In opposition to House Bill 5040, Excise tax on ammunition

The public hearing for this proposed legislation is this Thursday, Feb. 27. Act today!

Click here to take action now. Submit written testimony via email to [email protected] using “OPPOSE House Bill 5040” in the subject line. Also contact members of the House Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee and urge them to OPPOSE House Bill 5040. When you visit the page, click on the Committee Membership bar to expand the page and see links to contact members. Create your own comments. It can be short and to-the-point.

Committee Member,
I’m taking some time to write to you in opposition to House Bill 5040, An act establishing an excise tax on ammunition.

The legislation penalizes an already stigmatized group of law-abiding citizens who simply want to target shoot, go hunting, shoot in competitions, take firearms training programs, and/or train for self-defense situations.

Everyone agrees those who own firearms for self-defense should take time to practice and train. Class commitments of 16 to 40 hours per year involves between 1,000 and 4,000 rounds of ammunition. If you think this is excessive, I’d encourage you to expand your exposure beyond the eight-hour basic NRA program. A novice to intermediate, two-day program will involve shooting at least 1,000 rounds.

The proposed excise tax would increase the cost for training between $80 and $450 (or more) per year. The tax will discourage firearm owners from training. This excise tax disproportionately affects lower income, law-abiding gun owners. Often, they may live in a high-crime environment. It’s already expensive to take classes, and this tax will clearly make it even more difficult. In short, this excise tax is unacceptable.

In Connecticut, firearm owners already pay significant taxes and fees to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Plus, they need to take required training. Connecticut requires ammunition purchasers have a pistol permit or an ammunition certificate. Almost everyone applies for the pistol permit which involves:

  • Basic NRA or equivalent training class (government mandate) – $125 to $200
  • Payment made to the state for background check – $12
  • Payment made to the state for the application fee – $75
  • Payment made to your local town for the application fee – $70

That’s more than $600 in fees for a couple to get their pistol permits. These fees and requirements are clearly designed to discourage individuals from applying for their permit. Some students who have taken my Basic NRA Pistol class, WAIT to apply due to the excessive fees.

In addition to these fees, the state also collects $70 every five years from each pistol permit holder for renewals.

The federal government already collects an 11 percent excise tax on the purchase of ammunition. Between excise taxes for ammunition and firearms, plus additional fees, the federal government collects about $1 billion in taxes and fees from law-abiding gun owners.

That’s more than enough taxation, and I encourage you to vote NO on this bill.

Bloomberg: Absolute tyrant determined to take guns away

When I first saw the original interview with Michael Bloomberg concerning guns and the NRA, I was pretty pissed off. This guy literally knew nothing about firearms or the 2nd Amendment. Nothing. The questions by Cynthia McFadden were… gentle. She sort of corrected him, but did not call him out on his stupidity.

Could he be so dumb, or is he just assuming his audience is so dumb they will believe what he says? It doesn’t really matter.

This politician running for president has shown he is willing to spend hundreds of millions of his own money to disarm the American public. His attack on the NRA and the amount of money they contribute to political campaigns is outright lunacy. The organization he founded and funds – Everytown for Gun Safety – spends about the same amount as the NRA.

That does not include the millions of dollars he contributes himself to campaigns and political action committees in states like the Commonwealth of Virginia, where he’s single-handedly funded a flip of the legislature and demanded those Democrats pass gun control legislation. We’re seeing the effect of Bloomberg’s tyranny in Virginia during the last few months.

As for the NRA, it’s funded by millions of Americans, not an individual billionaire oligarch like Bloomberg.

Here is a breakdown of the 2012 Bloomberg interview where Colion Noir absolutely crushes this want-to-be tyrant on every point. Every. Point.

The original interview was on ABC’s Nightline in December 2012, and can be found online here. Here is the auto-generated transcript that has not been cleaned up.

It may have take then loss of 26 lives at sandy hook elementary to blow up a long overdue conversation about guns but for michael bloomberg it is the 34 lives lost to guns every day in this country that fuelled his decades long crusade. He said it is time for president obama to take actions and for the nra to get out of the way. Columbine. Virginia tech. Today the call for tougher gun laws got some star power. An a-list of hollywood celebrities teaming up to release this new video. Demand a plan. Right now. Have people been coming up to you on this issue? Oh, yeah. This is the man behind it, new york city mayor bloomberg, more determined than ever in his fight against gun violence. His number one target the nra. What would you like the nra to know? That I think the public has finally come to the conclusion we are going to do the this whether you like it or not and connecticut is because of some of their actions. You hold them responsibility. I hold you and me responsibility. We didn’t pay attention to what our legislators were doing. We have let our society, our country degenerate to the point where we have a murder rate that you cannot compare it to other countries. You can’t put it on the same scale. The nra believes that it is working in the best interest of the american people. I don’t know. They are not supposed to do that. They are supposed to work in the best interest of gun owners. They don’t have a responsibility for the american people. They are paid for by the gun owners. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is the rest of us that cave in to them that are irresponsible. A lot of people will be surprised to know fur on the no fly list, you can’t fly but you can buy a gun. Absolutely. He says for all of the nra’s influence they can be vanquished. They are not that powerful. Their number one priority in the last year was defeating president obama. I think when I remember reading newspapers a month ago he won. This is the latest chapter in the mayor’s crusade who says he’s attended far too many police funerals. We have to do something to protect those who are trying to protect us. There are bullet — armor-piercing bullets advertised for sale. The last time I saw a deer wearing a bulletproof vest was a long time ago. The only reason you would buy an armor-piercing bullet is to kill a cop. Reporter: The bloomberg endorsed obama in november he pulls no punches when criticizing him on the gun issue. This last four years it would be fair to say the president has done nothing on the issue. No. He’s gone in the wrong direction. He signed two pieces of legislation, one which lets you carry guns in national parks where our kids play and the other one he signed a bill so that you can carry a gun on amtrak. Reporter: Let’s look at the assault weapons ban. We had one in the country for ten years. Every single weapon used by the shooter in connecticut would have been okay under the old assault weapons law. All right. So fix it. Reporter: Isn’t it hard to define what is an assault weapon because it is so easy to write around, for manufacturers to createeapons that — if it can fire a lot of bullets quickly. That’s a good place to start. Reporter: Hunters would say — let’s say three. If you haven’t hit the deer with three shots. You are a lousy shot and the deer deserves to get away. Let’s get serious here. That would ban most pistols. Pistols are different. You have to pull the trigger each time. An assault weapon you hold and it goes — those are fully automatic weons. If you have a big magazining you will solve your problem. You still have to pull a trigger. But 30, 20, 10 bullets before you run out, I would suggest the deer, god wants that deer to. According to gun owners what you described would ban what most hunters use today. If that is what they are using for god’s sakes why don’t they use dynamite. Make it easier. What’s the sport? Reporter: The position a lot of people will say is all you will accomplish is taking guns from the good people and the bad people will still — that’s not true. The statistics say if you have a gun at home you are 22 as likely to shoot a family member or friend as to somebody breaking in. Don’t try to go for a gun. Somebody pointing a gun at you, you think you are going to outshoot them, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Reporter: Some say that is easy for a man to say who has 24-hour police protection. When I come in to interview you, I have to go through metal detectors and men out there with guns to make sure you are safe. There are a lot of people who say let’s make our kids safe in the same way. Barbara boxer said the national guard should be deployed. To where. To schools across the country. That’s ridiculous. You can’t live your life that way. You would be in a prison. Reporter: After a decade of battling this issue, the mayor says the tide may be turning. Are we at the tipping point right now? I hope so but you never know. If the 20 young, 6 and 7-year-olds isn’t a good example, I don’t know what is. We are killing 34 people in this country every single day.

Connecticut budget – Malloy wants 325% increase for pistol permits

Section 15 of Connecticut’s Constitution reads “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” There are no qualifiers. There are no limits written or implied. And there is no mention of a $370 mandatory fee to a participate in this right.

Connecticut’s Budget Mess

Connecticut’s Gov. D.P. Malloy (D) is asking for that 325 percent increase in pistol permit fees as he makes an attempt to fix the state’s budget. Remember three years ago when the Hartford Courant breathlessly reported a budget surplus of $500 million? Malloy commented…

”There’s much work to do, but make no mistake: our economy is improving, private sector jobs are growing at the strongest pace in decades, and we are reducing the state’s overall indebtedness,” Malloy said in a statement. ”And we are accomplishing all of this at the same time we are putting money away in the rainy day fund. That’s a record to be proud of.”

Within hours many were openly laughing at the governor’s comments. Within three months, the CT Mirror let us know

Plummeting tax receipts have ripped a nearly $300 million hole in the next state budget, leaving legislators and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy just one week to fix it, according to a new report Wednesday from fiscal analysts.

… the $500 million-plus surplus Malloy touted just two months ago when he proposed a tax rebate has disintegrated to $43 million.

How the hell does that happen? Mismanagement, making promises you can never expect to keep, and spending policies that absolutely defy the imagination is how. Now back to the fees.

Connecticut’s Pistol Permit Fees

For the simple reason anti-gun advocates think firearm owners should be punished, Malloy figures increasing the fees on pistol permits will be accepted. The simple fact is many good people live in communities that are hard-hit by crime. They have the right – as does every other law-abiding person – to defend themselves and the US Constitution and Connecticut’s Constitution confirms that God-given right. Why is anyone forced by the State of Connecticut required to pay close to $600* to get a permit to exercise this right? How is that moral?

It’s not. Some may say Malloy’s suggestion to raise permit fees is racist. It’s hard to argue it’s not. Maybe Malloy thinks pistol permits should only be available to those who have enough disposable income? Yeah, that’s it: Malloy hates the poor and could not care about their right to self-defense. I’m convinced.

Other Fee Increases

Malloy is also suggesting raising the cigarette tax .45 cents per pack, increasing fees on criminal history record checks, record filing, cremation services, urgent care center licensing and doubling the bottle deposit fee. (Why does the government get any of bottle deposit money?)

But more importantly, let’s look at some fees the governor has not mentioned raising which includes a criminal background check, just like a pistol permit.

I could go on-and-on, but Malloy is not suggesting any of these fees be raised even though every one requires a complete background check and investigation of some sort.

Why are those wishing to participate in a God-given right, confirmed by both the US and Connecticut Constitution being targeted by Malloy? We know the reason.

* Along with the initial $370 state fee, Connecticut requires a training class that varies in cost between $100 and $160, plus the individual town’s tack on additional fees of at least $70. Hence … almost $600, not including the eight hours of time you need to take the class plus at least another four to six hours of your time with the local and state police. And that’s per person.

Why a semi-automatic rifle a good choice for home defense

Originally posted in January of 2013, Jim Vicevich asked me to repost this today. Minor edits have been made. Please read and share this post via social media.

A firearm can be an appropriate part of a complete home-defense plan, but it should not be the only plan. Motion activated exterior lights, locking your doors and windows, an alarm system, and a barking dog (if appropriate) are important. Your plan should include where you will go and where your family members will go if someone breaks in. Call for help and take a defensive approach where you – and your firearm if you have one – are between the intruder or intruders and your family. This may be difficult in some home designs, but you need to figure it out. I personally do not think you should “clear” your house if you have, or strongly suspect, an intruder. Many law enforcement officers I know will not clear their home by themselves.

Why a semi-automatic rifle a good choice for home defense.

Here is a list of valid reasons, in no particular order.

  1. You can buy complete AR-10 rifle gears and mount a light, red dot sight and/or a laser to the rifle to make it easier to used and aim during the day or night.
  2. They have a reasonable recoil, making the gun – for many users – easier to shoot as compared to a defense-caliber shotgun or pistol.
  3. They can be customized to “fit” a variety of body types and shooting styles. They can be configured and adjusted for different shooting distances (less than 5 yards to more than 200 yards).
  4. The .223/5.56 self-defense round is appropriate for use within a home, even in an urban environment. Ballistic experts have found rounds from these calibers “dump energy” quickly and break apart or begin to tumble after penetrating the first barrier. Will rifle rounds go through walls? You bet. Will pistol calibers like 9mm, .40 and .45 go through walls? You bet. Will shotgun rounds go through walls? You bet. That said, there is significant evidence the .223/5.56 self-defense rounds penetrate no more than, and often less than traditional handgun calibers and many shotgun rounds.
  5. A rifle is much more capable of stopping a threat as compared to a pistol.
  6. Semi-automatic rifles are more accurate than a pistol or shotgun.
  7. Ammunition is (normally) readily available and (normally) priced within reason.
  8. In a self-defense situation, you want to avoid manipulating the firearm at all except for pulling the trigger straight back. Law enforcement and civilians do not favor high-capacity magazines so they can shoot more rounds, they favor them so they can manipulate their gun less. If reloading is needed, it is possible but let’s be completely honest, in many self defense situations, ten rounds may not be enough.

For a more detailed review, check out this post.

Orlando club shooting – Evil exists

Suggesting a ban or extreme restrictions on the inanimate objects used during violent, abhorrent, unimaginable atrocities is an easy way to say you want to “do something.” These wonderful people – with their hearts in the right place – really think more laws, restrictions and just loving everyone will significantly help. But Evil exists.

We know bans don’t work. More laws don’t work. More “common sense” restrictions don’t work. More background checks don’t work. Good intentions don’t count for much in the real world, and I’d like to think there are still many of us who prefer to see results.

This is a gang problem. This is a mental health problem. This is a “life is cheap” problem. This is a political correctness problem. This is a “give them another chance society” problem. This is a culture problem.

And yes, this is a radical islamic terrorism problem.

Dealing with those issues is the hard stuff, and I’m convinced we are unwilling to take on the hard stuff, because those hard problems cost us too much, and not just in dollars. I totally get it.

The utopia, fantasy world without weapons or hate has never existed, and it never will exist. But Evil does exist, and instead of dealing with that reality, many continue to wonder “what we did” to deserve it.

Those 50 souls, their family and friends didn’t deserve what happened to them in Orlando yesterday. The United States does not deserve what is happening to us now and the human race does not deserve it either. But it is our unfortunate reality.

The terrible impact of a multi-chance society

The judicial system and politicians who are in favor of a second, third and/or a fourth chance society are partly to blame for this. Although you may hear differently, trust me, nobody is in prison for “smoking a little weed,” but there are criminals who should be locked up, yet are let go with low bail or their own recognizance over-and-over again.

The career criminal who killed Auburn, Massachusetts Police Officer Ronald Tarentino Jr. early this week had a long criminal history. The convict was 35 and started his adult criminal career at 17. With 27 court appearances, he logged 20 misdemeanor convictions and TEN felony convictions. Who knows what he did as a “youthful offender.” Just this year… From the Boston Herald

On Jan. 25, he was arraigned on charges of assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest after allegedly grabbing a cop by the shirt and trying to pull him into a car with a large pit bull inside. In a hearing that lasted just over a minute, he was released on his own recognizance by Judge Paul L. McGill.

On Feb. 11, he [was] charged with assault and battery on a family member for allegedly punching a woman in the face on the side of Interstate 495, as well as resisting arrest and driving with a revoked license. He was released by Judge Andrew L. Mandell on $500 cash bail. Prosecutors had requested that his bail on a prior offense be revoked, a request Mandell denied.

On May 11, he appeared in court for a probation violation hearing after failing numerous drug screenings and missing appointments with his probation officer; the hearing lasted less than one minute and he was ordered to return to court June 9.

On May 16, he was arrested in Worcester for driving an unregistered vehicle with false license plates on a suspended license; he was arraigned that day and released on his own recognizance by Judge Janet J. McGuiggan. Prosecutors did not seek bail.
Six days later, he shot and killed Tarentino.

This criminal – like many others – are given opportunity after opportunity to “turn their life around.” It’s over… it’s got to stop.

Hartford Courant OpEd: 2nd Amendment does not include “assault rifles”

In an opinion piece published in the Hartford Courant today by Noah Feldman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard, Feldman outright states the 2nd Amendment does not include assault rifles. His reasoning comes down to this*, with my emphasis.

… there’s something special about weapons that can be used both for self-defense and for militias … those are the weapons that the men who ratified the Second Amendment had in mind.

Today, that includes handguns. But it doesn’t include assault rifles. They’re great for military purposes, and no doubt fun to shoot on the range. But they aren’t useful for self-defense, almost by definition.

I’m going to assume Feldman is using the now traditional gun-controler’s definition of an “assault weapon” including simple, semi-auto rifles and outright tell him he is wrong.

First, the government’s definition of an “assault weapon” has been changed and manipulated beyond belief. It started in 1994 – or before in some attempts at the state level – with the so-called Assault Weapons Ban that literally changed the definition for political purposes. They lumped in rifles with “special features” into the assault weapon category. You know… special deadly features like adjustable stocks (oh, the horror) and shoulder things that go up.

Prior to 1994 and after the 1934 National Firearms Act, the term was used in the government exclusively for certain military firearms that could be set to select fire or full auto. President Obama and many other gun control activists to this day lie, defining semi-automatics as fully automatic. They know the difference and are purposefully claiming “assault weapons” equal “machine guns” to ensure confusion. There is no other explanation other than “they are lying for political purposes, targeting people who know little about firearms.”

Oh, and there have been so few machine guns, sub-machine guns, or fully automatic firearms used in crimes, it’s almost immeasurable. But back to the topic at hand, Feldman’s claim…

But they aren’t useful for self-defense, almost by definition.

Again, wrong. In January 2013, the Department of Homeland Security put out a bid for a rifle to be used by law enforcement in the US that would be “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…” The request for proposal is still available right here. I wrote about it in January of 2013. In short, Homeland Security stated the personal defense weapon of choice for law enforcement in close quarters was – in generic terms – an AR-15 capable of select fire (3-round burst) and full auto. Funny huh? And yet Feldman does not think the semi-auto version of the gun is useful for self-defense?

Don’t worry professor, I’m not done. Along with law enforcement all over the country pulling their semi-auto, select-fire (somewhat rare) and full-auto (very rare) rifles out of the racks or the trunk when they know they are going into a situation where they would have to defend themselves or others, in a majority of instances, it makes sense for these rifles to be used for home defense.

I’m certainly not saying this is the best choice for everyone, but here is a list of valid reasons I’ve written before, in no particular order.

  1. You can mount a light, red dot sight and/or a laser to the rifle to make it easy to use and aim during the day or night.
  2. They have a reasonable recoil, making the gun – for many users – easier to shoot as compared to a defense-caliber shotgun or pistol.
  3. They can be customized to “fit” a variety of body types and shooting styles. They can be configured and adjusted for different shooting distances (less than 5 yards to more than 200 yards).
  4. The .223/5.56 self-defense round is absolutely appropriate for use within a home, even in an urban environment. Ballistic experts have found rounds from these calibers “dump energy” quickly and break apart or begin to tumble after penetrating the first barrier. Will rifle rounds go through walls? You bet. Will pistol calibers like 9mm, .40 and .45 go through walls? You bet. Will shotgun rounds go through walls? You bet. That said, there is significant evidence the .223/5.56 self-defense rounds penetrate no more than, and often less than traditional handgun calibers and many shotgun rounds.
  5. A rifle is much more capable of stopping a threat as compared to a pistol.
  6. Semi-automatic rifles are more accurate than a pistol or shotgun.
  7. Ammunition is (normally) readily available and (normally) priced within reason.
  8. You (some of you) can buy high-capacity magazines for many semi-automatic rifles. In a self-defense situation, you want to avoid manipulating the firearm at all except for pulling the trigger straight back. Law enforcement and civilians do not favor high-capacity magazines so they can shoot more rounds, they favor them so they can manipulate their gun less. If reloading is needed, it is possible but let’s be completely honest, in many self defense situations, ten rounds may not be enough.

Maybe, just maybe Feldman is confused about what rifles we are talking about here. Maybe he’s so illiterate about the subject he really thinks full-auto rifles are what we’re talking about? I’m not going to give him the benefit of the doubt, he’s a Harvard professor for goodness sakes.

* The Courant’s article is behind a paywall this morning. I excerpted the article above, but here is the three paragraphs I paraphrased.

That leaves the view that there’s something special about weapons that can be used both for self-defense and for militias. According to Scalia, those are the weapons that the men who ratified the Second Amendment had in mind.

Today, that includes handguns. But it doesn’t include assault rifles. They’re great for military purposes, and no doubt fun to shoot on the range. But they aren’t useful for self-defense, almost by definition.

It emerges that a careful, responsible originalist wouldn’t apply Second Amendment protection to weapons that aren’t simultaneously for self-protection and for hypothetical militias.

 

Gun Control: Limiting the self-defense options of the law-abiding

Violent crime – including gun crime – is a problem in the US. Of course, it’s a lot less of a problem than it was in 1993, when the violent crime and murder rate was almost double what it is today. I wonder why politicians are not taking credit? Still, tragedies in schools, on the street or at work should never happen. Nobody wants that. That is not a “goal” for anyone or any special interest group. It’s a ridiculous suggestion.

Have an issue with the law-abiding being able to purchase firearms and carry them for self-defense? I’d like you to consider just one of thousands of incidents – every year – where someone with a gun stopped a violent crime, sometimes without firing a shot.

On Monday night, a 65-year-old woman from New Hampshire, 4-11 and 105 pounds, was stalked and followed home by a 5-11, 200 pound criminal. As she tried to get into her home, he cut her off and tried to grab her. In fear for her life, she shot him, stopping the attack. She got into her house and called 911. The criminal’s partner-in-crime (a female) scooped him up and took him to the hospital where he was treated, and charged with felony robbery.

Soul-searching time: Would you deny this woman the right to use a firearm for self-defense? She could have been raped, kidnapped or murdered. We don’t have a crystal ball, and neither did this woman on Monday night. Maybe he “just” wanted to knock her out and take her wallet. We’ll never know, but would you be OK changing the laws of this country to limit her self-defense options? Would you be OK restricting her freedom to choose the self-defense option that best suites her needs?

That’s what additional gun-control legislation does. It limits the options law-abiding folk have. No, the NRA does not want the mentally ill who are a danger to themselves/others or criminals to have “easy” access to guns. As mentioned before … that’s ridiculous. Let’s not use straw-man arguments in our debates, it’s a waste of time.

My guess is you will not hear any stories like this – and there are a lot – at President Obama’s town hall meeting on CNN tomorrow night.

From WMUR in New Hampshire

Police: Woman, 65, shoots would-be robber in chest

“Something in my head said to take the gun out of my purse,” the woman told News 9.

With her hand on the gun now in her coat pocket, she told News 9 that she headed toward her apartment. She said she looked behind and saw a man following her.

The woman told police that a white man wearing a dark, hooded sweatshirt ran past her and blocked her path.

“Ten feet from the front stairs. That’s when he caught up to me, and he came around me and stood right in front of me. Right in my face,” she said.

The woman told News 9 that the man yelled at her.

She said he reached out and tried to grab her, but she pulled her handgun from her pocket and shot him once in the chest at close range.

The video at the WMUR website as well as the story at the New Hampshire Union Leader identify this criminal as 23-year-old Michael Bontaites, and the partner-in-crime being one Zachary Boyd, a 30-year-old career criminal who has now been charged with being a felon in possession of a deadly weapon for having a knife.

Less than three months ago, Bontaites was charged with criminal threatening.

Then there is Boyd, who was charged with felony drug possession just two months ago, with additional charges going back 10 years.

Zachary Boyd, 30, of 326 Amherst St., told Judge William Barry: “I’ll lose everything I own.” He also told Barry he hasn’t been in trouble for a while.
Boyd was charged with felony drug possession, heroin, and misdemeanor possession of a controlled drug, marijuana, after he was found unconscious in his vehicle earlier Thursday, with the vehicle in drive.
Police prosecutor Carrissa Pelletier said Boyd is subject to a 72-hour probation/parole hold. She said his record dates back to 2005 and includes burglary and a 2012 conviction in Hillsborough County Superior Court South for robbery.

There’s more… Boyd was shot during a home invasion in 2006 when two men forced their way in to his apartment to steal drugs. Boyd looked to be a big-time dealer.

Shot man wanted on drug charges

A Manchester man who was shot in the back by an intruder this month now is suspected on drug charges.

The police say that when they searched Zachary Boyd’s apartment as part of the shooting investigation, they found a large amount of drugs.

Boyd, 21, was released from the hospital, and the police said they don’t know where he is.

They also are looking for two men who forced their way into the apartment Oct. 3 and shot Boyd.

Airline employee smuggles 153 guns through Atlanta to New York

Those arrested moved up to 20 or more guns at a time via Delta flights in the passenger cabin. There are a couple questions you should think about when reading this story. First, why are guns being smuggled to New York? (Hint, it has absolutely nothing to do with restrictive gun laws in New York.) Second, where are the holes in airline security?

Read more

Fast & Furious: Holder’s email on Issa’s “idiot cronies”

On election day, the Department of Justice released about 65,000 Fast & Furious-related documents subpoenaed more than two years ago by the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform. The DOJ claimed the documents were privileged, but our friend John Hinderaker over at Power Line doesn’t think so. I’ve got a comment on Attorney General Eric Holder’s statements he wrote in an email.

Read more