Nancy Pelosi is in a complete meltdown this weekend. Why? Because President Trump has essentially pit her own love of open borders against, well, herself.
On Friday, he doubled down on suggestions he might dump illegal immigrants into so-called “sanctuary cities”.
It originally hit the news on Thursday.
According to reports from MSN and The Washington Post, White House officials have once again pushed for immigration officials to release asylum-seeking migrants into sanctuary cities across the country.
On Friday, President Trump took to Twitter to confirm that his administration is considering it:
“Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only….”
Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2019
Due to overwhelming border crossings over the last few months, Customs and Border Patrol agents are overrun with migrants from Mexico and Central American countries. Officials reported over 100,000 cases last month, with an anticipated 150,000 or more for each of the coming months unless action is taken to prevent that.
Trump has a new plan to get Democrats to the negotiating table…
Trump May Release Migrants Into Sanctuary Cities Due To Emergency And Pelosi’s Furious https://t.co/s4Mys4dBOR
— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) April 12, 2019
So for the second time in 6 months, the Trump administration has asked that all of the cities refusing to cooperate with ICE now house a share of the overflow.
Seems legit to us…
Isn’t this what prominent Democratic figures have been pushing for the last few years now? How many cities have come forward and told ICE agents that they’re not welcome?
Remember when ANTIFA attacked ICE agents in Portland, Oregon and the mayor wouldn’t allow local law enforcement to help protect them?
Why hasn’t the #MSM covered this shocking news story about an #Antifa mob taking #ICE employees hostage in Portland, Oregon while local police are ordered to do nothing by a Democrat Mayor @tedwheeler ?
— BabyDel (@Baby___Del) August 8, 2018
Well, time to step up and lead the charge. Time for you to finally be able to get away from ‘slacktivism’ and do your part to helping the people you say deserve to be here. The people that you say should have driver’s licenses and insurance, the right to vote, tuition assistance. Time for you to put your money where your mouth is.
According to the report from MSN, the White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan was ‘intended to alleviate a shortage of detention space but also served to send a message to Democrats.’
Pelosi apparently didn’t like the idea. As a matter of fact, she’s completely melting down.
“The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” said one of Pelosi’s spokeswomen. “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”
“Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal," said a Nancy Pelosi spokeswoman. https://t.co/30PmMjI86S
— Chicago Sun-Times (@Suntimes) April 12, 2019
She’s not the only one.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra blasted the idea.
“Donald Trump’s use of government power to conduct corrupt, vindictive operations smells like Watergate,” said Becerra, a former congressman from California. “It’s a sobering reminder that our nation is only as strong as our democratic institutions and the rule of law.”
Watergate. Ha. Wouldn’t a closer comparison to Watergate be when the DNC and Clinton campaign contracted a dossier to be created on President Trump… which was then used to illegally obtain FISA warrants to spy on his campaign in an attempt to keep him out of office?
San Francisco Mayor London Breed dismissed the idea as “just another scare tactic” and insisted her city would continue “to put forward proposals to support our immigrant communities.”
San Francisco. The city filled with streets of hypodermic needles and human feces.
Trump called sanctuary cities “outrageous” and said they were, “grave threats to public safety and national security.”
But as it turns out, these cities aren’t the only ones that are pushing for sanctuary status.
We’ve received countless emails from law enforcement, veterans and patriotic Americans all over the country.
And they all have one thing in common.
A deep concern over legislation passing all over the country that’s severely restricting gun rights. So we’re going to start in a very simple place. The Constitution.
We’ve launched a petition to provide NATIONAL Second Amendment Sanctuary for Americans.
If states can pass “sanctuary status” to prevent law enforcement officers from upholding the law pertaining to immigration status, President Trump can direct the Justice Department to do the same to protect the second amendment.
It’s not without precedent.
In New Mexico, 21 of 33 counties have already declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuary” counties against the current gun control push in their state.
Now it’s happening in Colorado and other states as well.
For those who aren’t up to date on the Second Amendment, it reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
History shows that when you disarm a population, you control it. And as time has shown again and again, nothing good follows.
That is why we launched the petition and we need your help in signing it and making sure it circulates around the country.
The petition reads:
“On behalf of LEO’s, Veterans, and law-abiding citizens of the United States of America, we ask that President Trump direct the Justice Department to provide Sanctuary for the Second Amendment.
We The People do not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing law that unconstitutionally infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment specifically prohibits governmental power and protection of individual liberties. Gun control laws infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, veterans, and don’t help LEO’s in their jobs against criminals, who obtain guns illegally. The 2A belongs to the people not the government.”
Why We Are Launching The Petition
Simply put, we have a duty. We also have a right that’s guaranteed by The Constitution and being trampled upon by politicians.
With the start of 2019, states started ushering in new restrictions on the sales, purchases, transfers, ownership and use of firearms and ammo.
And this isn’t even considering the rash of “red flag” laws that are popping up all across the country.
Let’s break it down and take a look at some of what you should know. And keep in mind, these are only changes that kicked off in 2019. Many states already had other restrictions. These are just some of the new laws with a focus on their impact on law enforcement.
Vermont residents are subject to new laws limiting long guns to 10 rounds and handguns to 15 rounds.
In New Jersey, retired officers will continue to be permitted to have 15 round magazines. Active officers who are off duty will be allowed to possess magazines that hold up to 17 rounds of ammo.
Originally, the law that passed in 2018 in New Jersey prohibited the possession of magazines that held more than 10 rounds for off-duty and retired LEOs, but it was changed at the very end of the year.
That doesn’t mean it’s totally clear.
The status of retired officers who aren’t New Jersey residents is still unclear, as it pertains to LEOSA carry in New Jersey. The state’s statues allow retired officers who are residents to apply for the 15 round carry, but the process for a non-resident who is a retired officer isn’t clear.
Not only that, but the law gives an exemption for off-duty officers to have magazines with more than 17 rounds if it’s issued by the department. That obviously creates a potential problem for an officer who has to buy their own weapon, which isn’t uncommon. The law wouldn’t cover magazines for personally-owned weapons that aren’t duty weapons if the magazine capacity is greater than 17 rounds.
BUMP STOCKS AND TRIGGER ACTIVATORS
Those who live in California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Washington will face new restrictions on the purchase, ownership or use of bump stocks along trigger activating devices.
Many of the laws are specifically written in a way that places restrictions on commonly used aftermarket replacement triggers, which are upgrades to stock factory triggers.
There’s now a federal man on similar devices, passed down as an ATF rule change.
California, Florida and Vermont now restrict adults under 21 years of age from buying firearms. Previously, you could buy long guns after age 18.
In Washington State, adults under the age of 21 cannot purchase semiautomatic or rimfire rifles or possess them in public.
It’s not clear if the exemptions apply to firearms purchased or possessed for duty use.
Those who live in Washington are now subject to new laws that penalize those who store guns in a way that they remain accessible to prohibited persons. Similar legislation is being considered in Connecticut, including on ammunition.
Who needs to be particularly concerned? Officers or service members with children at home under the age of 21, as young adults are now considered “prohibited persons” in respect to semiautomatic rifles.
Some of the new laws have specific exemptions for law enforcement officers. Others do not.
In cases where there are exemptions, it’s not always clear if they apply to firearms and ammunition that are used for duty, or if they also extend to firearms and ammunition that are kept for personal use.
Keep in mind, even if it’s determined that a law enforcement exemption applies to the personal property of the individual officer, that doesn’t extend to their family.
A spouse, child, parent or other relative would still be subject to the same restrictions as any other citizen.
That of course creates a problem for officers wishing to gift or transfer a firearm or ammunition or allow access to them to family members.
It’s a bigger problem than you think.
Many officers want to carry their firearms in other states under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), often referred to as H.R. 218.
But now different states are passing different restrictions on LEOSA. Take, for example, Vermont or Connecticut. There are laws in those states that prevent armed persons who aren’t law enforcement officers engaged in law enforcement duties from entering into schools.
And of course the magazine capacity and specific firearms restrictions could run counter to LEOSA, because the federal law doesn’t provide a specific exemption to these restrictions.
Then there are states that doesn’t actually recognize LEOSA. Take, for example, Hawaii. The Attorney General said off duty or retired law enforcement officers aren’t covered or considered a ‘law enforcement officer’ in the state of Hawaii. That is, of course, the exactly reason why LEOSA was signed into law.
Here’s the petition. If you believe we should be providing second amendment sanctuary status, we highly encourage you to sign it and pass it around.