Democrat Pushes to Expand ‘Secret’ Gun Confiscations in California

From Breitbart California:

California Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) is pushing to expand firearm confiscations by allowing co-workers and others to file a complaint that sets the “secret” confiscation process in motion.

The confiscations are tied to Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs), which were passed by CA Democrats following Elliot Rodger’s May 23, 2014 Santa Barbara attack. GVROs were touted as a vehicle through which families could petition a court for the seizure of guns from a family member. With order in hand, police could confiscate firearms from the family member without notice.

The GVROs were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown (D) on October 1, 2014 and became effective January 1, 2016. Assemblyman Ting is now pushing AB 2607 to expand GVROs so co-workers, employers, teachers, and others, can petition a court to have the “secret” confiscations ordered.

The liberal gun control advocate continue to move the State to a point that wll resemble, Australia, gun free, with the exception of those with connections.

Appeals Court Stays Key Order in Freddy Gray Cases

From Powerline Blog:

I wrote here about Judge Barry Williams’ order that Officer William Porter, who is awaiting retrial, will have to testify against colleagues who also are charged in the Freddy Gray cases. Porter argued that the Fifth Amendment gives him the right not to testify, inasmuch as he is still in legal jeopardy and his testimony might tend to incriminate him, but the judge rejected this contention. As I noted, Porter’s lawyers promptly took the matter to the appeals court, seeking an injunction.

Today, the appeals court granted the injunction. It is only a temporary one — a stay. The injunction protects Porter from having to testify while the three-judge court sorts its way through the legal issues raised by Judge Williams’ apparently unprecedented ruling.

Wow, that was close!

Let's see if they are seious.

Conn. Governor Will Ban Anybody On Terrorism Watch Lists From Buying Guns

From The Daily Caller:

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy announced Thursday that he will issue an executive order banning anybody on federal terrorism watch lists from buying a gun in the state.

“We intend to prevent, by executive order through my powers as governor, those on government watch lists from obtaining a permit to purchase a firearm in Connecticut,” Malloy said at a Thursday press conference. “If Congress will not act, we in the states will.”

Under his planned order, anybody on the lists would be barred from purchasing either guns or ammunition. It’s not clear how many people the executive order will affect, but there are about 47,000 people on the federal government’s no-fly list and about a million people on the terrorism watch list (though many of these are not U.S. citizens or even residents). Malloy says the executive order’s details are still being worked out, in concert with the White House.

I can't wait for the lawsuits to start. This is a couple prime examples of black letter law violations of the 2nd and 5th Amendment, for starters. I want to see the damages awarded to the plaintiffs. I hope it's big dollars.

College's hypocrisy on standard of evidence when it comes to accused students

From Ashe Schow at The Washington Examiner via H/T at Instapundit:

Burden of proof for thee, but not me: A Vermont college was ordered to halt the expulsion of a student who was expelled for sexual assault without being given a hearing. But what the college argued in its defense was rather interesting.

Middlebury College used a “preponderance of evidence” standard (meaning campus administrators have to be just 50.01 percent sure an assault was committed) even before the Department of Education mandated colleges to lower the bar on proof of charges against students. But when it came to defending itself from this student’s lawsuit, the college demanded the higher standard of “clear and convincing” evidence that it had wronged him.

In a footnote of the judge’s decision to halt the expulsion, noticed by Samantha Harris of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the college argued for the higher standard of proof.

“Middlebury argues a higher standard — requiring Plaintiff to demonstrate ‘a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits’ — applies because an injunction will provide plaintiff with substantially all the relief sought and the relief cannot be undone and because plaintiff seeks to alter rather than maintain the status quo,” the footnote reads.

The reason the male student was able to get his expulsion halted was that he showed that he would have a “likelihood of success on the merits” and that he would suffer irreparable harm if the federal court did not issue a preliminary injunction.

So, to recap, when accusing students of a felony, a low threshold of evidence is okay, but when accused of unfairness, Middlebury wants the charges to clear a higher bar. Nice legal double standard, if you can get it.

The twisted logic is just astounding. Plus the moxie to make such a filing ........

It kinda of reminding me of the old joke about the orphan, who threw himself at the mercy of the court, after being convicted for murdering his parents.

Prosecutor from Polis’s District: ‘Shadow’ campus system is no solution to sexual assault.

Via H/T at Instapundit:

Although universities adjudicate student discipline, it is a serious mistake to equate investigation and resolution of felony sex assault with cheating on a test or drinking or smoking in a dorm room or the other normal fodder of the university discipline process, where due process on some level is important, but of an entirely different quality than the criminal justice system provides.

We should never tolerate the adjudication of serious felony behavior outside the criminal justice system. There are many reasons:

1. The risk of wrongful conviction is too great. The rigorous due process of the criminal justice system exists for mainly one reason: to make sure society can have confidence that one who is found guilty is, in fact, guilty. Relaxing due process, or having investigations not handled by well-trained professionals can lead to wrongful conviction.

2. The risk of traumatizing victims of sex assault. Interview and handling of victims and witnesses in sex crimes requires skill, sensitivity and time. Clumsy or repeated interviews can be traumatic for victims.

3. Those guilty of serious felony behavior present a societal risk, not just a campus risk. To suggest that sex assault on campus is primarily a campus problem is just plain wrong: it is a societal problem and deserves a societal response through the criminal justice system.

4. The criminal justice system is public and the public can observe, evaluate and criticize the proceedings. University conduct investigations carry the inherent secrecy of the discipline process, which can leave the public questioning the fairness of an investigation and the accuracy of the determinations.

The federal government’s decision to tie campus funding to a one size fits all investigative approach can interfere with criminal investigations. Fair, effective, sex assault investigations take time and cannot be handled by investigators under pressure to rush to a particular conclusion due to financial pressures on the university. Also, “warning letters” or warning bulletins, or campus-based “stay away from each other” orders can, if issued prematurely, prevent law enforcement from determining the truth of alleged criminal behavior. Of course, that only matters if you actually care about justice. If you’re just pushing bureaucratic employment and Hillary-friendly “War On Women” talking points, then who cares what happens to individuals?

errr, maybe the parents of the falsely accused?

Italy's Highest Court Slams Amanda Knox Case Prosecutors for "Glaring Errors", "Investigative Bouts of Amnesia"

From Ace of Spades HQ:

And basically accuses them of finding scapegoats first then constructing the evidence to convict them while letting the real killer escape. Italy's top criminal court said Monday that it threw out the murder convictions of American student Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend earlier this year because of "glaring errors" and a hit-and-miss hunt for a scapegoat to satisfy public opinion.

Ouch!

Due process group distributes warning flyers to campus men

From Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner via H/T at Instapundit:

To combat wrongful accusations of sexual assault on college campuses, a pro-due process group is distributing flyers meant to prepare young men for potential expulsion.

The organization, Families Advocating for Campus Equality has already begun distributing the flyers on California campuses, where "yes means yes" consent policies were adopted last year. The policies purport to make clear what is and isn't consent, but make it impossible for accused students to prove their innocence and in fact redefine normal human actions as rape.

This is good, but if you really want to hit them, pass these out at the "Road Show" events for prospective student.

That would cause quite a ruckus.

Why Any Male Student Should Think Twice Before Applying to Washington & Lee University

From Hans A. von Spakovsky at PJ Media:

This should terrify any parent whose son is about to head off to college or is presently matriculating anywhere in the Ivory Towers of academia.

The fundamental lack of due process and oppressive tactics used by university administrators at Washington & Lee University (W&L) should lead any family to keep their sons from applying to the university. Male students at Washington & Lee risk serious consequences if they engage in an entirely consensual sexual relationship with a female student who later is convinced to “regret” what she did, or who becomes jealous if the male student starts a relationship with someone else. That is exactly what happened in this case.
...........................

The facts show that what occurred was not only entirely consensual, but that Jane was more than just a willing participant. Jane continued to go to parties at John’s fraternity, where witnesses saw them interacting in an entirely unremarkable, normal manner. That is, until Jane saw John kissing another female “and left the party early, upset.” It became “public knowledge” that John and this other female “were an exclusive couple.”

Jane subsequently spent a summer break “working at a women’s clinic that dealt with sexual assault issues.”
...........................

Jane got upset when she applied for a study abroad program in Nepal and saw that John was also one of the applicants.  She talked to a “therapist” on the “evolution about how she felt about” her sexual encounters with John. Most significantly, she attended a presentation by W&L’s Title IX compliance officer, Lauren Kozak, on her article “Is it Possible That There Is Something In Between Consensual Sex and Rape … And That It Happens To Almost Every Girl Out There?”  Ms. Kozak’s thesis is that “regret equals rape”; that even if a sexual encounter is entirely consensual, if the woman later regrets what she did, the sexual encounter was actual rape. Jane then filed a sexual assault claim against John that was investigated by — you guessed it — Lauren Kozak.
...........................

The Dean of W&L, Tammi Simpson, told John that if he transferred to another school he would not be formally charged, a bizarre tactic to take for someone supposedly concerned about sexual assault. When he refused, John was formally charged and a hearing was held.
...........................

Jane Doe’s testimony was full of inconsistencies. Early in the hearing, she described John as “disrespectful, dishonorable, and having treated her as though she was worthless.” But when asked later in the hearing what kind of connection she had with John, “she said that it was great and [John] was smart, interesting, sweet, and genuinely interested in her.” The tribunal, however, “did not question Jane Doe about these inconsistencies.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence of consensual sex, Jane’s inconsistent and conflicting claims, and the blatant falseness of the claim made against John, he was expelled from W&L by a vote of 3 to 1. No explanation was given for the decision, other than the claim that the preponderance of the evidence showed John did not have effective consent. John’s appeal to the University Board of Appeals lost by a 2 to 1 vote, again without any detailed explanation.
...........................
However, the court refused to dismiss John’s claim under Title IX. In this case, the judge held that John has produced sufficient facts to “cast doubt on the accuracy of the outcome reached in the proceeding against him.” John’s allegations, taken as true, “suggest that W&L’s disciplinary procedures, at least when it comes to charges of sexual misconduct, amount to ‘a practice of railroading accused students.’”

In fact, under the totality of the circumstances shown by John, “including the alleged flaws in the proceedings and statements made by W&L officials, [John] has plausibly established a causal link between his expulsion and gender bias.”  Specifically, a reasonable jury could find that ”[b]ias on the part of Ms. Kozak [caused] the outcome of John Doe’s disciplinary hearing due to the considerable influence she appears to have wielded in those proceedings.” Further, given the pressure W&L was under from the government to convict male students of sexual assault, “a reasonable fact finder could plausibly determine that [John] was wrongly found responsible for sexual misconduct and that this erroneous finding was motivated by gender bias.”

This case is not over even though it should be. The court’s refusal to grant W&L’s motion to dismiss the case means it will go to trial — unless W&L’s lawyers are smart enough to convince the university to pay John a very large settlement.  Because given the facts as related in Judge Moon’s order, John Doe has a very good chance of beating W&L at trial. It appears highly likely that a jury will determine that W&L administrators conducted a one-sided, discriminatory, and unjust hearing of the allegations lodged against John Doe.

The more I read about this case, one, I'm not surprised about the railroading process, but I am just sickened about what the people who run Universities are teaching our youth.

I would take his warning one step further. Go to a public university. The Judge dismissed two claims, "violation of his right to due process because the Fifth Amendment applies to a private university like W&L only under very limited circumstances. It also dismissed his state law contract claim because the university code did not constitute a contract in Virginia law." That way,, these two claim will not be dismissed.

Remember, punch back twice as hard.