CCP Seeks To ‘Replace’ US With ‘Tech-Powered Dystopia’: Select Committee Testimony

CCP Seeks To ‘Replace’ US With ‘Tech-Powered Dystopia’: Select Committee Testimony

Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

China’s communist regime is engaged in a concerted effort to undermine and replace the United States by weaponizing Americans against one another, according to testimony received by a new congressional committee focused on competition with the regime.

Chairman Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) speaks during the first hearing on national security and Chinese threats to America held by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party on Capitol Hill in Washington on Feb. 28, 2023. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images)

The House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) held its first hearing on Feb. 28, titled simply “The Chinese Communist Party’s Threat to America.”

Committee Chair Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) described the competition between the United States and CCP as an “existential struggle,” and said that the CCP, which rules China as a single-party state, was pitting “America against America,” hoping to topple the United States from within.

Ranking member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) agreed with the assessment, saying that the regime sought to exploit the political divisions endemic to democratic societies against the United States.

The CCP wants us to be fractious, partisan, and prejudiced,” Krishnamoorthi said.

“We must rise to the occasion and prove them wrong.”

To that end, however, Gallagher noted that many powerful and monied interests within the United States had made their fortunes outsourcing American jobs to China, and were pushing back on U.S. efforts to secure itself against the regime.

“The CCP has found friends on Wall Street, in Fortune 500 C-suites, and on K Street who are ready and willing to oppose efforts to push back,” Gallagher said.

“This strategy has worked well in the past, and the CCP is confident it will work again. Our task on this committee is to ensure that it does not.”

‘Tech-Powered Dystopia’

Former National Security adviser H.R. McMaster testified on the issue, saying that the United States had “fallen behind” in the strategic competition with the CCP and that continued investments into China by American corporations were “underwriting our own demise.”

McMaster said that the “false promises of liberalization” had led to a corporate and political class within America that had largely expected continued investment in China to transform it into a more modern and democratic society.

Instead, he said, the regime had doubled down on its Marxist ideology and was now exporting destructive ideologies to erode support for the West.

To that end, McMaster said that a “curriculum of self loathing,” which asserts the United States is the reason for the world’s problems, had taken hold of much of the popular and academic culture in the West, and prevented the nation from adequately defending itself against continued espionage, theft, and repression by the CCP.

Likewise, Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) said that corporate America was “scared and worried” about the possibility of angering CCP authorities, and that the regime was exploiting that fear to undermine the United States on the world stage.

China has a plan to replace the United States,” LaHood said.

As such, Gallagher said that the Select Committee would help to coordinate legislative efforts from across congressional committees, and focus on tackling the CCP’s ideological, technological, economic, and military efforts against the United States and its allies and partners.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 21:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/gh76jiX Tyler Durden

Suspected Poison Gas Attacks On Iranian Girls’ Schools Have Made Hundreds Sick

Suspected Poison Gas Attacks On Iranian Girls’ Schools Have Made Hundreds Sick

A mysterious spate of mass illnesses across various parts of Iran only impacting groups of girls is beginning to cause panic and alarm, ironically also at a moment of continuing anti-government protests focusing on women taking off the veil. 

Girls in up to 15 cities have been affected, Iranian authorities have said, in what are suspected to be mass poisonings. There’s currently speculation that an unknown entity, possibly hardline Islamists, may be throwing some type of poisonous gas mixture into schools and school yards, causing dozens of girls at a time to fall ill. The bizarre incidents began being reported back in November.

Illustrative file image via Time

Al Jazeera reports based on the latest statements from Iranian lawmakers that “Similar poisonings have since happened in several other schools in Qom, Tehran, the city of Borujerd in the western province of Lorestan and the northwestern city of Ardebi.” And further, “Scores of schoolgirls have been affected in each incident, and some have had to be hospitalized.”

However, there have been no confirmed deaths in the incidents where the impacted students reported smelling unusual odors such as “rotten tangerines” or strong chemical smells, or even scents akin to perfumes. There have been rumors of a death resulting from the alleged poison attacks, but this was denied by local authorities. 

School girls have reported feeling headaches and nausea, and there have been some reports of individuals experiencing temporary paralysis of their limbs.

There’s growing suspicion that these could be attacks by hardline Islamists who condemn the idea of women receiving education, akin to neighboring Afghanistan’s recent banning of all girls’ schooling under Taliban rule. A top Iranian officials has suggested this is the case

But a deputy health minister, Younes Panahi, earlier this week became the first official to confirm that the poisonings have been deliberate. He told state-linked media that “some people” wish to stop girls from going to school. He did not elaborate.

Panahi said the poisonings have been caused by commercially available chemicals and cannot be transmitted because no viruses or bacteria are involved.

In some instances entire classrooms of students and teachers reported smelling odors before mass sicknesses…

As the poison attacks have in the past days been subject of growing international media attention, Washington has weighed in, with US National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby calling the situation “deeply concerning” on Thursday. Investigations at multiple locations are still ongoing.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 20:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Hwk4oiT Tyler Durden

Would The Founders Approve Of Our Class Divisions?

Would The Founders Approve Of Our Class Divisions?

Authored by Adam Carrington via RealClear Wire,

We live in politically divided times. How we describe the sources of our divisions, though, varies. Some focus on principles such as equality, justice, liberty, and order. Some take up policy disputes related to those principles while others look to economic class, race, or even geography.

Does using these lenses to view our divisions violate our founding principles? Since humans will disagree about justice, especially its application, one can defend principled lines. Indeed, our Founders created mechanisms of elections and deliberative bodies to adjudicate those differences. Moreover, one can rightly conclude that race presents a troubling source of division in light of our commitment to human equality.

But what about economic or social class?

The issue of class holds particular salience today, because its relationship to our broader partisan divides has changed drastically over the past several decades. In a recent New York Times piece, Nate Cohn describes our partisanship in terms of education, a demarcation of social class that has largely replaced distinctions by economic class and even shows signs of mitigating racial voting disparities.

In his explanation, Cohn shows how the growth of voters with college degrees has changed the political landscape. That block has increased dramatically over the last 60 years, rising to 41% of the voting population in the 2022 midterm elections. As that group has gained influence in the Democratic Party, those without college degrees have moved toward the GOP. Accelerating in 2016, working class voters now vote for Republicans at levels unimaginable decades ago.

The difference in education marks a division in principles and resulting policy preferences. College-educated voters tend to hold more progressive views, especially on cultural matters like sexuality, abortion, and, to the degree it is cultural, immigration. Those without a college degree lean more conservatively on such matters. These divisions have replaced partisan lines more delineated by economic factors of rich, poor, and middle class and are lessening the voting gaps according to race. Turning from their existence to their legitimacy, one might argue that both instances of class divides contradict our commitment to equality – constituting various flavors of “identity politics” where we vote according to who a person “is” rather than what they believe or how they act.

The Founders were keenly aware of class divisions. In Federalist 10, James Madison noted that “the diversity in the faculties of men” resulted in “the possession of different degrees and kinds of property.” He continued that “from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

We certainly do form partisan coalitions along class lines. The differences in “degrees” of property explain the divide in economic class. The distinction in “kinds of property” also reveal our educational alignment. A college degree is a discrete kind of property that privileges (or discourages) acquiring other intellectual or material possessions.

Yet in Federalist 10, Madison argues these divisions won’t go away. They won’t go away because human beings can’t help thinking (at least in part) along these lines. They also won’t go away because of the commitment to the principle that government exists in large part to protect property rights – including their unequal and varied distributions.

This illuminates an essential principle that oversees our class divisions, neither seeking to destroy them nor merely placating them. In Federalist 51, Madison wrote, “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” We must order our class divisions, whether economic or social, in the pursuit of justice.

Class divides, including ones in education, can inform justice. In the “Essex Result” (1778), future federal judge Theophilus Parsons argued persons from different classes tended to make distinct, helpful contributions to the pursuit of justice. He saw that the few wealthy and educated people were better suited to contribute “wisdom, firmness, consistency, and perseverance.” The many, he noted, is where “we shall find the greatest share of political honesty, probity, and a regard to the interest of the whole.” You need both sets of virtues to pursue justice well. Thus you need both sets of perspectives to participate in politics. While operating according to majority rule, our system seeks to integrate these different elements into wise and moral policymaking – a kind of checking and balancing of interests toward the common good.

At the same time, class divisions can threaten justice. Federalist 10 warned of “factions,” a group of persons driven by impulsive passions who sought to violate individual rights and the common good. Madison pegs the permanence of our class divisions as one reason we cannot completely rid ourselves of factions and their nefarious goals. Different classes will ever be tempted to say their class should alone rule and their interests as the only just ones, thereby laying the path to violating the rights of others. We can see elements of these perspectives at work in our contemporary politics, wherein the college educated look down on the morals and intellect of “the rest” while “the rest” question the wisdom and values of the college-educated.

Thus our assessment of class divides, whether the older economic ones or the newer educational ones, cannot be a simple endorsement or condemnation. Instead we must return to the wisdom of the Founders. These ever-present divides must be channeled toward good and steered away from bad. We must seek justice, affirming human equality and liberty even as we recognize distinctions among us. While the Founders would tell us we have no other choice, they also would tell us not to despair. Our divisions may be a source of a better unity.

Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 20:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZmuTLh4 Tyler Durden

Declaratory judgments and injunctions are party-specific

Justice Rehnquist in 1975:

Moreover, neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs, and the State is free to prosecute others who may violate the statute.

Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975).

The post Declaratory judgments and injunctions are party-specific appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/l3OkHDC
via IFTTT

Blinken & Lavrov Meet For First Time Since Ukraine War At G20

Blinken & Lavrov Meet For First Time Since Ukraine War At G20

After last month President Putin declared Russia has suspended participation in the New START nuclear arms control treaty, and at a moment the Kremlin is accusing Washington of aiding cross-border sabotage and drone attacks on its soil, proof has emerged that the two superpower rivals are still talking at the highest levels

“Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke briefly with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Thursday during the Group of 20 (G-20) conference about the war in Ukraine and the New START nuclear treaty,” The Associated Press reports Thursday.

The two top diplomats spoke for about 10 minutes on the sidelines of the summit, which is the first such in-person meeting since the war’s start, coming shortly after the Ukraine war has entered its second year. Additionally the G20 reportedly ended without finding consensus on Ukraine, with India’s foreign minister citing “divergences” among countries represented. 

Getty Images

Blinken referenced the talk with Lavrov at a press conference afterward, a summary of which said:

At a news conference, Blinken said he told Lavrov that the U.S. would continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes and would push for the war to end through diplomatic terms that Kyiv agrees to.

“End this war of aggression, engage in meaningful diplomacy that can produce a just and durable peace,” Blinken said he had told Lavrov. But, he noted that “President Putin, has demonstrated zero interest in engaging, saying there is nothing to even talk about until Ukraine accepts the new territorial reality.”

Blinken said he also urged Russia to reverse “its irresponsible decision and return to” participation in the New START nuclear treaty.

“Mutual compliance is in the interest of both our countries,” Blinken said he told Lavrov, adding that the United States was always willing to discuss arms control with Russia no matter what irritants there are in the bilateral relationship.

Also very notable is that Blinken indicated he put forward a “serious proposal” for the release of detained ex-Marine and US citizen Paul Whelan. He stressed that “Russia should take it.”

Lavrov didn’t specifically respond to Blinken’s description of the meeting, and it’s unclear how he presented the Russian position. But a statement by Lavrov did emphasize that G20 was a failure in terms of addressing the Ukraine crisis

“Unfortunately, the declaration on behalf of all G20 ministers could not be approved. Our Western colleagues, just as they did a year ago under the Indonesian presidency, tried by all means, by hook or by crook, using various rhetorical statements, to bring to the fore the situation around Ukraine, which they, of course, present under the sauce of the so-called Russian aggression,” he said.

“Nothing good has come of this. The discussion, at least in some of the speeches by Western delegations, especially the G7 countries, has boiled down to emotional statements. And all of this, of course, was done at the expense of a normal discussion of the problems that really stand on the G20 agenda.”

As for India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the meeting in New Delhi on Thursday, saying “The experience of the last few years – financial crisis, climate change, pandemic, terrorism and wars – clearly shows that global governance has failed.” He added: “We should not allow issues that we cannot resolve together to come in the way of those we can.”

Thus Modi seemed to agree with Russia’s negative assessment concluding that G20 leaders fell far short of producing any meaningful resolutions on Ukraine. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 20:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/B2Qq7ak Tyler Durden

Childhood Obesity: What You’re Not Hearing In The News

Childhood Obesity: What You’re Not Hearing In The News

Authored by Sally Fallon Morell via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

New guidelines on treating childhood obesity from the American Academy of Pediatrics call for early and aggressive treatment—including weight loss drugs for children as young as 6 and bariatric surgery for youths as young as 13—instead of what they call “watchful waiting or unnecessary delay of appropriate treatment of children.”

(Nami Uchida/Shutterstock)

The guidelines immediately stirred controversy, with critics on the left concerned about unequal access to treatment and conservative commentators suggesting that the guidelines offer an easy out for poor lifestyle choices. Critics from across the spectrum have noted the potential long-term consequences of putting children on drugs and performing irreversible surgery on teenagers.

Lifestyle choices” typically mean more exercise—along with less processed food and more fruits and vegetables in the diet—but no one in the mainstream is suggesting that the solution is to allow children to eat more natural saturated fat.

Years ago, my co-author and colleague Mary Enig, who held a doctorate in nutritional sciences, had an interesting conversation with an official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency had researched the best way to fatten pigs—research that was never published. When they fed pigs whole milk or coconut oil, the pigs stayed lean—they found that the best way to fatten pigs was to feed them skim milk.

The Department’s dietary guidelines stipulate reduced fat milk for all Americans above the age of 2. Could this policy—initiated in the 1990s—explain the increase in obesity among American children? A couple of studies indicate that this could be the case.

The first, published in 2006 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, looked at diet and metabolic markers in 4-year-old children in Sweden. “High body mass index was associated with a low percentage of energy from fat,” and greater weight was related to greater insulin resistance, especially in girls. In other words, children on low-fat diets tended to be overweight and had markers that presage diabetes later in life.

The second study, published in 2013 in the Archives of Diseases of Children, looked specifically at children consuming reduced-fat milk, comparing the body mass index of those drinking 1 percent skim milk and 2 percent “whole milk” drinkers. (I put “whole milk” in quotation marks because commercial whole milk contains 3.5 percent fat, and whole milk obtained from the farm can contain up to 5 percent fat.)

Across all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic status subgroups, those drinking 1 percent skim milk “had an increased adjusted odds of being overweight … or obese … In longitudinal analysis, children drinking 1 percent skim milk at both 2 and 4 years were more likely to become overweight/obese between these time points …” In other words—children on skim milk are more likely to become fat—just like pigs do!

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 19:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Kp6l7W8 Tyler Durden

Argentina’s Power Restored After Blackout Plunged Half Of Country Into Darkness

Argentina’s Power Restored After Blackout Plunged Half Of Country Into Darkness

The national grid in Argentina has regained power after a fire caused damage to a high-voltage power line that sparked blackouts for half the country, according to BBC.

More than 20 million individuals experienced a power outage on Wednesday afternoon when transmission lines were damaged by a fire in fields west of the capital, Buenos Aires. This incident also resulted in the state-run nuclear facility Atucha I and Embalse being shut down.

“Local TV station Todo Noticias reported that the grid was unable to meet 40% of electricity demand,” Bloomberg said. The graphic below shows the moment power generation plunged. 

In Buenos Aires, blackouts were reported across many districts. Entire neighborhoods went dark, traffic lights malfunctioned, subway station service halted, and mass confusion was widespread. 

Alejandra Rodriguez, a waitress in the capital, told AFP news her restaurant switched on a generator. She said the worst thing about the blackout was the uncertainty about when the power would be flipped back on. 

“We cannot work, we cannot clean ourselves, our bathrooms have run out of water, we cannot attend to people,” Rodriguez said. 

Rolling blackouts in Buenos Aires are not uncommon. Several years ago, a massive electrical failure left millions in the dark for days. An unannounced blackout is startling and usually causes mass confusion citywide. 

In addition, Argentina has been suffering dangerous heat waves. Temperatures in Buenos Aires topped 37C (99F) yesterday during the blackout. 

After years of insufficient power grid investment, this incident is not unexpected in the third-world country. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 18:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/6cC0zkD Tyler Durden

Journal of Free Speech Law: “Cancel Culture on Campus: A Critical Analysis,” by Prof. Thomas Kelly (Princeton)

Just published as part of the “Non-Governmental Restrictions on Free Speech” symposium; here’s the Introduction (the article is here):

To what extent are free speech and open discussion being stifled on college campuses?

This question inspires sharp disagreement. Where some see a serious problem, others deny that there is any genuine reason for concern. Notably, for example, my fellow panelist Professor Mary Anne Franks has criticized what she calls “the myth of the censorious campus” while decrying the “false narrative” of political intolerance on college campuses. Professor Jeffrey Adam Sachs similarly writes of “the myth” of a campus free speech crisis, which he associates with a kind of “moral panic” due to conservative “hysteria.” In a piece entitled “Free Speech on Campus Is Doing Just Fine, Thank You,” Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, a noted scholar of free speech and the First Amendment, dismisses concerns about the current situation for free speech and open discussion as being due to

a handful of sensationalist incidents on campus—incidents sometimes manufactured for their propaganda value. They shed no light on the current reality of university culture.

Many similar expressions of this general theme can be found; skepticism that there is a genuine problem is well-represented both inside and outside academia. Indeed, skeptics often claim not only that there is nothing to worry about, but that worrying is itself pernicious, inasmuch as doing so plays into the hands of reactionary political interests.

Notwithstanding the frequent reassurances that there is nothing to worry about when it comes to free speech on campus, and even the warnings that worrying about such things is actually harmful, I confess to being among those who worry. Much of my concern relates to the phenomenon that is now widely known as cancel culture. The definition of “cancel culture” is contested. For this reason, and in order to zero in on the phenomenon that I want to explore, in the next section I offer a number of cases that I believe would qualify as examples of cancel culture under any reasonable understanding of that notion. The cases that I offer are not hypothetical ones but actual cases involving current Princeton undergraduates. Although they of course differ from one another and from other examples of cancel culture in their idiosyncratic details, I believe that in important respects they are broadly representative of the phenomenon as it exists on contemporary college campuses.

Having zeroed in on the target phenomenon, I will offer an analysis of what I take to be some of its most important features. I will be particularly concerned with understanding cancel culture as a rational phenomenon: on the account that I offer in Part II, students who actively participate in cancel culture, or who attempt to cancel their fellow students, are often acting with impeccable rationality given their aims and preferences, even if their behavior is objectionable in other ways. In Part III, I turn to the most common considerations offered by the skeptics and argue that they are unconvincing. In the Conclusion, I note a number of factors that might lead us to systematically underestimate the severity of the problem.

The post Journal of Free Speech Law: "Cancel Culture on Campus: A Critical Analysis," by Prof. Thomas Kelly (Princeton) appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Bf6onyX
via IFTTT

Journal of Free Speech Law: “The Lost Cause of Free Speech,” by Prof. Mary Anne Franks (Miami)

Just published as part of the “Non-Governmental Restrictions on Free Speech” symposium; here’s the start of the Introduction (the article is here):

Contemporary free speech law and policy in the United States teems with contradictions that cannot be explained by any principled doctrine. The key to understanding the current legal and cultural landscape of free speech is not some enduring constitutional value or method of interpretation, but rather the ascendance of a very specific political ideology that is best described as neo-Confederate. Neo-Confederate ideology is a constellation of values that includes investment in racial hierarchy, attachment to traditional gender roles and gender conformity, idealization of the pre-Civil War South, belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation, and hostility to democracy. The neo-Confederate agenda renders coherent what otherwise appear to be chaotic free speech positions: the condemnation of “cancel culture” by promoters of censorship; the conflation of speech reactions with speech restrictions; the equation of the right to speak with the right to an audience; alternating invocations and dismissals of the state action doctrine. While these positions are malleable enough to occasionally serve progressive interests, they are most consistently and powerfully deployed to protect the interests of white male supremacy.

The neo-Confederate agenda is, as its name suggests, a partisan project. Though not all Republicans are neo-Confederates, virtually all neo-Confederates are Republican. While the attachment to Lost Cause mythology may be strongest in the South, its core tendencies—whitewashing the role of slavery in American history; selectively championing states’ rights; and promoting racial, gender, and religious supremacy—have spilled over geographic borders.

The conservative reactionaries waging war against racial, gender, and religious equality have increasingly zeroed in on educational institutions as targets, often in the guise of fighting “critical race theory.” In the first six weeks of 2022 alone, 103 bills were introduced in state legislatures across the nation that were aimed at restricting speech in schools and universities. These bills range from censoring what can be said about the role of racism and misogyny in shaping American institutions to forbidding “inappropriate” discussions of sexual orientation or gender identity. These provisions are vaguely and broadly worded in order to create maximum confusion and uncertainty about what speech is permitted. Many of these bills allow parents or other parties not only to demand removal of but also to sue over educational material they find personally objectionable, creating financial and social incentives for censorship. Republican officials and organizations have also issued executive orders, statements, book bans, and administrative guidelines attacking discussions of social justice and diversity. This anti-education movement vilifies teachers, administrators, librarians, and school-board members as “indoctrinators,” “groomers,” and “pedophiles,” leading to harassment, doxing, threats, physical assaults, and firings….

The post Journal of Free Speech Law: "The Lost Cause of Free Speech," by Prof. Mary Anne Franks (Miami) appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/9FrjNvg
via IFTTT

Gun Carry Licenses, Self-Defense, and Sealing

From Montaquila v. Neronha, decided today by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Melissa Long:

On October 28, 2020, Providence police officers arrested Mr. Montaquila for misdemeanor simple assault after an incident involving his firearm at his place of business…. Eventually the government dismissed the charge against him.

On or after November 2, 2020, Mr. Montaquila applied to renew license No. 9012031, his concealed-carry license which was scheduled to expire on December 30, 2020. The application form questioned whether the applicant had “ever been arrested or charged for any offense[.]” Mr. Montaquila marked both the “yes” and “no” boxes and wrote “see letter attached.”

In the undated letter attached to his application, Mr. Montaquila explained the incident as follows:

“[A] gentleman came into my business, which is a gas station and auto detailing facility[,] and became immediately combative and aggressive toward my staff because they would not perform certain work for free. He was clearly under the influence of drugs at the time. He began to throw items off the desk and act very threatening in my store.

“I came out of my office at my employees’ request to mediate the situation. I told the gentleman he would have to leave the premises, and at that time he got very close to my face and shoved me away. At that point, I put my arms around his shoulders and walked him out the door. At no point did I strike, hit, or assault this person.

“The man then called the Providence Police, falsely reported that I assaulted him without reason, and I was arrested.”

In closing his letter, he stated that the government had already dismissed the charge and that his record was set to be sealed on January 6, 2021.

Mr. Montaquila authorized the Attorney General to investigate his background and to disclose and review “all records and any other information concerning [Mr. Montaquila] whether such records and other information are public, private, privileged, or confidential.” The police report describing the October 28, 2020 incident (incident report) included information that Mr. Montaquila did not disclose in the undated letter attached to his application.

Specifically, the incident report stated that the man who called the police told them that after Mr. Montaquila pulled him out of the store, Mr. Montaquila pulled a black gun from his waistband and pointed it at the man’s head. When the police arrived at the scene, they found Mr. Montaquila’s loaded black gun tucked into his waistband. The incident report also noted that Mr. Montaquila stated that he brandished his firearm because he feared the other man was attempting to retrieve a weapon from his car. Finally, the incident report stated that the allegation that Mr. Montaquila pointed the gun at the other man was “still under investigation.”

On December 7, 2020, the case against Mr. Montaquila was dismissed pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Attorney General subsequently notified Mr. Montaquila that it required additional information, including motions or orders of expungement. Additionally, on December 26, 2020, the Attorney General asked then-Providence Police Chief Hugh Clements if he knew of any reason why Mr. Montaquila’s application should be denied.

On January 6, 2021, the District Court granted Mr. Montaquila’s motion to seal his record, and Mr. Montaquila sent the order to the Attorney General. Thereafter, on January 25, 2021, Chief Clements indicated that he knew of no reason why the Attorney General should deny the application.

By letter dated March 4, 2021, the Attorney General denied Mr. Montaquila’s application. The letter stated:

“It has been decided by this Office, in its broad discretion to issue a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, to deny your application [d]ue to the last incident report CCR# 2020-89706 and arrest. In the police report you stated that you pulled you[r] firearm from your back area and brandished it. Your letter explaining the incident does not include the brandishing of your firearm.” …

The clear, unambiguous language of [the sealing statute] plainly does not mandate the destruction of all records …. Nevertheless, we must assess whether the incident report and stated rationale suffice as adequate to support the denial….

The Attorney General argues that it did not rely on the sealed incident report, and states that in any case, the record reflects that Mr. Montaquila acknowledged the circumstances surrounding his arrest, as well as the propriety of the revocation of his prior license immediately following his arrest. The Attorney General further argues that it had broad discretion to consider these facts and how they bear upon whether Mr. Montaquila demonstrated that he had not, and would not, use his firearm for any unlawful or improper purpose; or whether Mr. Montaquila engaged in unlawful, dangerous, or violent conduct that justified denying his application.

We are unpersuaded by the arguments of the Attorney General regarding the denial letter and the inferences drawn from the evidence in the record. First, the denial letter, dated more than sixty days after the dismissal of the assault charge, clearly relies on the incident report. Specifically, it notes that the incident report included facts that Mr. Montaquila did not divulge in his license application and bases the denial on Mr. Montaquila’s failure to state that he brandished the firearm. However, the omission of the word “brandished” in describing the incident is not legally competent evidence to support the denial.

Additionally, our examination of the record reveals no evidence to support the denial of Mr. Montaquila’s license application. Nothing contained in the record demonstrates any investigation of Mr. Montaquila’s fitness to carry beyond contacting Chief Clements on December 26, 2020. Having received the District Court order that reflects dismissal of the assault charge pursuant to Rule 48(a), as well as the January 25, 2021 notification from Chief Clements that he was not aware of any basis for denying the application, nothing before the Attorney General suggested that Mr. Montaquila acted in anything other than self-defense during the incident. Without any other evidence or rationale justifying the denial, Mr. Montaquila’s omission is, at best, mere scintilla. We therefore conclude that there is no legally competent evidence to support the Attorney General’s decision….

This case is remanded to the Attorney General with direction to renew the petitioner’s concealed-carry permit.

Justice William Robinson dissented:

The fact that Mr. Montaquila’s letter omitted an important and material fact relative to what occurred on October 28, 2020 is troubling in its own right. But the fact that the incident report indicated that Mr. Montaquila had “brandished” his firearm during the incident constituted, in my judgment, more than enough of a reasonable basis upon which the Attorney General could make his discretionary decision not to approve Mr. Montaquila’s application. That decision was based on legally competent evidence, and the quantum of that evidence was far more than a scintilla.

The granting of the motion to seal resulted in the documents referenced in said motion being sealed. However, the facts recounted in those documents (of which the Attorney General was aware prior to the granting of the motion to seal) were not somehow nullified—nor could they be. The sealing statute brings about the sealing of records; it does not mandate the erasure from consciousness of factual knowledge concerning events that took place and were known prior to the issuance of the sealing order….

For these reasons, I heartily disagree with the majority’s conclusion that “there is no legally competent evidence to support the Attorney General’s decision.” …

Congratulations to Frank Saccoccio, who represents plaintiff.

The post Gun Carry Licenses, Self-Defense, and Sealing appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/9k0Vf3P
via IFTTT