Category: Bureaucraps

Court Effectively Says ATF Can Continue Covering for Hunter Biden on Gun Buy

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “[T]he Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 8),” Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concluded in David Codrea v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. “An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.”

The order ends a legal effort that started in August of 2021 and grants ATF its wish that the case involving Hunter Biden is dropped.

Attorney Stephen Stamboulieh, who filed the complaint on my behalf “for injunctive and other appropriate relief and seeking the disclosure and release of agency records” related to its investigation into Hunter Biden and a handgun reportedly belonging to him, advises that no appeal will be filed due to the unlikelihood that it would succeed.

Seriously, what did we expect? We were never under any illusion that we had a magic bullet. But we had to try for no reason other than to once more expose how the most in-your-face outrages, get a pass when people have the right connections.

As per Judge Contreras’ decision, disregarding that Hunter Biden could not have legally purchased a handgun in Delaware without illegally denying documented controlled substance abuse on the Form 4473 Transfer Record, which is a felony, his privacy interests are officially deemed to outweigh any public interest.

“Mr. Codrea cites a news article stating that an FBI-seized laptop shows that Hunter Biden allegedly sent text messages discussing the handgun incident and a police investigation,” Contreras elaborates. “The Court is skeptical that one’s private texts can so easily be repurposed into public acknowledgment of a criminal investigation.”

On top of that, “Mr. Codrea did not provide a signed privacy waiver [from Hunter Biden] . . . that might authorize the release of information. Thus, the Court will examine Hunter Biden’s privacy interests on the merits.”

Right, and what were the odds of getting that?

The rest of the cited technicalities and arguments give legal cover for the judge’s order, but realistically, there was no real hope things would be decided differently. That’s in spite of all the original reporting presented on AmmoLand (and ignored by other media) culminating in compelling photographic evidence that Biden had also obtained at least one other gun, [possibly an airgun], presumably under the same felonious circumstances. That last one has also been ignored, with the exception of social media: Twitter put a warning on my tweet to Joe Biden about it, and Facebook was reportedly handing out “fact check” suspensions to anyone sharing it.

“That no media organizations are scrambling to be the ones to ‘break’ what appears to be a directed cover-up to the general public tells us much,” I noted in a report on how a black man was punished by the Justice Department over similar gun possession and substance abuse. “So will what Barack Obama-nominated Judge Contreras order.”

Here is what the Judge ordered:

If there is any outside coverage on this, don’t look for the focus of it to be on Hunter Biden getting away with “gun felonies,” with the full cognizance of ATF and the federal courts. That said, there’s nothing to stop any person from lecturing on what we should have said from stepping up and showing so call media how it’s done.

I mean, what other reason could there be that those with greater reach and resources wouldn’t want the truth known by all?

Durham shocker: Danchenko was a paid FBI informant

Today, Special Counsel John Durham moved to unseal this motion in limine in the false statements case against Igor Danchenko.

This motion provides new information on the details of Danchenko’s lies to the FBI, further information on how Special Counsel Mueller ignored Danchenko’s false statements, expected testimony from Clinton-connected executive Charles Dolan, and one crazy development.

But we’ll start with the the most damning development: Danchenko was on the FBI payroll as a confidential human source (CHS) from March 2017 through October 2020.

The purposes of making Danchenko a CHS should be quite clear. The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was plagued with problems from the outset. The reasons for opening the investigation were bunk. Those problems continued as the investigation went on, with claims of Trump/Russia collusion proven unverified or outright false. (Thus the targeting of Flynn for a Logan Act violation.)

That developed into the Carter Page FISA applications, first submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in October 2016, and which relied substantially on the Steele Dossiers (aka Steele Reports). The FISA applications were renewed three times – more on that later. Each application had its own problems, from FBI lawyers lying about Carter Page to the Court being generally misled.

Realizing its own misconduct, the FBI made Danchenko a paid CHS in March 2017 – just before the third FISA warrant was submitted in April 2017. This would allow Comey’s FBI to work directly with Danchenko in support of its counter-intelligence investigation against President Trump.

Danchenko being a CHS also served another purpose: it protected the Bureau and the Mueller Special Counsel from revealing their “sources and methods.” How do you hide misconduct? Bury the witness.

(Read again Inspector General Horowitz’s report concerning the Carter Page FISA warrants. Did Horowitz know that Danchenko was a CHS?)

Continue reading “”

DOJ Subpoenas Targeting Trump Associates Contain Disturbing Demands

News of dozens of subpoenas being sent by the DOJ to Trump supporters broke on Friday and was finally confirmed on Monday. The subpoenas, which were ostensibly tied to investigations surrounding January 6th, targeted over 40 people. Two more phones were seized from Trump associates as well, including his in-house counsel.

It marked another move in what appears to be a highly politicized investigation targeting the political enemies of Joe Biden for nothing more than wrong-speak. RedState obtained and published the subpoena Friday, and Monday night Tucker Carlson, who also obtained some of the subpoenas, highlighted some of the disturbing demands within them.

 

In the clip, Carlson provides an excerpt from the subpoena that purports to define what the current investigation is about. Here’s how that reads.

Any claim that the Vice President and/or the President of the Senate had the authority reject or choose not to count presidential electors.

To put it frankly, it is chilling to think that the DOJ could base an investigation on something that is clearly under the bounds of free speech. And to be clear, it is completely irrelevant whether Mike Pence had the above-mentioned authority or not. Americans are allowed to hold opinions, and they are allowed to discuss those opinions, even if they don’t hold up to factual scrutiny.

It is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to criminally target individuals based simply on what they said unless it is a direct incitement to violence or a threat. Nothing about that passage is either of those things. In other words, the DOJ is firmly in the territory of trying to prosecute thought crimes.

There’s also the issue of precedent here. Carlson brings up the fact that the DOJ did not seek to go after leading Democrats in 2016 that sought to stop the counting of electors for Donald Trump. He’s correct, and it’s a blind spot in all this that is simply being ignored because it’s convenient to ignore. That January 6th occurred at the hands of protesters does not suddenly wipe out the free speech rights of others.

The Fox News host then lists some of the names these subpoenas are targeting, including Stephen Miller and Jenna Ellis, but the most shocking is Boris Epshteyn. That is Trump’s current lawyer. Yet, the DOJ is demanding his communications, many of which are privileged, with a wink and a nod promise to sort through everything. That’s banana republic stuff.

Read the entire subpoena here:

Redacted Subpoena by Jennifer Van Laar on Scribd

I’ll end with something Carlson mentions near the beginning of the clip, which is that there is no accountability or transparency being demanded in the face of all this. Instead, the American press, with few exceptions, is spending its time either ignoring these overreaches or outright supporting them. That’s terrifying because it feels like we’ve reached a place where anything goes as long as seeks to harm Donald Trump, and it won’t stop there. These precedents being set are going to be abused by left-wing officials long into the future. It’s another reason why Republicans must retake the White House in 2024 and that there must be a will to gut these out-of-control agencies.

FBI secretly forced some to give up their gun rights

The FBI hasn’t been an organization that garners a great deal of respect from anyone who isn’t on the left in a while. Even many on that side of things look at what the bureau has done recently with suspicion as well.

Sure, the ATF is acting shady as hell of late, and we expect them to try and infringe on our gun rights.

However, it seems that the FBI is trying to get in on that action, apparently.

The FBI secretly pressured Americans into signing forms that relinquish their rights to own, purchase or even use firearms, according to a trove of internal documents and communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The forms were presented by the FBI to people at their homes and in other undisclosed locations, according to bureau documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act by the firearm rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and shared with the DCNF. At least 15 people between 2016 and 2019 signed the secret forms, which ask signatories to declare themselves as either a “danger” to themselves or others or lacking “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives.

GOA and attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment law told the DCNF the existence of the forms raise serious legal questions.

“We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, GOA’s outside counsel who specializes in firearms law. “Which certainly is not something you expect in the United States.”

OK, but who are these people? Are they legitimately people who are a danger to themselves or others? Are they really lacking in “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives? If so, how can they be responsible enough for their affairs to sign away their rights?

Well, it seems these are people who talked a lot of crap in the wrong venue, among other things.

Many signatories allegedly made violent threats in online chat rooms, in person and on social media platforms, FBI notes show. The 15 signed forms obtained by the DCNF show FBI agents in Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine presented them to Americans — whose names were redacted by the bureau.

While the existence of the FBI form itself was first revealed in 2019 by the firearms blog Ammoland, the outlet did not provide evidence of it being used at the time. GOA obtained the signed forms as part of its lawsuit initiated in January 2020 against the bureau to compel disclosure of records related to the forms.

A spokesperson for the FBI told the DCNF the form was “discontinued” in December 2019, but they did not say why that decision was made.

“The NICS Indices Self-Submission form was created to provide an avenue for individuals to self-report to the NICS Section when individuals felt they were a danger to themselves or others,” the FBI spokesperson said.

Except when FBI agents show up to your home and accuse you of a crime, talking about the potential penalties for that crime, then say, “Here. Sign this and all of this goes away,” it’s not really people who think they’re a danger to themselves or others.

It’s people who think prison will be a danger to them.

When law enforcement of any kind shows up, there’s a certain degree of intimidation involved. Especially if you actually did what you’re accused of. Making violent threats isn’t a good thing by any means, of course, and it’s an actual crime–making terroristic threats.

If there was a crime committed, then that’s one thing, but why simply put a form in front of those accused of making such threats rather than prosecuting them for a federal crime? My guess is that the FBI likely knew that they couldn’t get a conviction because it was someone just talking smack, rather than being actually dangerous.

So they drop the form in front of some schmuck who is terrified of becoming Bubba’s boyfriend and say, “Sign this, giving up your gun rights, and you’re free to go.” Since he doesn’t want to go to prison, well, a small price to pay, right?

Wrong.

He’s still being stripped of his rights without due process. His “compliance” isn’t voluntary, it’s being extorted, and the FBI agents who did this likely know precisely what they did.

What’s more, there’s no way this should have been acceptable in the first place.

However, it seems that the FBI shared this document with both the Secret Service and Social Security Administration. Neither has commented as to whether they’ve ever used it, but it’s still troubling.

Heads need to roll over this one.

DOJ Admits Only 692 ‘Ghost Gun’-Related Homicide Cases in Last 6 Years

Buried in President Biden’s Department of Justice’s (DOJ) explanation of the new “ghost gun” rule is an admission that only 692 “ghost guns” were involved in homicide cases during the past six years.

The DOJ noted:

As the final rule explains, from January 2016 to December 2021, ATF received approximately 45,240 reports of suspected privately made firearms recovered by law enforcement, including in 692 homicide or attempted homicide investigations. The chart below demonstrates the total annual numbers of suspected PMFs recovered by law enforcement over the past six years.

When one considers that there are on average 12,000 to 14,000 homicides in the United States annually–sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower–692 “ghost gun”-related homicide cases are a mere fraction of all firearm-related homicides.

Take, for instance, the higher number–14,000 firearm homicides annually for six years. That is 84,000 firearm-related homicides during that time frame, while during that same time frame there were fewer than 700 “ghost gun”-related homicide cases.

Breitbart News pointed out that the DOJ’s “ghost gun” rule change was announced August 24, 2022. The rule classifies parts in a gun parts kit as firearms that require a background check to purchase, like the one required for “traditional firearms.”

FPC Secures Partial Preliminary Injunction in Lawsuit Challenging ATF “Frame or Receiver” Rule

FORT WORTH, TX (September 2, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) secured a partial victory in VanDerStok v. Garland, in the form of a partial and limited injunction in its lawsuit challenging the ATF’s rule that would create new terms and enact a slew of regulations for the agency to enforce. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘frame or receiver’ conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “The definition of ‘firearm’ in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically ‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon’ that Congress defined as a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver.”

Specifically, today’s ruling:

  • Finds that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenge to the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule;
  • Grants a preliminary injunction as to plaintiff Tactical Machining, but does not grant a preliminary injunction in regards to Tactical Machining’s customers, other manufacturers or retailers, or any other individuals interested in buying the affected products; and,
  • Gives the plaintiffs an opportunity “to submit further briefing and evidence on the scope of the injunction” by September 8th, with a response from the government due 7 days later.

“This is an important initial victory, but we have much more work to do in this case,” said FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation Cody J. Wisniewski. “We look forward to presenting the Court with additional arguments and moving this case towards a full decision recognizing the deep flaws with the Agencies’ Rule as soon as possible.”

ATF Requests Funding for Pistol Brace Amnesty Registration Program

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- AmmoLand News has uncovered information showing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is planning to force gun owners to register firearms with pistol braces as a National Firearms Act (NFA) ATF Form 1 item.

The document (embedded below) was uncovered in a budget justification from the ATF to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This form confirms the leaked information AmmoLand News has heard for months from our inside sources at the ATF.

The document reads: Due to the upcoming Amnesty Registration of Pistol Brace weapons, photos of the weapon being registered will be required to prove the weapon does utilize a pistol brace in its configuration and would qualify for an amnesty registration.

Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

Our ATF inside sources have told AmmoLand News that the ATF was planning for an amnesty period where gun owners would be able to register their braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBR) and that it is expected they will receive a free tax stamp. The ATF charges $200 per SBR. Currently, there are at least four million braced pistols in the United States.

The ATF posted the proposed pistol brace rules to the Federal Register late last year for public comment. Over 250,000 comments were submitted, with most comments being against any new regulations. The gun community let their voices be heard, and the ATF ignored them.

ATF Funding Request for Pistol Brace Amnesty Screengrab
ATF Funding Request for Pistol Brace Amnesty

According to this document, owners of braced pistols would have to submit photos of their firearms to the ATF to prove that they qualify for “amnesty registration.”

The ATF has issued multiple letters stating that pistol stabilizing braces are legal to put on pistols, but this action would change agency’s course.

The White House ordered the ATF to redefine the definition of a firearm and change rules surrounding pistol stabilizing devices. The proposed rule covering frames and receivers was unveiled 30 days later, and the proposed rule for braced pistols was revealed 60 days later. The frames and receiver rule went into effect on August 24th after a 120-day grace period.

The final pistol stabilizing device rule has not been finalized. Based on this budget request and information from our sources, it seems to include a registry. The ATF recently implemented the eForms systems for some Form 1 NFA items. The new system automates a lot of the tedious work that ATF employees and the National Firearms Act (NFA) division used to do manually. It remains to be seen if the system can withstand millions of additional form submissions.

This influx of millions of new applications will also backlog any other forms submitted for processing. The ATF promised that the average time to process a Form 1 tax stamp application would be 90 days. The ATF is nowhere close to that number, with only 30% being processed in the promised time period. With millions of additional applications, the 90-day period seems to be a pipe dream.

The new rule is expected to be announced by December of this year.

NCLA Suit Uncovers Army of Federal Bureaucrats Coercing Social-Media Companies to Censor Speech

Washington, DC (September 1, 2022) – The New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Attorney General of Missouri, and the Attorney General of Louisiana, have filed a lawsuit that blows the lid off a sprawling federal censorship regime that will shock the conscience of Americans. The joint statement on discovery disputes in the lawsuit, State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., reveals scores of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech federal officials disfavor. This unlawful enterprise has been wildly successful.

Under the First Amendment, the federal government may not police private speech nor pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is precisely what the government has done—and is still doing—on a massive scale not previously divulged. Multiple agencies’ communications demonstrate that the federal government has exerted tremendous pressure on social-media companies—pressure to which companies have repeatedly bowed.

Discovery has unveiled an army of federal censorship bureaucrats, including officials arrayed at the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Communications show these federal officials are fully aware that the pressure they exert is an effective and necessary way to induce social-media platforms to increase censorship. The head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency even griped about the need to overcome social-media companies’ “hesitation” to work with the government.

These actions have precipitated an unprecedented rise in censorship and suppression of free speech—including core political speech—on social-media platforms. Many viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally silenced or suppressed in the modern public square. This unlawful government interference violates the fundamental right of free speech for all Americans, whether or not they are on social media. More discovery is needed to uncover the full extent of this regime—i.e., the identities of other White House and agency officials involved and the nature and content of their communications with social-media companies.

The government has been uncooperative and has resisted complying with the discovery order every step of the way—especially with regard to Anthony Fauci’s communications. Defendants claim, for example, that White House communications are privileged, even though such privilege does not apply to external communications. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana should overrule the government defendants’ objections and order them to supply this highly relevant, responsive, and probative information immediately.

NCLA released the following statements:

“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased. The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed. These bureaucrats continue to resist efforts to expose the degree of their unconstitutional actions every step of the way.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 “The incredible extent of government interference with the speech rights of Americans must be seen to be believed. Yet, even with all that this case has revealed, the government defendants are still resisting their obligation to disclose the names of all the public servants who were involved in this unlawful scheme.”
— John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 For more information visit the case page here.

Attorney General Merrick Garland Threatens DOJ Employees About Contacting Congress – In the Current Environment He Appears to be Breaking the Law

According to attorney Mike Davis, Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland just ordered that no members of the DOJ can contact Congress. That’s against the law.

In a Twitter thread this evening, attorney Mike Davis shared that AG Merrick Garland ordered all members of his corrupt DOJ to not contact Congress.

Image

 

Report on Possible Trump Charges Leaves the Resistance Reeling

As RedState reported, the DOJ dropped a filing on Tuesday evening in an attempt to deny the appointment of a special master regarding the documents seized during the now infamous Trump raid. In that filing was a photograph that set leftwing hearts a flutter, purporting to show “top secret” documents scattered on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room.

In reality, the documents were found in boxes per the DOJ’s own documentation.

The DOJ knew what it was doing putting that photo out, though. They wanted to gin up more “the walls are closing in” outrage from the left, and sure enough, they got it. Social media was swamped with hysterical declarations that charges were incoming. That picture was “criminal evidence,” they screeched while racking up the likes and shares along the way.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Americans may shrug when prosecutors use pretext to target known drug dealers or human traffickers, but manipulating the criminal code to find a basis to search the home of a former president and a political enemy represents an appalling weaponization of the criminal justice system. And while large portions of the affidavit remain under seal, the country has seen enough to know that is precisely what the Biden administration did to get Trump.

Redacted Mar-A-Lago Affidavit Confirms Biden’s DOJ Fished For A Crime To Pin On Trump.

The search warrant affidavit unsealed on Friday confirms the Department of Justice used a bait-and-switch tactic to justify the FBI’s unprecedented raid on former President Donald Trump’s home. The unredacted portions of the affidavit further expose the Biden administration’s manipulative and tenuous basis for the search and its reliance on inapplicable federal criminal code provisions to justify the targeting of a political enemy.

At noon on Friday, the search warrant affidavit used by the DOJ to obtain a warrant to raid Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home hit the public court docket, albeit with heavy redactions. While sparse, the unredacted portions of the affidavit nonetheless proved significant, especially when read in conjunction with the previously unsealed search warrant and the leaks to the compliant media cartel.

“The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records,” the affidavit opened, before noting that “the investigation began as a result of a referral the United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) sent to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on February 9, 2022.”

The affidavit then summarized the background of the NARA referral, explaining that “on February 9, 2022, the Special Agent in Charge of NARA’s Office of Inspector General sent a referral via email to the DOJ.” The referral explained that the NARA’s White House Liaison Division director had reviewed 15 boxes NARA had retrieved from Mar-a-Lago including “newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos, miscellaneous print-outs, notes, presidential correspondence, personal and post-presidential records, and ‘a lot of classified records.’” “Of most significant,” the search warrant affidavit explained, was that “highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly [sic] identified.”

While the next nearly eight pages of the search warrant affidavit remained redacted, the disclosures that followed exposed the affidavit’s focus on “classified records” as a sham. “On or about May 6, 2021, NARA made a request for the missing PRA records and continued to make requests until approximately late December 2021 when NARA was informed twelve boxes were found and ready for retrieval at the [Mar-a-Lago],” the affidavit continued, with the abbreviation “PRA” previously noted to stand for the Presidential Records Act.

As I explained previously, to fully comprehend the Biden administration’s weaponizing of the DOJ and FBI, it is necessary to understand the Presidential Records Act, the concept of “presidential records,” and the NARA’s role, and the search warrant affidavit’s references to those concepts confirm that point. In short:

Continue reading “”

.

What this means to me is that the bureaucraps at the FBI knew they likely stood no chance of getting a ‘real’ Article 3, Federal District Judge to issue the warrant, so they went to a magistrate they could pressure to do what they wanted.

Can Magistrate Judges Constitutionally Issue Search Warrants Against Trump (Or Anyone Else)?

Philip Hamburger is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman professor of law at Columbia Law School, and the president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance

The Mar-a-Lago search warrant is interesting not only because of the high office of the individual whose papers were seized but also because of the low office of the person who signed it. The warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.

Leave aside how you feel about the former president. Leave aside what you think of January 6, 2021. Leave aside whether there was a good reason to issue the warrant. A more basic question is whether the Hon. Bruce Reinhart could constitutionally issue it.

Under the Constitution, a Search Warrant Must Be Signed by a Judge
The problem is that Reinhart is a so-called magistrate judge. Many commentators have focused on his personal history and political leanings, but much more significant is that he is not really a judge.

To be precise, he is not a judge of a court of the United States. The judicial power of the United States is vested in its courts. In the exercise of this power, judges of those courts can issue search warrants. But a magistrate judge is just an assistant to a court and its judges. Not being a judge of one of the courts of the United States, he cannot constitutionally exercise the judicial power of the United States. That means he cannot issue a search warrant.

The full shift of the judicial power of the United States in criminal cases to magistrate judges has been relatively recent. Only since 1968 has Congress generally authorized persons other than real judges to exercise the judicial power of the United States in trying misdemeanors (although a defendant can still insist on being tried by a real judge when charged with more than a petty offense). In addition, district courts can assign the non-judges “such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Only since 1990 have the non-judges been called “magistrate judges.”

Just how little a magistrate judge can be considered a judge is evident from the way he is appointed. Rather than be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—as provided by the Constitution for real judges—a magistrate judge, including the one who signed the Mar-a-Lago warrant, is appointed merely by a majority of the active judges of a district court. He serves for only eight years, he can be removed for cause, and even if not removed, he always must worry that his district court will not reappoint him.

Congress, moreover, can reduce his salary. He therefore is not a judge of the court, but merely one of its servants. Like a law clerk or other assistant, he can help a judge understand the issues underlying the decision to issue a search warrant. But he should not issue it.

Anglo-American history is illuminating. An exercise of judicial power, the issuance of a search warrant traditionally had to come from one who enjoyed that power. So, in England, search warrants had to be issued by a judge or a justice of the peace, who enjoyed elements of a judge’s authority. Similarly, in early states, search warrants had to come from a judge or justice of the peace. This already suggests a difficulty for the Mar-a-Lago warrant and any other search warrant issued by a magistrate judge or anyone else who is not really a judge, but merely an assistant or adjunct to a judge.

This problem is evident not merely from history, but from the Constitution’s very text. Whereas the English and state systems let some judicial power be exercised by justices of the peace and other judicial officers who were not judges of the courts, the federal system confined the judicial power of the United States officers to the courts and their judges.

The U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and such other courts as Congress authorizes. That is, it leaves no room for the judicial power of the United States to be exercised by any other court or any judges except those who sit on such courts. This bodes ill for federal search warrants signed by magistrate judges and other judicial officers who are not judges of the courts.

Continue reading “.”

TSA reminds travelers about travel rules

The Transportation Security Administration has some advice for travelers as Halloween approaches — leave the Freddy Krueger gloves out of your carry-on bags.

A homemade glove with blades for fingers, like the one worn by Kreuger of 1980s horror movie fame, was one of the items on display at Columbia Metropolitan Airport Tuesday as regional TSA officials held an information session to remind travelers what not to pack in carry-on bags.

The glove — part of a passenger’s homemade costume — was by far the strangest item on display, followed by a bright orange cattle prod.

Other items prohibited from carry-ons include sharp items like scissors, knives and certain tools, self-defense items such as pepper spray and Mace, and anything that could be used as a bludgeon, such as a billy club. The display included a bowling pin, which under TSA guidelines could also qualify under the bludgeon category.

Liquids, gels and aerosols are by far some of the most common items that make it into carry-ons by mistake, said Mark Howell, regional spokesperson for the Transportation Security Administration. He reminds travelers to follow the “3-1-1 Rule” — travel-sized containers (3.4 ounces or less) of these items packed in a quart-sized resealable bag are allowed in a carry-on, while larger sized liquids and gels should go in checked bags.

While pocketknives and wrong-size liquids are an ongoing problem, TSA officials are especially concerned with the number of passengers that still are trying to go through security with firearms in their carry-ons.

“We’ve got a rising number of firearms being discovered in carry-ons,” said David McMahon, federal security director for South Carolina.

Howell said statistics released this week show 3,700 guns — mainly handguns — have been found in carry-ons nationwide so far this year. Eleven guns have been found in carry-ons this year at CAE alone, the same number as found in all of 2021.

Of the six airports with TSA screening in South Carolina, the largest number of guns was found at Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport, McMahon said.

McMahon is asking travelers to be more aware of what they are carrying with them.

“The main response we get from people when a gun is discovered is ‘I forgot,’” he said. “A lot of travelers get anxious in planning for a trip and don’t fully think through what they have in their bags. That’s why we ask people to empty out a bag they’re going to be taking on the plane with them, especially if it’s one they carry with them often or take somewhere like the shooting range, and then pack it again.”

TSA regulations require firearms to be secured in checked baggage.

Some items which are potentially flammable, like lithium batteries and e-cigarettes, should go in carry-ons rather than in checked baggage, Howell said.

McMahon reminds travelers that as more and more people return to traveling after the pandemic, any prohibited item in a carry-on is going to slow down the line at a security checkpoint. Firearms will especially tie things up because if one is found in a carry-on, that entire screening lane shuts down, he said.

“We really need to get people with firearms to think about what’s in their bag, even if it means taking a few extra minutes to check and re-check that bag,” McMahon said. “We have to keep safety and security of all of our passengers in mind.”

BLUF
Doesn’t it tell us all we need to know about “commonsense gun safety laws” that Giffords, and indeed, all the citizen disarmament groups and the politicians they endorse, align themselves with someone who publicly advocates for the military, by force, to rid the Republic of their ideological opponents, but needs their guns first to do it?

Connected Insiders Domestic Enemies Signal Contempt and Lethal Intent for ‘Traditional Americans’

Retired General Michael Hayden

Consummate government insider Michael Hayden has big plans for you. The only thing standing in his way is an armed citizenry.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career,” English journalist and the Financial Times chief US commentator Edward Luce tweeted. “Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.”

It’s typical of a snotty attitude by “progressive” Brits, simultaneously enjoying while subverting the freedoms this country still (partially) recognizes. And they can always count on Americans of all political stripes to sacrifice themselves to foreign entanglements if the UK succeeds in poking the Russian bear overmuch or finding too late the “refugees” it took in have their own ways of doing things. That his father is a titled insider who “served” as Lord Chamberlain to the Queen recalls both Thomas Paine’s observation on hereditary qualifications and one of the more popularly resonating Monty Python skits.

Aside from being a “subject of the Queen,” the guy’s a connected insider, through and through. And his sentiment is gaining traction through national media venues, with, case in point, CNN columnist and MSN guest Dean Obeidallah declaring:

“At this point I LITERALLY view people who still support Donald Trump no different than the despicable, vile people who supported Bin Laden after 9/11 … Today’s GOP is no longer a political party, it’s a white nationalist, FASCIST movement that seeks to impose their EXTREME religious beliefs as the law of our land. It must be utterly defeated in order to save our Republic.”

This isn’t about them though. It’s about another guy who’s also a connected insider through and through and who has been for a long time. He’s ostensibly an American of much more importance in higher circles than mere media commentators, and he signaled to the world that he embraces Luce’s characterization of Republicans.

“I agree,” retired Gen. Michael Hayden tweeted. “And I was the CIA Director.”

A general and a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency? Not to mention former National Security Agency director? With four stars, he was the “highest-ranking military intelligence officer in the armed forces.”

Continue reading “”

Guns of Washington: 5 Agencies With Gun Stockpile

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison

Conspiracy theories sometimes have at least a thread of truth in them, which is what makes them valid to some on the far right.

One of those theories is that the federal government is not on their side. Concern has been raised in conservative circles about the hiring of 87,000 new IRS agents as just one example. Trust in the IRS has been in decline for many years, ever since President Richard Nixon used the government as a weapon against his political enemies and Lois Lerner during the Obama administration denied tax-exempt status to many conservative political and religious organizations.

It isn’t just politics. Americans for Tax Reform, a politically conservative U.S. advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., has listed 10 examples of outrageous behavior by the IRS.

There is another reason some Americans on the right are just now becoming aware of the number of weapons associated with government entities, including some departments within the IRS.

I did not know until constitutional attorney John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative Christian public interest law firm based in Charlottesville, Virginia, sent me a list of  federal agencies that have weapons we didn’t know about, though various media have occasionally reported on the subject over the years.

Here’s the list from the Rutherford Institute that Whitehead sent me, which he says he compiled from those few media that did report on the subject:

— The IRS has stockpiled 4,500 guns and 5 million rounds of ammunition in recent years, including 621 shotguns, 539 long-barrel rifles, and 15 submachine guns. If true, an explanation is needed so that conspiracy theories don’t multiply.

— The Veterans Administration purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition (equivalent to 2,800 rounds for each of its officers), along with camouflage uniforms, riot helmets and shields, specialized image enhancement devices, and tactical lighting. That’s ironic since many veterans used weapons to defend the nation. Are they now seen as potential enemies of the government many of them fought for?

— The Department of Health and Human Services acquired 4 million rounds of ammunition, in addition to 1,300 guns, including five submachine guns and 189 automatic firearms for its Office of Inspector General.

— According to an in-depth Rutherford Institute report on “The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies,” the Social Security Administration secured 800,000 rounds of ammunition for its special agents, as well as armor and guns. Seniors beware!

— The Environmental Protection Agency owns 600 guns. And the Smithsonian Institution now employs 620-armed “special agents.” You’d better not get near those dinosaurs, or litter the highway, or else.

Should we be concerned? Congress authorizes the budgets for these agencies. Have members asked their secretaries and directors why they need all this fire power? Why haven’t the broadcast networks and major newspapers conducted investigations?

A 2017 Forbes magazine article reported “The Small Business Administration (SBA) spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to load its gun locker with Glocks last year. The SBA wasn’t alone – the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service modified their Glocks with silencers.” Maybe they don’t want to disturb the fish while taking down an angler.

Freedom is not easy to obtain, but it is easy to lose. Ask those who once lived in free societies that are now ruled by one-party dictators.

The buildup of weapons, the proliferation of cameras, the increasing fear among some that our government is no longer on “our side” reminds me of the lyric from a song by The Police: “Every move you make, every breath you take I’ll be watching you.”