Rights – Page 19 – MILESFORTIS

Leaked memo states that in NYC anyone carrying a firearm, legally, is now presumed guilty until proven innocent

NEW YORK CITY, NY – Leaked documents from the New York Police Department (NYPD) indicate that anyone carrying a firearm is now presumed guilty until proven innocent.

New York's new concealed carry law, which will allow gun-free zones all around New York City and throughout the state, will be challenged in state and federal courts, former City Commissioner Brian Andersson said. https://t.co/eN87zTsziA

— Newsmax (@newsmax) September 1, 2022

The new guidance highlighted in the leaked memo proves that almost anywhere in New York City — public or private — is a gun-free zone.

It basically states that unless someone is a police officer or a former cop, no one can bring their legal firearm out of their house for protection, like on public transportation.

The memo, titled New York State Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Firearms, states very clearly in its “key points”:

“Anyone carrying a firearm is presumed to be carrying unlawfully until proven otherwise.”

The other “key points” are listed below:

Possessing a firearm in New York City requires a special license issued by the New York City Police Department;

Carrying a firearm in New York City requires a concealed carry license issued by the New York City Police Department;

License holders are required to carry their license when carrying a firearm and must provide their license to law enforcement upon request; and

Recent changes in law do not impact the way officers conduct investigative encounters. Officers may stop an individual when the officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying a firearm (Level 3) and may frisk that individual since the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.

The memo also describes what are to be considered “sensitive” and “restricted” locations throughout the city. According to the memo:

“Even though a person may be licensed to carry a firearm, they may not bring a firearm to a ‘sensitive’ location … All private property (residential and commercial) that is not on the sensitive location list is considered ‘restricted.’ People who are licensed to possess firearms may not bring firearms to a restricted location unless they get permission from the property owner.”

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

Biden Is the Semi-Fascist He Is Looking For

JOE BIDEN IS THE FASCIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Biden and his administration are framing out an ideological war which puts Democrats in possession of the “soul of the nation,” and paints conservatives as fascists, bigots and any other insult they can come up with. The goal is to try to seize the moral high ground, only they are doing it on behalf of butchers disguised as doctors, groomers disguised as academics, and racists disguised as equity professionals.

When Biden spoke to Democrats last week and proclaimed that conservatives and Trump supporters are semi-fascist, his handlers knew exactly what they were doing. When Biden was asked what he meant with the comment, he said “you know exactly what I mean,” leaving explanations to flow from the podium in the White House briefing room.

“We have seen MAGA republicans take away our rights, make threats of violence, including this weekend,” Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked about Louisiana Senator Lindsey Graham’s caution against prosecuting former President Donald Trump, “and that is what the president was referring to when you all asked me last week about the ‘semi-fascism’ comment.”

Congress is held by Democrats, the White House has a Democrat in the Oval Office. The approval rating for the president and his administration is trash. Yet somehow, they continuously blame the opposition party for their own failures. Democrats could not, in 50 years, pass a bill federally legalizing abortion. In recent years, their efforts to obstruct states from enacting their own voting laws were met with realizations that Delaware, Biden’s home state, as well as bastion of liberal thought New York, each have voting laws more “restrictive” than Georgia and Texas.

Using the term “fascist” is a language game designed to paint the opposition as something they are not, and obfuscate the fact that it has been Democrats in power that have repeatedly and consistently limited the rights of Americans. Charlie Kirk rightfully noted that Joe Biden is a fascist.

Continue reading “”

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

ProPublica Horrified That a Lawful Business is Defending Itself in the Courts

After the 2021 ghost gun law passed in Nevada, Polymer80 hired the New York City law firm Greenspoon Marder to file the lawsuit in Yerington, an onion farming town that’s the seat of the county that’s home to Polymer80. One of the firm’s managing partners, James McGuire, traveled to Yerington to argue before Judge John Schlegelmilch that the law was written so vaguely it would be impossible to enforce and would be ripe for abuse.

McGuire said in an email he no longer represents Polymer80 and referred questions to another lawyer at the firm, who didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In court, McGuire argued the law failed to define key terms such as “receiver” and “frame,” and used “murky and undefined terms” to explain what an “unfinished receiver” is. He also argued the law doesn’t specify when in the manufacturing process an unfinished receiver actually becomes a receiver.

During two hearings on the lawsuit, Schlegelmilch seemed to have little patience with the state’s argument that the law relies on industry-specific terms that are well understood by Polymer80. Instead the judge agreed with McGuire that the law didn’t adequately define an unfinished receiver. At one point he asked whether his 5-year-old’s rubber band gun could be considered an unfinished receiver simply because it looks like a gun

“What if I’m at home, and I’m machining a piece of wood. OK? And my 5-year-old wants a rubber band gun. OK? So, I take that piece of wood, I turn it, I make it into — you know, I take a band saw, and I cut out what looks like a firearm. And I put a couple of sticks on it so that you can put a rubber band on it when you push it up. You’ve seen a rubber band gun before, right? So, is that mostly completed?”

“I mean, a rubber band gun’s not a firearm,” responded the state’s attorney, Greg Zunino. “I don’t think you would ever be prosecuted under that scenario because you still have to have an intent to turn something into a firearm.”

Schlegelmilch ruled in favor of Polymer80 and enjoined the state from enforcing the section of the law that prohibited the possession and sale of unfinished frames and receivers. Schlegelmilch let stand the rest of the law, which Polymer80 didn’t challenge and prohibits the possession of a completed ghost gun

The state has appealed Schlegelmilch’s ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Schlegelmilch declined an interview request because the appeal is pending.

[Polymer80 president Loran] Kelley declined to comment on the decision to file the lawsuit on his home turf in Lyon County.

Other courts have ruled differently.

A similar lawsuit filed in federal court in Reno the same month was quickly tossed by a judge who decided the law “is a valid exercise of the government’s police power.”

“What happened here, with the state court being more successful for them, indicates politics and ideology within the judiciary,” [Giffords deputy chief counsel David] Pucino said.

This month, a judge in Washington, D.C., found Polymer80 sold illegal firearms in the district and ordered it to pay $4 million in penalties.

The ATF is also seeking to impose a new rule that would require unfinished receivers and frames to include a serial number — one of the federal strategies that Pucino said would be more effective than a state-by-state approach. The new rule, seen as a way to close the ghost gun loophole, is set to take effect on Aug. 24, but it faces at least three lawsuits from the ghost gun industry seeking to block its implementation.

McGuire, the lawyer who represented Polymer80, authored a 27-page public comment submission on the new rule arguing, in part, that it’s impermissibly vague, the same argument that he used successfully to stop the Nevada law.

To some, there’s an easy solution: Polymer80 could stamp serial numbers on the unfinished frames and receivers they sell.

Kelley said putting a serial number on his products wouldn’t hurt his company. But using those numbers to require background checks is a “critical threat” to his business, which he said relies on a growing market of individuals who “value their Fourth Amendment rights” to privacy.

“There’s a problem when people’s right to privacy is infringed and a government agency is looking at what you bought whenever they want,” he said.

Fact Check: Are Armed Civilians to Blame For Mass Shootings?

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Our country has been buried in hoaxes, one after another. Lies have become part of American culture.

They are intended to change our thoughts and actions, even if those changes are not to our benefit. A familiar hoax is that guns and gun owners are dangerous. This hoax is almost invisible; it has become an assumption that politicians use to claim we need more laws to deal with gun violence.

The gun violence hoax is bolstered by pseudo-scientific articles published in medical journals, even in a few criminological journals. A proper scientific article is easily identified because the researcher is honestly searching for truth; unscientific ones use complex scientific language to dress up their biases to prove what they already believe. That’s pseudo-science.

Unfortunately, too many editors and reviewers share this bias against guns, so pseudo-science easily slips through the review process.

Any time journalists need an emotional article about guns, a pseudo-science piece is easily found. It is false but looks convincing. The gun violence hoax gets another boost.

In fact, many articles in scientific journals have been discovered to be fraudulent and unscientific. The problem is even worse in social science and medicine.

Journalists typically ignore complex scientific methodology, so they are easy to fool. Besides, most journalists share the same anti-gun biases.

Fortunately, there are honest, competent academics who can see through the pseudoscientific claptrap and are willing to point out the truth.

A recent dust-up between two researchers in Justice Quarterly is illustrative. For the sake of simplicity, we shall only cite 2 of those feisty articles. First, Emma Fridel, a Florida criminologist, wrote Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearm Homicide. Attempting to clear up her errors, Professor Gary Kleck soon after published a stinging critique, The Continuing Vitality of Flawed Research on Guns and Violence: A Comment on Fridel.

The point to take away from this ‘battle of the boffins’ is that without any math at all, you will be able to understand Fridel’s flaws. It’s that obvious that Fridel fiddled with the books to find the answer she sought, not reality. That’s not science.

Continue reading “”

How “sensitive area” battle is shaping up in New York

In the Bruen decision, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that there were a handful of places where guns could be constitutionally banned. He called these “sensitive areas” and they include places like courthouses, jails, and things of that sort.

On one level, it makes sense. These are places where some are more inclined to be violent. Plus, they’re easily secured so that virtually no one is able to bring a gun in. In other words, they use metal detectors, not signs on the door.

However, in so doing, the term “sensitive area” is getting used to justify a whole lot of restrictions. In fact, the battle over them in New York is just starting to fire up.

“Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department,” wrote Thomas.

While New York politicians have yet to declare Manhattan a gun-free zone, they have pushed back against the ruling. In a long list of new “sensitive places,” state legislators named parks, which by definition includes the biggest park in the lower 48, the Adirondack Park in upstate New York. Interestingly, the Adirondack Park is home to about 130,000 residents—all of whom will effectively see their Second Amendment rights erased when the law takes effect on Sept. 1.

This law is in direct conflict with NYSRPA. When the U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed the right of Americans to “bear” arms in this case, it didn’t do so in some mealy-mouthed manner that indicated the ruling was a difficult decision or was uncertain in any way.…

For residents of the Adirondack Park, which is about half private land and half publicly owned, the law puts them in a dilemma. Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the state NRA affiliate, said he has received “hundreds of calls” about the ban from residents of the Adirondacks who are confused and frustrated.

Of course, Adirondack Park is only one of the battlegrounds. In fact, the above-linked piece goes on to quote a Democratic lawmaker who takes issue with this particular measure and how it impacts these good folks.

However, I’m going to go a step further and note that while Thomas explicitly wrote that the entire island of Manhattan couldn’t be declared a sensitive area, what has actually transpired there is just a step shy of precisely that.

For example, a large number of areas are declared sensitive areas, for one thing. Then there’s the idea of carrying on private property.

Now, in many states, business owners can put a sign up to serve notice that the building is gun-free. I know it’s not popular, but I’m actually fine with this because property rights are also a thing that needs to be respected. If a business owner doesn’t want guns on their property, they’re free to do so.

However, in New York, the default is that guns aren’t permitted.

While that’s fine for anti-gun businesses, it also means those ambivalent on the subject of concealed carry are, in effect, determined to be essentially the same as sensitive areas. Since most people try to actively avoid politics, the default for these folks is likely to be that ambivalence.

So, in effect, the majority of the island of Manhattan–and the rest of the state, really–has been essentially declared a sensitive area.

Yes, I support businesses being able to declare themselves gun-free–why would I want to spend money with companies who don’t support my fundamental rights–the default position on something like that should be toward freedom.

What New York did looks to have gone beyond what Justice Thomas intended.

The battle over what actually can constitute a sensitive area has just started. It’s going to be rough going for a lot of people, too, unfortunately, before it’s all settled.

Some still cling to idea of Second Amendment and militias

The Second Amendment reads: [no, it does not read that way. I wish these authors would not be so ignorant]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the ~~people’s right~~ right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[FIFY- fixed it for you]

We also know that our Founding Fathers were fearful of a standing army, having seen that army used as a tool of oppression. As such, they favored citizen soldiers, much like how the Greek city-states maintained their armies.

Little did they expect the debate that we would see since then over a single sentence. Unfortunately, the debate continues.

What’s more, we get pieces like this one for LA Progressive subtitled, “Most constitutional experts argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of State militias to bear arms. Not private militias or individuals.”

Now, I’m not sure how they figure most constitutional experts agree with them unless they dismiss anyone who doesn’t as a constitutional expert, but it doesn’t get any better moving forward.

Why does the United States have more civilian gun deaths than the entire rest of the world combined? Is it because people in the US are more violent? NO.

Except, we don’t. Not even close.

If you look at a list of civilian gun fatalities by nation, you’ll find a lot of places whose numbers are far worse than ours, especially if you look at the per capita figures.

Further, are Americans more violent? The author dismisses this out of hand, yet a look at non-gun homicides compared to total rates from places like Europe suggests that yeah, we might just be.

And now look at all of this and we’ve only gotten to the subtitle and the first paragraph. You know this is going to be a disaster.

However, it should be noted that most constitutional experts argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of State militias to bear arms. Not private militias or individuals. Be that as it may, exactly what “well regulated Militias” did [redacting mass killers’ names]

I’m sorry, but that line of “reasoning” is just absolutely insane.

First, why would the government need to protect the “right” of the government to have guns? Yes, it’s different levels of government, but it’s still government.

Further, why is it that throughout the Constitution, when the Founding Fathers wanted to specify the states, they said “the states” in every other instance but this one? And that every other place protecting a right of the people, it meant actual individuals everywhere but here?

On ever level, this argument is absolutely insane. “But militia!” they scream.

Sure, but look at the Second Amendment for a moment. What exactly in the rest of it suggests that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed for everyone but the militia? Even if the right is to be taken as protecting state militias versus private ones, where in the Second Amendment does it preserve the right just for those state militias?

After all, it says “the ~~people’s right~~ right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So what gives? Well, it seems some parties are more interested in manipulating the text of the Second Amendment to mean anything they want it to mean, and they expect the American people to swallow it whole.

Sorry, that’s not our style.

Obviously, we haven’t delved too deeply into this piece, but why should we? It’s already clear they can’t be reasoned out of this position because they haven’t shown they reasoned themselves into it. They’re simply trying to play games and hoping people are too stupid to see what they’re doing.

Well, we do.

Biden invites gun control groups to White House to help “heal the soul of a nation”

Makes sense. After all, nothing promotes unity like demonizing 80-100 million gun owners and threatening to turn them into criminals if they don’t register or turn their AR-15s over to the government, right?

Next month Joe Biden’s going to be hosting a “United We Stand Summit” that’s ostensibly about the “corrosive effects” of threats of violence on our political system and public life; an event that White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claims will be “important opportunity for Americans of all races, religions, regions, political affiliations, and walks of life to take up that cause together.” If you don’t believe in gun-controlling our way to “unity”, however, expect your invite to get lost in the mail.

Biden will deliver a keynote speech at the gathering, which the White House says will include civil rights groups, faith leaders, business executives, law enforcement, gun violence prevention advocates, former members of violent hate groups, the victims of extremist violence and cultural figures. The White House emphasized that it also intends to bring together Democrats and Republicans, as well as political leaders on the federal, state and local levels to unite against hate-motivated violence.

You know, there are plenty of new gun owners out there who specifically bought a firearm because they’re worried about being the victim of “extremist violence” who might also have a thing or two to say about the idiocy of trying to reduce violence by preventing people from defending themselves, but Biden and his allies have no interest in hearing from those folks. In fact, for an event that’s ostensibly about promoting unity, it sure seems awfully divisive in nature.

Sindy Benavides, the CEO of League of United Latin American Citizens, said the genesis of the summit came after the Buffalo massacre, as her organization along with the Anti-Defamation League, the National Action Network and other groups wanted to press the Biden administration to more directly tackle extremist threats.

“As civil rights organizations, social justice organizations, we fight every day against this, and we wanted to make sure to acknowledge that government needs to have a leading role in addressing right-wing extremism,” she said.

… Benavides said Biden holding the summit would help galvanize the country to address the threats of hate-inspired violence but also said she hoped for “long-term solutions” to emerge from the summit.

“What’s important to us is addressing mental health, gun control reform, addressing misinformation, disinformation and malinformation,” she said. “We want policy makers to focus on common sense solutions so we don’t see this type of violence in our communities. And we want to see the implementation of policies that reduce violence.”

Sounds like less of a summit and more like a pep rally for Democrats to me; a day where Biden and his closest allies can portray Republicans as “right wing extremists” and push for more divisive gun control laws ahead of the midterms.

The divides in this country are obviously growing deeper by the day, but this event is likely to flame those tensions instead of alleviating them. I truly hope I’m wrong, but given the blatantly partisan nature of this “unity summit,” it’s hard to predict otherwise.

BLUF
This isn’t searching for common ground to arrive at real solutions. This rhetoric is dangerous and reveals the hostility these gun control groups, and the politicians they support, have for the Constitution and those who exercise the rights protected by it.

GUN CONTROL GROUP REPEATS PRESIDENT BIDEN’S WAR THREATS AGAINST GUN OWNERS

The problem with outlandish threats against law-abiding gun owners is they get repeated. That’s especially true when gun control groups seize upon careless remarks by President Joe Biden that the U.S. government would consider using actual weapons of war against those who dare to believe the Second Amendment protects the nation against a tyrannical government.

Newtown Action Alliance’s Po Murray tweeted, “A gun rights activist from Newtown told me he needs an AR15 to defend himself from a tyrannical government. I told him the CIA has drones with missiles. Hellfire R9X/“knife bomb”/“flying Ginsu” was used to kill al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri.”

The irony here is rich. An antigun activist that wants to disarm law-abiding citizens for exercising their right to keep and bear arms is repeating a threat of lethal force – and – comparing those gun owners to international radical terrorists.

She attempted to clarify her tweet with another three days later tweeting, “Let me be clear. The government is not coming for you with a drone.”

Ramping Rhetoric

Newtown Action Alliance’s Murray isn’t a stranger to inflammatory and hyperbolic language. She labeled Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis “a racist homophobic misogynistic power hungry fascist,” and tweeted that NSSF is a “Trumpian right wing gun lobby.”

For the record, NSSF works with elected officials on both sides of the aisle. That’s harder these days, as most Democrats adopted a radical antigun agenda that would violate the U.S. Constitution and deny law-abiding gun owners their rights.

Murray, though, thinks it is perfectly fine to threaten those gun owners with lethal force from Hellfire-equipped drones. In her estimation, those gun owners exercising their God-given rights that won’t consider surrendering to her radical gun control agenda are no better than terrorists.

If the line of using U.S. government-owned actual “weapons of war” sounds familiar, it’s because that was a line repeated again and again by the Commander-in-Chief himself. President Biden said in 2021, “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

Continue reading “”

Federal Prosecutor Sets Up Hotline for Reporting, Among Other Things, People “Espousing … Hate-Filled Views.”

A press release Wednesday by the U.S. Attorney in charge of the federal prosecutor’s office in Massachusetts, Rachael S. Rollins announced the rollout of an “End Hate Now” telephone hotline (emphasis added):

The “End Hate Now” hotline [1-83-END-H8-NOW] is dedicated for reporting hate-based incidents or potential criminal activity. Massachusetts residents and visitors are encouraged to call the hotline to report concerning or troubling incidents of hate, potential hate crimes, or concerns regarding individuals believed to be espousing the hate-filled views or actions we learn of far too often in the wake of mass shootings and/or acts of hate-based violent extremism. Callers are encouraged to leave their contact information but may remain anonymous….

Hate crimes are illegal acts committed based on a victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Beliefs are not hate crimes. Distasteful ideologies, advocacy of political or social positions, use of discriminatory rhetoric, or the general philosophic embrace of biased or hate-filled beliefs are not crimes. Under federal law, investigations may not be based solely on an individual’s beliefs or their protected First Amendment activity.

“With the uptick in horrific mass-shootings and unimaginable acts of racially motivated violent extremism we have seen across our country, people are scared. In Massachusetts, we have recently seen multiple incidents of groups espousing deeply offensive and hurtful ideologies displayed on our streets. A recent act of hateful vandalism at the future PRYDE senior housing facility in Hyde Park threatened burning and death against the LGBTQ+ community. Enough is enough. My office is offering our residents and visitors a new outlet for bringing these critical and concerning issues seeped in bigotry and hatred to the attention of law enforcement,” said U.S. Attorney Rollins. “I am asking people – when you see hate, call this number and let us know. If you have serious concerns about a loved one, a friend, or even an acquaintance, call this number and let us know….” …

“Protecting Massachusetts residents from violence and hate is the top priority of my administration,” stated U.S. Attorney Rollins. “In Massachusetts, we have a long history of standing up to hate and intolerance. Today, we continue that honored tradition. By establishing this 1-83-END-H8-NOW hotline and a Civil Rights and Human Trafficking Unit, my office is fully equipped and dedicated to fighting hate-fueled criminal activity across our Commonwealth.”

A sound means for a prosecutor’s office to investigate potential violent crimes or vandalism? (Though saying, for instance, “killing [police officers / Jews / my ex-wife] is completely morally justified” is constitutionally protected speech, if such a killing had actually happened nearby, prosecutors might reasonably want to look into whether the speaker actually acted on his beliefs and didn’t just express them.) A tool that, if indeed effectively publicized, would chill public expression even of constitutionally protected speech by people who have no plans for crime? Both? Neither? I’d love to hear what people think about this.

Democrats’ Lame Attempt to Flip the Narrative on Crime: Claiming 2nd Amendment is Anti-Police

Ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, with rising violent crime a top concern for voters, the vast majority of Democrats are now working overtime to distance themselves from their prior support for the “Defund the Police” movement. Increasingly, however, it appears that they’re linking this professed newfound support for law enforcement to another pillar of Democrats’ far-left agenda – gun control.

After backlash to the “defund” movement contributed to dozens of House Democrats losing or facing closer-than-expected races in 2020, the party slowly began changing its tune on policing. While some, like Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush, have continued their calls for “dismantling” police departments, the White House and Democratic leadership are now saying that they in fact support police and have always supported police – even accusing Republicans, who spent all of 2020 and 2021 vigorously defending police from attacks by left-wing politicians and news outlets, of not supporting them.

As Axios reported late last month, Democratic candidates in Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and other states are “spotlighting law enforcement to boost their credibility on fighting crime.” Party strategists are now privately admitting that “the defund debate damaged Democrats’ reputation on crime,” and many “fear a voter perception that Democrats don’t recognize the problem with violent crime and don’t respect the role police play in keeping communities safe.”

But as part of their effort to mask their complete reversal of position when it comes to support for police, many Democrats—including Biden himself—have attempted to make the issue of rising crime about guns rather than policing, implying that support for the Second Amendment is incompatible with support for law enforcement.

Continue reading “”

No rights are subject to the whims of a tyrannically minded majority. That’s why they’re called ‘rights‘ and not something else.

Are Constitutional Rights Subject to Poll Results?

A recent online survey conducted last month by the Oregon Values and Beliefs Center in Portland revealed “nearly 60% favored stricter federal gun regulations, and 56% said the same about the state’s regulations.”

That was from a response of more than 1,400 Beaver State adults, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle. The story appeared as Portland-based anti-gunners were delivering petitions to the Secretary of
State in Salem to put a restrictive gun control measure on the November ballot that will ban original capacity magazines and require Oregonians to get a permit before they can legally purchase a firearm.

In neighboring Washington four years ago, a well-financed campaign by the billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility pushed Initiative 1639 into law. That measure invented a definition of a so-called “semiautomatic assault rifle,” a gun which, according to Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, doesn’t exist. The sweeping definition applies to every self-loading rifle ever manufactured anywhere, regardless of caliber.

These developments raise the question whether constitutional rights can be subject to popularity contests, which initiative elections actually are. That is, at least until they are challenged successfully in federal court.

Continue reading “”

‘Active Shooter Alert’ Bill, Designed to Scare, Draws in GOP Traitors and Suckers

“H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, is not a public safety tool, but rather an anti-gun propaganda program intended to further public hysteria by hyper-inflating the authentic number of ‘active shooter’ incidents to expand support for unconstitutional gun control measures,” Gun Owners of America advised members in a mid-July alert. “Under the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, justified self-defense shootings, gang violence, drug violence, or accidental shootings will be used to send alerts to the American people about the presence of an ‘active shooter’ to intentionally misguide the public and create mass hysteria.”

I imagine an uninterrupted night’s sleep would be damn near impossible on an average weekend in Chicago.

You’ll note whenever GOA uses the term on its own (as opposed to citing what the bill is named) they put the words “active shooter” in quotation marks. There’s a reason why that’s appropriate, and something gun owners should emulate. Per Firearms Coalition Managing Director and “proud active shooter” Jeff Knox:

“It is inaccurate because it does not include any direct suggestion of criminality, using ‘shooter’ to infer that, and it is insulting because by doing this, it implies that shooting is a criminal activity.”

Rep. Thomas Massie describes the bill more bluntly.

“House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment,” he warns, and he’s not using hyperbole. Any longtime gun owner who doesn’t recognize by now that yes, the prohibitionists really do want to take your guns, is either an oblivious fool or in the enemy camp. (There are also citizens new to owning guns who have never given the matter much thought to see how they’ve been lied to, who are ripe for manipulation and the subjects of another analysis.)

House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment. pic.twitter.com/MSOdkKbTBO

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 13, 2022

Two points:

Repealing the Second Amendment would not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has recognized, first in Cruikshank and later cited in Heller:

“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

Massie knows that. He also knows the Democrats want us to believe rights come from them, using the term “bill of rights” to propose government-mandated privileges that are generally dependent on dragooning (that is, enslaving) others to provide the “granted” services. (See “FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and UN Declaration Show How ‘Progressives’ View You.”)

The second point is addressed directly to Donald Trump in the (admittedly improbable) hope that someone who knows him will call it to his attention: Don’t you think it’s past time you to publicly apologize to Rep. Massie and admit that he was right for putting the Constitution over GOP Democrat Lite politics?

As for the “Active Shooter” Alert bill, it passed in the House of Representatives with 43 “Republicans” either knowingly signing on with or being suckered in by a confirmed enemy of the Second Amendment, bill sponsor David Cicilline (D-RI). He’s the professional worm tongue who out of one corner of his mouth professes, “We all respect the Second Amendment but…” and out of the other corner snarls, “Spare me the bulls*** about Constitutional rights.”

Continue reading “”

As I recall, ‘to secure..rights, Government are instituted…”. Seems that protecting free speech would be part of ‘Job 1’.

Limited government action may be needed to protect free speech, law professor argues.

A renowned George Washington University law professor recently called for limited government support for free speech, particularly on college campuses.

“The greatest danger is that the government will seek not to protect free speech but favor particular speech,” Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a July 16 email to The College Fix. “My proposals are structured to confine government intervention to content neutral measures that protect the diversity of viewpoints.”

Turley defended limited government action to protect free speech in an article published July 9 by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy titled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.”

“If we are to preserve this defining right, we may have to embrace the incongruous notion of coercing free speech,” Turley wrote in the article.

The piece included a section on college campuses, in which Turley argued that “any effort to reinforce free speech values in the United States must focus on universities, which play a vital role as enclaves for political and intellectual discourse.”

“The most chilling examples of intolerance have come from campuses of higher education,” he wrote. Furthermore, “the ultimate responsibility for the erosion of free speech values in our country … rests with academics, journalists, and others who actively support actions taken against those with opposing views or stand silent.”

Turley proposed in the article several solutions to free speech limitations on campuses, including making federal funding to state universities conditional upon compliance with principles of free speech.

Continue reading “”

‘That’s The Point’
Rep. Nadler Admits Bill Will Confiscate Guns In ‘Common Use’

Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler admitted a Democrat-led bill intends to confiscate guns in “common use” during a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop asked House Democrats if they dispute the fact that the proposed legislation H.R. 1808, titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” bans firearms in “common use” throughout the country.

“Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” Bishop asked.

“That’s the point of the bill,” Nadler replied.

“So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” the Republican representative pressed.

“Yes,” Nadler clarified. “The problem is that they’re in common use.”

The bill, introduced by Democratic Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, would ban a so-called “semi-automatic assault weapon,” including all AK types of weapons and AR-15s. The legislation, if passed, would ban semi-automatic weapons that contain a magazine, a pistol or forward grip and a “folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.” It also intends to ban weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds or contains a threaded barrel or second pistol grip.

The representative then told Cicilline that he has used his advanced legal skills to “obfuscate” the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which deemed a ban on handguns a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision further protected a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that are in common use.

“What you suggest that this order can possibly comply with what the Supreme Court has held in now three separate cases is absolutely absurd. You defy the Supreme Court of the United States in the same way the Democrats mounted massive resistance to Brown v. Board of Education,” Bishop said. “We’re going to explain that for the American people in the course of this hearing. The Democrats of the 1960s are the Democrats of the 2020s.”

The Court ruled that “self-defense is a basic right recognized by many legal systems” in the case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, which struck down the city of Chicago’s ban on handguns in 2010. The decision further ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

He cited the recent Court decision in the case, New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen, that the state implementing “proper cause” to obtain a conceal carry permit violates a citizen’s Fourteenth Amendment right to practice their Second Amendment protection to self-defense.

“This bill bans many types of weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” Bishop said.

Approximately 20 million AR-15 style rifles are in circulation in the United States and continue to be one of the “most popular rifles sold in America,” according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Where does anyone read ‘Need’ anywhere in the 2nd amendment?

An Expert Answers Democrats’ Most Burning Question: Why Does Anyone Need an AR-15?

It’s a cry we hear time and again: Why does anyone need a black, spookily-shaped, mysterious “weapon of war” — which has never been used by the U.S. military?

Contrary to frequently wild framing, the AR-15 is simply the modern iteration of a basic rifle. Take Daniel Boone’s “Old Tick Licker,” fast-forward 270 years, and you get something lighter, more capacious, more accurate, and more easily accessorized.

But why should you — or Daniel’s great (times six) grandchildren — own one? Via a recent video, gun guru Colion Noir fights that burning question with a well’s worth of water.

In case you’re unfamiliar, the Houston-based activist and attorney has hosted NRATV and spoken at the National Rifle Association’s convention; his pro-2A YouTube channel boasts over two million subscribers, and he’s appeared as featured guest on The Joe Rogan Experience as well as Real Time with Bill Maher.

As for why anyone needs an AR, Colion offers a handful of reasons — one for each finger.

But first, he makes clear, “The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs. … [T]here isn’t a ‘need’ requirement for which gun you can use under the Second Amendment.”

Now on to the list…

Continue reading “”

The charging of Jose Alba and the war on self-defense.

The war on self-defense continues, in New York City this time.

You know how it goes with these Soros-backed leftist DAs such as New York’s Alvin Bragg. When Bragg was elected in January, I wrote this post about his plans and what to expect. They’re the same sort of things we’ve become familiar with from the now-recalled Chesa Boudin of San Franisco, and from the hopefully-soon-to-be-recalled George Gascon of Los Angeles. In that post I mentioned that this was one of Bragg’s awful guidelines:

Armed robbers who use guns or other deadly weapons to stick up stores and other businesses will be prosecuted only for petty larceny, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there’s no “genuine risk of physical harm” to anyone. Armed robbery, a class B felony, would typically be punishable by a maximum of 25 years in prison, while petty larceny subjects offenders to up to 364 days in jail and a $1,000 fine…

So recently Bragg finally found a criminal worthy of high bail and very serious charges: murder. Unfortunately – but not surprisingly – it was a grocery store worker defending himself against an attack:

Alba was manning the counter at Hamilton Heights Grocery on Broadway and West 139th Street Friday night when Austin Simon, a 35-year-old career criminal on parole for assaulting a police officer, stormed behind the counter and shoved him into a wall, surveillance video shows.

The ex-con then grabbed Alba as the frightened clerk tried to get past him — getting his hands on a knife and plunging it into Simon at least five times.

During the fight, Simon’s girlfriend allegedly pulled a knife from her purse and stabbed Alba three times in the shoulder and hand, according to his attorney.

She has not been charged, with the DA’s office saying only “we are continuing to review the evidence and the investigation is ongoing.”

She’d only be charged with a misdemeanor according to Bragg’s guidelines anyway, right?

I’ve read several articles about the incident, and it appears to have begun when the girlfriend tried to buy a bag of potato chips and her EBT debit card was declined. She left the store and called boyfriend Simon for assistance. He came and assaulted the older, smaller man, who grabbed a knife and stabbed Simon during the fight while Simon was apparently trying to drag him out of the store. There are also reports that the girlfriend stabbed Alba in the arm with another knife; I’m not sure what the time frame was for that, before or after or during the stabbing of Simon. The entire episode was captured on store security tape and can be viewed at many of the articles.

Originally, Bragg’s office asked for sky-high bail of $500,000; it was set at $250,000 and later, after an outcry, reduced to $50,000 of which only $5,000 had to actually be posted. Alba was freed with an ankle bracelet. Alba has no prior record, but note that Simon, the dead man, was out on parole after being charged with assaulting a police officer.

I don’t think that a grand jury would be likely to indict Alba for this, even in New York, and if indicted I don’t think a jury would convict him. Even the mayor has taken Alba’s side – although he also refused to condemn Bragg.

Continue reading “”

Armed Self-Defense Is Under Attack In The U.S.A.

Is armed self-defense a basic human right? The question may seem rhetorical, even nonsensical to a rational mind. “Of course, armed self-defense is a basic human right,” you would say. Or is it?

In the countries of the EU it isn’t; nor is armed self-defense acknowledged and accepted as a fundamental human right in the countries that comprise the British Commonwealth.

But, what about the United States? Do Americans have a right to armed self-defense?

The natural law right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes it plain that Americans do have a natural law right of armed self-defense. And the seminal Second Amendment holdings in Heller, McDonald, and, most recently, in Bruen explicitly assert that. So, why does that remain a question for us? But a question for us it is, disturbing as it is.

The Globalist elite puppet-masters and the Marxist internationalists do not acknowledge—in fact do not recognize—the right.

Of course, it should not matter what these creatures think. But as long as Americans vote their proxies into public office, the right of armed self-defense remains, in practice an open question in many jurisdictions across the Country, despite the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and irrefutable U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The fact remains that in the U.S. the natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be denied, ignored, dismissed, or abrogated.

The right of armed self-defense is itself subsumed in the broader category of the right of self-defense for personal survival, by whatever means.

Armed self-defense simply means that a person has the natural law right to possess the best means for ensuring both his physical survival and his autonomy of self against those forces that dare crush body, or mind, or spirit. For centuries that best means of self-defense was a firearm. And it remains so.

Continue reading “”

New York Tells Supreme Court ‘Thank You, Sir. May I Have Another?’

New York has made a return appointment for Constitutional scrutiny of their gun-carry laws.

Almost immediately after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s previous law over the subjective nature of its “proper cause” clause, New York is back with a beefed-up and even more subjective “good moral character” clause. In addition to requiring multiple references, the newly-passed standard for issuing gun-carry permits includes a social media review. Instead of relying on objective standards, such as an applicant’s record of convictions or mental health commitments, the state is doubling down on the subjective judgment of its permitting officials.

Instead of judging whether somebody has “proper cause” to carry a gun based on specific threats to their life, state officials will now judge whether or not they are of “good moral character” based on their tweets and Facebook posts. It’s difficult to see how the outcome will be any different.

It’s difficult to see how the legal fight will be any different either. Except, perhaps, how quickly New York loses.

New York is defying the Supreme Court. And it’s not trying to hide that fact.

“With this action, New York has sent a message to the rest of the country that we will not stand idly by and let the Supreme Court reverse years of sensible gun regulations,” Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado said in a statement.

Continue reading “”