Conservative praise some of Gov. Brown’s vetoes

jerry-brown-signs-lawsSACRAMENTO – California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed only 118 of the 957 bills that came before his desk in the recently concluded legislative session, but some of his final vetoes earned a great deal of attention and praise – even from conservative Republicans.

That’s an interesting turn of events given that Brown signed into law most of the main Democratic priorities from the session. He approved a bill that turns California into a “sanctuary state” that limits the ability of local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration priorities. He approved a transportation tax and new spending on affordable housing programs. He agreed to a gender-neutral category for California driver’s licenses.

In addition, Brown signed a law that places more limits on the open carry of firearms and mandated that small businesses now provide 12 weeks of unpaid family leave to their workers. There’s much commentary about this having been one of the most liberal sessions in memory, which isn’t a surprise given the diminished power of the California GOP.

So what would conservatives – including ones outside of California – be happy about?

The main cause for celebration on the right came from Brown’s veto of Senate Bill 169. That legislation was passed in response to federal Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ decision to roll back Obama administration sexual-assault guidelines for campuses. Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, pointed specifically to the Trump administration in authoring the bill:

“The Trump administration continues to perpetuate a war on women,” Jackson wrote in a statement. “It is now more important than ever that Governor Brown sign SB169 into law and that other states follow. All students deserve an education in an environment that is safe and free from sexual harassment and sexual violence.”

The issue involves the Title IX federal amendments from 1972 that require schools and universities that receive federal aid to assure an environment that’s free of sexual discrimination and harassment. The Obama administration in 2011 sent a letter to schools, colleges and universities urging stepped up efforts to battle sexual assaults on campus.

But conservatives, such as David French of National Review, argued that the Obama-era guidelines were “mandating that (schools) satisfy the lowest burden of proof in sexual-harassment and sexual-assault adjudications, defining sexual harassment far too broadly, and failing to adequately protect fundamental due-process rights.” The new administration rolled back the rules and – to the surprise of many – Brown agreed with Trump and DeVos.

Brown issued an unusually long veto statement, in which he noted that “sexual harassment and sexual violence are serious and complicated matters for colleges to resolve. On the one side are complainants who come forward to seek justice and protection; on the other side stand accused students, who, guilty or not, must be treated fairly and with the presumption of innocence until the facts speak otherwise.”

The governor added that “thoughtful legal minds have increasingly questioned whether federal and state actions to prevent and redress sexual harassment and assault – well-intentioned as they are – have also unintentionally resulted in some colleges’ failure to uphold due process for accused students.” Brown also argued that the state should avoid new rules until it has “ascertained the full impact of what we recently enacted.”

In another veto that received praise on the right, Brown rejected Assembly Bill 1513, a union-backed measure that would have required private-sector workers in the privately funded home-care industry to provide private information to unions.

Workers who provide help in the homes of sick, elderly and disabled people already pass background checks. But this legislation would require the placement of “a copy of a registered home care aide’s name, mailing address, cellular telephone number and email address on file with the department to be made available, upon request, to a labor organization.”

Labor unions pitched the measure as a way to improve the licensure and regulation of these aides, but opponents saw it as a means to help unions contract these workers as part of their organizing efforts. Brown agreed with the opponents, and expressed concern about “releasing the personal information of these home care aides, who joined the registry without knowing that their information would be disclosed as prescribed by this bill.”

“Conservatives find themselves in the unexpected position of cheering some of California Governor Jerry Brown’s recent vetoes,” wrote Jim Geraghty in National Review. Geraghty also pointed to Brown’s veto of a bill that would require presidential candidates to release their tax returns to qualify for the California ballot and another one that would have required large companies to provide detailed data about male and female salary disparities.

Brown, by the way, vetoed a bill that would have imposed a late-night driving curfew on those under 21. Currently, the curfew applies only to those under 18. The governor made the fundamentally conservative argument that 18-year-olds “are eligible to enlist in the military, vote in national, state and local elections, enter into contracts and buy their own car.” So it would be unfair to limit their driving privileges.

As the 79-year-old Democratic governor finishes his final gubernatorial term, he still has a way of defying critics and keeping people on the left and right guessing.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

In California’s war on Trump, everyone loses

Donald TrumpFor a state so enamored with passing laws, California can seem awfully lawless sometimes. Our progressive Legislature and elected leaders have decided to make political and litigious war on the duly elected president of the United States.

The Resistance is here!

Truth is, Donald Trump has driven them all a bit batty. Our legislators have become so unmoored that even Gov. Jerry Brown — who just the other week signed the self-destructive “sanctuary state” law — had to step in and veto legislation requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns. Brown said that as politically appealing as such a law might be, he was uncomfortable with California setting election policy for the country.

It’s nice to see the light of reality break through the progressive miasma once in a while. If only some of that light could break through the state attorney general’s office.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Wednesday announced he’s seeking a restraining order to stop the Trump administration from ending Obamacare’s reimbursements to insurance companies. California is one of 17 states challenging the decision, which would cut off $10 billion in subsidies. The lawsuit is a fool’s errand, of course, but entirely in character with Becerra’s strategy of suing the administration at every turn, regardless of the merits. …

Click here to read the full article at the Sacramento Bee

Related content: California’s War Against Donald Trump: Who Wins? Who Loses?

Gov. Brown Signs Bill Allowing Felons To Vote In Jail

Gov. Jerry Brown has agreed to restore the voting rights of convicted felons serving time in county jails.

The bill that Brown announced signing Wednesday also reinstates the voting eligibility of felons on probation or under community supervision beginning next year. It does not affect those in state or federal prisons.

AB2466 stems from California’s criminal justice realignment, which led to some people convicted of low-level felonies serving time in county jails.

Republican lawmakers say felons should not be allowed to cast ballots while serving a sentence, with Sen. Patricia Bates of Laguna Niguel saying it compromises the integrity of elections. …

Click here to read the full story from the Associated Press

 

California Tells Pet Stores Their Dogs and Cats Must Be Rescues

In a blow to commercial animal breeders and brokers, California pet stores will soon have to get their puppies, kittens and rabbits from shelters and rescue centers only.

Individuals can still buy from private breeders. But beginning in January 2019, it will be illegal for stores to do so. Violators will face a fine of $500.

The bill, A.B. 485, had strong support from several animal welfare organizations, which cheered it as a blow to “puppy mills” and “kitten factories” that mass produce animals for sale, often in inhumane conditions. It was written by two California Assembly members, Patrick O’Donnell and Matt Dababneh, both Democrats, and signed into law on Friday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

California is the first state to pass such legislation, though it is following dozens of its own cities and jurisdictions, which have passed similar measures on a smaller scale. …

Click here to read the full story from the New York Times

Gov. Brown signs major bills – How will they affect you?

jerry-brown-signs-lawsSACRAMENTO – In his veto message of two bills that would have banned smoking at California state parks and beaches, Gov. Jerry Brown argued that there must be “some limit to the coercive power of government.” Nevertheless, in a sea of bill signings this week, the governor vastly expanded the power of government to dictate private workplace rules, along with a number of other measures that expand state regulatory prerogatives.

One of the more far-reaching bills, Senate Bill 63, mandates that companies with at least 20 employees provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave to workers to care for a newborn or adopted child. Before the signing, state law required such leave for companies with 50 or more workers. The bill’s backers said it is about simple “fairness,” but the California Chamber of Commerce labeled it a “job killer” that “unduly burdens” small companies and “exposes them to the threat of costly litigation.”

Brown also signed Assembly Bill 168, which bans all employers – including state and local governments, and even the Legislature – from asking for the salary history of any applicant. Instead, the employer must provide a salary scale. It was pitched mainly as a gender-equality measure.

“The practice of seeking or requiring the salary history of job applicants helps perpetuate wage inequality that has spanned generations of women in the workforce,” said Assembly member Susan Eggman, the Stockton Democrat who sponsored the bill. Opponents argue that there are many legitimate reasons for employers to seek out an applicant’s salary history and that the law will cause employers mainly to enlarge the pay range, thus making it much harder for applicants and employers to find the appropriate level of pay.

These bills were part of a package backed by the California Legislative Women’s Caucus. Not all of them were workplace-related. For instance, the governor signed AB10 by Assembly member Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, which “requires public schools serving low-income students in grades 6 to 12 to provide feminine hygiene products in half of the school’s bathrooms at no charge.”

And he signed AB273 by Assembly member Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Winters, which “expands the eligibility criteria for subsidized child care services to parents who are taking English as a second language or high school equivalency courses.” Brown also gave the OK to a bill that will subsidize diapers for poor women.

In other topic areas, the governor signed 11 bills on Wednesday designed “to improve California’s criminal and juvenile justice systems, restore the power of judges to impose criminal sentences and reduce recidivism through increased rehabilitation.” These include measures that would seal the records of people who were arrested but never convicted of a crime; allow a parole hearing for juveniles who were sentenced to life without parole; and a bill that gives judges additional discretion regarding the “firearms enhancement” for sentencing decisions.

Furthermore, the governor signed AB1448, by Assembly member Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, which allows the Board of Parole to continue its parole hearings for elderly prisoners who have served at least 25 years in prison after federal oversight of the prison system ends. The state had been under federal court decrees dealing with overcrowding, but has since passed a realignment law and other programs that have reduced the size of the inmate population. In his signing message, the governor said that this elderly-prisoner program has successfully reduced costs involving geriatric prisoners who no longer pose a risk to society.

The governor previously had signed SB384, by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, which creates a tiered sex-offender registry rather than the current system of lifetime registration. The bill received significant law-enforcement support. Supporters argued that “local law enforcement agencies spend between 60 to 66 percent of their resources dedicated for sex offender supervision on monthly or annual registration paperwork because of the large numbers of registered sex offenders on our registry,” according to the Senate bill analysis.

“If we can remove low-risk offenders from the registry it will free up law enforcement officers to monitor the high risk offenders living in our communities,” supporters argued. There was no official, recorded opposition to the bill, but Republican opponents expressed fear in the floor debate that these changes would put the public at risk.

The governor signed a controversial drug-pricing transparency bill, SB17, that forces “drug manufacturers to notify specified purchasers, in writing at least 90 days prior to the planned effective date, if it is increasing the wholesale acquisition cost … of a prescription drug by specified amounts.” The pharmaceutical industry fought vociferously against the measure, which it believes is a first step in a national campaign to impose government price controls.

The governor used some of his strongest – and most ideological – rhetoric in touting this measure. “The rich are getting richer. The powerful are getting more powerful. So this is just another example where the powerful get more power and take more,” he said, according to a National Public Radio report of the signing ceremony. “We’ve got to point to the evils, and there’s a real evil when so many people are suffering so much from rising drug profits.”

This was part of a package of recently signed medical-related consumer-oriented legislation. Other legislation puts limits on the gifts and benefits doctors can receive from drug manufacturers, prevents drug makers from steering consumers to higher-priced medications, creates a licensing system for pharmacy benefit managers, and creates a California Pharmaceutical Collaborative to help government agencies negotiate better deals for pharmaceuticals.

Signings have been far more plentiful than vetoes.

But the governor vetoed a bill that would require people who work for many web-based meal-delivery services that deliver pre-packaged uncooked meals to consumers to obtain a food-handler’s card. In his veto message, the governor wrote that he is “not convinced … that the existing regulatory scheme for food facilities is suitable for this new industry.” Brown vetoed a bill that would have created a new state task force that would examine opioid prescriptions in light of the state’s opioid crisis.

He also vetoed AB63, which would have imposed the same curfew (between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.) on drivers under the age of 21 that now applies only to those under 18. “Eighteen-year-olds are eligible to enlist in the military, vote in national, state and local elections, enter into contracts and buy their own car. I believe adults should not be subject to the same driving restrictions presently applied to minors,” Brown explained in his veto message.

Stay tuned. The governor has until Sunday night to sign or veto the remaining bills passed this session.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Gas tax repeal battle: Anti-taxers vs. business establishment

gas prices 2Business groups are threatening to wage a pricey campaign to stop California’s Republican officials from trying to repeal a new state gas tax—warning them not to “create new political adversaries.” But the politicians aren’t flinching.

Eleven GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation, including House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, responded that they aren’t as worried about “political threats” as they are about the financial burden the $5.2 billion-a-year gas would place on their constituents. And GOP Assemblyman Travis Allen, who’s running for governor and sponsoring one of the two repeal measures, struck a Trumpian tone, labeling the business groups “special interest thugs.

Once political allies, Republican incumbents and activists are openly sparring with pro-business groups for backing the transportation package Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed earlier this year. Such infighting between traditional conservative interests seems counterproductive for a party with diminished clout—but the GOP has little to lose in California.

With Democrats holding every statewide office and two-thirds majorities of the Legislature, the party of limited government hopes to make gains at the ballot box by repealing key Democratic measures. That’s why Republicans aim to gather enough voter signatures to place one or more gas tax repeal initiatives on the November ballot next year.

The GOP’s goal: rally conservatives and cut across party lines by inciting a taxpayer revolt. Success would boost turnout and improve prospects for Republicans in other races.

“If things continue as is in California politics, I think this is how future elections will look,” said Bill Whalen, a Hoover Institution research fellow at Stanford University and former speechwriter for GOP Gov. Pete Wilson. Currently, just 26 percent of registered voters are Republican, compared to 45 percent Democrats and 25 percent no party preference.

Call it Trumpism or populism, the strategy to run against the political establishment isn’t new, said Thad Kousser, political science professor at University of California, San Diego.

“I think it has a real shot,” he said of the gas tax repeal. “Every so often a proposition galvanizes the attention of voters enough, and if we have $4-a-gallon gas next November, this could be the thing.”

Worried about losing the first gas tax increase in 23 years, business groups such as the Los Angeles County Business Federation and Orange County Business Council joined construction unions and the League of California Cities in sending House Republicans the warning last month.

“With so much at stake,” the letter said, “our organizations will have no option but to mount a robust and powerful effort in opposition to this initiative, using the voices of California’s business community to counter your efforts.”

Because business interests rely on transportation and infrastructure to stay competitive, they’ve collaborated on those issues with state Democrats while simultaneously opposing them to fend off so-called job killer bills that increase labor costs or overburden businesses with regulation. But business’s pragmatism is running afoul of the Republican Party’s increasingly staunch opposition to taxes.

“It’s a clear sign the business community has hitched their wagon to a different party,” Kousser said.

The new gas tax is expected to allow Caltrans to make major repairs, including 17,000 miles of pavement, 500 bridges and 55,000 culverts over the next 10 years. The package will also fund local street and road repairs, as well as dramatically increase public transit funding.

It will do this by raising the base excise gas tax 12 cents per gallon, bringing it to 30 cents, starting Nov. 1. The excise tax on diesel fuel will increase to 36 cents per gallon.

Starting next year, the measure adds an annual vehicle fee ranging from $25 for cars valued at under $5,000 to $175 for cars worth $60,000 or more. Electric car owners will begin paying a $100 annual fee in lieu of gas taxes starting in 2020.

But Republicans insist that they can lead a taxpayer rebellion, and that voters will become disillusioned when they find out none of the money will go toward building additional freeway lanes to reduce congestion.

California GOP Chairman Jim Brulte says the state party will embrace the cause because Democrats pushed through a tax that punishes rural and suburban residents. Assembly Republican Leader Brian Dahle of Bieber said he’s all for a repeal because voters believe their money is being squandered. All but one GOP lawmaker, Sen. Anthony Cannella of Ceres, voted against the bill.

Gas tax supporters say Republicans are simply using the gas tax to raise their own profiles and to drive up conservative turnout in vulnerable districts.

“The critics of the letter are not interested in having a dialogue of fixing California’s transportation problems,” said Michael Quigley, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, which represents heavy construction companies and their workers. “They are the ones who are the most opportunistic politically around this issue.”

Former San Diego city councilman turned conservative talk show host Carl DeMaio has been the frontman for one of two repeal efforts. DeMaio—who characterized Sacramento politicians as having Stockholm syndrome because they are easily bullied by the governor and lobbyists—says more than 250,000 people already have pledged online that they will be one of the 585,407 valid signatures needed to qualify the measure. This repeal option is a constitutional amendment that would also prevent any future increases of vehicle and gas taxes without voter approval.

“We’re not waiting for the politicians to provide leadership on this front, from either party,” said DeMaio. “The people don’t want this cost to be added to their family burden and as a result, people are really rising up.”

The irony, of course, is that campaigns to qualify a constitutional amendment require millions of dollars—money that political consultant Dave Gilliard has been working behind the scenes to gather. His clients include Reps. Darrell Issa of Vista, Mimi Walters of Irvine and Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa, who are all being targeted by Democrats next year because they represent districts President Donald Trump lost.

Gilliard would not say who’s funding the initiative or if Issa, a car alarm mogul, would be contributing. He said he expects signature-gathering to begin in mid-November.

GOP consultant Rob Stutzman, who is working with the Fix Our Roads coalition to keep the gas tax in place, said it would be a “strategic mistake” for House Republicans to bankroll a repeal effort.

“There are other issues that can get Republicans to the polls without inciting tens of millions of dollars against you,” Stutzman said.

Gilliard, however, likened the gas tax repeal to Proposition 13, which caps property taxes at 1 percent of assessed value. Back in 1978, government and business groups campaigned against Proposition 13 but backers enjoyed a wave of anti-tax sentiment and spent hardly any money to pass it.

“They’re talking about spending $40 million to defend the tax but I don’t think it matters,” Gilliard said. “Once it’s on the ballot, the gas tax will go down to defeat because people will realize it’s overreaching and doesn’t add capacity to highways or roads.”

Besides DeMaio, another GOP underdog is championing the repeal.

Allen, the assemblyman from Huntington Beach, is leading his own initiative and will need 365,880 valid voter signatures to qualify (a lower threshold because it’s not a constitutional amendment.) He’s also come under scrutiny for soliciting donations for his gubernatorial campaign off his tax repeal website.

So far, the two campaigns show no indication of joining forces. Allen said he’s reached out to DeMaio, but DeMaio said, “I like my initiatives to be airtight and legally defensible.”

Allen scored a legal victory when a judge ruled that Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra wrote a flawed and misleading title and summary of the initiative–never once using the words “gas or tax” in the title.

The judge rewrote it to say: “Repeals recently enacted gas and diesel taxes and vehicle registration fees. Eliminates road repair and transportation programs funded by these taxes and fees.”

But in a twist, a poll by Probolsky Research using the judge’s re-write found 54 percent of voters actually supported the gas tax, compared to 35 percent opposed. Slightly more than half of Republicans supported the idea of a tax repeal.

Contrast that with a June poll by the University of California, Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that described exactly how much more drivers would be paying at the pump. It found 58 percent of voters against the tax.

The GOP hopes to do a “patch test” of its tax repeal strategy via a different kind of recall, this one involving a Southern California lawmaker.

Earlier this year, DeMaio launched a recall drive against newly elected state Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton, a freshman Democrat who had unexpectedly defeated GOP Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang last year. DeMaio has said he targeted Newman in a “gazelle strategy,” to take down the most vulnerable Democrat for his support of the gas tax increase. Recalling Newman would likely also deprive Democrats of their supermajority in the Senate.

But the recall election hasn’t been certified because it’s bogged down in a legal fight.

A spokesman for Newman also accused paid signature collectors of deceiving voters into thinking they were supporting a gas tax repeal when they were in fact signing a petition just to recall Newman. “What the Republicans did will not only hurt their credibility with voters, but it will also make it harder for voters to trust what anyone is saying to them,” said Derek Humphrey.

“This is what people hate about politics.”

This article was originally published by CalMatters

California is now a sanctuary state. Is non-citizen voting next?

Protesters chant during a May Day demonstration outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in San Francisco on Monday. Thousands are expected to take to the streets across the United States to participate in May Day demonstrations.

With Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature on Senate Bill 54, California now calls itself a sanctuary state. There is strong symbolism in the move, although California governments’ actions relative to individuals in the country illegally will change little in many parts of the state.

Brown’s demand that some 700 additional crimes be added to the list that federal agents could use in examining immigrants changed the bill author Sen. Kevin de León’s original intent to offer sanctuary to most immigrants except those who committed the most heinous crimes.

Brown went out of his way to write in his message accompanying his signature that the bill “strikes a balance that will protect public safety.”

Opponents of Brown’s action disagree. State senator Ted Gaines predicted that California would become “a giant magnet pulling every illegal alien criminal in the country to our state.”

For many supporters of the sanctuary state bill, SB 54 did not go far enough. They accepted the final version for the message it sent, the symbolism. But they want more. Where does the push for gaining more protections for illegal immigrants go now and how far will California voters allow it to go?

It is doubtful that the list of crimes that Brown insisted be added before he signed the bill would be reduced. Even a new governor will not do that. The public safety community still remains split over the effects of the bill.

Likely there will be a push for more empowerment for immigrants. Already illegal immigrants have been granted drivers licenses. Some local governments have set up taxpayer-funded legal aid to immigrants in the country without legal documents. San Francisco voters approved a measure last November to allow parents of children in the school system, whether the parents are legal citizens or not, to vote in school board elections. Now, California declares itself a sanctuary state.

Don’t be surprised if the next push is to grow the voting franchise for non-citizen immigrants.

Symbolic measures do matter in moving public affairs debates.

Joel Fox is editor and Co-Publisher of Fox and Hounds Daily.

This article originally appeared on Fox and Hounds Daily.

Brown signs Sanctuary State law, risking Trump retaliation

As reported by the L.A. Times:

Under threat of possible retaliation by the Trump administration, Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark “sanctuary state” legislation Thursday, vastly limiting who state and local law enforcement agencies can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities.

Senate Bill 54, which takes effect in January, has been hailed as part of a broader effort by majority Democrats in the California Legislature to shield more than 2.3 million immigrants living illegally in the state. Weeks before Brown’s signature made it law, it was met with swift denunciations from Trump administration officials and became the focus of a national debate over how far states and cities can go to prevent their officers from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Brown took the unusual step of penning a signing message in support of SB 54. He called the legislation a balanced measure that would allow police and sheriff’s agencies to continue targeting dangerous criminals, while protecting hardworking families without legal residency in the country. …

Click here to read the full article

Jerry Brown signs new California affordable housing laws

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday signed a robust package of housing legislation aimed at addressing California’s unprecedented affordability crisis.

“These new laws will help cut red tape and encourage more affordable housing, including shelter for the growing number of homeless in California,” Brown said in a statement.

He signed the bills at the Hunter’s View public housing project in San Francisco’s Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, with the Bay Bridge as a backdrop.

“Today, you can be sure we got 15 good bills. Have they ended the need for further legislation? Unfortunately not,” Brown said. …

Click here to read the full story

New gender category ‘X’ awaits Gov. Brown’s decision

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

This is the time of year when Californians with a vested interest in particular pieces of legislation wring their hands and wait. Hundreds of bills now sit on the notoriously unpredictable Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk for a signature that will turn them into law, or a big fat veto.

Mark Snyder is watching one in particular. It would make California the first state to legally recognize nonbinary people — those who don’t consider themselves male or female — on all state-issued identification. In June, Oregon changed its driver’s licenses so residents there can choose M for male, F for female or X for neither, but California’s would extend that option to birth certificates and other pieces of state ID.

“We’re certainly on our way out of the shadows now,” said the 34-year-old Snyder, a San Francisco resident who identifies as nonbinary and works as the director of communications for Equality Federation, a national LGBTQ civil rights organization.

The bill would also make it easier for transgender people to change their names and genders on state documents because they no longer would have to appear in court with a doctor’s signature verifying that they’ve received appropriate medical treatment. In addition, the bill would allow those under 18 to change their gender designations, which currently is prohibited. …

Click here to read the full article