Category: Rights

Louisiana: Governor Signs Bill Strengthening Firearm Preemption Law

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has signed a measure that will strengthen the state’s firearm preemption law. Landry signed Senate Bill 194, sponsored by state Sen. Blake Miquez, on Wednesday.

“This bill strengthens 2A rights to ensure a consistent set of gun laws across Louisiana,” Sen. Miguez tweeted when the measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “A patchwork of gun laws ultimately leads to law-abiding citizens becoming criminals for merely exercising their constitutional rights.”

Firearms preemption laws basically keep municipalities and parishes from passing more restrictive gun laws than those in state law. This measure will expand the types of behavior political subdivisions are generally prohibited from regulating, provide standing for both individuals and organizations to seek declaratory and injunctive relief when political subdivisions are in violation and require political subdivisions to repeal any offending ordinances or regulations within six months of the bill’s enactment.

“A person or an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action promulgated or caused to be enforced in  violation of this Section may file suit against an offending political subdivision in any court of this state having jurisdiction for declaratory and injunctive relief,” the measure states. “A court shall award a prevailing plaintiff in any such suit reasonable attorney fees and costs including expert witness fees and expenses.”

This measure would further restrict the authority of local governments to regulate firearms to include their “manufacture, …carrying, …storage, …[and] taxation;” and add “firearm accessories, knives, edged weapons, or any combination thereof” to the preemption statute.

The National Rifle Association had been lobbying for the passage of the bill since its introduction and was pleased that Gov. Landry signed the measure.

“The NRA would like to thank Governor Landry for signing this critical piece of legislation and his continued commitment to protecting Second Amendment rights in Louisiana,” NRA-ILA said in an update to members. “NRA also thanks Senator Blake Miguez for introducing the bill, and all members of the Louisiana legislature who supported SB 194 throughout this year’s legislative session.”

Two other measures have also been sent to the governor and await his consideration. Senate Bill 214 would create a uniform set of laws for carrying concealed firearms in dining establishments, ensuring lawful citizens have the right to defend themselves and their families in places that serve alcoholic beverages. Additionally, Senate Bill 152, makes some technical clarifications to some of the state’s carry statutes.

Tennessee Appeals Court Rules Against Wildlife Agents Who Planted Cameras on Private Land
The three-judge panel concluded unanimously that while the state law at issue is constitutional, the wildlife agents’ application of it was not.

In December 2022, Reason reported that both state and federal wildlife agents routinely trespass onto private land and plant cameras. Two Tennessee homeowners successfully sued the state over the practice, and a three-judge panel ruled in their favor. The state appealed the decision, and this week the court of appeals ruled in the homeowners’ favor.

At issue is a state law allowing officers of the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency (TWRA) to “go upon any property, outside of buildings, posted or otherwise,” in order to “enforce all laws relating to wildlife.” In the case of Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth, TWRA officers not only entered their respective properties but also installed trail cameras to look for hunting violations, all without a warrant and ignoring “No Trespassing” signs. A lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice (I.J.) on behalf of Rainwaters and Hollingsworth asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue an injunction against the TWRA, barring it from carrying out any further unwarranted intrusions.

Under the “open-fields doctrine,” Supreme Court precedent dating back to Prohibition holds that undeveloped land on someone’s property lacks the same rigorous Fourth Amendment protections as their home and the “curtilage,” the area immediately surrounding the home.

In March 2022, a three-judge panel from the Benton County Circuit Court ruled in the homeowners’ favor, finding that the state constitution provided more protections than the Fourth Amendment. It determined that the state law allowing the TWRA practice created an “intolerable risk” of abuse and was “facially unconstitutional,” but it stopped short of issuing an injunction. The state appealed the decision the following month.

In a hearing before the Tennessee Court of Appeals Western Section on June 20, 2023, I.J. attorney Josh Windham argued that the state law is unconstitutionally broad. “It allows TWRA officers to enter and roam around private land, fishing for evidence of crime,” Windham said. “It doesn’t require consent. It doesn’t require warrants. It doesn’t require probable cause….It’s a blank check for officers to invade private land whenever and however they please.”

Continue reading “”

Representative Massie finally posts his correcting the domestic enemy Nadler, who should one day be prosecuted under 18 US Code § 241.

Breyer’s ‘Pragmatic’ Approach to Destroying the Second Amendment

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer may no longer be in a position to decide cases that come before the Court, but he’s still trying to shape the judiciary in a way that would allow for judges to uphold virtually every gun control law the anti’s could dream up.

Breyer’s new book Reading the Constitution; Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism outlines his approach to interpreting the Constitution. I’m actually surprised he managed to fill several hundred pages with material, given that his view is basically that judges should have the power to ignore what the text of the Constitution has to say if they don’t like it.

Breyer highlights the need for considering the broader context in which laws are passed and the “practical consequences” of different interpretations. He refers to the majority judgment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), in which he dissented. The Court held, 6–3, that New York’s law requiring a citizen to have a license to carry a gun outside his home violated the right to carry arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Breyer expresses his disagreement with the ruling by emphasizing his preference to prioritize the practical implications. Considering the alarming patterns of gun violence in the US, Breyer believes the Court should have limited the access to firearms.

Does Breyer not know his history, or is he just choosing to ignore it? The Second Amendment was ratified shortly after a civil war that not only brought the United States its independence but led to small-scale reprisals between patriots and loyalists throughout the course of the war. As the Bill of Rights was being drafted and debated, the memory of Shay’s Rebellion was fresh in the mind of the Framers, while the Whiskey Rebellion broke out along the western frontier the same year the Second Amendment was ratified. The Founders knew all about “gun violence”. They just didn’t believe that disarming the American people was the answer.

Breyer’s criticism of textualism is based on his adherence to pragmatism. He contends that judges should endeavour to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is pragmatic and adaptable to the requirements of modern society. According to him, this approach is better aligned with the intentions of the Constitution’s framers, who intended for the constitution to be “workable” and responsive to evolving circumstances.

The Constitution is responsive to “evolving circumstances”, but the proper way to do that is through an amendment, not a panel of nine justices deciding that is language can be discarded because they think it’s right thing to do in our modern age.

Breyer’s not the first to adopt a “pragmatic” approach to the Constitution, of course. I’d argue that Roger Taney’s decision in Dred Scott is actually a pretty good example of the pragmatic philosophy that Breyer espouses. Taney twisted the Constitution’s text beyond recognition in order to reach his conclusion that black Americans could never be entitled to citizenship and that Congress had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. He did so in the belief that the practical implications of his ruling would make the country a more peaceful place by removing the issue of slavery and abolition (which Taney considered an act of “Northern aggression” from the national debate.

Pragmatism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In Bruen, Breyer (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) argued that the majority opinion “refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be,” adding “the Constitution contains no such limitation, and neither do our precedents.”

The text of the Second Amendment doesn’t include a clause after “shall not be infringed” that says “unless the government thinks there’s a good reason to do so”. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrain the government from violating our individual rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment applies those protections to abuses from state and local governments as well. The only pragmatic way to change that while remaining faithful to the Constitution is to pass another amendment negating the right to keep and bear arms. That option has been available to the gun control lobby for decades, but as we’ve seen with Gavin Newsom’s proposed constitutional amendment, it’s not feasible because the support simply isn’t there.

Since repealing the right to keep and bear arms is off the table, Breyer (and others) are left to insist that the Constitution is essentially whatever they want it to be. That judicial arrogance is at the heart of some of the worst legal decisions in this country, including Dred Scott, but thankfully was consigned to the minority in Bruen. If Democrats are able to reshape the court in their image after the November elections, however, that “pragmatic” approach could very well become the majority view on the Court. Our right to keep and bear arms could disappear as quickly as Dred Scott’s right to live free did in 1857; not because the Constitution demands that result, but because the “pragmatic” enemies of individual liberty do.

Week in Review: Gun Owners Targeted

The wannabe gun-grabbers on the Pima County, Ariz., Board of Supervisors have been looking to pick a fight over the state’s firearm statutes.

They picked the wrong one. Now, the Goldwater Institute is suing the county on behalf of Air Force veteran Chris King over an illegal mandate that slaps $1,000 fines on residents who fail to report a lost or stolen firearm to the government within two days.

Arizona law prohibits cities, counties, and other local government entities from passing almost any type of firearm-related regulation. But public records obtained by the Institute reveal the board has been gearing up for this fight for years, coordinating with left-wing activist groups, attorneys, and other elected officials to undermine Arizona’s broad protections for the rights to keep and bear arms.

They’ve bitten off more than they can chew—and now, they’ll have to defend their illegal ordinance in state court.

“We’re a nation of laws,” Chris says. “Why do Pima County officials think they’re above the law?”

The Goldwater Institute will always defend constitutional rights and keep rogue government entities in check when they thumb their nose at the law.

Read more here.

Fifth Circuit Upholds ‘Enhanced’ Gun Background Checks for Young Adults

Placing additional background check requirements and delays on 18-20-year-old gun buyers does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against challengers who took issue with the “enhanced” background check provisions of the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). The panel found that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their constitutional claims and declined to issue an injunction against the law.

“The [Second Amendment’s] plain text covers plaintiffs’ right ‘to keep and bear arms,’” Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote in McRorey v. Garland. “And on its face ‘keep and bear’ does not include purchase—let alone without background check. That is so in either the contemporary or the Founding-era context.”

The decision brings positive news for the Biden administration and the staying power of its signature legislative gun-control achievement. It will allow the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to continue conducting less-than-instant background checks, which can take several days to complete, for adults under 21. It also suggests gun-rights advocates could have a difficult time challenging various background check and waiting period measures moving forward.

Signed into law in June 2022, the BSCA became the first new federal gun control law in decades. While it consisted of a mixture of new restrictions and funding programs, one of its most substantive provisions overhauled how young adults can legally purchase firearms from licensed dealers.

Continue reading “”

Biden Defense Official Says ‘Take All the Guns’, Use National Guard

Confiscate guns

In a recent undercover video released by James O’Keefe, a Department of Defense (DoD) employee, Jason Beck, was recorded discussing the potential use of the National Guard for gun confiscation.

Beck’s assertion that the National Guard would follow orders to confiscate guns prompts questions about the military’s obligation to uphold the Constitution. The tension between obeying lawful orders and respecting individual rights underscores the complexities of military service in a democratic society.

NSSF PRAISES GEORGIA GOV. BRIAN KEMP FOR SIGNING SECOND AMENDMENT PRIVACY ACT

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praises Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp for signing into law HB 1018, the Second Amendment Privacy Act. This NSSF-supported law protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms and ammunition in The Peach State. With Georgia, there are now 14 states with laws that protect the Second Amendment financial privacy of their citizens.

The law prohibits financial institutions from requiring the use of a firearm code, also known as a Merchant Category Code (MCC), from being assigned to firearm and ammunition purchases at retail when using a credit card. The law also forbids discriminating against a firearm retailer as a result of the assigned or non-assignment of a firearm code and disclosing the protected financial information. Additionally, the law prohibits keeping or causing to be kept any list, record or registry of private firearm ownership.

“Governor Brian Kemp’s signature on the Second Amendment Privacy Act is yet another example of his firm commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Georgians. Citizens in Georgia won’t worry that ‘woke’ Wall Street banks, credit card companies and payment processors will collude with government entities to spy on their private finances to illegally place them on gun control watchlists,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “NSSF is grateful House Speaker Jon Burns, Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, Representative Jason Ridley and state Senator Carden Summers for bringing this crucial legislation to become law. No American should fear being placed on a government watchlist simply for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.”

NSSF worked closely with Georgia legislators to protect private and legal firearm and ammunition purchases from political exploitation. The Second Amendment Privacy Act is designed to protect the privacy of lawful and private firearm and ammunition purchases from being abused for political purposes by corporate financial service providers and unlawful government search and seizure of legal and private financial transactions.

The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) admitted to U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in a letter that it violated the Fourth Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens that protect against illegal search and seizure when it collected the credit card purchase history from banks and credit card companies of individuals who purchased firearms and ammunition in the days surrounding Jan. 6, 2020. Treasury’s FinCEN had no cause, and sought the information without a warrant, to place these law-abiding citizens on a government watchlist only because they exercised their Second Amendment rights to lawfully purchase firearms and ammunition.

The idea of a firearm-retailer specific MCC was borne from antigun New York Times’ columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and Amalgamated Bank, which has been called “The Left’s Private Banker” and bankrolls the Democratic National Committee and several antigun politicians. Amalgamated Bank lobbied the Swiss-based International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the code’s creation. NSSF has called on Congress to investigate Amalgamated Bank’s role in manipulating the ISO standard setting process.

Sorkin admitted creating a firearm-retailer specific MCC would be a first step to creating a national firearm registry, which is forbidden by federal law.

Georgia joins a growing list of states that are standing against the invasion of financial privacy when exercising Second Amendment rights, including Tennessee, Iowa, Kentucky, Wyoming, Indiana, Utah, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia. These states passed laws protecting citizens’ Second Amendment privacy. Other states are considering similar legislation. U.S. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) introduced S. 4075, the NSSF-supported Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act in the Senate. U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 7450, with the same title in the U.S. House of Representatives. California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law requiring the use of a firearm-retailer specific MCC and Colorado passed similar legislation that is awaiting Gov. Jared Polis’ consideration.

What’s Old Is New Again, and Militias Are the New Black

Thanks to a successful leftist smear campaign, most Americans now see militia members as being nothing more than drooling, wacko, camo-clad, right-wingers sipping Black Rifle coffee in their backyard pillbox, stupidly unaware the FBI has a drone watching them from above.

Militias date back to the origins of the United States and earlier. They were created for the same reasons we are seeing a resurgence in militias today: to stand up against a government that can’t be trusted.

From MilitaryHistoryNow.com:

Perhaps the strongest cultural tradition to transfer from England to its colonies was the distrust of a standing army that could enforce the crown’s will and circumvent parliament. England’s strength lay in its navy, which was out of sight – and often out of mind – and could not project power inland. The army was not considered a gentleman’s occupation and soldiers were looked upon as mere pawns.
Founding Father James Madison understood the need for militias better than most.
“Because since inception, militias have been tasked with stopping those who hold public office from exceeding their authority or those seeking to enact legislation outside of their operating charter,” Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, which is “a crucial check against incremental encroachment by the state.”
Madison was on a roll:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The Founding Fathers knew something few seem to realize today: power corrupts horrible people. Thus, they wrote the need for a militia into the 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Leftists like to pretend there are differing interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, but it seems incontestable to me. Armed militias are a necessary segment of our freedom. Easy peasy, unless you’re a demented communist.

Continue reading “”

Two gun bills head to governor’s desk: one to prevent tracking of suspicious purchases, one to protect armed school staff from liability

Republicans in the Iowa Legislature have passed two bills dealing with guns this week. On Tuesday, the Iowa Senate gave final approval to a bill to prevent credit card companies from taking steps that would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to identify purchases of firearms and ammunition. A day earlier, the House voted 62-36 in favor of a bill creating legal immunity for teachers or other school staff designated to carry guns on school property and requiring the state’s 11 largest school districts to employ armed security in their high schools.

Both bills passed the House and Senate on a series of largely party-line votes. Gov. Kim Reynolds is expected to sign both into law.

Continue reading “”

Elizabeth Goitein

Call Your Reps Now – Tell them to vote “NO” on the extension of warrantless government surveillance.
Buried in the Section 702 reauthorization bill (RISAA) passed by the House on Friday is the biggest expansion of domestic surveillance since the Patriot Act. Senator Wyden calls this power “terrifying,” and he’s right. 2/25 twitter.com/RonWyden/statu…
Ron Wyden
@RonWyden
Apr 12
View on Twitter
This bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history. I will do everything in my power to stop it from passing in the Senate.
I’ll explain how this new power works. Under current law, the government can compel “electronic communications service providers” that have direct access to communications to assist the NSA in conducting Section 702 surveillance. 3/25
In practice, that means companies like Verizon and Google must turn over the communications of the targets of Section 702 surveillance. (The targets must be foreigners overseas, although the communications can—and do—include communications with Americans.) 4/25
Through a seemingly innocuous change to the definition of “electronic communications surveillance provider,” an amendment offered by House intel committee (HPSCI) leaders and passed by the House vastly expands the universe of entities that can be compelled to assist the NSA. 5/25
If the bill becomes law, any company or individual that provides ANY service whatsoever may be forced to assist in NSA surveillance, as long as they have access to equipment on which communications are transmitted or stored—such as routers, servers, cell towers, etc. 6/25
That sweeps in an enormous range of U.S. businesses that provide wifi to their customers and therefore have access to equipment on which communications transit. Barber shops, laundromats, fitness centers, hardware stores, dentist’s offices… the list goes on and on. 7/25
It also includes commercial landlords that rent out the office space where tens of millions of Americans go to work every day—offices of journalists, lawyers, nonprofits, financial advisors, health care providers, and more. 8/25
When the amendment was first unveiled, one of the FISA Court amici took the highly unusual step of sounding a public alarm. Civil liberties advocates noted that the provision would encompass hotels, libraries, and coffee shops. 9/25 zwillgen.com/law-enforcemen…
zwillgen.com/law-enforcemen…
House Intelligence Committee FISA “Reform” Bill Would Greatly Expand the Class of Businesses and…
The version HPSCI leaders offered Friday therefore exempts… hotels, library shops, and coffee shops, plus a handful of other establishments. But as the FISA Court amicus promptly pointed out, the vast majority of U.S. businesses remain fair game. 10/25 zwillgen.com/law-enforcemen…
zwillgen.com/law-enforcemen…
FISA 702 Reauthorization Amendments: The Second Time is Not the Charm
The amendment even extends to service providers who come into our homes. House cleaners, plumbers, people performing repairs, and IT services providers have access to laptops and routers inside our homes and could be forced to serve as surrogate spies. 11/25
None of these people or businesses would be allowed to tell anyone about the assistance they were compelled to provide. They would be under a gag order, and they would face heavy penalties if they failed to comply with it. 12/25
That’s not even the worst part. Unlike Google and Verizon, most of these businesses and individuals lack the ability to isolate and turn over a target’s communications. So they would be required to give the NSA access to the equipment itself… 13/25
…or to use techniques or devices (presumably provided by the NSA) to copy and turn over entire communications streams and/or repositories of stored communications, which would inevitably include vast quantities of wholly domestic communications. 14/25
The NSA, having wholesale access to domestic communications on an unprecedented scale, would then be on the “honor system” to pull out and retain only the communications of approved foreign targets. (Let that sink in.) 15/25
HPSCI leaders deny that the administration has any intent to use this provision so broadly. Supposedly, there is a single type of service provider that the government wants to rope in. But they didn’t want anyone to know what that service provider was… 16/25
…so they hid the real goal by writing the amendment as broadly and vaguely as possible. But no worries, Americans! The administration isn’t actually going to USE all the power it just persuaded the House to give it. 17/25
I cannot overstate how mindblowingly irresponsible that is. I don’t think *any* administration should be trusted with an Orwellian power like this one. But even if *this* administration doesn’t plan to make full use of it… (Go ahead and fill in the blank.) 18/25
There are certain powers a government should not have in a democracy. The ability to force ordinary businesses and individuals to serve as surrogate spies is one of them. Even if the targets are supposed to be foreigners, a power this sweeping WILL be abused. 19/25
By the way, when a privacy advocate tried to get @Jim Himes 🇺🇸🇺🇦 to engage on this issue, here is the thoughtful and conscientious reply given by the ranking member of HPSCI, a man who clearly cares deeply about civil liberties. 20/25 twitter.com/jahimes/status…
Jim Himes
@jahimes
Apr 14
View on Twitter
You do that. But life is really too short to engage with people who need to use bombastic absurdities like “Stasi-like”. Yes I know exactly what is in there. Some of it is classified. And none of it is remotely “Stasi-like”. Sell your nonsense elsewhere.
The Senate MUST stop this train before it is too late. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the House-passed bill this week. If there’s an opportunity to remove this provision, senators should remove it. If not, they should vote against the bill. 21/25
The White House will tell senators they have no choice other than to pass the House bill, because Section 702 expires on April 19, and trying to fix the House bill—or pass different legislation—would take too long. But the April 19 deadline exists only on paper. 22/25
The administration has already obtained FISA Court approval to continue Section 702 surveillance until April 2025. According to the administration itself, that approval “grandfathers” surveillance for a full year, even if Section 702 expires. 23/25 news.bgov.com/bloomberg-gove…
news.bgov.com/bloomberg-gove…
FISA Court Approves One-Year Extension of Surveillance Power
A notional deadline is no reason to create a surveillance state. The Senate must take the time to get this right. It’s not just our civil liberties that are at stake—it’s our democracy. @Michael Bennet @SenatorBooker @Sherrod Brown @Senator Laphonza Butler @Sen. Maria Cantwell… 24/25
…@Senator Ben Cardin @Office of Sen. Coons @Senator John Fetterman @Senator John Hickenlooper @Senator Ben Ray Luján @Chris Murphy 🟧 @Senator Patty Murray @Ossoff’s Office @Senator Alex Padilla @Senator Jacky Rosen @Senator Brian Schatz @Senator Tina Smith @Sen. Debbie Stabenow @Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock @Senator Peter Welch 25/25

Citing Constitutional Concerns, Yost Urges DOJ to Scrap ‘Red Flag’ Gun-Confiscation Program

(COLUMBUS, Ohio) — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and 18 other state attorneys general are opposing a new federal program that promotes aggressive enforcement of “red flag” gun-confiscation laws.

Yost and his counterparts argue in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland that the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, launched in March by the Department of Justice, undermines the Second Amendment and other fundamental rights in a flawed attempt to reduce gun violence.

“The solution to gun violence is not more bureaucracy, and it is certainly not parting otherwise law-abiding men and women from their right to self-defense,” Yost said.

The state attorneys general raise several concerns with the ERPO Resource Center, most notably how the program advocates for laws that allow government officials to “suspend fundamental rights under the Second Amendment with no genuine due process.”

So-called “red flag” laws permit authorities to seek court orders authorizing the confiscation of firearms from people thought to pose a danger. Twenty-one states have enacted such laws; Ohio is not among them.

Another issue is whether the DOJ had authority to create the program in the first place. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, cited by the department as the impetus for the ERPO Resource Center, makes no mention of such a program. In fact, the letter says, that funding from the 2022 federal law was supposed to go to states and local governments.

The attorneys general also question the DOJ’s decision to partner on the project with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. The institution’s track record of advocating for strict gun-control measures raises concerns about its ability to remain objective, making it a poor fit for the program, the letter says.

Yost and his counterparts urge the DOJ to end the program, writing that “states don’t need ‘help’ of this sort from the federal government. We know exactly how to protect our citizens while appropriately respecting Second Amendment rights.”

Joining Yost in sending the letter are the attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Believes American’s Rights Are Subject to Changing Trends

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer wants America to know that today’s high court isn’t pragmatic. For good measure, he declares that he is, especially when it comes to interpretating law.

That’s not just conjecture. That’s laid out in the title to his new 250-page book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism.” It’s a gaslighting of the U.S. Constitution, an attempt to sway opinion that rights protected by the founding document aren’t applicable today, since society and technology have changed since 1791. Justice Breyer argues that the words written don’t mean what the Founders meant because reading them over 200 years later changes the meaning.

The liberal justice retired under pressure from Democrats to ensure President Joe Biden would appoint at least one younger liberal justice to the Supreme Court. In 2022, Justice Breyer was succeeded by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk.

Continue reading “”

Courts Demand Info About People Who Viewed Specific YouTube Videos.

Federal authorities have reportedly ordered Google to provide information about viewers of select YouTube videos, including their names, addresses, and phone numbers, as well as provide information about video viewers who weren’t signed into YouTube while watching.

The requests are raising alarms for privacy experts who say the requests are unconstitutional and are “transforming search warrants into digital dragnets” by potentially targeting individuals who are not associated with a crime based simply on what they may have watched online.

Specifically, authorities have reportedly asked for information about individuals who watched certain videos on the site between Jan. 1-8, 2023 as part of an investigation into “elonmuskwhm.” The authorities also requested the user activity for those accounts.

According to Forbes, the investigation into elonmuskwhm is focused on that individual selling Bitcoin for cash, which is a violation of money laundering laws. The sale also constitutes an unlicensed money-transferring business. As part of the investigation, undercover agents reportedly sent links of YouTube tutorials that covered mapping via drones and augmented reality software to elonmuskwhm, and then asked Google to provide details on who had viewed the videos. The videos received more than 30,000 views.

According to documents viewed by Forbes, a court granted the government’s request for the information; however, it asked Google to not publicize the request.

In the court order, the authorities commented: “There is reason to believe that these records would be relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation, including by providing identification information about the perpetrators.”

YouTube App for Apple Vision Pro May Be Coming After All
Forbes reports that in another case, authorities requested user data after discovering that video of officers investigating a bomb threat in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, was being broadcast on a YouTube livestream, an act which officers said had occurred with other bomb threats in other parts of the country as well.

In both cases, it’s unclear whether or not Google complied with the requests.

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc of Panel Decision Holding Gun Ads Restriction Is Likely Unconstitutional

The order came down today; it noted that no judge called for a vote on the en banc rehearing petition. Here’s my post on the panel decision, from September.

[* * *]

California Restriction on Gun Ads That “Reasonably Appear[] to Be Attractive to Minors” Likely Unconstitutional

From Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. v. Bonta, decided today [Sept, 13, 2023] by Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, joined by Judges Randy Smith and Lawrence VanDyke:

This case is not about whether children can buy firearms. (They cannot under California law.) Nor is this case about whether minors can legally use firearms. (California allows minors under adult supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting, target practice, and other activities.) And this case is not about whether California has tools to combat the scourge of youth gun violence. (It does.)

Rather, this case is about whether California can ban a truthful ad about firearms used legally by adults and minors—just because the ad “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” So, for example, an ad showcasing a safer hunting rifle with less recoil for minors would likely be unlawful in California. Under our First Amendment jurisprudence, states can ban truthful and lawful advertising only if it “materially” and “directly” advances a substantial government interest and is no more extensive than necessary. California likely cannot meet this high bar.

While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms.

There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech.

California’s law is also more extensive than necessary, as it sweeps in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. For instance, an advertisement directed at adults featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm might be illegal because minors may be attracted to it….

Judge VanDyke concurred, adding:

California wants to legislate views about firearms. The record for recently enacted California Assembly Bill 2751 (AB 2751) indicates a legislative concern that marketing firearms to minors would “seek[] to attract future legal gun owners,” and that that’s a negative thing. No doubt at least some of California’s citizens share that view. They may dream that someday everyone will be repulsed by the thought of using a firearm for lawful purposes such as hunting and recreation. But just as surely some of California’s citizens disagree with that view.

Many hope their sons and daughters will learn to responsibly use firearms for lawful purposes. Firearms are controversial products, and don’t cease to be so when used by minors. But as the majority opinion explains well, there are a variety of ways a minor can lawfully use firearms in California. And the State of California may not attempt to reduce the demand for lawful conduct by suppressing speech favoring that conduct while permitting speech in opposition. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.

That is precisely what California did in Assembly Bill 2751. Under this law, those who want to discourage minors from lawfully using firearms (such as for hunting or shooting competitions) are free to communicate their messages. Certain speakers (“firearm industry members”) who want to promote the sale of firearms to minors, however, are silenced.

I agree with the majority opinion that, even assuming intermediate scrutiny applies, California’s nascent speech code cannot withstand it. I write separately to emphasize that laws like AB 2751, which attempt to use the coercive power of the state to eliminate a viewpoint from public discourse, deserve strict scrutiny. Our circuit’s precedent is ambiguous about whether viewpoint- discriminatory laws that regulate commercial speech are subject to strict scrutiny. In the appropriate case, we should make clear they are…

Anna M. Barvir (Michel & Associates PC) argued for plaintiffs; Chuck Michel (Michel & Associates) and Donald Kilmer also represent plaintiffs. Thanks to Don Kilmer for the pointer on the denial of en banc rehearing.