What this brain dead moron reminds me of
Biden: "I’ll paraphrase the phrase of my old neighborhood: The rest of the countries, the world is not a patch in our jeans, if we do what we wanna do, we need to do." pic.twitter.com/s9XccTkQpw
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 4, 2023
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Well that explains a lot
As Oregon’s Gun Litigation Diverges, a Collision is Inevitable
The legal fight over Oregon’s gun-control ballot initiative is headed in two different directions, but the paths will eventually have to crash back into each other.
In the wake of Measure 114’s adoption last month, gun-rights advocates filed multiple lawsuits against the permit-to-purchase and magazine ban provisions at the state and federal levels. They argued both provisions are unconstitutional under the right to keep and bear arms protections in the United States Constitution and the Oregon Constitution, especially under the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. But they got different results at each level.
Harney County Judge Robert Raschio issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the entirety of the law. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut delayed implementation of the permit-to-purchase requirement for a month at the request of Oregon officials, who admitted they couldn’t create the system before the deadline but declined to issue a TRO
The judges’ reasoning were in stark contrast to one another. While they both agreed that requiring a permit to buy a gun that was effectively unobtainable violates the right to keep and bear arms, and the requirement would have to be blocked, at least in the short term, they differed on everything else. It’s possible either judge could change their mind, but they both seem pretty convinced of their initial conclusions. It’s more likely higher courts, likely the United States Supreme Court itself, will have to settle the contradictions in their approach–if not in this specific case, at least more generally.
Judge Immergut found Measure 114’s ban on the sale and use of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, with limited exceptions, is not unconstitutional. She argued the Second Amendment does not protect the magazines because they are not “necessary to the use of firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense” since magazines that hold fewer than ten rounds can be used in their place.
“While magazines in general are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense, Plaintiffs have not shown, at this stage, that magazines specifically capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense,” Immergut
“As noted above, the ‘corollary… right to possess the magazines necessary to render… firearms operable’ is ‘not unfettered.’ Instead, the right is limited to magazines that are necessary to render firearms operable for self-defense and other lawful purposes.”
The difference between a rifle and a so-called "assault weapon is this piece of plastic used to hold the weapon in ones hand… That's how stupid gun-control really is… pic.twitter.com/85FHV9kjxN
— James (@JamesHeger5) December 6, 2022
White House Reveals Twisted View of Constitution
We wrote earlier about Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch nailed the Colorado Solicitor General for Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cakemaker, being forced to undergo “re-education” after refusing to create a custom cake celebrating same-sex marriage because it violated his religious convictions.
Gorsuch made those comments in another case involving a Christian website designer Lorie Smith. Colorado claims that her website design business qualifies as a “public accommodation” so therefore she cannot turn down a request to make a personalized website design advertising a same-sex wedding because it violates her religious beliefs, that she can be compelled to make the website. That amounts to the government’s compelling speech since that’s an expressive message that the designer is creating.
“Mr. Phillips had to go through a reeducation program, did he not?” Gorsuch asked Colorado solicitor general Eric Olson. He retorted that it was actually training to educate him about Colorado law.
“Some would call that a reeducation program,” Gorsuch said.
“I strongly disagree,” the defense attorney replied.
“Isn’t religious belief a protected characteristic?” Gorsuch asked, to which Olson conceded, “yes.”
Phillip’s punishment from the Colorado commission also included a requirement that he submit quarterly reports on his company’s compliance progress.
On Monday, Kristin Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing Christian website designer Lorie Smith, noted that because of Colorado’s “aggressive enforcement,” her client’s “speech has been chilled for six years.”
The White House doesn’t have a problem with the government’s compelling speech, as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre explained, they think it’s just fine to do it.
KJP: "…we can require businesses…to service people, regardless of their backgrounds, even when that means businesses must, incidentally, engage in speech [with] which they disagree…" pic.twitter.com/G8qsPBgBu3
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 5, 2022
“Courts have recognized that we can recog–that we can require businesses…to service people, regardless of their backgrounds, even when that means businesses must, incidentally, engage in speech which they disagree upon.”
Now, she’s being cagey, a bit, here with the language and the speech in the pending case would not be “incidental” — it’s the very heart of the request. What she’s talking about is the public accommodation law. But no, the government can’t compel speech, that’s why SCOTUS is considering this case now.
How dare the White House talk about the Constitution and then pretend they can compel speech? Or violate religious beliefs? Who are the fascists again? It’s always the Biden team who has no problem violating the Constitution to achieve the purposes they want.
We saw the White House’s duplicitous approach when it came to Twitter as well. When liberals controlled Twitter, as Elon Musk revealed, the Biden team or the DNC could contact them and get things they didn’t like suppressed. When people complained about getting banned, we were told by the liberals that Twitter was a “private business” and it could do what it wanted to users (despite the fact there was this apparent government collusion behind the scenes). But now that Elon Musk is in charge and Twitter has slipped out of their control, they must monitor and investigate it, to make sure that he complies with what they want.
They think they can dictate to us and that’s what this is about — control. Karine Jean-Pierre doesn’t even have any shame about admitting it.
Two days after telling a federal judge that Oregonians will be able to apply for a permit to buy a gun by the end of this week, Oregon’s attorney general Sunday night acknowledged the state isn’t ready to have a permitting process in place as required by the voter-approved gun control Measure 114.
In a three-page letter to the court filed at 9:14 p.m. Sunday, Senior Assistant Attorney General Brian Simmonds Marshall conceded that local law enforcement agencies have made it clear that “necessary pieces of the permit to purchase system will not be in place” by this coming Thursday, the date the measure is set to take effect.
The attorney general’s concession echoes what gun rights advocates have argued for the past several weeks and have informed U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut in multiple legal briefs filed in pending lawsuits.
The attorney general has recommended the permit requirement be postponed until February while the measure’s other regulations are allowed to go into effect.
“The State’s position that Measure 114 is constitutional on its face remains the same,” Marshall’s letter said.
The voter-approved measure, which narrowly passed with 50.7% of the vote, will ban the sale, transfer and manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; require a permit to purchase a gun; and not allow a gun sale or transfer to occur without a background check completed.
The attorney general’s office admitted in its letter to the court that the firearms safety courses that are required before someone can obtain a permit to buy a gun are not yet available.
Oregonians should be allowed to continue to buy guns without a permit during a ‘‘limited window,’’ until the state has a full permitting process in place, the attorney general’s letter recommends. Meanwhile, the state will continue to work to get a process up and running, Marshall wrote.
“The State’s proposed postponement would mean that, while the permitting system is brought online, Oregonians who lack a permit will be able to purchase and transfer firearms. Meanwhile, the State and local law enforcement would continue to work towards implementing Measure 114′s permit provisions. Moreover, Oregonians would be able to begin the application process. When the Court’s order expires, Measure 114′s permit requirement for purchases would go into effect,” Marshall wrote to the judge.
The attorney general’s office pointed to the court declaration by Jason Myers, a retired Marion County sheriff who is now executive director of the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association. Myers estimated it will take at least another month to prepare an operational permit system.
In a press release, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum recommended the permit to buy a gun requirement be postponed until February.
“Postponing the permit requirement by approximately two months should give Oregon law enforcement time to have a fully functional permitting system in place. If Judge Immergut agrees to the postponement, then starting in February anyone who purchases a gun in Oregon will be required to have a permit,” Rosenblum said in the release.
Marshall wrote to the court that the state is “committed to working cooperatively with its partners in local law enforcement.”
For the measure to achieve its goal of enhancing public safety, “it is critical that local law enforcement has adequate time to effectively implement the Measure,” Marshall’s letter said.
Under the measure, anyone applying for a permit to buy a gun must complete a training course that includes instruction on state and federal laws related to purchase, ownership, transfer, use and transportation of guns; safe storage of guns including reporting of lost and stolen firearms; how to prevent the abuse or misuse of firearms, including the impact of homicide and suicide on families, communities and the country; and a demonstration that the applicant knows how to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency.
Myers had informed the judge in writing that the sheriffs’ association was unaware of any firearms safety course in Oregon that currently covers all the training requirements.
Immergut held a two-hour hearing Friday morning on the Oregon Firearms Federation’s motion for a temporary restraining order to block the regulations from going into effect as its lawsuit proceeds, contending the measure impinges on their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Most of the argument Friday, though, focused on the provision banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
When Immergut asked Marshall during the hearing if the regulations will be ready to take effect on Thursday, he pledged that Oregonians will be able to apply for a permit then. State police later in the day issued a news release, saying a permit application would be on the agency’s website on Thursday.
Other suits filed challenging the gun control measure included declarations from the sheriffs’ associations and the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police. They argued that their agencies are unprepared and not staffed or funded to support a permitting program for prospective buyers.
Immergut had said at the end of last week that she would rule by Tuesday on whether to grant a temporary restraining order that would put the voter-approved measure on hold.
The judge has given parties to the pending four federal lawsuits until noon Monday to submit any friend of court briefs in support or against the pending motions for a temporary restraining order.
The Rev. Mark Knutson, one of the chief petitioners behind Measure 114, said Sunday night that the Lift Every Voice Oregon interfaith group that obtained signatures to put the measure to voters “wants the most equitable and just process possible…We want this done right to save lives.”
Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said he’s concerned about the tens of thousands of prospective gun buyers currently waiting to have their background checks completed by state police. “They are not going to clear that backlog quickly,” he said by email.
Since Election Day, gun sales in the state have spiked. As of Friday, state police had 41,160 background checks pending for gun purchases or transfers, Capt. Kyle Kennedy said. On Black Friday, the state police received 6,055 new background check requests, the highest amount since Election Day, he said.
— Maxine Bernstein
Unless he’s going to Massachusetts to campaign for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who isn’t up for election right now.
Or maybe he’s going to Georgia for Warren or Massachusetts for Warnock. And there’s something about a fundraiser.
Maybe we can clear things up by watching the video of Biden himself.
As always, I’m happy to provide for you — at no extra charge — the VodkaPundit Quick & Dirty Transcript.
Also, as always, any errors in the transcription are my own fault, and I apologize in advance. Any sense being made on the part of Biden is purely accidental and should be immediately dismissed.
Transcript:
Reporter: When are you going to Georgia to help Sen. Warnock?
Biden: I’m going to Georgia today to help Sen. Warren. Not to Georgia. I’m going to help Sen. Warren. I’m doing a major fundraiser up in Boston.
Buttigieg: Thank you, Mr. President.
Biden: Today. For, for the, uh, our next and continued Senate candidate and senator.
Biden made it quite clear that he will be traveling to Boston for a major fundraiser. This much is true — I checked his daily calendar. He’ll be attending a reception for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which I assume involves fundraising.
I’m still trying to suss out what he might have meant by “our next and continued Senate candidate and senator.” My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that Biden had Warnock, who is in a special runoff election campaign, stuck in his brain because that’s who the question was about.
Or maybe he’s forgotten that the midterms are over and believes that Warren is fighting to be the “next and continued Senate candidate and senator.”
Warren was not up for reelection in 2022, and won’t be again until 2024.
So Biden does seem to know where he’s going and what he’s doing; he just doesn’t seem to understand why.
Or maybe he’s clear on all three but just has trouble saying it.
Whatever the case, he looks and sounds like the senescent old man he is, and not like the most powerful man in the world.
DON’T BELIEVE GIVING UP RIGHTS PROVIDES SECURITY
New York Time columnist David Brooks is reminding America why they shouldn’t put faith in opinion writers pontificating from their metropolitan ivory towers.
Brooks recently said America would be a much safer country if Americans would simply give up their freedoms and become more like Europe. If America wouldn’t hold onto the individual right to keep and bear arms spelled out in the Second Amendment, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, he argues it would be a much safer place.
In his estimation, giving up the ability for self-defense and defense of loved ones would make crime just go away.
“That would take a gigantic culture shift in this country. A revamping of the way we think about privacy, a revamping of the way we think about the role government plays in protecting the common good,” Brooks said during a segment on PBS’ “Newshour.” “I think it would be something. I think it would be good not only to head off shootings, but good to live in a society where we cared more intimately about each other. And I would be willing to give up certain privacies for that to happen.”
That’s certainly out of the mainstream of how the rest of America views lawful firearm ownership. There were over 21 million background checks for the sale of a firearm in 2020, the most ever in a single year. Last year, Americans submitted to 18.5 million background checks. In 2022, background check figures are headed for the third strongest year on record. During the week up to and including Black Friday, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) tallied over 711,000 background checks, with over 192,000 on Black Friday alone. That was the third busiest day for FBI’s NICS ever.
Just how would America achieve this utopia that Brooks imagines? Just give up, he said. Give up your rights. Give up your freedoms. Submit to an Orwellian state that provides you with all your needs. He admits this wouldn’t be easy.
“But for many Americans that would just be a massive cultural shift to regard our community and regard our common good in more frankly a European style,” Brooks explained. “I think it would benefit our society in a whole range of areas, but it’s hard to see that kind of culture change to a society that’s been pretty individualistic for a long, long time.”
America broke away from European-style rule for a reason. The Founding Fathers rejected the British crown’s demands to give up guns then. Based on background checks for gun sales, America continues to reject calls for strict gun control. A recent Gallup poll found that support for more gun control dropped nine points from 66 percent to 57 percent in an October survey.
The argument that individuals should surrender their gun rights has been tried elsewhere with predictable results. Gun owners that complied with gun seizures find themselves unable to protect themselves while criminals that ignore the law are empowered. A recent report from ABC News in Australia showed that criminals find it easier now to obtain illicit firearms than before the multiple amnesty periods when government officials collected firearms from Australians. New Zealand instituted their own gun confiscation program and crime spiked. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ushered in Draconian gun control, including confiscation, and the country and crime hit new peaks.
The only ones left with guns were the criminals. That’s a lesson that Canada’s grappling with now as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is eyeing his own gun confiscation scheme and banning the transfer of any handguns. Some Canadian provinces are rejecting the heavy-handed measures. Sadly, history is replete with examples of regimes that took away its citizens firearms only to become tyrannical and turn their citizens into defenseless subjects. Those that fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence expressed their fear of a tyrannical government and enshrined our right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the Bill of Rights for a reason.
Brooks is wrong to think that ridding ourselves of rights and lawful gun ownership would reduce crime. The answer to rampant crime is more law enforcement. The changes needed to safeguard America’s communities don’t begin with turning our backs on freedoms. It starts with holding elected officials in The White House, Congress, state capitols and district attorneys responsible for not enforcing the law and failing to hold criminals accountable.
Brooks’ notion is a devil’s bargain. Americans know it. Surrendering freedom has never resulted in anything less than creating a society of victims.
— Wes Butler (@butlerwesfire) November 29, 2022
We Don’t Need Biden’s Permission To Own A ‘Semi-Automatic’ Gun
“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick,” Joe Biden argued on Thanksgiving. “It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”
Need it really be pointed out that it is perfectly within our rights to purchase products devoid of all socially redemptive value? Certainly, it is not the state’s business to determine what we “need.” That said, semi-automatic weapons happen to have an obvious redeeming value and there is a strong rationale for owning them. Semi-auto weapons are easy to use, and their effectiveness and reliability bolster the ability of people to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their community from criminality and, should it descend into tyranny, the government. Gun bans are autocratic and unconstitutional, and, thankfully, also largely unfeasible.
Indeed, semi-autos meet every criterion of legality laid out in D.C. v. Heller, the decision that finally codified the clear historical and legal intention of the Second Amendment. Not only are semi-automatic weapons “in common use” by “law-abiding citizens,” they are not “unusual.” The first semi-automatic pistols hit the civilian marketplace in the 1890s.
Now, there is always the not-so-small chance that Biden has confused the real-world mechanical designation of “semi-automatic” with the political concoction of “assault weapons.” I’m skeptical. Anyone who’s involved in the gun debate knows that “semi-automatic” guns, often purposely conflated with the more dangerous “automatic” weapons, are the target of restrictionists. A few years back during that shameful post-Parkland CNN gun “town hall,” the crowd loudly cheered at the suggestion of banning all “semi-automatic” rifles. And, earlier this year, the president suggested that ordinary citizens should be banned from owning popular “high-caliber” 9mm handguns. “So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is of — there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting,” Biden said of the type of gun used by the Secret Service to protect him.
It is, as it always has been in the gun debate, incrementalism. From “no one wants to take your guns” to “we only want to take some of them” and so on. Of course, even if the president really intended to talk about a semi-automatic rifle ban, his goals would still be unconstitutional. Again, the gun meets every standard set by Heller for legality. And if the Senate somehow musters the 60 votes to push through the ban on certain semi-automatic guns recently passed by the House, states should challenge the federal government, and, if need be, ignore it.
Biden, who often imparts dreadful, sometimes illegal, advice on gun ownership, also has a long history of saying completely inane, insane, and historically illiterate things about firearms —whether cringingly noting that deer don’t wear “Kevlar” or claiming cannons were banned during the Revolutionary era as a way to argue that the Second Amendment “like all other rights, is not absolute.”
On the latter, Biden often (fittingly) cites one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment, Schenck v. United States, which allowed the Woodrow Wilson administration to throw socialists into prison for speech crimes, to make his point. And perhaps that speaks to the crucial distinction at the heart of so many of our debates. Biden, and thus the contemporary left, seems to be under the impression that it’s the state that “allows” us to buy semi-automatic firearms or “allows” us to say certain things. But we don’t need their permission.
