The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules that the plaintiffs have standing to bring a preemption lawsuit against Harrisburg’s gun laws, even though they were not charged with violating them

FIREARM OWNERS AGAINST CRIME; KIM STOLFER; JOSHUA FIRST; AND
HOWARD BULLOCK v CITY OF HARRISBURG MAYOR ERIC PAPENFUSE; AND POLICE CHIEF THOMAS CARTER

“We affirm the Commonwealth Court because we conclude Appellees have standing to bring this declaratory judgment action before the City enforces the challenged ordinances against them.”

Virginia Parents Announce ‘Not a Domestic Terrorist’ March in Washington

US Judge Holds DC Jail Officials in Contempt Over Mistreatment of Capitol Breach Defendant

A federal judge on Oct. 13 held top Washington jail officials in contempt, finding that they violated a U.S. Capitol breach defendant’s civil rights by impeding his access to medical care.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, found Washington jail warden Wanda Patten and Department of Corrections Director Quincy Booth in civil contempt in a written order after expressing displeasure with them during a court hearing.

The order doesn’t include sanctions or penalties, but was being transmitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland for an inquiry into the potential civil rights violations of defendants charged in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, “as exemplified in this case.”

“It’s clear to me the civil rights of the defendant were violated by the D.C. Department of Corrections,” Lamberth said in federal court in Washington. “I don’t know if it’s because he’s a January 6 defendant or not.”

Continue reading “”

Such formalism about whether or not this rises to the constitutional definition of ‘Treason’ is unnecessary academic hair-splitting.
Resistance to tyranny needs no such underpinning.


DOES THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT AMOUNT TO TREASON?

THE MEANING OF ‘TREASON’

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
~Attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator, in a speech he gave to the Roman Senate in 58 BC as ‘Recorded by Sallust’ in the fictional novel ‘A Pillar of Iron,’ by Taylor Caldwell (1983), ch. 5. ~The quotation bears resemblance to Cicero’s Second Oration in the Cataline war (circa 40 b.c.)

Under Biden’s reign, Americans are slowly losing their fundamental rights and liberties. They have already lost any vestige of a fundamental right of privacy as protected under the Unreasonable Searches and Seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. And the Right of free speech under the First Amendment is, as well, under tremendous assault today.

And let us not forget the assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. For without the citizenry’s exercise of the fundamental Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, the exercise of all other Rights is tenuous at best or becomes altogether illusory, leading inevitably, inexorably to subjugation.

Americans already see that Biden, and his fellow Progressive and Neo-Marxist Democrats in Congress, and legions of unelected bureaucrats of the Administrative Deep State have made substantial inroads curtailing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But the question is: Do these assaults on sacred Rights truly rise to the level of treason, well beyond the federal crimes of sedition, insurrection, and rebellion, awful as they are?

Continue reading “”

Merrick Garland Prepares to March on Concord

In March of 1766, as Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson surveyed resistance to the Stamp Act in the colony he governed, ignorance prevailed. Throughout the colonies, he wrote, “the people are absolutely without the use of reason.” They gibbered and babbled their mindless opposition, incoherent and senseless, wholly incapable of understanding the thoughtful actions of their betters in government. The Stamp Act was obvious, a perfectly sensible solution to a set of clear problems – but try telling that to the idiots in the street.

“The common run of the people, lacking the necessary education, leisure, and economic independence to make an impartial assessment of public problems, were mercurial playthings of leaders who could profit by exciting their fears,” the historian Bernard Bailyn wrote, summarizing the views of the British governing class in the decade before the American Revolution.

In 2021, all dissent has again become insane and depraved, wholly without logic or legitimacy. A supposed whistleblower warns that Facebook isn’t doing enough to control hateful and divisive speech, and Congress laps up the message that social media companies are failing to silence disorderly Americans; the National School Boards Association warns the White House that domestic terrorists are attacking local school board meetings by saying things that school board members don’t want to hear, and the Attorney General of the United States responds by directing federal law enforcement authorities to prepare for action against local political speech.

If you haven’t read that letter from the National School Boards Association, for crying out loud read it. It’s an alarm bell ringing in the late stages of an imperiled free society. The letter warns that “threats and acts of violence have become more prevalent,” and concludes that “these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” Then the letter gives specific examples of the terrorist attacks. Here are some:

“School board meetings have been disrupted in California , Florida, Georgia, and other states because of local directives for mask coverings to protect students and educators from COVID-19.”

“During two separate school board meetings in Michigan, an individual yelled a Nazi salute in protest to masking requirements, and another individual prompted the board to call a recess because of opposition to critical race theory.”

“In New Jersey, Ohio, and other states, anti-mask proponents are inciting chaos during board meetings.”

“In other states including Washington, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Tennessee, school boards have been confronted by angry mobs and forced to end meetings abruptly.”

Earlier this month, a student in Tennessee was mocked during a board meeting for advocating masks in schools after testifying that his grandmother, who was an educator, died because of COVID-19.

That’s the violence: people are showing up to school board meetings and saying, often loudly and angrily, that they disagree with local school policy choices. A crowd mocked someone; “another individual prompted the board to call a recess because of opposition to critical race theory.” It’s terrorism. Here’s the last of a long list of specific federal actions that the NSBA explicitly requests: “We also request the assistance of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to intervene against threatening letters and cyberbullying attacks that have been transmitted to students, school board members, district administrators, and other educators.”

They want a police state because of “cyberbullying” – people saying on the Internet that school boards are making bad policy.

But really, read the whole damn thing, and pay close attention to every word: “Additionally, NSBA requests that such review examine appropriate enforceable actions against these crimes and acts of violence under the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, the Conspiracy Against Rights statute, an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws for the protection of students and public school district personnel, and any related measure.”

Criticism of school boards should be addressed using the Patriot Act in regards to domestic terrorism. May posterity forget that you were once our countrymen.

The organizing force behind this kind of assault on mere disagreement – these people are criticizing us, why aren’t they being arrested? – is the view of an isolated and out-of-touch governing class, a dead-end technocratic elite that regards all of its presumptions as self-evident and incontestable. And it’s extremely familiar.

It ends where it ends. Years after Hutchinson complained about the stupid and pointless opposition to the Stamp Act, he would be baffled to see his successor reject his interpretation of the growing resistance to parliamentary authority (and ultimately to the authority of the king). The military governor General Thomas Gage, Bailyn writes, “appeared to be arguing that the rebellion was not simply the work of a few ruthless demagogues deluging and inflaming an otherwise well-disposed but inert population; he was faced, he claimed, with a general, popular and widely- and deeply-shared movement of resistance, and he did not think it could be suppressed with less than twenty thousand troops.”

Officials in London thought Gage was an alarmist, worrying too much about a manageable threat, and they demanded that he crack down.

Our governing class is precisely this stupid.

Thank God this hack didn’t make it to SCOTUS.


AG Garland Weaponizes FBI Against Parents Protesting Critical Race Theory, Mask Mandates

AG Garland has told the FBI and US Attorneys’ Offices to meet and “strategize” on ways to deal with parents who have the nerve to protest critical race theory. Actually, they want to figure out how to deal with parents who have the nerve to be involved in their child’s education.

How dare they!

The DOJ said: “Citing an increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools, today Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to meet in the next 30 days with federal, state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend. These sessions will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment and response by law enforcement.”

The “task force” includes everything except the kitchen sink:

  • Criminal Division
  • National Security Division
  • Civil Rights Division
  • Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
  • FBI
  • Community Relations service
  • Office of Justice Programs

The federal government is involving the Criminal Division and National Security Division to handle those pesky parents.

Continue reading “”

The Supreme Court dealt with this in Heller. That the gun grabbers still try to roll it out merely indicates they have nothing left but BS.


UNDOING THE MUSKET ARGUMENT

While Virginia gun owners are trying to take back their state this month from the radical far-left that pushed through most of Ralph Northam’s extremist gun control agenda in 2020, elsewhere around the country anti-gunners will once again fall back on their favorite boilerplate arguments to do the same in your state.

You can have some fun with these people, while teaching them a lesson and making the extremists look really foolish.
Good for the goose …

I’ve lost count of the occasions when someone has tossed up the argument that at the time the Second Amendment was written, there weren’t modern firearms. The Amendment, they argue, should only apply to muskets and flintlock rifles.

Here’s how I’ve responded to the premise: “Look, if you want to roll back the clock and calendar, I’m game. But remember, if that’s where you want to take this debate, there are a few things to consider.”

• When the Bill of Rights — for which the Second Amendment is the cornerstone — was adopted, we didn’t have television or radio, no cable channels, no web offset presses for mass-producing newspapers or the Internet and social media. So, under your suggestion, they wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment, right?

• We didn’t have organized police departments, and if criminals came to your home, you were expected to deal with the problem, not call 9-1-1 for help because they didn’t have telephones, either.

• Nobody needed a license or permit to carry a firearm. There were no background checks. It was not unusual to encounter armed citizens doing business in towns and villages, and no one raised an eyebrow.

Naturally, they’ll try to ridicule these remarks but the Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition. It’s not a legal buffet from which you can pick and choose those rights you like while discarding those you don’t. The Bill of Rights is a 10-course banquet and it’s still today’s menu, not yesterday’s blue plate special.

This would be a good time to remind your opponent the U.S. Supreme Court could be taking on more Second Amendment cases to further define the parameters of the right to keep and bear arms.

Joe Biden has made a habit of contending the Second Amendment is “not absolute.” Five months ago, when he announced his “Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime and Ensure Public Safety,” he told a gaggle of reporters, “The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

This is demonstrably false. Mississippi River keel boats were frequently armed with swivel guns; small cannons used to fend off river pirates or raiding war parties. Some on the frontier owned cannons to defend their stockades. Privateers sailed with cannons.
Last year, when quizzed about Biden’s campaign assertion regarding cannon ownership, a fact checker consulted David Kopel, research director and Second Amendment project director at the Colorado-based Independence Institute.

“I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America,” Kopel said at the time. “There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms.”

In 2020, when the Biden campaign was questioned about his cannon allegation, a fact checker wrote in the Austin American-Statesman newspaper, “the campaign was unable to come up with an example of a law banning private ownership of cannons, and historians of the period doubt that any existed.”

Where Humor Stops

Continue reading “”

New California Law Obliterates Gun Owners’ Right To Privacy

Why are so many gun owners adamantly opposed to things like gun licensing and registration laws? Because we’re concerned that it will lead to things like this.

California gun owners will soon have their personal information released to gun-violence researchers across the country.

Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) signed Assembly Bill 173 into law on Thursday. The bill requires the California Department of Justice to supply information identifying firearm and ammunition purchasers to a newly created research center at the University of California Davis or any other university that requests them. The information includes details such as the buyer’s name, address, date of birth, what they purchased, when and where they bought it, and more.

“This bill would name the center for research into firearm-related violence the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis,” the bill’s text reads. “The bill would generally require that the information above be made available to the center and researchers affiliated with the center, and, at the department’s discretion, to any other nonprofit bona fide research institution accredited by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, as specified, for the study of the prevention of violence.”

So much for a right to privacy. Thanks to Newsom’s signature, even the most vocal anti-gun activist can now obtain the personal details of California gun owners as long as they’ve got the “proper” academic credentials. This despite the fact that there’s no conceivable reason for any researcher to need personally identifiable information in order to dig through data on “firearm-related violence.”

The California Rifle & Pistol Association blasted the bill after it was approved by the legislature and called on Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto the bill, but it was always a foregone conclusion that he was going to put pen to paper and sign the measure into law. Still the CRPA letter does hint at the potential legal strategy that might be used to challenge the law now that it’s in effect.

The identities and confidential personal information of individuals should only be provided by DOJ or other state entities to law enforcement agencies when conducting an investigation that has a specific need for it. No other entity – not even research institutions – has sufficient justification to have access to an individual’s private information. Research conducted by the California Firearm Violence Research Center and other institutions to prevent violence should not be about individuals and their personal information, rather about a broad-based study about the prevention of violence, where an individual’s specific personal information is irrelevant.

Most importantly AB 173 is in direct violation of the California Constitution which states in Article 1, Section 1, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” In all, the California Constitution names “privacy” as a fundamental right of all Californians five times!

CRPA Legislative Affairs director Roy Griffith also pointed out the fact that former governor Jerry Brown signed the state’s Consumer Privacy Act into law back in 2018, and just last year voters in the state approved the California Privacy Rights Act by a wide margin. As Griffith wrote in his letter to Newsom, “[c]learly Californians value their privacy and strong measures have already been put in place to protect it! This bad legislation goes against it all!”

Yep, but in California bad bills have a way of becoming bad law, particularly when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms. I’d say that this particular law has an excellent chance of eventually being thrown out by the courts, but that’s cold comfort for the millions of gun owners in the state whose right to privacy under California’s constitution will now be violated thanks to Gavin Newsom and his anti-gun allies in the state legislature.

I don’t think it’s ‘fear’, I think that’s just another excuse.


‘Domestic Terrorism’ Fears Will Be Used To Justify Increased Snooping and Harassment
The Biden administration is greatly increasing FBI caseloads and agents. That’s bad news for anybody who is worried about federal overreach.

After the pro-Trump demonstrations and breach of the Capitol on January 6, the Biden administration is promising a new era of FBI snooping, harassment, and provocateuring.

FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in a statement released on Tuesday that his FBI “has surged resources to our domestic terrorism investigations in the last year, increasing personnel by 260 percent.” Those remarks are bad news for anybody who is worried about federal overreach.

The events of January 6, Wray said, prove “a willingness by some to use violence against the government in furtherance of their political and social goals.” Furthermore, “the insular nature of their radicalization and mobilization to violence and limited discussions with others regarding their plans,” Wray said, “increases the challenge faced by law enforcement to detect and disrupt the activities of lone actors before they occur.”

Of course, experience shows us that when it comes to the FBI, “detect and disrupt” often means “encourage and then arrest” people who were no real threat until the FBI itself goaded them.

Continue reading “”

Stupid grandstanding move.
Of course that goes along with most demoncraps being stupid.
A Federal District Judge is not going to overrule a Supreme Court ruling, and anyone with more than 2 firing synapsis could’ve figured that out and not wasted their time…that is if you aren’t into making political statements.


Judge rejects DOJ move to block Texas abortion law

A federal judge denied a Department of Justice request to block enforcement of the controversial Texas abortion law.

“[T]his case presents complex, important questions of law that merit a full opportunity for the parties to present their positions to the Court,” wrote United States District Judge Robert Pitman in a one page decision Thursday. “Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Opposed Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, (Dkt. 13), is DENIED.”

The DOJ had asked the judge to grant a temporary restraining order or injunction in an effort to block the state from enforcing the law that effectively bans all abortions in Texas, prohibiting the procedure past roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

The DOJ argued that the bill, signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, would “prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights.” The DOJ cited the Supreme Court, which ruled that “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” The new Texas law bans abortions before many women even know they are pregnant.

The DOJ also argued that Texas had “an unprecedented scheme that seeks to deny women and providers the ability to challenge S.B. 8 in federal court. This attempt to shield a plainly unconstitutional law from review cannot stand.”

The ruling comes two weeks after the Supreme Court voted in a 5-4 decision to let the Texas law remain in force, denying an emergency appeal from abortion providers to stay the law until legal challenges can be brought.

The new law went into effect on Sep. 1.

Court Rejects Qualified Immunity For Cop Who Arrested Gun Owner Carrying Valid Permit

In a welcome win for police accountability and gun rights, a federal court rejected a Connecticut police officer’s demand for qualified immunity after he arrested a driver with a valid gun permit for his legally-owned firearm. Blocking the driver’s lawsuit and siding with the officer, Judge Janet Bond Atherton wrote in her opinion, “would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals.”

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge: Capitol Hill Rioters’ Charges Might Be Unconstitutional

There’s going to be a rally in Washington DC this weekend. It’s why the fencing is going back up around the US Capitol Building. There have been over 400 arrests stemming from the January 6 riot that has incorrectly been dubbed an armed insurrection. It was not worse than 9/11. It was not worse than Pearl Harbor and it sure wasn’t as bad as the Civil War. That’s the narrative in newsrooms.

Everyone else has moved the hell on with their lives. NO ONE cares. MSNBC and CNN don’t count. It was not our nation’s best day. It was dark for sure—but it was a riot. Nothing more. And at the end of the day, what occurred were many instances of trespassing on federal property. Only one person died inside the building. Her name was Ashli Babbitt, and she was killed by Capitol Police. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who the liberal media erroneously said was killed by the rioters, died of natural causes. And what the hell happened to the guy who planted pipe bombs at the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic Parties?

In the meantime, some of the jail sentences prosecutors are gunning for are outrageous. Now, a federal judge has concerns about the constitutionality of the charges (via The Hill):

A federal judge on Wednesday questioned whether the obstruction of an official proceeding charge that has been levied against at least 235 defendants in Capitol riot cases is unconstitutionally vague.

During a lengthy hearing Wednesday for the conspiracy case involving 18 members of the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia asked about the determinations prosecutors used to file a felony charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress.

“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’?” Mehta said, according to The Washington Post.

“And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’?”

Defense attorneys, including David W. Fischer, who is representing co-defendant Thomas Edward Caldwell, have argued that the felony charge was not being properly applied to the case, claiming that the congressional certification of Electoral College votes did not meet the definition of an “official proceeding.”

The felony charge, which has been brought against Capitol riot defendants in addition to other misdemeanor offenses, carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

[…]

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Moss also expressed questions on the charge in a separate hearing last month, noting that the government must present a clear differentiation between obstructing an official proceeding and lesser charges that carry maximum punishments of six months in prison.

Judge Mehta is an Obama appointee. The plan for Democrats is to use this to gin up the base ahead of a midterm election year since Joe Biden isn’t giving his party many accomplishments to tout on the stump. It was never about the truth. It was about the narrative. Trump, his supporters, the GOP, rural Americans—we’re all Nazis. That’s the line. Yet, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

That moment came when Afghanistan collapsed last month, and Joe Biden decided to leave Americans behind because he didn’t want to make the Taliban mad by extending the August 31 departure deadline. The Taliban rejected any extension, and we caved. We caved to terrorists.

Apparently some parents have been listening


BLUF:
Roy Speed, in Bethel, noted that many of those behind the most radical political experiment in history studied in little, rickety houses, in medium-sized, mostly uncultured cities or on the edges of sprawling farmlands. They read with the aid of candlelight. They were Zoom-less. They squeezed their studies in between milking cows and learning how to use a rifle. They were steeped in the greatest minds of the ancient world and the Enlightenment. 

The Founders did not have the benefit of any playground or tablet or teachers union, but they were free thinkers. The Constitution, Speed pointed out, “was largely the work of people instructed at home.” 

American Homeschooling Goes Boom: Meet the parents yanking their children — some five million of them — from schools that they say aren’t working.

In March 2020, as the coronavirus engulfed America, Kristen Wrobel got the news: “We heard on Friday that there would be no school for two weeks. Which just turned into no school.”

That was the last time her children — one in third grade, one in first —  were in a classroom.

In the beginning, they did the remote-school thing. Wrobel, a 42-year-old stay-at-home mom with a bachelor’s degree in software engineering, called it a “nightmare.” The Zoom sessions, the Italian lessons on Duolingo, the stuff she had to print out, the isolation, the tears, the nagging, the shuttling the kids between her house, near Burlington, Vermont, and their dad’s, a half-hour away.

“Everyone was freaking out all the time,” she said.

By May, at the risk of violating state truancy laws, Wrobel had stopped fighting and let her kids log on (or not) whenever they felt like it. It was, she said, “the darkest hour before dawn.”

That September, she started homeschooling. She didn’t like all the restrictions her kids’ private school had implemented: Students seated six feet apart. Masked. In wedding tents. Outside.

She figured she’d send her kids back to the school in 2021, after everything had gone back to normal.

That was then. Now? “There’d have to be a revolution in schooling.”

She’s hardly alone. Wrobel is one of hundreds of thousands of moms and dads across the nation who have decided to become the principals of their very own, very small elementary schools. 

The number of kids going to school at home nationwide has doubled over the past two years. In 2019, there were about 2.5 million students learning at home. Today there are nearly 5 million. That means more than 11 percent of American households are educating their children outside of traditional schools.

Continue reading “”

Why Southerners Don’t Care About New York Times Op-Eds

I was born and raised in the Deep South. I have a deep affinity for the place of my birth, one that I wouldn’t have imagined I’d have in my teenage years.

Down here, we have our issues, to be sure, but one thing we’ve never been really big on are people from the North trying to tell us how to live our lives. Call it a holdover from Reconstruction or just plain stubbornness, but when the New York Times tries to tell Southerners how to live, it usually doesn’t work out well.

Yet, that’s pretty much what the Times decided to do with an op-ed titled, “Southern Republicans Cannot Be Trusted With Public Health.”

Continue reading “”

Virginia Citizens Defense League Files $450,000 Libel Suit Against Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Gun control industry groups and their supporters in politics and the media love to throw around epithets about those of us in the gun rights community. They’re fond of describing law-abiding firearm owners and those who support Second Amendment rights as violent insurrectionists and terrorists.

Earlier this year, the civilian disarmament advocates at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence issued a press release touting the nomination (again) of Democrat Terry McAuliffe for Governor of Virginia. They said the nomination was evidence of “Virginia voters’ commitment to gun violence prevention.”

The release also quoted Lori Haas, CSGV’s Virginia state director, as saying .

Now is not the time to go back. Virginia cannot afford to elect Glenn Youngkin and his outdated and harmful stance on gun violence. His willingness to say anything for a vote is deeply troubling, as we’ve already seen him cozying up to those with deep ties to those at the forefront of the insurrectionist movement, like Senator Amanda Chase and the domestic terror organization, the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Youngkin’s base of support stems from those who promoted the ‘Big Lie,’ stormed the U.S. Capitol and attacked our nation. That is disqualifying. Plain and simple.

It probably didn’t occur to anyone at CSGV HQ to run that inflammatory lie past their attorney. The CSGV later deleted the libelous and defamatory language from the release, but unfortunately for them, the internet is forever.

Now the VCDL has filed suit for libel against the CSGV seeking $450,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Here is the VCDL’s press release announcing he lawsuit . . .

Back on June 9, a VA-ALERT item talked about how the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) libeled VCDL and its members by saying VCDL is a “Domestic Terror Organization” in a press release. That press release was published in the media, spreading that defamation.

From the CSGV press release:

“Virginia cannot afford to elect Glenn Youngkin and his outdated and harmful stance on gun violence. His willingness to say anything for a vote is deeply troubling, as we’ve already seen him cozying up to those with deep ties to those at the forefront of the insurrectionist movement, like Senator Amanda Chase and the domestic terror organization, the Virginia Citizens Defense League.”

Here is the FBI’s definition of a “domestic terror organization”:

Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

VCDL has never even been accused of being involved with or committing any kind of violence, much less a violent criminal act.

VCDL is suing CSGV for libel and Mr. Joel Kanter, the Chairman of the Board of CSGV, has been served the papers. We await CSGV’s initial response, which is due by September 18. Once we have the response, we will update you again.

Continue reading “”

Speaking of which…………


Texas Puts Banks in Tight Spot With New Law Backing Gunmakers

Texas is taking a hardline approach to enforcing a new law requiring banks underwriting the state’s hot municipal bond market to certify by Wednesday that they don’t exclude the firearms industry.

Some of the country’s largest banks, including Bank of America, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase underwrite municipal and state debt in Texas, but also have tailored restrictions that appear to bar financing to certain parts of the gun industry, such as companies that make or sell bump stocks or sell to customers under 21.

Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office isn’t having it.

Leslie Brock, the state’s assistant attorney general and chief of the Public Finance Division, notified bond underwriters that compliance with the new Texas law isn’t open to “qualifications,” according to an Aug. 23 letter obtained by Bloomberg Law.

The new law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June, requires banks and other businesses seeking municipal or state contracts worth $100,000 or more to certify that they don’t exclude firearm or ammunition industries and retailers. Companies that do business with the state, including bond underwriters, face a Sept. 1 deadline to certify compliance with the law.

Banks that reject clients “based on the types of weapons sold or customers served” wouldn’t be in compliance, according to Brock’s letter. Such restrictions amount to “a refusal to do business against an entire class of firearm entities,” she wrote.

Continue reading “”

Left Doesn’t Just Want to Censor You on Social Media. It Also Wants to Close Your Bank Accounts.

When White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that people who spread “misinformation” “shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others,” she revealed the left’s chilling plan for censoring content that goes against the left’s narrative.

It is becoming increasingly clear that political leaders on the left and Big Tech are joining arms to not just deplatform dissident voices from social media, but to bar them from the digital space entirely, including from having the ability to make and receive payments online.

In the latest example, Chase Bank reportedly planned to close the credit card account of former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Sept. 18, stating that “continuing the relationship creates possible reputational risk to our company.” While as of Aug. 31, a Chase spokesperson said that they had “made an error and apologized for any inconvenience caused,” the initial gesture can’t be ignored.

This comes just a couple months after Wells Fargo made the “business decision” to close 2020 Republican Delaware Senate candidate Lauren Witzke’s account. Two of the more prominent digital payment services, PayPal and Stripe, have also become active cancel culture participants.

PayPal has admitted to closing accounts flagged by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2019, now, PayPal has announced a partnership with the left-leaning Anti-Defamation League to focus on “further uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines that support extremist and hate movements.”

In their joint statement, neither PaylPal nor the Anti-Defamation League explicitly define what they mean by extremist and hate movements, but it would be naïve to think that mainstream conservatives will escape the crosshairs of this new partnership.

Following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Stripe stopped payment processing services for the Trump campaign’s website and online fundraising efforts, as well as for individuals who had been present at the protest-turned-riot.

Conservative organizations and individuals have been censored by these digital payment and financial service companies not because of what they say on these platforms, but because of who they are. These woke institutions are replacing financial credit with social credit.

In a tweet from July, author and business owner J.D. Vance states, “The next stage of deplatforming will be denying people access to the financial system. Second Amendment will mean little if Visa won’t let you buy ammunition.”

Continue reading “”

Biden Wants Same “Leeway” SCOTUS Gave Trump. He Won’t Get It

President Joe Biden wants an awful lot. For example, he wants people to not ask questions about whether we’re going to get everyone out of Afghanistan we’re supposed to.

However, even the President of the United States of America can’t get everything he wants. After all, he’s going to get that question time and time again until Afghanistan falls completely out of the news cycle.

Now, though, Biden wants the same “leeway” the Supreme Court supposedly gave President Donald Trump.

The Biden administration faces two major confrontations with the Supreme Court this week, as the justices weigh requests related to the Covid moratorium on evictions and the termination of a Trump practice that forced migrants seeking US asylum to stay in Mexico until their claims could be heard.

Late Tuesday night, it lost the latter, as a divided court refused a Biden request to lift a lower court order that requires the new administration to revive former President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers.

Dividing along familiar ideological lines, the justices denied President Joe Biden the regard that Trump’s immigration policies regularly received.

The case offers an early window into emerging conflicts between the conservative court under Chief Justice John Roberts and the Democratic Biden administration. The three liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said in the Tuesday night order that they would have granted the Biden request.

Now, I’m not getting into the whole immigration thing or talk about COVID. What I’m going to talk about is how a court that gives Biden the same leeway he feels Trump got will be bad for the Second Amendment.

Think about it for a moment. We’ve got the situation with Rare Breed Triggers, where the ATF just decided to redefine what makes something a machine gun without going through Congress, as an example. We also have plenty of gun control policies being pushed by the White House and by various state legislatures.

A complicit Supreme Court would be a disaster for the Second Amendment.

Yet there’s good news.

You see, while Biden wants that leeway, he’s not going to get it.

Whether or not it was intended that way, the bipartisan divide we see in Congress also exists within the Supreme Court. While our Founding Fathers wanted the court to be independent–the lifetime appointments are to prevent them from feeling the need to bow to public pressure in order to keep their jobs–people get appointed to the court based on their interpretation of the Constitution. Different sides pick their people because of that. Democrats aren’t going to pick an originalist, for example.

Right now, though, the Court has a decidedly rightward lean to it, even before Trump was able to nominate a third justice to the bench. Now, that difference is more pronounced.

While the Court has issued a lot of rulings that don’t go along partisan lines, though, that partisanship still exists based on their beliefs about the Constitution.

Trump got that leeway because most on the Court agreed with him, or they at least thought it was closer to being right than not. Biden won’t have that luxury. His proposals and policies are anathemas to the majority of the justices. They’re not going to just allow it to fly. Especially with regard to things like the Second Amendment.

Biden can want all day long. It isn’t going to change anything anywhere. He may be the president, but the Supreme Court exists in part as a check on the president’s power.

As my father used to tell me, want in one hand, take a dump in the other and see which one fills up quicker.

That applies to presidents as well.

Comment O’ The Day:

I don’t view gun grabbers as an enemy because of politics, I don’t think they’re evil because of politics. I don’t care about the (D) or (R) after your preferred candidate’s name.

I view them as an enemy because the only possible reason someone would want to disarm me is if they intend to do me harm. If they intend to interact peacefully with me, my level of armament doesn’t matter to them.  I’m a peaceful person and have never given anyone a reason to doubt that. The only people with a vested interested in my disarmament are those that intend to get violent with me and don’t want me to be able to fight back.