Category: Rights

Poll: Almost a Third of Americans Say the First Amendment Goes ‘Too Far’
The survey also found that two-thirds of respondents believe that America is on the “wrong track” when it comes to free speech.

According to a new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment organization, nearly a third of Americans, including similar numbers of Republicans and Democrats, say that the First Amendment goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. More than half agreed that their local community should not allow a public speech that espouses a belief they find particularly offensive.

“Those results were disappointing, but not exactly surprising,” said FIRE Chief Research Adviser Sean Stevens in a Tuesday press release. “Here at FIRE, we’ve long observed that many people who say they’re concerned about free speech waver when it comes to beliefs they personally find offensive. But the best way to protect your speech in the future is to defend the right to controversial and offensive speech today.”

The survey, which was conducted in partnership with the Polarization Research Lab (PRL) at Dartmouth College, asked 1,000 Americans about their opinions on free speech and expression. The survey found that “when it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views,” over two-thirds of respondents said they believed America was headed in the wrong direction. Further, only 25 percent of respondents agreed that the right to free speech was “very” or “completely” secure.

The survey also asked respondents to read a dozen controversial statements and pick the one they found most offensive. The most disliked beliefs were that “all whites are racist oppressors,” followed by statements like “America got what it deserved on 9/11” and “January 6th was a peaceful protest.” The survey then asked respondents whether they’d agree with allowing this opinion to be expressed in different circumstances.

Half of the respondents said that their community “definitely” or “probably” should not permit a public speech expressing the opinion they found most offensive. A whopping 69 percent said a local college should “definitely” or “probably” not allow a professor who holds such an opinion to teach there. Over a quarter of respondents said that someone who previously said the offensive opinion should be fired from their job.

These results indicate that though the average American is concerned about protecting free speech rights, a significant portion of the population seem poised to welcome increasing censorship.

“The average American already thinks that free speech in America is in dire straits. Most worryingly, they think it will get worse,” said Stevens. “These findings should be a wake-up call for the nation to recommit to a vibrant free speech culture before it’s too late.”

And then it’ll be who’d be allowed to exercise the rights protected by the other articles in the Bill of Rights…..

Figliuzzi: More Caution Needed on Who’s Allowed to Exercise 2nd Amendment

MSNBC contributor Frank Figliuzzi commented on the shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs parade, noting similar recent incidents of gun violence disrupting places of worship and celebrations.

While the perpetrators may have legally possessed the guns used, he argued this is insufficient and society should more carefully assess who is allowed to exercise gun ownership rights.

“It’s early, but it’s never too early to talk about the role of weapons in our society. We just last weekend were reporting on a shooting at a megachurch in Houston, people going to their place of worship and that being interrupted by gunfire and a fatality. Here we are with a joyous occasion in Kansas City, and the same thing happens,” Figliuzzi said.

Figliuzzi said the media often washes its hands of these issues if the guns were legally possessed, without further examining if those individuals should have actually had access to firearms given what is known about them.

“Too often I think what the media finds is eventually a finding that perhaps that, ‘Oh, well, the perpetrators had lawful possession of those guns. Okay.’ And then they kind of wash their hands of it without a further analysis,” he said.

“Does that mean it’s okay? Does that mean that those people should have had those guns even though they might have possessed them lawfully? What do we know about them that would have caused us to do this better in terms of assessing and vetting people for gun ownership? What can we change?” he pressed.

He stressed constitutional rights should not be taken away, but that American society needs to more carefully vet who it allows to bear arms, in order to better prevent these types of tragedies from occurring.

“That’s where we seem to fall down as a society. Not that we take constitutional rights away from people, but rather that we be more careful about who it is that we allow to exercise those rights in our society,” Figliuzzi said.

Soon to be followed by demand for book titles owned and what religion is practiced……..

California Democrats Introduce Bill That Would Force Homeowners and Renters to Disclose Number of Firearms to Insurance Companies, Government

For years, California Democrats have been hostile to gun owners. California Democrats frequently attempt to erode Second Amendment rights in the state.

A bill in the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly that was introduced on February 16th, would force homeowners and renters to disclose information about firearms they own. Assembly member Mike Gipson, and State Senator Catherine Blakespear are the two leading California Democrat lawmakers pushing this legislation.

Section 2086 will be an addition to the Insurance Code pertaining to AB-3067.

The questions include information as to the number of firearms in the home, the method of storage, and how many firearms are stored in vehicles on the property. The questions include whether or not the firearms are in locked containers or not.

Judge dismisses Alvin Bragg’s felony case against vax card forgers, says DA has let criminals off for much less

Bragg and his office “move to dismiss significantly more serious counts or entire indictments,” the judge wrote.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg attempted to charge two New York residents with felonies for having false vaccine passports while he has let off others charged with far worse crimes scot-free.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Brendan T. Lantry dismissed the felony charges against the residents, identified as J.O. and R.V. in the decision, who had bought the forged vax passports, usurping Bragg’s decision.

The judge said the two were among 16 others that Bragg had “cherry-picked” to prosecute, according to the case.

Lantry slammed Bragg in the decision decided at the New York Supreme Court on Jan. 30.

The judge wrote in the opinion, “Clearly, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 170.25) is not among the most serious crimes in the New York Penal Law, nor are the factual allegations against Defendants R.V. and J.O. particularly serious in nature.”

“Moreover, the factual allegations — that the Defendants purchased fake COVID-19 vaccination cards so that they could provide same to their employer (R.V.) and school (J.O.) — do not rise to the level of the majority of the crimes adjudicated in Supreme Court, New York County, namely homicide, sexual assault, drug sale, robbery, burglary, and other violent and non-violent serious felony offenses,” Lantry continued.

The judge expanded on the decision that Bragg and his office almost daily “move to dismiss significantly more serious counts or entire indictments” and avoid harsher penalties for far more violent and convicted felons. Bragg also recently allowed a group of all but a single illegal immigrant to be released without bail after they allegedly beat up two NYPD officers. He later defended this saying that the video evidence was not enough to hold the foreign nationals.

NYC government officials, including Bragg, have faced increasing scrutiny over the government’s lackluster effort to control crime in the city as well as the high influx of illegal immigrants.

NSA finally admits to spying on Americans by purchasing sensitive data. Violating Americans’ privacy “not just unethical but illegal,” senator says.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has admitted to buying records from data brokers detailing which websites and apps Americans use, US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) revealed Thursday.

This news follows Wyden’s push last year that forced the FBI to admit that it was also buying Americans’ sensitive data. Now, the senator is calling on all intelligence agencies to “stop buying personal data from Americans that has been obtained illegally by data brokers.”

“The US government should not be funding and legitimizing a shady industry whose flagrant violations of Americans’ privacy are not just unethical but illegal,” Wyden said in a letter to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines. “To that end, I request that you adopt a policy that, going forward,” intelligence agencies “may only purchase data about Americans that meets the standard for legal data sales established by the FTC.”

Wyden suggested that the intelligence community might be helping data brokers violate an FTC order requiring that Americans are provided “clear and conspicuous” disclosures and give informed consent before their data can be sold to third parties. In the seven years that Wyden has been investigating data brokers, he said that he has not been made “aware of any company that provides such a warning to users before collecting their data.”

The FTC’s order came after reaching a settlement with a data broker called X-Mode, which admitted to selling sensitive location data without user consent and even to selling data after users revoked consent.

In his letter, Wyden referred to this order as the FTC outlining “new rules,” but that’s not exactly what happened. Instead of issuing rules, FTC settlements often serve as “common law,” signaling to marketplaces which practices violate laws like the FTC Act.

According to the FTC’s analysis of the order on its site, X-Mode violated the FTC Act by “unfairly selling sensitive data, unfairly failing to honor consumers’ privacy choices, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data without consent verification, unfairly categorizing consumers based on sensitive characteristics for marketing purposes, deceptively failing to disclose use of location data, and providing the means and instrumentalities to engage in deceptive acts or practices.”

The FTC declined to comment on whether the order also applies to data purchases by intelligence agencies. In defining “location data,” the FTC order seems to carve out exceptions for any data collected outside the US and used for either “security purposes” or “national security purposes conducted by federal agencies or other federal entities.”

Continue reading “”

NH Supreme Court Affirms No Duty to Retreat When Acting in Self-Defense

It feels like it’s a rare occasion these days for any court with more than one judge to issue a unanimous decision, much less one that comes down on the side of our right to keep and bear arms, but that’s exactly what happened in New Hampshire on Monday as the state Supreme Court sided with a man who drew his gun to ward off an aggressor in a road rage incident, only to find himself charged (and convicted of a crime).

It was almost three years go when Joshua D. Shea’s was convicted on a single charge of criminal threatening with a deadly weapon, but the court has now thrown out that conviction after ruling that the judge overseeing the case erred by instructing the jury to consider whether Shea had the opportunity to retreat from the encounter. As the court pointed out in its ruling, lawmakers had removed any such duty to retreat from state statutes a decade earlier, and the judge had no basis to demand the jury consider the long-repealed law when weighing the evidence against Shea.

“After 2011, a person is justified in using deadly force when he reasonably believes that another person is about to use unlawful, deadly force against him, and he is not required to retreat if he is anywhere he has a right to be and was not the initial aggressor,” wrote Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi.

Shea claims he pulled his gun after another driver threatened to “beat his ass” following a close call on Route 28 in Epsom, according to the ruling’s recitation of the case. While the complainant claimed Shea pointed the gun at him, Shea testified he merely showed the gun to warn the other man off.

The incident started when the other man pulled his car in front of Shea’s truck as they drove on Route 28, forcing Shea to slam on his brakes and hit his horn. After the two men “exchanged middle fingers” they both pulled into a gas station parking lot off a traffic circle, according to the ruling.

In the gas station parking lot, according to Shea’s testimony at trial, the complainant began “aggressively swearing and saying he was going to . . . rip (Shea) out of [his] car.”

Shea further testified that the complainant said he would “beat (Shea’s) ass,” and asked the defendant to pull into the parking lot next door where there were no cameras.

At this point, Shea testified, the complainant began walking toward Shea’s truck and he was in serious fear for his safety. Shea testified he unclipped his pistol from its holster and warned the other driver he had a gun. Shea says he brought the gun up to his chest to show the man the gun, while the other man claimed Shea pointed the gun at him.

Despite the fact that no duty to retreat exists in New Hampshire law, Judge Andrew Schulman still informed the jury that one of the factors in the case was whether Shea “could have completely and safely left the area without any risk to himself or others.” In doing so, the judges ruled, Schulman went above and beyond what is allowed by law and contradicted what the state legislature has had to say about retreating in the face of danger; namely, that there is no requirement to do so if they were not the initial aggressor. Even when deadly force is not used, merely the display of a firearm to prevent the threat from escalating, the gun owner has no duty to retreat or present their back to the individual threatening to commit an act of violence against them.

I have to say, it’s nice to be able to cover a decision involving our right to self-defense that doesn’t include anti-gun judges trying to twist the law to suit their own purpose. Granted, four of the five justices on the court were appointed by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, but even the lone justice named to the bench by Democrat John Lynch didn’t try to play any games with the decision. The five justices all made it clear that folks who aren’t the aggressor are not compelled to walk, run, or drive away instead of taking steps to lawfully protect themselves, and I’m glad that the court reiterated that fact in no uncertain terms. Hopefully Schulman’s jury instruction was just an aberration to begin with, but now there’s no excuse for any other Granite State judge to assert a duty to retreat that doesn’t exist in state law, and that’s a big win for those of us who believe in the human right of self-defense

MONUMENTAL DECISION: THIRD CIRCUIT RULES THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLIES THOSE 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER

Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince secured a major victory for Second Amendment jurisprudence in Lara, et al. v. Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, docket no. 21-1832, where the Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania’s banning of 18-to-21-year-olds from carrying firearms outside of their homes during a state of emergency is unconstitutional.

In so holding, the Third Circuit declared

The words “the people” in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group.

In that vein, the court went on to emphasize that

It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; id. amend. XVII), freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, government petitions (id. amend. I), and the right against unreasonable government searches and seizures (id. amend. IV)…and there is no reason to adopt an inconsistent reading of “the people.”

In turning to whether the relevant historical timeframe is 1791 (ratification of the Second Amendment) or 1868 (ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment), the court declared

[That] to maintain consistency in our interpretation of constitutional provisions, we hold that the Second Amendment should be understood according to its public meaning in 1791.

In turning to the statutory sections at issue, the court acknowledged that

[t]aken together, §§ 6106, 6107, and 6109 – when combined with a state or municipal emergency declaration – have the practical effect of preventing most 18-to-20-year-old adult Pennsylvanians from carrying firearms

and that “that the Commissioner cannot point us to a single founding-era statute imposing restrictions on the freedom of 18-to-20-year-olds to carry guns.”

Accordingly, the Third Circuit remanded the issue with “instructions to enter an injunction forbidding the Commissioner from arresting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth.”

BLUF
Our government is run by totalitarians who wish they were Chinese bureaucrats who could ban anybody from society whenever they want.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM covers this. I expect they will ignore it because, well, it was revealed by Jim Jordan and was aimed at Republicans.
Why let the Constitutional order get in the way of defending democracy?

Regulator Forced Financial Industry to Spy on Americans.

Do you shop at Cabela’s or Dick’s Sporting Goods?

Have you ever bought anything with MAGA on it or from anybody whose business includes the term?

Are you a hunter or a sports shooter?

If so, you will be happy to know that the federal government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network tasked financial institutions to spy on you and send your purchase and travel history to the feds.

This was, of course, entirely warrantless. No legal process at all–and why should there be one? After all, you are a domestic terrorist if you support Donald Trump or like sporting goods.

You are deplorable for sure.

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day
“If you’re deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the law, you’re allowing the agency to be a judge in its own case,” said Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing fishermen based in Rhode Island.

A little fish at the Supreme Court could take a big bite out of regulatory power.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Business and conservative interest groups that want to limit the power of federal regulators think they have a winner in the Atlantic herring and the boats that sweep the modest fish into their holds by the millions.

In a Supreme Court term increasingly dominated by cases related to former President Donald Trump, the justices are about to take up lower profile but vitally important cases that could rein in a wide range of government regulations affecting the environment, workplace standards, consumer protections and public health.

In cases being argued Wednesday, lawyers for the fishermen are asking the court to overturn a 40-year-old decision that is among the most frequently cited high court cases in support of regulatory power. Lower courts used the decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for monitors who track their fish intake. A group of commercial fishermen appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in front of a court that, like the rest of the federal judiciary, was remade during Trump’s presidency by conservative interests that were motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion.

The 1984 decision in the case known colloquially as Chevron states that when laws aren’t crystal clear federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details.

Supporters of limited government have for years had their sights set on the decision, which they say gives power that should be wielded by judges to experts who work for the government.

Continue reading “”

Increasing Defendant’s Sentence Based on Lawful Gun Possession Is Forbidden

From Nelson v. State, decided today by the Florida Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Judge Jordan Pratt, joined by Judges Eric Eisnaugle and John Harris:

This appeal presents the question whether a trial court may rely on a defendant’s lawful firearm possession in sentencing him. We conclude that it may not. Courts deprive defendants of due process when they rely on uncharged and unproven conduct during sentencing, and this principle holds especially true where the uncharged conduct is the lawful exercise of a constitutional right….

Defendant had been convicted of selling marijuana and related charges. Then,

At the sentencing hearing, the court entertained argument from both Nelson and the State, with Nelson urging the court to impose 36 months, and the State urging the court to impose 87.23 months. During its argument, the State presented two photos of firearms found in Nelson’s home, noting that “a possible murder a couple of months ago that was probably related to the sale of cannabis” had occurred in Citrus County. However, the State did not argue that Nelson himself was in any way connected to the murder, and it conceded that it did not bring any firearm-related charges against him.

After hearing a brief rebuttal argument from Nelson’s counsel, the court announced his sentence. The court applied the discretionary trafficking enhancement and sentenced Nelson to 87.23 months of incarceration on counts 1 and 2 (to run concurrently).

Immediately after pronouncing this sentence, the court stated: “And what hurts you the most, Mr. Nelson, was … the photographs of the guns. They did not charge with those. I did not take that into account; but why you did this, I do not know.” The court then imposed three-year sentences on the remaining felony counts, with the sentences to run concurrently with the concurrent 87.23-month sentences….

Impermissible, the court said:

Trial courts generally enjoy wide discretion in sentencing convicted defendants within the range of sentences established by the Legislature. However, “an exception exists, when the trial court considers constitutionally impermissible factors in imposing a sentence.”

Reliance on constitutionally impermissible factors deprives a defendant of due process and therefore constitutes fundamental error. As relevant here, “[a] trial court’s consideration of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct in sentencing constitutes a due process violation.”

In short, just as “[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime,” it also prohibits him from being sentenced for one based on “unsubstantiated allegations.” [The court cites various Florida state precedents throughout this paragraph. -EV]

This basic principle of due process carries no less force when the uncharged conduct is the lawful exercise of a constitutional right. Both the Florida and federal constitutions guarantee the fundamental, preexisting right to keep and bear arms….

At sentencing, the State presented no evidence to establish that Nelson’s possession of firearms within his home contravened the law. The State did not claim that any law prohibited Nelson from possessing firearms at the time of his arrest, much less point to such a law that would pass muster under the Second Amendment. Nor did it charge him with any firearm-related offense.

The State introduced no evidence establishing that Nelson possessed his firearms within the home to further his illicit activities or for any other unlawful purpose. Indeed, at sentencing, the State affirmatively conceded that it had not charged Nelson with armed trafficking, as the firearms were not found near the cannabis. Moreover, Nelson had no prior convictions.

In short, not only did the State decline to charge Nelson with a firearm-related offense; the State failed to argue, much less establish by evidence, that his firearm possession constituted anything other than the lawful exercise of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms “in defense of hearth and home.” …

The court’s statements indicate that it may have relied upon Nelson’s lawful firearm possession in imposing his sentence, and the State has failed to carry its burden to show otherwise. By declaring that “the photographs of the guns” were “[w]hat hurts [Nelson] most,” the court suggested that it weighed Nelson’s lawful firearm possession against him.

At best, the State [in arguing that the court didn’t consider the lawful firearms possession] has shown that the court made two contradictory statements: one that it took the firearm possession into account, and one that it did not. That showing does not suffice. “[W]e cannot ignore the nature and extent of the trial court’s discussion of irrelevant and impermissible factors during the sentencing hearing.”

“Because the court’s comments could reasonably be construed as basing the sentence, at least in part, [on impermissible factors], and because we cannot say that the sentence would have been the same without the court’s impermissible consideration of [that factor],” we must “vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge.”

If due process prohibits a trial court from relying on “uncharged and unproven crimes” when pronouncing a sentence, then, a fortiori, it prohibits a trial court from relying on the lawful exercise of a constitutional right. The State has failed to carry its burden to show that the sentencing court did not rely, at least in part, on Nelson’s lawful exercise of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Accordingly, we vacate Nelson’s sentences, remand these cases for resentencing, and direct the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court to reassign the cases to a different judge for the resentencing.

Victoria E. Hatfield O’Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A.) represents Nelson.

The essence of constitutionalism in a democracy is not merely to shape and condition the nature of majorities, but also to stipulate that certain things are impermissible, no matter how large and fervent a majority might want them.
— George Will

The Supreme Court weighed in on that many 80 ago:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Nebraska Bill Would Ban State Enforcement of Most Federal Gun Control

LINCOLN, Neb. (Jan. 3, 2024) – A Nebraska bill would end state and local enforcement of many federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Sen. Steve Halloran introduced Legislature Bill 194 (LB194) last year and it has been carried over for the 2024 session. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the bill would prohibit state agencies and law enforcement officers from willfully enforcing a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to regulate a firearm, a firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition that “does not exist under the laws of this state,” except to comply with an order of a court.

The proposed law would also bar any Nebraska government entity from utilizing assets, state funds, or funds allocated by the state to engage in any activity that aids a federal agency, federal agent, or corporation providing services to the federal government in the enforcement of the same.

State or local agents guilty of violating the act would be subject to civil penalties of up to $3,000 on the first offense and class I misdemeanor charges on a second offense. Local governments or agencies found guilty of violating the law would lose grant funds in the following fiscal year.

LB194 is similar to a law passed in Arizona during the 2021 legislative session.

Continue reading “”

Continued Massacres of Christians in Nigeria Ensured by Citizen Disarmament

“A never-ending massacre of Christians being ‘killed for sport’ is reportedly happening in Nigeria, yet the world appears to be largely deaf to the matter,” Fox News reported Saturday. “More than 52,000 Christians ‘have been butchered or hacked to death for being Christians’ since 2009 in Nigeria, according to Intersociety, a civil society group based in Onitsha.”

“Christians are killed for sport, especially Christian children,” Rev. Johnnie Moore, a former commissioner for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and president of the Congress of Christian Leaders told Fox. “Entire villages are burnt and pillaged. Thousands of churches have been destroyed. Children and women are hunted.

Continue reading “”

Left-wing activists sue to change public policy where their candidates cannot win

EXCLUSIVE — Left-wing activist organizations are at the forefront of shaping public policy through lawsuits in places where their aligned political candidates are unlikely to win.

A new Alliance for Consumers report obtained by the Washington Examiner shows how groups such as the anti-gun Everytown for Gun Safety or climate change activist group EarthRights International sue companies to advance their policy preferences to circumvent the legislative process.

These organizations often represent local governments in “public nuisance” lawsuits, which are used to claim that the public is generally harmed by the existence of something, such as tobacco, in order to obtain favorable public policy outcomes and massive settlements.

“Public nuisance lawsuits have almost nothing to do with helping consumers, but a lot to do with pushing a left-wing agenda,” Alliance for Consumers executive director O.H. Skinner told the Washington Examiner. “There’s been growing attention to the political donations that these lawsuits help drive toward left-wing candidates.

“More attention needs to be paid to the public interest groups and shadowy nonprofit funding networks, like Arabella Advisors, who staff, finance, and promote these cases,” Skinner continued. “That is what we have done with this report, and we think it illustrates clearly what these lawsuits are really about and why they are a threat.”

The report, which Alliance for Consumers sent to every Republican governor in America on Wednesday, highlights several organizations involved with public nuisance claims that are aimed at altering or circumventing the policy decisions made by those elected to decide them.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a group founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to limit gun rights, has been active in trying to change public policy on guns, including by using its Victory Fund to start a “Demand a Seat” initiative to get its trained activists to run for political office. This year, the group boasted that 17 of its candidates won elections in Virginia alone.

The group launched Everytown Law to focus on being “the largest and most experienced team of litigators in the country dedicated to advancing gun safety in the courts and through the civil and criminal justice systems.”

Everytown has been active in filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for “contributing to the violent crime epidemic,” as it did when representing Kansas City, Missouri, in a public nuisance complaint in 2020 against the Nevada-based Jimenez Arms and other manufacturers and distributors.

It also represented the city of Chicago when it sued an Indiana gun store because its sales of firearms have “created, exacerbated, and sustained a public nuisance that causes harm to the health, safety, and well-being of Chicago residents.”

The legal wing of the activist organization also trains government lawyers on how to defend limitations to the Second Amendment, and it files direct challenges to laws protecting the right to own and use guns, such as Stand Your Ground laws, which offer some protection for the use of lethal force in self-defense.

Continue reading “”

GIBBON, GUNS AND GOVERNMENT

In the course of writing Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon encountered Mohammed, who pursued the Jews with “implacable hatred” to the end of his life. The historian also called out Theodoric the Great, the Ostrogoth king who invaded Italy in 488 AD and “condescended to disarm the unwarlike natives of Italy, interdicting all weapons of offence, and excepting only a small knife for domestic use.” Call it an early display of the totalitarian mindset.

Wherever they hold sway, modern totalitarians disarm the people of firearms and ammunition. For details, see Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming Jews and “Enemies of the State,” by Stephen Halbrook. Hitler’s National Socialists used the registration records of the Weimar Republic to identify and disarm gun owners.

As Halbrook shows in Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance, the Nazis confiscated all firearms, even antique hunting rifles. That left the people vulnerable to wholesale slaughter. On June 10, 1944, four days after D-Day, troops of the 4th SS Panzer Regiment surrounded the village of Oradour-sur-Glane in central France. The attackers killed 245 women and 207 children, including six below the age of six months.

The 196 men killed included seven Jewish refugees from other parts of France. Of the 648 people murdered in the village, only 50 could be identified. The Nazis locked the women and children in the village church, shot indiscriminately, and set the victims on fire. The rest of the village was then looted and set ablaze.

As the late P.J. O’Rourke explained, this is what happens when those with all the power have all the guns. And to paraphrase inspector Claude Lebel (Michael Lonsdale) in The Day of the Jackal, be in no doubt that this is what the Biden Junta wants.

At every mass shooting, the default government response is to blame guns and make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This does not apply, however, to Muslim jihadists like “Soldier of Allah” Maj. Nidal Hasan. At Ford Hood in 2009 Hasan gunned down 13 unarmed American soldiers, including Pvt. Francheska Velez, who was pregnant. Hasan wounded more than 30 others, including Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who took seven bullets from the jihadist.

According to the composite character president David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, this was “workplace violence,” not terrorism or even “gun violence,” and the mass murderer Hasan got better medical treatment than his victims. In 2014, Lunsford sought to explain his plight to the president, who declined to meet with him. The composite character did not proclaim Islamic terrorist attacks in 2015 at San Bernardino (14 dead) and Orlando in 2016, (49 dead) as cases of “gun violence.”

Of all the various forms of government in the world, wrote Gibbon, “an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule.” The buffoonish Biden channels Obama, but the Delaware Democrat shapes up worse. On September 1, 2022, backdropped in red light with Marines at the ready, Biden targeted those who want the nation to be great as the primary threat to America. Biden’s FBI openly follows suit and in August the FBI killed Craig Robertson, a 75-year-old woodworker, for threats he had allegedly posted online.

Recall the Ruby Ridge siege of 1992, when the FBI deployed massive military force against a single family, and FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot dead Vicki Weaver as she held her infant daughter. That case prompted Senate hearings, but so far nothing on Robertson. Biden’s FBI shoots first and avoids questions later, so an escalation of deadly violence is not out of the question. Christmas 2023 may well be joyous, but 2024 shapes up as the year of living dangerously.

The Great Legal War Over Your Freedom

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, the lower courts have been either trying to apply, or to resist, its directive to decide the validity of restrictions on the basis of the text of the Second Amendment and historical analogues from the time of the Founding. According to the ruling, an activity is presumed to be protected if it involves keeping and bearing arms by the people. The burden is then on the government to find historical precedents to show that a restriction is part of the nation’s history and tradition.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Bruen to the federal ban on gun possession by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) and found it to violate the Second Amendment. State DVROs are often issued with little pretense of an adversary hearing or are mutually agreed upon in divorces without knowledge that it evokes a federal gun ban.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, U.S. v. Rahimi, and a barrage of amicus briefs have been filed on both sides. Mr. Rahimi faces several state charges involving actual violence, dwarfing the federal possession charge. The amicus brief of the National Rifle Association put it this way: “Rahimi should not only lose his Second Amendment liberties, but he should also lose all of his liberties—if the allegations against him are ultimately proven true with sufficient due process. But constitutional safeguards cannot be set aside to obtain those ends.”

Consider the supposed historical analogues cited by Biden’s Justice Department and its amici—discriminatory laws disarming Catholics, slaves and “tramps”; confiscation of arms by oppressive British monarchs and by our own patriots in the American Revolution (there was a war going on, after all); and wholly irrelevant laws against gun sales to children and intoxicated persons. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on Nov. 7, 2023.

The Third Circuit, in Range v. Merrick Garland, held the federal ban on gun possession by felons to be unconstitutional as applied to a person convicted of a minor, non-violent offense.  Again, no laws in the Founding era disarmed persons who were not dangerous. The government is asking the Supreme Court to hear that case after it decides Rahimi.

When it decided Bruen, the Supreme Court directed the Fourth Circuit to reconsider its upholding of Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban in Bianchi v. Frosh. That court had held that ordinary AR-15 semi-automatic rifles are not really different from machineguns and are “weapons of war most useful in military service,” even though no military force in the world issues them as service rifles.

The Fourth Circuit got right on it, holding its oral argument on Dec. 6, 2022. A year later, crickets. Still no decision. Is it really so hard to apply Bruen’s simple tests, or would the court not like the result?

Continue reading “”

Barrasso: The Second Amendment is Freedom’s Safeguard

WASHINGTON D.C. — U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, today blocked an attempt by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Senator Barrasso spoke on the Senate floor on the need protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

“Almost every single page of this bill adds new restrictions and new burdens on people who follow the law. It tells you what you can buy and what you cannot buy. It bans more than 205 popular rifles, shotguns, and pistols by name. I oppose any policies that jeopardize the Second Amendment rights of the people of Wyoming and across the country,” Sen. John Barrasso Wednesday on Senate Floor.

Excerpts from Sen. Barrasso’s remarks follow:

Continue reading “”

Judge Declares Most of California’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’ Can’t Be Enforced

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez isn’t the only Second Amendment “saint” in California who miraculously adheres to the text, tradition, and history of the right to keep and bear arms. Judge Cormac Carney has delivered a stern rebuke of his own to state lawmakers who imposed a host of new “sensitive places” where lawful concealed carry is forbidden, granting an injunction against their enforcement just a little more than a week before the state’s carry-killer legislation known as SB 2 is set to take effect.

In a 43-page opinion handed down late Wednesday, Carney described SB 2 as “repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The law “turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’” according to Carney, “effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.”

Carney ruled in favor of the gun owners and Second Amendment organizations who brought the May v. Bonta and Carralerro v. Bonta litigation on every one of their challenges; granting an injunction against the following “gun-free zones” established under SB 2:

  • Hospitals, mental health facilities, nursing homes, medical offices, urgent care facilities, and other places where medical services are customarily provided,
  • Public transportation
  • Establishments where “intoxicating liquor” is sold for consumption on the premises
  • Public gatherings and special events
  • Playgrounds and private youth centers
  • Parks and athletic facilities
  • Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Fish and Wildlife property, except hunting areas,
  • Casinos and gambling establishments
  • Public libraries, zoos, and museums
  • Places of worship
  • Financial institutions
  • Privately-owned businesses open to the public
  • Parking areas (including those adjacent to “sensitive places” not challenged by the plaintiffs)

This is the post-Bruen carry decision that gun owners have been waiting for. Carney didn’t try to play philosophical games or stretch historical analogues to the point of silliness in order to uphold these “gun-free zones.” Instead, he did exactly what the Supreme Court has instructed judges to do: look at the text of the Second Amendment, as well as the history and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms when determining whether a modern gun control restriction fits within that national tradition.

Continue reading “”

Bill to Ban Gun CAD Files Nears Vote In The Senate

A bill to ban computer-aided design (CAD) gun file sharing could be voted on in the United States Senate any day.

The bill reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”

Senate Bill 1819 is known as the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act and was introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) and co-sponsored by 28 other Democrats, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and the late Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). It also has support from most of the other Democrats in the Senate.

“Let me be clear: We aren’t just talking about water pistols here,” said Co-sponsor Senate Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY). “We’re talking about real, fully operational semi-automatic firearms like AR-15 rifles and Beretta M9 handguns. Because many of the 3D printed guns are made of plastic, they can bypass metal detectors commonly used at…secure public areas. People are going into these public spaces and using these ghost guns to commit crimes, and law enforcement is finding it more and more difficult to stop them.”

The bill will prevent the sharing of gun CAD, which is hosted on sites such as Defense Distributed’s Def CAD website. The CAD files let anyone with a 3D printer print a firearm receiver. The affordability of 3D Printers that can be purchased for as little as a few hundred dollars has led to an explosion of DIY gun builders that design and print firearms. The 3D print revolution has made gun laws obsolete.

Due to the lack of action in Congress, President Joe Biden ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to issue a rule banning 80% kits and changed the classification of unfinished frames to be considered firearms. The ATF rule change did not address the 3D printing of guns.

Some states have proposed radical laws to try to cut down on the printing of firearms. New York has proposed a law that would require background checks to buy a 3D printer. Anyone the government prohibits from owning firearms would also be prevented from acquiring a 3D printer.

The proposed federal law raises constitutional questions beyond just the Second Amendment. Many believe that computer code is protected speech, and this law would run afoul of the First Amendment. Many books and resources exist that teach people how to make drugs and bombs, like the Anarchist Cookbook. Some in the gun community reason if that is protected by freedom of speech, then computer code that allows someone to make a gun must also be covered by the First Amendment.

A companion bill in the House of Representatives is currently in the House Judiciary. The House bill is expected to fail due to a lack of support from Republicans. It is doubtful that the Senate bill will have enough votes for a supermajority, but the Democrats have been able to pressure the Republicans into passing anti-gun bills such as the Bi-Partisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).