Category: Rights

Gun laws, abortion, taxes: Why Eastern Oregon is voting to join Idaho

Republican voters in Eastern and Central Oregon are so fed up with liberal lawmakers that they want to break rank — and state lines — and become part of Idaho.

On Tuesday, two Oregon counties, Morrow and Wheeler, are set to vote on a ballot measure about whether to explore leaving the state. Since 2020, nine counties in Eastern Oregon have already voted to join the Greater Idaho movement.

“People in Eastern Oregon are just different and have different views on crime, the Second Amendment, abortion, taxes and minimum wage [from the western portion of the state],” Matt McCaw, spokesman for Greater Idaho, told The Post. “The polarization with the western part of the state is real. When I meet with people and host meetings, there are a lot of complaints about the lack of representation. Eastern Oregon is just very conservative and has its own culture.”

The Greater Idaho movement is made up of residents in Eastern and Central Oregon who are so fed up with liberal lawmakers that they are pushing for the region to break state lines and become part of Idaho.
The Greater Idaho movement is made up of residents in Eastern and Central Oregon who are so fed up with liberal lawmakers that they are pushing for the region to break state lines and become part of Idaho.
Matt McCaw, spokesman for the Greater Idaho movement, told The Post: “Eastern Oregon is just very conservative and has its own culture” compared to the state’s more liberal western region.

So he and a group of fellow disgruntled Oregonians in the small city of La Pine began to hash out a plan to secede because they no longer felt represented by the liberal lawmakers in the state capital, Salem. The solution: Join Idaho, where the Republican Party is firmly in control.

“Eastern Oregon, where we all live, could get state-level government from Idaho that matches their values,” McCaw said.

It’s a radical proposition that would see nearly two-thirds of Oregon’s 63 million acres (98,000 square miles), but less than 10% of its population, blend into neighboring Idaho.

For the first time in 40 years, Oregonians might vote in a Republican governor, as Christine Drazan (above) has a slight lead going into Tuesday’s race.

McCaw, 46, said the movement’s leaders are hoping to attract 15 of the state’s 36 counties and two partial ones to join Idaho.

“We asked the simple question, ‘Would you like your elected leaders to change the border?’ and we’ve won our last six elections with more than 60% of the vote,” McCaw told The Post.

For McCaw, who owns a small math-curriculum company with his wife, and his supporters, the largely rural and conservative residents of Eastern Oregon have very little in common with their progressive urban neighbors in western cities like Portland, Eugene and Bend.

The plan to move to Idaho came about because some Eastern Oregonians no longer felt represented by the liberal lawmakers in the state capital, Salem.

In the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump dominated Eastern Oregon, receiving nearly 80% of the vote in some counties, but President Biden ultimately won 56.5% of Oregon votes thanks to liberal cities.

Oregon’s current governor, Democrat Kate Brown, has a 56% disapproval rating, the worst in the US. Brown, whose term expires next year, has been criticized for doing little to stem rising crime and homelessness in the state’s urban centers since she became governor in 2015.

Some Oregonians are so fed up with spiraling crime, easy access to drugs and homelessness that — for the first time in 40 years — Oregon may see a Republican become governor.

Christine Drazan, 50, a former Oregon House minority leader, has a slight lead over her closest opponent, former Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, a Democrat. Independent Betsy Johnson is also in the race, and some predict she might split the blue vote.

But even the prospect of a Republican governor would not help the situation for those in the eastern part of the state, said Sandie Gilson, who lives in Grant County, one of the first Oregon counties to vote in 2020 to explore joining Idaho.

“Even if we have a Republican governor, the Democrats still have a supermajority in the legislature,” said Gilson, 56, a fifth-generation Oregonian whose gold-miner great-great-grandfather arrived in the state in the 1800s. “It will change nothing.”

Mike McCarter, one of the group’s founders, described Greater Idaho as being about “people who value freedom, independence and self-sufficiency.”

Gilson and her husband are small-business owners who say they want to be self-sufficient in a rural region where making an emergency call to police could result in a two-hour wait for help. The couple, who own firearms, say they are not able to defend themselves if faced with an emergency, because of government mandates. Last year, the state enacted a safe storage law that requires the owners of firearms to keep them locked up.

“It would take us more than five minutes to unlock our guns, and in that time a lot could happen,” Gilson told The Post. “The legislature does things that just don’t make sense for us.”

Gilson also said she doesn’t feel safe after Oregon decriminalized personal portions of all drugs in 2020 and, earlier this year, instituted bail reform laws that allows defendants charged with misdemeanors and some felonies to be released without posting bail.

While Donald Trump won as much as 80% of votes in Eastern Oregon counties in the 2020 presidential race, more populous liberal cities like Portland helped Biden dominate the state.
Getty Images/iStockphoto

“How does that make me safe in my home?” Gilson said, adding that residents in Eastern Oregon, which has a fraction of the population of the western part of the state, generally get outvoted.

Like Gilson, Mike McCarter, 75, said residents in Eastern Oregon are almost always getting outvoted by the much more populous western region. McCarter, who lives in La Pine and is one of the founders of Greater Idaho, told The Post that eastern residents voted two to one against recreational drug use, but “Western Oregon wanted it, and they carried the vote.”

Still, McCarter insists that the movement for a Greater Idaho is not a political one. “We try to keep the movement away from politics,” he said. “Our movement is a traditional-values type movement of faith — of people who value freedom, independence and self-sufficiency.”

Current Gov. Kate Brown has the country’s highest disapproval rate, at 56%, in part because of a perceived lack of control on crime.

In 2020, Gov. Brad Little of Idaho said he welcomed the move, adding, “They’re looking at Idaho fondly because of our regulatory atmosphere, our values. What they’re interested [in] is they would like to have a little more autonomy, a little more control, a little more freedom and I can understand that.”

Although states have had their borders reconfigured in the past — Maine seceded from Massachusetts in 1820 — there is no historical precedent for large land masses to leave one state and join another.

Ryan Griffiths, a political science professor at Syracuse University who studies the secession of sovereign states, told The Post that “the bar is pretty high” for state secession in the US.

“This is not the kind of thing that is done unilaterally by people in counties,” Griffiths said. “They have to get the state of Oregon on board and the state of Idaho, and that’s a very high bar.”

CT’s semi-automatic weapons ban at ‘very real risk’ of being lifted by lawsuit, Attorney General Tong says

HARTFORD — Attorney General William Tong warned Friday that Connecticut’s nearly three-decade-old ban on semi-automatic weapons is “at very real risk” of being lifted, at least temporarily, after one of several groups suing to overturn the law requested that the state be prevented from enforcing its ban while the case proceeds.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed Thursday by attorneys for the National Foundation for Gun Rights in a federal court in New Haven. The Colorado-based group is one of several plaintiffs that filed lawsuits against Connecticut’s semi-automatic weapons ban following a Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s gun-permit law, sparking a wave of litigation against other state bans.

“I don’t have to tell you how extraordinarily dangerous this is in this moment to see an immediate repeal of the semi-automatic weapons ban,” Tong said during a hastily assembled press conference on Friday, where he was joined by Gov. Ned Lamont. “We are going to fight tooth and nail, we’re going to throw everything we have at them to keep Connecticut families safe and to preserve our very strong gun laws.”

Tong’s office has yet to file its formal response to the group’s motion. He told reporters Friday that filing would be made “soon.”

In a statement Friday, NFGR President Dudley Brown defended the group’s lawsuit, saying “The day of reckoning for the State of Connecticut has come, and it’s time for them to answer to the Second Amendment for trampling the gun rights of their law-abiding citizens.”

“Our motion for preliminary injunction is simply saying that when rights are at stake, we cannot waste another day in allowing unconstitutional gun control to stand,” Brown said.

Continue reading “”

Actually, this is another reason for laws that ban such civil suits when either the prosecution declares it a case of self-defense, or the person is acquitted at trial, as is the case in several states already.

Another Reason Avoidance is Best — Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Civil Suit Against Acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse

You would be wrong if you figured Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal battle ended when a court acquitted him of murder and other charges for justifiably shooting 3 men in self defense. This is yet another example of why, if possible, avoiding conflict is always the wisest action.

Rittenhouse’s Defensive Gun Use in Kenosha—

So most everyone knows what happened on August 25, 2020 at a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Any reasonably, non-biased view of the facts in the case clearly illustrates that Rittenhouse acted in self defense when he shot 3 men; one who chased after him and tried to disarm him of his rifle, another who chased after him, swinging a skateboard attempting to strike Rittenhouse in the head as Rittenhouse lay on the ground, and another man who ran toward Rittenhouse pointing an illegally possessed handgun at him.

The Criminal Charges Brough Against Rittenhouse—

In a clearly political move, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse. Knowing they had no way of winning, prosecutors used the public trial to gaslight the public into believing Rittenhouse was an alt-right neo-nazi. An assertion proved erroneous. The point was not to convict Rittenhouse, which they couldn’t, but to demonize him. And then anyone who would dare to believe that someone had the right to defend themselves. If you believed what Rittenhouse did was not wise, but clearly justified, you too were an alt-right nazi. Of course, the media and maniacs in the streets even threatened the jurors with doxing and rioting if they ‘decided wrong’.

Rittenhouse legally defended his life against three men in the streets of Kenosha. He defended his freedom against a politically motivated prosecutor in a court of law. Kyle defended and continues to defend his reputation against baseless accusations. And he is trying to protect whatever assets he has after paying for legal defense, to defend against a civil suit brought against him by the family of one of the men who tried to kill him.

The Civil Suit Against Rittenhouse—

The father of an adult who attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard wants money. No doubt he grieves for his son. Any decent father would. But the arguments in this civil suit against Rittenhouse are nonsensical and proven false in the criminal trial.

The Deceased Attacker is actually a Hero—

For example, in the suit, the father claims his son was a “hero” and was trying to disarm Rittenhouse. The claim in the criminal trial was that somehow the 3 men were ‘good samaritans’ who thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter, and they needed to stop him. A claim that prosecutors couldn’t substantiate with evidence, witness statements or ‘victim’ testimony. The complaint filed by the man’s father reads:

After Anthony was shot, Gage Grosskreutz approached Defendant Rittenhouse with his hands up, pleading with him to stop his shooting rampage. Without provocation or any legal justification, Defendant Rittenhouse shot at Grosskreutz from point-blank range, hitting him in the arm. Thankfully, Grosskreutz survived.

Yeah, this description of events is complete fantasy when compared to all the evidence presented at trial.

Rittenhouse is an alt-right Nazi—

The complaint also attempts to use the same failed approach prosecutors used in the criminal trial—frame Rittenhouse as a racist. The ‘you’re a racist’ argument works on social media. But the same question that the prosecutors couldn’t provide an answer to in the criminal trial lingers. If Rittenhouse is so blinded by racial hatred, why did he only shoot people of his same race? The answer is clear, because he only shot people who he reasonably believed were going to cause him death or serious bodily harm, period.

Rittenhouse Violated Statutory Gun Law—

In the complaint, the attacker’s father drummed up fake news spread by the media that Rittenhouse brought the AR15 he used to defend his life across state lines in violation of law. The morons in the media repeated this, although with basic journalistic investigation, they would find the claim completely untrue.

What’s the Point—

The point is that if you carry a firearm for self defense; you need to know that in some states, even if you’re acquitted, you can still face civil suits. While the saying may be true, that ‘dead men don’t sue,’ it fails to mention that their families do. And they do it all the time.

You also need to remember that whether it be a criminal or civil trial, you can assume that anything the opposing side can do to twist, invent, or bring into question your character or actions, they will. It doesn’t have to be true.

So my advice is:

  • Live your life in a way that always seeks avoidance, if possible. This post on the proper defensive mindset explains this concept more deeply. In essence, live out: Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
  • Be careful what you post on social media. This isn’t about censoring your right to speak. Say what you want to say, it’s your right. Stand up for what you believe in. But do so in a way that doesn’t bring your character into question.
  • Know the law. Not just gun law, but self defense law. The book from Andrew Branca is a must for every person who even thinks about carrying a gun for self defense.
  • Consider a self defense legal membership service like CCW Safe. The amount of money necessary to defend against a political prosecution, and or civil lawsuit is astronomical. Remember, the state has unlimited funds (part of which you pay for, if you pay taxes) available to use against you. How much money do you have to defend yourself?

Another Church in New York files suit

New York Church Challenges State Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

New York Church Challenges State Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship
First Liberty Institute, Clement & Murphy, and Ganguly Brothers challenge law adopted by NY legislature just days after Supreme Court struck down numerous state restrictions on firearms

Rochester, NY—First Liberty Institute and the law firms Clement & Murphy PLLC and Ganguly Brothers PLLC filed a federal lawsuit against the state of New York challenging the state’s prohibition on firearms at houses of worship.  The suit was filed on behalf of His Tabernacle Family Church, a nondenominational Christian church in Horseheads, New York, founded by Pastor Micheal Spencer.

You can read the complaint here.

Erin Murphy, Partner at Clement & Murphy said, “No American should be forced to sacrifice one constitutionally protected freedom to enjoy another.  Houses of worship have a constitutionally protected freedom to decide for themselves whether to allow otherwise legally possessed firearms into their facilities.”

“Singling out houses of worship for total disarmament demonstrates hostility toward religion, leaves them defenseless to rebuff violent attacks, and defies at least two recent Supreme Court rulings against New York.  Religious leaders are no less qualified than secular business owners to determine whether to allow carrying a firearm for self-defense, and New York should end its defiant assault on First and Second Amendment freedoms,” added Jordan Pratt, Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute.

In late 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, chiding New York for singling out religious groups and restricting how they worship in violation of the First Amendment.  And in June 2022, the Court issued its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, invalidating New York’s unprecedented effort to limit individuals’ ability to carry a firearm outside the home.  Just days later, New York enacted expansive new laws restricting the carrying of firearms outside the home, including a total ban on carrying in houses of worship.  New York now imposes criminal liability on any person who carries a firearm into a place of worship regardless of whether that person possesses a license to carry a firearm under New York law, and regardless of whether the religious community would prefer to authorize congregants to carry a firearm.  Secular business owners, by contrast, are allowed to choose for themselves whether to allow firearms on their premises.

“Those decisions,” the complaint states, “should have taught New York to proceed with extreme caution where First or Second Amendment rights are at stake going forward.  Instead, the state recently doubled down on its rights-denying tendencies—by infringing two fundamental liberties at the same time.  New York now puts houses of worship and religious adherents to an impossible choice:  forfeit your First Amendment right to religious worship or forfeit your Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.”  The complaint adds, “New York’s attempt to force houses of worship and their parishioners to choose between their First Amendment rights and their Second—an outlier policy shared by no other state in the Nation—stands as an act of defiance to the Supreme Court’s recent and emphatic holdings protecting both.”

With States Hands-Off, Homeschooling Takes Off.

South Dakota epitomizes the rapid growth of homeschooling in America.  Guided by the principle that parents, not the government, have the right to determine what and how their kids are taught, homeschooling families have overturned existing rules and batted down attempts over the last decade to impose new ones in many states, including South Dakota. 

What’s left in much of the United States today is essentially an honor system in which parents are expected to do a good job without much input or oversight. The rollback of regulations, coupled with the  ill effects of remote learning during the pandemic, have boosted the number of families opting out of public schools in favor of educating their kids at home.  

Reflecting a national trend, the number of children homeschooled in South Dakota rose more than 20% in both of the last two school years. 
Homeschoolers in the Mount Rushmore state advocated for a new law that strips away key pieces of the state’s oversight and eases the way for parents leave public schools. Last year Senate Bill 177 ended the requirement that parents provide annual notice to a district of their intent to homeschool their child. More significantly, homeschool students no longer must take standardized tests, as public schoolers do, or face possible intervention by the school board if they fail.

“It was a big win for parental rights,” says Dan Beasley, then a staff attorney at the influential Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which helped craft and pass the legislation. “It cut out unnecessary regulation and streamlined the process so parents can invest their time in providing the best education they can for their children.” 

This freedom stands in contrast to outraged parents who feel powerless over how their  kids are taught in public schools. In high-pitched battles at school board meetings, some take aim at the easing of admissions standards, others at what they see as the promotion of critical race theory and transgender rights, and still others at segregated classrooms and the presence of police officers on campus. And almost everyone is concerned with the sharp decline in already low reading and math scores of students in nearly every state during the pandemic, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress released in late October.  

For a growing number of parents, homeschooling is the answer to the institutional barriers to the education they believe in. Beyond requirements that homeschooling parents teach a few core subjects like math and English, they are free to pick the content. 

American history, for example, can be all about the glory of the Founding Fathers and the prosperity of free markets, or the oppression of Native Americans and people of color and the struggle for equality. For many homeschoolers, history is taught through a Christian lens, while others follow a standard public school curriculum. 

Home School Legal Defense Association
The regulatory burden on homeschooling, by state.
Home School Legal Defense Association

Parents’ Rights vs. State Control

Continue reading “”

BLUF
In my view, professors Miller and Tucker are incorrect in theory, because the TLI has no utility in assessing the relative dangers of modern firearms in a nonmilitary context. On the other hand, if Miller and Tucker are theoretically correct that TLI extrapolation is a useful guide to the dangers of modern firearms, the TLIs for AR rifles or for 9mm handguns are similar to or less than the TLI of the classic American early 20th century rifle. Thus, there is no need for gun controls beyond those that existed around the turn of the twentieth century. As for Professor Cornell’s assertions that AR semiautomatic rifles are “50 times” or “200 times” more lethal than flintlock rifles, there was never any basis in fact.

The Theoretical Lethality Index is useful for military history but not for gun control policy
Professors Miller and Tucker miss the mark, while Saul Cornell disdains accuracy

An article by Duke law professor Darrell A.H. Miller and Wesleyan history professor Jennifer Tucker argues that gun control laws should vary based on the dangerousness of the firearm. They claim that danger is easy to assess by using the Theoretical Lethality Index (TLI), a metric developed in the early 1960s by military history analyst Trevor Dupuy. In this post, I explain why the TLI is useless as a guideline for the risks posed by different types of firearms in a nonmilitary context.

On the other hand, if TLI is valid in the civilian context, then the TLIs of modern firearms are not much different from those of a good rifle from the early 20th century. Thus, the level of gun control necessary from modern arms would not appear to be greater than the level of gun control in the early 20th century.

This post proceeds as follows:

  • Part I of the post briefly summarizes the Miller and Tucker article for the U.C. Davis Law Review.
  • Part II describes how gun control enthusiast Saul Cornell misused a blog post by Miller to fabricate preposterous claims about the lethality of AR rifles.
  • Part III examines the Theoretical Lethality Index in depth and explains why its military-oriented metrics do not provide useful information in a nonmilitary context about the relative dangerousness of different types of firearms.
  • Part IV calculates TLIs for the common modern firearms mentioned by Miller and Tucker: the 9mm handgun, and the semiautomatic AR rifle. (“AR” means “ArmaLite Rifle.” The rifle was invented by ArmaLite in the 1950s.)
  • Part V addresses Miller and Tucker’s claim that the American Founders were unfamiliar with dramatic technological changes in firearms — a claim that is refuted by Dupuy’s data.

Continue reading “”

The demoncrap goal is to criminalize all political opposition

Hunting Coalition Seeks Injunction Against California Law Banning Free Speech

California – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Sportsmen’s Alliance, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and Safari Club International filed for a preliminary injunction today in their federal lawsuit against a newly passed California law to protect the free speech rights of shooting, hunting, and conservation organizations throughout the state.

The law, created by the passage of AB 2571, which purports to prohibit the “marketing” of firearms to minors, actually goes much further by banning free speech regarding the use of firearms while hunting, shooting or engaging in competitions that might be “attractive to minors.” It’s anyone’s guess what this means.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance was the first to alert sportsmen on AB 2571 early in the legislative session, citing the bill’s prohibition of communicating any youth firearm-related activities as the death-knell of recruitment efforts and hunter safety training statewide.

Because the law institutes a massive $25,000 per occurrence penalty, individuals and organizations responded by putting the brakes on communicating anything about youth shooting and education programs of all types.

“We’ve just implemented a major overhaul of our next magazine to comply with this draconian law, removing a number of stories about youth hunter recruitment, our high school Conservation Science curriculum and pulling all photos of kids hunting with firearms,” said Todd Adkins, vice president of government affairs for Sportsmen’s Alliance.

“And this is precisely what Gov. Newsom and supporters of AB 2571 want, to muzzle our free speech and gut our recruitment efforts, because their ultimate goal is to remove hunters from the landscape altogether.”

Although Newsom signed an amendment that was passed in the waning moments of the 2022 legislative session, the new language does little to protect free speech by hunting organizations like the Sportsmen’s Alliance which regularly publish on firearm-related issues. Many organizations with routine communication outlets like magazines, websites, social media platforms, and the like will simply cease to exercise their protected First Amendment rights because of the uncertainty created by the new law.

“The amendment Newsom signed is just a bunch of nice-sounding words that don’t fix the underlying gag order the law puts on organizations like ours,” continued Adkins. “It’s political eyewash to call this is a ‘fix’ when it’s really nothing more than a shiny object to show some groups who wanted a carve out.”

The Sportsmen’s Alliance legal challenge in federal district court continues, and the filing of the preliminary injunction necessary to stop enforcement of the law so that free speech related to youth hunter education, recruitment, and shooting programs can continue while the case is pending.

I seem to remember this thing called the 1st amendment…..

Lawmakers Call on Biden to Make it More Difficult for People to Download Gun Blueprints

Lawmakers in , led by Congressman Mike Thompson, penned a letter asking the  administration to hold manufacturers responsible for homemade ghost guns.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Currently, it is relatively easy to buy gun parts, or make them at home with a 3D printer, and create an untraceable firearm. Ghost guns allow people to circumvent the background check requirement to own a gun.

“It is far too easy for anyone to download from the internet the computer code to 3D-print unserialized, untraceable, plastic ‘ghost guns,’” the letter said. “These 3D-printed weapons circumvent our system of gun safety rules and regulations, and pose a serious threat to public safety and national security.”

The question of banning the distribution of blueprints for 3D printed guns has been debated over the years, with much speculation that banning the sharing of blueprints is a  violation.

“President Biden can undo the Trump-era rule that has made the instructions for the 3D-printing of untraceable and deadly ‘ghost’ guns widely available online,” said Senator Markey. “The online distribution of these ghost gun blueprints only increases the risk of these weapons proliferating and poses a serious threat to public safety and national security. President Biden should fulfil his campaign promise and reverse the Trump administration’s weakening of these gun safety regulations.”

“They’re making firearms and they’re shooting and they’re killing people,” Thompson said.

“If you are a danger to yourself or to others, if you’re dangerously mentally ill, if you’re a criminal, you should not be able to get your mitts on a gun,” he added.

CBS13 asked Thompson about gun advocacy groups pushing back against manufacturers being held liable yet they did not commit the actual crimes.

“I have one word for these groups and that’s, ‘tough.’ We need these rules,” he responded.

Thompson is urging the Biden administration to tighten federal enforcement on these guns because he does not believe that such legislation would pass through Congress.

“Well, I’d like to see congress have the intestinal fortitude to pass legislation that would prohibit this nonsense from taking place. But as you know, as long as they have this 60-vote rule in the Senate, we’re never going to get a bill like that passed,” said Thompson.

Thompson wants the President to direct the ATF and DOJ to pass stricter rules that would hold manufacturers liable for ghost guns.

 

Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit
“Any contrary holding ‘would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals’ by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid.”

From Friday’s decision in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski, written by Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.):

Continue reading “”

It’s already obsolete as the McDonald and Bruen rulings made ‘judicial scrutiny’ out of bounds for a fundamental right, but it does enshrine RKBA in the Iowa Constitution.

Iowa sheriffs endorse gun rights constitutional amendment

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa sheriffs are speaking out in support of a proposed gun rights amendment to the Iowa Constitution. But not everyone thinks it’s appropriate for sheriffs to endorse political issues.

Iowans will vote on the so-called “Second Amendment” bill on Nov. 8.

“Whenever one of my constituents loses a freedom it’s my fault. It’s our job to speak out,” said Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington.

Wethington is one of six Iowa sheriffs officially endorsing what he calls the freedom amendment. It says, in part, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and is basically creating an Iowa gun rights amendment similar to the second amendment in the federal constitution.

“It needs to be in the Iowa constitution, just simply for the fact that if you have your Second Aamendment rights violated, the way it is now, you have to wait until your time in a federal court. It can be dealt with in a state level now,” Wethington said.

Many Iowa sheriffs are also endorsing Brenna Bird for Iowa attorney general. And they appear in a new political advertisement for Bird, the Republican candidate running for Iowa attorney general against incumbent Tom Miller.

“Those 74 sheriffs, they want a new attorney general,” Bird said.

But Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford wonders about the ethics of law enforcement endorsements.

“The difficulty is while people are entitled to their own opinion, when people have a certain authority over others, whether it’s law enforcement, employers, professors, teachers whatever, they’re in a position to make people subordinate to that authority is uncomfortable at best,” Goldford said.

But Wethington disagrees.

“When I ran for office and was elected I did give up my First Amendment rights, not only is it my right, to speak my mind, but it’s also my duty as an elected official who has a sworn oath to protect the constitution,” he said.

Only six Iowa sheriffs publicly endorsed the firearms amendment, but the Iowa Firearms Coalition says many more are also in support.

THE AYOOB FILE
READERS KNOW MASSAD AYOOB AS A WRITER, BUT HE’S ALSO A LEADER

American Handgunner and GUNS Magazine readers have known Massad Ayoob over the years for his insight and careful analysis of self-defense incidents, and for his several books on the subject, but there’s another side of this multi-talented fellow with the deep voice and New England accent.

He also serves as president of the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights organization that has become the national leader in firearms litigation. It’s also where I hang my hat as editor and communications director. It was a SAF case — McDonald v. City of Chicago — which won a Supreme Court ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. It is SAF, sometimes with national and/or local partner organizations, which now has nearly 40 active lawsuits challenging restrictive gun control laws across the states.

And it is SAF, along with the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which annually sponsors the Gun Rights Policy Conference. This year, the event was in Dallas, Texas, and it was Ayoob — a pal of mine for decades — who delivered opening remarks and later on the agenda, some timely and important tips on how to win the “gun battle.”

Suffice to say, Ayoob did it with a style all his own; a bit of activist, some diplomat, a dash of cop humor and a heavy dose of reality.

Continue reading “”

BARR: Hate Unconstitutional Gun Control? Make Friends With Your Sheriff

A number of sheriffs in upstate New York are declaring that their officers will not prioritize or “aggressively enforce” the state’s recently enacted, highly restrictive gun control law. These elected sheriffs have concluded quite correctly that the state’s new law is at odds with both the Constitution of the United States and with the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared New York’s previous and long-standing gun control law – the Sullivan Act – unconstitutional.

The sheriffs’ actions have rekindled a recurring debate about the powers of the more than three thousand local sheriffs serving in every state except Alaska and Connecticut.

The United States has had elected sheriffs long before there was a “United States of America,” with the first one taking office in Virginia in 1652. Police departments, on the other hand, are a relatively new phenomenon. The first municipal police department was not established until 1838 in Boston, Massachusetts.

Unlike most county sheriffs, who hold their positions under their state constitutions, police chiefs answer only to local office holders who appointed them, not to the voters. It is this distinction that has caused a number of sheriffs in “Blue States” to earn the ire of the Left.

Two factors have exacerbated this enmity in recent years – increasingly restrictive gun control measures and abusive COVID mandates by Blue State governors and legislatures. Sheriffs who decline to prioritize enforcing such laws find themselves increasingly maligned by the Left, notwithstanding the fact that they are carrying out their sworn duty to support the federal and state constitutions, and in accord with the wishes of the voters they represent.

Consider Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who declared in 2021 that he would not force officers under his command to be vaccinated against COVID, as mandated by that county’s liberal Board of Supervisors.

Even more vexing to liberals, however, is the number of sheriffs who in recent years have refused to enforce what they consider unconstitutional infringements on the rights of citizens in their jurisdictions to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the face of Blue State gun control laws.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) berates these sheriffs who follow the Constitution of the United States as “radicalized” officials who do not themselves understand the Constitution. The recently discredited SPLC simply cannot bring itself to accept that elected law enforcement officials should be permitted to resist such government overreach.

However, these “constitutional sheriffs” are not alone in their views. Since the Supreme Court’s seminal Bruen decision in June that tossed New York’s Sullivan Act, similarly restrictive laws in other states have fallen. Even more to the point, some of the very restrictions in the legislation signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul just days after the Supreme Court rendered its opinion, as part of her attempt to undercut the High Court’s directive, were blocked last week by a federal judge in New York City.

With state and federal courts seeming to agree with sheriffs who decline to vigorously enforce laws they view as inconsistent with their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, especially as related to Second Amendment rights of citizens in their jurisdictions, it is becoming increasingly difficult for their detractors on the Left to argue with a straight face that the sheriffs are the outliers.

Three years ago, the gun control group founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — “Everytown for Gun Safety” — published a paper highly critical of sheriffs who declined to prioritize the gun control measures the organization championed. The title of the piece was, When Sheriffs Refuse to Follow the Law.

It is, however, becoming increasingly clear to citizens across the country that it is liberal, anti-gun public officials like Hochul who are not following the law, and that it is constitutional sheriffs who are the ones following it.

Civilian gun club sues Fort Devens for violating statutory, constitutional rights
Lawsuit alleges the Fort violated federal law granting access to military ranges.

Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club members engaging popup targets with rifles on Fort Devens’ Hotel Range. (Photo courtesy of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club).

A small civilian rifle club located just 50 miles northwest of Boston is suing nearby Fort Devens for violating federal law granting them access to military rifle ranges at reasonable rates, as well as violating their members’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

Ultimately, the club believes the Biden-Harris administration is responsible.

A little-known section of U.S. code requires the Army to make rifle and pistol ranges available for civilian use as long as it does not interfere with military training, and it prohibits officials from charging exorbitant fees for range access. Another federal statute requires the Army to provide logistical support to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., is an affiliate of both the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the National Rifle Association.

For decades prior to the 2020 election, club members had been using a wide array of rifle and pistol ranges at Fort Devens free of charge. Club members supplied their own targets, ammunition, Range Safety Officers and other supplies. They even policed their own brass. Most of the members are veterans, so they are intimately familiar with range safety protocols and other best practices. To be clear, in terms of taxpayer dollars, the club cost the Fort very little.

[Click here to watch a video of the club members at Fort Devens’ ranges.]

Just days after the 2020 election, the club was notified in writing that they would have to start paying a minimum of $250 per range, and that the fees would increase based upon the total number of shooters.

“This did not start until three days after Biden got into office. We found that very interesting,” said Jim Gettens, treasurer of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. “I don’t think they ever would have pulled this under President Trump’s administration. If we had contacted President Trump about this, I think it would have gone away ASAP.”

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Being Restored to Its Rightful Place, Thanks to Bruen Decision

In Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (aka “Bruen”), decided in June, he wrote:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a “second-class right,” subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.

The ruling in Bruen was twofold: 1) that New York State’s law requiring a citizen to show “proper cause” before being granted the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon was unconstitutional; and 2) that the right to carry a handgun in public is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

That ruling has unleashed a tsunami of lawsuits by Second Amendment supporters, to the point where far-left news outlet CNN complained that the decision has “put gun control laws in jeopardy nationwide.” Noted CNN:

In the three months since the 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state, and local levels….

Since the June ruling, federal judges in at least a half-dozen different cases have already cited the Bruen decision to rule against gun restrictions that have included local assault weapons bans, prohibitions on the manufacture of homemade firearms and bans on older teenagers publicly carrying handguns.

The outlet noted with chagrin that a federal district judge in Delaware declared that state’s ban on “ghost guns” (guns that are made at home without serial numbers) not valid under the high court’s ruling. In addition, reported the network, assault weapons bans inflicted on Coloradans in two local jurisdictions were placed on hold, and Texas’ public-carry ban on individuals aged 18 to 20 was struck down as well.

CNN failed to note, probably by design, that many other rulings following the Bruen decision have begun to restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights.

Here is just a partial list of Second Amendment victories scored since Bruen:

  • To avoid going to trial over its ban preventing concealed carry licensees from carrying more than 20 rounds of ammunition, the chief of Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department repealed the ban in September.
  • The Supreme Court, following its Bruen precedent, tossed Massachusetts’ lifetime ban on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor involving the possession or use of a firearm from ever being able to purchase a firearm in the future.
  • The Attorneys general of New Jersey, California, and Hawaii concluded that, based on Bruen, a citizen no longer must show a “justifiable need” to carry a firearm.

Second Amendment scholar and attorney Dave Workman listed other targets for lawsuits following the Bruen decision, including Illinois, which requires citizens to have a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card in order to purchase a firearm or ammunition. New Jersey has a similar law, as do North Carolina, Minnesota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Michigan, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

There is a case pending in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh — challenging Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles. Attorneys general from 25 states have filed an amicus (friendly) brief supporting the case, which was brought immediately after the Bruen decision by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Workman estimates there are some 20,000 to 25,000 restrictive gun laws in the United States. If he is anywhere close to right, the rising tide of lawsuits is likely just the beginning.

The Paranoid Style in Gun Control Politics
Bloomberg’s “The Trace” fabricates a conspiracy about amicus brief writers who adhere to Supreme Court Rules

If you’re looking for a website like QAnon, but catering to gun control advocates, you will enjoy some articles from The Trace, a gun control website founded and funded by Michael Bloomberg. In August, The Trace presented a conspiracy about the amicus briefs filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The article was reprinted by Politico. Will Van Sant, The NRA’s Shadowy Supreme Court Lobbying Campaign, Politico, Aug. 5, 2022.

The 12-brief conspiracy

The Politico reprint of the Trace article opens with snazzy graphics. Forty-nine amicus brief were submitted in the Bruen case: “12 of those briefs were filed by people or institutions who had received millions of dollars from the NRA, a Trace and Politico Magazine investigation found. Only 1 brief disclosed the financial connection.” According to Van Sant, “neither the justices nor the public were told that 11 of these ostensibly independent voices owed their livelihoods in part to the NRA.” Let’s look at some of his examples.

In 1991, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) was created by San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle. The then-police chief of San Jose, Joseph McNamara, was one of the leading gun control spokesmen in America. McNamara attempted to fire Pyle for Pyle’s Second Amendment advocacy. Pyle ended up winning his case, thanks in part to the excellent work of his attorney, who happened to be the daughter of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Later, Jim Fotis succeeded Pyle as head of LEAA, and LEAA received substantial donations from NRA. Although LEAA is apparently now defunct, in its day it advocated for the viewpoint of most rank and file law enforcement officers: skepticism about gun control and support for strict punishment of violent criminals.

In Bruen, an amicus brief was filed by The League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense, which is based in Virginia. Van Sant’s article reports:

“Those of us involved with the League have been involved in 2nd Amendment advocacy for decades,” attorney Christopher Day, counsel of record on the brief, said by email in response to a request for comment. “The League is not affiliated with the NRA, nor received any financial support from them.” The League is led by James Fotis, who for many years oversaw an NRA-supported effort to elect judges and state attorneys general who opposed firearms restrictions.

According to Van Sant, it was “shadowy” for the League’s 2021 brief not to disclose in that brief that the League’s president had, years before, headed an organization that received NRA grants.

That is not what the Supreme Court Rules say, nor should they. Consider some career attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice. During their employment, they “owed their livelihoods” (Van Sant’s phrase) to the DOJ. Later, they left the DOJ for private practice, and still later they wrote an amicus brief supporting a DOJ position in a Supreme Court case. Per Van Sant’s theory, the former DOJ lawyers must disclose their past DOJ employment in their amicus brief.

Continue reading “”

FPC VICTORY: Judge Issues Injunction Against California Gun Owner Data-Sharing Law

SAN DIEGO, CA (October 14, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal has issued a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The ruling in Barba v. Bonta, which was affirmed by the judge in full, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information,” wrote Judge Bacal in her ruling. “Additionally. . .this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim . . .and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction.”

“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, and Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC.

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

Even in Los Angeles………

U.S. Supreme Court aids gun rights yet again

The United States Supreme Court has no troops to enforce its rulings, but the justices are doing what they can to enforce their decision earlier this year in a major Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., v. Bruen.

Last week the court took a dim view of a Massachusetts law that bars people convicted of gun-related misdemeanors from ever being allowed to buy a handgun again.

In Morin v. Lyver, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Massachusetts law using a two-step balancing test that the Supreme Court forcefully threw out in its New York State Rifle & Pistol decision. The Supreme Court has now vacated the First Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back down to be heard again under the high court’s new standard, which is based not on subjective judicial balancing tests, but on history.

This time Massachusetts will have to prove that its law barring some people from buying guns is similar to restrictions that have traditionally been viewed as consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.

Dr. Alfred Morin was arrested for carrying a gun without a permit while on a trip to Washington, D.C., in 2004. Morin was licensed to carry in Massachusetts and didn’t realize his permit was not valid in D.C. due to the city’s total ban on carrying a gun (later declared unconstitutional). He was arrested after he complied with a no-gun sign at a museum and tried to check his gun with security. He pleaded guilty to carrying a gun without a license and was sentenced to jail time, but never required to serve it.

That misdemeanor conviction now bars Morin from ever again obtaining a permit to buy a handgun. He sued the state, but the U.S. District Court found that the law was constitutional because Morin was not a “law-abiding citizen,” having been convicted of a gun-related misdemeanor warranting imprisonment. The Court of Appeals agreed with that reasoning.

However, under the Supreme Court’s new standard, it’s no longer enough for courts to find that the states have “an interest in preventing crime” and then determine if the law is “reasonably tailored” to meet those needs. The presumption now is that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. States must prove that any laws restricting that right have traditionally been consistent with Second Amendment rights going all the way back to the early days of the Republic.

Morin v. Lyver is the fifth case the Supreme Court has vacated and sent back down for reconsideration under the new standard. One is a California case, a challenge to the state’s 10-round magazine limit. In addition, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel vacated a decision in McDougall v. Ventura County, involving a challenge to the closure of gun shops early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The case has been sent back to the trial court to be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York case.

This is an important course correction. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege that governments may arbitrarily withhold or revoke. A written constitution is the consent of the governed, and it places limits on government power. Enforcing those limits is the job of the Supreme Court. Freedom depends on it.

The truth about Michael Bloomberg’s militia fetish

If you don’t control your mind, someone else will. Jim Morrison said that, and it’s as true today as it was when The Doors front man first uttered those prophetic words. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, there is no one who wants to control minds more than former New York City mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, 80, funds a vast array of anti-gun propagandists who operate across multiple digital and print platforms. Some, such as Bloomberg News, are accepted by the mainstream media as a legitimate news source. Others, such as The Trace, masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than well-paid anti-gun activists with access to unlimited print and pixels.

Bloomberg turned to his loyal staffers at Bloomberg News to launch his latest assault on our gun rights, by trying to change how we define a militia.

The former mayor wants the public to believe that the National Guard is the “well regulated militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment, which is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Therefore, if the public accepts that it’s the National Guardsmen whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, our individual gun rights can be eliminated, Bloomberg hopes.

This misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, while laughable, is nothing new. We are the true militia the framers had in mind – everyday Americans who possess modern firearms, ammunition and the skills to use them proficiently.

Here are some recent examples of Bloomberg’s attempts to redefine militia:

  • A Bloomberg News story published July 1 states that the New York Governor signed a law extending property tax relief to veterans who served at least 10 years “in the U.S. Armed Forces or in the organized militia of the State of New York.”
  • A Bloomberg News story published June 29 examined a labor dispute involving active-duty Ohio National Guardsmen – those serving an Active Guard and Reserve, or AGR, tour. “The US Supreme Court accepted the Ohio National Guard’s request to consider whether the agency that oversees federal-sector labor relations also has jurisdiction over state militias,” the reporter wrote.
  • A Bloomberg News story published Aug. 17 profiled an Ohio National Guard unit comprised of high-tech computer specialists including several civilians. It was headlined: “Modern-Day Militia Ready for Fight Against US Election Hacking.”

Telegraphing an attack

These confusing headlines and word-salads were not accidental. They were carefully designed, and they betray the propagandists’ true intent: Change the public’s mindset because another attack on our gun rights is coming.

Fortunately, we have case law and several strong Supreme Court decisions that protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Bloomberg’s attack will not be a legal one – at least not yet.

This is propaganda, which is designed to alter public opinion and perception, and Bloomberg’s propagandists have always played the long game. They seek to change minds first, which will make it easier to change laws later.

Keep in mind what we’re dealing with: “I don’t know why people carry guns. Guns kill people,” Bloomberg once said, while surrounded by a heavily armed personal security detail, probably.

His attitude and his billions make him our most formidable anti-rights opponent. At least this time we know something is coming

Anti-gun advocates were formerly able to foist this off on the people because accessing a lot of the original writings had to be done by reading the actual hard copy. “But, thanks to the digitization of old texts on Google Books and Google Scholar, access to second-generation American viewpoints is easier now than ever before.” The internet and its search engines have finally been able to put the lie to this ‘collective right’ BS.

BLUF
The common assertion that the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment is a gun-lobby myth invented in the latter half of the 20th century is, to repurpose Justice Brennan’s famous quote, “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime.” The historical record shows that 19th-century Americans, whatever other disputes they had about the provision, widely viewed the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.

Analysis: Historical Texts Show Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms Isn’t an NRA Invention

For anyone who frequently discusses the Second Amendment, there is no avoiding the debate over whether it protects an individual or collective right. The prevailing view accepted by the Supreme Court in 2008 is that the amendment protects every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. But many detractors, especially gun-control advocates, still argue it only covers a collective or militia right.

When the individual right view started to gain ground (or, rather, regain ground) in the late 20th century, a common line of attack was that the pro-gun side was essentially making it all up. And it’s one that’s been repeated even at the highest levels of the legal profession.

“The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime,” Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in a 1991 PBS interview.

Gun-control advocates still use this argument, with The Intercept asserting in a June 2022 article that “no law review article from 1888 (when they were first indexed) through 1959 ever concluded the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to a gun.”

There are three ways to test the claim that the NRA and other gun-rights advocates created the individual-right view in the last several decades: What did the founders say? What did older case law say? And what did prominent second-generation American legal scholars and elected officials say?

The courts and the public writ large have already deeply examined the first two options.

Continue reading “”