Category: Rights

SAF sues Pennsylvania Sheriff to stop warrantless searches

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a challenge of Pennsylvania’s promulgated firearms regulation and its enforcement by the Pennsylvania State Police and Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, which includes warrantless searches.

SAF is joined by Shot Tec, LLC and a private citizen, Grant Schmidt. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Dillon Harris, Civil Rights Defense Firm, of Bechtelsville, Pa. Defendants are Col. Christopher Paris, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and Montgomery County Sheriff Sean Kilkenny, in their official capacities. The action was filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

The petition challenges Col. Paris and the PSP’s “interpretation, implementation and enforcement” of the firearms regulation “which is being enforced” by Kilkenny, according to the court filing. The petition alleges that Sheriff Kilkenny “has implemented a policy…which he contends, based on the PSP’s promulgation and implementation of (the regulation) permit him, in the absence of probable cause and a warrant and in violation of…the Pennsylvania Constitution, to come into those…homes or business.”

Plaintiffs further assert this inspection enables the sheriff to impose sanctions against holders of state licenses to sell firearms “for not having ‘safe storage’” in the event of an emergency when the PSP has “failed to promulgate any regulations addressing what constitute ‘safe storage’ or sufficient safeguards…when the General Assembly only delegated to the PSP the ability to establish such standards.”

“The State Assembly has never enacted a law allowing for warrantless searches of licensees, but the state police promulgated a regulation requiring licensees to submit to such searches, which are now planned by the sheriff’s department,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We believe there are grave constitutional issues involved in this scheme, particularly when an administrative agency simply waives an individual’s constitutional rights by implementing a regulation without any framework from the legislature. Equally troubling is the Sheriff’s assertion that he would revoke a license from and individual asserting their right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. We have filed this petition to ensure constitutional rights are respected.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed, “No statute should allow carte blanche regulations to be imposed by any law enforcement agency because of the inherent danger of overstepping legal authority and constitutional protections which must be protected in a free society. We’re seeking a remedy from the court to stop this, especially when warrantless searches are involved.”

Self-serving or not, Newsom’s 28th Amendment is a threat to the rights of all

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom garnered national attention by proposing his vision for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unsurprising given Newsom’s policy goals for the Golden State, the proposed amendment would advance Newsom’s gun control dreams nationwide. While it’s unlikely Newsom can gather the support necessary to make his dream a reality in the near-term, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the dangers of his narrative.

On June 8, Newsom issued a press release outlining his specific vision for a new constitutional amendment that he describes as “common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support.” The proposed amendment would write four key tenets of Newsom’s gun control religion into our federal system of government: (1) raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; (2) mandating (so-called) “universal background checks”; (3) instituting a waiting period for all gun purchases; and (4) barring “civilian purchase of assault weapons.”

It would be exceedingly challenging today for Newsom to actually achieve his goal. Article V of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the procedure necessary to amend the Constitution. First, two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the states have to propose an amendment (with agreed upon language). Then, three fourths of states have to ratify that amendment for it to become effective. Given only 10 states and Washington D.C. have any form of ban on so-called “assault weapons” or any form of waiting period, while 27 states have enacted some iteration of free/constitutional/permitless carry, it is clear that there isn’t currently much appetite for Newsom’s particular brand of gun control across the country.

Setting that aside, Newsom’s rhetoric is still dangerous for a couple reasons. First, while Newsom’s campaign is, at face value, a poorly disguised political stunt and fundraising effort for his political ambitions, it continues to paint gun control as “popular” and those standing in its way as responsible for violence. Newsom quite literally called those opposing his proposed amendment “Merchants of Death.” This rhetoric continues to push gun control activists’ twisting of language to psychologically manipulate the public and advance the activists’ cause. It aims to shift public perception until enough people will assent to the authoritarian regulation of all individual’s natural rights.

Second, and to that point, Newsom’s proposed amendment carries with it the implication that, if enough people agree, the government should have the power to infringe on the People’s natural right to self-defense and to possess the tools necessary to effectuate that defense. The idea that the People’s rights can be put up to a decision of a popular vote is offensive and immoral. The entire purpose of our system of government was to protect the rights of the few from the many. Yet, today, we’ve strayed far from that original vision. Newsom’s proposed amendment is evidence of just that.

Not only is Newsom’s proposal an admission that he is losing his battle for civilian disarmament, and that he knows the Constitution and the Second Amendment stand in the way of his authoritarian utopia, but it also reveals just how far our Nation has strayed from its aspirations of individual liberty, choosing instead to grow the leviathan that is government.

Natural rights are not mere political talking points, nor are those who cherish them second class citizens, subject to the whimsy of polling results or political fads. The People should never weaken in their resolve to protect those rights that once one generation loses, future generations may never know.

Whether Newsom’s proposed amendment is likely or not in the immediate future, one thing remains constant—all those who cherish individual rights must treat each trespass exactly for what it is, a bridge to the next trespass.

Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is a senior attorney for constitutional litigation with FPC Action Foundation where he regularly represents Firearms Policy Coalition.

State Senator Tells Parents to Flee His Own State Amid Bill That Would Take Kids Away From Non-’Affirming’ Parents.

A California state senator told a gathered crowd of parents at the California Senate Judicial Committee to flee the state on June 13 during a hearing on a bill which would put parents who don’t affirm their child’s “gender transition” in danger of child abuse charges.

Sen. Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, is one of the two lone Republicans on California’s Senate Judiciary Committee, and he has served in the California Legislature for 11 years. He was also the lone voice warning against language in AB 957, which a Democratic senator had amended on June 5 to rewrite the California Family Code to list “gender affirmation” alongside a child’s need for “health, safety, and welfare.”

Abigail Martinez shared the heartbreaking story of losing her daughter to transgenderism.

 

Ghost Guns Come Back to Haunt the Biden ATF

The ATF’s blunder on 80% frames misfires in court, then backfires as 0% pistols enter the game

In April of 2022, the Biden administration sought to ban the commercial sale of incomplete firearm frames or receivers (commonly referred to as 80% lowers) through ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F. Entirely disrupting the long-held American tradition of home gunsmithing, ATF’s activist reinterpretation of an existing law seeks to prohibit the sale of 80% receivers unless the vendor is a federally registered firearms dealer and each sale is approved by the FBI’s background check system and accompanied by a permanent record of the transaction.

ATF’s 2021R-05F rule tried to accomplish this by legally reclassifying 80% lowers — partially completed receivers that were not previously regulated as firearms — as firearms. If you aren’t familiar with 80% frames, you should understand that these are plastic or metal blocks that, at the time of their sale, cannot accept the parts, trigger components, or the other pieces necessary for a firearm to operate. They are not guns; they can’t be loaded, they can’t fire, they have no firing mechanism. And yet the ATF contends that because these could become guns, they should be sold and regulated as guns.

That’s because 80% frames are purchased by hobbyists who also buy parts kits, jigs, and tooling and will work at home to complete the rest of the machining and assembly process required to create a viable firearm. Building 80% guns is popular with gun enthusiasts who enjoy the satisfaction of building their own firearms and the personalization of customizing their firearms to their specifications.

The firearms created by these hobbyists are what the ATF calls “privately made firearms” and what the media calls “ghost guns.”

An “80%” AR-15 receiver. Note the lack of finish, trigger, or lower receiver parts. The bare metal must be machined away and holes drilled to accommodate the trigger, hammer/trigger pins, safety, and more…

In fairness, some ghost guns are also produced by the criminal element. And it’s also true that these firearms have become increasingly popular amongst prohibited possessors. But in a country that has largely traded any real concern for order, public safety, or property rights for legalized shoplifting, mass encampments of homeless drug addicts, and civil rights patronage schemes, one must remember that our government is simply acting in bad faith when it comes to gun laws like 05F.

If it were important to the government to stop gun crime, they would focus their efforts on St. Louis or Baltimore. But it’s not important to the government to stop these crimes, it’s important to the federal government to stop you from being able to defend yourself from them.

When 05F was added to the federal registrar, Polymer80, Gray Wolf Tactical, Tactical Machine LLC, Defense Distributed, and a number of other companies that specialize in the sale or manufacture of 80% frames, components, and tooling were all at risk of closing or being irreparably harmed by the ATF’s new interpretation of existing gun laws.

These conditions precipitated a lawsuit, and in March of this year, a federal judge granted an injunction in favor of, among others, Defense Distributed, the Texas-based maker of the Ghost Gunner machine.

Continue reading “”

Progressive Judge Says Commerce Clause Overrides the Bill of Rights

U.S.A. — At least one judge in the Third Circuit believes the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. In a recent decision of The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, on June 6, 2023, the en banc court ruled some felony convictions are not sufficient to restrict Second Amendment rights, based on the historical record. Eleven of 15 judges concurred with the majority opinion. Four judges dissented.

Judge Roth makes a strong case, based on Progressive philosophy, the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. She gives the usual litany of Progressive “arguments”: Things have changed since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The federal government has to have more power than the Bill of Rights allows. That was then. This is now. Here is part of the dissent from Judge Roth of the Third Circuit P. 96 of 107 :

In Bruen, the Supreme Court considered whether a regulation issued by a state government was a facially constitutional exercise of its traditional police power.

Range presents a distinguishable question: Whether a federal statute, which the Supreme Court has upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, 2 is constitutional as applied to him.

The parties and the Majority conflate these spheres of authority and fail to address binding precedents affirming Congress’s power to regulate the possession of firearms in interstate commerce. Because Range lacks standing under the applicable Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent.

Judge Roth explicitly states the modern expansion of the commerce clause, to include virtually all activity that has any effect on commerce, overrides the Bill of Rights because the scope of modern commerce is far greater than commerce at the founding.

This case involves the Second Amendment. Roth’s logic as easily applies to the First Amendment and others. Virtually all First Amendment usage involves items that have a connection to interstate commerce – printing presses, telephones, computers, satellites, fiber optic cables, etc. Church pews are made of wood shipped across state lines, paid for by credit cards recognized by interstate banks. Nearly all homes affect interstate commerce. Under the expansive interpretation, the federal government could regulate all use and sale of homes and inspect them at any time, in spite of the Fourth Amendment. Under the expansive, Progressive interpretation, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are swallowed up. Virtually all of life is encompassed by the absurd extension of the Commerce Clause created by Progressive judges.

Most of what Judge Roth writes about modern times applied to commerce at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Continue reading “”

Gavin Newsom’s campaign to repeal the Second Amendment

Whatever else Gov. Gavin Newsom ’s (D-CA) campaign for a 28th Amendment gets wrong about guns, at least it implicitly admits that the Democratic Party’s gun control wish list is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment .

After all, why propose an amendment if the Constitution doesn’t forbid what you want to accomplish?

Leaving Newsom’s admission aside, however, his 28th Amendment would accomplish nothing, at least nothing good. At worst, it would lay the legal groundwork for confiscating every gun in the United States.

Newsom has offered no text for his amendment, only four “principles” he wants written into it. This allows him to propose “barring civilian purchase of assault weapons” without ever having to define exactly what an “assault weapon” is.

Define it too narrowly and gun manufacturers will create new models that skirt the definition. Define it too broadly by saying it is “any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine,” for example, and you outlaw almost half the handguns in the nation. If the text of Newsom’s 28th Amendment is ever written, he’ll have to choose. The first option renders his amendment useless; the second would mean it never gets the votes to become law.

Not all of Newsom’s principles are so vague. Raising the legal age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21 is an easy bright line to enforce, but there isn’t any evidence that it would reduce gun crimes at all. But how can we raise the age to 21 when people may vote when three years younger than that?

Newsom’s third principle calls for a “reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases.” What is “reasonable” is not defined. We know from existing state waiting periods that they reduce gun suicides for those over 55, but they have no effect on gun homicide rates overall.

Finally, Newsom calls for “universal background checks” for gun purchases. But all commercial gun purchases are subject to universal background checks already. What Newsom is really calling for here is background checks for all private firearm transfers. Anytime anyone transfers gun ownership, from father to son, for example, or from neighbor to neighbor, Newsom wants the federal government to know about it.

Some states have tried this, and compliance is nonexistent. It is estimated that only 3.5% of private transfers in Oregon, for example, complied with that state’s universal background check law. The only way to achieve anything approaching effective compliance would be for the federal government to create a national gun registry and force all owners to register their firearms with the feds. That is the Democrats’ real goal with a universal background check system: a new government database that knows who owns every gun in the country and where they live.

Newsom’s gun grabbing pitch is predicated on the suggestion that mass shootings are a rational security threat and that the public, after “another few dozen of these in the next year or two,” will accept repealing the Second Amendment.

But mass shootings make up just 1% of all gun deaths each year. If Newsom wants to do something about gun violence, he should attack the George Soros district attorneys in his state and across the country who refuse to prosecute minorities charged with gun possession crimes. Democrats need to focus on enforcing existing gun laws before they try to create new ones.

Defense Distributed Once Again Proves Gun Control Obsolete With A 0% Pistol

Defense Distributed Once Again Proves Gun Control Obsolete With A 0% Pistol

AUSTIN, Texas — In 2013, Cody Wilson printed the Liberator. The Liberator was the first 3D-printed firearm. His goal was simple. It was to make all gun control obsolete.

Giving the Constitution Teeth: The Truth About Aggravated Infringement—a Felony

The U.S. Constitution, for all its strengths, revered and imitated worldwide, has a fatal flaw. A weakness of Greek-tragedy proportions. The Constitution lacks punishment for those who would violate its terms. Yes, there are avenues of recourse, but these have been neutered and rendered feckless in so many ways.

Politicians these days believe they can get away with anything, right? Graft, bribes, gaslighting, obtaining office by any means legal or otherwise, all-out bald-faced lies, scare tactics, misappropriation of funds… They’ll use the organs of government to assault domestic opposition (not the same as domestic enemies), place them under arrest, strangle their voices by deplatforming, controlling so-called “news” media and playing them like stenographers, it has gotten totally out of hand. Why? And what to do about it? Even when they’re exposed, red-handed—did you review John Durham’s report?—they seem to skate. Here’s why:

The ultimate protection of our “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness”—a way to force government into compliance—is use of force. Our Declaration of Independence recognized and encouraged that “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

That option, which held more meaning right after our bloody founding, has lost some if not all its impact. It’s too extreme, too hard, too violent for subtle infringements and little incursions on our liberties. That allows the thousand cuts to build up until they are intolerable acts. Then use of force is too late. We’re there now. But there’s hope.

What America needs, what our Republic and Constitution need, is strict adherence to a policy of, “No infringement shall be tolerated.” Small encroachments—like licenses to carry arms or speech codes—must subject people proposing such violations to penalties. Gross infringements like, “We’re going to take away your favorite rifle—and of course we’ll keep ours,” require prison terms. Stiff penalties.

Continue reading “”

NSSF WELCOMES U.S. SEN. GRAHAM’S FFL PROTECTION ACT

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, welcomes the introduction of the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Protection Act, introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), along with 22 co-sponsors. The bill would strengthen and enhance criminal penalties for thefts of firearms from federally licensed firearm retailers. This legislation sends a strong message to those violent criminals engaging in these illicit activities and helps provide for safer communities, assists law enforcement and protects the livelihoods of firearm retailers.

“This is what true gun safety legislation looks like. Senator Graham’s FFL Protection Act sends an unequivocal message to criminals intent on burglarizing and robbing firearm retailers that the safety of America’s communities is nonnegotiable,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This legislation sends a strong message to violent criminals engaging in these illicit activities that there will be accountability and consequences for their crimes. This legislation assigns the responsibility for the crime where it belongs – with the criminal. Senator Graham has been a staunch advocate of holding criminals accountable and protecting firearm retailers. This legislation does both. This legislation is a real solution that will make our communities safer.”

The Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Protection Act builds on the efforts NSSF has taken to address robbery and burglary of firearms through the partnership with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on Operation Secure Store®, one of several Real Solutions. Safer Communities.® firearm industry safety initiatives. As part of Operation Secure Store, NSSF matches ATF reward offers for information regarding these crimes that leads to the arrest and conviction of the criminals responsible and the recovery of the stolen firearms. Additionally, NSSF helps raise awareness among firearm retailers to educate them on steps they can take to reduce the chance guns will be stolen from them during a burglary or robbery. In cooperation with ATF, NSSF conducts retailer store security seminars, assists retailers with store security audits of their premises and endorses and promotes the use of security products like smash resistant display cases.

ATF Director Dettelbach testified before Congress on the Operation Secure Store partnership with NSSF. ATF data has shown Operation Secure Store is working. Firearm retailer burglaries in 2021 were 277, compared to 577 in 2017 and 2,936 firearms were stolen in 2021 from firearm retailers, a 65 percent drop from the 7,841 firearms stolen from retailers in 2017.

Congressmen John Rutherford (R-Fla.) and Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) introduced the U.S. House of Representative’s FFL Protection Act as H.R. 2620.

A Quiet Bluegrass Genocide

Bluegrass Genocide

Sometimes, the comments on Bastiat’s Window take my breath away. Tuesday, (6/6/23) brought one such case. In his terrific Shiny Herd substack, Ted Balaker interviewed me on the mania for eugenic sterilization of those deemed “unfit to reproduce” for the first 75+ years of the 20th century. As Ted and I discussed:

“They were forced to undergo hysterectomies. Their tubes were tied and they were given vasectomies, sometimes without anesthesia.”

The scientific and political communities in America were solidly behind the project. Those performing the sterilizations were considered humanitarian heroes, and academics who questioned the idea were subject to vilification, loss of employment, and loss of academic funding. The press and political activists formed a solid phalanx to protect the pro-eugenics side. Glenn Reynolds of

Glenn’s Substack

PUBLIC HEALTH HAS ALWAYS INVOLVED A LOT OF GROUPTHINK: When Sterilization Was Dogma: Why the Eugenics Movement is Relevant Today. “Eugenicists sought to ‘improve’ the human species in the same way that one would improve cattle or soybeans—and using basically the same techniques.”

Later in the day, Glenn added an update—an excruciatingly poignant email that he had received from a reader:

“After giving birth to me in 1971, just months after turning 18, the rural community hospital staff convinced my mother to have a tubal ligation before she left.

Only decades later did I realize how improper this seemed for a healthy, married, drug-free young woman of 18. But she was in Appalachia, and poor. Was the hospital staff trying to avoid more of “her kind” being born?

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/title-x-family-planning-program-1970-1977

Then I heard of the Family Planning Services Act and began to wonder if there was in 1971 a federally-funded bias toward sterilizing poor young women in Appalachia. Is this why I never had siblings and face being the sole caretaker and provider for my aging mother?

But I can only wonder because I can’t find any research or data or even articles inquiring about changes in birth and sterilization rates among women in Appalachia before/after the Family Planning Services Act took hold.

Maybe the Act didn’t make a difference at all. Or maybe it was a quiet Bluegrass Genocide.

No one seems to want to ask.”

This writer’s expression, “bluegrass genocide,” is a marvel of imagery, simplicity, and power. Nowhere to be found on the internet (till now), the term lashes an arcadian adjective to a dystopian noun. Just two words and five syllables describe a sweeping saga, imparting both sense of place and sense of horror. It starkly captures the inhumanity that, for the better part of the last century, exerted a vice grip over science, medicine, culture, politics, journalism, and public policy—the notion that experts are entitled to play God with lives in pursuit of their favored social goals. The writer’s addition of “quiet”—”a quiet Bluegrass Genocide”—makes the events described all the more vile.

Continue reading “”

Biden Pushes Supreme Court to Ban More People From Owning Firearms

The Biden administration wants to grant federal courts the power to ban practically anyone from owning a firearm.

After Zackey Rahimi was convicted in a federal district court of unlawful firearm possession while under a restraining order, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prohibiting a person from gun ownership while under a civil protective order was unconstitutional. So Joe Biden’s Justice Department stepped in on March 17 to petition the Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court’s decision.

Second Amendment: From the time the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 until the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the federal government had no jurisdiction over state firearm laws. But after the 14th Amendment passed, the federal government declared certain state laws invalid. This enabled President Lyndon Johnson to sign the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to own firearms.

Most Americans don’t have a problem with denying guns to felons, but now the Biden administration is trying to take things a step further by denying guns to those under a civil protective order.

Although Zackey Rahimi is indeed a violent and dangerous person, granting federal district courts the power to ban those under a restraining order from owning firearms makes the Second Amendment meaningless. It is far easier to put a restraining order on someone than to convict him of an actual felony, so liberal judges sympathetic to the Biden administration could suspend someone’s Second Amendment rights on a whim.

Natural Rights: The English Bill of Rights of 1689 protected the right of Protestant subjects to bear arms for self-defense. And the U.S. Bill of Rights took things further by removing the religious requirement. English philosopher John Locke and Founding Father Thomas Jefferson argued that individuals have a God-given right to protect their lives, liberty and property.

Locke and Jefferson knew a lot about human nature, but you do not have to know as much to realize why Biden’s gun control proposals are dangerous. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, the Soviet Union and many other dictatorships all relied on the most proven form of suppression to control people. And the radical left in America shows the same tendency to force its will on the public.

Prophecy says: In his article “Saving America From the Radical Left—Temporarily,” Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry highlighted how gun control is part of an organized attack on America:

The mindset behind the radical Democrats is exposed when you look at their handling of another issue: gun control. Every time there is a school shooting, even before any facts about the situation come out, they immediately begin pushing for gun bans.

After the most recent shooting, they funded student groups and encouraged students to revolt against authorities. They don’t just want to raise the buying age or to restrict the sale of a few types of guns; they want to eliminate all guns. They hate the Second Amendment and want to destroy the Constitution. They want a revolution!

This attack is foretold in 2 Kings 14:26-28, which discuss end-time America’s and Britain’s “bitter affliction.” To learn about the lawless mindset behind gun control, illegal immigration and numerous other issues, read America Under Attack, by Gerald Flurry.

Gun control advocates are letting the mask slip

There will always be debate over gun control, no matter what the courts rule going forward. After all, the Bruen decision doesn’t seem to have slowed any anti-gun lawmakers down one bit. They’re just hoping the laws can go into effect for a few years before they get bounced by the Supreme Court.

Yet through it all, we’re routinely told that no one wants to ban guns, that it’s all about “common sense gun control” initiatives, but that no one wants to take away your right.

Except, that’s not remotely true, as John Lott notes in the Washington Times:

Gun control advocates keep claiming they just want “reasonable” gun control, but self-defense advocates are understandably skeptical.

New York and New Jersey cover their states with gun-free zones to the point of making concealed carry impractical. Hawaii’s Legislature is now proposing to charge permit holders $1,000 in fees. None of that is reasonable. Nor is it reasonable when President Biden keeps talking about banning all semi-automatic guns, which account for about 85% of handguns sold.

ABC News reported in 2013 that former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, who are gun control activists, “just want what they call reasonable gun control.”

(In 2011, Ms. Giffords was shot in the head at point-blank range in a supermarket parking lot. Eighteen other people were also shot, six of them fatally, including federal District Chief Judge John Roll and a 9-year-old girl.)

But at the end of an interview with Time magazine in April, the Democratic former lawmaker from Arizona made her wishes clear: “‘No more guns,’ she said. Peter Ambler, her aide and adviser, tried to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Ms. Giffords was clear about what she was saying. “No, no, no,’ she said. “Lord, no.” She paused. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.’”

Lott goes on to illustrate just how wrong many of the gun control arguments actually are, and you should most definitely read what he has to say because he’s right.

However, there are other instances we’re seeing of the “no more guns” vibe gaining ground.

For example, we have Sen. John Fetterman’s aide suggesting the senator would support overturning the Second Amendment, which the senator’s office has yet to deny.

We also have the smaller-than-desired gaggle of women outside the state capitol of Colorado demanding not gun control, but an executive order banning guns in the state and a mandatory buyback of all firearms. This isn’t about restrictions but a totally unconstitutional gun ban decreed by executive fiat.

The truth of the matter is that gun control supporters have maintained a mask for years. They’ve routinely claimed that they aren’t interested in gun bans and anyone who says they are is just some kind of conspiracy theorist.

Yet what we’re seeing is that a lot of people are letting the mask slip. They’re not hiding it so much anymore. They’re trusting the media to cover them–which is what’s happening, to be sure–so they don’t have to pretend as much as they have in the past.

More and more are saying the quiet part out loud, which is refreshing.

The downside is that they’re not thinking this through because a majority of Americans may want some kind of gun control, but a buttload fewer are willing to accept a ban on guns

En banc! U.S. 3rd Circuit Court (The Bruen decision strikes again)

TLDR:
Range pleaded guilty in 1995 to committing welfare fraud, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. As we know, GCA’ 68 bans people convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year and a day in prison – which are usually felonies – from buying guns.
Range sued the government in 2020 saying the ban violated his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
The appeals court – en banc – ruled that since there were no text, history or tradition of restrictions like this when the 2nd and the 14th amendments were ratified, the restriction was unconstitutional.

Another scene in the opening act of the end of gun control the goobermint has foisted on us

No Loss of Second Amendment Rights for Welfare Fraud

Range_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion

Oregon Measure 114 gun law faces federal court test Monday

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal trial over Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure opened Monday in Portland, marking a critical next step for one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation after months of being tied up in the courts.

The trial, which is being held before a judge and not a jury, will determine whether the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

It comes after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment that has upended gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books. It changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions, telling judges that gun laws must be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Oregon measure’s fate is being carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions passed since the Supreme Court ruling last June.

The legal battle over in Oregon could well last beyond the trial. Whatever the judge decides, the ruling is likely to be appealed, potentially moving all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

After Durham Report Excoriates FBI for Abuse of Power, GOP Won’t Reauthorize FISA Spy Law Without Reforms.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Turner, said the GOP won’t back reauthorizing a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without major changes, signaling a bipartisan coalition in support of modifying the act that allows for spying on Americans with the approval of a secret court.

Mr. Turner has aligned himself with Representatives Darin LaHood and Mike Garcia in pushing for changes to FISA, and its Section 702 in particular, citing Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation of the FBI as a reason.

“We have been very clear on a bipartisan basis with the intelligence community and the FBI that there is no support in Congress for a clean reauthorization of 702,” Mr. Turner told the Washington Examiner.

Mr. Turner is aligning himself with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as well as other Democrats who have been critical of the power FISA gives the intelligence community. President Biden, however, has pushed for renewal.

“Reforms are necessary. We will be taking up the issue of reforms, and they will not be limited to 702 itself,” Mr. Turner said. “It will encompass both abuses that we are aware of and abuses that are now in the public domain as a result of disclosure and Durham.”

The provision in question grants broad authority to the FBI to collect data on communications from foreign nationals without a warrant. However, critics say it has been abused and used as a backdoor to spy on Americans.

The coming fight over reauthorization will be the first time critics of the law will have serious leverage since the passage of Section 702 in 2008.

Continue reading “”

Nearly 30% of people under 30 support government surveillance cameras in every home: poll

‘Young people seem more willing to prioritize safety over ensuring robust freedom’

Roughly three in 10 Americans under 30 favor “the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity,” according to the results of a new Cato Institute survey.

“We don’t know how much of this preference for security over privacy or freedom is something unique to this generation (a cohort effect) or simply the result of youth (age effect),” Cato reported. “However, there is reason to think part of this is generational.”

Cato conducted its 2023 Central Bank Digital Currency National Survey of 2,000 Americans in collaboration with YouGov from February 27 to March 8. It included a wide swath of ideologies, ages and other demographics.

One question asked: “Would you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity?” Overall, most respondents were against the idea:

Strongly favor 6%
Somewhat favor 8%
Neither favor or oppose 10%
Somewhat oppose 7%
Strongly oppose 68%

While the younger generation tends to favor the idea, support declines with age, “dropping to 20 percent among 30–44 year olds and dropping considerably to 6 percent among those over the age of 45,” Cato reported.

“… It is also possible that increased support for government surveillance among the young has common roots with what Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt describe in the Coddling of the American Mind: young people seem more willing to prioritize safety (from possible violence or hurtful words) over ensuring robust freedom (from government surveillance or to speak freely).”

The survey results also found that, when broken down by ethnicity and ideology, minorities and the center-left are more open to government surveillance than other categories.

“African Americans (33 percent) and Hispanic Americans (25 percent) are more likely than White Americans (9 percent) and Asian Americans (11 percent) to support in‐​home government surveillance. Democrats (17 percent) are also more likely than Republicans (11 percent) to support it but not by a wide margin,” Cato reported.

The libertarian think tank pointed out that it asked the question about home surveillance as part of its survey on Central Bank Digital Currencies “to see whether there is a relationship between opinions on the government issuing a central bank digital currency and government installing cameras in homes.”

“It appears that the two opinions are correlated. Interestingly, more than half (53 percent) of those who support the United States adopting a CBDC are also supportive of government surveillance cameras in homes, while only 2 percent of those who oppose a CBDC feel the same,” the institute reported.

“This suggests there may be a common consideration that is prompted by both issues. Likely, it has to do with willingness to give up privacy in hopes of greater security.”

The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 2.54 percent.

Armed Women of America National Conference Opens Doors to Public

2023 Armed Women of America National Conference Opens

Names like Lena Miculek, Mike Seeklander, Miyo Strong of SmartDefense, Terry Vaughan, Nikki Burgett, Cheryl Todd of Gun Freedom Radio, Karen Butler of Shoot Like a Girl, Shelley Hill of The Complete Combatant, Vicki Farnam, and more are all bringing some of the best techniques and education to one spot this August.

2023 Armed Women of America National Conference

Covering topics like off-body carrying, staying calm in a crisis, safeguarding life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, self-defense, developing a personal response plan for an active threat, and so much more, the National Conference & Leadership Summit is personal protection education for women at its best.

Included in this action-packed weekend is hands-on shopping with industry brands like Ruger, Glock, Crossbreed Holsters, Gunsite Academy, Laser Ammo, ErgoGrips, Walkers, MantisX, Premier Body Armor, OTIS Smart Gun Care, CoolFire Trainers, Taurus USA, and many more. Topping it all off is plenty of social networking, add-on pre and post-conference workshops, and fun! Where else can you get this much content and connection in one place? Nowhere.

Previously reserved for chapter leadership, the Armed Women of America is opening its annual conference doors to all members, skill levels, and interests. Beyond that, in recognizing the incredible growth in women shooters, they are opening weekend EXPO to the general public. All of this offered for hundreds less than a single ticket to a Taylor Swift concert.

If you’ve not heard of the Armed Women of America (AWA), they are a non-profit organization with chapters across the country where women gather regularly to learn and grow in their abilities to handle firearms safely, responsibly, and competently. They offer a welcoming, non-intimidating place for women to learn more about topics including firearms safety, personal protection, concealed carry, mindset and so much more. The meetings offer classroom and range time, all under the guidance of certified women instructors who volunteer their time. Their vision is that women have the skills, mindset, and training to defend themselves and those in their care.

Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members

NEW ORLEANS, LA (May 26, 2023) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit’s Order clarifying that the Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland applies to FPC’s members, Maxim Defense’s customers, and the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members. The order, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

FPC challenged ATF’s administrative rule that seeks to reclassify “braced pistols” as “short-barreled rifles.” In so doing, the rule would transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for a decade, unless they either destroy their constitutionally protected property or comply with the NFA’s onerous and unconstitutional requirements.

FPC has argued that the rule is a violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because it infringes upon the fundamental and natural rights of the People. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Per the Fifth Circuit’s Order: “This clarification is granted essentially for the reasons concisely set forth in the May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply to Their Opposed Motion for Clarification of Injunction Pending Appeal. . . Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term ʻPlaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (ʻFPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.’  That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members.”

“We’re incredibly excited to report that the Fifth Circuit has clarified that our injunction covers FPC’s members and Maxim Defense’s customers, as we have always argued for,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “This relief will offer protection while we continue to fight against ATF’s overreach.”

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org.

Justice, for once!

Last month I wrote about a case that the Pacific Legal Foundation was arguing before the Supreme Court.

At issue in the case, Tyler v. Hennepin County was the outright theft of Geraldine Tyler’s home equity. Geraldine is 94 years old, and currently living in a nursing home, having been driven out of her condo due to high crime (caused by the failure of the city and the county to enforce the law).

She fell behind in her property taxes, and the county sold her condo and kept all the money, including equity that remained after paying her tax bill.

It was an appalling act of government theft, but of course, appalling and government are often found in the same sentence.

Well, the Supreme Court ruled on the case today, and the news, for once, is good. The good guys won by a unanimous decision. Every single Justice agreed that Hennepin County is a bunch of lying, thieving, greedy, and tyrannical bunch of MFers.

Uh, maybe that last part is hyperbole. They only said lying, thieving and greedy. None of the Justices would swear in an opinion.

Governments are very big on seizing property. And in this case, the seizure was particularly galling because much of the money owed was due to penalties, not taxes. A small GoFundMe would have gotten the taxes paid off in a few days, but at 94 such things don’t generally occur to a person, and she had nobody to think of such matters.

The Court’s decision seems like a no-brainer, but then again it should have been for lower courts. The fact that she won in the Supreme Court is great news, but the fact that it had to be decided there is very bad news indeed. The county in which I live–and in many others around the country–have been stealing money from taxpayers without remorse.

Continue reading “”

U.S. Supreme Court rules against EPA in wetlands regulation challenge

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday put another dent in the regulatory reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, ruling in favor of an Idaho couple in their long-running bid to build a home on property that the EPA had deemed a protected wetland under a landmark federal anti-pollution law.

The justices in a 9-0 decision overturned a lower court’s ruling against the couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, that had upheld the EPA’s determination that their property near a lake contained wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act of 1972. Though the justices unanimously agreed to reverse the lower court’s decision, they differed in their reasoning for doing so.

The ruling marked the latest instance of the court backing a challenge to the scope of the EPA’s ability to regulate in the environmental arena under existing law. In a 6-3 ruling last June powered by its conservative justices, the court imposed limits on the EPA’s authority to issue sweeping regulations involving greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants under a different environmental law, the Clean Air Act.

Continue reading “”