I just spoke on the House floor to urge my colleagues to move forward with a vote on an amendment requiring warrants for FISA surveillance of Americans.
If the warrant amendment doesn't pass, we must vote no on FISA reauthorization. pic.twitter.com/xX4S3v2wZ5
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) April 10, 2024
Category: Rights
Kentucky House Bill 357, informally called the Second Amendment Privacy Act, passed into law. This NSSF-supported law protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms and ammunition in Kentucky.https://t.co/6PyWDOPnQn#MerchantCategoryCode
— NSSF—The Firearm Industry Trade Association (@NSSF) March 30, 2024
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.
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.
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.
INDIANA, UTAH GOVERNORS SIGN SECOND AMENDMENT PRIVACY LAWS
WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, applauds Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox for signing the NSSF-supported Second Amendment Privacy Acts in their respective states. The laws will bar the use of a firearm-retailer specific Merchant Category Code (MCC) for banks, credit card companies or financial service providers to track the lawful sale of firearms and ammunition.
Both governors signed their laws, Indiana’s HB 1084 and Utah’s HB 406, in their respective states last week. NSSF worked closely with legislators in those states to bring legislation to protect private and legal purchases from exploitation. The laws are 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.
“Corporate banks and the federal government have already proven they will run roughshod over Second Amendment and Privacy rights. The need to safeguard private and legal purchases of firearms and ammunition by law-abiding citizens has never been greater,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “NSSF thanks both Governor Holcomb and Governor Cox for their leadership in signing these laws that will protect the rights of the citizens in their states. No American should fear being placed on a government watchlist simply for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.”
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.
Indiana and Utah join Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia with laws protecting citizens’ Second Amendment privacy. Several other states are considering similar legislation. U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 7450, the NSSF-supported Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, 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 is considering similar legislation.
Supreme Court Seems Sympathetic to NRA’s Claims Against New York Debanking Pressure Case
The oral hearings suggest an overall degree of favorability towards the NRA’s allegations of First Amendment violations.
The case, NRA v. Vullo, brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) against a New York official and alleging freedom of speech violations, has reached the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) and, overall, the justices appeared overall sympathetic toward NRA’s claims.
The respondent to the NRA’s petition to allow the lawsuit to proceed, former New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo, is accused of influencing banks and insurance firms to drop the NRA.
The case concerns two actions taken by Vullo – first seven years ago when DFS started investigating insurance programs in cases of gun injuries tied to NRA. The following year, this resulted in three insurers stopping programs covering such claims in New York, and paying $7 million in fines.
And then, after the Parkland, Florida school shooting in 2018, the official decided it was a good idea to publish a “guidance” letter to banks and insurers (thousands of them), warning how their “reputation” might suffer if they worked with a pro-gun organization. Vullo found success here as well, as a number of insurance companies and banks heeded the warning.
But the NRA’s federal lawsuit that followed accused Vullo of violating NRA’s First Amendment rights. A court first allowed the lawsuit to proceed, but then the court of appeals overturned this ruling. And it is now up to SCOTUS to decide.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing the NRA, explaining its involvement as necessary to prevent the government from going after other groups in a similar way – even though the ACLU’s own ideological slant and that of the NRA are clearly on the opposite ends of the spectrum in the US.
The ACLU’s David Cole told the justices on Monday that SCOTUS should adhere to the Bantam Books v. Sullivan decision in this case, adding that “informal, indirect government efforts to suppress or penalize speech by threatening private intermediaries violate the First Amendment.”
In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth’s practice of notifying distributors about certain books deemed objectionable for minors under 18 amounted to unconstitutional state censorship. This informal censorship violated the First Amendment as it lacked procedural safeguards, leading to the suppression of book distribution without formal legal action. The Court emphasized that while states have the authority to regulate obscene material, they must ensure that such regulation does not infringe on constitutionally protected speech, thus requiring a balance between protecting minors and upholding free speech rights.
Only thing discouraging me from buying guns is the ‘gun budget’ that gets eaten up by the necessity of home repairs and major appliances that need to be replaced.
House Committee Investigates Government’s Spying on Those Who Exercise Second Amendment Rights.
The U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government asked pointed questions to several Biden administration officials to get answers to why the federal government is working against the American people instead of for them.
The Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government delved into questions of why the federal government spied, and lied, about the lawful purchases by Americans by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The U.S. Treasury admitted that it collected information on Americans’ purchases of firearms and ammunition, shopping at several sporting retailers, including Cabelas, and even tracked people using search terms that include “Bible.”
The admission came by letter to U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) just one day after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen refused to answer questions from Congress if the surveillance occurred. The letter would appear to implicate the federal government with violating Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights protecting against illegal search and seizure, as the activity was conducted without a warrant.
Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) laid out in his opening statement the grave concerns Congress has with this intrusive and potentially illegal search and seizure of Americans’ private financial data.
“Big government was colluding with big tech to censor Americans. That’s the first thing we learned,” Chairman Jordan explained. “But now, it’s big government colluding with big banks and big business to spy on everything Americans buy, every place they go, everything they do. Big government wants your financial data because it’s full of sensitive information about you.”
He continued, “And… and if you’re a gun owner, look out. You’re going to the top of the list. For simply exercising your Second Amendment right, you’re on the FBI’s target list. Never forget, the federal government got this information without any process. No warrant and frankly, no notification.”
The further the committee was able to dig into information provided by FBI whistleblowers, the more concerning the allegations became.
“Since then, we’ve learned that the financial surveillance was broader and there was actually a specific objective,” Chairman Jordan said. “The federal government is building profiles on the American people. And the profile isn’t based on criminal conduct. It’s based on political beliefs and if you’ve got the wrong political beliefs, well, you’re a potentially violent domestic extremist.”
“It’s Appalling…”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director Steven Dettelbach joined CBS’s Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan to talk about violent crime committed with firearms and the tools he wants from Congress. The problem is those requests have already been rejected by Congress for good reason. Those tools would violate federal law and would chip away at the rights of those who obey the law without actually addressing the problem of crime.
“I was in Baltimore a few weeks ago with the law enforcement there, and it’s like, almost a 20 percent drop in homicides, but looks to me the caveat is that for many years in this country, we’ve had a very serious gun crime problem,” Director Dettelbach explained. “And we are the outlier among almost all Western modern nations, and not the outlier in a good way.”
He added later, “Well, I look at — look, I mean, data doesn’t lie.”
Juxtapose that with Director Dettelbach repeating the verifiably false claim that firearms are the leading cause of death among children. That’s just not true.
False Narrative
“The leading cause of death of children in the United States is firearms violence, right,” Director Dettelbach said. “Not cancer, not cars. Guns.”
That’s patently false. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris like to trot out the line in their gun control speeches even though it’s been proven to be false. The Washington Post, hardly a firearm-friendly news agency, admitted the narrative is false. To make the claim, The White House and now Director Dettelbach include people age 18 and 19. The problem is, 18 and 19-year-olds are adults, not children.
“When you focus only on children — 17 and younger — motor vehicle deaths (broadly defined) still rank No. 1, as they have for six decades,” The Washington Post reported. “In the interest of accuracy, it would be better for White House officials to refer to children and teens when citing these reports. When all motor vehicle accidents are counted, then motor vehicle deaths continue to exceed firearm deaths for children — defined as people under age 18 — whether or not infants are included.”
NSSF has blasted this twisting of data to arrive at the heated talking point. The claim in question came about as a result of a faulty study published by the University of Michigan Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention in April 2022. That study included Americans aged 18 and 19 years old – adults – in the data set as well as manipulated motor vehicle crash data to assert firearms became the “leading cause of death among children and adolescents” in 2020. NSSF debunked the study when it was published in April 2022.
Like Director Dettelbach said in his Face the Nation interview…data doesn’t lie.
Warning shots get ‘self-defense’ protections too, Ohio Supreme Court rules
A Clark County man was entitled to argue self-defense when he intentionally shot toward a person, and was not required to show he intended to kill or harm the man who threatened him, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.
A divided Supreme Court vacated the felonious assault conviction of Tyler Wilson for his altercation at a Springfield gas station in 2021. At trial, Wilson was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of felonious assault after he fired a shot at Billy Reffett. The shot struck the window frame of Reffett’s truck, near his head.
The trial judge refused to instruct the jury to consider Wilson’s argument that he acted in self-defense. The judge ruled Wilson was not claiming self-defense because Wilson testified that he did not aim the gun at Reffett and had no intention of harming him but was just trying to get Reffett to “back off.”
In the Court’s lead opinion, Justice Melody Stewart stated that the Ohio self-defense law does not require an intent to harm or kill another, just the “intent to repel or escape force.” Shooting toward another with the intent to stop an aggressor is sufficient to justify a self-defense jury instruction, she concluded.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Clark County Common Pleas Court to vacate Wilson’s sentence and conduct further proceedings.
Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Stewart’s opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in judgment only without a written opinion.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote that Wilson’s version of what had happened did not warrant a self-defense instruction.
Because Wilson insisted that he was not aiming the gun at Reffett or trying to shoot him, Wilson was arguing that he had not committed felonious assault. Arguing he was not guilty of felonious assault is different than claiming he acted in self-defense, which would require Wilson to admit he attempted to harm Reffett but was justified in doing so, Justice Deters explained.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice R. Patrick DeWine joined Justice Deters’ opinion.
New Report Exposes Massive Government Surveillance of Americans’ Financial Data
March 6, 2024
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report titled, “Financial Surveillance in the United States: How Federal Law Enforcement Commandeered Financial Institutions to Spy on Americans.” The report reveals alarming evidence of federal law enforcement engaging in broad financial surveillance and prying into the private transactions of American consumers. This surveillance, not predicated on specific evidence of criminal conduct, targeted terms and transactions related to core political and religious expressions protected by the Constitution.
Federal law enforcement, including the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the FBI, facilitated multiple backchannel discussions with financial institutions to gather Americans’ private financial information. These discussions involved some of the largest financial institutions in the United States, such as Barclays, U.S. Bank, Charles Schwab, HSBC, Bank of America, PayPal, and many others. Tactics included keyword filtering of transactions, targeting terms like “MAGA” and “TRUMP,” as well as purchases of books, religious texts, firearms-related items, and recreational stores, like Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shop, and Dick’s Sporting Goods. This surveillance extended beyond criminal suspicion, likely encompassing millions of Americans with conservative viewpoints or Second Amendment interests.
The report also details the existence of a web portal run by the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), a public-private partnership led by the FBI’s Office of Private Sector and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. This portal appears to have shared intelligence products with financial institutions that were used to identify individuals who fit the profile of criminal and “domestic violent extremists,” often because of their conservative political views or other constitutionally protected activity. Federal law enforcement used these reports and other materials they shared with financial institutions to commandeer their databases and conduct sweeping searches of individuals not suspected of committing any crimes, without a warrant, in order to identify individuals making certain “suspicious” transactions.
The pattern of financial surveillance uncovered in the report raises serious concerns about federal law enforcement’s and financial institutions’ commitment to respecting Americans’ privacy rights and fundamental civil liberties.
Read the full interim staff report here.
Biden Goes To Court, Demanding Warrantless Surveillance Powers
An attempt to bypass congress.
A request by the Biden administration to the courts for the renewal of contentious warrantless surveillance powers, has stoked controversy.
These surveillance powers, demanded by American intelligence agencies, are on the verge of expiration. Critics argue that this move either reflects business as usual, or reflects a sidestepping of spying reforms.
According to US Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the decision of the US Department of Justice to pursue an extension of the FISA Section 702 for a year without congressional consideration manifests a disregard for reforms aimed at safeguarding American rights.
Expressing his criticism, Wyden offers an alternative legislation which he and other lawmakers proposed that seeks to maintain Section 702 surveillance albeit under strict regulations constraining unwarranted spying on Americans. Wyden is particularly irked by the White House’s direction to prosecutors to seek renewal of the FISA powers in court before his proposed alternative legislation could be wholly considered by Congress.
Senator Wyden did not mince words in expressing his dissatisfaction with the approach of the Biden administration and the Justice department. “It is utterly ridiculous that the Biden Administration and the Justice Department would rather risk the long-term future of an important surveillance authority than support a single meaningful reform to protect Americans’ rights,” he said.
The contentious issue revolves around Section 702, an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allows US intelligence agencies to spy on foreigners considered a threat to national security. Despite the fact that this surveillance is meant for overseas intelligence targets, the incidental warrantless surveillance of US residents has prompted concerns among privacy advocates.
The FBI’s past missteps of using Section 702 to snoop on various individuals ranging from US elected officials to campaign donors adds credence to these concerns. Section 702 is scheduled to lapse by April 19 unless Congress moves to renew it. This has led to a push among several lawmakers to alter the rules and add guards against potential future abuse. To keep it running, Congress had granted a four-month extension last year.
There are currently four legislative proposals in the works to renew Section 702. Two of these initiatives, namely the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act and the Government Surveillance Reform Act of 2023, entail a warrant requirement prior to investigations.
The White House has resisted attempts to reform Section 702.
MSNBC Legal Lunatic Frets Over America’s ‘Deep Commitment to Free Speech.’
In the ever-leftward marching world of the erstwhile American political party known as the Democrats, assaults on our most cherished constitutional freedoms are the cornerstone of their efforts to fundamentally transform the Republic.
We’re all used to them making a lot of noise about their disdain for the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the few freedoms that they’re at least a little bit honest about wanting to take away. They may not admit to their gun-grabbing fantasies, but many of them now don’t say “no” when asked if that’s the end game.
The assault on due process is mostly denial-based. They’ve been using college campuses to test market their gulag/kangaroo court approach to justice for years now. That approach was put into public practice with their treatment of the J6 defendants. When any of the Democratic elite are pressed about the J6 victims of injustice, however, they get the kind of blank stare that Joe Biden would if someone told him to find the exit on his own after a speech.
The Democrats’ assault on the First Amendment has always been the most complex of their anti-American initiatives for a couple of reasons. One is that they love to cherry-pick the First Amendment when needing justification for their war on religion or their right to riot and burn everything to the ground peaceably assemble. The other is that they need to avail themselves of the very right that they seek to destroy.
Awkward.
Leftists come at free speech from a variety of euphemism-laden angles, the most popular one of late being a concern about “disinformation.” Caterwauling about disinformation was key to the Democrats’ political weaponization of the COVID-19 pandemic.
They had so much success with it that they’re not letting it go.
MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade argued Monday that the United States’ “deep commitment to free speech” makes Americans uniquely susceptible to disinformation campaigns.
McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, went on “The Rachel Maddow Show” to promote her new book, “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” She said her “goal” with the book was to spark a “national conversation about truth and our commitment to it.”
She added, “I hope that by dissecting it, explaining it, and educating the public, we can all see disinformation for what it is so that we can begin to push back against it.”
Oh, don’t worry, Toots, freedom-loving Americans do see what you call “disinformation” for what it is — an excuse to shut down conversation about anything that runs counter to your false narratives. Because everything is “Opposite Day” when dealing with the Democrats, those rending their garments over the dangers of disinformation are far and away the greatest disseminators of disinformation. Pathological liars love to say that everyone else is lying.
While it’s fair to say “consider the source” when discussing MSNBC, the network did play a role in the aforementioned success that the Left had with their disinformation contortions in 2020.
Ms. McQuade should have borrowed a Mao jacket from Hillary Clinton for this appearance. Hers is one of the most blatantly commie opinions on free speech offered on a network that traffics in commie opinions.
Poll: Almost a Third of Americans Say the First Amendment Goes ‘Too Far’
The survey also found that two-thirds of respondents believe that America is on the “wrong track” when it comes to free speech.
According to a new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment organization, nearly a third of Americans, including similar numbers of Republicans and Democrats, say that the First Amendment goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. More than half agreed that their local community should not allow a public speech that espouses a belief they find particularly offensive.
“Those results were disappointing, but not exactly surprising,” said FIRE Chief Research Adviser Sean Stevens in a Tuesday press release. “Here at FIRE, we’ve long observed that many people who say they’re concerned about free speech waver when it comes to beliefs they personally find offensive. But the best way to protect your speech in the future is to defend the right to controversial and offensive speech today.”
The survey, which was conducted in partnership with the Polarization Research Lab (PRL) at Dartmouth College, asked 1,000 Americans about their opinions on free speech and expression. The survey found that “when it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views,” over two-thirds of respondents said they believed America was headed in the wrong direction. Further, only 25 percent of respondents agreed that the right to free speech was “very” or “completely” secure.
The survey also asked respondents to read a dozen controversial statements and pick the one they found most offensive. The most disliked beliefs were that “all whites are racist oppressors,” followed by statements like “America got what it deserved on 9/11” and “January 6th was a peaceful protest.” The survey then asked respondents whether they’d agree with allowing this opinion to be expressed in different circumstances.
Half of the respondents said that their community “definitely” or “probably” should not permit a public speech expressing the opinion they found most offensive. A whopping 69 percent said a local college should “definitely” or “probably” not allow a professor who holds such an opinion to teach there. Over a quarter of respondents said that someone who previously said the offensive opinion should be fired from their job.
These results indicate that though the average American is concerned about protecting free speech rights, a significant portion of the population seem poised to welcome increasing censorship.
“The average American already thinks that free speech in America is in dire straits. Most worryingly, they think it will get worse,” said Stevens. “These findings should be a wake-up call for the nation to recommit to a vibrant free speech culture before it’s too late.”
And then it’ll be who’d be allowed to exercise the rights protected by the other articles in the Bill of Rights…..
Figliuzzi: More Caution Needed on Who’s Allowed to Exercise 2nd Amendment
MSNBC contributor Frank Figliuzzi commented on the shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs parade, noting similar recent incidents of gun violence disrupting places of worship and celebrations.
While the perpetrators may have legally possessed the guns used, he argued this is insufficient and society should more carefully assess who is allowed to exercise gun ownership rights.
“It’s early, but it’s never too early to talk about the role of weapons in our society. We just last weekend were reporting on a shooting at a megachurch in Houston, people going to their place of worship and that being interrupted by gunfire and a fatality. Here we are with a joyous occasion in Kansas City, and the same thing happens,” Figliuzzi said.
Figliuzzi said the media often washes its hands of these issues if the guns were legally possessed, without further examining if those individuals should have actually had access to firearms given what is known about them.
“Too often I think what the media finds is eventually a finding that perhaps that, ‘Oh, well, the perpetrators had lawful possession of those guns. Okay.’ And then they kind of wash their hands of it without a further analysis,” he said.
“Does that mean it’s okay? Does that mean that those people should have had those guns even though they might have possessed them lawfully? What do we know about them that would have caused us to do this better in terms of assessing and vetting people for gun ownership? What can we change?” he pressed.
He stressed constitutional rights should not be taken away, but that American society needs to more carefully vet who it allows to bear arms, in order to better prevent these types of tragedies from occurring.
“That’s where we seem to fall down as a society. Not that we take constitutional rights away from people, but rather that we be more careful about who it is that we allow to exercise those rights in our society,” Figliuzzi said.
BREAKING NEWS: In CRPA's Junior Sports Magazine v. Bonta case, one of Gavin Newsom's attempts to silence pro-gun speech and murder the gun culture, the 9th Circuit has just denied the state's request for en banc review! So CRPA's 3-0 victory on the appellate panel stands! Our…
— Chuck Michel (@CRPAPresident) February 20, 2024
Soon to be followed by demand for book titles owned and what religion is practiced……..
For years, California Democrats have been hostile to gun owners. California Democrats frequently attempt to erode Second Amendment rights in the state.
A bill in the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly that was introduced on February 16th, would force homeowners and renters to disclose information about firearms they own. Assembly member Mike Gipson, and State Senator Catherine Blakespear are the two leading California Democrat lawmakers pushing this legislation.
Section 2086 will be an addition to the Insurance Code pertaining to AB-3067.
The questions include information as to the number of firearms in the home, the method of storage, and how many firearms are stored in vehicles on the property. The questions include whether or not the firearms are in locked containers or not.
A bill has been filed in California that would require homeowner's and renter's insurance companies to ask how many guns people own and to report that information to the state: https://t.co/giLP0e6DKI pic.twitter.com/XsKgKtCdKX
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 17, 2024
Bragg and his office “move to dismiss significantly more serious counts or entire indictments,” the judge wrote.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg attempted to charge two New York residents with felonies for having false vaccine passports while he has let off others charged with far worse crimes scot-free.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Brendan T. Lantry dismissed the felony charges against the residents, identified as J.O. and R.V. in the decision, who had bought the forged vax passports, usurping Bragg’s decision.
The judge said the two were among 16 others that Bragg had “cherry-picked” to prosecute, according to the case.
Lantry slammed Bragg in the decision decided at the New York Supreme Court on Jan. 30.
The judge wrote in the opinion, “Clearly, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 170.25) is not among the most serious crimes in the New York Penal Law, nor are the factual allegations against Defendants R.V. and J.O. particularly serious in nature.”
“Moreover, the factual allegations — that the Defendants purchased fake COVID-19 vaccination cards so that they could provide same to their employer (R.V.) and school (J.O.) — do not rise to the level of the majority of the crimes adjudicated in Supreme Court, New York County, namely homicide, sexual assault, drug sale, robbery, burglary, and other violent and non-violent serious felony offenses,” Lantry continued.
The judge expanded on the decision that Bragg and his office almost daily “move to dismiss significantly more serious counts or entire indictments” and avoid harsher penalties for far more violent and convicted felons. Bragg also recently allowed a group of all but a single illegal immigrant to be released without bail after they allegedly beat up two NYPD officers. He later defended this saying that the video evidence was not enough to hold the foreign nationals.
NYC government officials, including Bragg, have faced increasing scrutiny over the government’s lackluster effort to control crime in the city as well as the high influx of illegal immigrants.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has admitted to buying records from data brokers detailing which websites and apps Americans use, US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) revealed Thursday.
This news follows Wyden’s push last year that forced the FBI to admit that it was also buying Americans’ sensitive data. Now, the senator is calling on all intelligence agencies to “stop buying personal data from Americans that has been obtained illegally by data brokers.”
“The US government should not be funding and legitimizing a shady industry whose flagrant violations of Americans’ privacy are not just unethical but illegal,” Wyden said in a letter to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines. “To that end, I request that you adopt a policy that, going forward,” intelligence agencies “may only purchase data about Americans that meets the standard for legal data sales established by the FTC.”
Wyden suggested that the intelligence community might be helping data brokers violate an FTC order requiring that Americans are provided “clear and conspicuous” disclosures and give informed consent before their data can be sold to third parties. In the seven years that Wyden has been investigating data brokers, he said that he has not been made “aware of any company that provides such a warning to users before collecting their data.”
The FTC’s order came after reaching a settlement with a data broker called X-Mode, which admitted to selling sensitive location data without user consent and even to selling data after users revoked consent.
In his letter, Wyden referred to this order as the FTC outlining “new rules,” but that’s not exactly what happened. Instead of issuing rules, FTC settlements often serve as “common law,” signaling to marketplaces which practices violate laws like the FTC Act.
According to the FTC’s analysis of the order on its site, X-Mode violated the FTC Act by “unfairly selling sensitive data, unfairly failing to honor consumers’ privacy choices, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data without consent verification, unfairly categorizing consumers based on sensitive characteristics for marketing purposes, deceptively failing to disclose use of location data, and providing the means and instrumentalities to engage in deceptive acts or practices.”
The FTC declined to comment on whether the order also applies to data purchases by intelligence agencies. In defining “location data,” the FTC order seems to carve out exceptions for any data collected outside the US and used for either “security purposes” or “national security purposes conducted by federal agencies or other federal entities.”
NH Supreme Court Affirms No Duty to Retreat When Acting in Self-Defense
It feels like it’s a rare occasion these days for any court with more than one judge to issue a unanimous decision, much less one that comes down on the side of our right to keep and bear arms, but that’s exactly what happened in New Hampshire on Monday as the state Supreme Court sided with a man who drew his gun to ward off an aggressor in a road rage incident, only to find himself charged (and convicted of a crime).
It was almost three years go when Joshua D. Shea’s was convicted on a single charge of criminal threatening with a deadly weapon, but the court has now thrown out that conviction after ruling that the judge overseeing the case erred by instructing the jury to consider whether Shea had the opportunity to retreat from the encounter. As the court pointed out in its ruling, lawmakers had removed any such duty to retreat from state statutes a decade earlier, and the judge had no basis to demand the jury consider the long-repealed law when weighing the evidence against Shea.
“After 2011, a person is justified in using deadly force when he reasonably believes that another person is about to use unlawful, deadly force against him, and he is not required to retreat if he is anywhere he has a right to be and was not the initial aggressor,” wrote Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi.
Shea claims he pulled his gun after another driver threatened to “beat his ass” following a close call on Route 28 in Epsom, according to the ruling’s recitation of the case. While the complainant claimed Shea pointed the gun at him, Shea testified he merely showed the gun to warn the other man off.
The incident started when the other man pulled his car in front of Shea’s truck as they drove on Route 28, forcing Shea to slam on his brakes and hit his horn. After the two men “exchanged middle fingers” they both pulled into a gas station parking lot off a traffic circle, according to the ruling.
In the gas station parking lot, according to Shea’s testimony at trial, the complainant began “aggressively swearing and saying he was going to . . . rip (Shea) out of [his] car.”
Shea further testified that the complainant said he would “beat (Shea’s) ass,” and asked the defendant to pull into the parking lot next door where there were no cameras.
At this point, Shea testified, the complainant began walking toward Shea’s truck and he was in serious fear for his safety. Shea testified he unclipped his pistol from its holster and warned the other driver he had a gun. Shea says he brought the gun up to his chest to show the man the gun, while the other man claimed Shea pointed the gun at him.
Despite the fact that no duty to retreat exists in New Hampshire law, Judge Andrew Schulman still informed the jury that one of the factors in the case was whether Shea “could have completely and safely left the area without any risk to himself or others.” In doing so, the judges ruled, Schulman went above and beyond what is allowed by law and contradicted what the state legislature has had to say about retreating in the face of danger; namely, that there is no requirement to do so if they were not the initial aggressor. Even when deadly force is not used, merely the display of a firearm to prevent the threat from escalating, the gun owner has no duty to retreat or present their back to the individual threatening to commit an act of violence against them.
I have to say, it’s nice to be able to cover a decision involving our right to self-defense that doesn’t include anti-gun judges trying to twist the law to suit their own purpose. Granted, four of the five justices on the court were appointed by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, but even the lone justice named to the bench by Democrat John Lynch didn’t try to play any games with the decision. The five justices all made it clear that folks who aren’t the aggressor are not compelled to walk, run, or drive away instead of taking steps to lawfully protect themselves, and I’m glad that the court reiterated that fact in no uncertain terms. Hopefully Schulman’s jury instruction was just an aberration to begin with, but now there’s no excuse for any other Granite State judge to assert a duty to retreat that doesn’t exist in state law, and that’s a big win for those of us who believe in the human right of self-defense