Archive by Author

Establish Space National Guard now

Somehow, when the Space Force was created, we deferred the obvious need to create a Space National Guard. We need that capability, and the current bipartisan Congressional proposal is the least-cost way to maintain it and secure spacepower advantage.

First, let’s dismiss the uninformed CBO report on the subject, and talk actual facts and numbers. CBO conducted their estimate using some faulty assumptions. The large figures cited — $385-490 million in annual operations and maintenance and $400-900 million in one-time facility costs — assumed a growth of 3,400-4,300 new personnel to allow a Space Guard in every state, and to make up 35 percent of a Space Force that is twice as large as today.

Perhaps, as the value of the Space economy grows, Congress may choose to expand both the Space Force and the Space National Guard. But that is not in the current proposal.

What the National Guard Bureau has proposed is what is called a Zero Balance Transfer (ZBT), where the 1,008 orphaned space professionals in Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, New York, Ohio, and Guam, and their existing $79M budget acquires a legal change in identity. No new facilities are required. What’s more, the Guard has already paid the overhead costs of managing these units, having already created a Space Operations Director at the NGB headquarters, along with the required 32-member staff. That means the true cost of establishing a Space National Guard is just the cost of changing signs and nametags (less than a quarter of a million dollars), which can come out the Guard’s existing annual budget, with no new appropriations.

That’s a terrific bargain to maintain roughly 13 percent of the USSF’s current roster of approximately 8,400 military servicemen and women, to acquire a capability that provides a wealth of benefits for the nation.

It’s a particularly great deal compared to the administration’s current plan, which attempts to create this capability from scratch. Under it, Congress would be presented with a bill of about $644 million to buy a capability that the nation already possesses. Worst of all, however, will be its impact on long-term readiness. It would likely take 7-10 years for the USSF to recreate the lost expertise — a level of proficiency which takes years to attain.

But why a Space Guard at all? In air, land, and sea, America chooses to maintain a significant portion of its forces in the guard and reserves. America needs a Space Guard for the same reasons it chooses to maintain a National Guard and an Air National Guard.

First, a Guard ensures an ability to mobilize and surge for warfare. It also limits the ability of any administration to commit significant forces without the support of the American people.

Second, Guard units facilitate a better civil-military relationship by enabling a different set of demographics to participate as citizen-soldiers — those Americans who want to work full-time in their state, with their families, with some measure of control over their deployments, or those who look to pursue a civilian job while doing service part-time. Guard units also advance positive civil-military relationships in urban communities; Guard units are most often the public face of the military to the broader population, because the active component generally does not have bases in population centers.

Third, a Guard is likely to advance military space innovation. Consider that most Space Force missions can, and are, done from the homeland, permitting homesteading without mission decrement. Because the Space Force is a highly technical service, it requires deep expertise that takes a long time to develop and is difficult to retain. And where is the most innovative expertise being developed? The greatest innovation in the space sector is happening in the private sector. Because of the stability provided by the guard, it not only allows the Space Force to access innovative ideas from the private sector, it enables them to retain that expertise long term.

Fourth, a Space National Guard advances state interests. All states are focused on economic development. It isn’t just that Guard units bring jobs and federal dollars. Having available space expertise can help manage resources, enable smart cities, smart agriculture, asset tracking. And space can provide significant assistance during hazards and emergencies, including imagery for incident awareness and assessment (IAA), and emergency communications. Starting a Space Guard creates the legal infrastructure and budget wedge that will eventually enable other space-minded states like Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama to benefit.

That is today. But space is a significant engine of economic growth, growing in excess of 10 percent a year, with some estimates at twice that. Space tourism, commercial point-to-point, private space stations will all increase the value of commercial spaceports. Private space stations, lunar or asteroid mining companies will be chartered in states, and under their corporate law jurisdictions. Both on Earth and in space, the guard has special authorities to “play sheriff” not otherwise available to the Space Force — authorities that could be expanded to enable a space economy.

Fifth, a Space National Guard allows the United States Space Command to capitalize on the National Guard’s existing State Partnership Program to develop diplomacy and counter competitor influence. The U.S. military struggles to maintain long-term relationships of trust with foreign partners — and struggles especially with the “middles and littles” (those non-spacefaring nations). The current program consists of over 90 partnerships between States and foreign governments, and adding a space component to them will advance key partnerships. The space competencies required of non-spacefaring, developing states to reduce under-governed areas is exactly the expertise that a Space National Guard develops with its own governor.

Finally, a Space Guard is the surest way to protect the independence and security of the Space Force. A Space Guard will multiply the number of congressional and state-level allies available to the Space Force. That is likely to result in an overall healthier budget and stature.

Establishing the Space National Guard is the smart thing to do. To secure the nation’s advantage, it is essential that both the House and Senate include the Space National Guard language in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.

Peter Garretson is Senior Fellow in Defense Studies at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C.

Source: TEST FEED1

Monkeypox: CDC's new warning level explained

(NewsNation) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) elevated their travel advisory for monkeypox after more cases were confirmed around the world.

The CDC now calls monkeypox a Level 2 concern, meaning Americans should take precautions when traveling but don’t need to cancel their plans.

Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist, told “NewsNation Prime” on Monday that the risk to most people remains low because researchers believe prolonged intimate contact is necessary to spread the disease.

“That’s probably from close skin-to-skin contact and also the very close respiratory contact that happens during sexual activity,” Gandhi said. “It’s definitely not airborne, and it takes a lot of contact to get it, which is why we don’t think it’s a major risk to the general population.”

The disease is spreading across Europe, with 77 new cases confirmed in the United Kingdom alone Monday. The U.S. has reported 31 cases.

The CDC also recommends wearing a mask to protect yourself, though Gandhi is skeptical it’s necessary.

Symptoms of monkeypox include fever, swollen lymph nodes and a distinctive rash.

There is a vaccine for the virus, but it’s not widely distributed since it was originally created to combat smallpox, which has been eradicated for decades. Gandhi says close contacts of confirmed cases should look into getting the shot, but the rest of the population should be OK without it.

Source: TEST FEED1

Criminal group making large purchases with stolen credit cards in the South, FBI says

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (WSPA) — A criminal group operating in the South is making large purchases with stolen credit cards and then hiring unsuspecting people online to transport the merchandise, according to the FBI’s Charlotte Division.

So far this year, the group has used stolen credit cards to make purchases at more than 100 businesses in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, West Virginia and Kentucky, said Shelley Lynch, public affairs specialist with FBI Charlotte Division.

“The main red flag of it is that they’re calling over the phone and just giving a credit card number. So since businesses are not seeing these people in person and they can’t verify that that credit card belongs to that person by verifying that I.D.,” she said.

In the scheme, tire stores, furniture stores, lumber companies, trailer businesses, and appliance stores have been scammed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, she said.

“They’re posting job sites online and they are hiring people to drive to these businesses, pick up these large purchases, sometimes transfer them to other states, and then they’re paying them with a cash app. And the people who are driving and picking these up, these items don’t even know that they have picked up items that weren’t paid for properly and legally,” she said.

Before the credit card transaction is flagged as fraudulent, the group pays someone to pick it up and take it to another state to be resold, she said.

Days later, the victimized businesses learn the sales were fraudulent, she said.

“In each case, we believe the same group of criminals are using stolen credit cards. They’re calling over the phone to different types of businesses that typically will sell like large ticket items — so high ticket items. And they will make a large purchase and then hire someone to go pick up that purchase before the businesses realize that the credit card numbers are stolen,” said Lynch.

The FBI says the thieves are hiring people to transport the stolen goods across state lines with large utility trailers and trucks.

In addition to businesses being targeted, individuals who have credit card numbers stolen are seeing large purchases on their bills. Typically, they can work with their own credit card company to get that reversed, she said.

Another red flag, according to Lynch, is if someone is trying to hire you for a transportation job that sounds too good to be true or strange, it could be the criminal group, she said.

“Some of the things that are kind of odd about [the transportation] jobs, the job ad [posted by thieves] specifically, is that they’re asking these folks to go and either rent a box truck so that they can go get a large shipment of items,” she said. “They’re asking them in some cases to use their own vehicles, and so that is another kind of red flag that it doesn’t seem like maybe it’s necessarily a legitimate job.”

The FBI is warning businesses about this scheme because, at this point, it’s already been seen more than a hundred times across eight states in just a few months, she said.

FBI Charlotte is working with several local law enforcement agencies on the investigation. Businesses with similar unsolved crimes should call, FBI Charlotte at 704-672-6100 or fill out a complaint online at tips.fbi.gov.

Source: TEST FEED1

Romney, Ossoff call for probe into journalist's killing in West Bank

Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah.) and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) have sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken asking him to launch an investigation into the death of American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. 

In their letter sent on Monday, the lawmakers asked the State Department to launch a “full and transparent” probe into Akleh’s death, also calling for accountability as well. 

Shireen Abu Akleh, a veteran journalist who worked for Al Jazeera’s Arabic language channel, was shot and killed last month after being struck in the head by a bullet during a raid conducted by the Israeli military. 

Abu Akleh was covering the Israeli military raid for Al Jazeera in the city of Jenin, a city that is controlled by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank region of the country. 

“The killing of a U.S. citizen and of a journalist engaged in the work of reporting in a conflict zone is unacceptable,” the senators wrote in their letter. “All over the world, journalists pursue truth and accountability at great personal risk. Press freedom is a core American value, and we cannot accept impunity when journalists are killed in the line of duty. We insist that the Administration ensure a full and transparent investigation is completed and that justice is served for Ms. Akleh’s death.”

The senators also insisted on the Biden Administration to ensure  “a full and transparent investigation” into Akleh’s killing, asking for an update within a 30-day span. 

This comes as U.S. officials such as President Biden have publicly condemned the killing of Akleh, also asking for an investigation to determine who is accountable for Akleh’s death.  

Israeli authorities have also launched a separate investigation into Akleh’s killing, with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett saying that Palestinian armed forces might have caused the veteran’s journalist’s death.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fox News Channel won't carry coverage of primetime Jan. 6 hearing live

Fox News Channel has announced that it will not provide continuous live coverage on Thursday evening of the first hearing of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In an announcement on Monday, Fox News Media said hosts on the air as the proceedings are taking place will “cover the hearings as news warrants,” before anchor and chief legal correspondent Shannon Bream will anchor a two-hour live special focusing on the hearings starting at 11 p.m.

The conservative media giant will instead show live continuous coverage of the hearings on Fox Business, with anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum hosting. It will also provide coverage via Fox News Digital, Fox News Audio and Fox Nation.

The announcement signals Fox will not preempt its regularly scheduled opinion shows, featuring controversial hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, All three of whom draw in millions of viewers a night.

Most of the other major cable and network news channels have indicated they will provide live, continuous coverage of the hearings in their entirety.

All three of Fox’s primetime hosts have used their nightly primetime shows to rail against the committee, painting it as illegitimate, unfair and partisan.

A leading member of the committee, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) criticized Carlson specifically after he and his team at Fox produced a special three-part series for its streaming service focusing on the Capitol riot.

“Patriot Purge,” purported to tell “the true story behind 1/6″ and featured a guest who suggested the attack could have been a so-called “false flag” event.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five things to watch in California and beyond in Tuesday’s primaries

Voters in the nation’s largest state will head to the polls on Tuesday to cast their ballots in a series of marquee races. 

In San Francisco, voters will decide whether to boot their top prosecutor out of office, while Los Angeles residents will move a step closer to choosing their next mayor. There are also a pair of closely watched House races that will test the power of two GOP incumbents. 

But California’s not the only state with primaries on Tuesday. There are also nominating contests in a half-dozen other states, including Iowa, Montana and New Jersey.  

Here are five things to watch in Tuesday’s primaries. 

Does San Francisco recall flash warning signs for progressives on crime?  

San Francisco voters are set to answer a key question on Tuesday: Should the city’s progressive top prosecutor stay, or should he go? 

The election to decide the fate of District Attorney Chesa Boudin has emerged as a local race with national implications. Boudin is among the most progressive top prosecutors in the country, and the election to recall him is widely seen as a referendum on the left’s approach to crime. 

Proponents of the recall — including both Republicans and some Democrats — have spent massively on the campaign to oust Boudin. What little polling there has been in the recall effort suggests that the San Francisco DA is at serious risk of losing his job.  

To be sure, there’s little evidence that Boudin’s tenure in the district attorney’s office has led to a significant increase in crime. But critics say that his lenient approach to the issue has empowered perpetrators and made many residents feel unsafe.  

If the recall vote ultimately succeeds, San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D) will appoint a replacement until voters choose a new DA in November.  

Does spending tip the scales in the LA mayor’s race?  

Billionaire Rick Caruso has pumped tens of millions of dollars of his personal fortune into the race to become Los Angeles’s next mayor, dropping some $34 million on the race so far. 

Whether that staggering investment pays off is one of the most intriguing questions heading into Tuesday. 

His main rival in the mayoral race is Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), who emerged as a potential running mate for President Biden during the 2020 election.  

Bass and an affiliated super PAC have only spent about $2 million on TV advertising in the race, putting her far behind Caruso, a former Republican who changed his party affiliation to Democrat this year around the time he launched his campaign for mayor. 

The mayor’s race is an all-party primary, and if no candidate on the ballot manages to surpass the 50 percent threshold, it will advance to a November general election where voters will choose between the top two vote-getters. 

Still, Caruso’s hefty spending in the race is only the latest test of influence for wealthy individuals and super PACs as they look to elect Democratic candidates cut from a more moderate cloth, especially at a time when progressives are trying to flex their political muscles.

What does California turnout say about Democratic motivation? 

Turnout in California is lagging, with just 1 in 10 registered voters having cast their ballots in the primaries so far.  

The lackluster early turnout is a major change from last year, when California voters weighed in on the state’s gubernatorial recall election. 

The outlook could change, but the uninspired voter turnout so far could offer some hints about just how motivated voters are this year in the nation’s largest — and one of its bluest — states. 

Of course, there may be other reasons for the low turnout. Unlike in many other states, there are few, if any, major races at the top of the ticket in California this year.  

Nevertheless, it’s easier than ever to cast a ballot in California. The state sends every registered voter a mail ballot and allows people other than the voter to collect and return those ballots.

Does a blue wave Democrat pull it off in Iowa?   

Former Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D-Iowa) was among the candidates who helped Democrats win back the House majority in 2018 in a wave election year for the party. But her time in the House was short; she was ousted in 2020 by Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa).  

Now, Finkenauer is hoping to return to Washington, this time as a U.S. senator.  

But she’s facing an unexpectedly stiff primary challenge from retired Navy Adm. Mike Franken, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic Senate nomination in Iowa two years ago and has shown signs of closing the gap with Finkenauer in recent months. 

Franken has outpaced Finkenauer in the money race in each of the past two fundraising periods and has drastically outspent her on advertising.  

Polling in the primary has been scarce, though an internal poll from Franken’s campaign last month showed the two candidates statistically deadlocked, with 42 percent of likely Democratic primary voters backing Franken and 40 percent backing Finkenauer.  

Whoever emerges from the primary will still have to face Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in November, and defeating the seven-term GOP senator is likely to be an uphill battle for any Democrat. 

Do GOP incumbents fall to right-wing challengers?

A handful of GOP incumbents are facing challenges from their right on Tuesday, turning the primaries into tests of how far Republican voters have swung. 

In South Dakota, Rep. Dusty Johnson is up against state Rep. Taffy Howard, who has the backing Drain the Swamp, a PAC that is pushing former President Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. 

In California, Rep. Young Kim is getting help from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a PAC aligned with House GOP leadership, as she looks to fend off a primary challenge from Mission Viejo City Councilman Greg Raths.  

And in New Jersey, conservative commentator Mike Crispi is running to oust Rep. Chris Smith, who drew Trump’s ire after he voted in favor of a bipartisan infrastructure bill last year. 

Trump himself hasn’t weighed in for any of the primary challengers, and Johnson, Kim and Smith all have wide financial advantages over their GOP opponents. Still, the primaries are the latest instance of right-wing challengers looking to reshape the House Republican Conference into an even more conservative image.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House braces for the death of Roe v. Wade 

The White House is quietly preparing for a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, a consequential decision expected to come this month that will create immediate pressure to respond and take action. 

Members of the administration have held listening sessions with state officials, advocacy groups and other stakeholders on abortion rights regarding the legal barriers to abortion already in place in certain states.  

Individuals who participated in those meetings told The Hill that they are encouraged by the White House’s attention on the issue but are waiting for concrete details about how it will answer the expected decision.

“I believe that we are at least setting the stage to fight a bigger fight that’s going to happen,” said Marsha Jones, executive director of The Afiya Center, an organization devoted to the health of Black women and girls in Texas. “The White House, at least they are giving the perception that they are willing to fight this fight with us.” 

“I do need to see something tangible,” added Jones, who participated in a May 21 meeting with Gender Policy Council Executive Director Jennifer Klein and Vice President Harris’s domestic policy adviser Rohini Kosoglu. “We’re all just sitting on pins and needles.” 

Publicly, President Biden has been largely mum on the issue of abortion in the weeks since he expressed outrage at the Supreme Court draft ruling nixing Roe, which leaked at the start of May.  

Harris, meanwhile, has become one of the administration’s leading voices on the subject, holding a roundtable on Monday with faith leaders on abortion rights in Los Angeles and releasing a video on social media last week arguing that other rights are at risk if the court overturns the landmark abortion ruling.

Administration officials have been quiet about steps they are weighing in response to the ruling, and the White House is not expected to announce any specific plans until after it comes down.  

“Protecting Americans’ constitutional right to make personal decisions about their own bodies and lives is a top priority for the President, and as he has said, the Administration will be ready when any ruling is issued,” said White House spokesperson Alexandra LaManna.

Since the draft decision leaked, White House officials have met with advocates from medical organizations, faith leaders and businesses, as well as elected officials from states that have moved ahead with restrictive abortion laws, such as Texas and Oklahoma, and states that have passed measures to protect abortion rights, including Connecticut and Maryland. 

The focus on state and local leaders underscores that without action by Congress, the steps the Biden administration can take are limited and likely to be subject to Republican-led legal challenges. 

The leaked draft ruling suggesting the high court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, a landmark 1973 decision found the Constitution protected a woman’s right to have an abortion, sent shock waves through Washington last month and engendered a new sense of urgency in the West Wing.  

Advocates for abortion access who have met with the administration told The Hill that the White House has been interested to hear about needs on the ground while it is deciding how to respond. 

“They wanted us to let them know how the White House can help in our advocacy and in our battles in our states,” said North Carolina state Rep. Julie von Haefen (D), who along with other state lawmakers participated in a meeting with Klein and White House intergovernmental affairs director Julie Chavez Rodriguez on Friday.  

Von Haefen said that questions from White House officials included ones about access to abortion medication and any state bills prohibiting expenses for travel to receive an abortion. 

“They’re really curious about what’s on the ground, and I know they’re weighing all of their options,” added Yvonne Hsu, chief policy and government affairs officer of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum. 

She pointed to areas the White House can focus on immediately to lessen the burden on women that were discussed in the May 21 meeting, including addressing the lack of access to information in languages other than English, squashing disinformation and curtailing fear in immigrant communities. 

“What I am thankful to this White House for is not only calling those meetings, but calling them actually to listen, listen to what our concerns were across states,” said Kelly Davis, executive director of New Voices for Reproductive Justice. 

She said she expressed a “series of concerns,” including that, compared to other groups, “Black pregnant people are going to experience the majority of health, finance and self-determination consequences.” 

Still, other crises have seemed to take precedence at the White House in recent weeks, such as the string of mass shootings and the subsequent renewed push for gun control legislation, leaving some to worry that the abortion fight has taken a back seat.  

“I think the moment has kind of passed and it isn’t on the front burner now as far as I can tell. The administration has got consumed with Ukraine, firearms and inflation,” said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law professor at Georgetown University.  

“It’s not that they don’t want to do anything, it’s just that they just don’t think there’s anything immediate and powerful that they can do under the law,” he said.  

In the immediate wake of the leaked draft opinion, Biden, who is a devout Catholic, used the word “abortion,” which marked a shift from not publicly speaking the word out loud during his presidency. Advocates for abortion access are hopeful that Biden leaning into the issue could mean he is more bullish when a ruling is out. 

“I would love to see the White House take the following steps in the coming months, including that linguistically they have managed to actually speak in alignment with movements that talk about the word abortion,” Davis said. 

With limited action available now, Democrats are also looking to make abortion an issue on the campaign trail ahead of the looming midterm elections, hoping that the fight will help energize members of the base and bring in swing voters.  

Biden has called for voters to mobilize and elect more pro-abortion rights lawmakers to the state and federal levels, a call he reiterated when a vote failed in the 50-50 Senate last month on legislation that would have protected various abortion procedures. Harris has also echoed that message. 

The White House has sought to paint Republicans as extreme for enacting abortion restrictions at the state level and opposing the Women’s Health Protection Act, a law that would codify federal abortion rights.  

“The Biden-Harris Administration is continuing to speak out as extremist Republican leaders are weaponizing the use of the law in states across the country to punish and control women,” a White House official said.

Source: TEST FEED1

What a NY Republican abandoning his reelection says about gun reform

Political observers’ reaction to Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.) abruptly abandoning his reelection bid over backlash to his support for gun control measures could be summarized in one word: Wow. 

As the dust settles on Jacobs’s abrupt bowing out, questions are circulating about what his being pushed out of Congress could mean for gun control efforts and negotiations in the wake of recent massacres and whether hardening in the Republican Party around the issue leaves any room for compromise.  

Jacobs, who represents a district that surrounds Buffalo, N.Y., where a self-proclaimed white supremacist gunned down 10 Black people, said that shooting as well as the massacre that killed 19 elementary school children and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, made him want to be “transparent” with his position. 

“If an assault weapons ban bill came to the floor that would ban something like an AR-15, I would vote for it,” Jacobs said in a May 27 press conference. He also mentioned limiting access to body armor and raising the legal age for buying high-capacity semi-automatic weapons to 21. 

Backlash was swift. 

Donald Trump Jr. dressed Jacobs down on Twitter, accusing him of chasing “glowing headlines from the mainstream media.” Conservatives started looking for a primary challenger. Gun rights activists circulated petitions asking Jacobs to reverse his position. Every GOP elected official that had endorsed him withdrew their support, Jacobs said, and someone posted his cellphone number online. 

A week later, Jacobs announced that he would not seek reelection to New York’s newly drawn 23rd Congressional District, which covers some of the same territory as his current 27th District but includes much new terrain. He did not want to divide the GOP, he said, and make the election entirely about the gun issue. 

Now advocates on both sides are seeking to parse what his decision means for the gun control debate and attempts at reforms. 

The best chance at any successful legislation in Congress rests in the Senate, where Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) hopes to lead a bipartisan group of senators to compromise on small steps to address gun violence. Areas of potential agreement concern reforms to background checks and promoting red flag laws to keep those deemed a danger to themselves or others from possessing firearms.  

But Jacobs, who assumed office in mid-2020 after winning a special election, indicated the fallout around his own position could be a sign that any Republican who steps out of line could face the same political fate. He expected pushback, he said, but not to that extent. 

“We have a problem in our country, in terms of both our major parties. If you stray from a party position, you are annihilated,” Jacobs said. “For the Republicans, it became pretty apparent to me over the last week that that issue is gun control — any gun control.” 

Advocates for gun control and safety measures, though, hope that Jacobs is a unique case and not indicative of what happens to any Republican who entertains gun reform. 

“It seems like Congressman Jacobs sort of mishandled this politically in various ways. But obviously, his heart was in the right place,” said Peter Ambler, executive director of the gun reform group Giffords. 

GOP officials appeared to be caught off-guard by Jacobs’s announcement. New York State Republican Committee Chairman Nick Langworthy told local news station WIVB 4 that Jacobs did not talk about his position with political allies before making the announcement. Conservative Party of New York State Chairman Gerard Kassar said he was “perplexed” at Jacobs’s announcement. 

“There’s ample evidence to show that, you know, to show that Republicans can and have successfully supported safer gun laws in Congress and elsewhere,” Ambler said. 

An assault weapons ban is not on the table in the bipartisan Senate negotiations, other gun control activists note. They point to strong bipartisan support among Americans for requiring background checks on all gun sales. 

“The vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe that the time is now for action to prevent further gun violence,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “It’s deeply disappointing that the extremists in his party have pushed Congressman Jacobs out, but this doesn’t change the fact that we have a real opportunity to make real changes that can save lives. I’m encouraged by reports of progress on red flags, background checks, secure storage and more mental health support — because inaction cannot be an option.” 

Gun rights groups, though, see Jacobs’s political demise as predictable and justified. 

“Federal bans on semi-automatic rifles are wildly unpopular with law-abiding gun owners — a group of Americans who regularly vote and are deeply involved in the political process. When Rep. Jacobs came out in support of an ‘assault weapons’ ban, he signed onto the end of his political career in Congress,” said Chris Stone, director of communications with the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that boasts a no-compromise stance. 

The group circulated a petition to its members asking Jacobs to reverse his stance. 

Gun rights groups have also pledged to run aggressive campaigns against some of the compromise positions being considered in Congress. Red flag laws like those on the table in Senate negotiations, they argue, violate due process rights. 

“We’ll expose any and all Republicans (and Democrats) who vote in favor of compromise gun control deals, including Red Flag and universal background checks which funnel gun owners into the NICS [background check] database,” Stone said. 

GOP leadership on the House side has also expressed opposition to “red flag” laws.  

“Under the guise of [a] red flag, they take away due process where they literally can come into your house and take away your gun without you even knowing that there was some kind of proceeding where somebody said, ‘Oh, I think that guy might be a threat,’” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said on “Fox News Sunday.” “So, now somebody can go and take away your constitutional right. I don’t think people would agree with that. That’s not how we deal with rights in America.”

Source: TEST FEED1