Category: Rights

E-Q-U-A-L Justice under Law.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Race-Based College Admissions

In a major 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court has struck down race-based admissions at two universities, declaring it a violation of the equal protection clause.

The conservative justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, made up the majority. Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote the dissent in the Harvard case and was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson wrote the dissent in the University of North Carolina case, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

In the majority opinion, Roberts writes that the court has “permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and — at some point — they must end.”

He also wrote that “however well-intentioned and implemented in good faith,” the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC “fail each of these criteria.”

More from the majority opinion:

Immediately after Brown, we began routinely affirming lower court decisions that invalidated all manner of race-based state action.…

In the decades that followed, this Court continued to vindicate the Constitution’s pledge of racial equality. Laws dividing parks and golf courses; neighborhoods and businesses; buses and trains; schools and juries were undone, all by a transformative promise “stemming from our American ideal of fairness”: “‘the Constitution . . . forbids . . . discrimination by the General Government, or by the States, against any citizen because of his race.’”

The majority opinion closed by saying that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

In other words, Roberts and the majority maintain that a person’s race is an invaluable part of their background, but it should not be used to create new barriers to college admission.

“But,” Roberts concludes, “despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul packs incredible gun control lies and claims into a 58-second video

I live in New York, which is one of the worst states to be a lawful gun owner and a taxpaying citizen. The proof is in the pudding; people vote with their feet when life becomes intolerable due to poor governance, and New York’s allegedly wonderful governance resulted in the loss of yet another congressional seat after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

It is grating to see Gov. Kathy Hochul still bragging about New York as some sort of bastion of freedom and opportunity in the face of the evidence of outmigration. Part of her braggadocio was a video her office posted on Twitter, discussing all the “good” she has done to keep the people of New York “safe from concealed carry weapons.”

First, you don’t have “rights” as a governor; you have powers to govern, and those powers are limited so they don’t violate the rights of the people.

Second, your job is to protect the people’s rights and liberties, and your matriarchal view on “protecting her people” is condescending bunk. Lastly, concealed carry weapons in and of themselves don’t do anything. It depends on who is carrying them. Criminals were carrying concealed weapons prior to NYSRPA v. Bruen and continue to carry after NYSRPA v. Bruen. However, ordinary people’s rights to carry guns in public were infringed by New York State’s discretionary permitting scheme.

Continue reading “”

Always with the ‘but’………
Makes you wonder what he thinks about rights protected by the 4th and 5th amendments.

Tulsa police chief suggests nation transform response to gun violence

As mass shootings plague the country, Tulsa’s police chief is comparing the violence to 9/11 and urging a more comprehensive response. KWGS’ Max Bryan sat down with Chief Wendell Franklin for StateImpact. Please note, both the audio and transcript have been edited for length and clarity.

MAX BRYAN: So to begin, after the Saint Francis shooting, you said you would leave gun laws up to the state legislature, but by the end of that month, you had told media outlets that permitless carry was causing problems in Tulsa, and you reiterated that point after the mass shooting at Allen Outlet Mall in Texas last month. So my first question is what led you to decide to speak out?

WENDELL FRANKLIN: Well, because I don’t think that we’re moving the needle on anything. If you compare what we’re faced with 9/11, 9/11 occurred and it totally transformed America, totally transformed how you travel on airlines. No longer can you go to the terminal and see a loved one off or see someone come back. All of that is a sterile area. The federal government took over all airline security and there was this more robust effort to deal with and address some of the terrorist activities that were taking place. Fast forward to even structures, how structures were built, no longer are you building structures that have parking garages that you can access underneath a building. You can’t do that anymore. Today, all of that’s controlled. And any future buildings, those are not even a part of the actual building structure. They move those off to the side now, and here we are today, where we’ve recognized that we have some issues that need to be addressed, and we are operating as though everything is normal, and I don’t think everything is normal.

MB: So you’ve also criticized a lack of regulation of untraceable ghost guns and straw purchasing. Recently you indicated you would support regulating the purchasing of high-powered weapons like AR-15s. Is there anything you can add to that list today?

WF: Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy. I own guns of course. But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.

MB: Have you spoken to any members of the legislature about our state’s gun laws?

WF: In passing, I have. It’s a topic that’s not really brought up a whole lot and it’s something that gets glossed over quite a bit.

MB: How have those conversations gone?

WF: It’s an immediate pivot to some other topic. No one really wants to talk about it.

MB: Okay. So in December, you told me the second amendment was tricky. How do you balance challenges, or excuse me, changes that you believe will prevent crime with enforcing laws made by lawmakers who believe the second amendment means expanding firearm access?

WF: Ultimately, law enforcement, we are the experts. We’re the subject matter experts at protecting America, right? Protecting our cities. We should be utilized in that manner. I am charged with protecting this community. And if there are better ways of protecting it, I think we should be looking at those better ways to protect it. Anything that we do, ultimately, we give up something to have that protection. You know, we put seatbelt laws in place, I’m not exactly sure when, probably the 1980s, I think. And we mandated that everyone starts wearing a seatbelt, and it took some time for people to grab hold of that. But if you look today it is an automatic thing that people put on their seatbelt when they get into a vehicle. You feel uncomfortable not wearing that seatbelt. I think again, we give something up to get safety for, for something safe. I think that’s where we are today. We are going to have to give up some things. And I think there are some things that we can give up for a safer community.

 

Silencers/Suppressors are in Common Use for Lawful Purposes

U.S.A. — The number of legal suppressors or silencers in the United States shows they are in common use for lawful purposes.  As of January of 2023, the ATF shows there were over 3.1 million silencers or suppressors legally owned in the United States for lawful purposes. In January of 2020, there were 1.8 million. Over the last three years, the number of legal suppressors has increased by an average of 450,000 suppressors per year. By the end of 2023, it is reasonably expected there will be over 3.6 million suppressors in the United States of America. To own these suppressors, the owners have gone through a complicated and lengthy process, often taking a year or more to process their applications for tax stamps. The federal government requires tax stamps to purchase a silencer legally.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

Silencers/Suppressors are in Common Use for Lawful Purposes
Silencers/Suppressors are in Common Use for Lawful Purposes

American society chooses what arms are in common use. The government does not make the choices. By choosing to possess arms, the people choose what is in common use. It is the possession of the arms which determines whether they are in common use or not.  Possession of arms is a use of the arms. In Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled:

The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

In the Caetano decision, the Heller pronouncement was emphasized and magnified. When an arm was invented has nothing to do with whether it is protected under the Second Amendment. What matters is if the arm is in common use for lawful purposes. This was particularly emphasized by Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. From Caetano, concurrence by Justice Alito, joined with Justice Thomas:

The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

This was the first time SCOTUS put a number on what is “common use.”  Some may consider two hundred thousand items in the United States of America high, but this applies to many items. When legal suppressors were nearly banned by taxes of ten times the price of the item ($20 would buy most suppressors; the tax was/is $200), there were far fewer of them. In 2006, there were 150 thousand legally owned silencers in the USA.  Sometime between 2006 and 2011, the 200 thousand mark was passed. ATF records do not seem to be available from 2006 to 2010. In 2011, there were 285 thousand legal silencers.

The ATF and Biden administration’s strategy is to claim silencers are not “arms” but are only an accessory. It is difficult to see how they can claim silencers are not “arms” but are very dangerous.

The Texas case, Paxton v. Richardson, appears to be the most likely case to resolve this issue at this time.  In the case, Texas Attorney General Paxton has argued the common use, Second Amendment case, as well as persuasive arguments against the use of taxation to attack rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Judge Mark Pitmann heard the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in the case on June 15, 2023.

PRESIDENT BIDEN’S FANTASY GUN CONTROL AGENDA

Where the Answers are Made Up and the Second Amendment Doesn’t Matter

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we have a problem. The President is on the loose again, uttering nonsense about the Second Amendment.

President Joe Biden spoke to a collection of political donors as he’s gearing up his 2024 re-election campaign and used his gun control grindstone to churn out well-worn and discredited Second Amendment tropes. The problem is – it’s all malarky. No kidding, man.

President Joe Biden might just be the lying dog-face pony soldier he accuses others of being.

F-16s and AR-15s
The president belittled Americans who agree that the Second Amendment exists to prevent a tyrannical government from usurping power from the people.

“You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15,” said President Biden according to Fox News.

Aside from the veiled threat to use actual weapons of war against the American people, President Biden’s swipe at Americans who value their rights was intended to target the lawful ownership of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation today. They’re the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America.

Second Amendment Second Thoughts
“We have to change,” President Biden said. “There’s a lot of things we can change, because the American people by and large agree you don’t need a weapon of war. I’m a Second Amendment guy. I taught it for four years, six years in law school. And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious.”

First, he’s overselling his authority as a law professor. President Biden briefly served as Benjamin Franklin Presidential Professor of the Practice at the University of Pennsylvania for two years between his terms as vice president and his campaign for The White House, according to a fact check by the Austin American-Statesman. He was paid $900,000 and his duties “involved no regular classes and around a dozen public appearances on campus, mostly in big, ticketed events,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

His description as a “Second Amendment guy” might come as a surprise to other “Second Amendment guys.” That doesn’t normally include ideas like universal background checks that would require a national firearm owner registry, restrictions that would ban entire classes of firearms, repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to allow frivolous lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms by remote third parties or – as the president points out here – a clear ignorance of the National Firearms Act.

Fox News reported, correctly, that the Second Amendment makes no mention of firearm restrictions. Gun control laws at the federal level didn’t start until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt. That’s 143 years later.

Americans can legally own machine guns, although it is extremely restricted. No automatic firearm produced after May 1986 is available for commercial sale but those produced before then can be – and are – legally owned. Owners have to pay a $200 tax stamp and register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

When it comes to cannons, well, President Biden blasted that one too. It was legal to own a cannon when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. It’s still legal to own one today.

President Biden made the same erroneous claim in April 2022 and in June of 2021, when The Washington Post fact checked him on that one. He earned “Four Pinocchios,” writing “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.”

Rapid-Fire Falsehoods
None of this is new. President Biden, who claims to own two shotguns, is hardly the Second Amendment expert he presents himself to be. He once told his wife she should “fire two blasts” of a shotgun blindly into the air if she felt threatened. That’s terrible and dangerous legal advice. Among the four fundamental firearm safety rules is to know your target and what is beyond.

This advice was actually invoked in a court case, where the accused, Jeffrey Barton, was charged with aggravated assault. Prosecutors ended up dropping those charges and instead charged him with police obstruction, of which he was convicted.

President Biden once argued to ban 9 mm Glocks, claiming in an interview with Charlie Rose that he could kill more people with a .38-caliber revolver. He also oddly told police they should shoot “unarmed” attacking criminals wielding knives “in the leg.” Police ripped that suggestion. Fox News reported the Fraternal Order of Police said it was “completely ridiculous,” “unrealistic” and a “pandering talking point.”

President Biden didn’t stop there. He believes that 9 mm handguns are especially dangerous.

“A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” President Biden said. “The idea of a high caliber weapon, there is simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting.”

The president’s 9 mm claim was debunked as “bullsh*t,” by a federal agent with 15 years of service. Another with 20 years said, “Not possible.” A 21-year veteran of the U.S. Marshal fugitive recovery task force told Breitbart that President Biden’s claim is, “… not even in the realm of possibility.”

That’s the problem with President Biden. He’s living in a fantasy world of utter nonsense.

Meet the U.S. Senate’s Gun-Control Caucus

It is real American political theater to think of all the members of the U.S. Senate’s new gun-control caucus, which formally named itself the “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” sitting around a table in some hidden-away chamber in the Dirksen Senate Office Building plotting their many gun-control schemes—and, as you’ll see, they do have quite the list. This, after all, is how Hollywood has often treated the pro-freedom side.

Indeed, the members of this little gun-control cabal, as this was going to print, are a who’s who of senators who want to strip this civil right from we the people. They are Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.).

Closed-door meetings and quiet handshakes do take place as one senator promises to co-sponsor another’s bill if that senator will vote for their proposed legislation (or if they won’t oppose some measure). And there are legislative tactics congressional leadership can use to rush legislation with little debate or, in some cases, to temporarily conceal what is in a bill—such is why Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once famously (as it was an honest disclosure) gaffed when she referred to Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Also, with certain types of legislation, riders and earmarks can be attached at the last minute that might have nothing to do with what that legislation is supposed to do.

Still, this gun-control caucus will have a hard time secretly moving any of its agenda items forward, as the American process of writing, debating and passing major legislation through both chambers of Congress invites a lot of attention and discussion—and some of the people watching are your NRA-ILA lobbyists.

With all of that said, why did these anti-Second Amendment senators form a gun-control caucus?

Politics. Such a caucus allows them to gather for the cameras as they virtue-signal about their stated desire to “reduce gun violence,” as if guns are violent critters that need to be neutered or outright disposed of. These gun-control-caucus members know that much of the mainstream media will further their narratives without questioning the specifics. They also know they can use talking points related to such proposed legislation to fundraise and to make the claim to their voters that they’re trying to do something—and they can then add that the NRA, yes, your freedom-loving association, just won’t let them push it over on the American people.

Such is also why much of the proposed legislation on this gun-control caucus’ list have disingenuous titles. And it’s why all of these legislative ideas are worded with misleading explanations.

This caucus’ ideas include the Age 21 Act (legislation that would strip away the constitutional rights of law-abiding, legal adults), a new Assault Weapons Ban (an idea that blames guns instead of criminals for crimes), the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act (an act that would create a national gun-owner database), Ethan’s Law (legislation to empower federal agents to go into citizens’ homes to enforce gun-storage mandates), the Protecting Kids from Gun Marketing Act (legislation to empower the Federal Trade Commission to censor advertising from firearms companies and groups) and much more.

Also, as this was going to print, this gun-control caucus said they planned to introduce the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act, the Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act, the Background Check Completion Act, the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, the Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act, the Keeping Gun Dealers Honest Act and much more. Explanations of what these bills would contain are thin, but, given the past positions of these caucus members, it isn’t hard to fill in the gun-control details.

Now, for a moment, imagine if a Second Amendment-supporting caucus in the U.S. Senate were to come up with its own list. They could have The Individual Freedom Act (a national reciprocity bill), the Civil-Rights Act for Self-Preservation (a bill to ensure the disenfranchised get their Second Amendment freedom, too), the Right to Stop Evildoers Act (an end to “gun-free” zones) … well okay, all of those ideas aren’t deceptive in the least; they are honest, so the comparison to the gun-control legislation really doesn’t hold up.

The point is, these senators have created a gun-control caucus to provide fuel for even more agenda-driven gun-control coverage from mainstream-news outlets. Instead of targeting the actual problem—the criminals who use guns to harm others—this gun-control caucus is yet another political tool designed to blame America’s 100-million-plus gun owners for the actions of criminals.

This, then, is not a “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” as they call themselves, as that would be a caucus focused on legislation that goes after violent criminals; this is, rather, a gun-control caucus focused solely on disempowering average Americans.

 

 

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.