Observation O’ The Day
The law — and the DOJ — only protects people the Administration likes.
That’s been made quite clear.

DOJ Official Admits Targeting Pro-Lifers Is Response to Overturn of Roe.

The Justice Department has been targeting pro-life activists through the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act as a response to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, according to Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta.

Gupta delivered remarks at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division’s 65th Anniversary earlier this month. The associate attorney general described the overturn of Roe v. Wade as a “devastating blow to women throughout the country” that took away “the constitutional right to abortion” and increased “the urgency” of the DOJ’s work—including the “enforcement of the FACE Act, to ensure continued lawful access to reproductive services.”

She did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division enforces the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which “prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services.”

It protects both pro-life pregnancy centers and abortion clinics, as a DOJ official noted to Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, last week.

At least 98 Catholic churches and 77 pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life organizations have been attacked since May, but the DOJ has apparently not charged a single person in connection with these attacks. Meanwhile, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has charged 26 pro-life individuals with FACE Act violations this year.

The DOJ has not responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment on this point.

Pregnancy resource centers are typically run by pro-life women who seek to offer expectant mothers alternatives to abortion. Such centers provide diapers, baby clothes, and resources for both mothers and fathers, empowering them to care for their child, overcome addictions, build community, and find jobs.

Biden Administration Continues Push to Target Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces

It seems like we have been warning about the Biden Administration’s intent to reclassifyhandguns equipped with braces intended to help disabled veteran shooters for quite some time.

There were once signs that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) intended to get out of the practice of making confusing regulations—including those involving stabilizing braces—that appeared to circumvent the authority of Congress to actually define and pass laws regarding firearms. But with Biden’s election in 2020, a reinvigorated faction within ATF began a push to re-examine stabilizing braces. NRA immediately took notice, and put out a call to action.

Way back in June of 2021, Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published a new notice of proposed rulemaking on its website entitled Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2021, giving interested parties until September 8, 2021 to file comments.

The rule seemed aimed at making nearly all configurations of firearms equipped with stabilizing braces subject to the taxation and registration requirements of the National Firearms Act.

Since 2012, when Biden was serving as then-President Barack Obama’s vice president, ATF has recognized that stabilizing braces serve a legitimate function, and the inclusion of a stabilizing brace on a pistol or other firearm does not automatically subject that firearm to the provisions of the NFA. That’s because stabilizing braces were first designed and intended to help disabled veterans fire large format pistols.

While ATF estimates that there are approximately three million pistol stabilizing braces, even other portions of the United States government recognize that this is a vast undercounting of the number of pistol braces currently in circulation. A report by the Congressional Research Service puts the estimate much higher; suggesting anywhere from 10 to 40 million pistol stabilizing braces. With so many in circulation, effectively banning firearms with these devices attached would be the largest confiscatory firearm regulation in the history of the United States.

NRA, of course, submitted comments to this terrible proposed rule, which you can find here.

More than one year since the comment period ended, and a year-and-a-half since the original proposed rulemaking, it is still unclear when, or how, the new rule will be implemented.

In January of this year, we reported, in a story on different rules Biden’s ATF had put in place, that the regulations page for the proposed stabilizing brace rule indicated it would be finalized in August.

That didn’t happen.

Now the regulations page says “Final Action” will take place on “12/00/2022.” What date that actually signifies is unclear, but it would appear the final rule remains in a holding pattern.

There may be other complications facing Biden’s ATF when it comes to this pending rule, other than the general complexity and poor optics of potentially criminalizing millions of Americans (especially disabled veterans) for owning items that same ATF previously said they could legally acquire and own.

The rule has now been transferred to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. That means that the final rule could be posted in the federal register in the coming days.

With the House of Representatives coming under pro-gun leadership, scrutiny of this federal agency is likely to get much more intense. When the House was under the control of radical, anti-gun extremists like soon-to-be-former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), virtually any anti-gun action taken by ATF was encouraged—even if it seemed to circumvent the authority granted by Congress.

recent article noted Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) “is targeting newly-confirmed U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Steve Dettelbach over new gun rules that Jordan calls ‘a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of Congress and infringe on American citizens’ fundamental Second Amendment rights.’”

Jordan will be serving as House Judiciary Chairman when the new Congress convenes in January, so it would behoove Dettelbach to take his stated concerns seriously.

The article mentions a letter Jordan sent Dettelbach outlining a number of concerns the Chairman-to-be has regarding ATF. Included among those concerns is the pending rule on stabilizing braces. Jordan notes that no federal law has been passed that “criminalized the use of a pistol arm-stabilizing brace.”

In an earlier letter to ATF on the subject of these braces, Jordan wrote, “Through its proposed rule, ATF seeks to subject stabilizing braces to GCA criminal penalties and NFA regulation without Congressional prohibition of the underlying activity.”

Other than the prospect of facing a House majority that does not work in lockstep with anti-gun activists, the ATF may be facing additional problems with what many consider to be overreach of its use of rulemaking. Recent actions by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) may indicate the nation’s top court may try to reign in federal rulemakers, which could include those at ATF.

Whatever develops on this front, you can count on NRA to remain involved, and to keep you updated.

Not all that long ago, this was one (1) simple page. Now – like all things bureaucrapic – it’s a book.

ATF Update on Revised Form 4473

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- NSSF recently received the following important message from ATF regarding updates and revisions to the revised ATF Form 4473. NSSF urges all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and member organizations to read the updates and contact ATF if you have any additional questions.

A message from the ATF:

Due to new statutory requirements set forth in both the NICS Denial Notification Act and the Bipartisan Safer Community Act (BSCA), and to reflect the implementation of ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F, ATF Form 4473 has been revised. Because the new statutory requirements are designed to enhance public safety, and to ensure compliance with these provisions and Final Rule 2021R-05F, the Office of Management and Budget has provided emergency authorization to ATF to immediately use the revised Form 4473. ATF will be publishing the Revised Form for Notice and Comment Review in the coming months.

ATF encourages all federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to begin using the Amended Form immediately. The Revised Form is available on ATF’s website, and can be downloaded and printed for immediate use. Please note that the entire Form, including instructions, must be printed, and stored together. Hard copies of the Revised Form will be available through the ATF Distribution Center beginning February 1, 2023. The ATF eForm 4473 application is also being revised and notification will be sent when it is ready for use.

Significant changes in the Revised Form are as follows:

  1. Any firearm, received by a FFL, that was privately made (not manufactured by another licensee) must now be recorded on the ATF Form 4473. “Privately Made Firearm (PMF)” has been added to item 1, Section A. It now reads: “Manufacturer and Importer, if any or Privately made firearm (PMF) (If the manufacturer and importer are both different, include both)”.
  2. Question 10 is amended: The transferee/buyer is now asked to answer whether they “Reside in City Limits?” regarding their residence address. For example, if a transferee lists their residence city/state as Phoenix, Arizona but they actually reside outside of the city, they will answer “no” to this item.
  3. The following two prohibiting questions have been added to Section A:
    1. 21b: “Do you intend to purchase or acquire any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition, for sale of other disposition to any person described in questions 21(c)-(m) or to a person described in question 21.n.1 who does not fall within a nonimmigrant exception?”
    2. 21.c.: “Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense”
  4. To comply with the BSCA 10-day waiting period on certain transfers involving transferees under the age of 21, Section C of the Form has been revised as follows:
    1. Prior to the NICS/POC information, an instructional header has been added stating: “Notice: If transferee/buyer is under 21, a waiting period of up to 10 days may apply where notification from NICS is received within 3 business days to further investigate a possible disqualifying juvenile record. A NICS check is only valid for 30 calendar days from the date recorded in question 27a.”
    2. Item 27.c. was amended to show the date an FFL may transfer a firearm should NICS or the State agency (conducting the background check) not reply stating more time is needed for the check. It now reads next to the delayed check box: “The firearm(s) may be transferred on ____ if time period is not extended by NICS or the appropriate State agency, and State law allows (optional).”
    3. A box has been added to 27.d. should NICS or the appropriate State agency delay the check as more time is needed to conduct it on a transferee under 21 years of age. It now reads: “Notice of additional delay of transferee under 21 years of age received on _______ (date), and may be transferred on _________ (date).”
    4. Also added to 27.d. is a box for FFLs to check should no response be received from NICS or the appropriate State agency (for transferees under 21 years of age) within 10 business days after the initial delay was given. It now reads: “No response was provided within 10 business days after initial delay for transferee/buyer under 21.”

A detailed list of all changes can be found at ATF – Revised 4473. The revised form will become mandatory for use on April 1, 2023. Please contact your local ATF Industry Operations office or FIPB@atf.gov should you have any questions regarding the changes to the form.

Well, I have seen – unsubstantiated – reports that the bureaucraps at ATF have sent their proposed braced pistol regulations to the Whitehouse for SloJoe’s puppet master’s input. The time frame mentioned is from 2 to 7 days until published in the Federal Register, so we shall see in a week or so.

Democrats block potential release of documents on FBI’s secret forms used to strip gun rights

House Democrats vetoed a resolution demanding Attorney General Merrick Garland turn over records related to the FBI’s usage of previously secret forms that waived away the gun rights of Americans.

In October, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and over a dozen GOP members of Congress urged Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray to provide evidence that the FBI has stopped stripping people’s gun rights with the forms. However, a further attempt to obtain evidence by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) was quashed on Wednesday afternoon by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.

The resolution states that Garland would be asked to provide the House “no later than 14 days” after its passage with “a complete and unredacted form” and “a copy of any documents, records, reports, memos, correspondence, or other communication either generated or received by the office of the Attorney General that refers to information” on the forms.

In addition, Garland would be asked to provide information on “how the determination to distribute the forms was made” as well as the prior “reasoning for distributing the forms.”

Continue reading “”

Twitter and the FBI on a Collision Course After Sworn Document Shows Conflicting Narratives

The pipeline of revelations surrounding Twitter’s censorship of the Hunter Biden story keeps pumping out new material.

As RedState has reported extensively (click here and here for a taste of what’s transpired), Elon Musk delivered on a promise to release a trove of documents related to the decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story just prior to the 2020 election. Revelations include the fact that the Biden campaign had a direct through-line to get content removed, as well as the fact that Twitter lied about the “hacked material” excuse that was used to justify their actions.

But as I’ve written on before, Twitter is just one piece of the puzzle, and in some ways, the company was more a willing lackey than a mastermind of the plot. That distinction goes to the FBI, which was having weekly meetings with Twitter’s leadership to discuss what content to remove from the site. Further, it was the FBI that first planted the idea that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian hacking operation meant to spread “disinformation.”

How do we know that? Because of this unearthed FEC disclosure signed by none other than Yoel Roth, who recently left as Twitter’s head of “Trust and Safety.”

According to the old Twitter regime, they were simply responding to what the FBI told them, which was that the laptop had been hacked and leaked as a way to spread disinformation about Joe Biden. Meanwhile, the FBI has claimed in the past that they never gave such detailed descriptions to any social media company, but rather relied on general threat warnings of possible foreign interference. Yet, Roth says they specifically mentioned Hunter Biden, which would leave the laptop story unambiguously the subject at hand.

So who’s lying here? The safest bet is to assume both entities are lying. Clearly, given the document dump that happened on Friday evening, Twitter was far more involved in censoring the story than just listening to the advice of the FBI. Democrat elected officials were colluding with the company to decide what should be taken down.

On the other hand, the FBI obviously lied when it told Twitter (and other social media companies) that the Hunter Biden laptop story was a “hack and leak operation.” There was never any evidence that the laptop was hacked, and the FBI had been in possession of it for over a year at that point. Further, they gained possession of it from the computer repair store where the laptop was left. That means the FBI knew its provenance the moment The New York Post broke the story, but agents (no doubt backed by leadership) chose to falsely claim it was a foreign hacking operation anyway.

In the end, Twitter and the FBI did what they thought they needed to do to ensure Donald Trump wouldn’t be re-elected. There are no good guys or innocent bystanders here. The FBI lied, but Twitter wanted to believe what it was being told, and it pushed well past the boundaries of its stated TOS to ban the Post and block the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Are we slouching toward fascism? 
Andrew P. Napolitano

Fascism is a governmental system in which the means of economic production and delivery of services are privately owned but government-controlled. Throughout history — before even getting to its racism and wars — fascism has led to the glorification of the state and the destruction of personal liberty. It is happening here.

During the past few months, we have learned that the major credit card companies have begun to record transactions at gun shops so as to enable the feds to learn the identity of patrons. These are lawful gun shops selling lawful products to lawful purchasers. The credit card records do not reflect precisely what was purchased — it might have been $2,000 for a gun safe or for gun safety lessons — but they do record the purchase amount and the contact information of the purchaser.

The problem here comes about when the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives come calling with their so-called National Security Letters in order to find out who is purchasing what. The George W. Bush-championed Patriot Act of 2001 — the most horrific congressional assault on personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized dissent — permits federal agents to bypass the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment when they want private records that are in the hands of a custodian.

These NSLs are really nonjudicial search warrants in which one federal agent has authorized another to seek your records. Since the gun shop purchase consists of the exercise of the natural right to exchange value for a lawful product and since the product purchased is an extension of the natural right to self-defense, the former protected by the Fifth Amendment and the latter by the Second Amendment, there is no lawful reason for the feds to know who has made these purchases.

Prior to the Patriot Act, if the feds came calling upon the custodian of your records, the custodian informed you of the government’s interest in your records, and you had a reasonable time period to challenge the feds in court. Today — notwithstanding the free speech protections in the First Amendment — it is unlawful for a custodian to inform you that the feds have come calling.

Thus, the records held by your computer, telecom, financial, health care, utilities and credit card service providers, your physicians and lawyers, may all be accessed without search warrants and without notice to you.

Under the Constitution, where federal gun registries are not permitted, it is none of the federal government’s business who has purchased what from a gun shop.

Moreover, since the Supreme Court has characterized the right to self-defense as fundamental, akin to the freedom of speech, there is no more authority under the Constitution for the feds to learn the identity of gun shop patrons than there is for them to learn the identity of bookstore patrons.

The additional danger here is to the democratic process. These decisions to keep records of sales and make them available to federal agents were made by government bureaucrats and corporate bosses, not by Congress. This is a creeping deterioration of the right to keep and bear arms because the feds are notoriously anti-gun, no matter who is president and no matter what the Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment protects.

Add to this the new program concocted by Visa whereby it will keep records of credit card purchases in which it will rank the purchased products’ conformity with the green climate change agenda view of carbon emissions, and make those records available to the Treasury Department, and you see a further whittling away of personal privacy.

It gets worse.

Last week, Amazon announced a bizarre new partnership with the New York City Police Department whereby if you live in New York City and install Amazon’s Ring service at the front entrance to your apartment — and thus permit Amazon to record the audio and video of all who come and go at your entrance — the NYPD will have real-time access to the same audio and video.

This is yet another example of law enforcement intruding into private property — the home — without a search warrant, without probable cause of crime and without articulable suspicion.

The Amazon/NYPD partnership — just like the credit card/BATF partnership and the Visa/Treasury partnership — was never authorized by legislation. All these symbiotic relationships, just like the now well-known Big Tech/Department of Homeland Security partnership producing censorship of speech the government hates and fears, were born by bureaucrats using government carrots and sticks and the acquiescence of gutless corporate chieftains willing to please their government masters.

The government’s appetite for surveillance is insatiable. Yet, the dual purposes of the Fourth Amendment — by requiring judicial search warrants based on probable cause of crime and specifically describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized — are to keep the government off the peoples’ backs and to compel law enforcement to focus on crimes that have already been committed.

May the government lawfully engage in fishing expeditions? In a word: NO.

The secondary purposes of the Fourth Amendment are to prohibit general warrants — not based on probable cause of crime and not specifying the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized — and to require that before the government begins to gather any evidence of crime, it has articulable suspicion about the crime that has been committed and the person or place to be investigated.

Moreover, articulable suspicion alone — the threshold for commencing all criminal investigations — does not justify any search, seizure or non-public surveillance.

What we have here is the stealth use by government of private enterprise to do its unconstitutional dirty work, thus far untested in the courts but unconstitutional on its face. What secret favors is the government giving in return?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Comment O’ The Day
Did the DOJ just say in legal documents that straw purchases are allowed by the 2nd amendment?

Observation O’ The Day
This is a pretty astonishing thing for the Biden Admin to argue in Court when its official stance is to end private sales by passing universal background checks.
– Kostas Moros, attorney for California Rifle & Pistol Association

gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.22.0

Rep. Jim Jordan calls out ATF Director Steve Dettelbach over Biden administration gun rules

WASHINGTON, D. C. – U.S. Rep Jim Jordan of Champaign County is targeting newly-confirmed U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Steve Dettelbach over new gun rules that Jordan calls “a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of Congress and infringe on American citizens’ fundamental Second Amendment rights.”

In a Monday letter to Dettelbach, the incoming House Judiciary Committee chair accused ATF of ignoring or failing to sufficiently respond to Jordan’s past requests for documents and information about the bureau’s efforts to regulate firearms through the rulemaking process. An ATF spokesman said Tuesday that his agency “has responded to the prior letters and will respond to the new letter and any future letters.”

Jordan also told Dettelbach his committee “may be forced to resort to compulsory process to obtain the material we require,” warned it “may require prompt testimony from ATF employees” and asked Dettelbach to “preserve all existing and future records and materials in your possession” relating to the gun rules.

The dispute over Jordan’s requests sets up a Washington showdown between Ohioans from opposite sides of the aisle. Before heading ATF, Dettelbach served U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio and was the Democratic party’s 2018 nominee for Ohio Attorney General.
One of the new policies that Jordan dislikes attempts to crack down on so-called “ghost guns” that are difficult for law enforcement to trace because they are made from kits and lack serial numbers. President Joe Biden unveiled the rule at the same White House event where he nominated Dettelbach for the ATF job.

The ghost gun policy clarifies that the kits qualify as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act, and that commercial manufacturers of the kits must become licensed and include serial numbers on the kits’ frame or receiver. Commercial sellers of the kits must become federally licensed and run background checks prior to a sale, as they must do with other commercially-made firearms. The fact that the kits were previously sold without backround checks made them “easily acquired by criminals who otherwise would not be permitted to possess a firearm,” the Justice Department said.

Jordan says the ghost gun rule “goes well beyond the authority granted to the agency in any applicable federal statutes,” and expands the legal definition of a firearm beyond what Congress intended. A prior letter from Jordan to ATF declared the rule “appears to be a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of Congress,” and said it unconstitutionally infringes “on American citizens’ fundamental Second Amendment rights and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.”
Gun control groups applauded the ghost gun regulations.

“Ghost guns look like a gun, they shoot like a gun, and they kill like a gun, but up until now they haven’t been regulated like a gun,” said a statement from John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Jordan also objects to a new ATF policy that classifies “stabilizing braces” intended to allow disabled shooters to better control their weapons as short-barreled rifles subject to extra regulations under the National Firearms Act if they modify pistols to be fired from the shoulder. The National Firearms Act imposes heightened regulations on short-barreled rifles because they are easily concealable, can cause great damage, and are more likely to be used to commit crimes, according to the Justice Department.

“Companies now sell accessories that make it easy for people to convert pistols into these more dangerous weapons without going through the statute’s background check and registration requirements,” the Justice Department said in announcing the new rules. “These requirements are important public safety measures because they regulate the transfer of these dangerous weapons and help ensure they do not end up in the wrong hands.”

ATF estimates around 3 million stabilizing braces have been sold since 2013

Jordan says Congress hasn’t “criminalized the use of a pistol arm-stabilizing brace” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or allowed for its regulation under the National Firearms Act.

“Through its proposed rule, ATF seeks to subject stabilizing braces to GCA criminal penalties and NFA regulation without Congressional prohibition of the underlying activity,” Jordan said in a prior letter to ATF.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action notes that a report by the Congressional Research Service estimated 10 million to 40 million pistol stabilizing braces are in circulation in the United States, and said that “effectively banning firearms with these devices attached would be the largest confiscatory firearm regulation in the history of the United States.”
Everytown for Gun Safety applauded the proposed rule in 2021, saying that a pistol with a stabilizing brace was used in the mass shooting in a Boulder grocery store last year where ten people were shot and killed.

“In effect, what was designed as a niche accessory to assist disabled shooters, has become a loophole for gun companies to sell short-barreled rifles,” the organization said.

CDC Withheld Data on Fatal Reaction to COVID Vaccine From Post-Vax Surveys for Nearly Two Years

Anyone shocked by the report that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) withheld data about a potentially fatal complication from COVID-19 vaccinations until it was forced under court order to release the data hasn’t been paying attention to the CDC’s multitude of misstatements and lies over the last two years.

As reported by Just the News, data released under court order shows 1 in 3 among the earliest populations to get vaccinated reported needing medical care, missed school or work, or was unable to “perform normal daily activities,” while the CDC continued to fight to keep the data from the public.

Here’s more, via Just the News: 

Among the 10 million-plus users of the agency’s v-safe active monitoring smartphone app through July — 8.5 million of whom signed up between December 2020 and April 2021, before all adults were eligible for COVID vaccines — nearly 8% said they required medical care after receiving the vaccines.

For patients ages 3 and older needing such care, nearly 3 in 4 couldn’t rely on telehealth visits. They required urgent care (48%), emergency room (15%), or hospitalization (10%).

For infants who were authorized to receive the jabs this summer and are enrolled in v-safe through parents or guardians, hospitalizations were much lower (2%) but urgent care [was] much higher (66%).

The v-safe active monitoring smartphone app allows users to quickly share post-vax experiences with the CDC. V-safe uses text messaging and web surveys to provide personalized health check-ins after users receive a COVID “vaccine.” (COVID-19 “vaccine” is no more a vaccine than is a flu shot.)

The v-safe app proved to be an early hit, with more than 10 million symptom reports filed each month from January through April 2021, dropping to 5 million in May and hovering around 1 million for the next few months. The reports jumped above 2 million again in October following Biden’s (unconstitutional) vaccine mandates for roughly 100 million workers, and dropped dramatically to the low- to mid-hundred thousands from January through July 2022.

Why? Because an overwhelming majority of Americans are over the COVID scare, perpetuated by Biden and the Democrat Party, and the left-wing media sock puppets. Simply, tens of millions of Americans grew weary of Joe “Winter of severe illness and death” Biden’s COVID fearmongering, and have kicked the virus to the curb.

Here’s more, courtesy of JTN: 

The v-safe data obtained thus far are posted by the Informed Consent Action Network as both interactive graphs and several gigabytes of files. It got them through ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation against the CDC.

Those are just the data the CDC affirmatively sought through checkboxes on v-safe surveys, which are sent to users daily for the first week after each dose, then weekly for 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after the final dose.

As JTN noted, it took a year and a half to get “five excel files which likely took the CDC minutes to download and produce,” as ICAN said in its portion of the Nov. 4 joint status report filed with the court.

And here’s the tragedy: Chest pain and other cardiac symptoms that could indicate myocarditis and pericarditis — now known to be more common post-vaccination in people under 40, according to JTN — are completely missing from the survey checkboxes, without which, input data are harder to standardize.

So what’s the problem?

V-safe users would have to take the time to write in cardiac symptoms on the survey form’s “other” field, limited to 250 characters, for them to be counted. Moreover, ICAN is still trying to compel the CDC to turn over its relative “free-text field data,” its lawyer Aaron Siri told Just the News.

The fact the app didn’t prompt users to consider life-threatening complications it had already identified in an early v-safe protocol is “one of the best and most compelling pieces of evidence supporting premeditated [wrongful] conduct,” Siri wrote in the second of what he told Just the News would be at least a 12-part series of posts on the disclosures.

How did the CDC respond?

The CDC said in a court filing it would be “premature and inefficient” for the court “to address the legality of CDC’s withholdings in piecemeal fashion,” as ICAN wants, maintaining that “the records at issue here are not reasonably “segregable,” an argument ICAN called “frivolous.”

The Bottom Line

Maybe it’s just me, but the CDC’s strong resistance to turning over critical, potentially life-saving data is not dissimilar to the Democrat Party’s continuing meltdown over Elon Musk’s restoration of free speech on Twitter. Think about it.

As I’ve previously written, multiple times, the greatest fear of — and threat to — the left is free speech, and in this example, the release of any data or information that runs counter to the Democrats’ continuing efforts to censor “misinformation” that directly contradicts their narrative — including the left’s politicization of the so-called “pandemic.”

Gun Boom Continues: FBI Ran 192,749 Background Checks on Black Friday
Numbers released Monday show that the FBI ran 192,749 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background checks on Black Friday 2022.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) noted that the 192,749 NICS checks on Black Friday 2022 “[rank] it third in the Top 10 Highest Days for NICS checks and…[represent] a 2.8 percent increase from Black Friday 2021.” The FBI conducted 187,585 NICS checks on Black Friday 2021 and 186,645 checks on Black Friday 2020, Breitbart News reported.

The NSSF observed that there were 711,372 NICS checks “during the week leading up to and including Black Friday.”
The strong Black Friday NICS check numbers come after surges in gun sales during recent years.
For example, on October 6, 2022, Breitbart News reported retailers had sold over one million guns a month for 38 consecutive months.

Mark Oliva, NSSF managing director for public affairs, spoke to Breitbart News about the gun sales, noting the “38 continuous months of when background checks for firearm sales have exceeded 1 million” and added, “That’s a remarkable sustained trend and demonstrates that the firearm industry is meeting this continued increased demand for firearm ownership.”

Why gun owners should take Biden’s gun ban comments seriously

On Thanksgiving, Joe Biden once again called on Congress to enact a gun ban, proclaiming that “the idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick.” Biden further declared that semi-automatic firearms have “no socially redeeming value, and the claimed that the only reason why they’re sold is the “profit for the gun manufacturers.”

As my colleague Tom Knighton pointed out in his coverage of Biden’s remarks, the president seemingly conflated “semi-automatic firearm” with “assault weapon”; an invented term that generally refers to semi-automatic rifles but not all semi-automatic firearms. I’m not convinced, however, that this was an actual mistake on the part of Biden, despite his long history of mangling his public comments to the point they’re incomprehensible. No, in this case I suspect that Biden intentionally spoke about wanting to ban semi-automatic firearms because that is, in fact, what he wants to do.

Now, there’s no way that Congress is going to pass Biden’s gun ban, even in the lame duck session. There aren’t 60 votes to ban so-called assault weapons, much less the much broader universe of the hundreds of millions of semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns in the hands of peaceable gun owners. But what if Joe Biden isn’t planning on signing a gun ban bill, but instead abusing his executive authority to impose a sweeping gun ban through regulation instead?

It sounds crazy, but for months now the gun control lobby has been advocating for the administration to take that step, maintaining in court filings and advocacy pieces that semi-automatic firearms are “readily converted” to fully-automatic fire and should therefore be treated like machine guns under the provisions of the National Firearms Act.

Continue reading “”

Texas gun shop owner sues ATF, accuses agency of abusing federal law

Central Texas Gunworks owner Michael Cargill has filed a federal lawsuit agains the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives alleging that the government agency is abusing its powers under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to shut down federally licensed firearm retailers for minor clerical and paperwork errors; a practice that Cargill’s attorneys say ignores the actual law.

According to the text of the GCA, the ATF has to find evidence of “willful” misconduct on the part of these FFLs; something that Cargill and his attorneys say is missing from many of the recent revocation notices the ATF has been handing out.

According to the lawsuit, the new policy under President Biden’s team at ATF has turned longtime record-keeping requirements that are supposed to prevent criminals and other dangerous people from buying guns into a weapon against the firearm industry.

“The act allows the federal government to revoke gun dealers’ license to sell firearms — commonly called federal firearms licenses or FFLs — when dealers willfully violate federal or state gun laws,” Mr. Curtis said.

In a statement to The Washington Times, the ATF said it would not comment on specific litigation but defended the agency’s use of the Gun Control Act.

An ATF spokesman maintained that the agency can only revoke a license for “willful violations” of the Gun Control Act.

“The GCA does not define ‘willful,’” the spokesman said, citing a statement from its website. “Federal courts have held that a willful violation of the GCA’s regulations occurs when the FFL commits the violation with an intentional disregard of a known legal duty or with plain indifference to their legal obligations.”

For decades, Cargill says, license revocations were an “exceedingly rare” step reserved only for the “worst actors,” noting, for instance, that in 2013 the ATF recommended license revocations for just 81 of the more than 10,000 shops that were inspected. Starting in the summer of 2021, however, things changed, and Cargill points to Joe Biden’s White House announcement that the GCA would be enforced against “rogue” gun dealers, even those who never willfully intended to make minor paperwork mistakes.

Continue reading “”

Fauci Deposition report: “he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his Covid response!”
Louisiana AG Jeff Landry: “Wow! It was amazing to spend 7 hours with Dr. Fauci. The man who single-handedly wrecked the U.S. economy based upon ‘the science.’ Only to discover that he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his Covid response!”

The deposition of Anthony Fauci took place today in the lawsuit commenced by Louisiana and Missouri, alleging that numerous Biden administration officials colluded with and directed big tech and social media giants to censor dissenting scientific and medical voices with regard to Covid.

We covered the case and the court order for Fauci (and others) to testify under oath in these posts:

We don’t know much about what happened. The deposition, while it was recorded, was not streamed. And there apparently is a protective order prohibiting the parties or those in attendance from separately recording.

In advance of the deposition, Missouri Attorney General (and Senator-elect) Eric Schmitt promised they would attempt to get answers from Fauci:

“Tomorrow, along with my colleague from Louisiana, my Office and I will depose Dr. Anthony Fauci in our lawsuit against the Biden Administration for allegedly colluding with social media companies to censor freedom of speech,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “Since we filed our landmark lawsuit, we have uncovered documents and discovery that show clear coordination between the Biden Administration and social media companies on censoring speech, but we’re not done yet. We plan to get answers on behalf of the American people. Stay tuned.”

Well, it’s not clear how many answers were given. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who attended the deposition, tweeted that Fauci had a lack of memory

Wow! It was amazing to spend 7 hours with Dr. Fauci. The man who single-handedly wrecked the U.S. economy based upon “the science.” Only to discover that he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his Covid response!

 

Jenin Younes, an attorney from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, representing the physicians and scientist who were attacked after signing The Great Barrington Declaration, was present, and observed:

One of my favorite quotes from Fauci’s deposition today: “I have a very busy day job running a six billion dollar institute. I don’t have time to worry about things like the Great Barrington Declaration.”

The other one, which I didn’t write down carefully enough to claim is verbatim, is: I was too busy developing a vaccine that saved millions of lives to care about what happens on social media.

 

At some point we’ll find out more about the deposition, and what Fauci forgot.

Fauci is leaving his post in December, before Republicans take control of the House. He will be the subject of House committee investigations and will be subpoenaed to testify.

UPDATES

 

With bureaucraps as the apparatchiks

Far From a Democracy, the U.S. Is a Functional Oligarchy.

Americans are led to feel free through the exercise of meaningless choices. There are only two political parties. There is a reduction of the number of media companies. Banking has been reduced to only a handful of banks. Oil companies. These are important, and you’re given very little choice. … You know what your freedom of choice in America is? Paper or plastic. — George Carlin

“Democracy™ is on the ballot,” went the incessant, mindless talking point, over and over, pushed by glassy-eyed Democrat Party surrogates this election cycle. And they’re going to recycle that talking point for as long as possible, because that’s all they’ve got.

The benefit of promoting Democracy™ as the central selling point to elect Democrats is that the term is amorphous. The vast majority of targeted voters who hear about the importance of Democracy™ won’t ever really think critically about what it entails or, more importantly, whether it actually exists.

Sad to say, it doesn’t. Democracy™ in America in 2022 is a childish fantasy. A pipe dream. A mirage.

That the United States is a thriving democracy, through persistent propaganda in public schools and corporate media, has become an unquestionable article of faith. But back in 2014, before Orange Hitler rained on the Democracy™ parade, when the neoliberal star-child Obama reigned supreme at the pinnacle of Democracy™, two political science researchers quietly destroyed the narrative.

Instead of mindlessly adhering to the Democracy™ mythology, the researchers quantitatively analyzed how the gears of government actually turn. They isolated thousands of policy decisions and stacked them up against public opinion divided by economic status and interest groups.

Here’s what they found, as published in “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” (emphasis added):

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. 

The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism… When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.

Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it… average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence [over US policy].

What that means, in a nutshell, is that, unless you are a privileged member of the D.C.-centric governing class, your preferences about what should happen in your own country matter not at all, full stop. Elite interests are not your interests.

When exactly America lost its true democracy or whether it ever truly manifested in the first place is obviously up for debate. What is not debatable is that Americans’ birthright of self-governance as enumerated in the founding documents of this Great Experiment has been stolen — specifically, and ironically, by the same band of ravenous vultures who preach nonstop about the Democracy™ they stifle.

Trump was 100% over the target when he promised to #draintheswamp. Unfortunately, the swamp is murkier than it’s ever been, with no real hope of remedy in the immediate future.

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster … for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.  — Friedrich Nietzsche

Township argues proposed gun range not covered by Second Amendment

HOWELL TWP. — Township officials and their attorneys are again trying to get a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit over a proposed shooting range.

Oakland Tactical Supply owner Mike Paige and five firearms owners recently made headway in federal appeals court in their 2018 suit against the township, which sent the case back to a lower court, but now the plaintiffs will have to convince the same district court judge who ruled against them in 2020 to change his mind.

In their suit, Oakland Tactical and gun owners  Scott Fresh, Jason Raines, Matthew Remenar, Edward Dimitroff and Ronald Penrod claim the township violated the Second Amendment by denying Paige’s request to amend the township’s zoning ordinance to allow shooting ranges on land zoned for agricultural residential development.

U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman ruled in 2020 the township did not violate the gun owners’ constitutional rights.

This August, U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals judges sent the Howell Township case back to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which struck down a New York law requiring state residents to have a special need to carry weapons outside the home.

The Supreme Court ruling also changed the “test” lower courts should use when determining the constitutionality of firearm regulations.

Continue reading “”

“You Won’t Answer the Question” — Senator Rand Paul Confronts FBI on Scooping Up Online User Data

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) confronted FBI Director Christopher Wray about the collusion with social media companies and whether the FBI scoops up private information to identify users.

“Is  or any other social media company supplying private messages or data on American users that is not compelled by the government or the FBI?” Paul asked Wray. “No warrant, no subpoena, they’re just supplying you information on their users?”

“I don’t believe so, but I can’t sit here and be sure of that as I sit here,” Wray replied.

“Can you give us a yes or no by going back to your team and asking? Because it’s a very specific question. Because if they are, it’s against the law,” Paul said, invoking the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. “This was done to protect the privacy of people so we could feel like we can send an email or direct message to people without having that information given over. It’s a very specific question: Will you get with your team of lawyers and give us a specific answer? Because this is the law. If you’re doing it, then we need to go to court to prevent you from receiving this information.”

“Well, I can tell you that I’m quite confident that we’re following the law —, ” Wray started.

“Well, that’s not the answer, ” Paul responded.

“ — but what I will also follow up with you to make sure we get you more information; more detailed information,” Wray added.

“Is the FBI obtaining anonymous social media data and then using technical methods to pierce the anonymous nature of the data?” Paul questioned.

Wray paused before asking, “Anonymous social media data?”

“So you purchase data,” Paul said. “People purchase data all the time and we sort of tolerate it for advertising and things because it’s anonymous data. Are you purchasing what is said to be anonymous data through the marketplace and then piercing the anonymous nature to attach individual names to that data? Are you purchasing data and then piercing the anonymous nature of that data?”

“So the manner in which we use — we usually use the term commercial data — is probably longer than I can explain here. But again, let me —, ” Wray said appearing to dodge the question.

“So you will not answer the question of whether or not you’re attaching names to anonymous data,” Paul stated.

“I think it’s a more complicated answer than I can give here,” Wray responded.

“So, so far we’re 0 for 2 at getting you to answer this, but you’re pledging you will actually answer the question because you have to realize the frustration; we’ll write you a letter and your team of lawyers will write back with a 15-page letter that says nothing and you won’t answer the question. These are very specific. This is whether you’re obeying the law, whether we can have confidence. I want to have confidence,” Paul said.

“We are obeying the law,” Wray responded.

“Well, you’re saying that, but you won’t tell us the answer,” Paul stated. “You aren’t telling me the answer. And the answer is: Are you collecting data not compelled by a warrant? That would not be in compliance with the law. But you won’t answer that you’re not collecting that data.”

Eventually, Paul asked, “Are you getting tips and leads from social media companies?”

“We get tips and leads from companies, absolutely,” Wray acknowledged.

“You may think this is jolly well to get all this stuff without a warrant that people volunteer to you, but many of us are alarmed that you’re getting this information that are private communications between people because it is against the law – it’s against the law for Facebook or social media companies to give it to you, but it’s also against the law for you to receive it,” Paul ended.

GOP Rep. Greene Says Kevin McCarthy, House GOP Will Defund Special Counsel Investigating Trump

Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green on Friday said that current House Minority Leader and likely next House Speaker Kevin McCarthy would deny funding to the Department of Justice special counsel investigating former President Donald Trump.

In a Tweet detailing the plan, Greene insisted McCarthy would invoke the Holman rule, a procedural measure by which the House may adjust appropriations legislation to reduce the salary of or fire specific government employees. They may also use it to cut specific programs.

“Holman Rule. Look it up! [McCarthy] is going to put it in place,” Greene wrote. “That means no money for Garland’s politically weaponized Special Counsel. Don’t promise too many jobs! Whoops defunded.”

It was not immediately clear whether Greene was predicting such action or announcing that McCarthy had made the decision. Just the News has sought comment from Greene’s office. McCarthy’s office could not immediately be reached.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday that he was appointing Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the DOJ investigations relating the former president.

“The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution,” Garland said. “Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.”

McCarthy has thus far not announced any plans akin to what Greene has indicated. The California Republican this week won his party’s nomination for speaker while the party. Republicans won control of the House during the 2022 midterm elections, meaning McCarthy will likely be the one driving the lower chamber’s operations in the next congressional session.


Household debt soars at fastest pace in 15 years as credit card use surges, Fed report says.

Households increased debt during the third quarter at the fastest pace in 15 years due to hefty increases in credit card usage and mortgage balances, the Federal Reserve reported Tuesday.

Total debt jumped by $351 billion for the July-to-September period, the largest nominal quarterly increase since 2007, bringing the collective household IOU in the U.S. to a fresh record $16.5 trillion. That’s an increase of 2.2% from the previous quarter and 8.3% from a year ago.

The increase follows a $310 billion jump in the second quarter and represents a $1.27 trillion annual increase.

Debt has surged over the past year due to inflation running near its highest pace in more than 40 years and amid rising interest rates and strong consumer demand.

The biggest contributors to that debt load came from mortgage balances, which rose $1 trillion from a year ago to $11.7 trillion, and credit card debt, which climbed to $930 billion.

The credit card balance collectively rose more than 15% from the same period in 2021, the largest annual jump in more than 20 years, according to the New York Fed, which released the report. The increase “towers over the last eighteen years of data,” a group of Fed researchers said in a blog post on the central bank site.

Continue reading “”

Dangerous Use of Serial Numbers Found Unconstitutional

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– The most dangerous use of a serial number on a firearm is as a registration number. In effect, gun registration is gun confiscation. It was not the intent for which serial numbers were made. They were created to track firearms with production changes and as a way for government arsenals to track the production and military use of weapons.

A federal court recently held a law passed in 1990, which makes possessing a firearm with a removed serial (registration) number illegal, is unconstitutional.

This is an important decision. It has relatively minor effects at this time. The law was a step toward universal firearms registration.

Finding the law unconstitutional subverts the push for government control over firearms.

Suppose a person cannot be punished for merely possessing a firearm from which a serial number has been removed. In that case, the entire scheme for government control over legally owned firearms falls apart.

There cannot be effective gun registration if a person cannot be punished for possessing a gun with the serial number removed.

The legal ability to possess firearms without serial numbers buttresses the deterrent effect of an armed population.

If government agents demand a person turn in a firearm that is registered to them, they can remain silent.

If the firearm appears at some later date, and the serial number has been removed, it becomes difficult to connect the firearm to the person it was registered to.

It becomes difficult to punish a person for an act someone else commits with a firearm originally purchased by them.

A unique serial number is a key to efforts to register and control firearms by the administrative state. Nelson T. “Pete” Shields of Handgun Control, inc. laid out the plan in 1976:

 “We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest.  We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again.  Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time.  The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”

When people may not be punished for possessing a firearm whose serial number has been removed, the plan falls apart.

Continue reading “”