“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”— Sun Tzu

So, here’s to knowing the enemy. And as you can see from his first words, you can figure out what sacred cow of his is actually being gored.

The author tapdances around the large body of work surrounding not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire bill of rights. Not just the intent, but the actual framing of the bill of rights is entirely about constraining the federal government from doing certain things. It would be odd if the 2nd amendment was the only one that had specific constraints on people; let alone the fact that you have to torture the text to arrive at that meaning.

His logic is extremely clouded by his bias. The operative clause ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” is not contingent upon the descriptor.

A well regulated (kept in proper working order) militia (both the organized and unorganized variants) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment describes the purpose of arms, why they are to be kept, so that an unorganized militia of the people can be mustered to provide for the common defense, which includes self-defense.

An unregulated militia will be of poor form and will lack training and suitable armaments necessary to provide for the common defense, or ideally self-defense.

The part – ‘the right of the people’ – would specifically state ‘militia’ and not ‘people’ if it had specified that militia were to keep and bear arms, and not the people. The framers specifically said the right of the people for a reason, it’s not up for debate.

To keep (possess) in their own arms in their homes or elsewhere, to bear on their persons.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her “expansive view” is utter BS

“Pro-life” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes “an expansive view” of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered “a second-class amendment.”

A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett’s nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett’s mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the “textualist” approach to reading statutes and the “originalist” approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.

There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She’s a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she’s apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.

Barrett is also a self-proclaimed “textualist” or “originalist” when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be. Continue reading “”

The Biden-Harris Antipathy toward Guns Portends Trouble for Law Enforcement
Thankfully, under our system of federalism, state legislatures can ward off such executive overreach.

It comes as no surprise former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are campaigning on promises “to end our gun-violence epidemic.” The leftward drift of the Democratic Party on most policy questions, including lawful firearm ownership, has been made explicit in its 2020 party platform. The presidential nominee’s campaign “issues page” takes it several steps further, promising to pass or incentivize all manner of gun restrictions.

In addition to the lack of evidence supporting these initiatives and their dubious constitutionality they all share one principal problem: The federal government — the helm of which Joe Biden seeks to occupy — has very little authority in this domain. In order to accomplish these policy aims, state and local law-enforcement agencies would need to be pressed into service.

Biden has already had his wrist slapped in this regard. His website touts his “shepherding” of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Among other provisions, the bill required that local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.

Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., brought suit against the United States, stating that the federal government had no authority to compel state and local officials to execute federal law. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding that despite the increasingly expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress cannot enjoin state officials to do its bidding. As a result, the mandate was subsequently ejected from the Brady Bill.

Harris’s understanding of the Second Amendment within our system of federalism is even more stunted. As the attorney general of California, she signed on to an amicus brief claiming that governments have complete authority to wholly ban handguns — an assertion that has been repeatedly rejected by courts and historians alike. During her presidential run in 2019, she promised to enact her preferred elements of gun control via executive orders, none of which were within the realm of executive control. Paradoxically, she is seeking to leave the one body that could enact substantive reform without so much as ceremonially filing legislation to do what she is promising. Continue reading “”

This was when a bureaucrap could decide on their own, without adjudication that a person could be deprived of the exercise of a right.

Joe Biden Proposes Reviving Obama Social Security Gun Ban

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s gun control proposals could mean reviving the Obama gun ban that barred certain Social Security recipients from buying firearms.

The Social Security gun ban was an Obama-era policy which targeted benefit recipients who needed help managing their finances. On July 18, 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that the ban would be sweeping; that it would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”

Breitbart News reported that the policy was finalized by the Obama Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016, weeks after Donald Trump won the presidential election, and just over a month before he was to be sworn into office.

Republicans focused on repealing the ban early in the Trump presidency. On February 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Duke University psychiatry and behavioral science professor Jeffrey Swanson believed Congress was right to repeal Barack Obama’s Social Security gun ban. Swanson suggested the ban targeted the “vulnerable” rather than the dangerous.

Swanson used a Washington Post column to explain the ban, saying, “Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI’s background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.” He noted that “the mental health conditions in question might range from moderate intellectual disabilities to depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia,” and then pointed to academic work showing that “the vast majority of mentally ill individuals” are not violent or suicidal.

On February 28, 2017, Trump signed legislation to do away with the ban.

Biden’s campaign website indicates that, if elected, he will revive the ban that targeted certain Social Security recipients.

The website says:

Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.

I remember reading somewhere that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written at an ‘8th Grade’ level of reading comprehension on purpose. No flowery prose, or high arcane language. It was written so that the plain meaning could be easily understood buy the  -at the time- average, normally educated person without the need for a judge or student of law to provide a translation. It’s to our fault that we’ve let lawyers and judges, many with their own political agendas decide what the clear words of our founding documents ‘really mean’.


A Simple Reading of the Law is What Scares Gun-Control Activists

Gun-control extremists oppose Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is moving forward. Barrett is scheduled to get an up or down vote in the U.S. Senate next week. Gun-control activists are opposed to Judge Barrett because her track record is that of a judge who respects the law.

In 2018, as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Barrett heard, and gave her opinion on, the Second Amendment case Kanter v. Barr (7th Cir. 2019).

“I spent a lot of time in that opinion looking at the history of the Second Amendment and looking at the Supreme Court’s cases,” Barrett told the U.S. Senators during the committee hearing. “So, the way in which I would approach the review of gun regulation is in that same way: to look very carefully at the text, to look carefully at what the original meaning was.”

When Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) asked Barrett to further explain how she might determine the original meaning of the Second Amendment, Barrett said, the “original public meaning, not the intent of any particular drafter” is what ultimately matters.

“The law is what the people understand it to be, not what goes on in any individual legislator’s mind,” Barrett said. “I respect you, Senator Lee, but what passes both houses, that’s the law, not any private intentions you have.”

In her prepared statement for the first day of her hearings, Barrett wrote: “It was the content of [former] Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like.”

After Barrett said there is a gun in her home, she was asked if she could “fairly” decide a Second Amendment case. Barrett said, “Yes.”

“Judges can’t wake up one day and say I have an agenda—I like guns; I hate guns; I like abortion; I hate abortion and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” she said. “You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the Constitution, to wind their way through the process.”

The fact that she would read the Second Amendment as it is written is so terrifying to gun-control activists—people who want to read it out of the U.S. Constitution—that 31 anti-gun groups recently sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), “urging them against rushing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee with such radical Second Amendment views,” Mother Jones reported.

“Simply put: pushing through a nominee who may support the adoption of a radically dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment would undermine the will and safety, health and well-being of all American people, including the constituents you represent,” the letter stated.

It says much about the extremism of these groups (which includes Everytown, Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence) that they feel the clear and obvious right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment is a “dangerous interpretation.

Thankfully, it appears Judge Barrett in no way shares this extremist view.

To find out more about the Ghost Gunner and reserve their machine for a $500 deposit, readers can visit www.ghostgunner.net .

Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine – Defeating Gun Control One Cut at a Time

A couple of years ago, I tested out the Ghost Gunner 2 by Defense Distributed. The Ghost Gunner 2 was great for taking an 80% lower and turning it into a fully working firearm. In November of 2019 AmmoLand News reported the next GG3 would be a ground-up redesign.  So when Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed gave me the chance to review their new Ghost Gunner 3 CNC machine, I couldn’t say no. Before we get into my review of the latest Ghost Gunner, we have to talk about what it does and why it is groundbreaking.

Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine

To put it simply, The Ghost Gunner is a purpose-built CNC machine that lets anyone turn an 80% lower receiver into a fully working firearm. Defense Distributed designed the Ghost Gunner not only to finish 80% AR15, AR10, AR9, and AR45 lowers, but it also complete 1911 and Polymer 80 frames. In 2021 they will be releasing a cutting code for an AKM. The operator doesn’t need to have any machine skills to use the Ghost Gunner. Continue reading “”

Gun owners rally outside Newport News Police headquarters in support of Second Amendment rights

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – Armed protesters gathered outside the Newport News Police Department headquarters exercising their Second Amendment rights, which they say are being taken away from them.

A city ordinance passed over the summer now bans open carry of firearms at city buildings, facilities and parks.

“We ain’t running! We ain’t here to run!”

Dozens of gun owners with their weapons in hand gathered outside the police headquarters, protesting against the ordinance they say is unconstitutional.

“We are all here, and we are all heavily armed. We are unified, and if you mess with one of us, you are going to mess with all of us this time,” said organizer Mike Dunn.

Dunn was arrested last week for trying to go into Huntington Park with his gun. In response, he organized a protest in front of the police headquarters with Police Chief Steve Drew’s “OK.”

“I thought it was good dialogue. They didn’t have to talk to me – I appreciate they did, but I think it shows good faith,” said Chief Drew.

According to Chief Drew, the group did not defy the city ordinance since they were outside headquarters. Continue reading “”

How To Learn From Tech Reformers And Make Gun Rights A Populist Issue

The state of the Second Amendment is a barometer for the strength that individual Americans have in relation to their government. Civilian disarmament will weaken millions of Americans — culturally, economically and politically — so why do so many wish to gut the Second Amendment against their best interests?

The principles of the Constitution are too easily eroded by a constantly expanding list of restrictions we are assured only apply to criminals, and gun control is often presented as a way to improve our quality of life through simple, unobtrusive laws.

Magazine capacity is limited because only criminals need standard capacity. Silencers must be heavily regulated because those are tools for assassins. AR-variants must be banned because only murderers use them. Many Americans will yield: “I’m not a bad guy, so if this limits the harm that bad guys can do, it isn’t a restriction on me.”

Americans are both principled and practical — hallmarks of our culture often at odds. At this crossroads, the Second Amendment gets pinned and trimmed. Arguing that the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed” doesn’t stand a chance against appeals for gun control that seem practical.

Every piece of gun control shifts the cultural and political power to the politically connected. An unarmed population is, by definition, defenseless against the state. Reclaiming these powers requires us to seize the opportunity presented by our current populist moment.

The Populist Opportunity To Strengthen The Second Amendment
Populism is the self-conscious resistance to the ruling class by the politically, financially and culturally disenfranchised. Americans may not be ready to pinpoint specifics, but they recognize that power has been concentrated in a few institutions and social classes that are immune from economic, cultural, and political consequences.

A good example of using the populist appeal is the effort to reform Big Tech, which includes many of the online platforms we all use every day, like Google and Facebook.

The debate on Big Tech isn’t on the merits of their platforms, but the control they exercise against individuals and throughout society. These massive companies abuse outdated communications laws to mute voices that don’t fit the starchy views of Silicon Valley. Continue reading “”

The wanna-be gun grabbers go: Reeeeeeeeee!

I say: Yessssssssss.

Gun Control Groups Voice ‘Grave Concerns’ About Supreme Court Nominee’s Record

………”The Supreme Court has been derelict in not fleshing out the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” said Ilya Shapiro, who publishes the Supreme Court Review at the libertarian Cato Institute.

But if Barrett wins Senate confirmation, the court’s approach to the Second Amendment could be in for a big shift.

Kris Brown, president of Brady United Against Gun Violence, said she has “grave concerns” about that prospect.

“There’s a whole host of public safety bills and laws that we’ve had in effect for a quarter century, including the Brady background check system, that we are concerned about with her on the court,” Brown said.

Brown isn’t just speculating.

In 2019, in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Judge Barrett laid out her thinking about gun rights. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who wrote a book about Second Amendment jurisprudence called Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, took note.

“The opinion is very revelatory,” Winkler said. “It really shows that she has a very expansive view of gun rights, likely one even broader than Justice Antonin Scalia.”……..

UCLA’s Winkler said he agrees that a categorical ban on felons is “over-inclusive,” but he diverges when it comes to Barrett’s line of reasoning.

He said her originalist approach to the Second Amendment could throw into question a lot of newer laws on the books, from prohibitions on machine guns to so-called red flag laws in at least 20 states that allow authorities or relatives to ask for court permission to remove weapons from people who represent a danger to themselves or others.

“We only started banning machine guns from civilian hands in the 1980s,” Winkler said. “Does that mean that there’s a constitutional right to have machine guns because there’s no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons?”………

Yeah, and I wonder what those 17% would think if their own rules were used to give them a swift kick in the posterior.
Do you think they’d reconsider then?

17% of Students Say Violence is Sometimes Acceptable to Censor Speakers They Disagree With

At least before lockdowns started, there was an increasing trend of students using social media to organize the physical blocking of speakers who they disagreed with from attending events on campus.

The results of a new survey has now revealed shocking revelations about what US college students think about violence as a way to shut down speech. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse conducted a survey across 55 colleges across the US and asked 20,000 students about free speech issues in their campuses.

Surprisingly, almost one out of five students that have taken the survey were fine with deploying violence for shutting down someone’s speech in cases where they disagreed with the speaker.

They were also questioned if blocking people from attending events was acceptable.

“While 57% of students say their college would defend a speaker’s right to express his or her views in the case of a controversy over ‘offensive’ expression, a disturbingly large minority, 42%, believe their college would punish the speaker for making the statement.”

The survey revealed that nearly 20 percent of students were okay with violence to shut down speech and stop an event. Going deeper into the details reveals that one percent of the students are under the impression that “violence” is acceptable in all cases, with three percent saying that violence is acceptable in some cases, and thirteen percent saying that violence can be acceptable in rare cases only.

Summing it up makes it clear that 17 percent of students endorse violence in at least some cases to shut down speech. Moreover, the concept of free speech in students is influenced by their political ideology.

“Students’ assessment of free speech on campus is, at least in part, driven by their political ideology, and whether or not they align with the majority viewpoint at their college.

Modern-Day Militias Rise in Virginia

Militia groups in Virginia will tell you that a militia is not really something you have to join—if you’re between 16 and 55 and able-bodied, you already belong. 

Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution says that a well-regulated militia is “composed of the body of the people, trained to arms” and represents the “proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.”

“I’m a member of the militia, as are you,” said Nelson County resident Paul Cangialosi. “It exists, we’re in it, and my position is that we have an obligation to be well-prepared. We have neglected that for well over 100 years, so now we’re trying to put it back together.” 

Cangialosi volunteers on his own and in conjunction with the Virginia Militia Alliance (VMA) to help stand up local militias across the state, and there’s no shortage of interest. The VMA, whose motto is “Revive, Reestablish, Restore,” counts more than two dozen militia groups in central and southwest Virginia that have formed in just the past year, and hopes to eventually support one in every county in the Commonwealth.

Unsurprisingly, the ascendant movement has generated a lot of questions from neighbors and observers about its methods and aims. Continue reading “”

What part of “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” did the left think was optional?  Hmmm. I’ll take “All three” for $500, Alex

President Donald Trump promised to sign an executive order for the Born-Alive Infant Abortion Survivors Act.

President Donald Trump promised to sign an executive order for the Born-Alive Infant Abortion Survivors Act.

The legislation requires medical care for babies who survive abortion. Continue reading “”

One gets the sense that a certain kind of liberal arts education is, for some extremely sensitive far-left students, no longer preparing them for the real world, or at least not in the sense this was traditionally intended.
Indeed, the real world had better be prepared for them.

Students Demand Skidmore College Fire an Art Professor for Observing a Pro-Cop Rally
David and Andrea Peterson didn’t even participate in the rally—they just watched it. The students don’t care.

David Peterson is an art professor at Skidmore College, a private liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs, New York. In late July, the professor and his wife, Andrea Peterson, attended a “Back the Blue” rally—not as supporters of the cause, they say, but as curious spectators.

“Given the painful events that continue to unfold across this nation, I guess we just felt compelled to see first-hand how all of this was playing out in our own community,” he later told the student newspaper.

They stood on the edges of event, watching pro- and anti-law enforcement demonstrators argue with each other. After 20 minutes, the Petersons left to eat dinner.

But unbeknownst to Peterson, the couple’s attendance at the rally was noticed. Now Skidmore students are demanding that both Peterson be fired for “engaging in hateful conduct that threatens Black Skidmore students,” according to Times-Union columnist Chris Churchill, who wrote about the controversy.

Andrea Peterson is not an employee of the college, according to Churchill.

“The Petersons weren’t wearing pro-police T-shirts,” notes Churchill. “They weren’t carrying a banner, holding a sign or waving a black-and-blue flag. They appear to just be listening. But merely listening to an opinion that some Skidmore students find objectionable is apparently enough to get a professor in hot water. Continue reading “”

It is fatuous to dismiss concerns over the rinsing-out of religious freedom as the overwrought fretting of culture warriors. The commitments in the Democratic platform are plain, and there can be no reasonable doubt that those commitments will be given legislative and regulatory effect by a Democratic administration in league with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives and a Democratically-controlled Senate.


Father Richard John Neuhaus put two Big Ideas into play in American public life. The first was that the pro-life movement (of which Neuhaus was an intellectual leader) was the natural heir to the moral convictions that had animated the classic civil rights movement (in which Neuhaus was also deeply involved). The second was that the First Amendment to the Constitution did not contain two “religions clauses” but one religion clause, in which “no establishment” (i.e., no official, state-sanctioned Church) was intended to serve the “free exercise” of religion. Neither of those Big Ideas is welcome in today’s Democratic Party, in which Neuhaus (then a Lutheran pastor) was once a congressional candidate, and of which he remained a registered member until his death in January 2009.

Those who point out that the 2020 Democratic platform has the most radical pro-abortion plank in American history, and that the same platform promises to hollow out religious freedom in service to lifestyle libertinism, risk being labeled “culture warriors.” Well, so be it. “Culture warrior” is snark masquerading as thought. Facts are facts. And one of the sad facts of this unhappy political moment is that Neuhaus’s effort to rescue the Democratic Party through two Big Ideas was frustrated because those two ideas got linked—and then rejected, thanks to the corruption of rights-talk that preceded, made possible, and was then accelerated by Roe v. Wade and its abortion license. Continue reading “”

From scotusblog

Petitions of the week: Warrantless home searches, border-wall funding and more

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to decide whether police, without a warrant, may enter a home and remove weapons under a “community caretaking” exception and whether Congress authorized the Trump administration’s spending on the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

In Caniglia v. Strom, officers questioned Edward Caniglia at his home after his wife expressed concern that he might be suicidal. They took him to a hospital and then entered the home and removed two handguns. The officers’ justification for the entry and seizures was the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

The Supreme Court’s first case recognizing that exception, Cady v. Dombrowski, involved officers searching the trunk of a car towed after an accident. Since then the federal courts of appeals have divided on whether the exception applies to the home or only to motor vehicles. Caniglia filed a cert petition, asking the Supreme Court to resolve this split and hold that the exception cannot justify warrantless intrusions inside a home.

Woman Arrested For Facebook Post Promoting Anti-Lockdown Protest in Australia

Police in Australia arrested a 28-year-old woman on Wednesday for publishing a Facebook post that promotes an anti-lockdown protest in the country’s state of Victoria. Footage of the arrest was captured by her partner and shows police officers handcuffing the woman and saying that she’s being charged with “incitement.” The woman’s phone and computers were also seized.

The video, which was livestreamed on Facebook, has gone viral and shows the police eventually taking possession of the phone that was broadcasting the encounter. Over two million people have watched the video so far.

“It’s in relation to a Facebook post, in relation to a lockdown protest you put on just that day,” detective Adrian Smith with the Victorian Police told the woman as she was handcuffed in her home.

“I wasn’t breaking any laws by doing that,” the woman said, explaining that she had an ultrasound scheduled in an hour because she’s pregnant.

“You are actually. You are breaking the law,” Smith responded. “That’s why I’m arresting you.” Continue reading “”

Appeals court says due process clause not applicable to Guantanamo Bay detainees

A federal appeals court rejected a constitutional challenge brought by lawyers for a Yemeni businessman held at Guantanamo Bay, with the judges ruling that the Constitution’s due process clause is not applicable to foreigners held at the U.S. naval base.

Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by President Trump in 2019, wrote a 47-page opinion on Friday for the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, upholding a district court’s 2019 denial of Abdulsalam Ali Abdulrahman al Hela’s habeas petition challenging his detention. Continue reading “”

Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ ‘Fighting Words?’ College Speech Zone Case Heads to Supreme Court.

Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, in which a Georgia public college weaponized its speech zone policies to silence a black Christian student who dared to preach the gospel on campus. While the college has since dropped its absurd speech zone restrictions, the student is seeking damages so the college cannot claim it was in the right to silence him. In the course of defending the college, Attorney General Christopher M. Carr (R-Ga.) briefly argued that Uzuegbunam’s preaching of the gospel constituted “fighting words” and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment.

“Plaintiff’s open-air speaking arguably rose to the level of ‘fighting words,’” Carr wrote in a brief seeking to dismiss the case. “Fighting words,” i.e. an attempt to incite a crowd to violence, is one of the few categories of speech not entitled to any protection under the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not protect incitement to violence just as it does not protect yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater where there is no fire.

“Plaintiff used contentious religious language that, when directed to a crowd, has a tendency to incite hostility,” Carr argued, suggesting that Uzuegbunam’s efforts at evangelism should be considered incitement to violence and therefore excluded from protection under the First Amendment.

To his credit, Carr later disavowed this argument. After Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, quoted this argument on The Briefing Wednesday, Carr reached out, explaining that he had removed the argument that the gospel is “fighting words.” He became attorney general in 2016 as his office was litigating the case, and it appears that his staff wrote the brief before he was able to reverse the argument.

“He stated to me that he emphatically does not identify the gospel of Jesus Christ with the language of fighting words when it comes to constitutionality,” Mohler reported on Thursday.

Even so, the fact that lawyers working for the State of Georgia would consider making this argument is terrifying. “The point here is the abhorrence of considering the gospel of Jesus Christ as fighting words,” Mohler noted. “That does tell us again a great deal of where we stand in America, at least with some………

Continue reading “”

Gun company can sue Grewal in Texas, federal appellate court rules

A company that provides plans for 3-D printed firearms can sue New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal in a Texas court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled today.

Grewal moved to block the Austin-based Defense Distributed from selling computer files that allowed consumers to create fully operational firearms using a 3-D printer by sending the company a cease-and-desist letter that threatened legal action if they continued to market the product.

The company mounted a legal challenge against Grewal in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that New Jersey’s top law enforcement official violated their First and Second Amendment rights by threatening them with criminal sanctions at a 2018 press conference and asking third-party internet service providers in California to terminate their contracts with Defense Distributed. New Jersey had also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company in New Jersey.

The Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that backed up Grewal’s claim that he wasn’t subject to jurisdiction of Texas courts.

“Grewal’s conduct beyond sending the cease-and-desist letter confirms his intent to crush Defense Distributed’s operations and not simply limit the dissemination of digital files in New Jersey,” the Fifth Circuit said. “Grewal’s enforcement actions are selective. He has not targeted the many similarly-situated persons who publish Defense Distributed’s files on the internet.”

The court found that Grewal’s decision to take its fight against the company outside New Jersey’s borders opened the door to facing a lawsuit in Texas. Continue reading “”