Category: Bureaucraps

The Truth About the COVID Vaccine Is Finally Becoming Known

Mark Twain famously said that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even starts putting on its shoes. Here is Exhibit A in contemporary proof of the most famous American writer’s maxim.

It only took four years, the courage of a handful of independent medical experts who risked their careers by contradicting the federal government, the mainstream media, and the medical establishment, and the fact that something resembling the free press remains viable in this country, thanks largely to the internet.

Now, finally, the truth about the COVID-19 vaccine is beginning to be made known to the public. It confirms the many previous warnings such as these: here, here, and here.

It’s a research paper entitled “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” that appeared on the internet at the Cureus Journal of Medical Science. The abstract bears your close reading and then re-reading, especially if you are one of the millions of Americans who did what public health gurus like Dr. Anthony Fauci incessantly told us to do and “followed the science.”

Here’s the abstract, but I’ve broken it into multiple paragraphs to aid your reading, and I’ve included my own emphasis of highlights (it is one long paragraph on the website):

Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged.

Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders. Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards.

Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data.

The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted.

Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.

Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.

The authors of this research paper are highly qualified experts, including, according to Liberty Counsel, “biologist and nutritional epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead; research scientist Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D.; biostatistician and epidemiologist Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D.; immunologist and biochemist Dr. Jessica Rose; biostatistician and epidemiologist Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D.; Vaccine Safety Research Foundation Executive Director Steve Kirsch; and cardiologist, internist, and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.”

Don’t be surprised when the inevitable assaults are launched in the cooperating mainstream media on these courageous individuals’ ethics, training, and research methods. There will be no forgiveness for them because they have stepped in front of a criminally flawed historical narrative and yelled, “Stop!”

Liberty Counsel President and Founder Mat Staver put it well when he said in a statement: “In this exhaustive review paper, these scientists confirm what sound scientific research has been showing for years, that these shots have never been safe nor effective. The FDA and the CDC are supposed to protect the people, but they have become the lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry. This must change.”

And change it will because, sooner or later, the families of many of the legions of victims of the COVID-19 vaccine scam are going to find smart trial lawyers who are willing to file the litigation and hold those responsible legally accountable. The jury awards that will follow will dwarf anything seen before.

Whistleblowers Allege ATF Is Drafting Rule That Could Effectively Ban Private Firearm Sales

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is working on a rule that could effectively ban the sale of firearms between private individuals, agency whistleblowers told a watchdog group.

Empower Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog representing one of the Hunter Biden Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers, says that ATF whistleblowers informed it of a 1,300-page document being drafted by the agency that would require background checks for all firearm sales, including those between two private individuals. The new rule would “effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another,” according to a press release from Empower Oversight.

Empower Oversight submitted a records request to the Department of Justice seeking more information about the rule.

The rule would “violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” according to Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt. Leavitt also said the rule would “circumvent the separation of powers in the Constitution.”

Empower Oversight points out that the ATF’s rule could redefine individuals who occasionally sell guns as being “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms,” thus requiring them to acquire a Federal Firearms Licensee and run background checks on whoever they’re selling to.

In the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, Congress established that the term “engaged in the business” of selling guns “shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby.”

Leavitt pointed out that the courts would likely strike down the rule and argued that it is likely a ploy to fire up the Democratic base during an election year.

Private background checks are popular with voters, according to polling data.

A poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico in 2022 found that 81% of registered voters supported background checks at gun shows and for private transfers.

Support for background checks is lower among Republicans than among Democrats. A 2021 Morning Consult and Politico poll found that 77% of Democrats supported background checks for all gun purchases, compared to just 53% of Republicans.

While Americans are open to background checks, banning certain kinds of firearms is unpopular among Americans.

Only 27% of Americans supported banning handgun ownership as of October 2023, according to Gallup. An April 2023 poll conducted by Monmouth University found that more Americans opposed an “assault weapons” ban than supported it.

The Biden administration has consistently pushed for stricter gun laws.

President Joe Biden pushed a rule that forced people who owned pistols with arm braces to register them as short-barreled rifles, Politico reported. Pistol braces remain legal as states and gun rights groups sue the ATF over the rule.

Registering a short-barreled rifle with the ATF carries a cost of $200. The National Firearms Act, the law requiring the registration of short-barreled rifles, was last updated in 1986.

Short-barreled rifles are illegal in some states.

Biden also banned the sale of firearm parts lacking serial numbers, which can be used to construct “ghost guns,” and has continuously pushed for a so-called assault weapons ban, according to Fox News Digital.

Some gun rights groups are ready to fight the ATF’s rule should it come to fruition.

“The records of these sales will eventually end up in the ATF’s firearm registry database,” director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America (GOA) Aidan Johnston told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The ATF maintains a registry of firearms sales, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Johnston said GOA is “actively preparing to take legal action if and when Joe Biden’s administration releases their rule change.”

Empower Oversight and the ATF did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

If Anyone Needs to Explain Why They Need Guns, It’s the EPA

We don’t talk a lot about the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, all that much. For the most part, they don’t get into guns or gun politics. There’s no reason for us to talk about them here, even if they are managing to do a lot of stupid stuff in general.

But, it seems, that the EPA isn’t completely out of the discussion on guns.

You see, while there are many who lament the Bruen decision because we no longer have to justify why we want to carry, some rather bizarre federal agencies, including the EPA, have been spending a lot of money on guns.

Topline: The Environmental Protection Agency isn’t traditionally associated with ranged weaponry, but the federal government has spent almost $620,000 since 2018 to buy guns, ammunition, and more for EPA employees.

Key facts: Auditors at OpenTheBooks.com found that between 2018 and 2022, the EPA spent close to $400,000 of federal funds just on ammunition. That came after the EPA purchased 500,000 rounds of ammo and 600 guns from 2010-2017.

Over $100,000 went to buying armor for EPA employees. Funds were also used for “optical sighting and ranging equipment,” for “night vision equipment” and “security vehicles.”

Background: The EPA has a Criminal Enforcement Program, which had a budget of more than $70 million in 2023. Its goals include “protecting communities with environmental justice concerns” and curbing illegal sales of pesticides.

The EPA also has its own Office of Homeland Security, which provides “systemic preparation” for climate and environment related threats. Its budget was nearly $90 million last year.

Those divisions include 259 employees with job titles of “Criminal Investigation” or some similar variation. Those employees collectively earned almost $32 million in salary last year, with 217 of them making six figures.

Now, I don’t have an issue with a federal regulatory agency having investigators in and of itself. Whether I like regulations or not, the current status quo is violating those regulations constitutes a crime, so it makes sense for the regulators to have investigators.

But we’re talking $620,000 spent in firearms and ammo for 259 employees. That’s nearly $2,400 spent per investigator, and to be frank, I’m not sure any of them actually need to be armed.

See, the EPA is a regulatory agency, not a law enforcement agency. If they find an arrest is needed, they should be able to call the local FBI field office and get them to go in. The FBI, of course, has plenty of guns already.

What bothers me is that people want folks like you and me to have to justify why we “need” guns, but thinks nothing of federal agencies buying firearms left and right.

As the above-linked post notes, other agencies are also stocking up on guns including the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor. This isn’t new, though, since we’ve known for more than a decade about the Department of Education having had a SWAT Team.

The truth of the matter is that I want justification why every agency in the federal government seems to have guns purchased with our tax dollars. It’s not because I disbelieve in guns, but because every penny the federal government spends comes out of our pockets. They need to justify every dime, in my book, especially as so many federal agencies try to infringe on our right to have firearms.

Remember that the ATF started as a tax collection agency and morphed over time into federal law enforcement. If we don’t start demanding answers for this waste, we’re likely to see it happen elsewhere.

And the EPA is just one example.

After all, I’m not sure I want to trust guns to an agency that thought a mud puddle counted as “navigable waters” in any way, shape, or form.

NSA finally admits to spying on Americans by purchasing sensitive data. Violating Americans’ privacy “not just unethical but illegal,” senator says.

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.”

Continue reading “”

I don’t have a bump stock, never did, probably never will. But when bureaucraps redefine a law to suit a political agenda restricting the people’s exercise of a right, they need to get slapped down….hard.

CRPA & Allies File SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Garland v. Cargill

CRPA has joined with several other pro 2A organizations and filed a friend of the court “amicus” legal brief in Garland v. Cargill. The case is set for argument before the Supreme Court on February 28, 2024.

The Cargill case will decide whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.”

The case is primarily about the scope of the ATF’s regulatory authority and whether it can freely change its positions and interpretations of federal law. It does not explicitly involve any Second Amendment claims. Nonetheless, our amicus brief advises the Court about the significant risk to Second Amendment rights if it rules in favor of the ATF. The ATF has shown an unfortunate willingness to reverse its opinion about the legality of a device whenever it suits the political whims of the Biden administration.

ATF did this on bump stocks, incomplete lower receivers, and pistol braces. So our amicus brief warns the Court that if it finds that a bump stock is a “machine gun,” the logical next step that ATF, or governments hostile to the Second Amendment, could pursue would be to reclassify most or all semiautomatic rifles as illegal fully-automatic machineguns because they could be converted (illegally) to fully automatic. There is support for that position in the Seventh Circuit’s recent absurd ruling upholding Illinois’s “assault weapon” ban, where it wrongly concluded that the semi-automatic AR-15 and the fully automatic M-16 were virtually indistinguishable so that semi-automatic rifles can be banned.

The amicus brief lays out a history demonstrating that Americans have always owned so-called “military” small arms, and expanding the ATF’s authority such that it believes it could regulate semiautomatic firearms would cause chaos and potentially millions of accidental criminals.

Joining CRPA on the brief are the Second Amendment Law Center, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and Guns Save Life. Multiple additional briefs are expected to be filed in the next few days.

The brief urges the Supreme Court to affirm the 5th Circuit’s ruling in favor of Mr. Cargill, and to reaffirm that commonly possessed semiautomatic rifles cannot be banned.  You can read the brief HERE.

Alaska joins 28-states in urging Biden admin to not restrict ammunition sales

Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor signed onto a 28-state letter to the Biden administration, responding to another letter that had urged the administration to restrict ammunition manufacturers who receive federal funds from selling ammunition to citizens.

“We Have seen this administration take full advantage of wordplay to restrict the rights of American citizens,” Gov. Mike Dunleavy said in a Jan. 26 statement. “Politicians, ignorant of the tools and practices they fight to restrict, use catchphrases like ‘military grade’ to create the illusion that these rights are not meant for the average citizen. They hate that law-abiding citizens have these rights and will use these underhanded tactics to take them away if allowed. I will always fight to preserve those rights given to citizens at the time our nation was founded and the ability to exercise those rights. In this case, that means fighting to ensure that citizens who have the right to arms also have reasonable access to ammunition.”

The original letter, written by leaders of several Democrat-led states requests that the Biden administration investigate Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The letter claims that ammunition manufacturers who receive federal funds should not be allowed to also sell ammunition to the general public, and states that the ammunition has been used by mass shooters to commit crimes.

The response letter, joined by Alaska, argues that this restriction would limit law-abiding citizens’ ability to obtain ammunition and to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

240125-Letter

SloJoe couldn’t executive order his way out of wet paper bag on this subject

Biden Pushes For More Gun Control

President Joe Biden is coming for your guns— if you needed any more of a reason to vote him out of office.

On Thursday, the White House announced that Biden would use executive action to further restrict law-abiding American citizen’s right to the Second Amendment.

However, this time, the president’s actions will be designed to take action against gun storage.

Biden’s executive action will “promote safe storage of firearms that implement President Biden’s Executive Order on promoting safe gun storage in order to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer,” according to a White House statement.

In the 14-page document that outlines how gun owners can store their weapons to prevent children or others in the home from accessing them, the White House claims that safe storage of firearms can reduce “school shootings, youth suicides, unintentional shootings, and theft of firearms.”

The Biden Department of Justice is expected to release guidelines in a nationwide letter to school principals. The note urges school staff to talk to parents of school children about gun storage safety, providing them with a communication template school leaders can use when talking with parents about firearm storage.

The president has been promoting gun control since day one of his presidency. Rather than addressing the underlying problems when it comes to gun violence, Biden has politically pushed divisive measures that could damage American’s right to keep and bear arms while, at the same time, failing to make the nation safer.

In the past, Biden has said he wants to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and to require background checks for all gun sales. He also has said he is eager to take on the National Rifle Association.

“Only three percent of gun-related homicides every year are committed by rifles of any kind,” Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said. “They are far, far less dangerous if you’re just looking merely at how criminals use guns. What is actually used in the vast majority of gun deaths and gun crimes is not these guns. So again, even if you get past these constitutional issues, is this even a policy that’s going to make Americans meaningfully safer? And the answer is no. Frankly, it’s not designed that way. It’s designed as this political pushback against scary-looking guns.”

In stark contrast, Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is currently facing three federal gun charges that accuse him of possessing a gun as a drug user and lying on a federal form when he bought it.

As Hunter Biden heads to trial, he must lean heavily on the Second Amendment to avoid prosecution. Ironically, at the same time, his presidential father is taking drastic steps to diminish 2A. Biden is expected to make gun safety a focus of his re-election campaign this year.

It isn’t surprising that gun safety groups, who are outspokenly against the Second Amendment and have close ties to the Biden White House, have been silent on the issue.

BLUF
Our government is run by totalitarians who wish they were Chinese bureaucrats who could ban anybody from society whenever they want.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM covers this. I expect they will ignore it because, well, it was revealed by Jim Jordan and was aimed at Republicans.
Why let the Constitutional order get in the way of defending democracy?

Regulator Forced Financial Industry to Spy on Americans.

Do you shop at Cabela’s or Dick’s Sporting Goods?

Have you ever bought anything with MAGA on it or from anybody whose business includes the term?

Are you a hunter or a sports shooter?

If so, you will be happy to know that the federal government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network tasked financial institutions to spy on you and send your purchase and travel history to the feds.

This was, of course, entirely warrantless. No legal process at all–and why should there be one? After all, you are a domestic terrorist if you support Donald Trump or like sporting goods.

You are deplorable for sure.

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day
“If you’re deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the law, you’re allowing the agency to be a judge in its own case,” said Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing fishermen based in Rhode Island.

A little fish at the Supreme Court could take a big bite out of regulatory power.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Business and conservative interest groups that want to limit the power of federal regulators think they have a winner in the Atlantic herring and the boats that sweep the modest fish into their holds by the millions.

In a Supreme Court term increasingly dominated by cases related to former President Donald Trump, the justices are about to take up lower profile but vitally important cases that could rein in a wide range of government regulations affecting the environment, workplace standards, consumer protections and public health.

In cases being argued Wednesday, lawyers for the fishermen are asking the court to overturn a 40-year-old decision that is among the most frequently cited high court cases in support of regulatory power. Lower courts used the decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for monitors who track their fish intake. A group of commercial fishermen appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in front of a court that, like the rest of the federal judiciary, was remade during Trump’s presidency by conservative interests that were motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion.

The 1984 decision in the case known colloquially as Chevron states that when laws aren’t crystal clear federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details.

Supporters of limited government have for years had their sights set on the decision, which they say gives power that should be wielded by judges to experts who work for the government.

Continue reading “”

yeah, I want these kinds of people as Air Traffic Controllers

FAA’s Diversity Push Includes Focus on Hiring People With ‘Severe Intellectual’ and ‘Psychiatric’ Disabilities

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is actively recruiting workers who suffer “severe intellectual” disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website.

“Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring,” the FAA’s website states. “They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism.”

The initiative is part of the FAA’s “Diversity and Inclusion” hiring plan, which says “diversity is integral to achieving FAA’s mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel across our nation and beyond.” The FAA’s website shows the agency’s guidelines on diversity hiring were last updated on March 23, 2022.

The FAA, which is overseen by Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s Department of Transportation, is a government agency charged with regulating civil aviation and employs roughly 45,000 people.

Continue reading “”

The Drunk-Driver Detection Tech That Could Soon Take Over Your Car.

Your car may soon be tasked with determining whether you’re sober enough to drive—but how? As we explained recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law on November 15, 2023 gave NHTSA a year to gin up a standard compelling new vehicles to either “passively monitor the performance of a driver” to detect if they are impaired, or “passively and accurately detect” whether the driver’s blood alcohol level is above the legal limit, and then “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” Said standard could go into effect as soon as 2026. At CES 2024—held within the 60-day public comment period for this standard—the Tier-I supplier community showed off some tech aimed at fulfilling the sensing aspect of this proposed drunk driver detection standard.

Blood alcohol level is the gold standard, but the “passively” requirement rules out blowing into a tube. Walking a straight line, reciting the alphabet backwards, and other road-side sobriety test methods are equally impractical. But the eye test checking for nystagmus seems reasonably practical, so several suppliers are focusing efforts on this approach. That’s where an officer asks the subject to follow their finger moving left to right without turning their heads and checks for jerking or bouncing eye movements shortly before the eyes reach a 45-degree angle. It’s still anybody’s guess how best to detect cannabis use/misuse.

Continue reading “”

Call for Regulation of Gun Industry Has Faulty Premise

The gun industry is one of the most regulated industries in the nation. A firearm can’t go from Point A to Point B without a mountain of paperwork, for example. About the only industry that can compete with it regarding the amount of regulation they deal with is the pharmaceutical industry.

But a lot of people seem to think that the gun industry is unregulated.

Now, this is usually not a big deal. It doesn’t take much to show just how wrong people who think that actually are. We can usually show them how regulated guns actually are.

Occasionally you’ll find someone who should know better but, apparently, doesn’t. An example is this guy who seems to think that toy guns are regulated more than real firearms. He also thinks that should change.

What if the United States regulated real firearms as stringently as they regulated toy guns for children?

In a forthcoming article, Benjamin Cavataro, a professor at the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, proposes that Congress empower the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to regulate guns in the same way that it regulates other consumer products, such as toys.

Cavataro argues that empowering the CPSC to regulate guns would increase their safety without encroaching on politically charged issues such as gun access and prevalence.…

Cavataro notes that subsequent efforts to introduce product safety regulations have fallen short because product safety measures for firearms are often seen as “gun control.” Cavataro contends that this characterization is misleading. Instead, he distinguishes between product safety measures, which seek to protect firearm users from dangerous mishaps, and gun control efforts, which seek to regulate the possession and use of guns.

Wrong.

What we’re seeing here is a call for a bureaucracy to oversee the gun industry, ostensibly to maintain safety standards, which might be fine for many if we could trust the bureaucracy to end there. After all, making sure you guns work as they’re supposed to wouldn’t be a bad thing, if you’re inclined to believe the government can do that job properly.

But the reason people call these efforts “gun control” isn’t due to a lack of understanding or mischaracterization. It’s because we know damn good and well where such a body would eventually take their regulatory efforts.

Think for a moment how the ATF started as a revenue collection agency and now is deciding what is legal and what isn’t. We’ve seen federal agencies try to say their ability to regulate waterways included mud puddles.

Now think about the GOSAFE Act for a second. This is, in essence, an attempt to regulate the gun industry. It’s not through a regulatory body, which means it has to battle through Congress to become law.

And a lot of people are opposed to it.

Yet if we had a regulatory body over the gun industry, the defeat of such a bill would only be part of what’s necessary. We’d then have to defeat that regulatory body when it attempted to put similar rules in place.

We call it gun control not because we don’t understand but because we understand all too well what will happen.

That’s not going to change.

Another ‘Known to the F.B.I’

TN joins coalition challenging ATF rule violating second amendment

Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is joining 26 other state attorneys general and the Arizona State Legislature in a public comment letter demanding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms drop a proposed rule that violates the Second Amendment. The proposed rule risks making any individual who sells a firearm for profit liable to civil, administrative, and even criminal penalties for failing to register with a federal agency.
“Inserting a heavy-handed and punitive federal bureaucracy into small-scale transactions between family and friends is misguided and constitutionally suspect overreach,” said Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “This regulation will unduly burden law-abiding citizens while having no meaningful impact on violent criminals. The constitutionally sound response to gun crime is aggressive enforcement of existing criminal laws and more robust mental health options.”
The attorneys general argue that the right to sell firearms for profit among individuals without significant federal-government licensing and oversight is protected by the Second Amendment.
The public comment letter claims that the rule doesn’t clearly define profit, and that it presumes individual sellers are firearms dealers even if the individual only sells one firearm.
“If the Bureau was serious about combatting violent crime, it would focus on enforcing the laws that are already on the books to hold violent criminals accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, the Bureau has instead targeted innocent people who sell firearms. That is not only unlawful but wrong, and the Bureau must change course,” the comment letter reads.
In addition to the Arizona State Legislature and Attorney General Skrmetti the attorneys general of the following states also signed the letter: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Typically Tyrannical: Biden Admin Slips Out Slew Of ‘Regulations’ Over Holidays

As tyrants so often do, on December 29th the Biden Administration quietly slid out a “slow-news/Holiday-hidden” announcement of many more “regulations” it is imposing on your market choices of home appliances.

And to add insult to injury, it’s all for their religion-like claim to be preventing a Kali-esque demigod, “anthropogenic climate change” from destroying the world.

It’s a false religion, backed by fake claims of “science” and false claims of “savings” that they’re imposing on you.

Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.

Indeed, as American families gathered for the Holidays, the Biden Department of Energy (DOE) under slick, smarmy, “enriched by stock options received from palsy corporations” DOE head Jennifer Granholm and her cult released the song of Kali.

Nick Pope reports on it, for DailyCaller:

“The Department of Energy (DOE) finalized or proposed a bevy of regulatory actions cracking down on numerous appliances on Friday.

The DOE proposed new rules designed to promote ‘energy efficient’ commercial fans and blowers, and also finalized energy efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers, the agency announced Friday. The regulatory actions are the latest in a string of moves by the Biden administration intended to phase out a host of fossil fuel-powered appliances and replace them on the market with more energy efficient, and often electric, equivalents.”

I suspect that you, too, might be wondering where their vaunted US Constitution hides the so-called “authority” for the feds to create a DOE, let alone tell private makers of appliances what they can and cannot offer you to freely purchase or leave on the showroom floor. Perhaps, you, also, might be scratching your head over the easy way elitist bureaucrats and politicians claim to define for US what is “efficient.”

Well, you’d better extend the sentiment of “Silent Night” to your potential protestations about those matters, because, of course, the mandates are for YOUR OWN GOOD, to stop their magic monster of “anthropogenic climate change,” and if you should question either their mandates or their faulty claims of “science,” you are an apostate of the new religion.

Continue reading “”

Honolulu Has Cut Off Gun Sales

Gun sales have been blocked for much of December in Hawaii’s largest city.

That’s what the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, a local gun-rights group, claimed in a statement on Wednesday. It said the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) has advised gun purchase or carry permit applicants they won’t process them without a currently-unattainable training certification. And it’s unclear when those permits might become available again.

“It has been brought to our attention from multiple sources that the Honolulu Police Department, under the guidance of Police Chief Logan, is no longer processing ANY firearms permit applications or concealed carry applications until after the new year, and he has the ability to verify or certify instructors,” the group posted on social media. “The department requires all applications submitted after December 18th to provide proof of instruction by a certified/verified instructor before processing their application.

“The problem?????? He hasn’t certified or verified any instructors.”

The Honolulu Police Department did not return multiple calls seeking comment on the situation.

Continue reading “”

Any questions why I call them bureaucraps?

ATF Takes MI Man’s Guns Despite His Expunged Record

No matter how much you hate the ATF, it’s probably not enough.

Besides the fact that a name like “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives” should be the name of a retail outlet, there’s the fact that they don’t just try to regulate the industry. They actively oppose your right to keep and bear arms.

We’ve seen numerous cases of the bureau trying to infringe on people’s rights, even violating the law in some cases in order to do so.

But their latest stunt is potentially even worse.

The way Jeramy Wilburn sees it, he only messed up once. The poor decision-making of a child shouldn’t determine one’s freedoms for the rest of their life, he argues.

The 34-year-old Allen Park resident was known for making YouTube videos about gun safety. He’s also a fan of sport shooting and until this past November was free to partake.

Then the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency took away his firearms because of a past domestic violence conviction which happened years ago. This, despite having the conviction expunged in 2022.

Wilburn’s conviction was a misdemeanor in 2008. As punishment, the judge put him on probation and ordered him to take a domestic violence class – no jail time. And in February 2022, that one mistake was wiped from his record.

Wilburn’s record was expunged. Legally speaking, it was like his conviction never happened. It was wiped from his record.

Unfortunately for him, though, the ATF seems to feel otherwise.

But, in a federal lawsuit brought by Wilburn and Morris, the two argue that isn’t the case. They argue Wilburn should be allowed to possess a firearm. But the feds say Wilburn could still be convicted of domestic violence again.

“It’s unfair for them to say he should be forever barred, forever prohibited from carrying a firearm just because he potentially could get a second offense,” said Morris.

Honestly, this is a terrifying argument that, if allowed to stand, could eventually set a precedent for all kinds of other problems.

Could Wilburn be convicted of domestic violence again? Hypothetically, sure. The fact that he’s gone 15 years without doing so suggests what happened was isolated and he’s unlikely to do so again, but it’s also largely irrelevant.

We don’t punish people based on what they might do, only what they’ve done in the past.

Had the conviction not been expunged, that would be one thing, but it was. His record was wiped clean. This is essentially him getting his rights restored, only that probably wasn’t an option since he only had a misdemeanor charge.

Yet let’s understand that taking his guns because he might be convicted of domestic violence again isn’t all that different from deciding you or I can’t have guns because we might get convicted for domestic violence at some point in the future.

They don’t have the authority to do this, which is why Wilburn is taking the ATF to court. I’m glad he’s doing so and I pray that he doesn’t have to wait too long to get his guns back. They never should have been taken from him in the first place based on the facts we know.

So no, it’s probably not possible to hate the ATF enough.

The Great Legal War Over Your Freedom

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, the lower courts have been either trying to apply, or to resist, its directive to decide the validity of restrictions on the basis of the text of the Second Amendment and historical analogues from the time of the Founding. According to the ruling, an activity is presumed to be protected if it involves keeping and bearing arms by the people. The burden is then on the government to find historical precedents to show that a restriction is part of the nation’s history and tradition.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Bruen to the federal ban on gun possession by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) and found it to violate the Second Amendment. State DVROs are often issued with little pretense of an adversary hearing or are mutually agreed upon in divorces without knowledge that it evokes a federal gun ban.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, U.S. v. Rahimi, and a barrage of amicus briefs have been filed on both sides. Mr. Rahimi faces several state charges involving actual violence, dwarfing the federal possession charge. The amicus brief of the National Rifle Association put it this way: “Rahimi should not only lose his Second Amendment liberties, but he should also lose all of his liberties—if the allegations against him are ultimately proven true with sufficient due process. But constitutional safeguards cannot be set aside to obtain those ends.”

Consider the supposed historical analogues cited by Biden’s Justice Department and its amici—discriminatory laws disarming Catholics, slaves and “tramps”; confiscation of arms by oppressive British monarchs and by our own patriots in the American Revolution (there was a war going on, after all); and wholly irrelevant laws against gun sales to children and intoxicated persons. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on Nov. 7, 2023.

The Third Circuit, in Range v. Merrick Garland, held the federal ban on gun possession by felons to be unconstitutional as applied to a person convicted of a minor, non-violent offense.  Again, no laws in the Founding era disarmed persons who were not dangerous. The government is asking the Supreme Court to hear that case after it decides Rahimi.

When it decided Bruen, the Supreme Court directed the Fourth Circuit to reconsider its upholding of Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban in Bianchi v. Frosh. That court had held that ordinary AR-15 semi-automatic rifles are not really different from machineguns and are “weapons of war most useful in military service,” even though no military force in the world issues them as service rifles.

The Fourth Circuit got right on it, holding its oral argument on Dec. 6, 2022. A year later, crickets. Still no decision. Is it really so hard to apply Bruen’s simple tests, or would the court not like the result?

Continue reading “”