Category: Rights

Joe Biden Boasts He Has Bypassed Congress for Gun Control More than Any Other President

On August 17, 2023, President Joe Biden boasted about the number of times he has used executive action to institute gun control that Congress did not pass.

He tweeted:

On April 8, 2021, Breitbart News reported Biden used executive gun controls that included restrictions on “ghost guns,” a push for red flag laws, recategorization of AR-15 pistols, and DOJ-led research into gun trafficking.

These controls led to an ATF-issued rule classifying “partially complete pistol frames” as firearms. That rule means a background check is now required in order to purchase certain gun parts kits.

The  same executive controls also led to an ATF-issued rule categorizing AR-pistols with stabilizer braces as short-barrel rifles. This new categorization means owners of said pistols with stabilizer braces are required to the register the firearms under the auspices of the National Firearms Act (1934).

On July 21, 2022, the White House recounted that Biden had issued 21 executive actions related to gun control and gun violence up to that point in his presidency.

On May 14, 2023, Breitbart News noted that Biden issued yet another executive order on gun control, this one directing Attorney General Merrick Garland to act where Congress has not acted and take the United States “as close as possible” to universal background checks.

Another executive gun control is anticipated late this year or early next year, in the form of an ATF-issued rule to redefine the meaning of gun dealer so as to broaden it, and thereby broaden the number of gun sales in which a background check will be required. The goal of the ATF rule will be to get as close as possible to a universal background check scenario in America.

Freedom

After reading stories about the abuse suffered at the hands of police that are detaining J6 defendants for trial, knowing how cops will abuse and torture prisoners, and how they are transferring them to Supermax prisons, I am not surprised at the J6 defendants that are simply skipping out on their trials and sentencing hearings:

The people who are doing this have realized that they have nothing left to lose. Their freedom, property, and likely their lives are forfeit at this point. The cops will eventually find them, and if they aren’t killed during the arrest, they will spend the rest of their lives in prison, or at least the parts of it that matter.

With nothing left to lose, it’s only a matter of time before someone in this position decides to give the left the insurrection that they are already accused of perpetrating.

Kyle Rittenhouse Launches Foundation Aimed At Fighting Gun Control

Kyle Rittenhouse has launched an anti-gun control nonprofit in Texas, according to a filing with the Texas Secretary of State’s office, which was first reported on by the Texas Tribune—a sign the young man who became a conservative star after being acquitted of killing two Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, is ramping up his political activity in Texas.
Rittenhouse Conference

Rittenhouse filed with the Secretary of State on July 23 to create the Rittenhouse Foundation, a nonprofit based in Fort Worth, Texas, which aims to protect “an individual’s inalienable right to bear arms” through “education and legal assistance,” according to the filing.

Rittenhouse is listed as a director alongside Chris McNutt, president of the gun advocacy group Texas Gun Rights and Shelby Griesinger, treasurer of the Defend Texas Liberty PAC, which has financed the campaigns of right-wing candidates across the state.

The foundation’s registered agent is the law firm of Tony McDonald, a long-time legal representative of conservative organizations in Texas, including Empower Texans, a now-defunct Tea Party-aligned group that was active from 2006 to 2020 and was described by Texas Monthly in 2013 as “one of the most influential advocacy groups in Austin.”

Defend Texas Liberty and Empower Texans have been given tens of millions of dollars by Tim Dunn, Farris Wilks and Dan Wilks, conservative mega donors who’ve spent decades using their oil wealth to promote their ultraconservative causes, according to the Tribune.

Forbes has attempted to contact Rittenhouse and his foundation via the foundation’s attorney.

KEY BACKGROUND
Rittenhouse first became a household name in August 2020 when he shot three Black Lives Matter protesters, two fatally, during the aftermath of the death of George Floyd. Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time, attended a racial justice protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, armed with an AR-15-style rifle with the stated goal of protecting private businesses from protesters.

After being chased into a parking lot, Rittenhouse fatally shot a man who had grabbed the barrel of his rifle. He then fatally shot another man who struck him with a skateboard, and shot and wounded a third person who subsequently pointed a handgun at him.

The incident was widely condemned by liberals, but many conservatives came to his defense. U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) and Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) both offered the then-teenager internships, and then-President Donald Trump hosted him at his Mar-a-Lago estate. In a closely-watched criminal trial in November 2021, a jury acquitted Rittenhouse of murder charges and ruled that his actions were done in self-defense. After the trial, Rittenhouse moved to Texas.

Since moving to Texas, Rittenhouse has become active in conservative politics. He has endorsed right-wing Republican political candidates including Andy Hopper, who attempted to unseat Lynn Stucky for her Denton-based seat in the state House of Representatives, and Brandon Herrera, YouTube star known for supporting gun rights, running against U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-San Antonio). He also worked with Texas Gun Rights in May to oppose a House bill that unsuccessfully tried to raise the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21. On social media, he railed against the Texas House impeachment of state Attorney General Ken Paxton and posted messages in support of gun rights.

Biden’s DOJ Asks SCOTUS to Gut the 2nd Amendment in 67-Page Brief

In a notable development, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted a significant brief (67+ pages, embedded below) to the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States of America vs. Zaki Rahimi. The focus of this case is the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G8, which pertains to domestic violence restraining orders and their alignment with the Second Amendment.

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, suggests that the DOJ, representing the Biden Administration, is arguing for extensive interpretation measures. The contention seems to be that the Second Amendment allows Congress and other legislative bodies the power to disarm individuals [aka “infringe”] deemed not “Law Abiding” or “responsible.” The criteria for such judgments, as outlined in the brief, could range from minor infractions like jaywalking to more serious criminal activities.

The broad implications of such an interpretation might leave a vast number of citizens without the right to keep and bear arms.

Central to the case is Zaki Rahimi’s incident from December 2019, where he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and threatened a witness with a firearm. The event resulted in a restraining order against Rahimi in February 2020 after he ostensibly admitted to the accusations.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held that the federal law in question in Zaki Rahimi’s case was in violation of the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ’s arguments seem to lean heavily on connecting firearms with domestic violence, potentially setting a precedent for justifying ‘red flag’ laws. Their position leans on the Heller case from 2008, which identified the rights of “law-abiding and responsible” individuals to bear arms.

The DOJ attempts to spin its argument based on three main talking points, all taken out of legal and historical context:

  1. Previous court precedents distinguished between law-abiding citizens and those deemed otherwise.
  2. Historical precedents allowed for disarmament during the founding era, citing laws that existed during the period.
  3. Arguing that the majority of American states having similar domestic restraining orders suggests a national consensus.

Critics rightfully argue that simply because many states have implemented certain rules doesn’t automatically affirm their constitutionality.

This shocking 67-page brief from the DOJ would be a significant shift in interpreting the Second Amendment. Whether this unconstitutional human rights grab prevails will be determined by the Supreme Court in its upcoming deliberations.

Biden DOJ Legal Brief to SCOTUS in U.S. v. Rahimi

Biden Administration Argues Texas and Florida Anti-Censorship Laws Are a First Amendment Violation

Presented as an effort to safeguard speech rights, the Biden administration has called on the Supreme Court to dismantle controversial segments of the anti-censorship social media laws ratified in Florida and Texas.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

(President Biden is also using the argument that banning his administration from asking platforms to remove speech is a First Amendment violation.)

The laws in question restrict the autonomy of leading social media platforms by preventing them from censoring citizens speech and discriminating on the basis of political viewpoint.

Both Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott staunchly support these laws as a means of protecting voices from being suppressed. Governor DeSantis, at the law signing in May 2021, criticized Big Tech’s bias for Silicon Valley ideology and emphasized the need for accountability.

The Texas law, featuring a provision prohibiting discrimination based on viewpoints, incorporates several exceptions, permitting platforms to ban content promoting violence, criminal behavior, child exploitation, and harassment of sexual-abuse survivors and more. The law presses social media platforms to adopt user complaint procedures, disclose content and data management practices, and publish a comprehensive biannual transparency report.

The legislation only applies to platforms attracting over 50 million monthly users.

The Florida law has a similar scope and, in addition, mandates a detailed justification for each content moderation. The legislation also forbids the banning of political contenders or “journalistic enterprises.”

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar perceives this as an encroachment on First Amendment rights. She contended in a recent court filing that such laws infringe the liberty of tech giants in selecting, editing, and arranging user-generated content. Essentially, she claimed these actions are all protected under the First Amendment.

Endorsing two industry trade groups that have formally contested the laws, she implored the Supreme Court to scrutinize both measures.

Federal appeals courts, however, are divided over the issue. The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has primarily blocked Florida’s legislation, deeming it potentially unconstitutional. Conversely, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit backed the Texas law but held it back to permit an appeal to reach the Supreme Court.

Certainly, both states, as well as the trade groups, are petitioning the Supreme Court to adjudicate on a range of issues concerning the two cases. An announcement of the court’s decision is expected as early as September.

While Prelogar largely aligns with the social media companies, she refrained from endorsing their protest against the “general-disclosure provisions” that require the publishing of content-management policies and production of transparency reports. These issues, she argued, are not the main subject of the lawsuits and high court review would be premature.

Illinois’ latest gun law is an affront to more than just the Second Amendment

Illinois’ new “Firearms Industry Responsibility Act” isn’t just an attack on our right to keep and bear arms. It’s an assault on our freedom of speech as well. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co Mark Oliva of the National Shooting Sports Foundation sits down with me to discuss the group’s newly-filed lawsuit challenging HB 218, as well as the impending ATF rule on private sales and transfers of firearms.

The NSSF’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois, challenges the validity of Illinois’ new gun control law on multiple counts, starting with the argument that HB 218 is preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act. But the NSSF is also raising a First Amendment challenge, asserting that the law discriminates against speech based on its content or viewpoint and arguing that such discrimination should be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.

The topics and views that Illinois has singled out in HB 218 do not fall into any “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech” unprotected by the First Amendment. To be sure, the First Amendment does not preclude imposing liability for false, deceptive, or otherwise “misleading” commercial speech.

But HB 218 does not even purport to target only speech that is false or misleading. It authorizes the imposition of liability for speech about a product—a product expressly protected by the Constitution, no less— even when that speech is truthful and not misleading. Indeed, the words “false,” “misleading,” and “deceptive” appear nowhere in the relevant provisions.

A manufacturer that places online advertisements containing entirely accurate specifications of its products and subsequently sells that product to a distributor, could be liable under HB 218, even if that product is fully lawful in every state in which it is sold, if a Illinois court later deems the product to have been marketed (1) in a way that “contribute[d] to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public,” or (2) encouraged non-servicemembers to use it for “a military-related purpose”.

“They’re trying to squelch the First Amendment rights of firearm manufacturers and retailers,” Oliva explained to me. “If they can eliminate the discussion of safe and responsible firearm ownership to the next generation, they can diminish the desire for ownership and people exercising their Second Amendment rights. So they’re trying to play the long game of eliminating the Second Amendment by eliminating and curtailing the First Amendment. And it’s important to remember that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. It is a right for these companies to be able to advertise a constitutionally-protected product.”

In its suit, the NSSF says that the speech code established by HB 218 is so vague that it’s “virtually impossible for regulated parties to tell what speech is and is not permitted, leaving them with no realistic choice but to err on the side of refraining from exercising their First Amendment rights.”

By its terms, HB 218 renders unlawful any marketing of a firearm-related product that “create[s], maintain[s], or contribute[s] to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public” if it is deemed “unreasonable under all circumstances.” This restriction “will provoke uncertainty among speakers,” as such indeterminable and subjective abstractions do not articulate at all—let alone articulate with “narrow specificity”—what kind(s) of speech may later be deemed to have unreasonably contributed to a “condition … that endangers the safety or health of the public.”

Those restrictions are problematic enough, but HB 218 further prohibits marketing “in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage individuals” who are not in the military “to use a firearm-related product for a military-related purpose.” The problem with this broad prohibition is that Illinois provides no guidance on what qualifies as a “military-related” purpose, leaving industry members to guess whether their marketing materials will later be deemed unlawful.

HB 218 goes on, moreover, to prohibit an industry member from “advertis[ing], market[ing], promot[ing], design[ing], or sell[ing] any firearm related product in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage persons under 18 years of age to unlawfully purchase or possess or use a firearm-related product.”

A state of course may prohibit speech directly concerning unlawful conduct. But, unless this provision covers nothing more than advertisements that tell minors to buy guns (despite being minors), it is not at all clear what it means. Does any advertisement that shows minors lawfully using firearms (e.g., with a parent while hunting, or at a Boy Scouts shooting event) fall on the wrong side of the line?

What about marketing in a way targeted toward young men, who share many characteristics with those just a few years younger—but are lawfully able to purchase firearms (and serve in the armed forces)? The questions vastly outnumber the answers. And while no statute must preempt all potential complications, when it comes to a prohibition on speech, the lack of clarity is destined to create a massive chilling problem.

If HB 218 is so narrow that it only prohibits advertisements that entice juveniles into breaking the law, then this particular provision is never going to come into play in practice. If, on the other hand, the bill is written broadly enough to target manufacturers like Wee1 Tactical and its JR-15 rimfire rifle, then it’s going to make it virtually impossible to not only market but produce firearms designed for youth shooting. As Oliva says, that’s nothing more than abridging the First Amendment rights of gun makers to curb the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, and a sign of the contempt that Illinois lawmakers have for all of our individual rights.

Check out the entire conversation with Mark Oliva in the video window below, including his initial thoughts on the yet-to-be-introduced ATF rule that seeks to impose a near-universal background check system on gun sales and the dangers it poses to lawful gun owners across the country. Be sure to tune in tomorrow as well, when we’ll be talking with Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League about how gun owners are pushing back on the “Lawful Citizens Imprisonment Act” and what’s happening behind the scenes at the statehouse in Boston.

California bill would make questioning school board members a crime

California is poised to codify at the state level what the feds were once requested to do — that is, turn inquisitive parents into criminals for daring to question their school board representatives.

Senate Bill 596, introduced by Democratic State Senator Anthony Portantino in February and dubbed the “School Employees: Protection” act, expands an existing law “which makes it a misdemeanor for any ‘person’ to threaten or harass a school employee during the ‘course of [their] duties,’” according to the California Globe.

This expansion adds a penalty for creating a “substantial disorder” at any meeting of a public school board, charter school board, county board of education, and the California State Board of Education.

Although “substantial disorder” is not precisely defined, the bill notes that “course of conduct” is “a pattern of conduct composed of two or more acts over a period of time, however short … evidencing a continuity of purpose.”

Gone from the definition of “harassment” is “unlawful violence” and “credible threat of violence,” and in its place is “torments, or terrorizes.”

It’s not difficult to figure out what’s happening here. A concerned parent at a school board meeting asks a board member a question and reiterates it (thereby establishing a “course of conduct”) … and if the board member feels “tormented” the parent can be arrested and charged with a fine between $500 and $1,000 and face up to a year in jail.

Or, as the Globe’s Kenny Snell (a retired longtime teacher) put it, “In California-speak, that means school boards get to decide what is substantial and what is not; what is harassment and what is not. In Totalitarian-speak that means don’t dare even think about going to a school board meeting and question their narrative or policies.”

Keep in mind that last year the National School Boards Association — in collaboration with the Biden administration — wanted the U.S. Department of Justice to label outspoken parents “domestic terrorists” and the National Guard to monitor school board meetings.

The NSBA had complained of “acts of malice” and “aggression” by parents — eerily similar to the California bill’s “torments.”

Two other pieces of concerning legislation in the Golden State noted by the California Policy Center include Corey Jackson’s (D) Assembly Bill 1078 and Mia Bonta’s Assembly Bill 1352.

The former would give local school boards’ power to make curriculum decisions to education bureaucrats in the state capital, while the latter “would allow a duly elected school board member to be removed from office if he or she disagrees with the votes of teachers union-backed board members.”

Our Nightmare is Their Utopia

The United States is just waiting on divorce papers, the separation is already here.

In the part of this nation controlled by communists like Antifa and BLM a defense attorney can openly declare herself to be a member of Antifa and (during a civil suit between Antifa and longtime Antifa nemesis Andy Ngo) tell the jury that she will remember their faces long after the trial and that isn’t considered jury tampering, obstruction of justice or threatening a jury.

How is that any different from a defense attorney looking at the jury and saying: “I work for a powerful crime family and they know where each of you live.” ?

In the same part of this divided nation, by the same political ideology, a former president and front-running candidate for the presidency can be tried on felony charges (during the campaign, not the two years before the campaign) for saying that he believed the election was stolen and for employing the tactic, openly utilized by the Democrats, of challenging the electors.

What is free speech to the right is deemed a felony to the left.

What is legally challenging an election to the right is an insurrection to the left.

This isn’t about fair, or right, or justice. This is the playbook; the time-honored communist procedure. The obvious injustice and amazing lawlessness of their actions are intended to drive the opposition mad. This is why standing behind Trump is important, because he does exactly the same thing to them. Every time he wins, they lose their mind and that doesn’t matter whether it’s in an election or in court.

Continue reading “”

Gov. Lee sets parameters for special session on the Second Amendment, public safety

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — Gov. Bill Lee’s office released the topics of legislation for a special session that would take on public safety in tandem with Second Amendment rights.

The document lists 18 different topics from mental health resources to juvenile justice reform.

This special session on Aug. 21 follows The Covenant School shooting back in March that claimed lives — including three children.

Critics had hoped the session would focus on guns and what they call sensible gun reform. The governor, however, intends to focus on the state’s broken mental health and juvenile justice systems.

Near the end of the regular session, Gov. Bill Lee proposed a bill that would have allowed extreme risk orders of protection or so-called red flag laws. The bill would have made it easier for a judge to take away someone’s guns if they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. But the Republican supermajority killed the bill.

Here are the parameters of the special session this August:

  • mental health resources providers, commitments or services;
  • school safety plans or policies;
  • offenses of committing mass violence or threatening to commit acts of mass violence;
  • reports from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation regarding human trafficking;
  • identification of individuals arrested for felonies;
  • law enforcement’s access to information about individuals who are subject to mental health commitment;
  • information about victims of violent offenses;
  • stalking offenses;
  • measures encouraging the safe storage of firearms, which do include the creation of penalties for failing to safely store firearms;
  • temporary mental health orders of protections, which must be initiated by law enforcement, must require a due process hearing, must require the respondent to undergo an assessment for suicidal or homicidal ideation, must require that an order of protection be reevaluated at least 180 days and must not permit ex parte orders;
  • the transfer of juvenile defendants age 16 and older to courts with criminal jurisdiction, which must include appeal rights for the juveniles and the prosecuting authorities;
  • limiting the circumstances in which juvenile records may be expunged;
  • blended sentencing for juveniles;
  • offenses related to inducing or coercing a minor to commit an offense;
  • the structure of operations of state and local courts
  • making appropriations sufficient to provide funding for any legislation

The fact that the JR-15 is the example only shows what their true intentions are. Keep the kids from learning about gun safety, at all costs.

Illinois to ban advertising for guns allegedly marketed to kids and militants
Illinois will soon outlaw advertising for firearms that officials determine produce a public safety threat or appeals to children, militants or others who might later use the weapons illegally

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois will soon outlaw advertising for firearms that officials determine produces a public safety threat or appeals to children, militants or others who might later use the weapons illegally, as the state continues its quest to curb mass shootings.

Gun-rights advocates say the plan, which Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker has pledged to sign into law, is an unreasonably vague decree that violates not only the constitutionally protected right to own guns, but also free speech.

The prime exhibit in Democratic Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s effort is the JR-15, a smaller, lighter version of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle advertised with the tag line, “Get ’em One Like Yours.” The maker says it is deliberately made smaller, with added safety features, to fit younger shooters as they learn from adults how to safely maneuver such a weapon. Raoul says it’s marketed to children and potentially entices them to skip the adult supervision and start firing.

Opening the door to court challenges is part of ongoing efforts by Democratic lawmakers who control the Statehouse to eliminate gun violence, made more complicated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s expansion of gun rights a year ago. Pritzker also signed a ban on semi-automatic weapons this year, a law that gun-rights advocates continue to challenge in federal court.

Illinois would be the eighth state to approve legislation that allows such lawsuits against firearms manufacturers or distributors. The legislation comes after the deadliest six months of mass killings recorded since at least 2006 — all but one of which involved guns.

Raoul finds precedent in the 25-year-old settlement with large tobacco companies and more recently with advertising for vaping.

“We’ve gone after the marketing that has historically driven up the consumption by minors for those products that are harmful to them,” Raoul said. “The firearms industry shouldn’t be immune to the standards that we put on other industries.”

Except that other industries don’t produce constitutionally protected products, counters the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade association that has filed federal lawsuits in nearly every state that has approved a similar law.

“They’re infringing on your Second Amendment rights by taking away your First Amendment rights,” foundation spokesperson Mark Oliva said.

Without specific legislation, states are largely barred from legal action by a 2005 federal law that prohibits lawsuits blaming manufacturers for the later criminal use of a purchased gun. It sprang from mayors in the late 1990s who sued gun-makers for creating a public nuisance, such as Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s $433 million action in 1998, which the Illinois Supreme Court tossed out in 2004.

But the federal law does allow legal action if a state explicitly names firearms and conduct by their manufacturers in state law, which is what Raoul’s plan would do. He won over lawmakers by showing them advertising they decided was over the line.

“Some of the ads I’ve seen are just stomach-turning,” Don Harmon, of Oak Park, who sponsored the legislation.

The ad for the JR-15, a smaller, lighter .22-caliber rifle, was among them. An emailed statement from the manufacturer, Wee 1 Tactical, said the gun has safety features found on no other gun.

“The JR-15 .22 youth training rifle is for adults who wish to supervise the safe introduction of hunting and shooting sports to the next generation of responsible gun owners,” the statement said. “Parents and guardians wanting to pass on this American tradition have been purchasing small caliber, lighter youth training rifles for decades.”

Continue reading “”

A Silly Argument: The Second Amendment Insurrectionist Purpose

U.S.A. — One of the silliest arguments about the purposes of the Second Amendment is put forward this way. The newly formed Constitutional government would never have created an amendment with the purpose of destroying the government just created. Here is an example from the far-left eugeneweekly.com:

That newly created narrative included the supposed purpose of arming citizens in order to enable them to rebel against the very constitutional government which the Founders were establishing with its checks and balances. This despite the Founders having defined treason as taking up arms against that very government.

But this glaring contradiction persisted and found a home within the halls of the Supreme Court, whose collective wisdom may have suffered from the influx of unreported gifts by billionaires to a number of justices weighing in on the question.

The writer does not appear to have read the history of the Revolutionary War, the Federalist Papers, the arguments surrounding the Bill of Rights, the rudiments of the political theories the Constitution is based on, or the Constitution itself. Knowledge of any one of these fields provides ample refutation of the argument above.

Continue reading “”

Ending Chevron deference will protect the Second Amendment from abusive apparatchiks

The United States of America is an exceptional country with an exceptional Constitution and Bill of Rights. The principles enshrined in the founding documents have been copied by several countries over the past couple of centuries. Even the Soviet Union copied American concepts in its constitution. But, as everyone knew, all those Soviet guarantees were nothing but a joke.

So, what sets America apart from all the other attempted cheap knockoffs? For that, I would like to show you this video clip of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (C-Span backup link):

The basic principle that underpins American Liberty is the splintering and separation of powers both “vertically” into local/state/federal governments, and “horizontally” within each level into separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

That principle was violated rather egregiously in a 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron v. NRDC, in which the Court created a legal test now known as “Chevron Deference.” Justia summarizes it as follows:

A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.

In other words, the Judiciary forfeits its duty to interpret laws to the Executive branch when there’s ambiguity. This is on top of the legislative branch delegating its lawmaking duties to the Executive branch. This opening allowed Executive branch agencies, which are prone to aggrandizing their power, to run amok in abusive ways.

The Supreme Court recently granted a cert petition for a case that may end up overturning the Chevron Doctrine. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was brought by a herring fishing company and concerns monitoring costs fishermen must pay the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), even though the law in question doesn’t explicitly authorize it.

Why does Chevron Deference concern gun owners and Second Amendment advocates? Just yesterday, I wrote about how the Biden Department of Education took advantage of ambiguity in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) to cut off funding for schools that have archery and hunting programs.

The abuse of regulatory power can also be seen in the ATF’s arbitrary redefinition of bumpstocks as machine guns, the redefinition of unfinished frames/receivers as fully functional firearms, and the redefinition of AR pistols with braces as Short-Barreled Rifles (SBRs).

There’s also an attempt by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Administration to ban lead ammunition on federal lands.

Second Amendment groups have made note and are getting involved in the Loper case. The Supreme Court website shows almost 50 amicus briefs have been submitted, including those from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Gun Owners of America.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Maybe a few honest liberals might come out against this. But don’t hold your breath waiting on a major reaction from the Democratic establishment; unfortunately, this is the exact kind of thing they think the federal government should be doing. And that’s the truly scary part of this whole saga.

Leaked emails expose Biden White House’s attacks on the First Amendment

The “Twitter Files” reporting from last year exposed a disturbing collusion between Twitter executives and officials from the federal government to censor the public’s speech. But new revelations from Congress show that the Biden White House and Facebook have engaged in similar collusion.

On Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who leads the House Judiciary Committee, released internal Facebook emails that show the Big Tech platform was explicitly pressured by the Biden administration to take down specific posts that the president’s allies disliked.

WDOC rolls out Restoration of Rights certificates

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (RELEASE) – The Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC) has begun accepting applications and evaluating discharging individuals on their eligibility to receive a restoration of rights certificate in the State of Wyoming.

The WDOC is able to begin this process due to a change in Wyoming Statute §7-13-105 that went into effect July 1, 2023, which allows individuals that are convicted as a first time, non-violent felon, to have their right to vote, along with the rights lost as outlined in W.S. §6-10-106 to be restored. The rights restored under W.S. §7-13-105 include the ability to be an elector or juror or to hold any office of honor, trust or profit within this state or to use or knowingly possess any firearm.

The WDOC is accepting applications by mail, by email or in person at the Central Office. For more information in regards to this process, please visit https://corrections.wyo.gov/restoration-of-rights. Senator Eric Barlow, who was the sponsor for the original bill, commented “I am thankful to those who supported allowing more folks who have fulfilled their debt to society to re-engage in the most foundational aspects of citizenship, including the right to hold public office, serve on a jury and exercise their Second Amendment rights. The Legislature recognized the importance of voting rights for these same folks several years ago and I was pleased to assist with that too. I appreciate the Department of Corrections for implementing this program in a timely and efficient manner.”

Sen. Chris Murphy Targets Military Gun Owners In Defense Bills

It takes a certain amount of brazenness to put the responsibility of defending the nation on a young American and then, in the next breath, demand they forfeit those freedoms they are literally willing to die to protect.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is never one to disappoint, though. His latest legislative move is to put a target on the back of every service member as someone who cannot be entrusted to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Military members already sacrifice many of their freedoms to protect the United States. Sen. Murphy, who has never served a day in uniform, doesn’t think that’s enough.

Sen. Murphy thinks Second Amendment freedoms for those in uniform is, well, too much freedom.

Gun control isn’t anything new to Sen. Murphy. He’s made a career of attacking the Second Amendment and the firearm industry. That’s made him the darling of gun control groups but now he’s putting the Second Amendment rights of military gun owners in his crosshairs.

Sen. Murphy introduced an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which empowers our government to fund and support our nation’s military. As a “must-pass” bill, it naturally attracts thousands of amendments for pet projects every year. Most of those are ruled out of order, or not defense related, so they can’t be attached to the bill.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Considering a Case That Might Upend Hundreds of January 6 Prosecutions

Prosecutorial overreach is not uncommon in high-profile cases. The prosecutors pile on the charges to frighten defendants with the prospect of long prison terms so they plead out. The state also hopes to throw enough charges against the wall to see what sticks.

But the danger of overreach is that a judge may want to smack a prosecutor down for bringing unnecessary charges. Such is the case in the January 6 prosecutions.

One of the rioters, Edward Lang, is facing 11 charges and pleaded not guilty to all of them. But a district court judge threw out the charges relating to “obstruction of an official proceeding” concerning Lang and two others accused of violence at the Capitol.

The law in question sentences a guilty party to up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document,” or “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Lang is questioning whether the Sarbanes-Oxley statute fits the behavior of hundreds of rioters.

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in response to financial malfeasance in the 2002 bankruptcies of telecom giant Worldcom and Enron, an energy company based in Houston. Lang argues that the obstruction defined in Sarbanes-Oxley bears no relationship to the violence that occurred on January 6, 2021.

The New York Sun:

The panel of the United States Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, though, by a 2-to-1 margin, upheld the use of the obstruction charge, deciding that Judge Nichols’s reading was too cramped. Judge Pan, writing for the majority, ruled that the “broad interpretation of the statute — encompassing all forms of obstructive acts — is unambiguous and natural.”

The request for a hearing before the Nine asks whether the statute, intended to clamp down on financial malfeasance, “can be used to prosecute acts of violence against police officers in the context of a public demonstration that turned into a riot.” Mr. Lang argues that a “statute intended to combat financial fraud has been transformed into a blatant political instrument to crush dissent.”

Lang’s petition before the high court warns that a “revolution is underway, with ambitious federal prosecutors reworking the penal code to make it do work never intended to be done, work that threatens to chill, and does chill, ordinary Americans in their First Amendment rights.” The petition says there’s no need to “create a new and novel application of a statute to capture the violence that took place that day.”

Lang argues that the obstruction must be done “corruptly,” which doesn’t appear to be the case in his prosecution. And finally, Lang warns that this prosecutorial strategy “will serve to chill political speech and expression on the eve of one of the most consequential events in American life — the election of the next President of the United States.” He says it “falls to this Court to rein in the Department of Justice.”

It’s easy to argue that there is a certain amount of vindictiveness in many of these prosecutions. The question facing the court will be, did prosecutors go too far in fashioning a legal argument to prosecute based on a loose interpretation of a statute that was never meant to cover violence during a riot?

Courts are reluctant to reign in prosecutors, but in this case, there’s a chance the Supreme Court might look to cut the DoJ’s misused freedom of action and bring them down a peg.

For some rioters, it could mean the difference between prison and freedom. For others, taking a 20-year sentence off the table will be, if nothing else, a relief.