Category: Bureaucraps

Somebody got an earful.

Defense secretary abruptly revokes plea deal with alleged 9/11 mastermind KSM, co-conspirators

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin abruptly revoked a plea deal for the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and his co-conspirators, and he relieved the overseer in charge after years of effort to reach an agreement to bring the cases to a close.

In a surprise memo quietly released Friday night, Austin said the responsibility for such a significant decision “should rest with me.” Only two days earlier, the Pentagon announced that it had reached a plea deal with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, more commonly known as KSM, and two other defendants – Walid Bin ‘Attash, and Hawsawi – accused of plotting the attacks.

The memo, addressed to Susan Escallier, the convening authority for military commissions who runs the military courts at Guantanamo Bay, said the defense secretary would immediately withdraw her authority in the cases and “reserve such authority to (himself).”

Austin said that he was withdrawing from the three pre-trial agreements, which had taken the death penalty off the table for the three men.

Prosecutors in the case had been discussing the possibility of a plea deal for more than two years, which would have avoided a lengthy trial complicated by questions over the admissibility of evidence obtained during torture.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
If you can give an innocent explanation for the mountain of evidence that this was allowed to happen, I really want to hear it, because a plot to get Trump killed is the worst-case scenario. I really don’t want to believe it.

Right now I believe it. Please prove me wrong.

Director Rowe Personally Crippled Trump’s Secret Service Team

The tap dancing, lies, and coverup of the Trump assassination attempt by the Secret Service, FBI, and now the mainstream media is so far beyond bureaucratic ass-covering that it’s hard to conclude that the events in Butler were not desired.

I still maintain that it is unlikely in the extreme that anybody inside the government recruited Crooks to take his shots at Trump because it seems so implausible that any sane person would recruit an untrained kid to do the deed, but it is now clear to me that the top levels of the Secret Service and Homeland Security wanted Trump in danger.

For weeks, I wanted to believe that massive incompetence led to the events in Butler. I really did because the alternative didn’t bear thinking of. I thought the lawfare campaign was banana republic stuff, but assassination? That is Putin-level evil.

But consider the facts: the security “breakdowns” were so massive and implausible when combined that any large police force could have done a better job than the most elite protection unit in the world. The shooter was identified, tracked, photographed, filmed on the roof, the Secret Service was warned multiple times, the shooter was in the line of sight of the snipers, and Trump was trotted out onto the stage and kept there as the shooter was lining up his shot in full view of the Secret Service snipers.

None of that is disputable.

Continue reading “”

Question O’ The Day
Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?
Answer O’ The Day:
Yes

If we can thank Senator McConnell for one thing, it’s keeping this moron hack off the Supreme Court

AG Garland slams dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case: ‘Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?’

Attorney General Merrick Garland suggested Tuesday that his lengthy legal career makes it unlikely that he illegally appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate alleged crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, ruling that the special counsel was not lawfully appointed by Garland – a determination that made the Biden administration official bristle.

“For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don’t think so,” Garland said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.”

The attorney general noted that his “favorite room” in the Justice Department is its law library to hammer down the point.

“Our position is, it’s constitutional and valid. That’s why we appealed,” Garland added.

“I will say that this is the same process of appointing special counsel as was followed in the previous administration, Special Counsel [John] Durham and Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller, in multiple special counsels over the decades going back to Watergate and the special prosecutor in that case,” he said.

“Until now every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment has upheld it.”

In her July 15 order, Cannon ruled that Congress was required to appoint “constitutional officers” and the legislature was also needed to approve spending for such a prosecution.

“That role cannot be usurped by the executive branch or diffused elsewhere — whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not,” she wrote in her 93-page ruling.

The judge determined that “Special Counsel Smith’s investigation has unlawfully drawn funds from the Indefinite Appropriation.”

“The Special Counsel’s office has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all drawn unconstitutionally from the Indefinite Appropriation,” Cannon wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, arguing that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed by the attorney general.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed,” she added.

Smith’s team is expected to file a brief related to their appeal in the case, which charged the 78-year-old Republican nominee for president with improperly hoarding sensitive and classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency, by the end of August.

Trump faced up to 450 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the case.

Supreme Court to hear disputes over ghost guns, veteran disabilities, pollution during new term

The Supreme Court will return from its summer recess in October and hear legal battles involving ghost guns, veteran disability claims and water pollution in the justices’ first sitting of the new term.

On Friday, the court released its October calendar, which includes four notable disputes:

Ghost guns

On Oct. 8, the justices will take up a dispute over ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled and lack serial numbers. It will be the second day for the justices after they return from a three-month recess to kick off the 2024-25 term.

The Biden administration asked the justices to review a case in which a federal appeals court struck down a regulation governing the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Justice Department lawyers say ghost guns have turned into an end-run around federal gun control laws, allowing “anyone with access to the internet to anonymously buy a parts kit or partially complete frame or receiver that can be assembled into a working firearm in as little as 20 minutes.”

Gun rights advocates say if the government wants to regulate the sale of ghost guns, it must pass a new law, arguing the feds can’t stretch the 1968 legislation that far.

NRA Challenges ‘Engaged In The Business’ Rule In Alabama Court

The National Rifle Association on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging the DOJ/ATF’s Final Rule redefining who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms.

The NRA, along with two individuals, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Specifically, Butler v. Garland argues that the rule, which arguably bans most private sales of firearms, violates the Administrative Procedures Act.

Along with the NRA, the individual plaintiffs are Don Butler and David Glidewell. Butler, from Talladega, Alabama, is an NRA member, firearms hobbyist and collector. Glidewell, from Ragland, Alabama, is also an NRA member, firearms hobbyist and collector, according to the complaint.

Randy Kozuch, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said the lawsuit is a follow-up on the promise made by NRA when the Final Rule was announced.

Continue reading “”

The Elephant in the Room: Female Secret Service Agents

It was clear today during the House Oversight Committee hearing on the Secret Service’s failure on July 13 that Director Kimberly Cheatle is either a shameless liar or completely incompetent—probably both. Her refusal to answer the most basic questions about the shooting, which nearly killed Donald Trump, has disqualified her for the job—full stop. She needs to be fired, along with other incompetent Secret Service bureaucrats in the agency.

Among other things, she revealed that she didn’t sign off on Trump’s protective plan that day. In fact, she doesn’t sign off on any of the plans. She also admitted that even though she’s deeply involved in the supposed investigation of her agency’s failures (wherein she is investigating herself), she hasn’t bothered to visit the shooting site.

One issue that repeatedly came up during the hearing was DEI hires in the agency and whether the female agents assigned to Trump were qualified for the job. Last year, Cheatle announced a goal of 30% female recruits, along with a whole host of diversity measures.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) called Cheatle a “DEI horror story.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) accused Republicans of racism and misogyny because that’s all she knows how to do.

Republicans have exploited this moment to continue to attack programs for racial justice and gender equity in America. Disappointing, but not surprising. I hesitate to repeat their racist and sexist tropes. But in summary, Republicans have wrongfully and shamefully stated that hiring women and people of color hindered the response to the shooting.

Now, this is part and parcel of Republican strategy to constantly attack necessary diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts to undermine the contributions that women, people of color, the disability community, and others each and every day, and it is disgraceful in the wake of gun violence and tragic loss of life.

Asked about diversity hires at the agency, Cheatle replied that she’s focused on hiring the “best and brightest” and “best-qualified candidates.”

But is that true?

I wrote this on our liveblog the day of the shooting:

It’s time to have an adult conversation about the elephant in the room — women in the Secret Service. The question must be asked: Was Trump’s security detail compromised by diversity hires (women, gays, trans people, etc.)? In the case of women, it’s indisputable that men are stronger and faster than women. No one but the hopelessly deluded DEI enforcer believes otherwise. Someone going by the moniker @eyeslashoposted this chart on X today:


(click on image for a larger one)

It shows how the physical fitness standards are lower for female Secret Service trainees—in this case, pushups, with men’s scores on the left. For a man to be considered “Excellent” in the 20s age group, he must complete 55 pushups; for a woman, it’s only 40. Women can get away with only 26 pushups and still be considered “Good.” (Note: a man in his 20s should be able to do WAY more than 55 pushups.)

Eyeslasho added, “Shockingly, a total of only 6 points is required to pass the four-element test,” which includes pushups, sit-ups, chin-ups, and a 1.5 mile run. “And even if you don’t score 6 points, you can still be admitted upon further ‘review and recommendation.'”

“Overall, I’m not impressed by what is physically required of those who enter the Secret Service,” he concluded.

Neither am I.

We’ve all seen the pictures of a bloodied Trump surrounded by his protective detail. The men on the team were tall enough to place their heads between Trump’s head and the shooter; the female agent was significantly shorter, exposing Trump’s head.

Make no mistake: The agent in the picture above was incredibly brave. She placed her body between Trump and the shooter without hesitation and deserves to be praised for her effort. It’s not her fault that she is shorter than the male agents or that someone at the Secret Service placed her in that position.

Diversity, for its own sake, is ridiculous; diversity in jobs where someone’s life is on the line could be deadly.

I work out with some female law enforcement officers, and they are absolute beasts in the gym. But the strongest women in the gym can’t compete with the men when it comes to strength tests.

If I place my life in the hands of the Secret Service, I want the strongest, fastest, and best-trained agent possible. Women can be incredibly strong and fit and can certainly be well-trained. But if I had to choose between a man and a woman of similar age and training, I’d go with the man every time. If someone’s going to have to carry my lifeless body off a dais, I want the guy with huge biceps and legs like tree trunks. “Yasss girl power!” is not going to cut it.

Yes, I know it’s not politically correct to speak about gender in a way that suggests women ≠ to men, but as the managing editor of PJ Media, I don’t demand political correctness. I don’t force writers to use “preferred genders,” unlike other sites (one of which rhymes with “box”). That decision has gotten us demonetized, throttled, and censored, but we refuse to back down. You should demand no less of the websites you frequent.

The Secret Service’s Day Of Reckoning: What Kim Cheatle’s Evasion Means For America

United States Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle sat before the House Oversight Committee yesterday. The committee subpoenaed Cheatle to ensure her appearance. Her responses were predictable and tiresome. Whenever possible, she deflected questions, citing the FBI’s “ongoing investigation.” Her response to every substantive question was a simple variation on a theme — “I’m not going to get into the specifics.”

It’s a response that has rolled with ease off the lips of FBI Director Christopher Wray whenever confronted with the ire of congressional committee members. Anger — genuine or manufactured — displayed as the result of inexcusable incidents of politicization. But, these sorts of responses to congressional oversight committees have become so common they’re mundane.

However, Congress plays a significant role in the automatic and cavalier dismissals of pointed questioning by agency heads. Oversight has become a joke. Unless you’re a Trump appointee or official, contempt of Congress has absolutely no meaning. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro are the only two examples in living memory of the efficacious use of Congress’ power of contempt. It seems only Democrats have the political will.

Cheatle easily dismissed the blustery, reddened faces congressional inquisitors assumed, like so many tomatoes set atop starched collars. Cursing and grandstanding only serves to elicit reshares on social media, and ensures a few early afternoon hits on broadcast news channels. All very important if you’re obsessed with the perpetual fundraising cycle, and convincing gullible constituents you really care one whit about their questions or concerns.

How do I know this is all a put-on? I’ve witnessed it firsthand. As a member of a dignitary protection detail, I’ve seen behind the veritable curtain, and witnessed the handshaking, back slapping, and laughing transform into Oscar winning tragedies of political theater when the cameras and lights come on. The outrage is a ploy — maybe not for everyone, but for most.

The American people can do the analysis for themselves. Congress doesn’t have the power to fire Cheatle directly, that option is solely within the purview of the lame duck president Joe Biden. But, Congress does control the purse strings, and the power to arrest and jail for contempt.

Cheatle followed the disaster of July 13th with a disastrous day before Congress. With nine days to anticipate obvious questions, she refused to provide a real answer to a single one. There’s no question she has access to accurate, preliminary findings — information the public has a right to know. A quick perusal of the operations plan would tell her who was responsible for covering the building from which the shooter fired.

Democrat members of the House Oversight Committee like Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC) used the publicity opportunity to vamp for gun confiscation. Norton asked Cheatle, “Would Secret Service protectees be safer or less safe if people could carry handguns in D.C?” What that has to do with the most significant Secret Service failure in almost fifty years is beyond the powers of mortal reason.

Incompetence is a feature of Democrat party policy, politics, and governance at every level.

Cheatle also failed to convincingly defend the men and women who responded within three seconds of the first shot fired on the July 13th assassination attempt, or to debunk the plethora of wild conspiracy theories infesting the dark environs of social media.

Keyboard jockeys immediately pounced on the female members of Trump’s protection detail, zeroing in on one in particular who seemed overcome by events. Though performance was certainly an issue during some of the tactical movements leading to securing Trump in his limousine, these criticisms are coming almost exclusively from people who have no dignitary protection background. The same critics have failed to realize the potentially pivotal role played by the Butler County Sheriff’s deputy who was boosted to the roof where the would-be assassin had positioned himself. It is highly likely that the actions of this deputy saved Trump’s life, having disturbed the shooter’s firing rhythm.

Ridiculous conspiracy theories abound. Rep. Jake LaTurner (R-KS) leveled a series of important questions, asking Cheatle to provide detail to dispel the growing body of wild and uninformed narratives surrounding the assassination attempt. She refused.

A particularly laughable theory posits that an FBI Assistant Director (AD) was placed behind Trump in the crowd during the rally. Any surveillance professional knows how ridiculous it is to suggest that an AD would be involved in surveillance at all, much less in one where she’d be placed directly behind Trump, in a position to be photographed countless times. But, this is the kind of nonsense that flourishes in the absence of information from professionals who are in the position to know.

Cheatle did get one thing right: she called the January 13th assassination attempt the worst lapse in decades. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) called her incompetent, and demanded her instant resignation. Failing that, Turner called on Biden to fire her immediately. More notably, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) compared Cheatle to former USSS Director H. Stewart Knight after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, citing his resignation. Khanna said flatly, “I think you should resign.” Humorously, though stated in the most grave tones, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) called Cheatle, “a DEI horror story.”

It has been often said that the Secret Service’s duties are a “no fail mission.” That’s absolutely true. The responsibilities of dignitary protection are too weighty to allow for chance, mistake, or complacency. There are no take backs or do overs. That’s why former Director Stewart tendered his resignation. However, providing an acceptable level of transparency is also a no fail mission. Without it, as we have seen, everyone loses faith in our democratic institutions. That is an existential threat.

We must not just demand, but secure accountability from our representatives. We have an unparalleled opportunity to do just that this presidential election cycle. Trump can exercise executive authority to correct the leadership problems at the Secret Service, the FBI, and across the deep state apparatus.

A Major Lie From the Secret Service About the Trump Assassination Attempt Just Got Busted

The Secret Service is hiding in the bunker. They haven’t held a press conference on the July 13 assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. There’s been a code of silence on his harrowing and historic event, and we know why: they got busted for peddling a lie. Shocker—but we have another Biden-era scandal emerging, one where the agency appears to have hidden from the public because there was no spinning what was inevitably going to be asked by the media: the allegation that the Biden Department of Homeland Security denied requests for more resources. After initially denying it, the agency finally had to admit this was true.

The Washington Post and New York Times confirmed it. However, it was The Federalist’s Sean Davis who first reported that a source told him this was the case in the initial aftermath of the assassination attempt against the former president. It only adds to the incompetence of this administration, along with dousing the fires of a cover-up. At this point, there are too many coincidences, security failures, and now lies to dismiss this narrative outright (via NYT):

The Secret Service acknowledged on Saturday that it had turned down requests for additional federal resources sought by former President Donald J. Trump’s security detail in the two years leading up to his attempted assassination last week, a reversal from earlier statements by the agency denying that such requests had been rebuffed.

Almost immediately after a gunman shot at Mr. Trump from a nearby warehouse roof while he spoke at a rally in Butler, Pa., last weekend, the Secret Service faced accusations from Republicans and anonymous law enforcement officials that it had turned down requests for additional agents to secure Mr. Trump’s rallies.

“There’s an untrue assertion that a member of the former president’s team requested additional resources and that those were rebuffed,” Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said last Sunday, the day after the shooting.[…]

On Saturday, Mr. Guglielmi acknowledged that the Secret Service had turned down some requests for additional federal security assets for Mr. Trump’s detail. Two people briefed on the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, confirmed that the Trump campaign had been seeking additional resources for the better part of the time that Mr. Trump had been out of office. The denied requests for additional resources were not specifically for the rally in Butler, Mr. Guglielmi said.

U.S. officials previously said the Secret Service had enhanced security for the former president before the Butler rally because it had received information from U.S. intelligence agencies about a potential Iranian assassination plot against Mr. Trump.[…]

The service never held or took part in a public briefing the night of the shooting, while other law enforcement officials held a news conference a few hours after the fact. The service did not hold a public briefing to answer questions in the week after the assassination attempt.

Continue reading “”

Trump Scores Major Legal Victory!

Donald Trump received a major legal victory Monday morning when U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Biden administration’s classified documents case against him.

Cannon granted former President Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him, citing the unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The judge ruled that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, leading to the dismissal of the superseding indictment. Additionally, the court found that Smith’s use of a permanent, indefinite appropriation violated the Appropriations Clause, though it did not address the remedy for this violation.

In early April, Judge Cannon had rejected Trump’s previous attempt to dismiss the case, which was based on the argument that the documents found at his estate were personal records. Trump had filed multiple motions for dismissal back in February, employing various arguments, such as asserting presidential immunity and questioning the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment.

Merrick Garland handpicked Jack Smith in November to investigate former President Donald J. Trump over the alleged mishandling of classified documents and the ridiculous case over the Capitol riot.

Cannon’s new ruling is limited to this specific case.

Garland called Smith the “right choice to complete these matters in an evenhanded and urgent manner.” But in reality, Smith is a hardcore partisan with a shoddy record whose sole purpose was to get the result the Biden administration wanted.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump had been on shaky ground for months. As far back as March, it appeared to be falling apart.

In April, Cannon unsealed a trove of new documents in the case, revealing that an FBI agent had testified that the General Services Administration (GSA) was in possession of Trump’s boxes in Virginia before ordering Trump’s team to retrieve them. These same boxes, which the GSA had held and then ordered Trump’s team to retrieve, ended up being the ones containing classified markings. This raised questions about whether the Biden administration had set up Trump.

In May, Smith’s team admitted to misleading Cannon and tampering with the evidence used to support his case against Trump.

The case against Trump was widely seen as political because Joe Biden had classified information that he was never entitled to have stored in boxes in his garage for years but was not charged, even though he had never had the authority to declassify them.

In February, Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report concluded that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen” and that his actions “presented serious risks to national security.” However, Hur wouldn’t bring charges against him because Biden “would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

You can read the entire ruling here.

Financial Surveillance: Why We Have To Prevent Liberal Organizations From Subverting The Second Amendment

There is no such thing as a free nation where the police and military are allowed to keep and bear arms and citizens are not. Our Founding Fathers understood this and enshrined the basic right to self-defense in the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees the absolute ability to live in peace without fear.

The U.S. Supreme Court has, time and again, reaffirmed that right. Yet elected Democrats and other stakeholders continue their all-out assault on this freedom with the ultimate goal of denying law-abiding Americans the opportunity to purchase and carry guns.

That’s why, in 2022, I became concerned when Visa and Mastercard announced they would separately categorize and track purchases for guns and ammunition. This move followed the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), an international standards organization based out of Europe, approving an application for a firearm-specific Merchant Category Code (MCC). This move would set a dangerous precedent targeting legal gun owners, the vast majority of whom are Republicans or independents who lean Right.

A specific MCC for gun purchases would subject Americans attempting to exercise their constitutional rights to unnecessary and unethical surveillance. If rolled out, a national gun registry would be closer than ever, even though it is prohibited by federal law. The Left, however, does not care about the rule of law and they certainly aren’t hiding their desire to take away your freedoms. An elected Democrat recently called a federal gun registry a “wonderful idea.”

A gun-specific MCC is a clear threat to the privacy and Second Amendment rights of all Americans. Not only does it present an easy opportunity for liberal institutions to de-bank firearms sellers, which is abruptly closing financial accounts for religious and political reasons, but it could also discourage Americans from exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights. Importantly, the MCC would do absolutely nothing to improve public safety.

The application for a gun- and ammo-specific MCC came from Amalgamated Bank in 2022, a blatantly Left-wing company that dubs itself America’s “socially responsible bank” and proudly says deposited money supports “sustainable organizations, progressive causes, and social justice.” Upon further examination, it’s clear the organization is closely connected to the Democrat Party. The New York Times in 2015 even called it “the left’s private banker.”

Clients of the union-owned bank include President Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi. Additional past and present clients include the Democratic Governors Association, the Biden Foundation, the Democratic National Committee, and Ready for Hillary 2016. Not exactly ardent defenders of the Second Amendment.

Amalgamated has also explicitly called for unconstitutional red-flag laws and says it discriminates against gun, nuclear weapon and ammunition manufacturers and distributors. Radical private organizations like this and the ISO should be nowhere near our Second Amendment.

At the time of the approval, Amalgamated Chief Executive Priscilla Sims Brown said the move “answers the call of millions of Americans who want safety from gun violence.” Does this call supersede the constitutional right to keep and bear arms? As a state representative serving the people of Northwest Tennessee, I can tell you my constituents would say that coastal elites and liberal corporations better stay far away from their guns and finances.

That’s why I set out to ensure this gun tracking scheme would never happen in the Volunteer State. This year, I sponsored the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, which was passed by the General Assembly and went into effect July 1. This new law will prohibit financial institutions from requiring retailers to use a specific MCC for firearms sellers in Tennessee.

Law-abiding Americans deserve to make these purchases without fear of liberal corporations and an overbearing federal government coordinating to spy on them. I was proud to provide that peace of mind to Tennesseans with the passage of this new law.

Just before the new law took effect, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti warned that Visa, Mastercard and American Express were potentially gearing up to ignore it.

“Specifically, I am concerned that your compliance efforts are not sufficient and will allow you and other financial institutions to continue to utilize impermissible codes in violation of Tennessee law,” he said in a June letter to the chief executives of each company.

No credit card company should be able to cancel the votes of millions of Tennesseans by disobeying our policies.

We’ve already seen the Orwellian-like behavior from the Biden Administration and the private companies all too willing to hand over sensitive information. Earlier this year, the House Judiciary Committee revealed federal investigators had asked financial institutions to search customer transactions for various MCCs, stores and phrases, including Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shops, Dicks Sporting Goods, and MAGA.

The goal? Rooting out alleged “extremism” following the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

If the federal government and private companies are already using banking information to target conservatives, ask yourself why they might want a separate MCC for firearms and ammunition sellers. It’s clear that in attempting to force these codes on Americans, they are also attempting to reshape what the Second Amendment means in our country.

Americans are tired of these people and groups pushing an agenda contrary to our founding ideals. I’m proud Tennessee has taken a stand against the ever-increasing leftist corporate-government alliance meant to intimidate and silence Christians and conservatives. It’s time every state stands with us.

Russell ‘Rusty’ Grills represents District 77 in the Tennessee House of Representatives

Another take on SCOTUS killing Chevron Deference

What SCOTUS’ Chevron Deference Decision Means for Gun Owners and the ATF

Much of the coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Chevron Deference doctrine suffers from one of two problems: Either it’s written by lawyers for lawyers and is therefore unintelligible for anyone without a juris doctor, or it’s written by the corporate media and is chock-full of errors, omissions and untruths.

Bill Sack, director of legal operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, agreed to help clarify this landmark Supreme Court decision, which it turns out is good for gun owners and bad for the ATF.

Q: What is the Chevron Deference doctrine?

A: “By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which gave rise to the doctrine known as Chevron Deference. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.

What the Chevron Deference doctrine did was when administrative agencies write regulations, they often will have their own administrative courts that interpret the regulations the agency has drawn up. For example, if the EPA makes a regulation that says a factory can only put out so much pollution, and there is a question as to whether a specific factory violated the regulation, the first place the factory has to go is the EPA’s administrative court, where an EPA administrative judge will interpret the EPA’s regulations. If the factory is unsatisfied with the EPA judge’s decision, they can appeal to federal court. What Chevron Deference did was this: If the administrative court’s decision was appealed, the federal court was then supposed to be heavily deferential to the findings of that administrative court.

Basically, the doctrine put a thumb on the scale in favor of the administrative agency.

The federal court was supposed to give a lot of deference to what the administrative agency found. From a liberty perspective, this is a separation of powers problem. The administrative agency, as an executive agency, is supposed to enforce the law. It’s not supposed to write the law. It’s not supposed to interpret the law. These alphabet agencies were writing regulations, which is a legislative function. They were enforcing the regulations, an executive function, and then they were interpreting the regulations, which is a judicial function.

The ATF and the alphabet agencies were doing the jobs of all three branches of government and if challenged, the federal courts were supposed to defer to what their administrative courts found. Even if the federal court thought the agency’s administrative court got it wrong, they didn’t always overrule the decision. They believed that these agencies were the experts, who were best at administering and interpreting the own regulations. For example, the courts acted like since the EPA found that the EPA did nothing wrong, we’ll defer to them since they’re the experts.”

Q: What specifically did the U.S. Supreme Court decide?

A: “Chevron was overturned formally based on the Administrative Procedures Act, which sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for the courts to review actions by those agencies. The Supreme Court decided that this deference was unlawful. The Supreme Court said federal courts should start from scratch, rather than showing deference to the alphabet agencies. The High Court removed their thumb from the scale.”

Q: How will this decision affect the ATF?

A: “Hopefully, it tones down all of the administrative agencies because it returns power to the judiciary. It should tone down the ATF just like the rest. They can no longer adjudicate their own rules and say, ‘we’re right because we said we’re right.’

The writing has been on the wall for some time that Chevron would get knocked down. In a few of the (Administrative Procedure Act) challenges, the ATF has said they are not relying on Chevron to make their point. I suspect they didn’t want to hang their hat on Chevron. During the pistol brace and bump-stock cases, the ATF specifically said they were not relying on Chevron Deference.

If Chevron Deference were still alive, the ATF could write a rule like pistol braces. If someone was prosecuted for it and believed they shouldn’t have been found guilty in an ATF court, the ATF could rely on Chevron Deference during the appeal.

It was a big tool that every administrative agency had in their quiver.”

Q: How will the Supreme Court’s decision affect cases already in litigation, such as bump-stocks, pistol braces, frame and receiver and who needs an FFL?

A: “I don’t believe it will affect any of the current cases against ATF because the ATF has already disclaimed using Chevron.”

Q: Will this decision have any impact on the hundreds of gun dealers who have had their Federal Firearm Licenses revoked by the ATF for minor clerical reasons? (This question was posed to Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s executive director.)

A: “No. Revocation is entirely within the administrative process. The ATF only has to show a single willful violation. It’s not ambiguous where it would be difficult to ascertain what Congress meant. The courts have defined what willful is — they did something the law said they can’t do. Whether it was intentional, or they transposed some numbers, it’s still willful. There’s no deference in that regard. They don’t have to defer to the ATF to interpret anything,” Kraut said.

Q: Do gun owners still need to go through the ATF’s administrative process or can they now go straight to federal court?

A: “They still have administrative courts. They will still adjudicate violations of their own regulations, but if you want to appeal, the federal court has much greater leeway to overturn the administrative agencies with Chevron gone. The courts should be much better equipped to keep the administrative state in check,” Sack said.

Q: How will the Supreme Court’s decision affect gun owners?

A: “Big picture — for ATF and all of the other administrative agencies — it will hold their feet to the fire to interpret their own regulations fairly.”

 

BLUF
In short, the death of Chevron may be good for the state of the law as a whole, but it’s not the magic bullet some gun rights commentators seem to think it is.

Analysis: The Death of Chevron and the Future of Gun Litigation

Friday brought a rare instance of a no-nonsense Supreme Court decision unambiguously reversing prior precedent in a way that has far-reaching consequences–but maybe not for gun policy.

Loper v. Raimondo saw the Court stating, in no uncertain terms, that Chevron, “a decaying husk with bold pretensions,” is overruled. Twitter–and my email inbox–were ablaze with theories about what this might mean for gun litigation. In all likelihood, though, the impact on Second Amendment cases will be more muted than many expect.

It’s easy to understand why people might think Chevron would have had an outsized impact on the firearm space. After all, it seems as though the ATF–an administrative agency–has been the primary source of tumult for gun owners over the last three administrations. Where an admin agency is the source of pain, it seems natural to presume a legal concept that advantages administrative agencies would be a huge lever in that conflict. But practitioners and astute spectators alike would observe that Chevron hasn’t been invoked in the gun space very often at all.

Simply stated, Chevron’s death won’t be as dramatic as some commentators expect in the gun law arena largely because the ATF has been expressly disclaiming and attempting to avoid its application for years. Likely knowing Chevron was on shaky ground, and because its application to laws with criminal penalties is inappropriate, the government has fairly consistently simply asserted in gun cases that its legal arguments are ordinary legal arguments rather than agency arguments entitled to deference under Chevron.

To understand the tension here, it’s important to understand what Chevron actually did. Even when it was at its strongest, the application of Chevron was limited to situations where the statutory provision being litigated over was ambiguous, and there was a “permissible” agency interpretation. In those instances, the court would defer to the agency’s interpretation of the law, even if the court disagreed with the interpretation.

Chevron was always controversial, as it was in tension with the core legal principle that courts are the only ones who can say what the law is. That’s why the Supreme Court began walking Chevron back almost as soon as it was decided.

In fact, the Supreme Court hasn’t deferred to an agency interpretation under Chevron since 2016.

More pointedly, though, there is a critical reason you won’t see the government arguing that gun laws are ambiguous, which had always been a threshold question in Chevron cases. Why? Because gun laws almost always involve criminal penalties, and the longstanding rule of lenity states that in cases involving criminal consequences, any ambiguities in the law must be resolved in the least restrictive manner. This would make the road to proper reliance on Chevron, on the part of the government, a minefield of instant losses.

That is not to say that the death of Chevron won’t have any impact on gun litigation. But it will most likely be more nuanced than revolutionary.

For example, as explained, the ATF has been making its legal arguments for years now by basically saying, “this is how you ought to read the law, even if you weren’t deferring to us.” Even where Chevron wasn’t supposed to be applied, including in criminal cases, it’s quite likely the overarching idea of Chevron–that administrative agencies are experts and thus know more about the laws they are tasked with–has poisoned the minds of judges all the way down, manifesting as subconscious deference to the agency’s interpretation of the law.

This vestige of Chevron is probably the most lasting, and unfortunately–as the dissent in Loper makes clear–that idea will be very hard to shake. The simple fact is, though, that no matter how technical a statute is, they are meant to have come through the legislature, which is–for better or for worse–a bunch of lawyers. While nerdy, lobster-clawed science-types at the EPA might have nuanced understandings when it comes to sniffing nitrogen, that doesn’t change the fact that laws have to be consistently interpreted.

In short, the death of Chevron may be good for the state of the law as a whole, but it’s not the magic bullet some gun rights commentators seem to think it is.

Defensive gun use and reality

How often do Americans use guns in lawful self-defense? It’s a difficult question to answer, in part because many who send a criminal to flight by merely demonstrating they are armed, never report the incident. The same is true for many who brandish their handguns, or even point them at criminals, instantly convincing them running for their lives is the better part of valor.

Refusing to report is surely common in blue states, where law-abiding citizens can be virtually certain if they report lawful self-defense, they’re far more likely than the criminal that forced them to defend themselves to be arrested and prosecuted. Even in red states, many don’t want to take the chance.

Another factor that has become obvious during the Biden administration is as many as 7,000 police agencies—surely most if not all blue—have stopped reporting crimes, particularly violent crimes. This represents about a 35% reduction in the number of cities reporting crimes. No reports of crime, no crime exists, and leftists can claim huge reductions in violent crime even as they decriminalize crime and refuse to prosecute criminals.

There have, however, been a number of studies whose results are revealing. The Clinton administration conducted such a study, secure in their belief the results would conclusively prove lawful self-defense with guns was rare, a result they planned to use in pushing even more gun control schemes. To their horror, they found as many as 1.5 million such cases per year. They tried to hide the result, but it eventually leaked. Another study, which, to the horror of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists has stood the test of time and every attack, indicates as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, and in only 8% of those cases, was it necessary to shoot the criminal attacker. In 82% of cases, merely revealing a handgun and/or demonstrating the will to use it were sufficient to end an attack. In such cases, we can never know if the criminal was intent on robbery, rape, kidnapping or even murder.

The Centers For Disease Control have long been prohibited by law from using taxpayer dollars to advocate for gun control, which has not, of course, stopped them. A recent CDC report has been revealed to be ridiculously unprofessional and invalid. Conducted entirely by telephone, it had these four primary problems:

1. They were unable to determine whether firearms were stored loaded or unloaded during the phone interviews.

2. They were only able to obtain data from the eight states, which is statistically meaningless.

3. Some respondents did not want to disclose whether they had a firearm in their home.

This is surely a major factor in that Americans have never been more mistrustful of the government, particularly when speaking about gun ownership.

4. All of the data was self-reported to the researchers, and therefore “subject to social desirability and recall biases.”

One might also wonder why the CDC, which is ostensibly supposed to be dealing with disease vectors, should be spending time and money on an incompetently done telephone survey about gun storage in the home. As one might imagine, the survey ignored lawful defensive gun uses, the need for which is one of the primary reasons Americans keep firearms in their homes. By the way, the CDC was forced to admit the aforementioned flaws.

Why would anyone want to suppress the truth about lawful, defensive gun uses? They do irreparable damage to the anti-liberty/gun narrative, which holds guns are inherently evil,  and so are those who own them. They have the mystical power to compel their owners to murder. Guns exist only to kill the innocent—that would be leftist favored victim groups–and far fewer people own guns than the “gun lobby” claims, yet guns are everywhere, are responsible for unimaginable carnage and must be banned. Despite there being few guns, anyone owning a gun is virtually certain to kill a family member, despite firearm accidents being at a 100 year+ low.

There’s no logic or reproducible results supporting anti-liberty/gun “research,” which is why those that advocate that position simply resort to lying, which lies are eagerly and uncritically trumpeted by most of the media. Fortunately, Americans have wised up. For nearly 60 consecutive months, they’ve bought more than a million guns a month. They may not be willing to tell the government how many guns they own or how they use them, but they’re more than willing to use them to protect their families, and if necessary, to preserve our representative republic.

That’s what really scares our self-imagine elite.

Comment O’ The Day – ‘Publius’

Do you want to understand the significance of Chevron in as concise a manner as possible?
Here it is:
Nobody ever elected Fauci or Birx. And for every Fauci or Birx you know, there are a thousand just like them that you don’t know lurking in every nook and cranny of your over-regulated life.

That. That’s it. That’s why it was essential to overturn Chevron.