Rights – Page 32 – MILESFORTIS

Dr. Rand Paul Introduces HEMP Act to Relieve Unnecessary Constraints on Hemp Industry, Provide Transparency and Certainty

Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) continued his efforts to address Kentucky hemp farmers’ concerns with federal overreach and bring clarity, transparency, and certainty to regulation by introducing the Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan (HEMP) Act of 2020.

In response to concerns raised by Kentucky hemp farmers and processors, Dr. Paul’s HEMP Act would change the legal definition of hemp to raise the THC limit from 0.3% to 1%. Currently, any hemp crops testing above 0.3% have to be destroyed.

The legislation would require testing of the final hemp-derived product instead of the hemp flower or plant itself, as the 15-day window for testing the hemp flower or plant does not take potential testing backlogs, lack of personnel to collect samples, harvesting time, or environmental factors that farmers cannot control into account. Continue reading “”

3D-Printed Freedom – Part 2

What is the actual material you are printing with? Filament. It comes in a roll, usually 1 kg, and is 1.75mm thick. It is what is extruded out of the nozzle onto the print bed and makes your object. Filament comes in many different materials.

The most common and inexpensive filament is poly lactic acid (PLA). Better yet is PLA+. Both of these are made from corn as a feedstock, and do not use petroleum as an input. So if supporting corn growers of America as opposed to oil companies is something that resonates with you, so much the better.

Of note, PLA is easy to work with on a printer, does not give off dangerous fumes when heated, and can actually be composted as a waste product, if done so in an industrial composting type facility (needs the high heat to break down). As a downside, it does degrade over time in direct sun, and can deform in high heat. Don’t go shooting a PLA printed firearm full auto, or leave it on the dash in your car in the summer with the windows up, as it may warp. PLA also comes from a variety of manufacturers with other materials incorporated, such as wood, ceramic, copper, glow-in-the-dark materials, and more. These other materials can contribute useful or aesthetic characteristics depending on what you are printing. There are also magnetic iron PLA filaments, and electrically-conductive PLA filaments. Nearly all of the firearm components I refer to have been developed and tested with PLA or PLA+, and those that are not will be noted in the print instructions when you download the file. Continue reading “”

3D-Printed Freedom – Part 1

The following article is intended for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. State and local laws vary widely, so be sure to consult them before you buy, print, or build!

“The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.” – Karl Marx

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Marxist, I just love the confused look that I get from my more “progressive” friends when I quote a little Marx at ’em, as they know I tend toward the libertarian perspective, but at least when it comes to the means of production, perhaps we can find some common ground. To wit, 3D Printing!

I admit, my concept of 3D printing was pretty hazy up until about a year ago, when a friend introduced me. I had imagined it to be strictly the province of movies and high tech prototyping labs and industry. I was wrong. At the consumer level, the price and quality of 3D printers has evolved to a level where even a cheapskate Luddite like me can afford a printer and, just as important, is capable of harnessing and possessing the means of production for less than $300 ready to go. This article is meant to give you the same introduction I benefited from, and the background and resources to investigate further whether this capability is something you can benefit from (of course it is!)

Production of what you may ask? Darn near anything you can imagine! During these days of pandemic and the associated disruption to supply chains, the ability to get desperately needed items from factories across the country and across the world has been demonstrated as fragile indeed. Hospitals and companies have turned to 3D printers to produce their needed components for ventilator circuit connectors, lab testing materials, PPE, and more. Continue reading “”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

I’ll take: Why do lawyers always seem to find ways for their fellow lawyers to make a living?

Why Does the ABA Have a Standing Committee on ‘Gun Violence’?

Darin Scheer is a general commercial litigation attorney in rural Casper, Wyoming, where he lives on a small cattle farm with his wife. As a volunteer firefighter, he has responded to suicides and accidental shootings.

He is an [American Bar Association] delegate for his state. At the 2020 midyear meeting in Austin, Texas, he objected to a resolution in favor of stricter rules for gun permits.

“I don’t think that the ABA should be in the business of recommending one-size-fits-all, top-down requirements for an issue like this that is constitutional,” Scheer said before the House passed the resolution.

What’s often lost in the decades-long fight over gun rights and laws is that Americans’ relationship to guns differs depending on where they live, Scheer says. He says people in his community do not buy guns just for self-defense. There is a tradition of fathers passing rifles down to their sons and teaching them how to hunt. Scheer says it sometimes appears to gun owners that constitutional rights are trampled because of the “irresponsible behavior of the few.”

“That irresponsible use leads to horrible tragedy. I’m not blind to that, and that’s wrenching. And I think anybody that ignores that side of the debate is being close-minded as well,” Scheer says.

Is there space in the middle to meet? J. Adam Skaggs, a special advisor to the ABA’s Standing Committee on Gun Violence and chief counsel and policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says it is hard to find common ground when the gun rights side is pushing “an extremist agenda in the courts.” On the other hand, he says gun control advocates have much in common with Americans who support reasonable regulations.

“I think the central argument is that like all other rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited and has always coexisted with strong regulations and laws,” Skaggs says. “That’s no different today than it was at any other point in history.”

Instead of Thanksgiving Dinner, call it a ‘Protest!™’ and the authorities will probably leave you alone.

Ore. governor: Police to enforce Thanksgiving COVID-19 limits
Gov. Kate Brown said she has directed state police to work with local law enforcement to enforce limits on holiday gatherings

SALEM, Ore. — As coronavirus infections soar across Oregon, Gov. Kate Brown indicated Friday that she intends to take a much harder line to enforce her new “freeze” order that limits the size of social gatherings to no more than six people.

The governor warned that violations are misdemeanors punishable by citation or arrest, and Brown said she would work with state police and local law enforcement to encourage Oregonians to comply with her directive.

“For the last eight months I have been asking Oregonians to follow the letter and the spirit of the law and we have not chosen to engage law enforcement,” Brown said Friday. “At this point in time, unfortunately, we have no other option.”

The governor’s office cited emergency authority granted to her by Oregon law. Violators could face up to 30 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,250, or both. Continue reading “”

Read on down to the Progressive’s ideas on RKBA and note that there’s a link to each group’s ‘ideal’ Constitution.

Constitutional Visions for the Arms Right

The National Constitution Center’s recent Constitution Drafting Project convened scholars and practitioners from three different camps to draft and define their own revisions to the U.S. Constitution: the Libertarian Constitution, Conservative Constitution, and Progressive Constitution. Of course, there are many things that separate these three visions of what a more ideal Constitution would look like, but one notable fact is that all of them retain a fundamental, protected right to private gun possession, though none keep the wording of the current Second Amendment. Continue reading “”

Washington, D.C.: How Big was the Million MAGA March, REALLY? And why do BLAMTIFA continue to terrorize business owners and innocent people?

ANOTHER QUICK, UNEDITED DISPATCH: MUCH GOING ON HERE. THIS DISPATCH IS PERFECTLY ACCURATE IF NOT PERFECTLY WRITTEN – thank you for forgiveness runaway commas.

We begin on Saturday, 14 November 2020, Washington, D.C.

Million MAGA March, 14 November 2020, Washington, D.C. Photo by Masako Ganaha

How big was the march? I was there. And at hundreds of others around the world. And have faced this question hundreds of times. Therefore, I studied for the answer. Continue reading “”

What’s that line? Scratch a ProggieLib, uncover a wanna-be tyrant?

Joe Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions

President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team leader for US-owned media outlets wants to redefine freedom of speech and make “hate speech” a crime.

Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered.

He wrote: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

Stengel offered two examples of speech that he has an issue with: Quran burning and circulation of “false narratives” by Russia during the 2016 election.

“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?” Stengel wrote.

“It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”

Stengel wrote that “our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society,” adding, “Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment.” Continue reading “”

What Are Western Values?

Cultural Superiority isn't Racism: Why Western Values Underpin the World’s Best Countries

Before going any further, it is necessary to define what we mean by “Western values.” Indeed, what we mean by this is very specific and has a basis not in the West at large, but specifically in Anglo-Saxon culture. Virtually all of the values that we will identify in this article as being “Western” are perhaps more accurately termed “Anglo-Saxon values.” However, as the former term is more concise, succinct and in greater general use, we will use “Western values” throughout this article.

So what are these values? What is their origin? Where do they come from?

Again, it is our belief that what we call “Western values” are rooted firmly in the Anglo-Saxon tradition above all else. The formalization of these values can be found in the Magna Carta, but this simply codifies values that had been practiced in long standing in post-Anglo-Saxon Britain and likely long before it in some sense, going back to the days when the Angles and Saxons roamed the border regions between what is now Germany and Denmark.

While the Magna Carta is a complicated document, for our purposes it means something succinct and simple: it means that the king is not above the law.

There are a number of principles that flow from this general recognition that form the bedrock of Western civilization: Legal norms apply to everyone regardless of social class. The right to a fair trial by a jury of one’s peers and the right to face one’s accuser in open court. The right to one’s own property and the right to defend that property using deadly force. While these rights have all been hemmed in – in extreme ways in some cases, particularly since the events of September 11, 2001 – the point is that they form the bedrock of our legal structure and value culture in the West.

To boil this down to a single sentence: the West believes that men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that these rights can only be deprived through due process of law. Both national constitutions and prevailing moral attitudes prevent angry mobs or powerful oligarchs from systematically depriving unpopular and powerless minorities of their rights. Continue reading “”

THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

As a professor for over 35 years, I thought I had seen it all. I was wrong. Who would have thought that the first words of our Miranda rights, rights enjoyed even by suspected criminals, would no longer be something ordinary people could expect to enjoy from members of their own community?

Now it seems that a desire to keep one’s thoughts to oneself can be regarded as immoral because “Silence is Violence.” Increasingly, people who are minding their own business are being pressured to make politically correct proclamations while in public, at work, and, incredibly, even at school. This includes colleges and universities, where free speech and free thought are supposed to be cherished. These are very dangerous developments for any free society because they are inconsistent with freedom.

For many years there were calls against politically incorrect speech, things you were not supposed to say because they were deemed politically repugnant by some group.

Over time, especially on college campuses, this flipped into a duty to be politically correct. This is a much more onerous and destructive requirement that forces thought and speech. Too often, it also has the effect of shutting down independent thinking far more than a mere insistence against politically incorrect utterances.

Our society is now running in reverse, demanding conformity from adults that was once demanded only of children. Small wonder, then, why increasing political correctness has increasingly infantilized adults. What’s the point in thinking for yourself if it can only get you into trouble?

One of our greatest freedoms is the right to remain silent — to mind our own business. But today, some activists threaten shaming and even violence against those who don’t take the initiative to endorse what they deem to be politically correct.

Not long ago, if someone made such threats, others would automatically say, “Hey, leave that guy alone. He has a right to his opinion, and he has the right to keep it to himself.”

Not long ago, most adults believed that not having an opinion was often a sign of maturity, an indication of waiting to hear all sides on an issue before making a judgment. Such persons were not presumed to be cowards. They were presumed to be thoughtful, mature, and wise.

So, when did opining about everything become a virtue? And when did repeating the party-line in lockstep with the mob become an act of courage?

The internet has allowed a great deal of opining to be done anonymously, which has dramatically sped up positive reinforcement for repeating popular ideas and negative reinforcement for failing to do so. Because we are hard-wired to crave acceptance, this has produced several generations of cowed adults. We are, as a society, forgetting how to think for ourselves and how to have civil arguments over important matters.

Those who love freedom and free speech need to be ready for the next time they see someone being badgered into stating any party line. Coercion to speak is just another form of bullying, and it must be pointed out. It is indecent, and it is un-American.

David C. Rose is a professor of economics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, author of Why Culture Matters Most from Oxford University Press, and a member of the Missouri Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights since 2014.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”— Sun Tzu

So, here’s to knowing the enemy. And as you can see from his first words, you can figure out what sacred cow of his is actually being gored.

The author tapdances around the large body of work surrounding not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire bill of rights. Not just the intent, but the actual framing of the bill of rights is entirely about constraining the federal government from doing certain things. It would be odd if the 2nd amendment was the only one that had specific constraints on people; let alone the fact that you have to torture the text to arrive at that meaning.

His logic is extremely clouded by his bias. The operative clause ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” is not contingent upon the descriptor.

A well regulated (kept in proper working order) militia (both the organized and unorganized variants) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment describes the purpose of arms, why they are to be kept, so that an unorganized militia of the people can be mustered to provide for the common defense, which includes self-defense.

An unregulated militia will be of poor form and will lack training and suitable armaments necessary to provide for the common defense, or ideally self-defense.

The part – ‘the right of the people’ – would specifically state ‘militia’ and not ‘people’ if it had specified that militia were to keep and bear arms, and not the people. The framers specifically said the right of the people for a reason, it’s not up for debate.

To keep (possess) in their own arms in their homes or elsewhere, to bear on their persons.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her “expansive view” is utter BS

“Pro-life” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes “an expansive view” of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered “a second-class amendment.”

A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett’s nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett’s mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the “textualist” approach to reading statutes and the “originalist” approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.

There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She’s a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she’s apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.

Barrett is also a self-proclaimed “textualist” or “originalist” when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be. Continue reading “”

The Biden-Harris Antipathy toward Guns Portends Trouble for Law Enforcement
Thankfully, under our system of federalism, state legislatures can ward off such executive overreach.

It comes as no surprise former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are campaigning on promises “to end our gun-violence epidemic.” The leftward drift of the Democratic Party on most policy questions, including lawful firearm ownership, has been made explicit in its 2020 party platform. The presidential nominee’s campaign “issues page” takes it several steps further, promising to pass or incentivize all manner of gun restrictions.

In addition to the lack of evidence supporting these initiatives and their dubious constitutionality they all share one principal problem: The federal government — the helm of which Joe Biden seeks to occupy — has very little authority in this domain. In order to accomplish these policy aims, state and local law-enforcement agencies would need to be pressed into service.

Biden has already had his wrist slapped in this regard. His website touts his “shepherding” of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Among other provisions, the bill required that local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.

Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., brought suit against the United States, stating that the federal government had no authority to compel state and local officials to execute federal law. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding that despite the increasingly expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress cannot enjoin state officials to do its bidding. As a result, the mandate was subsequently ejected from the Brady Bill.

Harris’s understanding of the Second Amendment within our system of federalism is even more stunted. As the attorney general of California, she signed on to an amicus brief claiming that governments have complete authority to wholly ban handguns — an assertion that has been repeatedly rejected by courts and historians alike. During her presidential run in 2019, she promised to enact her preferred elements of gun control via executive orders, none of which were within the realm of executive control. Paradoxically, she is seeking to leave the one body that could enact substantive reform without so much as ceremonially filing legislation to do what she is promising. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
To find out more about the Ghost Gunner and reserve their machine for a $500 deposit, readers can visit www.ghostgunner.net .

Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine – Defeating Gun Control One Cut at a Time

A couple of years ago, I tested out the Ghost Gunner 2 by Defense Distributed. The Ghost Gunner 2 was great for taking an 80% lower and turning it into a fully working firearm. In November of 2019 AmmoLand News reported the next GG3 would be a ground-up redesign. So when Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed gave me the chance to review their new Ghost Gunner 3 CNC machine, I couldn’t say no. Before we get into my review of the latest Ghost Gunner, we have to talk about what it does and why it is groundbreaking.

Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine

To put it simply, The Ghost Gunner is a purpose-built CNC machine that lets anyone turn an 80% lower receiver into a fully working firearm. Defense Distributed designed the Ghost Gunner not only to finish 80% AR15, AR10, AR9, and AR45 lowers, but it also complete 1911 and Polymer 80 frames. In 2021 they will be releasing a cutting code for an AKM. The operator doesn’t need to have any machine skills to use the Ghost Gunner. Continue reading “”

Gun owners rally outside Newport News Police headquarters in support of Second Amendment rights

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – Armed protesters gathered outside the Newport News Police Department headquarters exercising their Second Amendment rights, which they say are being taken away from them.

A city ordinance passed over the summer now bans open carry of firearms at city buildings, facilities and parks.

“We ain’t running! We ain’t here to run!”

Dozens of gun owners with their weapons in hand gathered outside the police headquarters, protesting against the ordinance they say is unconstitutional.

“We are all here, and we are all heavily armed. We are unified, and if you mess with one of us, you are going to mess with all of us this time,” said organizer Mike Dunn.

Dunn was arrested last week for trying to go into Huntington Park with his gun. In response, he organized a protest in front of the police headquarters with Police Chief Steve Drew’s “OK.”

“I thought it was good dialogue. They didn’t have to talk to me – I appreciate they did, but I think it shows good faith,” said Chief Drew.

According to Chief Drew, the group did not defy the city ordinance since they were outside headquarters. Continue reading “”

How To Learn From Tech Reformers And Make Gun Rights A Populist Issue

The state of the Second Amendment is a barometer for the strength that individual Americans have in relation to their government. Civilian disarmament will weaken millions of Americans — culturally, economically and politically — so why do so many wish to gut the Second Amendment against their best interests?

The principles of the Constitution are too easily eroded by a constantly expanding list of restrictions we are assured only apply to criminals, and gun control is often presented as a way to improve our quality of life through simple, unobtrusive laws.

Magazine capacity is limited because only criminals need standard capacity. Silencers must be heavily regulated because those are tools for assassins. AR-variants must be banned because only murderers use them. Many Americans will yield: “I’m not a bad guy, so if this limits the harm that bad guys can do, it isn’t a restriction on me.”

Americans are both principled and practical — hallmarks of our culture often at odds. At this crossroads, the Second Amendment gets pinned and trimmed. Arguing that the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed” doesn’t stand a chance against appeals for gun control that seem practical.

Every piece of gun control shifts the cultural and political power to the politically connected. An unarmed population is, by definition, defenseless against the state. Reclaiming these powers requires us to seize the opportunity presented by our current populist moment.

The Populist Opportunity To Strengthen The Second Amendment
Populism is the self-conscious resistance to the ruling class by the politically, financially and culturally disenfranchised. Americans may not be ready to pinpoint specifics, but they recognize that power has been concentrated in a few institutions and social classes that are immune from economic, cultural, and political consequences.

A good example of using the populist appeal is the effort to reform Big Tech, which includes many of the online platforms we all use every day, like Google and Facebook.

The debate on Big Tech isn’t on the merits of their platforms, but the control they exercise against individuals and throughout society. These massive companies abuse outdated communications laws to mute voices that don’t fit the starchy views of Silicon Valley. Continue reading “”

Yeah, and I wonder what those 17% would think if their own rules were used to give them a swift kick in the posterior.
Do you think they’d reconsider then?

17% of Students Say Violence is Sometimes Acceptable to Censor Speakers They Disagree With

At least before lockdowns started, there was an increasing trend of students using social media to organize the physical blocking of speakers who they disagreed with from attending events on campus.

The results of a new survey has now revealed shocking revelations about what US college students think about violence as a way to shut down speech. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse conducted a survey across 55 colleges across the US and asked 20,000 students about free speech issues in their campuses.

Surprisingly, almost one out of five students that have taken the survey were fine with deploying violence for shutting down someone’s speech in cases where they disagreed with the speaker.

They were also questioned if blocking people from attending events was acceptable.

“While 57% of students say their college would defend a speaker’s right to express his or her views in the case of a controversy over ‘offensive’ expression, a disturbingly large minority, 42%, believe their college would punish the speaker for making the statement.”

The survey revealed that nearly 20 percent of students were okay with violence to shut down speech and stop an event. Going deeper into the details reveals that one percent of the students are under the impression that “violence” is acceptable in all cases, with three percent saying that violence is acceptable in some cases, and thirteen percent saying that violence can be acceptable in rare cases only.

Summing it up makes it clear that 17 percent of students endorse violence in at least some cases to shut down speech. Moreover, the concept of free speech in students is influenced by their political ideology.

“Students’ assessment of free speech on campus is, at least in part, driven by their political ideology, and whether or not they align with the majority viewpoint at their college.

Modern-Day Militias Rise in Virginia

Militia groups in Virginia will tell you that a militia is not really something you have to join—if you’re between 16 and 55 and able-bodied, you already belong.

Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution says that a well-regulated militia is “composed of the body of the people, trained to arms” and represents the “proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.”

“I’m a member of the militia, as are you,” said Nelson County resident Paul Cangialosi. “It exists, we’re in it, and my position is that we have an obligation to be well-prepared. We have neglected that for well over 100 years, so now we’re trying to put it back together.”

Cangialosi volunteers on his own and in conjunction with the Virginia Militia Alliance (VMA) to help stand up local militias across the state, and there’s no shortage of interest. The VMA, whose motto is “Revive, Reestablish, Restore,” counts more than two dozen militia groups in central and southwest Virginia that have formed in just the past year, and hopes to eventually support one in every county in the Commonwealth.

Unsurprisingly, the ascendant movement has generated a lot of questions from neighbors and observers about its methods and aims. Continue reading “”