Category: Bureaucraps

BOMBSHELL WSJ INVESTIGATION REVEALS RUNAWAY CORRUPTION IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Some Americans still believe the federal government is working in the public’s best interest. If anything can disabuse these naive holdouts of this notion, it will be the bombshell Wall Street Journal investigation that just dropped—revealing runaway corruption among the federal bureaucracy.

The Journal reviewed more than 31,000 financial disclosure forms and analyzed more than 850,000 financial assets and 315,000 trades to shed light on any conflicts of interest among more than 12,000 senior career bureaucrats and political appointees.  Its investigation found that “thousands of officials across the U.S. government’s executive branch disclosed owning or trading stocks that stood to rise or fall with decisions their agencies made.”

“Across 50 federal agencies ranging from the Commerce Department to the Treasury Department, more than 2,600 officials reported stock investments in companies while those companies were lobbying their agencies for favorable policies, during both Republican and Democratic administrations,” the Journal reports. “When the financial holdings caused a conflict, the agencies sometimes simply waived the rules.”

The federal employees weren’t even subtle about it. Per the Journal, “More than five dozen officials at five agencies reported trading stocks of companies shortly before their departments announced enforcement actions against those companies, such as charges or settlements.”

That’s sus.

To get an understanding of how shady this behavior is, consider examples from a few specific agencies. At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, the Journal found that “more than 200 senior officials… or nearly one in three, reported that they or their family members held investments in companies that were lobbying the agency.”

Similar corruption plagues the Department of Defense, where, per the investigation, “officials in the office of the secretary or their family members collectively owned between $1.2 million and $3.4 million of stock in aerospace and defense companies, on average, during years the Journal examined. Some owned stock in Chinese companies while the U.S. considered blacklisting the companies.”

But at least they’re transparent about it all, right?

Ha! The Journal notes that the federal government “doesn’t maintain a comprehensive public database of the mandatory financial disclosures of all senior executive-branch officials” so they literally had to “buil[d] their own.”

I’m sure there are lots of good-hearted people who work in the federal government and genuinely do try to serve the public. (Unfortunately, very similar conflicts of interest hang over Congress, as well). But the rampant financial conflicts of interest plaguing so many top officials create a cloud of suspicion over the entire federal bureaucracy.

Federal employees are already paid quite well, more than the average private sector employee, in fact. Surely they do not need to also trade stocks in their agency’s industries. To have such suspicious activity occurring among those given vast power yet not accountable to voters is simply unacceptable.

We should prohibit this kind of stock trading among federal bureaucrats, and, even better, drastically scale back the power these bureaucracies have to begin with.

Surveillance State USA… Biden quietly unleashes spymasters in dramatic Executive Order…

Orwell would be proud. Deliberately buried in the Friday evening news cycle, Biden released an Executive Order with dramatic implications for how signals intelligence is collected on individuals throughout the world.

Specifically, Biden’s directive repeals restrictions on the use of signals intelligence collection (read: spying on you) implemented since the Obama Administration

The Executive Order of October 7, 2022 (Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities), establishes enhanced safeguards for United States signals intelligence activities that supersede the safeguards for personal information collected through signals intelligence established by Presidential Policy Directive 28 of January 17, 2014 (Signals Intelligence Activities) (PPD-28). [White House]

So what was so problematic about the Presidential Policy Directive 28 that Biden Admin had to repeal? We encourage you to read the entire directive, but the following passage strikes us as interesting in light of the fact that Biden just repealed it:

The collection of signals intelligence shall be authorized by statute or Executive Order, proclamation, or other Presidential directive, and undertaken in accordance with the Constitution and applicable statutes, Executive Orders, proclamations, and Presidential directives.

(b) Privacy and civil liberties shall be integral considerations in the planning of U.S. signals intelligence activities. The United States shall not collect signals intelligence for the purpose of suppressing or burdening criticism or dissent, or for disadvantaging persons based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Signals intelligence shall be collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to support national and departmental missions and not for any other purposes.

(c) The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the national security of the United States or its partners and allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage[4] to U.S. companies and U.S. business sectors commercially.

(d) Signals intelligence activities shall be as tailored as feasible. In determining whether to collect signals intelligence, the United States shall consider the availability of other information, including from diplomatic and public sources. Such appropriate and feasible alternatives to signals intelligence should be prioritized.[Obama White House Archives]

What could the Biden Administration be gearing up for? Why would they want to relax restrictions on intelligence collecting? Are they planning escalation in Ukraine, escalation in their Domestic War on American Patriots, or both?

We will cover this story as it develops.

Orchid News Update: NICS Enhanced Background Checks

Orchid FFL News

As a result of the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) of 2022, signed into law on June 25, 2022, the NICS Section is working towards the implementation of an enhanced background check process for persons between the ages of 18-20. The enhancement provides the opportunity for additional outreach and research to be conducted regarding the existence of any juvenile adjudication information and/or mental health prohibition. As a result, transactions on persons between the ages of 18-20 will initially be delayed.

In order to conduct the aforementioned outreach and research, the address of the individual will be collected so that the appropriate local and state entities may be contacted. All descriptive information, including address, will follow normal purge requirements (i.e., deleted from NICS within 24 hours of the FFL receiving a proceed status). If potentially prohibiting juvenile information is uncovered, the BSCA allows for the delay period to extend up to ten business days. However, if no potentially prohibiting information is located, the transaction will be proceeded as soon as possible.

The NICS Section is working in collaboration with numerous other entities in the implementation of all aspects of the BSCA, including firearm handler checks for FFL employees, and will keep industry members informed as additional guidance becomes available.

For questions, please contact (844) 265-6716 or nicsliaison@fbi.gov.

Is this what’s called a ‘rhetorical question’?

If Feds have the evidence, why haven’t they charged Hunter Biden with gun crime?

According to a bombshell report in the Washington Post, federal agents have gathered enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden with lying on the paperwork he filled out to purchase a firearm, but prosecutors have been holding off for months on whether or not to actually prosecute the president’s son.

The WaPo report goes to great lengths to point out that Attorney General Merrick Garland has left any charging decision up to the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, but it’s hard to argue that politics isn’t playing a role in whether or not to prosecute Biden for not being honest about his drug use when filling out the paperwork required for a background check on all retail sales of firearms.

The primary focus of the tax investigation has been whether Hunter Biden did not declare income related to his various business ventures, including overseas. The gun paperwork part of the investigation stems from 2018, a time period in which Hunter Biden, by his own account, was smoking crack cocaine.

In October of that year, Biden purchased a handgun, filling out a federal form in which he allegedly answered “no” to the question whether he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

According to a book Hunter Biden later wrote about his struggles with substance abuse, he was using drugs heavily that year.

Prosecutions for false statements on gun-purchase forms are relatively rare, but they do happen. Federal agents refer to such cases as “lying and buying.” Historically, prosecutors have significant discretion to decide which ones are worth federal resources.

“A prosecutor can say they have bigger fish to catch, or they can decide to seek a deal,” said Joseph G. Green, a retired agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “As agents, we would always include as many charges as we could, but it’s ultimately up to the prosecutor to decide which ones they will bring.”

Yeah, these types of prosecutions do happen, and sometimes even celebrities wind up in court. Back in 2019, for instance, rapper Kodak Black was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison after pleading guilty to making false statements on the Form 4473 he used to purchase several firearms. Black’s sentence was ultimately commuted by then-President Donald Trump in 2021 on his last full day in office.

Who knows, maybe Trump will get the chance to do the same for Hunter Biden if he’s prosecuted and convicted. For now, however, attorneys for Biden are trying to deflect their client’s alleged wrongdoing by accusing the agents leading the investigation of illegally spilling the beans to the press in an attempt to pressure prosecutors.

In a written statement to the Washington Post on Thursday, Hunter Biden attorney Chris Clark accused investigators of leaking information from ongoing grand jury proceedings.

“It is a federal felony for a federal agent to leak information about a Grand Jury investigation such as this one,” Clark said. “Any agent you cite as a source in your article apparently has committed such a felony. We expect the Department of Justice will diligently investigate and prosecute such bad actors. As is proper and legally required, we believe the prosecutors in this case are diligently and thoroughly weighing not just evidence provided by agents, but also all the other witnesses in this case, including witnesses for the defense. That is the job of the prosecutors. They should not be pressured, rushed, or criticized for doing their job.”

When it comes to the potential charge of making false statements, I’m not sure what any witnesses for the defense could say that would absolve Hunter Biden or get him off the hook. We know he filled out the paperwork attesting that he was not an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance at a time when he himself has admitted in print to smoking crack. That’s pretty damning information, and there have been previous cases where gun owners have been charged by federal prosecutors with similar evidence.

The U.S. Attorney in Delaware may still be digging into Hunter Biden’s financial doings, but it seems to me that the case against Biden and his gun purchase is wrapped up and ready to go. Are political considerations holding back prosecutors? It’s a reasonable question to ask, but don’t expect anything but boilerplate non-answers from the DOJ or the Biden administration itself.

Gun Group Questions LAPD’s Fee for Concealed Carry Weapon Permit

A gun-rights group is taking issue with the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) new concealed carry weapon permitting policy, which adds a $268 fee with 20 percent or $53 due at the time of the in-person interview.

“The fee is quite high at $268,” said attorney Konstadinos T. Moros who represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA). “This compares to the $150 total the LA Sheriff’s Department charges. It’s not clear why LAPD feels it can charge so much more.”

Neither the LAPD’s fee of $268 nor the Los Angeles Sheriffs’ fee of $150 includes the cost of the livescan or training class, which adds nearly $300 to the cost of becoming licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

“We are looking at more than a $500 effective price tag to exercise a constitutional right if you are getting a permit from LAPD,” Moros told The Epoch Times.

The LAPD, which did not immediately respond to requests for comment, previously told The Epoch Times that it temporarily suspended the application process for concealed carry permits while it evaluates the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“We are still waiting to see whether LAPD actually gets moving soon,” Moros said. “Releasing a policy is one thing, but actually processing applications in a reasonable time frame is another.”

In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated good or proper cause requirements in concealed carry weapon permitting with Justice Clarence Thomas explaining that permit regimes that do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense are acceptable.

On Sept. 16, the CRPA issued a pre-litigation letter to the LAPD demanding that it comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling by accepting applications for permitting within 45 days.

“If we do pursue a lawsuit against LAPD, the excessive expense would certainly be one of the claims, particularly for any working-class plaintiffs for whom $268 is not a trivial amount of money,” Moros added.

The letter to the LAPD threatening legal action was addressed to Chief Michel R. Moore and accuses the department of having unclear processes on how to apply for permits, endless wait times, subjective requirements, application procedures that violate applicants’ privacy, and the refusal to even accept applications for processing.

 

Latest e-mail from the bureaucraps at ATF to a LGS

Short Version: 18-20 yr olds – automatic 10 day delay and info transmitted to fed, state and local law enforcement for possible investigation.

As a result of the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) of 2022, signed into law on June 25, 2022, the NICS Section is working towards the implementation of an enhanced background check process for persons between the ages of 18-20.

The enhancement provides the opportunity for additional outreach and research to be conducted regarding the existence of any juvenile adjudication information and/or mental health prohibition. As a result, transactions on persons between the ages of 18-20 will initially be delayed. In order to conduct the aforementioned outreach and research, the address of the individual will be collected so that the appropriate local and state entities may be contacted.

All descriptive information, including address, will follow normal purge requirements (i.e., deleted from NICS within 24 hours of the FFL receiving a proceed status.) If potentially prohibiting juvenile information is uncovered, the BSCA allows for the delay period to extend up to ten business days. However, if no potentially prohibiting information is located, the transaction will be proceeded as soon as possible.

The NICS Section is working in collaboration with numerous other entities in the implementation of all aspects of the BSCA and will keep you informed as additional guidance becomes available.

Thank you!

Hundreds of Thousands of Americans Sought Medical Care After COVID-19 Vaccination: CDC Data

Hundreds of thousands of Americans sought medical care after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data released on Oct. 3.

Roughly 782,900 people reported seeking medical attention, emergency room care, and/or hospitalization following COVID-19 vaccination. Another 2.5 million people reported needing to miss school, work, or other normal activities as a result of a health event after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

The reports were made to the CDC’s V-safe program, a new vaccine safety monitoring system to which users can report issues through smartphones.

The CDC released the data to the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) after being sued over not producing the data when it was requested by the nonprofit. ICAN posted a dashboard summarizing the data.

“It took numerous legal demands, appeals, and two lawsuits, and over a year, but the CDC finally capitulated and agreed to a court order requiring them to do what they should have done from day one, release the V-safe data to the public,” Aaron Siri, a lawyer representing ICAN in the case, told The Epoch Times in an email.

About 10 million people utilized V-safe during the period of time the data covers: Dec. 14, 2020, to July 31, 2022. About 231 million Americans received at least one vaccine dose during that time.

The V-safe users reported about 71 million symptoms.

The most commonly reported symptoms were chills (3.5 million), swelling (3.6 million), joint pain (4 million), muscle or body aches (7.8 million), headache (9.7 million), fatigue (12.7 million), and general pain (19.5 million).

About 4.2 million of the symptoms were of severe severity.

Users of V-safe filled in data for about 13,000 children younger than 2 years old, reporting more than 33,000 symptoms, including pain, loss of appetite, and irritability.

The data produced so far by the CDC don’t include free-text responses, according to ICAN. The data covered fields where users checked boxes.

ICAN, founded by film producer Del Bigtree, stated that the newly released data “reveals shocking information that should have caused the CDC to immediately shut down its COVID-19 vaccine program,” citing the percentage of people who reported needing to get care or missing school, work, or other normal activities, as well as the reported adverse events.

CDC officials didn’t respond by press time to a request for comment.

CDC researchers had presented summaries of the V-safe data during meetings with the agency’s vaccine advisory panel but hadn’t released the data for outside researchers to analyze. CDC researchers have said that V-safe raised no new safety concerns.

ICAN is going to keep pressing to obtain more of the V-safe data.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee overseeing the litigation, ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding what other data the group will seek following the CDC production of the data.

Pitman said the parties will then file a joint status report “that proposes any additional deadlines that the parties determine are necessary for the resolution of this matter.”

Firearms dealers now required to provide buyers’ addresses to feds for denied transactions
Newly implemented measures also mandate that the FBI pass on the personal information to local law enforcement.

As part of a sweeping change that has gun rights groups alarmed, federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are now required to provide the FBI with the personal addresses of individuals whose attempted purchases were denied.

In turn, the FBI must now provide details of the failed transactions — not only those denied but also those just delayed — and the personal information of the rejected individuals to local law enforcement, raising fears of greater government infringement on the Second Amendment.

The changes were quietly implemented last week by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to comply with new federal law. NICS was established to determine if an individual is prohibited by law from receiving firearms and can either approve, deny, or delay a firearms purchase.

In March, Congress passed and President Biden signed a massive appropriations package for fiscal year 2022 that included the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act (VAWA). Tucked into the VAWA was a bipartisan measure called the NICS Denial Notification Act, which mandates that the FBI’s NICS Section alert state and local law enforcement of all denied attempts to purchase a firearm within 24 hours.

The stated purpose of the bill is to stop criminals and prevent gun crimes before they happen.

The FBI elaborated on how the law will be implemented in an email obtained by Gun Owners of America.

The NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022 requires the FBI’s NICS Section to notify state, local, or tribal law enforcement of all FBI NICS denied transactions within 24 hours,” the email reads. “The FBI must provide notification to law enforcement based upon the location of the FFL and if different, the purchaser’s address.

The email also explained that FFLs must provide the addresses of purchasers to the feds.

“To support the determination of what local agency should receive the notification, FFLs will be required to provide the buyer’s complete address to NICS as recorded on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Form 4473 when transactions are denied or delayed,” the message continued. “The address information will be required before the status can be provided or retrieved either by the NICS contracted call center or via the NICS E-Check.”

Previously, firearms dealers were only required to provide the state of residence of a customer rather than their full address in the event of a delay or denial.

Gun rights groups have expressed outrage at the changes, arguing they lay the groundwork for a registry of potential gun owners maintained by the federal government.

“The NICS process was never intended to hinder the ability of law-abiding firearms consumers by requiring the forced collection of unnecessary personal consumer data in bulk,” Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, said in a press release. “Neither the ATF nor the FBI can act beyond authority of Congress and violate the Constitution by furthering the ultimate goal of creating an illegal firearms owner database.”

Gun rights advocates have also noted the new law doesn’t actually require the reporting of addresses for delays.

“What the law actually says and how FFLs are being told they must implement it are totally different,” said attorney Emily Taylor on the Armed Attorneys podcast. “The implementation is far broader than the law itself — and of course very, very bad news for gunowners, because who wants their address shot out to local law enforcement because you’re trying to buy a gun.”

Cargill called for the feds to remove from their interpretation of the law their language regarding delays, arguing it “exceeds the scope of the plain language of the NICS Denial Notification Act” and “the constitutional rights of a customer’s privacy are being violated by extending this reporting requirement to delayed customers.”

Delays by NICS require the retailer to pause the transaction for three business days, allowing NICS more time to research the individual in question. The FBI is supposed to follow up with law enforcement if someone is erroneously delayed or denied.

One concern among gun rights advocates is the Biden administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for gun dealers that willfully violate the law. Officials have warned FFLs will have their licenses revoked if they try to skirt the law.

According to critics, however, FFLs are increasingly at risk of losing their licenses as regulations get more complex and dealers become more likely to inadvertently violate the law.

“If you create more and more complex rules that the FFLs have to follow, they will mess up, which means they’re licenses will get yanked,” said Taylor.

Just the News reached out to both the FBI and the ATF for comment for this story. The ATF referred Just the News to the FBI, which didn’t respond.

11 anti-abortion protesters face charges in blocking Mount Juliet clinic

Eleven people face federal charges for their role in blocking the entrance of a Mount Juliet reproductive health clinic during an anti-abortion protest in 2021, including a Lebanon man who now faces a separate federal lawsuit for a July 2022 protest at the same clinic.

A federal grand jury indicted the 11 on violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits even temporary interference with reproductive health care services.

The group livestreamed their protest, which they called a “rescue,” outside the doors of the Mount Juliet carafem clinic on March 5, 2021, with several members physically blocking a patient and employee from accessing the clinic, according to court documents.

Continue reading “”

The only real power congress has is ‘The power of the purse™‘ which is to cut whatever amount they can from an agency’s budget.

Can a Republican Majority Rein in the Lawless DOJ?

Happy Thursday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. Ronald rarely has the energy to socialize after making sure that his neighbor hasn’t installed any lipstick cams in his shower.

I wrote last week about the growing “fascist creep factor” in Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice. The FBI has become a thug political hit squad under Joe Biden and Garland, with agents routinely being dispatched to harass and/or arrest American citizens who dare disagree with the Democrats’ radical progressive lunacy.

As Robert writes, while the DOJ continues its obsession with a right-wing terror threat that doesn’t exist, real criminals who commit Democrat-friendly crimes like firebombing pro-life pregnancy centers go unpunished.

Some Republicans in Congress have made some noise about dealing with Garland and the DOJ should they regain the majority in the House. The threats have been rather vague until now. Lincoln wrote an interesting column yesterday about some detailed ideas that are being considered:

The Washington Times reports that House Republicans have had it up to their eyebrows with misconduct by federal law enforcement and, armed with the information that has been provided to them by whistleblowers, are vowing a crackdown. GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee plan to create new laws and launch investigations into the FBI and DOJ. One of the moves that members have been spitballing includes, but is not limited to, requiring federal law enforcement officials to wear cameras when they stage a raid.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) has suggested moving the DOJ supervision of the FBI out of D.C. and giving it to U.S. Attorneys’ offices around the country. Other ideas include creating special committees to probe the FBI and DOJ and strengthening congressional referrals to the Department of Justice for criminal investigations. That last idea is backed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who told the Washington Times that he is drafting the necessary legislation. He recalled how Congress referred Lois Lerner and Eric Holder criminally during the Obama administration, but the moves were unsuccessful. Issa believes the new legislation will prevent this problem in the future.

Of course, it would be better if the FBI started raiding the homes and offices of actual criminals, but some added transparency would be a good start.

The lack of accountability right now is what is most problematic. When those charged with keeping the law aren’t subject to that law, abuse of power is inevitable.

As Lincoln wrote, these ideas are a good start. The real problem with the DOJ and the FBI is the rot at the top. As I’ve written many times, as much as I enjoyed Donald Trump’s presidency, I thought his failure to clean house at the FBI was a permanent stain on his record. I’m still surprised that he didn’t fire Christopher Wray on his way out of the door on Jan. 20, 2021.

More from Lincoln:

There may be some DOJ and FBI employees who are true believers in the progressive agenda. But the rank-and-file didn’t come up with these things on its own. The fact that there are whistleblowers at all would indicate that. No, the problem is deeper and higher than that. To address the problem effectively, the source of the infection itself needs to be removed, along with treating the symptoms.

Bingo.

The big question is whether the Republicans will have the fortitude to follow through with these plans. The party has an annoying history of talking a big game when it’s in the minority, then just behaving like grandstanding bureaucrats once it’s back in the majority. While my skepticism does remain high, I do think that the DOJ under Garland has strengthened the resolve of the Republicans.

A lot will depend on who the new speaker is. If it’s Kevin McCarthy, we could very well be in for more empty grandstanding.

Here’s hoping they elect someone who’s in the mood to go scorched Earth.

The ‘Bump Stock’ Decision That Should Have Been But Wasn’t

Imagine this. An automobile manufacturer adds a turbocharger to the engine of a passenger car as a way to increase the vehicle’s acceleration. Nanny State bureaucrats at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration decide that the turbocharger makes a vehicle to which it is attached go too fast, which renders it “unsafe.” The agency decides that the simplest way to address its concern is to include within the definition of an “automobile” a “turbocharger,” which the agency then can outlaw as an “unsafe motor vehicle.”

“Nonsense,” you say – a car “part” is not a “car,” right? Correct, yet that is precisely what the United States Department of Justice did in 2018 when it deemed by regulatory re-write, that an accessory that could be attached to a rifle to make it fire faster – a “bump stock” – was in fact and by law, a “machine gun” and therefore unlawful to be owned or possessed by individuals.

Thus, by regulatory fiat a piece of plastic, which is all a bump stock is, becomes a “machine gun” for purposes of federal law.

Despite the absurdity of this regulatory maneuver, the Supreme Court on Monday once again declined to hear arguments in cases challenging the constitutionality of the government’s bump stock redefinition.

The Court should have heard arguments in the case, to enable a majority of justices a way to declare such regulatory legerdemain is a constitutionally impermissible exercise of legislative power by the Executive Branch (aside from it being an example of absurd legal reasoning that no president should get away with).

While gun control advocates, including the Biden administration which had urged the Court not to hear the cases, characterize the issue as a “Second Amendment” case, it truly is not. At its core, the legal issues center on regulatory law, not Second Amendment law, and the repercussions extend far beyond firearms.

Like many of Uncle Sam’s bad decisions in recent decades, this one outlawing bump stocks was a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident – the 2017 mass shooting by a crazed gunman from a hotel window in Las Vegas, Nevada. A number of bump stock-modified rifles were found in the murderer’s hotel room after police breached his barricaded door.

The publicity surrounding the Las Vegas shooting led to calls to change the law and ban the theretofore little-known, but legal, firearm accessory. Congress could not make a decision, so the responsibility fell to President Trump to show the American people he was “doing something.” That “something” was to order his then-Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to take executive action against the devices.

It eventually fell to Sessions’ successor, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, in late 2018 to actually amend the long-standing definition of a machine gun so as to include a bump stock within its terms. It is this presidential action – changing federal law by the “stroke of a [regulatory] pen” – that has set a dangerous precedent that should concern liberals and conservatives.

Allowed to stand, this precedent permits extensive presidential mischief that can be wrought by Republican and Democrat administrations alike, targeting all manner of activities and products regulated by the federal government, without having to go through the often messy and time-consuming congressional legislative process.

Thanks to this Trump-proposed regulatory maneuver, virtually any federal regulation – including those involving such wide-ranging issues as the environment, health care, banking, firearms, and even abortion, among hundreds more – can serve as the vehicle for a president to unilaterally enact substantive changes to federal laws.

Regardless of why the Supreme Court declined to accept this challenge to what is by every reasoned analysis an abuse of Executive Branch regulatory power, Big Government advocates will be left extremely happy by the decision. It leaves wide open a side door by which this and future administrations can run roughshod over the system of checks and balances so carefully crafted by our Founders, but which has been so often undermined by successive administrations of both major parties.

If you can’t clearly define a federal power, then it should not exist until you can. One of the bedrock principles of our constitution is supposed to be that federal powers are limited and defined. If you can’t limit it and define it, it’s not a federal power. -Glenn Reynolds

The Sackett Oral Argument and the Problem of Defining “Waters of the United States”
The justices wrestled with the problem of identifying a clear, coherent, and administrable definition to constrain federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

Yesterday the Supreme Court opened October Term 2022 with oral argument in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case in which the Court is asked (once again) to clarify the scope of federal regulatory authority over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  In previous posts I discussed the issues in the case, the cert grant, and the decision below.

If oral argument was any indication, the justices recognize the need for greater regulatory certainty, but also recognize the difficulty in drawing a clear line to demarcate where “waters of the United States” end and non-federal waters or lands begin. Much of the argument focused on precisely this question, causing the justices to explore the meaning of the word “adjacent,” as the Court previously upheld the EPA and Army Corps’ authority over wetlands adjacent to navigable waters in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, perhaps the high-water mark of Court acquiescence to broad assertions of federal regulatory power under the CWA. Accordingly, the justices considered whether “adjacent wetlands” must be physically connected to navigable waters, must be neighboring to such waters, or must merely be nearby, and most seemed unconvinced with the answers they received from the advocates.

Continue reading “”

Massive errors in FBI’s Active Shooting Reports regarding cases where civilians stop attacks: Instead of 4.4%, the correct number is at least 34.4%. In 2021, it is at least 49.1%. Excluding gun-free zones, it averaged over 50%.

Table 1: Comparing the FBI Active Shooting data to the corrected CPRC data
FBI ACTIVE SHOOTER DATABASE is available here for people who want to check all the casesDownload

Data: For convenience, a PDF of the Excel file is also available here. FBI Active Shooting reports are available here (2000-2013), here (2014-2015), here (2016-2017), here (2018), here (2019), here (2020), and here (2021).

Introduction

The shooting that killed three people and injured another at a Greenwood, Indiana, mall on July 17 drew broad national attention because of how it ended – when 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, carrying a licensed handgun, fatally shot the attacker.

While Dicken was praised for his courage and skill – squeezing off his first shot 15 seconds after the attack began, from a distance of 40 yards – much of the immediate news coverage drew from FBI-approved statistics to assert that armed citizens almost never stop such attackers: “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander” (Associated Press); “Rampage in Indiana a rare instance of armed civilian ending mass shooting” (Washington Post); and “After Indiana mall shooting, one hero but no lasting solution to gun violence” (New York Times).

Evidence compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives. Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.

The FBI reports that armed citizens only stopped 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021. The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. But it does not include those it deems related to other criminal activity, such as a robbery or fighting over drug turf.

An analysis by my organization identified a total of 360 active shooter incidents during that period and found that an armed citizen stopped 124. A previous report looked at only instances when armed civilians stopped what likely would have been mass public shootings. There were another 24 cases that we didn’t include where armed civilians stopped armed attacks, but the suspect didn’t fire his gun. Those cases are excluded from our calculations, though it could be argued that a civilian also stopped what likely could have been an active shooting event.

The FBI reported that armed citizens thwarted 4.4% of active shooter incidents, while the CPRC found 34.4%.

Continue reading “”

ATF Posts Open Letter on New Definition of Firearm ‘Final Rule’

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– On September 27, 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued an open letter to all Federal Firearms Licensees.  The letter is available online.

The letter is seven pages long and includes several images.  The purpose of the letter is explained in the first paragraph. From the atf.gov:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is issuing this open letter to further assist the firearms industry and the public in understanding whether a “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” receiver of an AR-15/M-16 variant weapon has reached a stage of manufacture such that it “may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” to a functional receiver, and is therefore classified as a “frame or receiver” or “firearm” in accordance with the final rule titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms (Final Rule 2021R-05F), which became effective August 24, 2022. In particular, the following addresses items that are clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon—specifically, partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional AR-type receivers (also known as receiver ‘billets’ or ‘blanks’).

The “Final Rule” is being contested in the courts. In North Dakota, Judge Peter D. Welte accepted the ATF definition of a firearm in the Final Rule, at least in his refusal to issue a temporary injunction against the implementation of the rule. The rule might still be found to be unlawful in the court case.

In the Northern District of Texas, Judge Reed O’Conner found the ATF exceeded its authority, and issued a limited injunction against implementation of the rule.  From the opinion:

1.The Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the plain language of the Gun Control Act.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be … in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C). Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the Gun Control Act in two ways. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be “readily converted” into frames or receivers, when Congress limited ATF’s authority to “frames or receivers” as such. Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats weapon parts kits as firearms. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both claims.

The letter by ATF explaining the Final Rule does not mention the ongoing court cases.  It reiterates ATF’s position that association with tools and jigs, instructions or guides, can make a non-firearm into a firearm.

From page 3 of the letter:

Thus, in order not to be considered “readily” completed to function, ATF has determined that a partially complete AR-type receiver must have no indexing or machining of any kind performed in the area of the trigger/hammer (fire control) cavity. A partially complete AR-type receiver with no indexing or machining of any kind performed in the area of the fire control cavity is not classified as a “receiver,” or “firearm,” if not sold, distributed, or marketed with any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, or guides, such as within a receiver parts kit.

On page 6, the ATF emphasizes that information and tools which make the creation of a frame or receiver easier, are now considered items which make an incomplete part a firearm:

However, the above analysis only applies to partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers without any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials. Pursuant to Final Rule 2021R-05F, partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers that are sold, distributed, possessed with such items (or made available by the seller or distributor to the same person) may change the analysis, including those distributed as frame or receiver parts kits. 27 CFR 478.12(c). For example, jigs, templates, or instructions can provide the same indexing as if it were placed directly on the unfinished frame or receiver.

At the end of the letter, the ATF adds further warnings about how unfinished frames or receivers are considered “defense articles”, and subject to permits for export or import. From page 7:

Further, although unfinished frames or receivers that do not meet the definition of a “firearm” are not subject to regulation under GCA provisions, they are still considered “defense articles” on the U.S. Munitions Import List and, therefore, require an approved Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Implements of War (ATF Form 6) for importation into the United States under 27 CFR 447.41; 447.22, and are also subject to export controls.1

In the old Soviet Union, typewriters had serial numbers and were tightly controlled by the state. Information was tightly controlled.  In the United States, the distribution of information is protected by the First Amendment.

The ATF is asserting that tools and information on how to make frames or receivers are, essentially frames and receivers. This is an unprecedented expansion of government control over the private making of firearms, never before existing in the United States.

The injunction by Judge O’Conner

Judge O’Conner sees the major expansion of power by the government. He believes the ATF does not have the authority to do so.

Federal Court says ATF Overstepped Authority with “Final Rule”

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– On September 2, 2022, the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting a preliminary injunction, in part, on the ATF “Final Rule” which radically changed the decades-long definition of what is a firearm in federal law.  The opinion explains that ATF created the longstanding definition of what a firearm is in 1978. Now, over forty years later, they are updating and expanding the definition into new areas.  From the opinion/order, p. 2-4:

In April 2022, ATF published a Final Rule changing, among other things,the 1978 definition of “frame or receiver.”See Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022)(codified at 27 C.F.R. pts.447, 478, and 479(2022)).1ATF split the phrase intotwo parts, assigning the term “frame” to handguns and the term “receiver” to any firearm other than a handgun, such as rifles and shotguns. See 27 C.F.R. §478.12(a)(1), (a)(2). ATF then defined the terms “frame” and “receiver” along the same lines as the 1978 rule, though with updated, more precise technical terminology.2 But ATF did not stop there. 

Rather than merely updating the terminology,ATF decided to regulate partial frames and receivers. Under the new Final Rule, “[t]he terms ‘frame’and ‘receiver’shall include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver. ”Id.§478.12(c). But “[t]he terms shall not include a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, unmachined body, or similar article that has not yet reached a stage of manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon (e.g., unformed block of metal, liquid polymer, or other raw material).” Id. When determining whether an object is a frame or receiver, the ATF Director is not limited to looking only at the object. “When issuing a classification, the Director may consider any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials that are sold, distributed, or possessed with the item or kit ….” Id. 

The Final Rule also amends ATF’s definition of “firearm”to include weapon parts kits.The ATF’s new definition of “firearm,”“shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”Id.§478.11(definition of “firearm”).

The Court found ATF exceeded its authority. From the opinion/order, p. 6:

1. The Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the plain language of the Gun Control Act. 

The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be … in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C). Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the Gun Control Act in two ways. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be “readily converted” into frames or receivers, when Congress limited ATF’s authority to “frames or receivers” as such.Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats weapon parts kits as firearms.Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both claims.

On September 23, 2022, Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, doing business as 80 Percent Arms, filed a motion to intervene (to be included in the lawsuit). The motion is under consideration. The court has ordered the ATF to reply by October 7, 2022.

On September 26, 2022, the court denied the government’s motion for clarification, where the ATF wanted to complete a classification of one of the plaintiff’s products. The Court ruled to do so would be in contravention of the injunction it placed in effect on September 2, 2022.

Texas is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Another Court in Texas refused to issue a preliminary injunction.

In North Dakota, in the  8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Peter D. Welte refused to grant a preliminary injunction in another case challenging the ATF “Final Rule”.

A major contention is the wording of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which clearly differentiates weapons that “may be readily converted” and receivers, which does not include the “may be readily converted” language.

In addition, the inclusion of information, tooling, and jigs as part of what is defined as a firearm is new and a considerable expansion of governmental power.

In Delaware, Judge Maryellen Noreika has ruled the ability to make and possess homemade guns is protected by the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court may eventually take a case on what power, if any, the ATF may legitimately have to regulate the private, non-commercial making of or sale of firearms, and what may be defined as a “firearm”.  The court action may take years.

Federal bureaucraps working with foreign operatives to spy on U.S. & Canadian citizens. Well, to be honest, nothing surprising.

Cascade County sheriff breaks up federal investigation at gun show

Cascade County Sheriff Jesse Slaughter on Saturday broke up an investigation carried out in apparent coordination between federal and Canadian authorities at a Great Falls gun show, saying those agencies had not contacted his office beforehand.

Although state law does not require federal investigators to obtain approval from local law enforcement to conduct operations, the agents left the fairgrounds “reluctantly” and without issue. Slaughter has positioned himself as a “constitutional sheriff,” which theorizes sheriffs are the ultimate authority in their county — above local, state and federal officials — raising questions in this incident about possible friction between layers of law enforcement.

According to a Sept. 24 report compiled by the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office, Slaughter and a deputy responded to a complaint that a man at the Montana Expo Park was acting suspiciously by taking photographs of vehicles. According to the fairgrounds director, the man was driving around the property in a black SUV with Canadian license plates, but never entered the show.

 Download PDFGun show - Cascade County Sheriff's Report

A deputy contacted the man, who identified himself as Richard Kurina, a Canadian police officer with the Lethbridge Police Department working with a Royal Canadian Mounted Police task force. According to the sheriff’s office report, Kurina said the task force was designed to catch Canadians smuggling illegal firearms into Canada and that he was with another officer, Agent Craig Howe with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Continue reading “”

Harris on Hurricane Ian: Biden Admin Will Give ‘Resources Based on Equity’ and to ‘Communities of Color’
No, Vice President. It doesn’t work that way.

Vice President Kamala Harris wants the Biden admin to base Hurricane Ian funds and resources based on color.

That’s racist. This is not the time to run with your leftist agenda, Kamala. So disgusting. Just like Don Lemon. The agenda is more important that Ian impacted all communities regardless of wealth or race.

Pathetic and disgusting.

 

The pagans can’t allow anything that might keep them from giving offerings to their god.

FBI, Justice Department Twist Federal Law to Arrest, Charge Pro-Life Activist

In an early morning raid Friday in Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, about two dozen FBI agents with weapons drawn pounded on the door of Mark Houck’s home, where he lives with his wife and seven children.

The FBI agents arrested Houck based on a federal indictment. Sounds serious, right? Is Houck a domestic terrorist, an American jihadist, a dangerous militia member, a violent felon, or someone with a prior history of violence toward law enforcement who would require such an overwhelming show of force?

Not even close.

Houck is a pro-life activist and president of The King’s Men, a Catholic ministry. He has no prior criminal record. He was arrested Friday morning for an alleged violation of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the FACE Act.

Again, sounds potentially serious. But given the Obama-Biden administration’s prior abuse of the FACE Act, as well as what we know already about the facts, we have serious reasons to doubt that this is a legitimate case and prudent use of federal law enforcement resources. More likely, it is a politically motivated abuse of federal law by both the FBI and the Justice Department.

It is not a coincidence, we suspect, that this takedown of someone who, at best, committed a misdemeanor assault came almost exactly three months after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand in America. The FBI’s raid of Houck’s home was designed to send a warning to pro-life activists engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment.

The FACE Act (18 U.S.C. § 248) forbids physically obstructing, injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone “obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” But Congress specified that the FACE Act doesn’t “prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibitions by the First Amendment to the Constitution,” including the “free speech or free exercise clauses,” occurring “outside a facility.”

Houck apparently would regularly drive two hours from his home to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia to pray and speak outside the facility, often taking his 12-year-old son with him.

The federal indictment claims that almost a year ago, Houck “verbally confronted” and “shoved” an escort for an abortion patient “to the ground” and “intentionally injured, intimidated and interfered” with the escort.

What the indictment fails to mention, say Houck’s wife and a family spokesman, is that on multiple occasions this pro-abortion escort said “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things” to the Houcks’ son, such as “your dad’s a fag” and other vulgar slurs.

Houck kept telling the escort to stop harassing his son, they say, but the escort refused to stop and when the foul-mouthed vulgarian got too close to his son, Houck protected him by shoving the escort away.

The escort fell down, but, according to Houck’s family, the only injury he suffered required “a Band-Aid on his finger.”

The incident occurred Oct. 21, 2021. The assault claim against Houck is so weak that not only did Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Soros-backed rogue prosecutor, refuse to file any misdemeanor charges against Houck, but, the family says, a civil lawsuit filed by the escort was thrown out of court.

Now, almost a year later, the FBI shows up at Houck’s home in force and the Justice Department charges him with two felonies for an injury that required a Band-Aid. His conviction could result, according to the Justice Department, in a maximum penalty of “11 years in prison, three years of supervised release and fines of up to $350,000.”

No doubt, Houck’s defense attorney will explore any and all defenses, starting with whether the man shoved by Houck even falls within the “obtaining or providing” requirement of the federal statute. It also may be a clear case of self-defense, since Houck apparently was defending his 12-year-old son from an adult who was harassing and intimidating a minor.

The fact is that the Justice Department, under Democratic administrations, has a history of misusing the FACE Act to go after abortion opponents.

Continue reading “”

Well, I  read it that way too, so………

Well, the left dropped the mask, so there……….

There’s a Reason Conservatives are Becoming Less Tame.

New York magazine is suddenly realizing that the Republicans will likely retake the House of Representatives in the midterm election. They are not happy. They just ran a piece titled: “The MAGA House Will Make the Tea Party Look Tame.”  The article included this little beauty:

If the tea party was rightfully derided as a hard-right, recalcitrant bloc with no serious interest in governing, the 2023 House Republican majority could make that era of instability seem almost quaint in comparison.

Panic much? The title is correct, and the quote, reeking with their utter disdain for Republicans, even illustrates how we got here. But the article didn’t ask the most important question: If conservatives are getting less tame, why is that?

It’s because our bureaucratic overlords and their Democrat sponsors are still not listening to the grievances of a large, and growing, number of Americans.

Barack Obama was supposed to be our first postracial president. His election should have proved that we were moving past our racist history. He even promised us a unifying administration if elected. We took the bait and gave him a chance. He delivered divisiveness, uncontrolled borders,  worldwide apologies for America, and started us down the path of annual trillion-dollar deficits.

We had concerns and wanted to talk. The Lightbringer’s response: “The election is over.” In other words: I won, you lost, no more discussion is necessary, deal with it. And with that, Barack Obama triggered the formation of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party started as a grassroots movement to push back against the leftist fiscal policies that would enslave our children to a mountain of debt. It was a peaceful movement. They held rallies and protests all over America. Everyone was welcome. There was no violence or vandalism. Rallygoers even picked up their trash at the end of every gathering. They unapologetically loved America and would do nothing to sully her.

Did Obama and his leftist elites bother to talk to the Tea Party about its grievances? Absolutely not. Instead, they called the Tea Party racist. They claimed the Tea Party was a bunch of radical extremists. Then President Obama weaponized the IRS to attack the Tea Party supporters with abusive audits and denied their organizations the non-profit status the tax code said they were entitled to.

The constitutional rights of the Tea Party supporters were under assault. As the attacks escalated, the Tea Party morphed into a movement for constitutional adherence, government accountability, and America first. MAGA was born — though it wasn’t named yet.

And then Donald Trump came down the golden escalator. He didn’t create MAGA. MAGA drafted him. He agreed to fight for constitutional conservatives, and gave their movement a name — Make America Great Again. How very radical.

The movement needed an unapologetic standard bearer to represent them — its own George Patton. Donald Trump became that guy.

Did the Dems and our bureaucratic overlords bother to hear their grievances then? Nope. They weaponized the DoJ, FBI, CIA, CDC, and NIH. They used swamp operatives to taint an election. They accused anyone with concerns about the election of being seditious and insisted that they be punished. They not only remained unwilling to talk to conservatives, they worked to use the power of government to crush all dissenting speech.

Now we have President “Return to Normalcy” in the Oval Office. Unfortunately, normalcy turns out to be American hostages sacrificed to the Taliban, inflation at a 40-year high, recession, and open borders.

Our own government has been further weaponized against its own citizens and is attacking our freedom of speech, right to assembly, right to self-defense, freedom from unreasonable search, right to due process, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Has that tamed conservatives? In no way. The list of grievances is growing by the day.

Are the leftists and their Democrat enablers ready to talk yet? Nope, not in the least. Instead, our President is now calling anyone with whom he disagrees fascists — sorry, semi-fascists.

The DoJ is using extralegal intimidation to silence dissent. The FBI is investigating U.S. citizens as threats to national security — because they dare to disagree with the government-approved narrative.

Does the Left expect any of this to tame the MAGA movement? If so, they aren’t as smart as they think they are. Those opposing a socialist takeover of America are becoming less tame every day. And it’s all the fault of the Democrat party and the leftists it has aligned itself with.

We wanted to talk politely when Barack Obama broke every campaign promise he had made. We were told to shut up.

We raised our voices with the Tea Party.  Rather than hear us, the Left called us every vile name they could think of.

Now we’re peacefully shouting with our MAGA megaphone. Is the left willing to talk yet? Nope. Instead, they’ve sent our “public servants” from the government to attack our freedom, prosperity, and civil liberties.

And yet New York Magazine has the chutzpah to complain that we’re becoming less tame. And they don’t even see the irony.

So, will a MAGA House of Representatives be less tame than a Tea Party House? I sure hope so.

We need a full accounting of the Americans left behind in Afghanistan, and what is being done to get them back.

We need to know who in the CDC and NIH were complicit in the lies about COVID. Every single one of them needs to learn what an unemployment line looks like.

Justice is no longer the business of the Department of Justice. The FBI needs to be dissolved and the DoJ radically overhauled.

We need a return to fiscal sanity and an overreaching federal government brought to heal.

We’re still shouting — louder every day. Our discontent hasn’t turned into a brawl yet — and it doesn’t need to. But the time for “tame” is long past.