Shell Is Looking To Shake Up The Energy Game In Texas
Editor OilPrice.com – June 12, 2022
For years now, we have seen a growing divide between oil supermajors in Europe and the United States, as Big Oil has split into two factions on opposite sides of the Atlantic over what to do in response to climate change and increasing global calls for decarbonization. As climate activists grow louder and policymakers ramp up the pressure on the fossil fuels sector to clean up its act, European companies have rushed to diversify their portfolios and rebrand themselves as Big Energy. Meanwhile, in the U.S. Big Oil has stood its ground and doubled down on oil and gas, instead investing in schemes such as carbon capture, carbon offsetting, and biofuels.
The approach in the United States has been criticized as insufficient to meet global climate goals at best and greenwashing at worst. Environmentalists point out that strategies such as carbon capture and offsetting do not discourage the extraction of fossil fuels at a time when we should be doing everything we can to keep them in the ground. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading global body reporting on the science of global warming, has said that avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will require “immediate and deep” cuts in emissions in all countries.
On the other side of the argument, Big Oil in the United States points to the massive potential economic fallout and decline in energy security and independence that may come with a swift transition to green energy. And what of the massive infrastructure costs and all of the jobs that will be displaced? As it stands, the U.S. is extremely reliant on the fossil fuels industry, and breaking that dependence will inevitably cause serious growing pains. A recent study found that “between 2015 and 2020, fossil fuels generated roughly $138 billion each year for US localities, states, tribes, and the federal government.” That’s a lot to lose.
But while Big Oil has been dragging its feet on the renewable revolution on this side of the pond, European supermajors have seen the writing on the wall, and have made enormous advances in the field of clean energy that threatens to bury any competition from the U.S. once renewables become the norm and oil and gas slowly but surely become overshadowed and then obsolete.
Already, Europe is moving into the United States and setting up shop, in none other than Texas, the oil and gas heartland. Shell announced this week that it will begin selling electricity generated from renewable sources directly to residents and businesses in the Lone Star State. In doing so, the company will increase consumer access to the state’s already abundant supply of wind and solar power, and offer them incentives to move over to their team. “It’s a significant, serious move but also not a surprise,” Michael Webber, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, told the New York Times. “They can see the future as well as anyone, and they are not in denial about climate change.”
Shell’s play is one of the first in what is going to be a seriously competitive market to sell clean electricity to U.S. consumers, in what is going to be an exploding market with huge growth opportunities. The supermajor will likely be directly competing with Big Tech companies like Tesla, Google, and Apple, which have been at the forefront of the charge toward clean energy development in the U.S. “The irony is it should be coming from existing utilities, but generally speaking they have been very resistant,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, managing director at the Climate Policy Lab at the Tufts Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
In fact, Shell noted that one of the reasons that it is prioritizing Texas as its first market is that “more than 26 million of the state’s nearly 29 million residents were served by a single grid operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas [ERCOT].” In fact, more opportunities to buy more energy outside of ERCOT can’t come fast enough, as Texas is staring down the barrel of potentially massive energy shortages during summer heat waves.
Climate advocates and skeptics alike can agree on one thing: becoming competitive with Europe will be essential to the future security of the United States economy. The U.S. energy sector has already lost valuable time investing in infrastructure and technology to stay relevant in a changing global energy sector. Oil prices may be high now, but fossil fuels are a fickle friend. On a long enough timeline, clean energy investing is a no-brainer. Just ask Shell.
Members of white nationalist group charged with planning riot at Idaho pride event
Joseph Ax – June 11, 2022
Group of men arrested after they were found in the rear of a U Haul van in Coeur d’Alene
(Reuters) – Police in northwest Idaho arrested more than two dozen members of a white nationalist group on Saturday and charged them with planning to stage a riot near a LGBTQ pride event, authorities said.
Lee White, police chief in the city of Coeur D’Alene, told reporters 31 members of Patriot Front face misdemeanor charges of conspiracy to riot and additional charges could come later.
A local resident spotted the men, wearing white masks and carrying shields, getting into a U-Haul truck and called police, telling the emergency dispatcher it “looked like a little army,” according to White. Police pulled the truck over about 10 minutes after the call.
Video taken at the scene of the arrest and posted online showed about 20 men kneeling next to the truck with their hands bound, wearing similar khaki pants, blue shirts, white masks and baseball caps.
Police recovered at least one smoke grenade and documents that included an “operations plan” from the truck, as well as shields and shin guards, all of which made their intentions clear, White said.
“They came to riot downtown,” he said.
The men come from at least 11 states, White said, including Texas, Colorado and Virginia.
Patriot Front formed in the aftermath of the 2017 white nationalist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, when it broke off from another extremist organization, Vanguard America, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.
(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Daniel Wallis)
But as the high court prepares to decide another major climate case in the coming days and resolve a controversy over water pollution this fall, the mood among environmental groups is more gloomy – and the sense of foreboding, experts say, is likely justified.
That’s not only because the Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been in decades – and perhaps more willing to reconsider precedent – but also because environmental rules are caught up in a broader fight over whether federal agencies may regulate businesses without explicit approval from Congress.
The answer to that question will have sweeping implications for President Joe Biden’s administration beyond the Environmental Protection Agency if Republicans capture control of Congress this year. Presidents of both parties often turn to agency regulations when they’re unable to move their agenda through Congress – even though those policies frequently run into trouble in court.
“Environmentalists are holding their breath to see just how bad it will be,” said Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland. “It seems likely that they’re going to be making major cutbacks in the EPA’s authority.”
Power plant emissions
In one of the most significant climate cases to reach the high court in years, the justices will soon decide whether the EPA may regulate carbon emissions from power plants. Nineteen states, led by West Virginia, challenged climate regulations approved by the Obama administration and later abandoned by President Donald Trump.
The decision will land as scientists and international groups issue dire warnings about the Earth’s changing climate. A United Nations report in April found that without significant and immediate emission reductions, limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius – a threshold that risks more severe effects – would be “beyond reach.”
As the Supreme Court prepares to decide a major climate case in the coming days and resolve a controversy over water pollution this fall, the mood among environmental groups is more gloomy.
In the eviction case, the Trump and Biden administrations relied on a 1944 public health law that lets officials “make and enforce such regulations” as they deem “necessary to prevent the…spread of communicable diseases.” But the law, the court said, doesn’t say anything specifically about halting evictions during a pandemic.
“It strains credulity to believe” Congress meant to give the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “the sweeping authority” it used to impose the moratorium, a majority of the court ruled in August. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of ‘vast economic and political significance.'”
President Barack Obama’s EPA required states to reduce emissions by shifting power plants away from coal. The Supreme Court blocked enforcement of those rules in 2016 and Trump repealed them a year later, prompting a new round of lawsuits. While the court’s three liberal justices signaled support for the EPA during oral arguments in February, the court’s six-member conservative bloc was harder to read.
One of the issues the justices debated then was the “major questions doctrine,” the principle that Congress can delegate some decisions to agencies but not those that involve “vast” economic or political matters. One sticky issue with that doctrine is that there’s no clear definition of “vast significance.” Those who oppose the doctrine say that if a law is vague then Congress intended to give agencies wide deference to interpret it.
Another case the high court will take up later this year deals with the 1972 Clean Water Act which requires Americans to obtain a permit before putting certain pollutants into the “waters of the United States.” The law doesn’t define exactly what that term means.
In one of the most significant climate cases to reach the high court in years, the justices will soon decide whether the EPA may regulate carbon emissions from power plants.
The couple told the court last year that the agency’s interpretation was “emblematic of all that has gone wrong with the implementation of the Clean Water Act.” Their lot, they said, doesn’t include a stream, river, or lake – the kind of navigable waterways usually covered by the federal requirements.
But the Biden administration countered in court filings that EPA’s designation was made eight years before the family bought the property and that the couple dumped nearly 2,000 cubic yards of gravel and sand to fill the wetlands anyway. The wetlands are adjacent to water that eventually feeds into Priest Lake, the government concluded.
‘Pushing the boundaries of their powers’
Legal experts point to several factors they say explain why complicated questions about agency power pop up so often in environmental cases. Some of it has to do with how the legal system works broadly as it weighs the impact of laws and regulations.
One of the challenges environmentalists face in federal court is demonstrating the cost of not protecting the environment. It’s easier for industries to quantify the expense of updating a power plant to reduce emissions, for instance, than it is to tally up the costs that climate change may impose on an entire society.
“Because we all bear the costs of pollution, the benefits of regulation are often spread broadly, while the costs of reducing pollution are concentrated where they belong – on polluters,” said Sambhav Sankar, senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice, an environmental law group.
And while there’s often an economic incentive for industries to challenge environmental regulations, there’s not always a similarly powerful force to support those rules.
“So that means that this is always a target for pro-industry conservatives,” Sankar said. “And when these cases show up in court, the court sometimes struggles to appreciate the value of regulation to society as a whole.”
Adam White, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said the agencies themselves also have a role to play. Administrations may decide that getting legislation through Congress is impossible and so turn to regulations instead. Lawmakers may not be compelled to take a difficult vote if they think the administration is going to act on its own. And agencies, sometimes, may just overstep their authority.
“The agencies with a lot of political wind in their sails have a kind of emergency mentality that they need to do as much as they can as fast as they can,” said White, who is also the co-director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University. “They end up pushing the boundaries of their powers.”
Another problem with deferring to agencies, White argued, is that their leadership changes every time a new president is sworn into office.
The upside to that, he said, is that presidential elections “have consequences.”
“But the downside is that every four or eight years you get a total overhaul in regulatory policy,” White said. “At some point, everybody – the courts, the private sector, all of us – we can look at this and say, ‘That’s no way to run a country.'”
Russian military moves in the Arctic worry the U.S. and NATO
Melissa Rossi, Contributor – June 10, 2022
In late May, Russian ambassador at large Nikolai Korchunov informed state media that the situation in the Arctic was becoming perilous. He wasn’t referring to melting polar ice due to climate change. Instead, he warned of “a very disturbing trend that is turning the Arctic into an international arena of military operations,” and blamed NATO for expanding its footprint in the region.
“That’s a typical Russian play,” retired Finnish Maj. Gen. Pekka Toveri told Yahoo News. “Western activities in the Arctic have been very mild.” In March, however, NATO held “Exercise Cold Response” in Norway. With 35,000 fighters from 28 countries, it wasNATO’s biggest Arctic exercise in 30 years. Yet the alliance, unlike Russia, has no new plans for permanent forces or military bases in the region, Toveri said, while acknowledging that “more patrolling and more exercises have given Russia reason to point the finger and claim the West is the problem.”
The Arktichesky Trilistnik [Arctic Trefoil] military base on Alexandra Land Island in Arkhangelsk Region, Russia. (Russian Defence Ministry Press Office/TASS via ZUMA Press)
Western experts say that Russia, the largest of the eight countries surrounding the Arctic, is behind the militarization in the mineral-rich region, which supplies 20% of Russia’s GDP. For the past decade, the Kremlin has been revamping shuttered Soviet bases, forming a necklace of dozens of defensive outposts (by some counts upwards of 50) from the Barents Sea to territories near Alaska, and building new facilities like the ultra-modern Trefoil, its northernmost base that became fully operational last year. The U.S. and NATO have looked on in consternation as Russia has established a new “Arctic command” and four new Arctic brigades, refurbished airfields and deep-water ports, and keeps launching mock military attacks on Nordic countries in between jamming GPS and radar during NATO exercises. It has also, according to the U.S. State Department, been trying out “novel weapon systems” in the Arctic.
“We’ve seen increased Russian military activity in the Arctic for some time,” a senior State Department official told Yahoo News. However, the situation is ratcheting up, and not just because Russia keeps testing new hypersonic weapons in the Arctic, launching a hypersonic missile there just days after Korchunov made his remarks. Before the year’s end, the State Department official added, Russia plans to launch 19 more tests, including of new weapons. “Seeing Russia’s aggressive and unpredictable behavior, particularly since the Ukraine invasion, has really heightened concerns about Russian activity” in the high north, the official said.
With relations between Moscow and Western governments the iciest in decades due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, analysts wonder if the Arctic will become the next powder keg. Russia’s expansion of bases, weapons testing and boosted manpower in the Arctic comes as Finland and Sweden have applied for NATO membership. If accepted, that would further isolate Russia in the Arctic, making it the only non-NATO country in the region, further boosting the chances of unintended incidents, analysts say.
Author of the recently released report “The Militarization of Russian Polar Politics,” Mathieu Boulègue, a research fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, told Yahoo News that his biggest fear is a nuclear mishap in the region.
“If you look at the long list of nuclear assets — whether it is icebreakers, strategic submarines, floating nuclear power plants or spent fuel — there is a lot of risk of nuclear incidents,” he said. “Incidents like this are mitigated in peacetime, when you’re talking to the different stakeholders. But the problem is that we don’t really talk [with] Russia very well these days. So this further increases the risk of miscalculation and errors.”
The Kola Peninsula, for instance, a Kentucky-sized thumb of Russian land abutting Finland, is the most nuclearized place on the planet. The headquarters for Russia’s Northern Fleet, which accounts for two-thirds of Russia’s second-strike maritime nuclear capabilities, the Kola Peninsula marks the entry to the Russian part of the Arctic and holds three military bases and repositories for nuclear arms.
A new hypersonic cruise missile is launched by a frigate of the Russian Navy from the Barents Sea. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)
Another third of Russia’s nukes on the sea, however, are located at the far Eastern end of the Arctic, Boulègue added — with Russia’s Pacific Fleet, headquartered in Vladivostok, but some vessels are based in Kamchatka, just across from Alaska. Those facilities could pose future problems for the U.S., Boulègue said, by creating “a flashpoint of tension, should Russia decide to contest American access to the Arctic.”
Ian Williams, deputy director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also points to Wrangel Island — 300 miles from Alaska — where Russia has installed a new air search radar system and may be renovating an airfield, as well as bases in eastern Siberia. “They’ve got plenty of places to put stuff if they want to threaten Alaska,” he noted.
The growing uneasiness about Russian activities in the Arctic, where it is pursuing a new Northern Sea Route made possible by melting ice due to climate change, has motivated the U.S. armed forces to rethink their Arctic strategies. Last year, the Army published “Regaining Arctic Dominance,” its first strategic plan for the far north. This week the Army announced it is activating a new 12,000-troop-strong Arctic airborne division — the first time it has created a new division in 70 years. Troops are training in Alaska, learning to fight in the brutal polar climes — where temperatures can drop to negative 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
The U.S. Navy is conducting Arctic maneuvers with ships and submarines and more — and the Air Force is sending the bulk of its F-35s to Alaska, saying the state “will be home to more advanced fighters than any other location in the world.” Congress approved funding for six new “ice breakers,” ships that can plow through frozen waters. And new satellites meant to enhance polar communications and offer fresh “eyes” on Russia are being launched, along with new radar systems being constructed from Alaska to Denmark.
An Icebreaker cuts a path for a cargo ship near Nagurskoye, Russia. (Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP)
All of these moves are welcomed by Toveri, who believes that the West cannot appease Putin and expect “to have the peace dividend from the Cold War times.” He added that after the Soviet Union fell, many Nordic countries, including Sweden, shrunk their militaries and slashed spending, while countries such as Denmark, shut down their missile defense radar systems, which they are again rebuilding.
Such moves, however, rankle the Kremlin, which sees them as provocative. Earlier this year, Russian spy planes violated Sweden and Danish airspace. In March 2018 and February 2019, Russian bomber jets targeted Norway’s Globus radar system in mock air attacks, barreling towards the domed structures before abruptly turning back. Russia’s problems with Norway extend far beyond its snooping abilities, however.
The Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, which lies midway between Russia and Greenland, is a case in point. Beyond Russia’s historical territorial claims to the area, the archipelago is also home to a radar and satellite system capable of tracking ballistic missile paths that is seen as key to NATO communications. Russian politicians occasionally threaten to just snatch the archipelago, like they did with Crimea.
“If there’s going to be a dispute in the Arctic, it will probably be here,” said Williams of CSIS, and the U.S. State Department official underscored that concern.
Telecommunication domes of the Kongsberg Satellite Services in Svalbard Archipelago, Norway. (Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images)
Timo Koivurova, research professor of the Arctic Centre at Finland’s Lapland University, told Yahoo News he laments that “relations between Russia and the Western states have deteriorated and Cold War thinking has started to prevail.” He wonders if concerns are being overblown, however. “If you are talking with a security-oriented scholar, he might argue that the third world war is coming out of the Arctic. But it’s very difficult for me to imagine that because if you think about Russia’s military objectives in the region, there are not many military drivers for Russia, other than this kind of balancing with NATO.”
Williams likewise sees many parts of the Arctic picture as undecided, including the U.S. military commitment to the region, which is a pricy undertaking.
“Keeping an F-35 operating in the Arctic is a lot more expensive than keeping it operating in Hawaii,” he said. He notes that the U.S. is concerned about Russia’s strong-arming control of the Northern Sea Route, an act that the U.S. believes would violate international maritime law. “The big question is, would we extend ourselves out into that area? Right now, it’s an open question.”
“The last thing Russia needs is a hot war in the Arctic,” Nima Khorrami, research associate at the Arctic Institute, told Yahoo News. “Because if that happened, no one would come in to invest.” And right now Putin, who has stamped the idea of Russia’s Arctic identity into the national psyche, wants Asian investments in the region, he said. Any kind of military showdown, added Khorrami, “and the grand strategy of turning the Northern Sea Route into a new Suez Canal is gone.”
The gunman in that case, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts, opened fire in the crowded shopping mall using a Stag Arms AR-15 rifle he had stolen from an acquaintance. In addition to Forsyth, Cindy Ann Yuille was killed in the incident and 15-year-old Kristina Shevchenko was injured. The gunman died by suicide at the scene.
PHOTO: Police and medics work the scene of a multiple shooting at Clackamas Town Center Mall in Portland, Ore., Dec. 11, 2012. A gunman is dead after opening fire in the shopping mall, killing two people and wounding another, sheriff’s deputies said. (Greg Wahl Stephens/AP, FILE)
The parade of mass shootings since that fateful day in 2012 have stirred up a tide of emotions within Kemp, he said, including the recent massacres in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas. And Kemp said his resolve to get measures enacted to keep guns, especially high-powered AR-15-style rifles, out of the hands of those he says shouldn’t possess them, becomes stronger with each nightmarish mass shooting.
PHOTO: People embrace outside the scene of a mass shooting at a Tops supermarket a day earlier, in Buffalo, N.Y., May 15, 2022. (Matt Rourke/AP, FILE)
Kemp is one of several longtime gun owners ABC News spoke with who say they want gun control laws and reform. Gun rights extremists, with, they say, the NRA as their bullhorn — no longer represent the majority of gun owners in the U.S.
But proponents of the guns say that they are essentially no different than other hunting rifles, are used responsibly for sport and are not the weapons of war that opponents make them out to be.
PHOTO: Flowers, toys, and other objects are seen at a memorial for the victims of the deadliest mass shooting in nearly a decade resulting in the death of 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, May 29, 2022. (Veronica Cardenas/Reuters)
Defining ‘AR-15’
An AR-15 is a type of semi-automatic rifle, firing one bullet with each pull of the trigger — a contrast with illegal automatic rifles, which fire continuously as long as the trigger is depressed.
“AR-15 style rifles can be made for a variety of bullet calibers and to accept a variety of different capacity ammunition magazines,” said Jake Charles, lecturing fellow and executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law.
The guns, which have skyrocketed in popularity, are often referred to as “assault rifles,” but whether that is an apt description depends on who you ask.
“Assault weapon” is a legal term of art. Under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, it was defined as “Semiautomatic rifles having the ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine and at least two of the following traits” — including a bayonet mount or grenade launcher.
Video: Man says he refused to sell AR-15 style rifle to Nikolas Cruz in 2018
0:32 1:16 Gun shop owner says he turned away Florida shooting suspect from buying AR-15 And I said, well, I don’t sell any farms to
“It’s not a simple yes or no,” as to whether an AR-15-style gun is an assault rifle, Charles told ABC News.
“Often an assault rifle refers to an automatic rifle, like the military’s M4 or M16. In that sense, the AR-15 is not one because it’s not an automatic weapon,” Charles said. “But sometimes an assault rifle is the description for a rifle that is classified as an ‘assault weapon’ under federal or state laws restricting those weapons. For example, under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, Colt’s AR-15 was specifically listed as a prohibited assault weapon.”
According to Erik Longnecker, the deputy chief of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ office of public and governmental affairs, public affairs division, “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” are not defined under current federal firearms law.
“Assault rifle and assault weapon are both political terms that are not defined in the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act,” he said.
The ATF also does not have a definition for AR-15. “That is a specific model of rifle originally manufactured by Colt who also holds the trademark to that term,” according Longnecker.
“Colt began manufacturing these types of rifles in the 1960s; other manufacturers began producing AR-type variants in the 1970s,” Longnecker added.
PHOTO: In this Aug. 15, 2012 file photo three variations of the AR-15 assault rifle are displayed at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento, Calif. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP, FILE)
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearm industry trade association: “The ‘AR’ in ‘AR-15’ rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. ‘AR’ does NOT stand for ‘assault rifle’ or ‘automatic rifle.’ AR-15-style rifles are NOT ‘assault weapons’ or ‘assault rifles.'”
NSSF says that there are millions of such guns in circulation.
Gun owners weigh in
Still, some of the gun owners who spoke with ABC News questioned the need to possess the powerful weapons.
Kemp says the ultimate purpose of an AR-15-style rifle, the gun that was used to killed his brother-in-law, is they are designed to do “a lot of damage.”
And they have.
Although handguns are involved in most shooting deaths, the use of semi-automatic rifles is climbing, said Louis Klarevas, a research professor at Teachers College, Columbia University who specializes in gun violence and safety. In the 1980s, less than 20% of gun massacres involved semi-automatic rifles according to a report he issued as an expert witness in a California court case over banning assault weapons.
In a recent TikTok video that went viral, Benjamin Beers, who said he is a former Marine who served in Kuwait, and was stationed in Camp Pendleton, California, declared he was handing over his AR-15 and 9mm gun to authorities to have them destroyed.
Beers told ABC News the decision was sparked in part by the Uvalde shooting. He also said he wants weapons like the AR-15 banned.
“I would love to see semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 banned, if not banned, some major laws changed. It’s the single most effective method used [for killing] … to committing such heinous acts of violence. And we’ve seen it for decades,” he said.
Steve Labbé is also a legal gun owner. He says he is for an outright ban on assault rifles, but thinks such legislation would be tricky to enact.
“The ban of assault weapons is a tricky play on words. I say this because assault weapons can and do use the same ammunition as hunting rifles, and that is where the people who overstate the Second Amendment rights find the gray area.”
“We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And if we can’t ban assault weapons, then we should raise the age to purchase them from 18 to 21, strengthen background checks, enact safe storage laws and red flag laws. Repeal the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability, address the mental health crisis,” Biden said.
Congress has remained in a stalemate with Democrats wanting to push gun control legislation, and most Republicans rejecting those proposals. This week, however, the House passed the “Protect Our Kids Act” which has sweeping gun reform measures including raising the age limit to purchase semi-automatic weapons and banning high-capacity magazines.
Gun rights advocates often tout the AR-15-style rifle as a hunting tool but the gun owners who spoke with ABC News, most of whom hunt, refute that for most hunting scenarios.
“Hunting and self-preservation have no need for high-capacity cartridges, no need for semi-automatic and automatic phases of fire,” Labbé said. “That way, someone who takes offense to their specific type of ammunition being called out because an AR-15 uses the same ammunition (the typical, ‘I hunt rats with an AR-15’) can feel safe in the knowledge that their hunting gun isn’t affected by this ban. We should also acknowledge that hunting guns can be converted to assault weapons as well,” he said.
Kemp also said he wouldn’t use an assault rifle to hunt because of what it does to flesh.
“The way an AR-15 round enters the body … it’s designed to tumble and create a lot of tissue damage,” he said.
In a statement to ABC News, an NRA spokesperson said: “The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Tens of millions of Americans legally own AR-15s for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense.”
The gun rights group also stated: “There’s been a growing trend in the number of hunters who choose to hunt with an AR-15” and that “the focus and burden of our laws ought to be on prosecuting violent criminals and in ensuring those with dangerous behavioral issues don’t have access to any firearm.”
PHOTO: Christine Barnes hunts for deer, Oct. 27, 2018 in Acton, Maine. (Portland Press Herald via Getty Images, FILE )
In the case of the shooter who killed his brother-in-law, Kemp said, “The young man who was the shooter … there were no mental health issues. That’s just a bogus argument.”
‘God-given right’ argument and proposed solutions
“There needs to be drastic changes taken with this weapon,” Beers said. He said the guns can be custom-built and easily ordered online with a 30-round magazine.
“And it’s always just stuck with me, this isn’t right. This is the same weapon I got issued in the Marines.” he said.
Kemp said that when his family found out that the active shooter who killed his brother-in-law stole the AR-15 which was in a home unsecured, “my first question to the officer …[was] doesn’t Oregon have a safe storage gun law? He said, no. The guy that left the gun on locked and loaded … zero consequences.”
Kemp says he is not for an all-out ban of AR-15-type rifles, but said the weapon should fall under the National Firearms Act, which places limits on ownership of “shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as ‘any other weapons,’ machine guns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.”
Having AR-15-style weapons covered under the NFA, would provide “an incredibly detailed, thorough background check at a higher cost,” Kemp said. “You never hear machine guns being used in shootings, rarely, nor silencers,” he added.
He also said the country should put back in place the Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1994 and lasted 10 years, which covered the AR-15.
“We know the ban worked because we saw less shootings involving those types of weapons,” he said of that period.
Kemp expressed his frustration at what he called, “gun advocate extremists.” “They don’t like having to do the background check. They don’t like not being able to carry weapons wherever they want. They don’t like the process of having to get a concealed carry permit,” he said.
“[They] don’t believe there should be any restrictions on the types of ammunition you can buy, or … armor piercing … [they] feel like there shouldn’t be any restrictions since the Second Amendment is how we founded the country. It’s my God-given right. Well, God didn’t write the Constitution, nor amendments,” he added.
ABC News’ Emily Shapiro, Libby Cathey and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
Senator says what?! Rick Scott, the richest U.S. senator, calls the president a “rich kid”
Palm Beach Post – June 9, 2022
Florida Sen. Rick Scott has criticized President Biden’s efforts in fighting inflation. But did the senator go too far in calling the president a “rich kid?” [Corey Perrine/Naples Daily News via AP]
U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, during a recent appearance on Fox and Friends, went off the rails in criticizing President Joe Biden’s efforts to curb inflation.
“Think about this. Biden’s a rich kid. His whole life has been paid for by your tax dollars. Has no idea how to deal with inflation, no plan to deal with inflation,” Scott said with an apparent straight face.
Sen. Scott’s criticism/description of President Biden is, well, rich, coming from a man who is the nation’s wealthiest senator. (Much of that wealth, generated by a company convicted of stealing $1.5 billion from the government while he was in charge.)
Sen. Scott’s net worth? An estimated $220 million, according to The Celebrity Net Worth website. The president’s? A mere $9 million, according to the website.
Neither is exactly suffering from higher prices at the gas pump or grocery store but there’s a difference between a guy who worked for the government and one who sold his hospital business for millions.
Inflation remains a problem for middle class and working class families who actually struggle to keep their heads above water. The name-calling, that the president is a “rich kid,” from a “kid” who’s far richer, doesn’t resolve the issue. It just cheapens the discourse.
Editor’s Note: First Impressions is a digital opinion feature by The Palm Beach Post, offering bite-sized but informed commentary on daily developments. Did the senator miss the irony in his criticism of the president, or was “the rich kid” remark routine politics?
House Republican leaders told their members to vote against 8 gun-safety bills, citing opposition from the NRA and Gun Owners of America
Bryan Metzger – June 8, 2022
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and other GOP members at a press conference on Capitol Hill on March 1, 2022.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images House Republican leaders told their members to vote against 8 gun-safety bills, citing opposition from the NRA and Gun Owners of America
The House is set to vote Wednesday on a package of gun-related bills dubbed the “Protect Our Kids Act.”
GOP leaders told members to vote against the package, calling it the “Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions Act.”
The notice sent to GOP offices included links to talking points from the NRA and Gun Owners of America.
House Republicans are poised to vote against eight bills aimed at preventing gun violence on Tuesday, in part due to opposition from powerful pro-gun groups on the right.
House Democratic leaders have scheduled votes for Wednesday evening on the “Protecting Our Kids Act” — a package of seven gun violence-related measures that includes raising the age for legal purchase of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns to 21, closing the “bump stock” loophole, and other measures aimed at preventing the illegal trafficking of guns.
The House will also vote on the “Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act,” a federal “red flag” bill that would allow family members and law enforcement officials to temporarily block firearm access to those who a court determines pose a danger to themselves or others.
In a “whip notice” sent to rank-and-file members on Tuesday afternoon, House GOP leadership urged a “no” vote on all eight bills, referring to the seven-bill package as the “Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions Act.” They wrote that House Democrats had “thrown together this reactionary package comprised of legislation that egregiously violates law-abiding citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights and hinders Americans’ ability to defend and protect themselves and their families.”
The email also noted the opposition of the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, including links to talking points from the NRA about both the gun package and the red flag law. Leaders also noted the opposition of Heritage Action for America, an advocacy group tied to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“Due to the importance of this issue, votes on this legislation will be considered in future candidate ratings and endorsements by the NRA Political Victory Fund,” declares one of the memos shared by party leaders.
Screenshot of the end of the June 7th whip notice, including links to talking points from the NRA and Heritage Action for America.House Republican Whip Steve Scalise
It’s not uncommon for party leaders to note the opposition of outside groups to major pieces of legislation. For example, in a February whip notice urging Republicans to vote against a major piece of legislation aimed at boosting the US semiconductor industry, GOP leaders noted the opposition of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, National Taxpayers Union, and Americans for Prosperity.
But the two gun groups’ inclusion — and the NRA’s threat to downgrade candidate ratings or withhold endorsements should any Republicans back the measures — underscores the enduring influence of pro-second amendment groups on the right, despite the NRA’s recent financial troubles and shrinking membership.
NRA talking points distributed by House GOP leadership, including a warning that candidate ratings and endorsements are at stake.National Rifle Association
Meanwhile, Democrats are planning to stage a striking visual contrast to Republicans — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked her caucus members on Tuesday to be present on the House floor for debate on the gun measures on Wednesday, when the floor would otherwise be empty.
“On behalf of the survivors of gun violence, and out of respect for those who lost their lives, I am asking all Members of our Caucus to be present on the Floor of the House for the two hours of debate, which should begin at approximately 2:30 p.m. following the vote on the Rule,” she said.
Uvalde gunman threatened rapes and school shootings on social media app Yubo in weeks leading up to the massacre, users say
Daniel A. Medina, Isabelle Chapman, Jeff Winter and Casey Tolan
May 28, 2022
CNN: Salvador Ramos told girls he would rape them, showed off a rifle he bought, and threatened to shoot up schools in livestreams on the social media app Yubo, according to several users who witnessed the threats in recent weeks.
But those users – all teens – told CNN that they didn’t take him seriously until they saw the news that Ramos had gunned down 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, this week.
Three users said they witnessed Ramos threaten to commit sexual violence or carry out school shootings on Yubo, an app that is used by tens of millions of young people around the world.
The users all said they reported Ramos’ account to Yubo over the threats. But it appeared, they said, that Ramos was able to maintain a presence on the platform. CNN reviewed one Yubo direct message in which Ramos allegedly sent a user the $2,000 receipt for his online gun purchase from a Georgia-based firearm manufacturer.
“Guns are boring,” the user responded. “No,” Ramos apparently replied.
In a statement to CNN, a Yubo spokesperson said “we are deeply saddened by this unspeakable loss and are fully cooperating with law enforcement on their investigation.” Yubo takes user safety seriously and is “investigating an account that has since been banned from the platform,” the spokesperson said, but declined to release any specific information about Ramos’ account.
Use of Yubo skyrocketed during the coronavirus pandemic, as teens trapped indoors turned to the app for a semblance of in-person interactions. The company says it has 60 million users around the world – 99% of whom are 25 and younger – and has trumpeted safety features including “second-by-second” monitoring of livestreams using artificial intelligence and human moderators.
Despite those safety features, the users who spoke to CNN said Ramos made personal and graphic threats. During one livestream, Amanda Robbins, 19, said Ramos verbally threatened to break down her door and rape and murder her after she rebuffed his sexual advances. She said she witnessed Ramos threaten other girls with similar “acts of sexual assault and violence.”
Robbins, who said she lives in California and only ever interacted with Ramos online, told CNN she reported him to Yubo several times and blocked his account, but continued seeing him in livestreams making lewd comments.
“[Yubo] said if you see any behavior that’s not okay, they said to report it. But they’ve done nothing,” Robbins said. “That kid was allowed to be online and say this.”
Robbins and other users said they didn’t take Ramos’ comments seriously because troll-like behavior was commonplace on Yubo.
Hannah, an 18-year-old Yubo user from Ontario, Canada, said she reported Ramos to Yubo in early April after he threatened to shoot up her school and rape and kill her and her mother during one livestream session. Hannah said Ramos was allowed back on the platform after a temporary ban.
Hannah, who requested CNN withhold her last name to protect her privacy, said Ramos’ behavior turned increasingly brazen in the last week. In one livestream, she said, Ramos briefly turned his webcam to show a gun on his bed.
The users said they didn’t make recordings of Ramos’ threats during the livestreams.
Yubo’s community guidelines tell users not to “threaten or intimidate” others, and ban harassment and bullying. Content that “promotes violence such as violent acts, guns, knives, or other weapons” is also banned.
Just a week before the Uvalde attack, Yubo announced an expanded age verification process that involves users taking a photo of themselves and the app using artificial intelligence to estimate their age. The platform only allows people 13 and older to sign up, and doesn’t allow users 18 and older to interact with those under 18.
Yubo, which is based in Paris, has attracted controversy since it launched in 2015 under the name Yellow, with some local law enforcement officials warning about the possibility of abuse. Police have arrested men in Kentucky, New Jersey and Florida who allegedly used Yubo to meet or exchange sexually explicit messages with kids. Last month, Indiana police investigating the 2017 murder of two teenage girls said they were seeking information about a Yubo user who had solicited nude photos of underage girls on other social media platforms.
Ramos’ disturbing social media interactions didn’t only take place on Yubo. One user, a girl from Germany who met Ramos on Yubo, said she had some troubling interactions with him via text and FaceTime. The 15-year-old said she received text messages from him shortly after he shot his grandmother and before his assault at the elementary school, as CNN previously reported.
The girl said she thought any violent or strange comments Ramos made were in jest.
But after the shooting, she said, “I added everything up and it made sense now… I was just too dumb to notice all the signals he was giving.”
Trump’s Ukraine impeachment shadows war, risks GOP response
Lisa Mascaro – June 5, 2022
President Donald Trump holds up a newspaper with a headline that reads “Trump acquitted” during an event celebrating his impeachment acquittal, in the East Room of the White House, Feb. 6, 2020, in Washington. The impeachment investigation, sparked by a government whistleblower’s complaint over Trump’s call, swiftly became a milestone, the first in a generation since Democrat Bill Clinton faced charges over an affair with a White House intern. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy answers media questions during a press conference in a city subway under a central square in Kyiv, Ukraine, April 23, 2022. Zelenskky had just been elected when he asked then-President Donald Trump during a July 25, 2019, phone call for a meeting to strengthen U.S.-Ukraine relations and ensure military aid, according to a transcript released by Trump’s White House. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky, File)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., leaves the chamber after leading the impeachment acquittal of President Donald Trump, at the Capitol in Washington, Feb. 5, 2020. When Trump was impeached after pressuring Ukraine’s leader for “a favor,” all while withholding $400 million in military aid to fight Russia, even the most staunch defense hawks in the Republican Party stood virtually united by Trump’s side. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)In this image from video, the vote total, 52-48 for not guilty, on the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, is displayed on screen during the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Feb. 5, 2020. The impeachment investigation, sparked by a government whistleblower’s complaint over Trump’s call, swiftly became a milestone, the first in a generation since Democrat Bill Clinton faced charges over an affair with a White House intern. (Senate Television via AP, File) In this image from video, a video is displayed as House impeachment manager Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., speaks during the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jan. 24, 2020. The impeachment investigation, sparked by a government whistleblower’s complaint over Trump’s call, swiftly became a milestone, the first in a generation since Democrat Bill Clinton faced charges over an affair with a White House intern.(Senate Television via AP, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Donald Trump was impeached in late 2019 after pressuring Ukraine’s leader for “a favor,” all while withholding $400 million in military aid to help confront Russian-backed separatists, even the staunchest defense hawks in the Republican Party stood virtually united by Trump’s side.
But as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military marched toward Kyiv this February, threatening not only Ukraine but the rest of Europe, Republicans and Democrats in Congress cast aside impeachment politics, rallied to Ukraine’s side and swiftly shipped billions to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s defense.
The question ahead, as Ukrainians battle Russia’s grinding invasion now past its 100th day, is whether the rare bipartisanship on Capitol Hill is resilient enough to withstand Trump’s isolationist influences on his party or whether Republicans who yielded to Trump’s “America First” approach will do so again, putting military and humanitarian support for Ukraine at risk.
“Maybe there is a recognition on both Republican side and Democratic side that this security assistance is very important,” said Bill Taylor, a former ambassador to Ukraine, in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
“And maybe neither side is eager to crack that coalition.”
The fraught party politics comes at a pivotal moment as the Russian invasion drags on and the United States gets deeper into the conflict before the November elections, when lawmakers face voters with control of Congress at stake.
While Congress mustered rare and robust bipartisan support to approve a $40 billion Ukraine package, bringing total U.S. support to a staggering $53 billion since the start of the war, opposition on the latest round of aid came solely from the Republican side, including from Trump.
That is a warning sign over the sturdiness of the bipartisan coalition that the top Republican in Congress, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, tried to shore up when he led a delegation of GOP senators to stand by Zelenskyy’s side in a surprise trip to Kyiv last month.
“There is some isolationist sentiment in my party that I think is wrongheaded, and I wanted to push back against it,” McConnell told a Kentucky audience this past week, explaining his Ukraine visit.
The divisions within the GOP over Ukraine are routinely stoked by Trump, who initially praised Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as a “genius” negotiating strategy. Trump has repeatedly lashed out against the U.S. aid to Ukraine, including last weekend at a rally in Wyoming. Before the Senate vote on the $40 billion in assistance, Trump decried the idea of spending abroad while America’s “parents are struggling.”
As Trump considers whether to run for the White House in 2024, the persistence of his “America First” foreign policy approach leaves open questions about the durability of his party’s commitment to U.S. support for a democratic Ukraine. Senators are poised this summer to vote to expand NATO to include Sweden and Finland, but Trump has repeatedly criticized U.S. spending on Western military alliance.
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, among 11 Republican senators who voted against the Ukraine package, called the tally an “astronomical number” at a time when foreign policy should be focused elsewhere, including on China.
“That is nation-building kind of number,” Hawley said in an interview. “And I think it’s a mistake.”
Zelenskky, a comedian turned politician, had just been elected when he asked Trump during a July 25, 2019, phone call for a meeting to strengthen U.S.-Ukraine relations and ensure military aid, according to a transcript released by Trump’s White House.
“We are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes,” Zelenskyy told Trump, referring to anti-tank weaponry Ukraine relies on from the West.
Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden, a chief Democratic rival to Trump at the time and now the American president, and Biden’s son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.
The impeachment investigation, sparked by a government whistleblower’s complaint over Trump’s call, swiftly became a milestone, the first in a generation since Democrat Bill Clinton faced charges over an affair with a White House intern.
During weeks of impeachment proceedings over Ukraine, witnesses from across the national security and foreign service sphere testified under oath about the alarms that were going off in Washington and Kyiv about Trump’s conversation with Zelenskyy.
Yet American opinions over the gravity of the charges against Trump were mixed, polling at the time by the AP showed.
Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House and acquitted by the Senate, with just one Republican, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, joining Democrats to convict.
“The allegations were all horse hockey,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., recalling his decision not to impeach.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., brushed back questions about whether Trump’s actions then played any role in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine this February.
“It wasn’t like Putin invaded right after. It’s been almost two years,” Rubio said.
Republicans are quick to remind that Trump was, in fact, the first president to allow lethal arms shipments to Ukraine — something Barack Obama’s administration, with Biden as vice president, declined to do over worries of provoking Putin.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, the co-chair of the Senate’s Ukrainian Caucus who persuaded Trump in a phone call to ultimately release the $400 million in aid, stood by his decision not to convict Trump over the delay of that assistance.
“As long as it was done,” Portman said about the outcome.
But Romney said people need to remain “clear-eyed” about the threat Putin poses to the world order. “I did the right thing at the time, and I haven’t looked back,” he said.
Democrats are blistering in their criticism of Republicans over the impeachment verdict.
“It’s a shame,” said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“Every single Republican who voted in support of Donald Trump’s geopolitical shakedown and blackmail of Volodymyr Zelenskky and the Ukrainian people should be ashamed of themselves,” said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., “because the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions were understood to us then, and now the world understands.”
Are AR-15’s weapons of war? Here’s what a former Fort Benning commander had to say
Mona Moore – June 4, 2022
A former Fort Benning commander took a stand in the country’s ongoing debate on gun control with a thread of tweets posted Thursday evening.
“Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,” retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton wrote on Twitter.
The retired major general went on to write the AR-15 was the civilian version of the M16, a close relation to the M4 rifles currently used by the military.
“It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy,” Eaton wrote.
Eaton broke down the differences between the M16, M4 and AR-15 in the thread of seven tweets. He said those opposed to assault weapon bans were playing with semantics, when they claimed any meaningful difference existed between military weapons and AR-15 rifles.
“…The AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ … Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it,” he wrote. “They know it’s true. Now you do too.”
The tweets came on the heels of one of the country’s deadliest weeks in recent history. In the days since the Uvalde, Texas shooting, 20 mass shootings have claimed the lives of 17 people and injured 88 others, according to Gun Violence Archive. The researchers defined a mass shooting as any shooting with four or more victims shot, either injured or killed.
![Florida Sen. Rick Scott has criticized President Biden's efforts in fighting inflation. But did the senator go too far in calling the president a "rich kid?" [Corey Perrine/Naples Daily News via AP]](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/tddf9ydmnFpcuouvxp3otA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTQ3MDtjZj13ZWJw/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/MbUX7h6AGlt9wYyDCPlMiw--~B/aD0xNjAwO3c9MjQwMDthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/palm-beach-daily-news/897d97d16591a2fb6343a582a25a135e)
