Biden rolls out initial gun control measures

Looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors regarding Biden and his gun control nonsense. Ghost guns are already illegal since forever. More noise to try and amp us up. Though we best keep our eye on David Chipman who they plan as ATF Director.

File:Second Amendment Rally Against Gun Control (27273183568).jpg -  Wikimedia Commons

The Biden White House has released a preview of President Joe Biden’s executive actions on gun control, which he plans to sign Thursday afternoon. The administration is also arguing additional gun control is needed to fight a “public health” crisis and pushing hard for “red flag laws,” which often violate civil liberties.

“Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing six initial actions to address the gun violence public health epidemic,” the White House released late Wednesday. “This Administration will not wait for Congress to act to take its own steps.”

Here are the six actions, from the White House “fact sheet.”

The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”

The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.

The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states.

The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions.

The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking.

The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

Biden’s choice for ATF Director, David Chipman, is a longtime gun control activist who has done extensive lobbying for anti-Second Amendment groups funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Giffords Law Center. He was also involved in the Branch Davidian trial after the government — specifically ATF and FBI — botched a raid in Waco, Texas. Bad decisions made by federal agents ultimately resulted in the deaths of 76 people, including pregnant women and dozens of children.

H/T:  Town Hall

Sanctuary – the danger of civil disobedience

 

We started out with sanctuary churches for illegals, then wholesale cities to States. We have included protecting illegals to those using marihuana. Conservatives are getting into the act now claiming the Second Amendment with gun control as their right to using State sanctuary of counties and towns for the use of this new found “right.” Police authorities claim they will not enforce the rule of State laws.

Mustang gives us his take on illegal use of “Sanctuary” and its impact regarding illegal immigration. Just where will this new found “Right” take us? How far will it go?

Why Sanctuary?

by Mustang

In law, “sanctuary community” has no standing because in the United States, no one is above the law.  No state may refuse to obey federal laws in matters constitutionally assigned to federal authority.  No community within a state has the right to ignore federal authority.

When communities declare themselves sanctuary entities, they are in effect exercising a kind of civil disobedience, which may be (and should be) punished under the law.  Under American law, there is no legitimacy attached to civil disobedience —no matter what arguments may be used to justify it by law breakers.

But the issue has taken on a new dimension.  Not only do civil administrators declare their intent to ignore federal law, they produce writs that prohibit constitutionally sworn police officers from obeying federal laws, as well.  It is a dangerous conspiracy that threatens the United States, its several states, and communities within those states.

Cloward and Piven at the Motor Voter signing law

I believe that “conspiracy” is the correct word for what is happening in the United States today.  A refusal of obey federal law with respect to immigration appears related to the so-called Cloward-Piven strategy devised in 1966, the purpose of which was to overwhelm the lawful exercise of federal power to such an extent that federalism fails; a situation in which the federal government can no longer execute its Constitutional authority or mandate.

Sanctuary cities may not be the most important issue facing the Department of Justice, but if one believes that illegal immigration has reached the point where it imposes a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, its several states, its thousands of communities, then the federal government must act to settle this issue permanently.

Let’s recap:

  • Illegal immigration is illegal.
  • Illegal immigration is a burden to lawful citizens in terms of taxes, infrastructure, access to policing, medical treatment facilities, public education, and community services.
  • Illegal aliens pay less in taxes (sales taxes, etc.) than they receive through state and local services (Source: Congressional Budget Office).
  • The presence of illegal aliens poses a significant risk to lawful residents in terms of violent crimes, drugs, drunk drivers, community health and sanitation.

On 9 January 2020, Ms. Maria Fuentes, aged 92, a citizen of Richmond Hill, Queens, New York, was brutally raped and murdered at the intersection of Liberty Avenue and 127th Street in Richmond Hill by 21-year old Reeaz Khan, an illegal alien from Guyana.  Reeaz was roaming the streets of New York City despite a federal order for his deportation for prior assault and illegal weapons charges.

He was roaming free on the streets of New York City because the New York City Police Department refused to honor a federal retainer request.  Quite naturally, the NYPD now claims that they never received such a request from federal law enforcement agencies.

The evidence of this particular case shows that Reeaz Khan pounced upon his 92-year old victim from behind, throwing her to the ground, sexually assaulting her, and then ran from the scene of his crime.

This illegal alien has now been charged with seven charges, including second degree murder, first degree manslaughter, first degree attempted rape, first degree sexual assault, and tampering with physical evidence.  Reeaz claims that he came upon the woman, found that she was passed out, and tried to render aid but in the process, his pants fell down and his genitals came in contact with hers.  I hope he has a masterful attorney.

DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf observed that New York City is in a state of complete breakdown of law and order and blames this partly on New York City’s sanctuary policies.  Wolf said, “NYC proudly passed sanctuary city laws and bragged about it for months.  But now the citizens of NYC are facing the deadly consequences of these sanctuary policies.

In 2019, New York City experienced 300 murders, an increase of 8% over the murder rate of 2018.  Maybe sanctuary policies aren’t working as well as everyone on the left claims.  Nor should we forget the senseless murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco, California —the home of Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Sanctuary is not a new concept.  In times past, the word refers to a wide range of protective measures that may be taken by communities on behalf of those who residents believed deserve protection.  Lately, though, we have taken the word sanctuary and added to it the word community, but in the absence of any statute that defines sanctuary city, we find the notion somewhat confusing.

In law, “sanctuary community” has no standing because in the United States, no one is above the law.  No state may refuse to obey federal laws in matters constitutionally assigned to federal authority.  No community within a state has the right to ignore federal authority.

Thanks to If All You See… » Pirate’s Cove

For blog of the day!

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Michael Bloomberg the so-called centrist?

 

The MSM was quick to herald the news that there was an excellent chance Michael Bloomberg was going to put his hat in the ring. Yes, someone more centrist. He looked at the field and so he “had a lane.” Lane? What lane. He is as wacko left as the rest of them. A couple of tweets out there really tells us all we need to know. Let’s look at China and guns as a starting point. Rest easy folks.

 

The Second Amendment and his understanding of guns…. “Give Bambi a chance.” Something like that.

 

Need a refresher on Biden? “China not bad folks.”

Joe Biden, the gift that keeps on giving if the media would only report his positions. Robert Gates spelled it out in his memoir written a few years ago, “I think he (Biden) has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” It looks like Joe is still fumbling along.

 

Yes, all is well in the swamp.

For the best in conservative news push the button.

 

 

 

New Zealand buys back 10,000 ‘banned’ guns first month

 

This is what a knee-jerk reaction will get you to a shooting. A similar effort is working our way. You know the drill. You will read and hear “Assault Rifles” but that is the classic fake news. It is and will be most semi-automatics. They don’t even know the difference.

Following attacks on two Christchurch mosques, New Zealand’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to ban most semi-automatic weapons along with certain kinds of ammunition and large-capacity magazines.

Yes the dreaded semi-automatic. Ask any of our Presidential candidates the same question now, and I would guess few could answer what a semi is.

In simplest terms, “semi-automatic” refers to any firearm designed to fire one bullet with one trigger squeeze, then automatically reload the chamber with a cartridge from a magazine and be ready to fire again.

The term applies to a whole range of modern firearms, from hunting and target rifles all the way up to so-called black rifles that look like what a soldier would carry. Gun control arguments often focus on the black rifles, but the differences between those and any other semi-automatic rifle often are only cosmetic. Semi-automatic guns all largely operate the same way. These guns are commonly owned and include hunting rifles. Many handguns are similar.

More than 10,000 firearms were purchased by the New Zealand government in the first month of a “no questions asked” plan to buy back newly banned weapons, TheGuardian reports. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed through legislation that banned military and semi-automatic weapons after an Australian white supremacist killed 51 people in Christchurch mosques earlier this year.

Snip…

There are between 1.2 and 1.5 million now-prohibited weapons in New Zealand, according to some estimates. Gun owners have until Dec. 20 to sell back or hand in their weapons or face jail sentences of between two to five years.

Considering the current population of New Zealand is about 4,791,634 last I checked, I would say New Zealand is quickly joining it’s neighbor Australia which has banned most guns.

Australia rolled out the National Firearms Agreement, which banned the possession of automatic and semiautomatic firearms in all but “exceptional circumstances.” About 640,000 guns were surrendered through a gun buyback program and another 60,000 were turned in to authorities for free in 1996 and 1997.

Sources:Daily Beast and NPR

They might have considered what happened in Venezuela in 2012.

Venezuela bans private gun ownership – BBC News

 

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

For the best in conservative news and so much better than Drudge, click below.

Red Flag law turns deadly – Officer kills man

Will this death go down as the first “Red Flag” death? This does not bode well for the police. They are now the designated arbiter to do the collection of weapons? I would suggest that going to a house in Baltimore at 5:17 am is not the best time to collect a weapon. One might find someone with a handgun at the ready.

FERNADALE, Md. (WJZ) — A 61-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland’s new ‘red flag’ law in Ferndale Monday morning.

Anne Arundel County Police confirmed the police-involved shooting happened in the 100 block of Linwood Avenue around 5:17 a.m.

According to police, two officers serving a new Extreme Risk Protective Order (Red Flag Law), a Maryland protective order to remove guns from a household, shot and killed the man listed on that order.

“Under the law, family, police, mental health professionals can all ask for the protective orders to remove weapons,” said Sgt. Jacklyn David, with Anne Arundel County Police.

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.
For the best in conservative news, click below-

Obama: 24 Mass Shootings. Trump: 4 Mass Shootings

There have been eight mass shootings under Clinton, eight under Bush, and 24 under Obama.Ten Mass Shootings out of 24 since 1966 have happened under the Obama Administration. Four under Donald Trump.

One would never know the statistics with the pounding drum beat blaming  Donald Trump. Did anyone blame Obama for all of the mayhem under his watch? Johnson? Reagan, Bush, Obama?  Let’s step through the fog of mass shootings. Republicans are responsible for the violence?

Bonus information Democrat cities:

200th person Murdered in Baltimore this weekend.

7 killed this weekend in Chicago. 53 shot.

But I digress:

The first mass shooting in the collective American memory was the University of Texas at Austin shooting in August 1966. The shooter, armed with six weapons and ensconced at the top of the University of Texas Tower, killed 17 people, wounding more than 30 others.

Johnson’s first reaction sounds familiar to 21st-century ears. On August 2, 1966, the day after the shooting, White House press secretary Bill Moyers read a statement by the president that said, “What happened is not without a lesson: that we must press urgently for the legislation now pending in Congress to help prevent the wrong person from obtaining firearms.”

The statement added that “[t]he bill would not prevent all such tragedies. But it would help reduce the unrestricted sale of firearms to those who cannot be trusted in their use and possession.”

In July 1984, during Ronald Reagan’s first term as president, a gunman killed 21 people at a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California.

Unlike Johnson, Reagan did not say anything publicly about the shooting. In fact, a search by the New York Times revealed that “[t]he Times did not report any comment from the administration of President Ronald Reagan. His public papers show no statements on the subject in the days following.”

When the Tylenol poisonings took place in Chicago in 1982, Reagan had also stood back, letting Johnson & Johnson take the lead in the response. Reagan appears to have been of the view that local tragedies should be handled at the local level, deferring to private-sector entities, when appropriate, to handle problems.

Reagan also appears to have remained quiet after the other two mass shootings during his presidency, one in Oklahoma and one in California. The 1986 Edmond, Oklahoma, shooting appears to be the first one in which a disgruntled post-office employee was the killer, the start of an unfortunate trend of about half a dozen of these shootings that would inspire the phrase “going postal.”

Similarly, Reagan’s successor and former vice president, George H. W. Bush, also generally avoided making statements about the four mass shootings during his administration.

The tradition of presidential silence in the wake of most mass shootings came to an end in the 1990s during the Clinton administration.

President Clinton did not weigh in on every one of the eight mass shootings during his tenure, but these events were now frequent enough to warrant presidential attention.

Eight under Clinton, eight under Bush, and 24 under Obama (see chart below).

Deadliest American Mass Shootings

Keep reading

Since Johnson, at the most the perception was that the President’s job was to console. Most remained uninvolved. Only one thing that has never happened before, they never were blamed for mass shootings. Why should Trump be blamed for it now?

A big tip of the hat goes to Drake’s Place for the lead.

Defending Faith And Freedom: Mass Shootings Under the Obama Administration:

Ten (10) Mass Shootings out of 24 since 1966 have happened under the Obama Administration

National AffairsPresidents and mass shootings.

Bonus: A previous post: Gun violence dropped significantly, gun ownership rises

Thanks to  Doug Ross  for the link and welcome readers as well as WhatfingerNews for the links. Thanks as well for the link at Maggies Farm

For the best in conservative news click below:

Trump’s ban on Bump Stocks goes into effect – 10 years in jail, $250,000 fine

 

 

It’s the so-called “Rules” that get a person down. You know, that phone and pen that we thought we had gotten rid of with Trump coming into office. Look, I am no fan of bump stocks. Most people have not a clue as to what they do or don’t do. That is where the hazy part of it becomes a menace to gun owners.

Easy for the non-informed to conclude that while we are at it with the bump stocks, it must have something to do with “semi-automatic” weapons. You know, those nasty looking military type guns. Let’s go after them too. In truth, many hand guns and rifles used for sport are in fact “semi-automatic.”

But now we are talking confiscation. Really? That is the precedent we are going to set?

So how did we get here?

 

The Bump Stock Ban, which took effect on Tuesday, March 26th, 2019 was enacted by the Trump Administration to reclassify bump stock devices as machine guns, and therefore subject to regulation as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The transfer or possession of bump stocks became prohibited under this new amendment to the law, subject to penalty of up to 10 years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on “bump stock” attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.

In the days before the rule change reclassifying the stocks went into effect on March 26, RW was selling the devices for between $105 to $450, making the parts destroyed to comply with the prohibition worth millions. Under the rule, bump stock owners must either destroy the stocks or abandon them at an ATF office without reimbursement for their cost or value.

Nonetheless, a bevy of plaintiffs who are challenging the rule change in federal courts across the country has argued the ban may violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states that private property can’t be taken for public use without compensation.

A federal judge in Washington D.C. last month responded to that argument that bump stock owners could resort to filing a lawsuit for damages from the government under the Tucker Act after the fact but that factor alone wasn’t enough to halt the ban.

Federal regulators last year estimated there could be as many 520,000 bump stocks in circulation. The ATF has posted instructions online so that owners can destroy their own stocks.

How to Destroy Bump Stocks | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco … – ATF

Here

 

Download PDF with all diagrams

 

Access the final rule in the Federal Register

 

To comply with a Rule classifying bump stocks as untransferable machine guns, a Texas distributor sent their entire inventory of the now-banned devices to the scrappers.

Fort Worth-based RW Arms on Wednesday brought 60,000 bump stocks to American Shredder where they were destroyed under the supervision of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents. The retailer had acquired the remaining inventory of Texas-based bump stock maker Slide Fire Solutions, who had closed their doors last year as the federal government pursued a ban on the once-legal accessory.

 

 

A Texas-based retailer of now-banned bump stocks has transferred about 60,000 of the gun-related items to the federal government to be destroyed. (March 27)

RW Arms

 

Welcome What Finger News Readers. Thanks for stopping by 

Flashback: Obama uses ‘National Emergency Powers’ to ban guns

Where were the twelve GOP Senators when Obama banned rifles with his “National Emergency Powers”? Their noble cause to uphold the Constitution? Meanwhile Obama Impinging on our Second Amendment.  We were going to hell in a hand basket by Obama’s damnable phone and a pen? Where were the court challenges by the GOP? The gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands? Now we are going to have our Nation over run by illegals and these toads will stand on their righteous petard that Trump’s “National Emergency Powers” is a constitutional over reach. What about protecting citizen’s Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?  Here is a B-ville flashback from 2014.

Note Obama uses the“National emergency powers” he believes he has. Here we go:

Outlaws import of Russian-made AK-47 rifles with stroke of his  pen

According to a Presidential Executive Order issued Wednesday, the importation of AKs manufactured by theKalashnikov Concern in Izhmash, Russia has been banned.

This includes the popular “Saiga” line of rifles and shotguns.

The sanctions were taken because of Russia’s aggression toward the Ukraine. Russian banks and energy companies were also targeted.

To be clear, the executive order does not affect Izhmash or Saiga firearms already in this country. This is not an “assault weapons” ban. Instead, it halts the importation of firearms from the Izhmash-based firm.

The news was released without fanfare, when the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added Kalashnikov Concern and other Russian businesses to its “Specially Designated Nationals” or “SDN” sanctions list.

Obama exploited the conflict in Ukraine to target the importation of the popular AK line of firearms manufactured by Kalashnikov Concern in Izhmash, Russia. The unconstitutional ban includes the Saiga line of rifles and shotguns.

The OFAC, according to its website, “administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The criminalization of an entire line of foreign manufactured firearms is possible under “national emergency powers” and there is no appeal process.

“Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments,” according to the Treasury Department.

In a statement on their website issued early Thursday, Kalashnikov Concern noted that the sanctions will hurt U.S. consumers.

“It should be noted that the production of ‘Kalashnikov’ in the U.S. enjoys high demand, pre-order products civilian three times the annual volume of deliveries. Thus, taken in relation to ‘Kalashnikov’ sanctions the U.S. government go against the interests of American consumers,” the statement reads.”

It was founded in 1807, and exports arms and tools to 27 countries, including:  USA, UK, Germany, Norway, Italy, Canada, Kazakhstan and Thailand.

H/T: Gun Writer blog

How the Marxist are turning and teaching our Constitution and its meaning

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.

Other than this, all is well in the swamp.

Welcome readers of Whatfinger news!

 

Enter SCOTUS Brett Kavanaugh – The positives and concerns

 

Daniel Horowitz wrote an excellent piece at the Conservative Review that Mark Levin suggested reading. I made a special effort to catch Levin’s program as I was curious as to Mark’s take on the SCOTUS pick. The big concern was Kavanaugh starting the ball rolling with the Obamacare as a tax. I suggest wandering over to the Conservative Review for a balanced view and thoughts on the judiciary.

The full podcast is out there at Levin’s website and on YouTube if you want the full thing. I agree with Mark. Let’s ask some questions. Must we follow and support blindly? Or can we raise questions without feeling disloyal to Trump?

 

 

Below are some points:

Here are several concerns that conservatives should research thoroughly throughout the confirmation process and Kavanaugh’s meetings with senators:

  • Obamacare regulation as a tax: In Seven-Sky v. Holder (2011), Kavanaugh wrote a dissent opining that the individual mandate of Obamacare could not be challenged in court because, under the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867, no lawsuit can be brought until the plaintiff actually was forced to pay the tax, which in this case wasn’t for another few years. I’m a big stickler for courts staying in their lane and properly abiding by rules of standing, but in this case his entire rationale was built upon a dangerous premise that a government mandate/penalty was really a tax. This served as the basis for John Roberts’ infamous opinion upholding Obamacare.

 

  • Endless standing to rip God out of the public square: In Newdow v. Roberts, an infamous atheist sued to take the words “so help me God” out of the presidential oath of office. Aside from it being insane to suggest this violates the Establishment Clause, the notion that a random person could get standing to sue and that this is even a justiciable case violates the very essence of what distinguishes a court from a legislature. It lies at the core of what is allowing the ACLU to shut down our civilization for years with radical forum-shopped lower courts. While, in his separate opinion, Kavanaugh ruled the right way on the Establishment Clause, he held that the plaintiff indeed had valid standing to sue as “offended observers.” This is the type of nonsense that is plaguing public prayer and display of the Ten Commandments across the country. It is simply astounding for any originalist to disagree with other justices in granting such standing and is very consequential for cases that will reach the Supreme Court soon. Kavanaugh hid behind Supreme Court precedent, but admitted that the high court never directly addressed the issue of this type of standing.

These rulings taken together, Kavanaugh is essentially saying that a random atheist with an obscure and abstract claim against a presidential oath can get standing, but individuals directly forced to purchase a private product and engage in commerce couldn’t get standing.

  • Contraception as a “compelling government interest”: Almost every circuit upheld Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Like most of the originalist judges, Kavanaugh dissented from these opinions and sided with plaintiffs in Priests for Life, which is good. But what is still puzzling is that he gratuitously and explicitly conceded that the government has “a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception.” While the Supreme Court did assume that the government might have a general interest in promoting contraception, the court never assumed, much less ruled, that such an interest would apply to the narrow subset of employees at religious institutions. The fact that he didn’t join the stronger dissent from Judges Brown and Henderson – built upon the premise that the government must find a compelling interest specifically in mandating “seamless” coverage – raises concerns that we won’t see him categorically opposing the Left on these issues and joining Thomas on the court.

 

  • Immigration: Immigration is perhaps the most important issue winding through the courts now, and most of the nominees had thin records on the issue. I haven’t seen anything big on the fundamental issues of the plenary power doctrine, for better or worse. However, as we reported last year, the D.C. Circuit absurdly granted an illegal alien the right to demand access to an abortion. While Kavanaugh rightly dissented on the grounds that the opinion drastically expanded abortion jurisprudence, he declined to sign on to Judge Karen Henderson’s indispensable dissent, finally laying down the law on sovereignty and the plenary power doctrine. That was a much-needed dissent, given what is going on throughout the circuits on immigration, and it is a bit peculiar that he didn’t sign on to that dissent, while Henderson signed onto Kavanaugh’s dissent tackling the abortion angle.

Snip…

“At least he’s a lot better than the other side” is no longer good enough. If we are going to accept the premise, as the president himself did last night, that “The Supreme Court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our Republic, the Constitution of the United States,” we can’t afford to settle for anything less than the best. The aforementioned concerns notwithstanding, conservatives should be happy with much of Kavanaugh’s record but should look a little deeper before jumping in with both feet.

Full thing at Conservative Review 

Under 10 percent of “March for our Lives” were under 18

 

So the usual suspects no doubt were involved with the so-called “march” in D.C. on Saturday. Less than 10 percent were under 18.  But no matter, once again, the siren call for our guns begins again. Now ammunition is under attack. Thanks to dear Wasserman-Schultz. No discussion of the failures of the government. The School, the Sheriff. I’ll add a few words from the NRA:

 

A sociologist on MSNBC threw cold water on all the media’s claims that the March For Our Lives protests were spontaneous and led by the nation’s children during a “Morning Joe” segment on Monday.

While Fisher tried to make it sound like these individuals were all potential voters, it is likely that many of those who showed up were simply run-of-the-mill liberal activists.

University of Maryland sociologist Dana Fisher conducted a study of the demographics of Saturday’s march in Washington, D.C., and discovered that only less than 10 percent of those in the crowd were under the age of 18.

The study was done by going through the crowds with tablets and conducting surveys of participants and then extrapolating trends from the data collected, according to Fisher.

More at Daily Caller

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: