Friday, December 28, 2012

Why Armed Security Inside Schools Will Work, And Why Detractors Are Apoplectic

"Why armed security inside schools will actually work, and why are detractors so apoplectic?" 
Why do anti gun rights groups continue to misrepresent what happened with Columbine and Virginia Tech "Security Guards?"  

Rather than even consider armed security being put to use in schools immediately to try to stop another mass killing that could happen as this is read, excuses as to why not to do it are flying off the shelf faster than liberal's campaign promises. Anti gun rights forces are happier with the status quo of no armed resource officers on campus, and for students and staff waiting for police to arrive after a 911 call only to drive to the scene and find everything is over and the gunman has killed himself. 

The excuses of why armed security will not work in schools are astonishing.  They are factually challenged and pathetic too. One is “We can’t pay for it.” That’s a real corker from those who use taxes and fees to pay for every social program ever known to man. That’s the same group who enforced payment for Obama phones and universal internet availability through additional tariffs (taxes) found on everyone’s monthly phone bill. The same taxes that funded a grant to study why people cheated at tennis. And,  the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration was given $2 million to research a prototype police patrol car that was never completed. The car was loaded with gadgets and would have cost $49,078 each. Its estimated that there are between 500,000 and a million police cars in the USA. The cost of security is estimated at about $69,000 per year for each of the 100,000 public schools in the USA. 

High on the list is, “Armed guards at schools do not work.” The naysayers quickly point out the failure of the armed deputy at Columbine and the failure of the campus police at Virginia Tech.

However, one of the big anti firearms rights organizations against armed security in schools is consistently using misinformation, omissions of facts, and the usual half truths in its internet assault on armed guards at schools. They will remain nameless here. The group says it has been tried and it didn’t work at Columbine and Virginia Tech. And, gullible readers with the same agenda accept the twisted story obediently as absolute fact. The reason security failed at those places is simple. Armed security was not present at the scene and/or inside the schools when the carnage broke out.

The fabricated internet piece concerning Columbine unravels when their account is examined and compared with facts from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s department.  The first false recurring Columbine claim accepted by the anti firearms rights advocates at the site was that there were TWO armed law enforcement “agents”  present at Columbine during the shootings. In reality, according to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, there was ONE armed deputy assigned to the school and one unarmed school security officer who was a school district employee. However, the anti gun rights group portrayed events to appear that two armed guards were present and inside the building or on the grounds as the slaughter began. That is false.

On the morning of the killings, the unarmed security guard was inside the building and the armed Deputy was sitting in his car and eating his lunch at the “Smoker’s pit”, an off campus area where high schoolers congregated to smoke. Smoking was about the biggest on campus issue at that time.

He received a call from the custodian to come back to the school. He was not even in the building when the havoc started with an exploding propane tank.

By the time he drove back and arrived in a school parking lot, he saw Harris, a killer, take 10 shots from outside the school at his car before his gun jammed. He ran back inside.  The deputy returned 4 shots from 60 yards away. It is likely that he returned fire with his service handgun. He could not get closer to the school. Let alone, get back into the building. He was pinned down from a window above.

They also say claim security didn’t work because the Columbine security was “outgunned.” They fail to mention that this happened in the days before it was commonplace for an AR15 was carried in nearly every patrol car. Some police still carried grandfathered Colt 1911.45 pistols. An intimidating sidearm still. However, according to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department report, 141 shots were fired by law enforcement officers compared to 188 fired by the murderers. These include the fatal bullets that killed and wounded students. They didn’t fail because they were outgunned. They failed because they were outside.

A third fabrication was that “They” engaged the killers twice. In fact, the only shots in the initial confrontation were the four fired by the lone deputy in the parking lot at Harris. And, the “assault rifle” being fired by the student malfunctioned when it jammed.  Again, the only people inside the school building were the two armed killers. By the time the deputy assigned to the school drove back in his patrol car and arrived at the school, it was the typical police response in any emergency call. There in minutes when seconds count.

The other shootings always being brought up now are the killings at Virginia Tech. Sure, the College had its own police force. And, they responded as police always do…late.

The first murders were at a dorm at 7:15 am. The police got there at 7:30 am. The killer went back to his dorm room for a couple of hours. Then between 9:00 am and 9:15 am, he went to Norris Hall and chained the doors shut.

At 9:42, a 911 call went out alerting that shots were fired at Norris Hall. Police arrived three minutes later at 9:45 am and found the doors locked. Between 9:40 and 9:51, the killer had shot 53 people, killing 33. Police took 5 minutes to assemble the proper team, clear the area and then break through the doors. They heard shots as they entered the building. At 9:51 am they reached the second floor, found the carnage and found the killer who had killed himself. Nine minutes elapsed before the police reached the actual crime scene. Again, response in minutes when seconds count.

In both instances that anti gun rights groups primarily use to prove that armed security at schools do not work, there were no armed security personnel present inside the buildings. They responded from the outside of the buildings.

An El Cajon police officer stopped a man after he blasted the door of a school with a shotgun. Before the man could begin shooting with a handgun, an El Cajon police officer posted daily inside the school and prepared for any armed confrontation shot the man and stopped him. Much to the chagrin of anti firearms activists, that officer has said that trained security armed needed for schools. 

Another County is taking the lead in armed school security is Okaloosa County Florida, where the Sheriff is placing an armed Deputy inside every elementary school in the county. Armed “Resource Officers” have been in the middle and high schools there since 2007. No parents with children in the county schools appear to be complaining about elementary school students getting armed protection. The only people who are complaining are those who are posting on the internet who don’t even know the history of armed security in that county.

The Sheriff’s Department’s Resource Officer is a trained law enforcement officer. Each is an armed presence for their school campus. They are prepared and trained to protect students, teachers, and administrators from intruder. And, they are constantly on the alert. They also provide security for school events.

Armed, on site security will work as evidenced by just a few examples below. Examples that Anti gun rights proponents ignore because they don't comport with their agenda. 

An off duty policeman who was shopping at Trolley Square Mall in San Antonio fired at a man who had just shot several  shoppers. He ran to the noise when he realized it was shots fired. He fired at the gunman and cornered him until other officers arrived. 

An off duty Sheriff’s Deputy who was working security at a San Antonio theatre heard gunfire at a restaurant at the mall where the theatre was and then in the theatre area itself. She ran toward the shots and found a gunman coming out of a bathroom. She shot him four times

An armed security guard in Melbourne, Florida killed one armed robber at an internet café there and ran off his two accomplices by firing at them.

And, an armed off duty deputy doing security in a church's. parking lot shot and killed a lunatic who had killed two and wounded three at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, 

Armed security even works when alert would be victims have to retrieve a handgun from their car as seen below. 

A vice Principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi chased down a 17 year old who had just killed several students and wounded others , and held him with his handgun to await arriving police. As the man held him on the ground, the thug said “You know me, I gave you a discount on pizza delivery last week.” The young killer had murdered his mother several hours earlier.

Two students at Appalachian Law School subdued a rampaging student with their handguns. He had just killed three there and wounded several others.  They held the criminal at gunpoint until police arrived and stopped further carnage.


New Illinois Concealed Carry Ruling May Face Big Obstacles

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Carrying a gun does not provide ANY realistic possibility of self defense

Denying that law abiding citizens have a right to carry a sidearm to defend themselves, an anti gun rights organization has published what has to be the most disingenuous post ever to appear on an anti gun website. The group said last week that, “Carrying a gun does not provide ANY realistic possibility of self defense—the element of surprise ALWAYS defeats the gun carrier.” They call that “Gun fact #1.”
The author of the opinion further states that, an armed criminal will not approach you and challenge you to "Draw." They say that the thug will have the "Drop" on you  before you know they are there.  They claim that you will make no moves with a concealed weapon to defend yourself as they rob you of your money and take your gun.   
No, they don't say, “Draw.” It's generally, “Give me your money, your car, your wallet, or if it’s a business, Give me what’s in the till.” There is no question what the assailant will do with his gun. The only question is what you will do with yours. However, that is a very personal decision made based on the facts of the situation at hand.

There are numerous daily situations across the USA where an armed would be “victim” draws his sidearm and scares off, wounds, or kills his or her assailant, thereby protecting himself, or others, or both.

But, this fringe group would deny you your self defense rights if your life is in imminent danger.

If that writer did just some research before spouting off, and even perhaps Googled a term such as “Armed citizen shoots robber,” he would have found such headlines as these among 1,490,000 results with just that one search term on the first page:

“Armed Citizen shoots two hapless robbers
Jewelry vendor shoots robbers
Senior citizen shoots would be robbers at Ocala internet café
Convenience store clerk shoots robber
Armed citizen shoots robber
Waffle house customer shoots and kills armed robber”

Just a few days ago, a concealed handgun instructor in Beaumont, Texas was at a local drugstore when an armed thug stuck a shotgun in his face and demanded his wallet. The quick acting would be victim gave the punk a bullet instead, and dropped him to the floor like the bag of garbage he was, ending his robbery plans.

On August 28, a concealed permit holder customer in Jacksonville, Florida stopped an armed robbery in progress at a Dollar general store. He was alerted by the clerk being robbed at gunpoint by two men. He fired twice, instantly killing the robber who was holding the clerk. The other robber ran out the door.

In crime ridden Flint, Michigan, a recently discharged Marine drew his handgun and shot one of two men in the chest Sunday morning. The two were in the middle of  robbing guests at a party he was attending.
These are just three recent examples of how carrying a gun in public does provide self defense.

It is notable that this organization was begun by someone who lost a son to senseless gun by a man carrying a gun illegally in California.  A  parent outliving a child, especially in this manner is horrific.

However, when an organization such as this one, which will not receive any publicity and remain nameless,  has done in advancing as a fact that  carrying a gun in public “does not provide self defense,” it is time to stand up to that lie. It also brings to question of the gullibility of the intended audience that the writers believe exists in the public in general.


Overwhelming Majority of Americans Agree Constitutional Right to Own a Gun is as Important as Right to Free Speech

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Why Is Obama So Afraid Of The Romney/Ryan Ticket?

Many reasons are obvious. But fundraising is a major factor. We have been receiving Obama fundraising email at an ever increasing volume. Here is the latest example of the desperation of the campaign.

"Today, just 72 hours after joining the GOP ticket, Paul Ryan is making a pilgrimage to the Sands' Venetian casino in Las Vegas to kiss the ring of Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who's already donated more than $35 million to Republican groups in this election.

That's the same Sheldon Adelson who gave $15 million to help Newt Gingrich against Mitt Romney in the primary, and said he may give $100 million -- basically, whatever it costs -- to defeat Barack Obama.

We're starting to get a glimpse of how Romney plans to cash in on his vice presidential pick. Before Ryan's even been fully introduced to the American people, he's attending a private fundraiser in Vegas with the top super PAC donor.

We're doing this differently, with ordinary people chipping in whatever they can afford -- but it's going to take a lot more of us to match them. Will you donate $3 or more today?



Julianna Smoot
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America"

HOWEVER, The Obama campaign's "kissing the rings" of George Soros, George Clooney, and other liberal icons is perfectly acceptable.

Visit our other Blog: 

Brady Announces Push For Moderator To Ask About Guns In First Presidential Debate

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Killing Sprees Still Take Place in Locations With Incredibly Stringent Gun Laws

A fugitive serial killer in mainland China has shot and killed nine people and injured five others as they withdrew money from banks in separate incidents over 8 years. Zhou Kehua was killed by police yesterday as they stopped him for questioning.

Murderers still find a way to kill in mass even when guns aren't available.

Recently, a 17 year old Chinese killed 8 people and wounded 9 others with a knife after he had a fight with his girlfriend. There was a rash of knife killings in 2010 in China when 20 people were stabbed to death and 50 others were wounded.

The Mayor of London is concerned about the "Culture of knives" in England and especially in London.

On another front:
It is interesting that the head of a well known anti gun group has posted on his blog that so called "assault rifles" should be banned. That is the usual anti gun demand. But, He also said in an interview on talk radio this weekend that gun bans "Do not work." This was reiterated by him several times during the hour on the radio. Which is it? Is this a classic case of cognitive dissonance? However, he is usually more radical in his blog than when speaking in public.

He also claimed on his blog that a background check will keep guns out of the hands of Neo Nazi groups and their members. He didn't mention specifics how that would be accomplished. Would he object to the same standard being applied to radical Islam present in the U.S? It would be interesting to see his substantiation for his claims.

Visit our other Blog:

Brady Announces Push For Moderator To Ask About Guns In First Presidential Debate

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Eric Holder's Letter To Obama Asking Him To Conceal Documents Related To fast And Furious

Here is the letter from Eric Holder to President Obama requesting Executive privilege for documents subpoenaed by Rep. Darrell Issa's investigating committee on Fast and Furious. 
See Rep. Issa's scathing letter to Obama that explains why Executive Privilege isn't available for these documents at:

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,
I am writing to request that you assert executive privilege with respect to confidential Department of Justice (“Department”) documents that are responsive to the subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives (“Committee”) on October 25, 2011. The subpoena relates to the Committee’s investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, a law enforcement operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona to stem the illegal flow of firearms from the United States to drug cartels in Mexico (“Fast and Furious”). The Committee has scheduled a meeting for June 20, 2012, to vote on a resolution holding me in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the subpoena.
The Committee’s subpoena broadly sweeps in various groups of documents relating to both the conduct of Operation Fast and Furious and the Department’s response to congressional inquiries about that operation. In recognition of the seriousness ofthe Committee’s concerns about both the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious and the inaccuracies concerning the use of those tactics in the letter that the Department sent to Senator Grassley on February 4, 2011 (“February 4 Letter”), the Department has taken a number of significant steps in response to the Committee’s oversight. First, the Department has instituted various reforms to ensure that it does not repeat these law enforcement and oversight mistakes. Second, at my request the Inspector General is investigating the conduct of Fast and Furious. And third, to the extent consistent with important Executive Branch confidentiality and separation of powers interests affected by the Committee’s investigation into ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions, as well as applicable disclosure laws, the Department has provided a significant amount of information in an extraordinary effort to accommodate the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests, including testimony, transcribed interviews, briefings and other statements by Department officials, and all of the Department’s internal documents concerning the preparation of the February 4 Letter.

The Committee has made clear that its contempt resolution will be limited to internal Department “documents from after February 4, 2011, related to the Department’s response to Congress.” Letter for Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, from Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House ofRepresentatives at 1-2 (June 13, 2012) (“Chairman’s Letter”). I am asking you to assert executive privilege over these
documents. They were not generated in the course of the conduct of Fast and Furious. Instead, they were created after the investigative tactics at issue in that operation had terminated and in the course of the Department’s deliberative process concerning how to respond to congressional and related media inquiries into that operation.
In view of the significant confidentiality and separation of powers concerns raised by the Committee’s demand for internal documents generated in response to the Committee’s investigation, we consider the Department’s accommodations regarding the preparation of the February 4 Letter to have been extraordinary. Despite these accommodations, however, the Committee scheduled a vote on its contempt resolution. At that point, the Department offered an additional accommodation that would fully address the Committee’s remaining questions. The Department offered to provide the Committee with a briefing, based on documents that the Committee could retain, explaining how the Department’s understanding of the facts of Fast and Furious evolved during the post-February 4 period, as well as the process that led to the withdrawal of the February 4 Letter. The Committee, however, has not accepted the Department’s offer and has instead elected to proceed with its contempt vote.
As set forth more fully below, I am very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant, damaging consequences: It would inhibit the candor of such Executive Branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the Executive Branch’s ability to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight. This would raise substantial separation of powers concerns and potentially create an imbalance in the relationship between these two co¬ equal branches of the Government. Consequently, as the head of the Department of Justice,
I respectfully request that you assert executive privilege over the identified documents. This letter sets forth the basis for my legal judgment that you may properly do so.
Executive privilege is “fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,708 (1974). It is “a necessary corollary of the executive function vested in the President by Article II of the Constitution.” Congressional Requests for Confidential Executive Branch Information, 13 Op. O.L.C. 153, 154 (1989) (“Congressional Requests Opinion”) (opinion of Assistant Attorney General William P. Barr); see U.S. Const. art. II,§ 1, cl. 1 (“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”); U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (The President shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”). Indeed, executive privilege “has been asserted by numerous Presidents from the earliest days of our Nation, and it was explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon.” Congressional Requests Opinion, 13 Op. O.L.C. at 154.
The documents at issue fit squarely within the scope of executive privilege. In connection with prior assertions of executive privilege, two Attorneys General have advised the President that documents of this kind are within the scope of executive privilege. See Letter for the President from Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General and Acting Attorney General, Re: Assertion of Executive Privilege Concerning the Dismissal and Replacement of US. Attorneys at
6 (June 27, 2007) (“US. Attorneys Assertion”) (“[C]ommunications between the Department of
Justice and the White House concerning … possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the U.S. Attorney resignations … clearly fall within the scope of executive privilege.”); Assertion of Executive Privilege Regarding White House Counsel’s Office Documents, 20 Op. O.L.C. 2, 3 (1996) (“WHCO Documents Assertion”) (opinion of Attorney General Janet Reno) (concluding that”[e]xecutive privilege applies” to “analytical material or other attorney work-product prepared by the White House Counsel’s Office in response to the ongoing investigation by the Committee”).
It is well established that “[t]he doctrine of executive privilege … encompasses Executive Branch deliberative communications.” Letter for the President from Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Re: Assertion of Executive Privilege over Communications Regarding EPA ‘s Ozone Air Quality Standards and California’s Greenhouse Gas Waiver Request at 2 (June 19, 2008) (“EPA Assertion”); see also, e.g, US Attorneys Assertion at 2; Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect To Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. 1, 1-2 (1999) (“Clemency Assertion”) (opinion of Attorney General Janet Reno). The threat of compelled disclosure of confidential Executive Branch deliberative material can discourage robust and candid deliberations, for “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705. Thus, Presidents have repeatedly asserted executive privilege to protect confidential Executive Branch deliberative materials from congressional subpoena. See, e.g, EPA Assertion at 2-3; Letter for the President from Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Re: Assertion of Executive Privilege Concerning the Special Counsel ‘s Interviews of the Vice President and Senior White House Staff at 2 (July 15, 2008) (“Special Counsel Assertion”); Letter for the President from John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Re: Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect to Prosecutorial Documents at 2 (Dec. 10, 2001) (“Prosecutorial Documents Assertion”);
Clemency Assertion, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 1-4; Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to
a Congressional Subpoena, 5 Op. O.L.C. 27,29-31 (1981) (“1981 Assertion”) (opinion of
Attorney General William French Smith).
Because the documents at issue were generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the Department’s responses to congressional and related media inquiries into Fast and Furious, the need to maintain their confidentiality is heightened. Compelled disclosure of
such material, regardless of whether a given document contains deliberative content, would raise “significant separation of powers concerns,” WHCO Documents Assertion, 20 Op. O.L.C. at 3, by ‘”significantly impair[ing]“‘ the Executive Branch’s ability to respond independently and effectively to matters under congressional review. US. Attorneys Assertion at 6 (“the ability of the Office of the Counsel to the President to assist the President in responding to [congressional and related media] investigations ‘would be significantly impaired’ if a congressional committee could review ‘confidential documents prepared in order to assist the President and his staff in responding to an investigation by the committee seeking the documents”‘) (quoting WHCO Documents Assertion, 20 Op. O.L.C. at 3) (alterations omitted). See generally The Constitutional Separation of Powers Between the President and Congress, 20 Op. O.L.C. 124,126-28, 133-35 (1996) (explaining that, under Supreme Court case law, congressional action that interferes with the functioning of the Executive Branch, including “attempts to dictate the processes of executive deliberation,” can violate general separation of powers principles); Nixon v. Administrator ofGeneral Services, 433 U.S. 425,443 (1977) (congressional enactment that “disrupts the proper balance between the coordinate branches” may violate the separation of powers).
Congressional oversight of the process by which the Executive Branch responds to congressional oversight inquiries would create a detrimental dynamic that is quite similar to what would occur in litigation if lawyers had to disclose to adversaries their deliberations about the case, and specifically about how to respond to their adversaries’ discovery requests. As the Supreme Court recognized in establishing the attorney work product doctrine, “it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947). Were attorney work product “open to opposing counsel on mere demand,” the Court explained, “[i]nefficiency, unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably develop in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial … , [a]nd the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served.” !d. at 511.
Similarly, in the oversight context, as the Department recognized in the prior administration, a congressional power to request information from the Executive Branch and then review the ensuing Executive Branch discussions regarding how to respond to that request would chill the candor of those Executive Branch discussions and “introduce a significantly unfair imbalance to the oversight process.” Letter for John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and Linda T. Sanchez, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, from Richard A. Bertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs at 3 (Mar. 26, 2007). Such congressional power would disserve both Branches and the oversight process itself, which involves two co-equal branches of government and, like litigation, often is, and needs to be, adversarial. We recognize that it is essential to Congress’s ability to interact independently and effectively with the Executive Branch that the confidentiality of internal deliberations among Members of Congress and their staffs be
protected against incursions by the Executive Branch. See Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 616 (1972) (“The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch.”). It is likewise essential to the Executive Branch’s ability to respond independently and effectively to matters under congressional review that the confidentiality of internal Executive Branch deliberations be protected against incursions by Congress.
Moreover, there is an additional, particularized separation of powers concern here because the Committee’s inquiry into Fast and Furious has sought information about ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions. Such information would itself be protected by executive privilege, see, e.g., Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to Congressional Demands for Law Enforcement Files, 6 Op. O.L.C. 31,32 (1982) (opinion of Attorney General William French Smith) (“[I]t has been the policy of the Executive Branch throughout this Nation’s history generally to decline to provide committees of Congress with access to or copies of law enforcement files except in the most extraordinary circumstances.”). Consequently, the Department’s deliberations about how to respond to these congressional inquiries involved discussion of how to ensure that critical ongoing law enforcement actions are not compromised and that law enforcement decisionmaking is not tainted by even the appearance of political influence. See, e.g., id. at 33 (noting “substantial danger that congressional pressures will influence the course ofthe investigation … [and] potential damage to proper law enforcement which would be caused by the revelation of sensitive techniques, methods, or strategy”) (quotation marks omitted). Maintaining the confidentiality of such candid internal discussions helps preserve the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the Department’s law enforcement efforts.
A congressional committee “may overcome an assertion of executive privilege only if it establishes that the subpoenaed documents are ‘demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee’s functions.”‘ Special Counsel Assertion at 5-6 (quoting Senate Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725,731 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en bane) (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., US. Attorneys Assertion at 2 (same); Clemency Assertion, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 2 (same); Nixon, 418 U.S. at 707 (“[I]t is necessary to resolve those competing interests in a manner that preserves the essential functions of each branch.”). “Those functions must be in furtherance of Congress’s legitimate legislative responsibilities,” Special Counsel Assertion at 5 (emphasis added), for “[c]ongressional oversight of Executive Branch actions is justifiable only as a means of facilitating the legislative task of enacting, amending, or repealing laws.” 1981 Assertion, 5 Op. O.L.C. at 30-31. See also, e.g., Special Counsel Assertion at 5; US. Attorneys Assertion at 2-3; McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 176 (1927) (congressional oversight power may be used only to “obtain information in aid of the legislative function”); Eastland v. US. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 n.15 (1975) (“The subject of any [congressional] inquiry always must be one on which legislation could be had.”) (quotation marks omitted).
The Committee has not satisfied the “demonstrably critical” standard with respect to the documents at issue. The Committee has said that it needs the post-February 4 documents “related to the Department’s response to Congress” concerning Fast and Furious in order to “examine the Department’s mismanagement of its response to Operation Fast and Furious.” Chairman’s Letter at 1-2. More specifically, the Committee has explained in the report that it is scheduled to consider at its June 20 contempt meeting that it needs these documents so that it can “understand what the Department knew about Fast and Furious, including when and how it discovered its February 4 letter was false, and the Department’s efforts to conceal that information from Congress and the public.” Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Report at 33 (June 15, 2012). House leaders have similarly communicated that the driving concern behind the Committee’s scheduled contempt vote is to determine whether Department leaders attempted to “mislead or misinform Congress” in response to congressional inquiries into Fast and Furious. See Letter for Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, from John A. Boehner, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, et al. at 1 (May 18, 2012) (“Speaker’s Letter”).
At the threshold, it is not evident that the Committee’s asserted need to review the management of the Department’s response to congressional inquiries furthers a legislative function of Congress. See WHCO Documents Assertion, 20 Op. O.L.C. at 4 (noting the question of “the extent of Congress’s authority to conduct oversight ofthe executive branch’s response to oversight … must be viewed as unresolved as a matter oflaw in light of the requirement that there be a nexus to Congress’s legislative authority”). In any event, the purported connection between the congressional interest cited and the documents at issue is now highly attenuated as a result ofthe Department’s extraordinary efforts to accommodate the Committee’s interest in this regard. Through these efforts, the Department has amply fulfilled its constitutional “obligation… to make a principled effort to acknowledge, and if possible to meet, the [Committee's] legitimate needs.” 1981 Assertion, 5 Op. O.L.C. at 31; see also, e.g. , United States v. AT&T, 567 F.2d 121, 127, 130 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (“[E]ach branch should take cognizance of an implicit constitutional mandate to seek optimal accommodation through a realistic evaluation of the needs of the conflicting branches in the particular fact situation…. Negotiation between the two branches should thus be viewed as a dynamic process affirmatively furthering the constitutional scheme.”).
Specifically, the Department has already shared with the Committee over 1300 pages of documents concerning the drafting of the February 4 Letter, in acknowledgment that the February 4 Letter contained inaccurate information. In addition, numerous Department officials and employees, including the Attorney General, have provided testimony and other statements concerning both the conduct of Fast and Furious and the Department’s preparation and withdrawal of the February 4 Letter. This substantial record shows that the inaccuracies in the February 4 Letter were the inadvertent product of the fact that, at the time they were preparing that letter, neither Department leaders nor the heads of relevant Department components on whom Department leaders reasonably relied for information knew the correct facts about the tactics used in Fast and Furious. Department leaders first learned that flawed tactics may have been used in Fast and Furious when public allegations about such tactics surfaced in early 2011, after such tactics had been discontinued. But Department leaders were mistakenly assured by the heads of relevant Department components that those allegations were false. As the Department collected and reviewed documents to provide to the Committee during the months after submitting the February 4 Letter, however, Department leaders came to understand that Fast and Furious was in fact fundamentally flawed and that the February 4 Letter may have been inaccurate. While the Department was developing that understanding, Department officials made public statements and took other actions alerting the Committee to their increasing concern about the tactics actually used in Fast and Furious and the accuracy of the February 4 Letter. When the Department was confident that it had a sufficient understanding of the factual record, it formally withdrew the February 4 Letter. All of this demonstrates that the Department did not in any way intend to mislead the Committee.
The Department continued its extraordinary efforts at accommodating the Committee by recently offering to provide the Committee with a briefing, based on documents that the Committee could retain, explaining further how the Department’s understanding of the facts of Fast and Furious evolved during the post-February 4 period, as well as the process that led to the withdrawal of the February 4 Letter. The Department believes that this briefing, and the accompanying documents, would have fully addressed what the Committee described as its remaining concerns related to the February 4 Letter and the good faith of the Department in responding to the Committee’s investigation. The Committee, however, has not accepted this offer of accommodation.
Finally, the Committee’s asserted need for post-February 4 documents is further diminished by the Inspector General’s ongoing investigation of Fast and Furious, which was undertaken at my request. As an Executive Branch official, the Inspector General may obtain access to documents that are privileged from disclosure to Congress. The existence of this investigation belies any suspicion that the Department is attempting to conceal important facts concerning Fast and Furious from the Committee. Moreover, in light of the Inspector General’s investigation, congressional oversight is not the only means by which the management of the Department’s response to Fast and Furious may be scrutinized.
In brief, the Committee received all documents that involved the Department’s preparation of the February 4 Letter. The Committee’s legitimate interest in obtaining documents created after the February 4 Letter is highly attenuated and has been fully accommodated by the Department. The Committee lacks any “demonstrably critical” need for further access to the Department’s deliberations to address concerns arising out of the February 4 Letter.
The Department’s accommodations have concerned only a subset of the topics addressed in the withheld post-February 4 documents. The documents and information provided or offered to the Committee address primarily the evolution of the Department’s understanding of the facts of Fast and Furious and the process that led to the withdrawal ofthe February 4 Letter. Most of the withheld post-February 4 documents, however, relate to other aspects of the Department’s response to congressional and related media inquiries, such as procedures or strategies for responding to the Committee’s requests for documents and other information. The Committee has not articulated any particularized interest in or need for documents relating to such topics, let alone a need that would further a legislative function.
“Broad, generalized assertions that the requested materials are of public import are simply insufficient under the ‘demonstrably critical’ standard.” US. Attorneys Assertion at 3; see also, e.g., Congressional Requests Opinion, 13 Op. O.L.C. at 160 (“‘A specific, articulated need for information will weigh substantially more heavily in the constitutional balancing than a generalized interest in obtaining information.”‘) (quoting 1981 Assertion, 5 Op. O.L.C. at 30)). Moreover, “Congress’s legislative function does not imply a freestanding authority to gather information for the sole purpose of informing ‘the American people.’” Special Counsel Assertion at 6. The “only informing function” constitutionally vested in Congress “‘is that of informing itself about subjects susceptible to legislation, not that of informing the public.”‘ !d. (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 531 (9th Cir. 1983)). In the absence of any particularized legitimate need, the Committee’s interest in obtaining additional post¬ February 4 documents cannot overcome the substantial and important separation of powers and Executive Branch confidentiality concerns raised by its demand.
* * * *
In sum, when I balance the Committee’s asserted need for the documents at issue against the Executive Branch’s strong interest in protecting the confidentiality of internal documents generated in the course of responding to congressional and related media inquiries and the separation of powers concerns raised by a congressional demand for such material, I conclude that the Committee has not established that the privileged documents are demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee’s legitimate legislative functions.
For the reasons set forth above, I have concluded that you may properly assert executive privilege over the documents at issue, and I respectfully request that you do so.
Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General

Monday, June 4, 2012

Anti Gun Rights Groups Focus On High Profile Cases..Ignoring Chicago Street Crime.

While several national anti-firearms rights groups focus their tunnel vision on stories typically headlined, “Seattle Mass Killer Got Concealed Carry Permit because of NRA Law in Washington State,” they completely ignore the number of killings in Chicago almost daily. The irony is lost on them that in a city where possession of a firearm, any firearm, outside of the home, even in a detached garage, is against the law and gun crimes runs amok. They want Americans to ignore those shootings and killings because Chicago has the harsh gun laws that they are pushing for nationally. And, they don't work.They stick to the big fundraising story.   

Homicides are skyrocketing in Chicago, with at least 200 through the Memorial Day weekend. That compares to 134 at the same time last year. The number of gun related killings was 224 through June 9th. Shootings are up to 851 as opposed to 747 last year. In just one month, the period between May 3rd and June 2nd, Chicago had about 143 people injured by intentional gunfire, and about 50 killed by shootings in May, with 12 of those over Memorial weekend.  

Here are the one month gun crime problems in a city where some of the toughest gun laws in the Country have failed to stop, many of which are gang related, with many including young teen gangsters as “victims,” and happening on the South side.  Other innocents were injured and killed.


Apparently not being able to afford a limousine, a teenager wearing a tuxedo and headed for a prom was arrested as he tried to do a carjacking at a West Side McDonald's. The meal was not a happy one for him. He was charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number. All are felonies. He also “caught” 3 misdemeanors.

A 14 year-old was dead on arrival at a hospital after being shot in the chest on the South Side. 

Three people were shot on North Homan Avenue in the Humboldt Park neighborhood.

A man was shot about 8:40 p.m. on the 2500 block of South Keeler Avenue.

Another 30 year old man had a graze wound to the shoulder on West Congress Parkway.

Two teenagers were shot near the intersection of 40th Street and Maplewood Avenue in the Brighton Park neighborhood

Someone stuck a pistol under a garage door in the Ashburn neighborhood and started shooting at the people inside, hitting a 22 year-old man.

Two men were shot in the South Shore neighborhood.

 A 33 year old man was shot in the back and a 19 year old man had a graze wound on South Coles Avenue.


A man believed to be in his 40s was found shot to death in a car in the Morgan Park area.

A man was shot in the leg in what is believed to have been a domestic argument on West 84th Place. 

A 19 year old man was shot in the leg on South Sangamon Street.

A man was charged with fatally shooting a teenage gang rival inside an Uptown pizzeria. Police said a 22 year old man shot the 14 year-old boy in the face as the boy was eating pizza in the store in the on North Broadway

A man was shot in the back and the leg on South Calumet Avenue

And, that same evening, another man was shot in the head on North Pulaski Road in the Humboldt Park neighborhood.

Two men ages 22 and 33, were shot on the street on East 68th.

A man, believed to be in his 20s, was shot in West Rogers Park on West Pratt Avenue in what is believed to be a drive-by.

A man was shot in the chest in the 1500 block of South Spaulding Avenue 

A woman died after being shot in the head in an alley. It’s being investigated as a homicide on South Kostner Avenue.

On the same evening, a woman suffered a graze wound to her head on East 43rd Street.

A 19 year old man was wounded in the torso on South State Street.


A 23 year old man said he was crossing the street on South Colfax Avenue when he heard a gunshot and felt pain in his back.

The same night, a woman in her 30s was wounded on South Sangamon Street.

A 24 year-old man was shot in his face cheek on North Central Park Avenue.

A 25 year old man was shot in the head on East 54th Street. Police say the shooting may have occurred among a large group "Wilding Flash Mob" in the area.

In another fatal shooting, the victim was struck in the chest in an alley on South St. Lawrence Avenue. 


Police found two people on South Western Avenue shot inside an SUV that appeared to have had a collision with something. The front end of the car was damaged and the driver's side airbag had deployed. 

About 45 minutes after a party bus stopped on West Roosevelt Road to let people into a bar, three were hit by gun fire.

The same night a man in his 20s was shot in the leg on North Lawndale Avenue

Two men were shot in the legs on the 3800 block of West Grand Avenue.

A 19 year old man was shot in the leg and arm on West 57th Place in the Englewood neighborhood. He's not cooperating with police.

An 18 year old woman was shot in the face on the 4400 block of West Fulton Street

A 19 year old woman and 23-year-old man were shot on South Claremont Avenue.

Four men, ages 31, 35 and 51, were shot on East 79th Street. 


A man was shot in the foot on East 87th Street on May 26th.

Two 20 and 21 tear old men, were shot on South Normal Avenue. 

A 29 year old woman was shot in the arm on East 38th Street 

A 24 year old man was shot on East 66th Place. 

A 6 year old girl was also shot in Marquette Park. She was playing in front of her house on South Artesian Avenue when two groups of people on the corner of 68th and Artesian, one group in a car, and one on the corner, started arguing.
Someone inside the car shot at the group on the corner and missed and hit the girl instead. 

Two men age 26 and 27, were shot on South Justine Street.

On the same day, a 22-year-old man was shot in the mouth on South Carpenter Street.

Two 17 year-old boys were shot and one was killed on Millard Avenue. 

Chicago police found two roommates dead inside their Woodlawn home and arrested their roommate in connection with the shooting. 


Someone walked up to a 32 year-old man who was standing the South Austin neighborhood and started shooting. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in stable condition

Police responded to a shots fired call on East 88th Street and found a man lying on the ground with a gunshot wound.

A 15 year old boy who was standing on the street with a group of other young males was shot when someone opened fire. The boy got a graze wound to the head and was shot in the right foot

A 17 year old was wounded in West Englewood as he stood on a sidewalk on South Bishop Street.

A 36 year old man was shot in the knee in on South Constance Avenue. 

Two men were shot on South Paulina Street in the West Englewood neighborhood.


Two people were shot and seriously wounded in the Englewood area.

Two men were wounded late Tuesday in a gang-related shooting.


Two people were seriously injured in a shooting on the Southwest Side.

A man was found fatally shot inside of his pickup truck late on the West Side.

A man was shot and seriously wounded in the Englewood area.

Where is Stand your Ground when it’s needed?
An armed robber chased down and killed a 30 year old man in the Englewood area.
Rashard Wilson, age 30, the victim, was shot during the course of a street robbery. The gunman chased him down the street before shooting him once in the abdomen. The murderer then took items from the wounded man and ran off.

Another 30 year old man was standing on a corner near his home on South Hale Avenue was struck in the chest when a man got out of a passing car and opened fire on him.

A 21 year old man was shot in the leg by a gunman on South Paulina Street.

A 24 year-old man was shot during a robbery on South Keeler Avenue.

A couple was hit by a barrage of gunfire as they drove down a South Shore street.
The Female driver, 28, and her 27 year old male passenger were inside car traveling north on South East End when someone on the street approached and fired a string of shots into the passing car.


Three men were seriously wounded in a shooting on the West Side.

An18 year old man was shot in the leg and lower back on South Cottage Grove Avenue.

A Morgan Park district police sergeant saw a 17 year-old girl being shot in the leg on South Vincennes Avenue.

 A 22 year-old man standing on South Martin Luther King Drive was shot in the wrist and leg by a gunman from inside a passing red vehicle,

A man was killed on the city's Southwest Side when he shot numerous times on South Troy Street.

Estaban Alvarez, 27 and Alejandro Munoz, 2 were shot and Killed.

A woman was shot in her leg by someone she knew on West 111th Street.


A man was shot in the hand on of South Promontory Drive and was taken to Jackson Park Hospital.

On the same day, a man was shot in the arm in a drive by shooter near the intersection of 23rd Street and California Avenue. Someone shouted "King love," from inside a blue or grey vehicle before opening fire. It was likely an apparent reference to the shooter's affiliation with the Latin King Street Gang,

Later, a 29 year-old man's head was grazed by a bullet at 61st Street and Champlain. 

A 19 year old man wouldn’t cooperate with investigators after getting shot in the stomach in the Logan Square neighborhood.

A man was shot in the back about 2:40 a.m. on West 108th Street.

A 35 year old man died after being shot in the head and chest on the South Side.


Will this boy be turned into another Trayvon Martin? A 12 year-old boy was shot and killed on May 19th while he was walking to his home on the Southeast Side. He was walking from a neighborhood store when someone approached and shot him in the head, as he neared his home.

Later the same day, a 20 year-old man was wounded in the arm on South Drexel Avenue.

And, a 27 year-old man was shot twice in an alley on North Keeler Avenue by a gunman from a passing vehicle.


A man and two women were wounded on South Winchester Avenue May 18th.

A woman walked into a Chicago Hospital with a gunshot wound to the arm. She was shot on the North Side on May 18th.

Also on the 18th, a 32 year-old man was sitting in a van in on East 79th Street and was shot in his side. 

Someone stepped from a gangway on the 18th on South Peoria Street, and opened fire at five people on a porch celebrating a birthday. Three men and two women were wounded. 

A 14 year old boy was shot and killed on the 18th. He was shot in the back on West 37th Place.

A 17 year old boy was shot in the right calf when two people walked up to him and another man and started shooting.

Two men, 18 and 23, were shot in Chicago. The younger man was shot in the abdomen and the older man was shot in the right hip.

A 17 year-old boy and a 21-year old woman were shot near Monterey and Vincennes avenues. The two were in the area when a man came up to them and shot them.

A 15 year-old boy was shot in the head by another man who came up to him and shot him while he was in Palmer Park.

A murder victim was shot in the chest and dead on the scene following an attack on South Laflin Street.

A man was shot and critically wounded in the stomach area in the Albany Park area.


A 49 year-old man was hospitalized in critical condition after being shot three times in the East Side area.

A teenage boy riding his bicycle was shot and wounded on the city's Southwest Side.
He was shot in the ankle near the intersection of Central Park Avenue and West 65th Street.

Three men shot and killed a man in University Village on the Near West Side.


A 28 year-old pregnant woman found dead in her ransacked South Side apartment died from a wound to the head. Lekiah White died of a gunshot wound  

A man was shot in Rogers Park on West Howard Street.

A 36 year-old man was shot to death on North Mozart Drive In Logan Square,


A man was found shot to death in an alley in the Woodlawn neighborhood on the South Side.

A shotgun carrying assailant shot a man in the arm while robbing him of crack cocaine in a drug deal gone bad.

Two people standing in a strip mall on South Cottage Grove Avenue were shot, and a  woman was grazed on the shin by the gunfire.  

A 16-year-old boy walking with friends was shot on South Avalon Avenue

An 18 year old woman was shot on South Talman in the Marquette Park neighborhood. The shooting happened as she was walking down the street and someone in a passing light-colored sedan opened fire in a drive by, hitting her in the thigh

A man was shot and left in critical condition on West 83rd Street.

A 22 year old man was treated for a graze wound later to his right thigh and a 21 year old man was shot in the right calf

A 19 year old man was shot in the leg near the corner of LeMoyne Street and Maplewood Avenue.

A 21 year old man was shot on West Washington Boulevard.

Three men were shot on South Claremont Avenue.

A 26 year old man was shot in the while walking on West Chicago Avenue.

One man died and three others were wounded by shooting on South Paulina Street.

A 24 year old man was killed by gunfire when he was shot in the head and chest after a man got out of a light-colored pickup truck on South Homan Avenue and  opened fire.


Two other people were shot and wounded on South Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.

An assailant shot a 45 year old man on West 105th Street while he was taking out the garbage. He heard shots and felt pain from a gunshot wound where he was shot in the leg. 

Later the same day, a 20 year old man was shot in the left side on South Ellis Avenue.

A 14 year-old boy was shot on South Loomis Boulevard.

A 36-year-old man was on East 75th Street when someone shot him in the foot


Two men were shot and killed in an apparent drive-by attack.

A 24 year old man was killed after being shot on West 108th Place.

A  shooting on the South Side seriously wounded man after he was hit by gunfire several times on East 46th Street.

Akeem J. Morris, a West Side man was killed during a street robbery less than a mile from his home. He was walking with five other people on West End when they were approached by three men. One man pulled a handgun and announced a robbery while the two other men tried to get cash and items from the victims.

Two men were shot and wounded when someone fired into their tow truck parked at a Lakeview gas station.


A 20 year old man was shot multiple times on the South Side.

A 32 year-old man was shot three times on the West Side.

A man walking down South Shore Drive was shot at and hit in the foot.

Two men Chicago men were wounded in the lower legs on South Racine Avenue.

A 27 year old woman was standing with a group of people on West Maypole Avenue.

A man was shot in the face on South Berkeley Avenue. 


A man was shot in the leg on South Union Street.

A man was killed in on West 13th Street in University Village as he was sitting in a car with another man. He stepped out when someone started shooting at him. He was struck in the back and armpit.

A 43 year-old woman and a 42 year old man were shot in the arm on West Roosevelt Road

A 15 year-old boy was shot in the leg after getting off a bus.

A 40 year old man was shot on West 104th Place after a man approached him and asked for a light. When he told him that he didn't have one, the other man shot him.


A 24 year old man walked into the hospital after being shot in the back on South Campbell Avenue. The man wouldn’t provide any information about the incident or his name.

An 18 year old man riding his bike was shot in the butt by someone standing with a group of men on South Green Street. 

A man in his 20s was shot on South Wolcott Avenue.

A 26 year old man was shot in both thighs, the hand, and had a graze wound on his stomach a when a car rolled up and someone inside started shooting as he was standing on West Polk Street.  

A 12 year old girl was standing on a sidewalk on North Springfield Avenue when she was shot in the left foot. The girl's family didn't cooperate with the investigation.

A 16 year old boy was killed in Chicago. He was found with a gunshot wound to his head

A 26 year old man was shot on South Washtenaw Avenue.

A 24 year old man was standing on West 107th Street when heard gunshots and felt pain. He was taken to a local Hospital with a gunshot wound in his lower left leg

A 23 year old man was shot on North Wolcott Avenue as he was walking with friends when someone walked up and started shooting. The unlucky victim was struck once in the face and four more times in the body

A 19 year old man was shot in the leg on South Indiana Avenue

A 54 year-old woman was shot in the hip at 71st Street and Chapple.

Two people were shot near 71st Street and Clyde Avenue. One, a 17 year-old boy, was critically wounded in the attack.

A 30 year old man was shot in the legs and hands on South Francisco Street.

A 21 year old man was shot in the foot on West Thomas Street.

Five people were shot on South Wolcott Avenue while celebrating a birthday.  

A 19 year old man was shot in the leg by someone who approached him on a bike on  West 103rd Place.


Two brothers killed by gunfire when an argument turned violent on the South Side.

A 25 year old man was found dead. He was killed by a gunshot wound to the head in an alley.

A 17 year old male was shot in the lower back area as he was shortly after getting out of  a CTA bus.

A 23 year old man was wounded as he was sitting in a vehicle on South Drexel Avenue when the gunman approached, pulled a handgun and opened fire.
 He is a member of the Gangster Disciples street gang,

A 29 year old man was shot to death in an alley on North Monitor Avenue. The shooting is thought to be connected to an argument between the 29 year old victim and the boyfriend of a female cousin.