prominent Republican Congressmen like Bob Goodlatte, Trey Gowdy, Raul Labrador, Lamar Smith, John Carter and others previously pushed for thousands of additional staff at ICE ERO through proposed bills like the Davis-Oliver Act.

Previous legislation by House Republicans that would have increased staffing at ICE is an absolute admission that House Republicans are well aware of staffing shortages at ICE, and likewise are aware of the risk to public safety posed by failing to include legislative staffing increases at ICE in current legislation. After spending years fighting for staffing increases at ICE in the name of public safety, House Republicans have suddenly abandoned their positions and instead now fight to keep ICE dangerously understaffed. In keeping with the infamous "Gang of 8" amnesty bill, boots on the ground law enforcement officers were excluded by Republicans from having input on both new bills. The same House Republicans who condemned the Gang of 8 and Obama Administration for not including our input, have now done the exact same thing.

For any person to ever suggest to the American people that border security can be achieved without strong and effective interior enforcement would be false. In fact, the repeated failures of Congress to increase interior enforcement since 9/11, is the primary reason why border control efforts continue to fail. The current reality for any person coming to the U.S. illegally is that once in the U.S. you are free to live, work and even commit crimes without any real threat of deportation, as confirmed by the staggering 12 million people currently living illegally in the U.S., millions of whom are estimated to be criminal aliens. While measures such as additional Border Patrol Agents and CBP Officers play an important role, neither will ever stop illegal immigration into the U.S. without increased interior enforcement efforts - especially as approximately half of the 12 million illegally in the U.S. didn't cross our borders illegally, but rather entered legally with temporary visas and never left.

Our nation and its residents remain at increased risk as our congressional leadership fails to learn the lessons that 9/11 should have taught us. 100,000 more Border Patrol Agents and CBP Officers would not have stopped the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks who entered our country legally on visas, but an appropriate level of ICE ERO Officers may have. By failing to increase and modernize interior enforcement efforts, Congress leaves the nation dangerously exposed to an ever-growing terrorist threat. For Congress to include legislative provisions aimed at making the country safer, without providing the law enforcement officers and staff to enforce them, in reality simply adds to the long list of laws already in place that simply won't be enforced due to lack of personnel and resources.

ICE ERO currently has less than 5,000 officers - less than some municipal police forces - to police approximately 40 million legal and illegal aliens spread across 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As noted above, almost half of the 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States entered our country legally with visas and failed to depart once their visas expired, meaning increased staffing at the Border Patrol and CBP won't stop it. No group within DHS is more understaffed and outmanned, yet neither of the bills being considered in the House this week provide even one new officer or staff member at ICE. Americans who support stronger immigration enforcement, stronger border security, and safer communities, must begin questioning the political motives behind these actions.

We are seriously concerned with many provisions of the Ryan compromise bill and predict that if passed it will have significant negative consequences for public safety and interior enforcement in general. As with the Obama Administration's DACA policy, the Ryan compromise bill appears to recklessly permit widespread protection of millions of illegal aliens who will not even qualify for the amnesty. As with the Obama DACA, this will include tens of thousands of criminal aliens in jails who make false claims to amnesty resulting in their release back into U.S. communities. The bill allows aliens to apply for amnesty who have been convicted of alien smuggling and many other serious crimes and appears to ignore criminal charges against aliens that have not yet been adjudicated. Perhaps most shocking, it allows amnesty for aliens already ordered removed from the U.S. by a federal immigration judge, but who have thumbed their nose at U.S. law and refused to leave. Widespread exceptions for criminals, alien smugglers, and fugitives from the law, are not the fixes needed to our broken immigration system, and neither is a system that allows for large scale fraud.

As you meet with Republicans today, we hope and ask that you stand behind your commitments to our officers to restore the rule of law, create sensible and effective new laws, and increase staffing at ICE. This is the one and only chance to make these important changes. If the Ryan amnesty is passed, there will be no further meaningful immigration legislation passed by Congress. You pledged publicly to "have the backs" of the men and women of ICE law enforcement. I am asking you to keep that promise. We stand ready to work with you and your staff, as well as House Republicans to make these bills more effective for the American people.

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/ice-union-opposes-ryan-amnesty-plan

You don't say, Kat,

A Update, in Gainesville Florida, another money making WalMart closed, about 7 months ago I did a job there, they opened up another about 1 mile away, I never returned to see what happened, but they are or was fenced in.

 According to several videos and blogs these children facilities in all 50 states, they were bused in. Now let clear the air, Walmart Is A Founder For the DACA Dream Act.

The so-called "Pro-America" company?!!! WOW

Members of House Freedom Caucus

I am posting only the last four digits of phone numbers here because all congressional phone numbers begin with 1 202 225 ----

Kenn Buck CO 4676

Ted Budd NC 4531

Waarren Davidson OH 6205

Ron Des Santis FL 9798 bad number

Jeff Duncan SC 5301

Matt Gaetz FL 4136

Justin Amish MI 3831

Mo Brooks AL 4801

Andy Biggs AZ 2635

Rod Blum IA 2911

Dave Brat VA 2815

Tom Garrett Jr. VA 4711

Loui Gohmert TX 3035

Paul Gosar AZ 2315

Morgan Griffith VA 3861

Andy Harris Maryland 5311

Jody Hice GA 4101

Jim Jordan OH 2676

Raul Labraor ID 6611

Mark Meadows NC 6401 (Chairman Freedom Caucus)

Alex Mooney WV 2711

Gary Palmer AL 4921

Steve Pearce NM 2365

Scott Perry Pennsylvania 5836

Bill Posey FL 3671

Mark Sanford SC 3176

David Schweikert AZ 2190

Randy Weber TX 2831

Ted Yoho FL 5744

Sam and Alice the ultimate one- worlders

Yes, I guess the common denominator is manufacturing "made in America". Cheap labor that can be exploited.

 Calling people may help, but keeping track of things shared does open up a can of worms. Girls and their gossip channels on the internet...LMAO

Mark Zuckerberg Investments at Walmart: https://www.google.com/search?q=Mark+Zuckerberg+Investments+at+Walm...

Who Are The Founders For DACA?

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/who-are-he-founders-for-daca

 Come on guys its not that hard to follow basic news and listen to the gals chat, often I sit and listen to my wife and her friends talk, then I look it up. More so when its about what hottie is now a trend...:)-

Walmart Is A Founder For the DACA Dream Act: https://www.google.com/search?q=Walmart+Is+A+Founder+For+the+DACA+D...

 The Radio News just announced that President Trump does not have a clue to where to start re-uniting the 800,000 to 1 million illegal children that Obama and GOP bused into America. And it was also noted that 90% were all male, what- Hispanic Or Islamic?.......LMAO at the whole Dam* System.

PS. guys, Fox News just got bashed for reporting something about the Walmart FEMA Camps.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service