Category: Rights

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

March 19, 2025 

Washington, D.C. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications. 

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored. 

Key Points of the Rule Change: 

  • Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete. 
  • ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration. 
  • The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version. 

Gun Owners of America remains committed to monitoring this process and ensuring that any future policies respect the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens. 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“For decades, law-abiding Americans who have had their gun rights unfairly restricted have been left in legal limbo—creating an unconstitutional de facto lifetime gun ban. This bureaucratic failure has denied thousands of individuals their lawful opportunity to restore their rights. The DOJ’s decision to finally withdraw ATF’s authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans.” 

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“Since its enactment in 1992, Gun Owners of America has fought against the ‘Schumer Amendment’ which defunded the federal gun rights restoration statute. GOA and thousands of would-be gun owners are grateful to President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for once again allowing gun owners to petition to have their gun rights restored by the Department of Justice. We hope to see many more infringements repealed as the federal government carries out President Trump’s executive order Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” 

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Governor’s ‘Emergency’ Carry Ban

The U.S. Constitution declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but on Thursday a divided New Mexico Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to an egregious infringement on the right to carry when it upheld Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency public health declaration that included the creation of new “gun-free zones” by executive fiat.

Grisham’s original public health order suspended the right to carry in all of Albuquerque and across Bernalillo County, but after a federal judge issued an injunction barring enforcement Grisham revised her order limiting the carry ban to parks and playgrounds. That was the declaration challenged in state court by a host of citizens, lawmakers, and both the Republican and Libertarian parties, and in a 3-2 decision the state’s highest court declared that Grisham’s orders were within her authority.

At the heart of the case, the 3-2 ruling by the Supreme Court found Lujan Grisham’s orders did not overstep a state law that grants governors broad powers in response to the “occurrence or immediate threat” of serious public emergencies.

Justices Brianna Zamora and Michael Vigil dissented with the court’s other three justices in the ruling, with Zamora saying the ratification of broad emergency executive powers could lead to misuse.

“While the governor’s desire to combat gun violence and drug abuse appears to be well-intended, there is nothing in the majority’s opinion that would restrict a future governor from taking actions that would be substantively more troubling,” Zamora wrote in her dissent.

However, Lujan Grisham spokesman Michael Coleman said the ruling affirmed the governor’s administration had acted within its legal authority in declaring gun violence and drug abuse as public health emergencies.

“The court has provided important clarity on the executive branch’s responsibilities during public health crises,” Coleman said in a Thursday statement.

“We appreciate the court’s thorough consideration of these important constitutional questions, and we remain focused on building safer, healthier communities across New Mexico,” he added.

Now, it’s important to note (as the justices on the state Supreme Court did in the majority opinion) that the plaintiffs did not “challenge Section 1 of the first Amended PHEO under the state or federal right to bear arms,” so the court largely bystepped any real investigation about whether Grisham’s carry ban violated the Second Amendment rights of New Mexicans who were suddenly barred from bearing arms while watching their kids at a park or playground; places the governor indicated were so incredibly dangerous that all firearms needed to be banned from their premises.

Instead, the majority simply noted that a federal judge rejected a request for a temporary restraining order against Grisham’s revised carry ban, saying they “read the federal district court’s ruling as supporting that the firearm restrictions in the first Amended PHEO are not unreasonable.”

Even though the plaintiffs didn’t really mount a Second Amendment argument in their bid to take down the governor’s emergency orders, Thursday’s decision could have an enormous impact on the right to carry going forward. Grisham has allowed her declared “emergency” over gun violence to expire, but there’s nothing stopping her from now re-imposing a carry ban that once again goes far beyond the scope of her amended order that was limited to parks and playgrounds.

There have been half-hearted attempts to curb the governor’s emergency powers over the past couple of years, but Grisham’s threat of a veto has sidelined those efforts. I doubt we’re going to see her fellow Democrats in charge of the statehouse in Santa Fe try to buck her authority now, but this should be a primary issue for Republican legislators and candidates in 2026. We can only hope that the governor doesn’t give them another court-sanctioned egregious violation of our Second Amendment rights to point to between now and then.

Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about goobermint gone tyrant:

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

and last, but not in anyway least:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Rep. Jamie Rankin Beclowned Himself in Opening Remarks at Gun Hearing

Rep. Jamie Rankin isn’t going to be on the Christmas card list of any gun rights group you care to name. He’s a vehement anti-gunner and that’s where his bread is buttered. That’s not going to change.

Which is fine, I suppose. He’s in the minority right now, so all he can do is bloviate and then sit there and be impotent in his gun rights animosity.

But bloviate he shall, and he did.

In opening remarks in a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, Rankin decided to display his burning stupid for the entire world to see, then sent out a press release with his remarks.

Awfully swell of him, really.

The problem is that my Republican colleagues have completely deformed the Second Amendment. They say it gives you the right to overthrow the government. Our former colleague, Matt Gaetz often claimed that the Second Amendment “is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.”

This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to munitions equivalent to that of the government’s arsenal. As our colleague, Representative Chip Roy, argues, the Second Amendment was “designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them.” And my friend Representative Lauren Boebert says that the Second Amendment has “nothing to do with hunting, unless you’re talking about hunting tyrants, maybe.”

Despite all of this pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about how the Constitution provides a right of civil insurrection, the actual Constitution, in a half-dozen different places, treats “insurrection” and “rebellion” not as protected rights but as serious and dangerous offenses against our government and our people.

And yet, our Founding Fathers also made it very clear that when the government became tyrannical, it was the duty of the people to throw off the chains of oppression and fight back, not just with words but with weapons.

I mean, they’d just engaged in their own rebellion, their own insurrection, and thrown off those precise chains. They knew that no government could be created that couldn’t, in time, come to oppress the people. They wanted to prevent that, which includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Will Absorbing the ATF Into the FBI Rein in Each Agency’s Abuses?
The ATF, charged with regulating firearms, has a history of abuse and incompetence.

By appointing FBI Director Kash Patel as acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), President Donald Trump took a step towards reining in a federal agency justifiably viewed by many as a threat to self-defense rights. He also signaled that he may consolidate government bodies that overlap in their responsibilities. Fans of big government and opponents of privately owned firearms won’t like the move, but the idea of combining the agencies is hardly unprecedented. After all, President Bill Clinton had the same idea three decades ago.

Patel Wears Two Hats

“ATF welcomes Acting Director Kash Patel to ATF, who was sworn in and had his first visit to ATF Headquarters in Washington, D.C. today,” the ATF posted on X on February 24. “We are enthusiastic to work together for a safer America!”

Patel takes over from Steven Dettelbach, who resigned just before Trump took office. Dettelbach presided over an ATF seen as even more hostile to gun owners than has historically been the case.

Continue reading “”

Lawsuit Challenges Minnesota’s Gun Permit Restrictions For Truckers

The Liberty Justice Center filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday challenging Minnesota’s refusal to recognize firearm permits from other states, a policy the nonprofit argues violates the Second Amendment rights of interstate truck drivers.

The lawsuit, McCoy v. Jacobson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of two truckers, David McCoy and Jeffrey Johnson, who claim the law infringes on their constitutional right to bear arms while working across state borders.

David McCoy, a Texas-based trucker, and Jeffrey Johnson, who holds firearm permits from Florida and Georgia, both legally carry firearms for self-defense in many states. However, Minnesota law prohibits them from carrying firearms in public or in their trucks without a Minnesota-issued permit or one recognized by the state.

Minnesota currently excludes permits from 29 states, including Texas, Georgia, and Florida, leaving McCoy and Johnson unable to legally defend themselves while in the state.

Continue reading “”

Americans Increasingly Worried About Uncle Sam Being Big Brother

There’s an intersection between the Second Amendment and anything that has to do with government overreach. If we look at the countless ways the federal government has failed on public safety policy and the execution of its duties, the body count is high. That’s both literal and figurative. Those who exercise the Second Amendment have everything to be worried about when it comes to our own government spying in on them. To progressives, gun owners are essentially an enemy of the state. A recent Rasmussen Reports® survey found that Americans are worried about domestic spying.

Voter concerns about domestic surveillance have not decreased, as the nation prepares for a new administration under President-elect Donald Trump.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 71% of Likely U.S. Voters are concerned about the U.S. government spying on American citizens, including 40% who are Very Concerned. Only 25% aren’t concerned about domestic spying. These findings are only slightly changed from January 2021, when Joe Biden was President-elect. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-five percent (45%) expect government spying on U.S. citizens to increase in the new Trump administration, compared to 32% who think such surveillance will decrease and 15% who expect it to stay about the same. Four years ago, 40% believed spying would increase under Biden.

The phraseology of how voter concerns on spying have not decreased with a President-elect Trump sitting in the bullpen is interesting. How conservatives versus liberals feel about the potential for the government to peek into our lives perhaps is where the story is.

Continue reading “”

“GOOD MEN PROJECT” (My Foot)
Author thinks inanimate objects are more of a problem than those with evil intent

Gary Whittenberger, Reducing Gun Violence in the United States

Gary Whittenberger is a retired psychologist and freelance writer known for his thoughtful contributions to discussions on psychology, philosophy, science, and religion. Holding a doctorate in clinical psychology from Florida State University, he worked as a psychologist in federal prisons for 23 years. Whittenberger is an active member of the freethought community and co-directed the Tallahassee Freethinkers’ Forum. He has authored several works, including God Wants YOU to be an Atheist, and has written for Skeptic Magazine, Free Inquiry, and other publications. His articles often tackle complex topics such as personhood, free will, and gun violence prevention.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Quick backdrop questions, what have the work in clinical psychology, in federal prisons, and freethought activism, taught about the American culture’s psyche around guns–the heart of the matter?

Dr. Gary Whittenberger: Scott, I want to thank you for this opportunity to talk about my article “A Comprehensive Program for Reducing Gun Violence in the US” which appeared in the October/November 2024 issue of Free Inquiry magazine.  Also, I compliment you on the great work you are doing with The Good Men Project.  We need more journalism, analysis, and commentary like that.

Turning to your question:  I think Americans have an obsession with guns which is unhealthy.  I think it has roots in the founding of a new country, exploring and settling the western frontier, and rebellion against old governments, all of which occurred a few centuries ago.  Fear and anger at levels higher in our country than what are found in other countries stimulate the ownership, purchase, and use of firearms.  Part of the solution is to lower these emotions and part of it is to reduce the access to and the number of firearms in the country.

Jacobsen: In the Uvalde case, what were the failures of law enforcement?

Whittenberger: Law enforcement officers failed to confront the shooter as soon as they could have and should have.  In my opinion, whenever there are at least two officers who have firearms on the scene, they should call for backup but begin to engage the shooter.  This response needs to be stipulated in policies, laws, and training.  Officers who do not have the willingness or courage to act to defend others in stressful situations should not be in law enforcement.

Jacobsen: How can gun regulations balance with Second Amendment rights?

Whittenberger: As I said in my article, the Second Amendment needs to be amended.  Although American citizens should have a right to possess, own, and use guns, this right should not be absolute.  The right should be regulated, restricted, and limited for the common good, especially to minimize unjustified aggression.  I have suggested that ordinary citizens be limited to three firearms.  Nobody needs an armory.  I think “military type” guns should be held from the public.  I believe that five different groups of persons should be prohibited from having guns.  Any ethical, well-trained, and responsible firearms user has no good reason to oppose these reforms.

Jacobsen: What is the importance of considering mental health in approach reduction of gun violence?

Whittenberger: I think it is extremely important, but I don’t agree with the more conservative pundits who think it should be the only approach to reducing gun violence.  The more guns there are in a society, the more unjustified gun violence there will be.  The more guns are accessible to people likely to misuse them, the more unjustified violence there will be.  Yes, treating mental health problems is necessary, but not sufficient.  We need to identify, diagnose, and treat mental health problems early, during childhood, and this is why we need so many more social workers, counselors, and psychologists to work with children in our schools.

Jacobsen: What community intervention efforts can mitigate gun-related violence?

Whittenberger: I think politicians, office holders, nonprofits, and all citizens of a community should strongly advocate for and support gun control policies, as I have outlined in my article.  We all need to commit ourselves to slightly reducing our freedoms to possess, own, and use guns in order to reduce gun violence and promote the common good.  Give up a little in order to gain so much more!  I support buy-back programs conducted by cities and counties.

Jacobsen: What other training or preparedness might help law enforcement agencies?

Whittenberger: Law enforcement agencies need to improve both their employee selection procedures and their training.  Officers need to use their agency-issued firearms in a prudent, rational, ethical, and legal manner.   Over-use and under-use of firearms by officers are both problems which need to be corrected.  We saw in the Uvalde situation that officers took up to 75 minutes to mount their counter-attack, which was way too long.  On the other hand, we have seen in other kinds of situations that officers are too prone to use their firearms too quickly to resolve a situation.

Jacobsen: What other reasonable and unreasonable approaches to the reduction of gun violence are being proposed other than, for example, pray?

Whittenberger: I think I have mentioned most of the reasonable approaches in my article.  Banning firearms for private citizens in the US would be an unreasonable approach.  I think more than half the citizens do have legitimate uses for the ownership of firearms for protection, hunting, and target practice, but ownership of firearms by some citizens, of military-grade guns, and more than three guns is not reasonable.

Jacobsen: What would be a reasonable estimate of efficacy of these proposition to reduce gun violence?

Whittenberger: I think full implementation of the practical steps I have recommended would reduce gun violence by 90%.

Jacobsen: What might be some criticisms of your approach?

Whittenberger: A common criticism is “Implementation of your recommended gun regulation program would lead to the banning and confiscation of guns among private citizens.”  This is a slippery slope argument which is used to scare people and arouse resistance to gun regulation.  My approach is a common sense and gradual approach which would not be fully in place for about 75 years.  And yet, reductions in gun violence will gradually dissipate over that time period.   Responsible users of firearms should be willing to sacrifice just a little of their freedom for the common good which comes from a reduction of gun violence in our society.

Jacobsen: What might be barriers to implementation at the state of the federal level?

Whittenberger:   Extreme selfishness, fear, the NRA, and owners of large numbers of guns would be barriers to implementation.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gary.

Whittenberger:   You are welcome.  And thank you for bringing wider exposure to my article and my many ideas about gun control.  Gun violence is rampant in our society and we need to solve the problem!  “Thoughts and prayers” for victims just don’t cut it.  Please continue your excellent work with The Good Men Project.

The Most Dangerous ‘Gun Control’ Argument You Will Ever Read

We don’t make this statement lightly, but the folks over at Giffords and Brady have filed an amicus brief in a matter, challenging all of Maryland’s new sensitive places, that actually argues that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment cannot coexist, and because of that, the 2A will always take a back seat to the 1A. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses one of the craziest and most dangerous pro-gun control argument you could ever imagine in the matter of Kipke v. Moore (aka Novotny v. Moore). So learn more today and arm yourself with education.

<(You can find the Amicus Brief here.)

The Final Two 9th Circuit Gun Decisions of 2024

Yesterday, Monday, December 30, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published its final two decisions in cases involving guns.

The first decision involved the Federal law that permanently disbars persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms, and the second involved a dispute over what constitutes an arrest when police see a handgun on the floor of an automobile in a state where that is legal.

The first decision is well written and meticulous and leaves no question as to why the three-judge panel reached its decision, a decision they would rather have gone the other way were it not for binding prior precedents.

The second decision does not explain why it reached its conclusion, and more importantly, the decision does not explain how future three-judge panels and district court judges are to comply with what is now a binding circuit precedent. Moreso, given that the facts laid out in the decision do not justify the panel’s conclusion under already binding prior 9th circuit precedents.

First, the well-written decision by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Morgan B. Christen. She is certainly no friend of the Second Amendment, but if there were a candidate for the most intelligent Court of Appeals judge, she would be the one to bet on. The case is US v. Michal Blake DeFrance No. 23-2409.

The first three paragraphs of the opinion summary succinctly describe the case’s what and why, but I will take a stab at an even simpler explanation. In short, if one is convicted of a state law crime of domestic violence, and that state law crime is broader than the Federal definition, even if the state has never prosecuted someone under the broader definition, then the conviction does not qualify as a crime of domestic violence under Federal law. Not even if the crime one committed, such as beating one’s wife or girlfriend, does qualify as a crime of domestic violence under Federal law. You can view the oral argument below.

You can read the opinion (and concurrence) at this link.

The second case is US v. Larry Send In. The opinion is by Judge Gould and was joined by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bumatay and District Court Judge Michael Seabright, the latter of whom is no friend to the Second Amendment.

A fun fact about the Fourth Amendment is that from 1833 to 1961, it did not apply to the states. That did not mean police could stop, search, and/or arrest anyone they wanted. Under American common law, which we inherited from English common law, one could use force, including deadly force, to resist an unlawful arrest. That was the rule in California until 1957 when the California legislature repealed that centuries-old common law right. The California Supreme Court upheld the repeal in 1970.

Incorporating the Fourth Amendment right against the states in 1961 means the courts have had far more opportunities in 64 years to poke holes in the right. The decision in this case is yet another hole punched in the right.

Another fun fact is that California once had a bright-line rule. If you were stopped by the police and not free to go, you were under arrest.

The Federal Courts invented the notion that one can be stopped and handcuffed without it being an arrest. It is a “detention,” in which cases often turn on whether or not the detention was lawful and, in this particular case, at what point an arrest occurs. The California Supreme Court has abandoned its bright-line rule for the murky waters of the Federal Courts.

Of course, police forces as we know them today did not exist in the United States until the early 20th century. Before World War II, most arrests were made by private citizens, and private citizens likewise made most criminal prosecutions.

It was not until the 1970s that the US Supreme Court gave prosecutors and judges “absolute immunity” from civil prosecution in the Federal Courts, but I digress.

Under modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, judges look to the totality of the facts in making their decisions. In this case, the district court judge suppressed the gun found in Mr. In’s car, but the panel reversed. Why? I don’t know. Professor Shaun Martin at the University of San Diego School of Law doesn’t seem to know either. He wrote about the case on his blog.

When you read the decision, keep in mind that lying to a police officer is not in and of itself a crime, and Mr. In’s lying to police about having a gun in his car was not probable cause for an arrest, according to the panel. Indeed, none of the facts of the case viewed in isolation or the totality of the circumstances constituted probable cause for an arrest, and if Mr. In had, in fact, been arrested instead of detained for officer safety, then the gun would have been suppressed.

Neither police officer safety nor public safety is a magic talisman. But despite this decision conflicting with prior circuit precedents, it is doubtful that an en banc petition will be granted in this case. There are just too many judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who don’t care a fig about the Fourth Amendment, especially when the case involves guns.

You can view the oral argument below.

You can read the opinion at this link.

The January 6 prisoners strike back with a $50 billion lawsuit

I am one who believes that the events on January 6 were a set-up. Democrats knew that Trump supporters would be flooding D.C., so they withdrew law enforcement, removed physical guardrails, seeded the crowd with provocateurs, trusted the press of people to steer innocents into trouble, and then used a weaponized Justice Department to destroy people who showed up on January 6 and found themselves near the Capitol. That’s why I happen to think the planned $50 billion class action J6 prisoner lawsuit is a good idea to expose the government’s role in J6.

Continue reading “”

Why Did the ATF Raid Baltimore Gun Rights Advocate Mark ‘Choppa’ Manley’s House?

This is how the federal agency that’s charged with regulating firearms conducts its business. According to the Washington Times, “ATF agents announced themselves to Mark ‘Choppa’ Manley and his family by tossing a flashbang into his living room and ordering everyone out at gunpoint during the predawn search days before Thanksgiving.”

Manley, who is described as a gun rights advocate and lives in Baltimore, thinks the raid by agents in battle rattle was an attempt to send a message to other black gun owners.

“I do feel like I was targeted. I do feel like the amount of guns I have made me a target and [put] me on their radar,” Mr. Manley told The Times. “Especially being a minority from the inner city.”

It isn’t really clear what the feds were looking for in the raid. They spent hours tossing Manley’s home, checking gun serial numbers, and ultimately confiscating his phone. But no one was charged or arrested and no guns were confiscated.

Harassment has been a hallmark of the ATF since the Biden administration launched its war on legal gun ownership not long after it took office. And the agency is, of course, refusing to comment on the case.

Mr. Manley’s growing profile put him in a league of gun owners, dealers and advocates who have either been monitored, approached or, arguably, harassed by the ATF in recent years.

Was ATF acting on bad information? Were they trying to provoke Manley into breaking the law? Whatever their motivation, the raid could have gone much, much worse. It wasn’t long ago that ATF decided that an early morning raid on the home of Bryan Malinowski was preferable to stopping him on his way to or from his place of work. Malinowski thought it was a home invasion, armed himself, and the ATF’s finest shot and killed him.

[Gun rights advocate Maj] Toure said the raid at Mr. Manley’s home was likely done in hopes of provoking the advocate into doing something criminal. At the very least, he said the ATF is putting on a “poker face” to try and intimidate Mr. Manley from organizing gun owners in the future.

“What’s happening is they’re trying to scare people — bluff them — into thinking ‘I better not do this. I better be quiet about it.’” Mr. Toure said. “The wrong party here is the ATF. Not the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, not the American people that are safe and responsible firearms owners.”

January 20th can’t get here soon enough.

Why Again Do We Still Have a Special Relationship With the Tyrannical UK?

America and the United Kingdom have long had a special relationship, working closely as allies to protect the West from oppressive dictatorships that suppress their own people, arbitrarily jailing them and persecuting them for exercising their God-given right of free speech. Here’s the problem. The UK has become one of those oppressive dictatorships that suppress their own people, arbitrarily jailing them and persecuting them for exercising their God-given right of free speech. And I’m not particularly interested in having a special relationship with a country like that. Nor are many other Americans.

Continue reading “”

Never forget what they did to us.
Never forget what they meant to do to us.
Never.
Don’t give them the benefit of the doubt next time.
And did they forget we have guns?

CDC Planned Quarantine Camps, Nationwide

No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.

Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.

It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.

Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.

Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.

The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.

It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”

“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.

This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data.

Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”

By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.

Continue reading “”

I have only been to Minnesota twice. The first on a summer family vacation decades ago, and second, on a layover when flying to Alaska. Other than necessity required by the latter, I have no plans to ever visit that tyrant run state again

Is Your Private Vehicle a ‘Public Space’ When There’s a Gun Involved?

It’s an odd question stemming from an equally strange case, but that’s the question the Minnesota Supreme Court will soon answer after hearing oral arguments on Monday.

Back in 2022, a guy named Kyaw Be Bee was arrested for the misdemeanor charge of carrying a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun in a public place after police discovered a BB gun underneath the driver’s seat of Bee’s car. The deputy had become suspicious of Bee and another man when he spotted them standing near a vehicle in a parking lot around 2 a.m. Bee and his companion strolled back to their own vehicle when they became aware of the deputy, and once they drove away the deputy pulled them over, which is when he discovered the BB gun.

Bee’s attorney argued in a pre-trial hearing that a private vehicle should not be considered a public place and a judge agreed; dismissing the misdemeanor charge after reasoning that a private vehicle is not a public place, even when it’s on a public road.

Prosecutors appealed that decision and the Minnesota Court of Appeals found in their favor, ruling that private cars on public roads should be considered public spaces. Bee’s attorneys then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard from both sides yesterday.

“To focus the law on the method of transportation upon a public roadway, instead of the geographic area of the roadway itself, ignores the clear statutory text, renders portions of the statute ineffective, leads to absurd results and is therefore not reasonable,” Saint Paul city attorney Lyndsey Olson, who argued for the state, told justices Monday.

However Drake Metzger, an attorney for Bee, said the statute is “unambiguous” about what makes a space public.

The law defines public space as “property owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental unit and private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public.”

Lawmakers included exceptions for hunters; target shooters; people’s homes or business; and gun shows and shops.

What the law doesn’t address is whether or not a private vehicle is considered a public place; it simply says that if a gun is being transported in compliance with the law, the statute does not apply.

“At the end of the day, the inside of a motor vehicle is not a public space under this definition,” Metzger said Monday.

Metzger also argued that his client could have been charged with carrying without a license based on how the BB gun was stored in the vehicle, but accusing Bee of having a gun in a public place when it was in his car just doesn’t make sense given the language of the statute.

Olson, arguing for the state, saw it differently.

“I don’t think that this is saying that being in a motor vehicle inherently means that you’re in a public place,” Olson said. “It depends on the geographical place that the vehicle is on.”

Bee could have been charged with another crime as well, Olson said, public safety is at the root of gun laws.

“The consequences of a particular interpretation excluding vehicles on public roadways from public space could risk public safety by allowing the gun possession within vehicles without restriction,” she said.

The problem with Olson’s argument, at least from my perspective, is that it requires “interpreting” the statute instead of simply reading and adhering to the text. As Metzer says, the law in question defines what constitutes a public space, and while it does include some private property, that property must be “regularly and frequently open or made available for use by the public”. Your car, my truck, and (presumably) Bee’s vehicle aren’t open for use by the public, even when they’re on a public road, so how could they reasonably be considered public spaces?

Even if the Minnesota Supreme Court finds in favor of Bee (which, given the makeup of the court, is probably unlikely), as his own attorney pointed out, the state could still have charged Bee with improper storage of the BB gun. Whether that statute is constitutional under the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment is another question for another day, but when it comes to the question of whether a private vehicle is a public space, I think the answer is and should obviously be “no.”

Polls Are Now Open. The Fate of the 2nd Amendment Rests in Your Vote Today

If you are reading this, and you have not yet voted, stop what you are doing and go vote. And if it isn’t clear to you yet, Harris is not the one to vote for.