time at least sacrifice their ability to possess firearms so that if the court finds in favor of the petitioners law enforcement would go to the person's home and literally take away their guns for some period of time until the person was deemed mentally fit this is not a brand new idea but it is sort of emerging. on many fronts you've seen laws like this passed in washington state in oregon and it's being examined in a large number of other states and that was actually even before the parkland shootings and i think this is one example of a gun control approach accomplished at the state level that may well catch on and gain additional momentum as a result of the florida shootings richard you've argued in the past that there needs to be a lot more included in discussions on gun control and gun laws in the u.s. what do you think needs to be included in the debate in the discussion. well i think in some ways we're headed there this is an example. where if a change in the law allowing these gun violence restraining orders would have stopped several of the last shooters from obtaining the guns that t

the petitioners asked for a rare hearing which would skipped over the ninth circuit. it comes one week before the president's march 5th deadline to reach the status of hundreds of immigrants brought as children. they told the ninth circuit the lower court will proceed expeditiously to decide the case. >>> the federal government is working to replace a section of wall on the california border awarded by trump administration. the two-mile stretch built in the 1990s in calexico and the president is planning to go to san diego to see the construction first-hand in mid march. >>> the attorneys general from texas and wisconsin want a new legal assault on obama care and are going to break some news here live. >>> one politician could be guilty of obstruction of justice. and this time it's the democrat in california snubbing a party icon. will it help or hurt the party. >> shannon: this is a fox news alert two states suing over obama care and got rid of the controversial program for good and possible because of the tax bill that just passed congress. leading the charge, texas

amendment case in which the organization i i work for,e liberty justice center is representing the petitioner together with attorneys from the national right to work legal defense foundation. our client is market janus, a man who worked as a child support specialist for the state of illinois. when you started doing his job about ten years ago, he noticed that future coming out of every paycheck and going to a union council 31 even though he wasn't a union member and anyone have anything to do with this particular unit. and the reason illinois can take that money out of his check was because it has a lot on the books that says that the state can enter into collective-bargaining agreements with unions or they will take money from every worker regardless of whether the worker is a member of of the union. and effect are 22 states across the country that have laws like this on the books, and as a result of those laws that are at least 5 million government workers across the country who have to give money out of every paycheck to a union, whether they want to or not. so our case challenges of these

record he may side with the conservative wing on the court but just to back off a little bit the petitioner is a public employee in illinois he is not a member of the union because of illinois law and that bargaining agreement he has to pay out of his paycheck so the basic argument is a violation of the first amendment rights to subsidize the activities of the union. why? because it is in despond -- undisputed so here the issue is the fees are used for collective bargaining so if the other party is the state that essentially try to affect public policy with the pension benefit with contraceptive coverage or a teacher arguing about merit pay so inherently with any collective bargaining that is a form of engagement lobbying with the government if you don't like the position it will take it is unfair to violate the first amendment to subsidize so on the other side to say it is okay with that decent argument that everyone agrees it isn't disputed in this case that the state can say essentially only one union can represent in the bargaining unit and has a duty to represent and in that circumstan

number 2, the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premise which they have control. number 3. loitering, loitering is defined, lingering aimlessly without lawful business. it's prohibited on sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. and number 4, graffiti shall be removed from the premise and all parking lots under the control of licensee within 72 hours of application. if the graffiti occurs on a friday, weekend, or holiday, the licensee shall remove graffiti within 72 hours of the beginning of the next weekday. it showed be noted that the applicant has agreed with the conditions. >> supervisor sheehy: the applicants are invited to present if they wish. >> hi there. my name is dustin wilson, i'm one of the operating partners of verve wine. we have this california location is our second store. we have a small store in new york. where we sell really high-quality wines acrosses board, i couldn't consider us just an average wine store, i would like to think we're more upscale than that. we

the arguments would have been open to the public, the arguing attorneys, the petitioner, the respondent would have been in a lower recessed area, this space, dark, damp, and likely cold in february of 1819 would have been a daunting environment to have been in to present an argument to the supreme court. this is where daniel webster and the other attorneys would have argued their cases before john marshall in the supreme court in february of 1819. the arguments in mcculloch v. maryland lasts for nine days. in 1819 each of the counsel would have had a great deal of freedom to speak uninterrupted, and to lay out their case before the justices. the court convened at 11:00 a.m. that morning, and would usually adjourn sometime around 2:00 or 3:00, depending how long the arguments went. usually there was a restriction of two lawyers per side in a case. but the supreme court waived that requirement so that each side had three attorneys, and each attorney was able to speak up to three days. beautiful spaces inside the capitol. you can still visit them when you go on tour in the building here in

but the arguments would have been opened to the public, the the arguing attorneys in the petitioner and respondent would be in the lower recessed area. the space is dark, damp, and like the cold february 1819, would have been a daunting environment to be into present an argument to the supreme court. >> webster and the other attorneys would have argued the corset one --dash before the supreme court february 1819 and the arguments mcculloch v. maryland lasted nine days and then each of the council what have had a great deal of freedom to speak on interrupted it to lay out their case before the justices. they convened at 11:00 a.m. that morning and adjourned somewhere around two or 3:00 o'clock depending on how long the arguments went. there was a restriction of two lawyers per side but the suppression court waived that so each side had three attorneys in each attorney could speak up to three days. >>host: beautiful spaces inside the u-uppercase-letter can still view them but this up in at the time had seven justices in the chief justice was john marshall and often referred to as the grea

so, just to back up a little bit, basically the case, the petitioner on the case is a gentleman by the name of mark janus, he's a public employee in illinois. he's not a member of his union, but every month because of illinois law and the collect live bargaining agreement he's subject to, i think it's siphoned out of hits paycheck before he gets it $45 to the union. his argument, this is a violation of my first amendment rights. i'm compelled to subsidize the activities and sngsly the political activities of the union. now, why are they political activities? because as we know from another line of cases that's undisputed, you can't force people to subsidize unions when they're doing purely political activities. here the issue is the fees are used for collective bargaining. and janus says if you're collective bargaining and the party is the state, you're enacting public policy and to get them to pay you more, get this payment or that, and contraceptive, and class sizes and all the things we realize are public policy issues. inherently in any collective bargaining with the state on the o

the case, the petitioner is a man by the name of mark janice, he's a public employee in illinois. he does not like what his union is doing. he's not a member of his union. but every month because of illinois law and the collective bargaining argument that he's subject to, he has to pay, think it's stifeened out of hi paycheck, $45 to the union. and so his basic argument this is a violation of my first amendment rights. m being compeled to subsdies the activities and political activities of the unit yofpblet why are they political activities? because as we know from another line of cases that's undisputed you can't force people to suicide union when they're doing purely political activities. here the issue is the fees are being used for collective bargaining and what mr. janice when your collective bargaining is the state, you're trying to affect the public policy because you're asking them to pay you more to give you that pension benefit or that pension benefit you're asking for contraceptive coverage. if you're a teacher merit pay, classroom size all these things that are public

so just to back up a bit, basically the petitioner in the case is a gentleman by the name of mark janus, a public employee in illinois. he does not like what his union is doing, he's not a member of his union but every month because of illinois law and the collective bargaining agreement that he's subject to he has to pay i think it's siphoned out of his paycheck before he even gets it $45 to the union and so his basic argument is this is a violation of my first amendment rights, i'm being compelled to subsidize the activities and the political activities of the union. now, why they political activiti activities? because as we know from another line of cases that's indus puted, you can't force people to subsidize unions when they're doing purely political activities. here the fees are being used for collective bargaining and what mr. janus says is that when you're collective bargaining and the other party is the state, then you are essentially trying to get something out of the state. you're trying to effect public policy because you're asking them to pay you forgive you this pension be

of white house aides operating with interim security princes not really necessarily know the, beyond petitioner and others who they are but it is clear that a lack of white house officials are not operating with permanent security clearances and therefore, would be affected by this new change in policy. >> thank you so much, morgan chalfant, we appreciate it. >> one of the brave members of law enforcement is laid to rest police commander paul -- was fatally shot when he was chasing a suspect. say officers from across the nation paying respects to a fallen comrade. brian yanez is live. >> a summer two days. three funerals in three states for four police officers including a police commander, paul paul bauer. he was shot six times and killed tuesday in downtown chicago. there is a foot chase after a four-time convicted felon. thousands attended the funeral for paul bauer stay at the nativity of our lord church police officers from all over the country honoring the highest ranking police officer to be killed in londonderry there in decades. rents and family said that paul bauer death is a conseque

. >> on june 17th, 2003, i entered the following order. petitioner's conviction is hereby vacated. elease or retry randy steidl. >> when judge mccuskey granted me a new trial, i was still holding my breath because i'd watched guys on death row get a new trial and have the attorney general appeal it and have it taken away, and within 60 days they're strapped to a gurney being executed. >> one thing i could state with a degree of confidence in this business, there's no certainty. no certainty at all. >> randy's fate would now rest in the hands of illinois' new attorney general, lisa madigan, who would decide to release randy or try him again. michael callahan knew he'd have to get his findings to madigan now or live forever with the knowledge that he failed to help set an innocent man free. this is the story of green mountain coffee roasters dark magic told in the time it takes to brew your cup. first, we head to vermont. and go to our coffee shop. and meet dave. hey. why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good, he asks? let me show you. let's go. so we climb. hike. see a bear. woah. re

without the aid of counsel, petitioner went to the commission website, read the instructions on the backwinning ticket. she learned that the ticket was a bear instrument until such time as a signature is placed in the designated area. following the commission's instructions, she signed the back of the ticket and later on contacted counsel. where did she go wrong? >> unfortunately for her she didn't continue reading the ticket. it said very clearly that she could put it in a trust, thereby avoiding densification, but she didn't continue reading that. it's very clear in the instructions. if you go on the website it does talk about claiming her ticket, what the instructions clearly say is if you can put it in a trust then you avoid this whole issue about disclosing your identity. she didn't continue reading it, so it's unfortunate. unfortunately for her she didn't continue reading it. she's going to lose tomorrow. >> shannon: the three of us would say you got that call your lawyer first. before you make any big decisions. i can understand how she would see this thing and say unless i sign i

have clerks that haven't read this all this a thousand times that don't find the weaknesses in the petitioners and the judge is like "okay, i see here this could be oppo research? tell me about it." i mean they're acting as if a judge just reads a memo and that's it. talk about what a misrepresentation of the process that is. >> so that's such an important point to understand in all of this. these judges are used to this process where the government seeks warrants and when you're trying to get information about -- let's just call them bad guys. usually the information you have about them doesn't come with their best friends, it comes from their opponents, from people are against them, whether they're political opponents or not. so the judges know how to read a fisa warrant but in this case the warrant itself we've now learned from the democratic response actually indicated that the -- what we call the steele dossier was oppo research, that it was political oppo research, that fact was in front of the judge who granted the original fisa warrant, it was in front of the judge who granted the foll

tucker carlson or rick sanchez would have somebody knock on the door, why did you use that particular combination of words that makes it seems petitioner us about what your intention might be? that works for the spoken word. they do not have something that works for pictures. this young man was communicating all but saying what he was going to do, but he was doing it on instagram. so he was using symbols, but i'm sure that you have seen by now or your producers have shown you that he was all about saying, i'm going to kill a whole bunch of people tomorrow. and because it was done with pictures and targets and target practice and pictures of guns and other horrific things, nobody was able to latch onto that information. you are right, there probably was a community of his peers who may have probably seen this, not withstanding, but as far as we know, at least at this point in the investigation, nobody moved on any of that stuff. >> tucker: so we have this massive surveillance tape, but it is not keeping a safe is what you're saying? >> it seems to be the case. it seems to be that, one would think, this is me now hypothesizing, but one w

. >>> just the past hour attorney general came out and said there's been movement on banning bump stocks. >> allowing semi automatic rifles, we've been working on that petitioner sometime, we'll have an announcement on that soon, we believe in that. >> okay, so the attorney general no surprise aligning himself with his boss, the president who asked lim to do this. what is congress going to do? right now you have some high school students meeting with the house democrat caucus. that's happening now. with all the public pressure from the student survivors there's no slam dunk on this. you're about to hear the president's plan to train and arm some teachers. >> that's not a direction i'd go. there's other thing we can do first. i don't think that's a serious proposal. >> volunteers in the school, coaches and teachers that are willing to be trained. >> provided a layer on defense and all for it. >> i want to bring in amber phillips whose following the action on capitol hill. i know you've been writing about there and talking with sources about what congress is going to do here. we spoke with senator jeff flake he said he's going to introduce a couple of bills that

threat, the da is committed to combating the epidemic through several different avenues, including expansion entryman options, regulation, and outreach petitioners regarding the perception of opioids. the islamization of telemedicine 2008, the dea believes that this is important to ensure access to opioid treatment options while mitigating the risk of diversion. in july of 2017, dea implemented a final pertaining to domestic and international transactions encapsulating machines. overall, the rule gives dea greater visibility of transactions involving encapsulating machines. thelly, dea recognizes importance of open your prescription training for prescribers and has begun to ask whether they receive training for the prescription of opioid spirit while the information is voluntary, it provides better data for training. thank you for the committees focused on opioid crisis, and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. rep. burgess: thank you for your testimony. theill now move on to portion of the hearing where members will be recognized to ask questions. i will recognize myself or five minutes. questions on the proposed onislation o

. >> in terms of the bonus that corporate america received versus the crimes that they are giving to workers to kind of petitioners on his soap headache. it's so pathetic. maria: wow, bliss' latest comments after a major democratic super pac issued concerns over the parties midterm strategy of opposing president trump and the republican tax plan. this is the issue. there's no message on the left. it's just resistant to resist, resist president john. i don't think that will do it in november. dagen: i don't even understand what she's talking about. you know, to put it eloquently, it's gobbledygook. or she seems so out of touch when she talks about companies trying to petitioners on these people. these are employers in this country. their health is important to the financial help of the united states, the health of the everyday worker. i made the joke before she thinks the golden corral is a jewelry store chain in east texas. she's so out of touch with the american worker. here is wherever they go, her language and her talking points won't fly. we talked about this with juan williams yesterday. 90% of workers in thi