Category: Rights

I wouldn’t say it’s a ‘victory’. A judge on the Appeals Court simply stayed enforcement of an injunction to stop the law from taking effect.

NJ scores victory in federal court over concealed carry gun legislation

A federal court issued an order in favor of the state on Tuesday as the latest development in the legal battle over gun reform legislation.

The order, a stay requested by the state last month, will make it so that enforcement of limits on where concealed weapons can be carried in New Jersey is not restricted.

The motion filed by the state’s Attorney General’s Office said that not allowing enforcement of the restrictions “threatens public safety by allowing loaded guns in crowded theaters, bars, protests, and Fourth of July celebrations in parks, as well as zoos and libraries where children gather — just to name a few.”

Continue reading “”

FOID card legal battle moves forward in Sangamon County

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WAND) — Attorneys presented oral arguments Tuesday morning in the Sangamon County court battle over the constitutionality of FOID cards in Illinois.

Guns Save Life founder John Boch believes it is unconstitutional for the state to require people to have a license before they can buy guns.

Boch’s lawsuit was originally filed in 2019 against Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, former McLean County State’s Attorney Don Knapp, and former McLean County Sheriff Jon Sandage.

However, the case is now only between Guns Save Life Inc. and Kelly as the Illinois State Police are the organization responsible for the FOID card system.

Plaintiffs argued Tuesday that the FOID Act burdens actions protected under the Second Amendment. Attorney Christian Ambler said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 2022 Bruen case found laws similar to the FOID Act are unconstitutional.

Although, the Attorney General’s office said this is a straightforward case. Assistant Attorney General Isaac Freilich Jones noted that people apply for FOID cards and the Illinois State Police issue the identification cards if they are not found to be criminals. Jones said there is no difference between waiting for a FOID card and waiting for a background check before buying a gun.

Ambler later argued that there is no historical support for a law allowing states to require people to have a license before they can purchase guns. He said people did not face this type of burden when the Second Amendment was approved by Congress in 1789.

Yet, the Attorney General’s office stressed there is no way to prove that people living in the 18th century would disapprove of the FOID law. They also claimed that there is no world where $10 is an unreasonably high fee to pay for a FOID card. However, plaintiffs said there is no historical context for fees people would face before purchasing their firearms.

Judge Jennie Ascher was assigned to the case Tuesday morning and told counsel that she would take the matter under advisement. Both sides were also asked to provide their proposed orders for the case within 21 days.

 

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.

 

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 “”

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 “”

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.

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 “”

And with CHF and CAD/CAM-CNC manufacturing, such ‘forensics’ are even more problematical

FYI, this is a l-o-n-g article.

Devil in the grooves: The case against forensic firearms analysis
A landmark Chicago court ruling threatens a century of expert ballistics testimony

Last February, Chicago circuit court judge William Hooks made some history. He became the first judge in the country to bar the use of ballistics matching testimony in a criminal trial.

In Illinois v. Rickey Winfield, prosecutors had planned to call a forensic firearms analyst to explain how he was able to match a bullet found at a crime scene to a gun alleged to be in possession of the defendant.

It’s the sort of testimony experts give every day in criminal courts around the country. But this time, attorneys with the Cook County Public Defender’s Office requested a hearing to determine whether there was any scientific foundation for the claim that a specific bullet can be matched to a specific gun. Hooks granted the hearing and, after considering arguments from both sides, he issued his ruling.

It was an earth-shaking opinion, and it could bring big changes to how gun crimes are prosecuted — in Chicago and possibly elsewhere.

Hooks isn’t the first judge to be skeptical of claims made by forensic firearms analysts. Other courts have put restrictions on which terminology analysts use in front of juries. But Hooks is the first to bar such testimony outright. “There are no objective forensic based reasons that firearms identification evidence belongs in any category of forensic science,” Hooks writes. He adds that the wrongful convictions already attributable to the field “should serve as a wake-up call to courts operating as rubber stamps in blindly finding general acceptance” of bullet matching analysis.

For more than a century, forensic firearms analysts have been telling juries that they can match a specific bullet to a specific gun, to the exclusion of all other guns. This claimed ability has helped to put tens of thousands of people in prison, and in a nontrivial percentage of those cases, it’s safe to say that ballistics matching was the only evidence linking the accused to the crime.

But as with other forensic specialties collectively known as pattern matching fields, the claim is facing growing scrutiny. Scientists from outside of forensics point out that there’s no scientific basis for much of what firearms analysts say in court. These critics, backed by a growing body of research, make a pretty startling claim — one that could have profound effects on the criminal justice system: We don’t actually know if it’s possible to match a specific bullet to a specific gun. And even if it is, we don’t know if forensic firearms analysts are any good at it.

Continue reading “”

Dër GrëtchënFührër® is at it again.

Michigan governor signs red flag gun law, questions linger over enforcement

ROYAL OAK, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer gave final approval Monday afternoon to a red flag law that aims to keep firearms away from those at risk of harming themselves or others as the state grapples with ways to slow gun violence in the wake of its second mass school shooting.

Michigan joined Minnesota as the second state in under a week to implement a red flag law after Democrats in both states won control of both chambers and the governor’s office in November. New Mexico previously was the last state to pass a red flag law in 2020.

Whitmer signed the legislation just outside of Detroit, flanked by state lawmakers and individuals affected by gun violence. Former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who began campaigning for gun safety after she was shot in the head in 2011, was also in attendance.

“We have heard too many times from those who knew a mass shooter who had expressed concern in advance about that mass shooter’s intentions,” Whitmer said Monday. “With extreme risk protection orders, we have a mechanism to step in and save lives.”

The new law, also known as extreme risk protection orders, is expected to go into effect next spring. It will allow family members, police, mental health professionals, roommates and former dating partners to petition a judge to remove firearms from those they believe pose an imminent threat to themselves or others.

The judge would have 24 hours to decide on a protection order after a request is filed. If granted, the judge would then have 14 days to set a hearing during which the flagged person would have to prove they do not pose a significant risk. A standard order would last one year.

Michigan became the 21st state to implement a red flag law. Questions remain of whether the state will have better success in enforcing it than others have. An Associated Press analysis in September found that in the 19 states with red flag laws, firearms were removed from people 15,049 times since 2020, fewer than 10 per 100,000 adult residents.

Some local sheriffs in Michigan have told The Associated Press that they won’t enforce the law if they don’t believe it’s constitutional. Over half of the state’s counties have passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, opposing laws they believe infringe on gun rights.

Continue reading “”

Four Reasons For The Crime Increase
Whenever Anyone Tells You Guns are the Reason for the Rise in Crime, Show Them This Article

Miss Swearer hits another home run

The entirety of the American system of government rests on two very simple yet profound premises—that every human being is endowed by our Creator with natural and unalienable rights, and that the only just end of government is to secure these rights for its citizens. Unfortunately, far too often, ill-considered progressive policies not only fail to adequately secure Americans’ natural rights from criminals who would undermine them, but actively worsen the problem by making it harder for peaceable citizens to defend themselves. Here are four specific policies that routinely make us all less safe and that, after crime rates predictably rise, are then used as excuses from gun-control proponents to further restrict our right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Daydreaming the Guns Away

We find ourselves living in a highly consequential time for the legal clarification of the 2nd Amendment. Extremely aggressive, wide-ranging bans of semi-automatic firearms have been enacted in various parts of the country, drawing legal challenges. While the ultimate resolution of these challenges is unknowable, many observers believe the Supreme Court will eventually arrive at a decision prohibiting the wholesale banning of semi-automatic firearms. Those who dream of eliminating all private gun ownership in the United States face the prospect of a devastating legal defeat.

One can imagine their looming disappointment. They have failed to appoint Supreme Court justices who would effectively redefine the 2nd Amendment out of existence, and they are about to bear the consequences of that failure. But from their perspective, there is comfort to be had in the prospect of eventually stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution altogether, no matter how long it may take.

Such is the hope that animates aspiring intergenerational social reformer Allan Goldstein, who, in his “Let’s get serious and repeal the Second Amendment” has stepped forward to boldly launch a 50-plus year plan to eradicate all privately owned firearms in the United States.

Perhaps the piece might have been better entitled “Let’s Get Hysterical.” How galling it must be to be deprived of so obvious a good — a gun-free society — on account of something as frivolous as an obsolete, suicidally-construed constitutional amendment. On Goldstein’s account “[t]he Supreme Court has decided that ‘a well-regulated militia’ includes gang bangers and wild-eyed loners with a grudge.” What a shame Goldstein did not bother to provide a citation to the Supreme Court decision in which this is asserted.

Continue reading “”