If it’s from a Yale law professor, you can bet it’s unconstitutional

Yale law prof suggests new route to carry ban, but is it constitutional?

Short answer? Almost certainly not, based on what the Supreme Court said last week in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, but as we’ve already seen in states like New York, New Jersey, and California, anti-gun activists aren’t letting a little thing like a Supreme Court decision get in the way of their desire to disarm average, everyday Americans.

So what is Ian Ayres’ big idea? Basically, he wants to flip the current law in the vast majority of states to make concealed carry banned on private property unless the owners of that property decide to allow it.

You might be surprised to learn that when you ask someone to come and repair your dishwasher, they can legally carry a concealed weapon into your kitchen unless you expressly object. In all but three states and D.C., any visitor can, by default, carry a firearm into your home without your explicit permission. The repairman has a Second Amendment right to bear arms, but you have a right to control whether people carry guns onto your land.

A central attribute of property ownership is the right to exclude unwanted people from your land. Forty-seven states fail to adequately protect this right of landowners to control their property because they provide the wrong default rule regarding the right of invitees to bear arms. Property owners cannot make an informed choice if they don’t know they have to object (more than two-thirds of people are unaware of these default rules). And it is hard for a property owner to know that she needs to object when the objectionable firearm is concealed.

The same problem exists regarding private commercial land. All 50 states permit individuals to carry their firearms into private retail establishments by default. Private businesses must post “No Guns” signs to make their stores gun-free, and these signs must often meet strict requirements. Many retailers fear customer backlash if they post signs either restricting or permitting gun carry in their stores. So, they are inclined to stick with a state’s default rule regardless of their preferences.

If this idea sounds familiar it’s because New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has decided to implement this idea, at least when it comes to businesses, as part of plan to defy the Supreme Court and make it as difficult as possible for New Yorkers to exercise their right to armed self-defense in public.

There are two big problems with Ayers idea; one constitutional and one practical. As Ayers himself notes, every state in the union says that if you want to ban guns from commercial properties you can do so, but you must provide notice to the public in some form or fashion. 47 out of 50 states take the same view when it comes to non-commercial private property. These laws are widespread and longstanding, and there is nothing in the history or tradition of the right to keep and bear arms that supports what Ayers (and Hochul) are demanding. Given the negative implications that these policies would have on the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense in public and the fact that they have no similar analogues in American history, I don’t think there’s any way that they would be upheld by the Supreme Court.

From a practical perspective the idea is just as flawed. Ayers acknowledges that “it is hard for a property owner to know that she needs to object when the objectionable firearm is concealed,” and that wouldn’t change if all privately-owned spaces become gun-free zones by default. It would be just as difficult to determine if someone was carrying in violation of the law, but we’d also likely see far more individuals inadvertently doing so because of the reversal of the longstanding status quo. Ayers idea wouldn’t stop a single violent criminal, but would turn a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens into accidental outlaws because they would no longer be able to legally carry in most of the places where they’ve been able to exercise their right to bear arms in the past.

Part of Ayers’ problem is that he, like many other gun control fans, still just doesn’t want to accept that the right to keep and bear arms is a real right. In his piece at The Hill, the Yale professor claims that the Second Amendment is about “individuals’ ability to defend their homes by arming themselves.” That is simply not true. The right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally about protecting yourself, not your property, and as the Supreme Court made clear last week, the right of self-defense doesn’t stop once you set foot outside your front door. If private property owners want to ban lawful carrying on their premises they can do so, but in a country with a right to keep and bear arms, the default position has historically respected that right and must continue to do so in the future.

New York City sues companies over sales of unfinished firearms **Update** State files separate suit

New York City Mayor Eric Adams ran for office pledging to reduce violent crime, but since the Democrat and former NYPD officer has been in charge, major crimes have increased by a whopping 40% across the city. Now the mayor is taking action against five companies that he says violated city ordinances by shipping unfinished frames and receivers to a New York City address; one that was set up by the New York City Sheriff’s Office.

In a new lawsuit filed in federal court, Adams and other city officials allege that Arm or Ally LLC, Rainier Arms LLC, 80P Builder, Rock Slide USA LLC and Indie Guns LLC have not only broken that local ordinance, but have created a “public nuisance” in doing so, which allows them to use a law approved by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo last year empowering public officials and the general public to sue gun makers and sellers when their products are used in a crime.

While Adams and other Democrats from Joe Biden on down have sought to paint home-built guns (“ghost guns” as they call them) as one of the main reasons behind increasing violent crime, the number of home-built guns recovered by police in New York City are just a small fraction of the total number of firearms seized or recovered in recent years.

The number of untraceable ghost guns recovered at city crime scenes or seized through investigations has increased about 200% each year since 2018, when the first such weapons were discovered in the city, one official said.
As of June 14, the city has recovered 175 ghost guns, compared to 64 ghost guns through the same period last year, a second official said. In all, the NYPD recovered 270 ghost guns last year.
CNN analysis earlier this year of 2021 data found while ghost guns still make up a relatively small percentage of the total number of guns recovered by law enforcement, several cities reported sharp increases in the number of ghost guns recovered over time. San Francisco police told CNN they seized 1,089 guns in 2021, about 20% of which were ghost guns. In 2016, ghost guns made up less than 1% of total gun seizures in the city.

A 200% increase sounds like a lot, but it’s also the difference between seizing one gun and three. And while the NYPD recovered some 270 unserialized firearms last year, the vast majority of guns that were seized were store-bought and serialized by the manufacturer.

Every day in 2022, cops have taken 20 guns off the street, and arrested 13 people on gun charges, according to data released by the NYPD on Thursday. That amounts to about 2,600 firearms taken off the street, and — as of May 8 — some 1,693 arrests on gun possession charges.

If that pace holds, the department will seize more than 7,000 firearms and make 4,800 gun arrests by year’s end, NYPD data shows.

Both figures would be a sharp increase from previous years. Police seized about 6,200 guns and arrested 4,497 people on gun busts in 2021. In 2020, cops recovered more than 5,300 guns and arrested 4,280 people on gun charges.

Now, math was never my strong suit in school, but 270 out of 6,200 firearms in total doesn’t seem like a lot to me.

I understand that Adams is desperate to explain away his own incompetence at fighting crime by pointing his finger anywhere and everywhere he can, but “ghost guns” aren’t to blame for the increased violence in New York City. It’s the policies of Democrats like Adams and New York D.A. Alvin Bragg, as well as the decades-long hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms that are giving criminals the upper hand in New York, and while Adams may get some positive local press out of his latest lawsuit, New York’s violent offenders aren’t going to be stopped or even slightly impeded as a result of this litigation.


It’s not just New York City filing suit. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced her own federal lawsuit against ten companies that she says violated state and federal laws by selling unfinished firearms to individuals without putting them through background checks first.

The businesses named in Attorney General James’ lawsuit are among the nation’s leading gun distributors. They include Brownells, Inc. (Brownells), Blackhawk Manufacturing Group (80 Percent Arms), Salvo Technologies, Inc. (80 P Builder or 80P Freedom Co), G.S. Performance, LLC (Glockstore), Indie Guns, LLC (Indie Guns), Primary Arms, LLC (Primary Arms), Arm or Ally, LLC (Arm or Ally), Rainier Arms, LLC (Rainier Arms), KM Tactical LLC, and Rock Slide USA, LLC (Rock Slide).

In her press release, James says that federal laws “prohibit the sale of unfinished frames and receivers,” though that is not the case. Even when Joe Biden’s executive order on so-called ghost guns takes effect in August, sales of unfinished (and unserialized) frames and receivers will be explicitly allowed to continue under the ATF’s new rule, though DIY “kits” that include all parts necessary to build a firearm will have to have the frame or receiver serialized and a background check performed on the buyer. James’ lawsuit claims these companies are trying to “evade federal law” by “marketing their frames and receivers as unfinished, and then selling to consumers directly,” but it’s not illegal to do so. They’re not “evading” federal law, they’re complying with it.

James also claims that “the difference between an unfinished frame and a frame is negligible, as is the effort required to convert the former into the latter,” which would be news to the ATF as well as any gun owner who tried to use an 80% frame or receiver as a fully functional firearm. James says the 80% frames and completed frames are “are virtually identical to the naked eye,” but in the eyes of the ATF the two are very different things. Honestly, after reading her complaint, it looks to me like she’s filed a press release and not a lawsuit, and her argument that these companies have violated federal law by selling unfinished frames and receivers should be laughed out of court at the soonest opportunity.

Biden Admin Super-Charged Military Recruitment Crisis With ‘Woke Policies

The U.S. military under a Biden Pentagon has sacrificed meritocracy for wokeness in recent years, sending a message that discourages new applicants and worsens the recruiting crisis, an expert told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Military recruitment in 2022 has plummeted, NBC News reported, leaving the pentagon scrambling for ways to fill the ranks of U.S. forces. Alienation of traditional families, who constitute the military’s core recruiting market, through things like diversity quotas, refusing religious exemptions and teaching critical race theory at military institutions have all contributed to a growing unwillingness to enlist, according to Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly.

The result, she said, is a loss of prestige and meritocracy in the armed forces.

“The culture of the military has been eroded by several years of social engineering and woke policies. It’s been accelerated by the current administration,” Donnelly, who has been studying social issues in the military for over 30 years, told TheDCNF.

The Biden administration’s emphasis on “woke” ideas “sends a poor message” that discourages parents and other influencers from supporting careers the all-volunteer force, according to Donnelly.

For example, one of the first things Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin did upon assuming office was announce a full stand down to investigate what Donnelly claimed were over-hyped instances of extremism in the ranks, focusing on ideologies that fall to the far right and ignoring instances of far left and Islamist extremism. “It sends a message that if your son or daughter joins the military, if they’re not of a certain skin complexion or sex, they might be investigated for extremism,” she said.

A highly competitive employment arena, decrease in the population of individuals eligible to serve and general disconnect between the Army and broader U.S. public have all contributed to the Army’s recruitment struggle, Army public affairs officer Maj. Charles M. Spears told TheDCNF. Propensity to serve, a measure of “whether an individual indicates an interest in military service” according to the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, hit 9%, the lowest since 2007, Spears said.

Donnelly compared the Biden Pentagon to Disney, who lost financial privileges in Florida partially because of its “gay agenda” and produced a LGBT-promoting film that flopped in the box office, according to the Washington Times.

“They alienated their constituency,” Donnelly explained. “When you see the U.S. military make the same mistakes and losing their audience, it becomes a matter of national security.”

The Pentagon attributed a poor recruiting environment to a “disconnected and disinterested youth market” that is unfamiliar with military service, resulting in an overreliance of military stereotypes,” Maj. Charlie Dietz, a Department of Defense spokesperson, told TheDCNF.

The Army announced a plan to in March temporarily reduce the size of the active-duty force, from 485,000 soldiers in fiscal year 2021 down to 473,000 by 2023, for “quality” considerations, Army Undersecretary Gabe Camarillo said in a press briefing.

“We made the decision to just temporarily reduce end strength, as opposed to lowering our standards,” said Camarillo.

However, recruitment standards have changed. The Army dropped the high school diploma or GED-equivalent requirement for new recruits in June, according to a statement, and relaxed tattoo guidelines, Task and Purpose reported.

Donnelly predicted the recruiting environment would get worse under the Biden administration, especially as up to 60,000 troops are up for discharge for refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine according to The Washington Post. “What effects will these individuals have on recruiting?” she asked.

“The military belongs to everybody and is there to defend the entire country, not to enforce political agendas or teach exotic ideas that cannot be defended by science,” Donnelly said.

The specter of a shrinking military comes as the U.S. faces a growing threat from China and seeks to bolster overseas deployments as a deterrent to Russian aggression.

“It’s not the end of the all volunteer force, but it’s going into a very dark place now,” said Donnelly.

The Liberal Media’s ‘Rising Stars’ Always Seem to Crash and Burn

Those who’ve been around more than five minutes know that the mainstream media is little more than a collection of homogeneous, biased hacks that do little more than support the Current Thing(TM) being pushed by Democrats and leftist activists.

It’s great for Democrats who enjoy uncritical coverage of their nonsense, but often outlets such as The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, et al. get a little too far out over their biased skis when they begin to fall in love with their latest object of obsessive attention.

Take a walk down memory lane with Townhall as we look at some of the mainstream media’s recent “rising stars” — who get treated as saviors — only to fall on their faces.

Continue reading “”

Former Idaho AG doesn’t know how rights work

When something is your right, it means it cannot just be taken away. Not unless you break the law and your rights are removed as punishment. If something can be taken, it is a privilege, and privileges can be removed anytime if whoever grants them decides to stop granting them.

This isn’t exactly high-level constitutional law stuff, either. This is a basic understanding the Founding Fathers had from the get-go. It’s why they fought a war against the most powerful nation on Earth. Having their rights respected was worth the risk.

Yet, for former Idaho Attorney General Jim Jones, rights don’t really work like that, apparently. That’s based on his writing over at The Hill.

Two groups of conservatives made contradictory decisions last week on whether there should be a balance between the safety of the American public and the rights of a small, but very vocal, minority. A group of 15 Senate Republicans broke with their party and voted for a modest gun safety bill. At the same time, the GOP-appointed majority on the U.S. Supreme Court made sure that there will be more guns in public places. The Senate’s action will save lives; the court’s action will likely add to the tally of gun deaths.

The six Republican-appointed members of the Supreme Court struck down a century-old New York law requiring a showing of “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. Although the ruling was an immediate blow to public safety, the longer-term effect of the decision will pose an even greater safety threat.

The court departed from a consensus view developed by lower courts over the last decade that allowed gun rights to be limited by concerns over public safety. Instead, it focused the inquiry solely on whether a restriction is based on “history or tradition.” If a similar historical analogue for a gun limitation cannot be found, it may well be unconstitutional, without regard to the effect on public safety.

More than anything else, our governmental entities and public servants must understand that private rights ought to give way to the public good. We don’t believe a person’s First Amendment rights extend to falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Second Amendment rights must also yield when they infringe upon the paramount right of the people to be safe in public places.


Not only no, but hell no.

Of course, Jones invokes the old canard of yelling fire in a crowded theater, as most who try to justify an infringement on our gun rights tend to do, but you’d think a former attorney general would understand that this was a hypothetical presented by a justice during a case and that decision was ultimately overturned in part by Brandenberg v. Ohio. That case found that speech could only be regulated if it were likely to cause imminent lawless action.

Plus, let’s understand that if we take Jones’s word that private rights ought to give way to the public good, then the question becomes, where do we draw the line? It’s clear that Jones favors restricting our right to keep and bear arms as a means of trying to ensure public safety, but what else is on the table?

Can we seize his home so we can house the homeless? Can we seize his car so it can be used for public transportation? Can we lock Jones in chains and make him do road work for no reason other than we simply need the road to be built?

Where would such a line be?

The problem here is that the line would be subjective. What’s “far enough” for Jones wouldn’t be far enough for someone else. There are those who actually do support things not unlike the examples mentioned above, after all.

The way you deal with this is to draw a line with objective criteria. These are your personal rights, and they shouldn’t be infringed upon simply because someone thinks it’s good for the public. The truth is, the smallest minority is the individual. Empower them, and everyone is equally empowered.

Our gun rights aren’t up for debate. First of all, we don’t buy the idea that gun control yields any of the benefits Jones seems to believe. Yet even if we did, rights don’t work that way.

 And thank God for that.

Everytown For Gun Safety Law is having a bad day
They are not taking the Bruen SCOTUS decision well.

See the source image

If you ever thought you were useless, just remind yourself that this 🤡 is “2nd Amendment Scholarship” at Everytown”

Mark Frassetto
Deputy Director, 2nd Amendment History and Scholarship at Everytown Law.

Dër Grëtchënführër™ apparently feels she hasn’t been paid as much attention as her ego requires

Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer Does Not Condemn Leftist Violence When Asked About Threats In Michigan.


Whitmer made the remarks during an interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” with host Margaret Brennan as the topic of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade dominated the segment.

“I want to ask you about this homeland security warning that domestic violent extremists may intensify violence,” Brennan said. “In the bulletin that CBS obtained, it specifically mentioned an incident in Michigan, related to a pro-abortion rights group.”

One of the incidents mentioned in the memo “involved vandalism claimed by ‘Jane’s Revenge,’” a far-Left group, “on a building that houses a U.S. Representative’s campaign office and a pro-life advocacy group.”

“How concerned are you about violence?” Brennan asked. “What are you seeing on the ground?”

“I am concerned about a lot of things happening in the United States right now,” Whitmer said. “And frankly, the last couple of decisions that came out of this United States Supreme Court are make America a lot more dangerous, more guns, fewer rights, less health care, it is scary. And as a lawyer it, it crushes me to say that even I am losing faith that these important institutions that are supposed to be above the politics of the day, are now being corrupted. And that’s what we’re seeing out of our United States Supreme Court. And I am very concerned about our long term prosperity, our homeland security, and our safety.”

Brennan again had to press Whitmer on the matter since Whitmer did not address the question.

“But, this warning about threats to federal [and] state government officials, including judges, are you concerned about active threats in Michigan?” Brennan asked.

“Of course, I am,” Whitmer claimed before she pivoted to blaming former President Donald Trump. “I have been the recipient of so much ugliness and hate often stoked by the former president. This is a really scary moment. And with the proliferation of the ugly rhetoric, the scary proliferation of guns in America and fewer and fewer restrictions. I think that any parent who sends their child to school, any politician or policy maker who makes a hard decision, we now have to be much more fearful on a whole new level.”

See the source image

DoJ to SCOTUS on Bruen: We will just have to enforce federal law, then

So what’s stopping them? The big case that the Supreme Court decided today, New York State Rifle & Pistol v Bruen, had nothing to do with federal statutes. As far as can be seen in the Supreme Court’s filings, the Department of Justice didn’t bother with the case enough to enter any amici briefs in the case, either. The issue at hand — requiring otherwise qualified citizens to prove a need to bear arms in public — exists solely at the state level, since the federal government doesn’t issue permits on common firearms.

Regardless, someone at the DoJ thought this non-sequitur was a snappy comeback of sorts:

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”

Did they just hear about this case this morning? If the DoJ had some input to give, it should have submitted its own amicus brief. One has to assume that they took a pass precisely because this case has literally nothing to do with federal law enforcement of statues currently on the books. In fact, Justice Samuel Alito made the only passing reference to federal statutes in the controlling opinion or concurrences, and then only to note tangentially that this decision doesn’t impact federal law:

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).

Even Justice Stephen Breyer doesn’t mention anything about federal law enforcement in his dissent. At all. The Bruen case has literally nothing to do with the DoJ, at least not in its legitimate law-enforcement capacity.

So why push out this non-sequitur statement? Either Merrick Garland wants to be seen as somehow responsive to progressive hair-pulling over this limited and straightforward decision, or the White House wants Garland to put himself and his DoJ out there for support. Either way, it’s sheer political pander, but it does raise one point (via Twitchy):

This is an embarrassing take for a man whom Democrats posit as aggrieved for not getting confirmed to the Supreme Court, even if it came from one of Garland’s aides.

But if the DoJ is suddenly fired up to start “enforcing and defending federal firearms laws,” they can start by prosecuting people who try to game the background-check system despite being knowingly barred from firearms ownership. The GAO took note in 2018 of a lack of prosecutions for people who submit false applications. In 2017, the ATF referred 12,700 denied purchases (out of a total 112,090) for criminal investigation, but the DoJ only prosecuted twelve of them. The Free Beacon reported on the same issue in 2016, which eventually prompted the GAO review. Has this improved under Garland? I sincerely doubt it, but now would be a good time for the DoJ to produce the data on that question.

Besides that, Garland can also focus on enforcing federal law by finally enforcing 18 USC 1507, which makes demonstrating at the residence of a federal judge a felony. It certainly looks pretty strange to see the DoJ lecturing Supreme Court justices on enforcing the law when Garland and his team have been completely derelict in their duty to stop the intimidation campaigns aimed at these same justices. Strange, and entirely partisan.

Comment O’ The Day
Un presidente socialista siempre se va a atrever a criticar a otros poderes, independientes y autónomos, cuando sus decisiones son contrarias a sus deseos.
A socialist president will always dare to criticize other powers, independent and autonomous, when their decisions are contrary to his wishes.

As if we didn’t already know

Joe Biden Just Told Us Who He Really Is

As expected, radical pro-abortion Democrats are beside themselves with rage and are already issuing disturbing threats in the aftermath of Friday’s anticipated Supreme Court ruling where a majority of Justices voted to overrule 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision that “legalized” abortion.

Contrary to fanatical leftists’ claims about today’s ruling, it did not make abortion “illegal” nationwide. What the ruling did do, however, was to put the issue back to the states. While some red states have already responded to the ruling by putting bans in place effective immediately except in specific instances where the health of the mother is involved, blue states are already banding together to radically expand access to abortion on demand for any reason.

In the midst of all the emotion from both sides surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision, one would hope that the President of the United States would work to turn try and turn down the temperature if for no other reason than to potentially head off another attempt on a SCOTUS Justice’s life at the pass. But as we previously reported, that’s not what Joe Biden did in his lie-filled speech responding to what was handed down by our nation’s highest court.

In his remarks, Biden said today was a “solemn moment” and a “sad day for the Court and for the country.” Later on in the speech, he declared the Supreme Court, in a nutshell, to be full of right-wing extremists who were primed and prepped throughout their legal careers to overturn Roe v. Wade once they were in a position to do so.

“It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view,” he stated. “With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country.”

But though Biden urged protesters to be “peaceful, peaceful, peaceful” and proclaimed that “threats and intimidation are not speech,” what he still did not do is expressly condemn the actions of 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske, who was arrested in the early morning hours of June 8th after an admitted attempt at assassinating Justice Brett Kavanaugh ahead of today’s ruling. Nor did he expressly condemn the acts of intimidation and violence by pro-abortion radicals that have taken place in churches and at pro-life centers across the country over the last couple of months.

What the Biden administration has done, however, since the draft majority SCOTUS opinion leak in early May is to fan the flames of outrage by encouraging radical activists on the left to continue “protesting” outside the homes of the Justices. Never once did they condemn the doxxing of the Justices and the posting of their private information online, despite the fact that not only is it dangerous, but also because protesting outside of the homes of members of the court for purposes of influencing a decision in a court case is against U.S. Code.

Further, in the speech Biden gave earlier, he noted his administration was going to use every tool in their power to do an end-run around the SCOTUS ruling, something also confirmed by DOJ Attorney General Merrick Garland.

As all of this sinks in, keep in mind that Biden and other Democrats (and their allies in the mainstream press) have been lecturing Republicans for the last year and a half since the Capitol riot about the need to “respect the courts” and to not “undermine democratic norms” in our society. And yet what do they do in response to today’s 6-3 decision? Exactly what they’ve said their political opponents shouldn’t – this from the same people who once gloated after the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare that it was “settled law” so “deal with it.”

All of this is just further proof of the old saying about how if the left didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all. And in the case of Joe Biden, it’s just one more instance of him showing Americans who he really is – a feckless leader who is entirely beholden to extreme special interest groups on the far left who would turn this country into something oppressive and unrecognizable if left to their own devices.

Biden encouraged people to vote accordingly in November in response to today’s Supreme Court’s decision in a desperate bid to put people in the Senate and the House who he believes could somehow “federalize” so-called abortion rights. Unfortunately for him, it’s too late to appeal to the masses to give him a helping hand in the fall midterms, because at this point the polls make clear in no uncertain terms that very few people in this country support him anymore, and that includes a sizable chunk of his own base.

Quote of the day—Justice Samuel Alito

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1

The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022

[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions.]
By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.

And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.

That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.

He is right, just not in the way this gun grabbing communist is thinking though. People who want to be free to enslave you, want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

Professor Ibram Kendi links ‘freedom to enslave’ with gun rights.

There are some who fight for ‘freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns,’ Kendi said

There is a link between the “freedom to enslave” and the “freedom to have guns,” according to Boston University Professor Ibram Kendi.

Kendi told host Margaret Brennan that “throughout the nation’s history, there’s been two perspectives on freedom, really two fights for freedom.”

“Enslaved people were fighting for freedom from slavery, and enslavers were fighting for the freedom to enslave, and in many ways, that sort of contrast still exists today,” Kendi said.

“There are people who are fighting for freedom from assault rifles, freedom from poverty, freedom from exploitation, and there are others who are fighting for freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns, freedom to maintain inequality,” Kendi said.

Kendi did not further elaborate or explain the connection between white supremacy or “the freedom to enslave” and gun ownership.
[He can’t ‘further elaborate‘, because there is no connection. He just thinks you’re so stupid you’ll simply accept his BS ]

Continue reading “”

Biden Brags ‘We’re the Only Country in the World’ Giving COVID Vaccines to Children.

Last week, the Biden administration approved the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 6 months to 5 years old. The FDA advisory committee claimed they found that the vaccines provided safe and effective protection against COVID for kids, even though fully vaccinated and boosted adults have still caught COVID.

The quest to vaccinate kids from COVID has been going on from the moment the vaccines were approved for emergency use, and the Biden administration and the media have colluded in a fear campaign to convince parents to vaccinate their kids. On Tuesday, Joe Biden spoke at a COVID vaccine center, during which he pointed out, “We’re the only country in the world doing this right now.”

He actually thought this was a good thing, that it was something to brag about. Did it ever occur to him that there might be a reason for that? Earlier this year, health officials in Sweden decided against recommending COVID vaccines for kids aged 5-12, arguing that the benefits don’t outweigh the risks.

We’ve known for some time now that school-aged children have a COVID recovery rate of 99.997% — which is better than their mortality risk from the seasonal flu and that unvaccinated children are safer from COVID than even vaccinated adults of any age. Meanwhile, studies have shown that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are more likely to cause myocarditis in young men than natural infection from COVID.

Even UNICEF admits that “The available evidence indicates the direct impact of COVID-19 on child, adolescent and youth mortality to be limited,” but the Biden administration is enthusiastically all-in on vaccinating kids from COVID despite the risks.

The data does not support the universal vaccination of kids from COVID. Period. So why does Biden think the USA pushing unnecessary COVID vaccines on kids when other countries are not is a good thing? It’s all about the money.


Chicago cops barred from chasing people on foot who run away.

The Chicago Police Department has unveiled a new policy prohibiting its officers from chasing people on foot simply because they run away, or because they have committed minor offenses.

The policy, which was introduced Tuesday, also encourages cops to “consider alternatives” to pursuing someone who “is visibly armed with a firearm.”

Under the policy, officers may give chase if they believe a person is committing or is about to commit a felony, a Class A misdemeanor such as domestic battery, or a serious traffic offense that could risk injuring others, such as drunken driving or street racing.

Perhaps most significantly, the new policy makes clear that the days of officers giving chase just because someone tries to get away from them are over.

“People may avoid contact with a member for many reasons other than involvement in criminal activity,” the policy states.

The long-awaited foot chase ban is expected to go into effect by the end of the summer, after the city’s 11,900 uniformed cops receive training.

The policy prohibits officers from chasing people on foot simply because they run away.

The new policy comes more than a year after two foot pursuits ended with cops fatally shooting 13-year-old Adam Toledo and 22-year-old Anthony Alvarez in separate March 2021 incidents.

Toledo and Alvarez, who were armed when they ran from police in separate March 2021 pursuits, were not mentioned in the news release announcing the policy or the policy itself.

Toledo was shot in the chest after dropping a gun and raising his hands, and Alvarez was shot in the back while brandishing a gun.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot demanded that the department create an interim policy after the March 2021 shootings and the county’s top prosecutor harshly criticized police over the Alvarez pursuit.

Continue reading “”