Category: Crap For Brains

Amy Klobuchar Cites Two Pistol Attacks to Push ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) posted a video to Twitter on Saturday in which she pushed an “assault weapons” ban in response to two shootings carried out with pistols.

Klobuchar cited the January 21, 2023 Monterey Park shooting (11 killed) and the January 23, 2023 Half Moon Bay shooting (seven killed).

She did not mention that both shootings occurred in stringently gun-controlled California, which has had an “assault weapons” ban since the 1990s. Nor did she mention that both shootings were carried out with pistols.

Klobuchar did, however, push for more gun control.

Breitbart News reported that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) blasted “weapons of war” after the suspected Half Moon Bay shooter used a handgun in his attack.

CBS News noted that the suspected shooter “drove himself to the substation located between the two businesses and surrendered to deputies.” They pointed out that the weapon used was “a [semiautomatic] handgun.”

Oservation O’ The Day

” ‘It’s the guns. It’s always been the guns,’ said Lisa Geller, a public health researcher at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University.”

Adapting the quoted logic…
The US obesity problem is “the forks, it’s always been the forks.”
Distracted driving deaths are “the phones, it’s always been the phones.”

Hmmm… that makes the action the fault of an inanimate object rather than the person wielding the object.

That’s literally the logic from someone at Johns Hopkins.
What an absurd and obviously flawed way to spin the problem statement.

A child shot his teacher, a 72-year-old man opened fire in public: Here’s what that tells us about guns in America.

A 6-year-old student. A 72-year-old man.

They are two people separated by decades and thousands of miles, but united in one tragic fact: Both made national news in January after authorities said they committed horrific gun violence.

The contrast – like many facts about America’s gun violence problem – is both striking and predictable. This doesn’t happen in other countries, experts say. It happens much more frequently in the U.S., but often hidden from public view. Children, in particular, are far more likely to shoot themselves, a friend or family member accidentally, usually inside a home.

“It’s the guns. It’s always been the guns,” said Lisa Geller, a public health researcher at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University.

While other wealthy countries have similar levels of interpersonal violence, the United States stands alone when it comes to shootings. An average of 110 Americans die daily from gun violence, far above the rate of gun deaths for any comparable nation. The U.S. has about 12 gun deaths for every 100,000 residents, almost four times the rate of the next-highest country, Switzerland, according to experts.

The Climate Faithful Have Developed Religious Dietary Restrictions (and You Guessed It — We’ll All Be Expected to Eat This Way).

Jews eat kosher, Muslims have halal, Hindus eschew meat, and many Christians fast during Lent. So naturally, the fastest-growing religion today — earth and climate worship — is developing its own faith-based dietary restrictions.

“Climatarians” (also called “reducitarians” or “climavores”) are people who make their food choices based on how what they eat will impact the earth, with the aim of reducing their carbon “foodprint.” The Earthist version of original sin is that, simply by living, people commit climate sin every time they eat, breathe, travel, and heat or cool their homes. Naturally, the younger generations are the most pious Earthists, having been recently exposed to the most evangelical Earthist education system yet.

“Climavores, as you might expect, follow a diet less defined by ingredients—unlike veganism, for example,” global consulting firm Kearney informs us. “Instead, Climavores actively make food choices based on climate impacts, practicing climate-conscious eating based on a series of dietary trade-offs intended to benefit the planet.”

Climavores see beef, lamb, and cheese at the very top of the environmental damage scale; pork is in the middle, followed by chicken and eggs. Plants of all kinds typically have the lowest impact. …

Most Climavores eschew labels, viewing climate-conscious food choices paired with their efforts to “live and shop green” beyond food as a meaningful way to personally impact environmental outcomes. Our survey found this is especially true among younger consumers. Respondents 18 to 44 years old were up to twice as likely to consider the environmental impact of their food choices.

And as the older faiths are gradually supplanted by the Church of the Climate, societal changes are in the works that reflect and support the new religion. Axios reports:

Food manufacturers, restaurants, and supermarkets are racing to cater to the zeal for lower-carbon eating choices, which has people eschewing plastic packaging, ingredients flown in from afar, and foods that are environmentally damaging to produce. …

Terms like “climatarian” are getting newfound attention from corporate America as young consumers gravitate toward what they perceive as “green” diets.

  • “By 2030, our routine food choices will be climate-directed,” advises a report from consulting firm Kearney. “The companies that mobilize now will win the future of food.”
  • Restaurant chains like Just Salad, Chipotle, and Panera Bread are putting “carbon labels” on their foods — and, in the case of Just Salad, adding a “climatarian” filter on its app.
  • Supermarket chain Fresh Market is among the many food prognosticators that declared “climatarian eating” a top trend for 2023.

Back in the bad old days, righteous folk censured people who lived outside Christian proscriptions, and with good reason — things like theft, adultery, sloth, and single parenthood lead to issues that hurt all of society. Under the same reckoning, prepare to be judged for your apostate food choices. Ordering a big, fat steak in a restaurant may earn you glares from fellow diners who have been taught that your dinner hurts them by causing droughts and heatwaves or something.

But Leftists are nothing if not authoritarian, and soon the choices will be made for you. More from Kearney:

Continue reading “”

His ‘word’; well that settles it, it means it’s actually worse than we know.

Every two years like clockwork, her staff dusts off the same old bill, changes the title to match the year, and resubmits it. It will never go anywhere, and everyone knows that, but it’s her pet bill ever since the old ’94-’04 ban didn’t have the votes to get re-enacted. This will go on until she either finally decides to retire, or one day doesn’t wake up.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Introduces Bill to Ban 205 ‘Assault Weapons’

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced legislation Monday to ban “205 military-style assault weapons by name” and prohibit transfer of “high capacity” magazines.

Feinstein cited the January 21, 2023, Monterey Park shooting as the impetus for the reintroduction of the “assault weapons” ban.

She said, “We were tragically reminded this weekend of the deadly nature of assault weapons when a shooter used one to kill 11 people and injure 9 more at a Lunar New Year celebration in California.”

In addition to banning the “sale, manufacture, transfer and importation” of 205 specific firearms, Feinstein’s bill requires “a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.” (This would apply to guns grandfathered in, if the bill were to become law.)

Her bill also contains an addendum to “[prohibit] the sale of assault weapons to individuals under 21.”

The alleged Monterey Park attacker was 72 years old and Monday’s alleged Half Moon Bay attacker was 67 years old.

I wouldn’t say she purposefully lying. She just likes that paycheck too much to actually do any research on her own for the facts of the matter.
She reads from out of a notebook that has all the approved answers for probable questions already provided for her. And if it doesn’t have an answer for her to parrot, she always uses one of two or three standard ‘boilerplate’ deferrals she’s memorized.

FACT CHECK: WH Press Sec. Falsely Claims ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Reduced Mass Shootings

CLAIM: White house press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed the result of the 1994-2004 “assault weapons” ban was that “mass shootings went down.”

VERDICT: False.

Jean-Pierre opened Tuesday’s press conference by talking about the mass shootings that have been occurring in California, the state that has more gun control than any other state in the Union.

Ironically, one of California’s gun controls is an “assault weapons” ban.

Nevertheless, Jean-Pierre pushed for an “assault weapons” ban at the federal level, saying, “The last time we had an ‘assault weapons’ ban on the books, thanks to the President and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) leadership, mass shootings actually went down.”

Jean-Pierre’s claim is 180 degrees out of sync with the information discovered and published by the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Breitbart News reported the NIJ’s findings, which were originally published just as the “assault weapons” ban was coming to an end. The NIJ made clear that the ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

The Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of the NIJ report, saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

The NIJ report continued, “The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” It put matters into perspective by pointing out that “assault weapons” were “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

Breitbart News noted on January 18, 2013, that “’assault weapons’ were tied to less than .012 per cent of overall deaths in America in recent years (2011)”. This point is poignant, in light of the NIJ report showing “assault weapons” were “rarely used” in crime to begin with. The guns are bulky and difficult to conceal, making them a bad choice for criminals seeking to avoid detection.

Also, the January 21 Monterey Park attacker used a pistol, and NBC Bay Area’s Christine Ni noted that the January 23 Half Moon Bay attacker appears to have used a handgun as well.

Jean-Pierre’s claim that the 1994-2004 “assault weapons” ban reduced mass shootings does not square with the Department of Justice’s NIJ report.

Near everything on the gun grabber’s list of laws and not a one of them actually do anything to stop those bent on mayhem and murder.

Newsom: Second Amendment turning into “suicide pact”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is lashing out at gun owners, the firearms industry, and even the Founding Fathers as he tries to spin another failure of the state’s gun control laws into an attack on the Second Amendment.

Speaking to CBS News on Monday evening, Newsom claimed that while he has no “ideological opposition” to “responsible” gun owners, at least in theory, the shootings in Monterey Park demand a further crackdown on the right to keep and bear arms.

“Nothing about this is surprising. Everything about this is infuriating,” he told “CBS Evening News” anchor and managing editor Norah O’Donnell on Monday. “The Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact.”

Newsom clarified that he has “no ideological opposition” against people who “responsibly” own guns and get background checks and training on how to use them.

But he told O’Donnell that current regulations are falling short.

Maybe because the gun control laws Newsom favors are aimed at legal gun owners instead of violent criminals?

Newsom mentioned the role of mental health in mass shootings, but he singled out gun access as a factor exacerbating the problem.

“I’m really proud of the work we’ve done in this space, but we’ve had decades of neglect,” he said. “But respectfully, I will submit that regardless of the challenges it relates to behavioral health, there’s not a country in the world that doesn’t experience behavioral health issues.”

And there’s not a state in the U.S. that regulates and restricts gun ownership to the extent that California does, and yet according to the FBI it was California that had the most most active shooter incidents in 2021. Part of that may simply be an artifact of California’s large population, but it’s also evidence that restricting a constitutional right to self-defense in the name of public safety doesn’t stop committed killers nearly as effectively as it prevents peaceable gun owners from exercising their 2A rights.

Continue reading “”

Climate Activism Isn’t About the Planet. It’s About the Boredom of the Bourgeoisie.

The downfall of capitalism will not come from the uprising of an impoverished working class but from the sabotage of a bored upper class. This was the view of the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. Schumpeter believed that at some point in the future, an educated elite would have nothing left to struggle for and will instead start to struggle against the very system that they themselves live in.

Nothing makes me think Schumpeter was right like the contemporary climate movement and its acolytes. The Green movement is not a reflection of planetary crisis as so many in media and culture like to depict it, but rather, a crisis of meaning for the affluent.

Take for example a recent interview with Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich on CBS‘s 60 Minutes. Ehrlich is most famous for his career as a professional doom monger. His first major book, The Population Bomb, gave us timelessly wrong predictions, including that by the 1980s, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death and it went downhill from there. Ehrlich assured us that England would no longer exist in the year 2000, that even modern fertilizers would not enable us to feed the world, and that thermonuclear power was just around the corner.

Continue reading “”

Former Uvalde Police Chief: I Left the Gunman Unhindered to Continue Killing the Children He Held Hostage, So I Could “Evacuate” The Children Who Were In No Danger Whatsoever

The Uvalde police chief admitted he chose to leave the kids trapped with the gunman, even after hearing “a lot” of shots.

The Texas police chief blamed for the disastrous response to the Uvalde school shooting admitted making the “horrible” call not to rescue kids trapped with the gunman — even after hearing “a lot” of shots and the killer reloading.Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, who was later fired as Uvalde schools’ top cop, made the astonishing admission in his only briefing with investigators — a day after 19 kids and two teachers were slaughtered at Robb Elementary.

He smiled and made jokes during the nearly one-hour interview obtained by CNN, defending his decision to evacuate the rest of the school rather than those trapped with 18-year-old mass shooter Salvador Ramos.

He detailed being one of the first to arrive at the school, hearing too many gunshots to count.

CNN obtained the video of since-fired Uvalde schools police chief Pedro Arredondo speaking to investigators a day after 21 were killed.

“When I opened the [school] door, I saw the smoke,” he recalled, saying “shots started firing” again as he and a colleague started nearing the classroom where Ramos was holed up with kids and teachers.

“Obviously, I backed off and started taking cover,” the lead officer said, which CNN noted was in clear defiance of training that insists officers risk their own lives to “neutralize” active shooters.

“Obviously.”

He backed off even after hearing gunman Salvador Ramos shooting and reloading his weapon.”I know there’s probably victims in there and with the shots I heard, I know there’s probably somebody who’s going to be deceased,” he acknowledged of the room he backed away from.

But he felt the “priority” was the “preservation of life” of those not under the “immediate threat.”

Like himself, for example.

“Once I realized that was going on, my first thought is that we need to vacate” the rest of the school, he said, telling arriving officers that “we’re taking [other] kids out first.””I know this is horrible,” he said — claiming it was what “our training tells us to do,” seemingly contradicting the actual guidance.

Focusing on evacuating the children who were in no danger whatsoever just happened to also keep Arredondo and the other filthy cowards who gladly followed him out of danger as well.

But I’m sure that’s just one of those coincidences. I’m sure that never, ever occurred to them.

Whether or not you agree with what’s going on, telling the whole world what your military plans are is beyond stupid. This had to have been ordered by SloJoe’s political puppet masters as some kind of stupid minded gambit.

In other words, since it’s a Bloomberg funded Front group, keeping the money coming in is job 1.

After midterm defeat, Iowa anti-gunners demand waiting periods

Back in November, Iowa voters sent a strong message of support for the right to keep and bear arms by enshrining it into the state constitution in overwhelming numbers. Not only does the amendment explicitly protect gun ownership, it instructs courts in the state to view any gun control laws through a “strict scrutiny” lens; a measure that requires regulations to be narrowly tailored to achieve a governmental interest.

Activists with the Iowa chapter of March For Our Lives say the new amendment has had an impact on their legislative agenda this year, but they’ve settled on a few restrictions that they believe can pass constitutional muster.

“Strict scrutiny will endanger any hopes of introducing common-sense gun policy in the state of Iowa,” [Waverly] Zhao said. “Additionally, the vague and overbroad wording of the legislation leaves the definitions of terms like ‘arms’ and ‘restrictions’ up to broad interpretations, which may serve to undermine the few current gun regulation policies in Iowa.”

But the gun safety advocates said there are still measures state legislators can pass they argue could help stop gun violence in Iowa. In its 2023 legislative agenda, March for Our Lives recommended Iowa legislators pass a mandatory three-day waiting period, universal background checks and mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms.

The strict scrutiny amendment language was approved by almost 2/3rds of the state’s voters, so Zhao should consider the possibility that those “common sense” policies she wants to see in place don’t make much sense to most of her neighbors. That’s the real roadblock to the type of anti-gun policies that MFOL wants to put in place; the will of the people. The new constitutional amendment is simply an expression of that will, as is their opposition to any new measures that try to criminalize lawful gun ownership or burden the lawful exercise of that right in any way.

Esha Bolar, an 18-year-old high school senior from Johnston and co-state director for the advocacy group, said March for Our Lives had to take a step back from some of its more “ambitious” policy goals, like police demilitarization, given the new amendment and conservative majorities in both chambers of the Iowa Legislature.

“Now I don’t think that’s possible, amongst a lot of other kinds of gun violence prevention policy that we’ve researched in the past,” Bolar said. “But we know that with these three priorities we can see some kind of change happening.”

Bolar said she believes all three of the recommended policies will be able to hold up to any strict scrutiny challenges. Other states have implemented a three-day waiting period and universal background checks for acquiring firearms, which have survived court challenges finding they did not violate Second Amendment rights from the U.S. Constitution. However, new state constitutional amendment offers protections beyond the Second Amendment, which does not hold laws to the strict scrutiny test.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the courts would uphold each and every one of MFOL’s legislative goals for the year. That doesn’t make them any more likely to be enacted into law. Forget strict scrutiny for a second; these ideas don’t pass the smell test for most Iowans or their elected representatives.

Any attempt to restrict the rights of law-abiding residents, or to try to make the state a safer place by criminalizing a constitutionally-protected right isn’t likely to make it out of committee in Iowa. These young anti-civil rights activists may be hoping to put some new infringements in place, but they’re in for a long wait… period.

That the children are apparently purposefully deluded by their instructors and not taught that SCOTUS took care of this in 2008 in Heller, simply shows that it’s not teaching, but indoctrination

Also, JIC:

The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment

Anti-gun op-ed by student hardly the gotcha she thinks it is

Every now and then, we see some person who thinks they’re clever, only to trot out a tired, debunked argument that they’re sure is a “gotcha” moment.

That’s especially true with anti-gun arguments, of course.

I recently came across an op-ed written by a Los Angeles high school student that treads a particularly tired argument.

Titled, “Opinion: The 2nd Amendment requires gun regulation,” you already know it’s going to be good.

How can we decrease gun violence?

According to the 2nd Amendment, since “[a] well regulated Militia [is]…necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Although people have the right to bear arms for their own protection as stated in the Constitution, the Second Amendment also clearly states that this is based on the need for a “well regulated Militia”, not based on random people being able to have guns.

This can be interpreted to mean that no one except for law enforcement should have more than a number of guns or ammunition, because the right to bear arms is for a “well regulated Militia”. People do not need 10 guns to protect themselves from danger, and they certainly won’t need a gun that can shoot 600 bullets per minute either, like the AK-47 as detailed in Britannica.

If we limit a certain amount of guns per person, making sure that gun owners are “well regulated”, then the chance of a mass shooting will be less likely as a gun owner could only own a specific amount of guns and also have “regulated” ways to use them.

I’m sure the author and her teachers are very proud of her for this argument. Too bad it’s an anti-gun argument debunked ages ago by people far better versed in constitutional law than she is.

First, the phrase “well-regulated” means “properly functioning.”

Second, the militia refers to the whole body of free people who can be called upon to defend our nation. While many argue that this means the National Guard today, if you take a look at the Militia Act, you’ll see the unorganized militia is still people within a given age range who aren’t currently serving in the military or eligible for call-up.

Further, the young author here is illustrating just how poor the American educational system actually is, because she clearly didn’t grasp the totality of the Second Amendment.

See, she’s doing what many anti-gunners do, which is focus on the militia clause. Yet the rest of the amendment read, “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“[S]hall not be infringed.” That part alone debunks the entire premise on which the author based her work. It doesn’t say the right to keep and bear arms shall only be for militia purposes. It explicitly states that it shall not be interfered with by lawmakers.

I don’t blame her, though. I blame her teachers.

It seems no one adequately educated her about the context surrounding the Second Amendment. She likely was never taught about our Founding Fathers’ innate distrust of standing armies, or how they believed any government had the potential to become tyrannical unless held in check by the citizenry.

They never taught her how the Bill of Rights came to be, how many of the amendments were a direct response to actions carried out by the British, and how the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure their new nation wouldn’t go down that same road.

That includes removing arms from law-abiding citizens.

“But you don’t need 10 guns,” she argues, yet the Second Amendment doesn’t call for such anti-gun regulation as she claims. It explicitly precludes any such regulation by saying our right shall not be infringed.

It seems clear that this young woman hasn’t been taught by her teachers. Not about history and likely not even how to think for herself.

More of Sun-Tzu’s advice to know your enemy

This is what passes for ‘liberal’ these days.
A wanna-be tyrant with a minimal IQ who somehow believes he’s  discovered an as yet never postulated way to achieve his goal.

The Second amendment is not, and never had been, a permission to allow the People to do anything. It ‘gives’ nothing. It is in no way a ‘the people may’. It declares rights and restricts goobermint power over those rights.
The People already have the right not just to keep and bear arms, but to also make them, right along with the accoutrements and ammunition necessary for their use.
Even this latest ‘ghost gun’ regulation by the bureaucraps at BATFE does nothing to stop a person from making their own guns.

The Second amendment is, as clearly stated by the Bill Of Rights own preamble – quoted below – is a restriction on goobermint power, not on the rights of the people

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The author’s mindless idea is that of the ignoramus who was never taught, or slept through their course in, U.S. Civics. That also goes for many of the people commenting there. Either that, or they have an ulterior motive, a disarmament agenda for their political enemies, because unless they disarm them, they can’t deal with them the way all tyrants want to.

Read Second Amendment Literally: Ban Making and Selling Guns

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A fully contextual reading of the Second Amendment tells us that the Founding Fathers protected the right to bear arms for the sole purpose of supporting a well-regulated militia to keep America free and secure. But various gun cranks and judges have dismissed that prefatory clause and read all sorts of non-original intent into the right to bear arms—self-defense, shooting government officials we don’t like, yadda yadda.

So let’s ignore the preface and focus strictly and literally on the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. (I’m also going to ignore that erroneous comma—a comma should never separate a subject and a predicate unless there is some intervening descriptive phrase or dependent clause.)

The Second Amendment says we may have guns. It says we may carry guns.

The Second Amendment does not say we may make guns.

It does not say we may sell guns.

It does not say that we may box up a gun and mail it across state lines.

We could shut down every gun factory and store and dealer in America today and not violate the Second Amendment. We already have 393 million firearms, more than enough to allow every living American to carry a gun. If you have a gun, you can keep it. You just can’t buy any more or sell the ones you have.

Ah, but what if your gun breaks and you want another one? Or what if you grow up in a household that chooses not to bear arms but then decide when you grow up, you want to be a hero like Kyle Rittenhouse? You can’t exercise your Second Amendment right if you can’t get your hands on a gun? To keep and bear an arm, don’t you have to be able to buy a gun or build your own from bamboo, charcoal, sulfur, and diamonds?

Well, if governments are instituted among men to secure our rights, then the government can secure our Second Amendment right by producing arms—just contract Sig Sauer to crank out a few million more M17s and M18s—and distributing them at local police stations or Army recruiting offices to every citizen willing and able to carry one.  No right is absolute, of course: the government can and should decline to hand free guns to people who are drunk, crazy, angry, or elsewise identifiably dangerous. But if the government ensures that every able-bodied and responsible American who desires to keep and bear an arm can get an arm, then there is no need for private, extra-constitutional gun-running.

The Second Amendment has been perverted by profit-seekers. The Second Amendment does not protect gun commerce. End gun commerce, and we’ll defuse the fear– and machismo-stoking marketing that drives our destructive gun culture.

Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Opposing Concealed-Carry Ban on D.C. Metro, Finding Challengers Did Not Show ‘Any Threat’ of Prosecution

A federal judge threw out a challenge to D.C.’s concealed pistol law after four D.C.-area residents failed to include a basic part of their case. Although the challengers made multiple arguments about the use of guns in 1600s New England, they included nothing to show that they were — or ever would be — personally affected by the statute. Gregory T. Angelo, Tyler Yzaguirre, and Cameron M. Erickson live in the District of Columbia, and Robert M. Miller lives in Virginia. The four hold licenses to carry firearms, and say that they regularly use public transportation including the D.C. Metro. The plaintiffs waged a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of D.C. Code § 7-2509.07(a)(6), which prohibits the carrying concealed firearms in “sensitive areas,” which include D.C. public transportation, and levies a penalty of fine or imprisonment up to 180 days for violators.

In their 35-page complaint, the four alleged that if it were not for the statute, they would carry their concealed handguns on the Metro and buses for self-defense. They said that because of the statute, they now refrain from doing so because they fear arrest and prosecution.

Taking cues from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, the challengers pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas’s recently established test that gun laws must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The plaintiffs reached back centuries in support of their argument that there is “no basis to label the Metro as a sensitive area,” providing an extensive history of gun law anecdotes going back to the early 1600s in the U.S. and several hundred years prior in Europe. Plaintiffs allowed that, “Public transportation systems did not exist as they do today at the founding of the nation,” but argued that because, “a March 9, 1636 ordinance provided that every person above 18 years of age (except magistrates and elders of the churches) were ordered to ‘come to public assemblies with their muskets,’” that 2022 concealed-carry restrictions conflict with our nation’s founding principles.

The D.C. law, said the plaintiffs, interferes with their Second Amendment right of self-defense and goes far beyond any limits imposed by Supreme Court precedent.

They asked the court to issue either a preliminary or a permanent injunction, restricting enforcement of the statute.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, a Barack Obama appointee, rejected their argument, finding that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove harm. They provided no evidence that the law has been used to prosecute anyone, much less the four of them.

Moss wrote in the court’s 25-page ruling that in order to establish Article III standing, all plaintiffs must demonstrate some kind of “injury in fact.” In other words, it is not enough for a plaintiff to simply disagree with a law — that plaintiff must be actually harmed by the law. That’s where the four plaintiffs fell short.

Moss pointed out that, “No plaintiff in this case has been arrested and prosecuted — or threatened with arrest or prosecution or with the imposition of a civil penalty — for violating the provision of D.C. law at issue here.” Moreover, none of the plaintiffs even alleged that they have either been “singled out” or were somehow “uniquely targeted” for prosecution, said Moss. Without such a showing, the plaintiffs could not sufficiently establish their right to bring the lawsuit.

According to the Moss, the case’s shortcomings went farther. Not only did the plaintiffs fail to show that they were especially at risk of prosecution, but they did not show that anyone was at risk of prosecution.

“Plaintiffs have failed to proffer any evidence relating to any threat or risk of enforcement,” wrote Moss. To underscore the omission, Moss recounted exchanges from oral argument in which the court appeared to prompt the plaintiffs’ lawyer to provide the kind of evidence that could have supported the claim:

Indeed, when asked at oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to identify any case in which an individual licensed to carry a handgun has ever been prosecuted simply for carrying a concealed handgun on a Metrorail train or a Metrobus. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel merely speculated that those carrying concealed handguns often pat their sides (to confirm that they have their guns with them) and that, by doing so, they might provide a tell for law enforcement officers and thereby invite arrest.

Moss also called out the attorney for a general response to the specific question of threat of enforcement. Moss said that during colloquy with the court, plaintiffs’ counsel answered that the Metropolitan Police Department “invariably arrests those who violate any of ‘the myriad of firearms regulations’ in the District of Columbia,” but noted that, “Neither statement by counsel, however, is evidence, and the evidence that Plaintiffs have offered says nothing about the risk of criminal or civil enforcement of § 7-2509.07(a)(6).”

Moss denied both requested injunctions.

Counsel for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Biden’s Stolen Valor rant is no surprise to gun owners

Joe Biden walked onstage in front of a group of veterans Friday and then stole their valor.

Biden told the veterans his Uncle Frank was wounded during the Battle of the Bulge, but somehow never received the Purple Heart. Biden claimed he first learned of the oversight when he was vice president, from his father.

“So, I got him the Purple Heart. He had won it in the Battle of the Bulge. And I remember he came over to the house and I came out and my father said; ‘Present it to him, okay?’ We had the family there,” Biden said at the veterans’ townhall, according to media accounts.

Of course, there are massive factual errors in Biden’s latest tall tale. Biden’s uncle died in 1999. His father died in 2002, but Biden wasn’t elected vice president until 2008, so there is no way he could have presented his uncle the medal while serving as vice president. Also, there’s no documentation that Biden’s uncle ever received or was recommended for a Purple Heart — either before or after his nephew became vice president.

Biden’s latest lie comes as no surprise to gun owners. We’ve been hooting and hollering about his Second Amendment-related lies for years, but no one listened.

In August, during a rambling and often incoherent campaign speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Biden added yet another outlandish fib to his usual list of firearm falsehoods.

“Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun?” Biden asked the crowd.

To be clear, the AR round is quick, but it’s certainly not the fastest, and it’s definitely not five-times faster than all other calibers, which would be ballistically impossible.

In April, Biden created another fanciful tale, and like his Stolen Valor rant, he gave himself the starring role.

Biden was in southern Delaware, he claimed, trudging through the woods during hunting season, when he happened upon a hunter in a creek bed. The hunter asked him if he was going to confiscate his rifle, which Biden said he realized held 20 rounds. “You must be a terrible shot to need that many rounds,” Biden claimed he told the hunter in the creek bed. “Do you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests?”

This tale was the latest version of one of Biden’s favorite quips, which states that anyone who uses a standard-capacity magazine must be a terrible shot, because deer don’t wear Kevlar vests.

Takeaways

Biden’s stolen valor claims are far worse than his previous false tall tales about Corn Pop, blonde leg hair or fictitious prohibitions regarding civilian cannon ownership.

He is the Commander-in-Chief, after all, the very top of the chain-of-command. By definition, every single member of the military is his subordinate. The CINC receives a lot of salutes, but the job also comes with tremendous responsibility, which Biden seems to ignore.

There’s no doubt that among Friday’s crowd were real Purple Heart recipients — men and women who sacrificed parts of their bodies for our freedom. They deserve an immediate apology, although they’ll likely never receive one.

Be it guns or stolen valor, Joe Biden will never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Another disingenuous Federal judge.

Federal Judge Denies Injunction Request Against Rhode Island Magazine Confiscation Law

Banning and confiscating commonly-owned ammunition magazines does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

At least according to U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s reading of the amendment.

On Wednesday, McConnell denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against Rhode Island’s recently passed law banning the sale and possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. He said that so-called Large-Capacity Magazines (LCMs) did not count as “arms” protected by the U.S. Constitution.

“The plaintiffs have failed in their burden to demonstrate that LCMs are ‘Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text,” Judge McConnell, an Obama appointee, wrote in his order. “Moreover, even were they ‘arms,’ the plaintiffs have failed to prove that LCMs are weapons relating to self-defense. There is no Second Amendment violation from the LCM Ban because of those two shortfalls of persuasion.”

Continue reading “”

Biden Dumbs Down American Citizenship Test

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced changes to the U.S. naturalization test on Wednesday, reducing the difficulty of the English-speaking section and editing the civics section to make the test easier for citizenship applicants, according to an unpublished notice obtained by the DCNF scheduled for publication Thursday.

The changes will lead to the English-speaking section being curated to more daily conversational subjects, as opposed to more formal subjects formerly discussed, with standardized criteria for assessment that reduce the examiner’s discretion to judge the quality of responses. “Applicants will respond to three color photographs randomly selected from a bank of approximately 70 images that directly correspond to an ordinary usage scenario,”

Additionally, the section on civics will be recrafted to become a multiple-choice format with each question having four options, as opposed to the previous “fill-in-the-blank” test where candidates have to answer a question from memory. The multiple-choice format, used on standardized tests for college admissions like the SAT and ACT, increases the probability of a candidate selecting the right answer by 25%, while allowing the candidates to recall the right answer more easily.

“Primarily, this is about responding to suggestions from the wider community that we’ve received over the past couple of years and making it more fair,” a USCIS official told CNN in advance of the notice’s publication. The proposed test will enter a five-month trial period in 2023 before being adopted later in the year, though current citizenship applicants will use the existing test.

The measure is one of several initiated by the Biden administration to streamline the immigration and naturalization process, as well as reverse Trump-era measures that progressives have claimed were barriers to immigrants’ integration. Twelve days after taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing government agencies to “identify [and remove] barriers that impede access to immigration benefits” as well as conduct a “comprehensive review…of the civics and English language tests.”

In November 2020, the Trump administration promulgated a new syllabus for the naturalization test, raising the pass threshold to answering 12 out of 20 questions correctly (instead of 10, previously), with a larger question bank of 128 questions. Officials claimed that the test would “provide the applicant with more opportunities to learn about the United States as part of the test preparation process,” per the USCIS website.

The Trump administration’s version of the test contained additional questions about Founding Fathers such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, as well as questions about the Civil War, the spread of communism, the 14th Amendment and the War on Terror, among others. The Biden administration promptly rescinded the new test months later when it took office, reverting back to a 2008 version utilized during the George W. Bush administration.

However, the Biden administration is not changing the English reading and writing sections of the naturalization test. “We welcome input from – and the participation of – stakeholders who are familiar with this important process, as we continue to improve and update our naturalization test,” said USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou.

The White House, UnidosUS and the Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.

Appeals Court Stays Another Ruling Against New York Gun-Carry Law

New York will once more be able to enforce another section of its sweeping gun-carry restriction bill.

A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay against a district court’s decision blocking a ban on carrying a gun on private property that’s open to the public without express permission. The Monday ruling put a hold on the lower court’s injunction as the appeals court waits to hear the case. It is the third stay issued by the panel as lower court judges pick apart New York’s law, passed in response to the Supreme Court striking down the state’s previous strict gun-carry law.

The stay will allow New York to enforce the first-of-its-kind private property provision and arrest anyone who violates it until the appeals court issues its own ruling. Thanks to the intervention of the Second Circuit in two other cases, the same is true for a wide range of other restrictions–from bans on carrying in church or on the subway to a requirement applicants for permits prove they are of “good moral character” by turning over their social media activity to police. The stays represent a reprieve for New York officials and a setback for the gun-rights groups challenging the law.

Judge John Sinatra of the Western District of New York, a Trump appointee, issued a Temporary Restraining Order against New York’s private property provision late last month. He argued the state’s novel policy, which effectively made most of the state off-limits to legal gun-carry by default, violates the Second Amendment.

“Property owners indeed have the right to exclude,” he wrote. “But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.”

Sinatra ruled the state defaulting private property that is open to the public, such as retail businesses or restaurants, as off-limits to licensed gun-carriers does not pass the historical test set down by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The state’s rule is the opposite of how every other state regulates gun-carry on private property. Sinatra said he could not identify any historical analogue for the regulation as required by the Bruen standard.

“The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all varieties of private property spread across the land,” he wrote.

He declined to issue a stay requested by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.). He said a stay would only exacerbate the deprivation of New Yorkers’ rights.

“[L]egislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights,” he wrote. “Every day they do is one too many.”

The Second Circuit disagreed. The court did not set a date for when arguments in the appeal would begin. However, it did order an expedited briefing schedule for the case.

People who skipped their COVID vaccine are at higher risk of traffic accidents, according to a new study

If you passed on getting the COVID vaccine, you might be a lot more likely to get into a car crash.

People who skipped their COVID vaccine are at higher risk of traffic accidents, according to a new study© Getty Images

Or at least those are the findings of a new study published this month in The American Journal of Medicine. During the summer of 2021, Canadian researchers examined the encrypted government-held records of more than 11 million adults, 16% of whom hadn’t received the COVID vaccine.

They found that the unvaccinated people were 72% more likely to be involved in a severe traffic crash—in which at least one person was transported to the hospital—than those who were vaccinated. That’s similar to the increased risk of car crashes for people with sleep apnea, though only about half that of people who abuse alcohol, researchers found.

The excess risk of car crash posed by unvaccinated drivers “exceeds the safety gains from modern automobile engineering advances and also imposes risks on other road users,” the authors wrote.

Of course, skipping a COVID vaccine does not mean that someone will get into a car crash. Instead, the authors theorize that people who resist public health recommendations might also “neglect basic road safety guidelines.”

Why would they ignore the rules of the road? Distrust of the government, a belief in freedom, misconceptions of daily risks, “faith in natural protection,” “antipathy toward regulation,” poverty, misinformation, a lack of resources, and personal beliefs are potential reasons proposed by the authors.

The findings are significant enough that primary care doctors should consider counseling unvaccinated patients on traffic safety—and insurance companies might base changes to insurance policies on vaccination data, the authors suggest.

First responders may also consider taking precautions to protect themselves from COVID when responding to traffic crashes, the authors added, as it’s more likely that a driver is unvaccinated than vaccinated.

“The findings suggest that unvaccinated adults need to be careful indoors with other people and outside with surrounding traffic,” the authors concluded.

This isn’t the first time that researchers have examined the link between behavior and vaccination status. Among young adults, a 2021 study published in the Journal of Bioeconomics found a correlation between self-reported risky driving and having skipped their flu vaccine. It examined the survey responses of more than 100,000 Canadians.