Category: Bureaucraps

FBI ‘Active Shooter’ Stats Shoot Holes In Biden’s ‘Mass Shooting’ Argument

President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, anti-gun legislators and gun-ban groups like to tout the number of mass shootings in America, often saying there have been more mass shootings in the country than there have been days in the year.

Of course, these anti-gun activists are using numbers from the Gun Violence Archives, a website known for using criteria that greatly inflates such numbers. And that’s very easy to see when compared to the just-released Federal Bureau of Investigation report on “active shooter” incidents.

GVA’s “mass shootings” criteria is all events where four or more people are injured in a shooting. These incidents are often drug gang attacks and the like—not at all what Americans think of as mass shootings. In fact, they would include a botched arrest where two cops and two suspects are shot, and even self-defense shootings! By their criteria, they reported 656 mass shootings in 2023.

The FBI, on the other hand, classifies an “active shooter” how most Americans likely envision it—“an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” By the FBI’s count, there were 48 active shooter incidents in 2023, only about 7% of the total reported by GVA and constantly regurgitated by politicians and the press.

Of course, President Biden and other gun-ban advocates have full access to the FBI report, but you never hear them talking about it. They prefer the bloated numbers from GVA, even though they aren’t a true picture of what most think of when they hear the word “mass shooting.”

Continue reading “”

DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Resolve Question of Gun Rights for Felons

Fresh off its victory in Rahimi, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking the Supreme Court to clarify who it can disarm under the Second Amendment.

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a supplemental brief with the High Court on Monday to request that the Justices make the federal felony gun ban their next Second Amendment priority. Specifically, the brief asked for review in five separate appellate court cases dealing with the federal gun ban for felonies of varying severity. She argued such a move was necessary because the Court failed to address the issue in its latest Second Amendment decision.

“Now that the Court has decided Rahimi, we believe that it should grant plenary review to resolve Section 922(g)(1) ‘s constitutionality,” the brief reads. “Although this Court’s decision in Rahimi corrects some of the methodological errors made by courts that have held Section 922(g)(1) invalid, it is unlikely to fully resolve the existing conflict.”

The DOJ’s brief is the earliest indication of the legal fallout from the Court’s decision in US v. Rahimi, which upheld the domestic violence restraining order gun ban. It suggests that the federal government is unsatisfied with the Court’s narrow ruling in that case. It is seeking further guidance from the Court that will help lower courts evaluate the extent to which certain felons retain gun rights, something federal circuit courts have been divided over since Bruen.

Instead of providing a sweeping re-evaluation of Bruen, the majority stuck closely to the specific contours of the case against defendant Zachary Rahimi.

“When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in US v. Rahimi. “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition.”

DOJ’s request comes as the High Court considers which of its pending Second Amendment case petitions to grant. The brief’s request for expeditious review could sway the Justices to defer to the federal government’s wishes, as it has often done in past cases.

Continue reading “”

The Message Is Plain

There are no property rights in the United States…at least, none that the State deigns to honor.

Do you remember Teresa Ghilarducci? I do. Any American who has a 401(k), an IRA, or some equivalent should know about her and her chief ambition:

     Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.
     Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.
     The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration….
     The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”…
     All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Socialists are forever talking about “inequality” (or in their more recent argot, “inequity”) because it affords them a pretext for seizing our money and property in pursuit of their agenda. It’s well established historically that “inequality” increases under socialism, but they’d rather we didn’t notice that. At any rate, they constantly seek rationales under which to “redistribute” what we’ve earned and saved. We must all be equally poor – except for our loving rulers, of course. Anything else would be “unfair!”

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
Are you surprised the gooberment lied in a report? – Jessica J

Citing Fake Mass-Shooting Data, US Surgeon General Declares ‘Gun Violence’ a Public Health Crisis

United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared that “gun violence” constitutes a public health crisis Tuesday but cited fake mass-shooting data from the long-debunked Gun Violence Archive to support his spurious claims.

Murthy presented his finding in a 40-page Surgeon General advisory, titled “Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America.”

“While mass shooting deaths represent only about 1% of all firearm‑related deaths in the U.S., the number of mass shooting incidents is increasing. According to data published by Gun Violence Archive, the U.S. experienced more than 600 mass shooting incidents each year between 2020 and 2023, compared to an average of less than 400 annual mass shooting incidents between 2015 and 2018,” the Surgeon General’s advisory states.

In his report, Murthy cites data from the Gun Violence Archive more than four times.

Founded in 2013, the GVA quickly became the administration’s source of choice for mass-shooting data because they hype the numbers. The small nonprofit came up with its own extremely broad definition of a mass shooting, which says anytime four or more people are killed or even slightly wounded with a firearm regardless of the circumstances, it’s a mass shooting. For example, according to the GVA there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower and more realistic definition, which excludes gang-related and drug-related shootings, which the GVA includes in its data.

Murthy is not the only member of the Biden-Harris administration to use fake data from the GVA. Biden and his handlers have cited GVA’s mass-shooting data throughout his presidency in speeches, written statements and social media.

Continue reading “”

ATF Whistleblower Applauds Bump Stock Ruling, Warns of Threats Ahead

Retired ATF Deputy Assistant Director Pete Forcelli, who helped blow the whistle on the Operation Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, tells Bearing Arms the Supreme Court made the right decision in striking down the agency’s ban on bump stocks, but he’s still deeply concerned that the agency is going to continue to be used by the Biden administration as a way to enact new gun control laws without getting Congress involved… especially if Joe Biden gets another four years in office.

The left likes to attack things, and the problem that I have is when the ATF is tasked by the White House or the Justice Department to attack things rather than hold the people responsible [for their crimes]. It’s not an item that causes the damage. It’s the person misusing that item. How many bump stocks have been used in shootings in the United States aside from Las Vegas? I don’t know of any, to be honest.

Of course, the bump stock ban was implemented under Donald Trump’s watch, so the right can look for simplistic solutions as well, especially in the wake of a high-profile shooting like the Route 91 Harvest Festival murders that resulted in 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries. But the Biden administration has used the ATF to do an end-run around Congress on a regular basis; first by targeting unfinished frames and receivers, then pistol stabilizing braces, and most recently gun owners who offer to sell one or more of their firearms from their personal collection.

Those are just the rules the agency has implemented. According to Forcelli, the White House has been demanding even more.

Continue reading “”

Even CDC Admits Latest Anti-gun Report is Misleading and Full of Holes

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

Three teenage girls were alone in their Lawrence County, Kentucky home one hot summer day in 2019.

Suddenly, a white car pulled up and two men got out. One man started kicking in the front door. The second suspect circled around to the backyard and began breaking out a window with a shovel. The youngest of the girls, who was 14-years old at the time, found and loaded the family’s 9mm pistol and fired a round at one of the suspects, who both quickly left.

In 2021, a 12-year-old boy armed himself after two masked home invaders broke into his grandmother’s home demanding money. One of the suspects shot the 73-year-old woman, which prompted the youth to return fire in self-defense. Police later found one of the suspects curled up on his side in an intersection near the home. He was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. The grandmother survived her wounds.

In February, a 14-year-old Houston-area teen fired six rounds at an intruder who was trying to break into his home through the front door. Police found the suspect, who was wearing gloves and carrying a backpack, in the front yard where he was pronounced dead.

None of these defensive gun usages or any others were even mentioned in a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which purported to examine firearm storage data behaviors. Defensive gun usages weren’t the only data set omitted from the report. The CDC needed so many disclosures and disclaimers to tell readers what other data was missing from its research that it’s a miracle the report even was published.

The report, titled “Firearm Storage Behaviors — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Eight States, 2021–2022,” was based on telephone interviews. The researchers called the respondents using a “random-digit–dialed landline and mobile telephone survey.” However, the authors immediately encountered four significant problems that limited the validity of their work:

  1. They were unable to determine whether firearms were stored loaded or unloaded during the phone interviews.
  2. They were only able to obtain data from the eight states, which is statistically meaningless.
  3. Some respondents did not want to disclose whether they had a firearm in their home.
  4. All of the data was self-reported to the researchers, and therefore “subject to social desirability and recall biases.”

As a result, the findings were statistical gibberish. In the handful of states that participated, the authors concluded, “18.4% – 50.6% of respondents reported the presence of a firearm in or around their home, and 19.5% – 43.8% of those with a firearm reported that at least one firearm was stored loaded.”

Continue reading “”

 

Yet they are doing exactly that to political opponents at this very moment. Steve Bannon for example.

DOJ Won’t Prosecute Merrick Garland For Contempt of Congress Over Biden Audio Tapes

The Justice Department won’t prosecute Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress over the Biden audio tapes.

The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to hold Merrick Garland in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena.

Last month two GOP-led House committees passed resolutions recommending US Attorney General Merrick Garland be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over audio of Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

Merrick Garland has reportedly “classified at the highest level” the audio tapes of Joe Biden’s embarrassing interview with Special Counsel Hur. The tapes have been locked away in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), according to investigative journalist Paul Sperry.

6-3 with the 3 dissenters being exactly who you think they’d be.

Bump Stock Ban Tossed Out by Supreme Court in Gun-Rights Win

A divided US Supreme Court dealt a fresh blow to firearm-regulation efforts by throwing out the federal ban on bump stocks, the attachments that let a semiautomatic rifle fire at speeds rivaling a machine gun.

On a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the justices voided a criminal prohibition put in place by the Trump administration after the 2017 Las Vegas concert massacre, when a man using bump stocks killed 60 people. The attack was the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

The case is one of two firearms disputes the court is considering in its 2023-24 term, along with a constitutional clash over the federal gun ban for people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. The bump-stock fight concerned the reach of a federal statute rather than the Second Amendment, the constitutional provision the court has used to expand gun rights in recent years.

A 1986 law bars most people from owning fully automatic machine guns or parts designed to convert weapons into machine guns. The issue was whether bump stocks meet the law’s definition of machine guns as weapons that can “automatically” discharge more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.”

“A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court majority.

Bump stocks replace the standard stock on a rifle — the part that rests against the shooter’s shoulder — with a plastic casing that lets the weapon slide forward and backward. The device harnesses the recoil energy when a shot is fired, causing the gun to slide backward and separate from the trigger finger. The separation lets the firing mechanism reset.

By applying constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand, the shooter can then force the rifle forward so that it “bumps” the trigger finger, even without moving the finger.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“The majority’s artificially narrow definition hamstrings the government’s efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter,” Sotomayor wrote for the group. She took the unusual step of reading a summary of her dissent from the bench for emphasis.

The case is Garland v. Cargill, 22-976.

 

Federal Judge Vacates ATF Rule on Pistol Braces

We’re still waiting to see what the Supreme Court does in Rahimi and Cargill, but gun owners did get some very good news from the federal courts on Thursday. A U.S. District Judge in Texas has vacated the ATF’s rule treating pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles; granting relief not only for the named plaintiffs involved in the litigation, but for every gun owner across the country who owns a brace.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the ATF’s rule treating most pistol braces as accessories that turn pistols into SBRs violated the Administrative Procedures Act in a number of ways.

For close to a decade, the ATF concluded that “attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control.” The ATF changed course on this position for the first time in 2023, when it issued the Final Rule reversing the agency’s otherwise long-standing policy.

“When an agency changes course, as [the ATF] did here, it must ‘be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30 (2020) (quoting Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U. S. 211, 222 (2016)). “It would be arbitrary and capricious to ignore such matters” Id. But this is exactly what Defendants did when they inexplicably and fundamentally switched their position on stabilizing braces without providing sufficient explanations and notice.

Under the Final Rule, the ATF estimated about 99% of pistols with stabilizing braces would be reclassified as NFA rifles. The ATF contemporaneously issued approximately sixty adjudications pursuant to the Final Rule that reclassified different configurations of firearms with stabilizing braces as NFA rifles.

The ATF provided no explanations for how the agency came to these classifications and there is no “meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace.” Mock, 75 F.4th at 585 (5th Cir. 2023). In fact, the Fifth Circuit “[could not] find a single given example of a pistol with a stabilizing brace that would constitute an NFA exempt braced pistol.” Id. at 575. Such “‘unexplained’ and ‘inconsistent’ positions” are arbitrary and capricious. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. FDA, 65 F.4th 182, 191 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Encino Motorcars, 579 U.S. at 222).

The Defendants’ disregard for the principles of fair notice and consideration of reliance interests is further exacerbated by its failure to follow the APA’s procedural requirements for public notice and comment. As discussed above, Defendants failed to follow proper notice-and comment procedures because the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule differed in immense ways.

O’Connor also held that the ATF’s final rule on stabilizing braces was “impermissibly vague”, noting that while the ATF developed a worksheet that ostensibly allows gun owners to see if their brace-equipped pistol falls under the rule, the ATF itself still has “complete discretion to use a subjective balancing test to weigh six opaque factors on an invisible scale” to determine the legality of a brace-equipped pistol.

Consequently, the Court finds that the Final Rule’s six factor test is so impermissibly vague that it “provides no meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace,” and, thus, that “it is nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol” that “requires NFA registration.” Id. at 584–85. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to this issue.

This is a big win for the Firearms Policy Coalition and their co-plaintiffs in the case, and it should provide some meaningful protection for the immediate future. The DOJ will almost certainly appeal O’Connor’s decision, but Merrick Garland and company aren’t likely to find a lot of allies in support of the rule at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which would be the next stop for the case. Garland could try to appeal directly to the Supreme Court on the issue, but SCOTUS has been reluctant to hear interlocutory appeals from gun owners in the two years since Bruen, and there’s no guarantee the Court would take up Mock v. Garland before the Fifth Circuit has a chance to weigh in on O’Connor’s decision.

For the time being, the rule is dead. And depending on what the Supreme Court does with the Cargill case, it might not be the only ATF rule to succumb to court scrutiny this week. SCOTUS is scheduled to release more decisions from this term on Friday, and the challenge to the bump stock ban could be among the cases that are decided this week.

Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against ATF Rule on Gun Dealers

A federal judge in Texas has granted a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s new rule on who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, but his ruling won’t apply to every gun owner across the country. Instead, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk has limited the scope of the injunction solely to the named plaintiffs in the case.

Still, given that those plaintiffs include the states of Texas, Utah, Louisiana, and Mississippi along with Gun Owners of America, the Tennessee Firearms Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, millions of gun owners who could otherwise be subjected to an ATF investigation or federal charges simply for offering a firearm for sale can rest a little easier for the time being.

In his ruling, Kacsmaryk held that the plaintiff’s argument that the new ATF rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act is likely to prevail at trial. According to the judge, the new language from the ATF goes far beyond the small changes in statute that were approved by Congress as part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Here, the Final Rule clashes with the text of the BSCA in at least three ways. First, it asserts that there is no “minimum number of firearms to actually be sold to be ‘engaged in the business’” for the purposes of the licensing requirement. . “[A] single firearm transaction”— or even a mere offer to engage in a transaction — may suffice.

[W]hile selling large numbers of firearms or engaging or offering to engage infrequent transactions may be highly indicative of business activity, neither thecourts nor the Department have recognized a set minimum number of firearms purchased or resold that triggers the licensing requirement. Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged inthe business” of dealing in firearms. Even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license.

But the BSCA says otherwise: The term “engaged in the business” means . . .

as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person whodevotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of tradeor business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personalcollection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms[.]

Congress says someone must repeatedly buy and resell firearms to be considered a gun dealer, while the ATF says merely offering a single gun for sale can suffice. Kacsmaryk rightfully held that it’s the language in the statute that matters most, and the agency has likely strayed so far from the text that its rule should be rendered null and void when the case is resolved on the merits.

The judge also took issue with the ATF rule’s suggestion that “actual profit is not a requirement of the statute —it is only the predominant intent to earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms that is required,” pointing out that the current statute states “proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism. According to Kacsmaryk, that means that proof of profit is required if the feds want to charge someone with being an unlicensed gun dealer and there are no allegations of criminal activity or terrorism involved.

Lastly, Kacsmaryk found fault with the ATF’s presumptions on “when a person has the intent to ‘predominantly earn a profit’” and “that someone is ‘engaged in the business.’” Under the ATF’s rule, people are presumed to have those intentions unless they can prove otherwise, which the judge says “flip[s] the statute on its head by requiring that firearm owners prove innocence rather than the government prove guilt.”

I wish that the judge would have applied this injunction to all gun owners and not just the named plaintiffs in the case, but this is still a significant victory for those challenging the new rule. Texas v. ATF isn’t the only lawsuit to challenge the ATF rule either, so there’s a good chance that more gun owners will find relief as the other lawsuits move forward in the courts.

It has always been a genetic ‘treatment’

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has delivered a seismic decision that could reshape public health policy across the nation.

In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court has declared that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions.

The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.

The plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient.
The court’s opinion, penned by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserts that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This crucial distinction undermines the foundational premise of the vaccine mandates enforced by various governmental and educational institutions.
Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case that upheld the state’s right to enforce smallpox vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread. In contrast, the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not offer such public health benefits, thus failing the criteria established by Jacobson.

The ruling points out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission, which is not conclusively proven in the case of mRNA COVID-19 shots.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had modified the definition of “vaccine” to include the mRNA shots.

So, look at what the CDC did. Here’s the definition the CDC used on 26 August 2021:

  • Vaccine– “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
  • Vaccination– “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

Rather than admit the COVID-19 vaccine is not working as advertised, the CDC took a page out of Orwell’s 1984 and opted for new spin language.

Here is the new definition:

  • Vaccine– “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

It can be recalled that Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, Janine Small, admitted in an EU hearing that the vaccine had never been tested on its ability to prevent transmission, contrary to what was previously advertised.

Judge Collins, in a concurring opinion, highlighted that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments. This perspective aligns with the constitutional principles protecting personal liberty against unwarranted governmental intrusions.

You can read the full ruling below:

View Fullscreen

Jury is chosen in Hunter Biden’s federal firearms case and opening statements are set for Tuesday

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — A jury was seated Monday in the federal gun case against President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, after prospective panelists were questioned about their thoughts on gun rights and drug addiction while the first lady watched from the front row of the courtroom.

Opening statements were set to begin Tuesday after the jurors — six men and six women plus four women serving as alternates — were instructed by Judge Maryellen Noreika not to talk or read about the case.

Hunter Biden has been charged in Delaware with three felonies stemming from a 2018 firearm purchase when he was, according to his memoir, in the throes of a crack addiction. He has been accused of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.

The case is going to trial following the collapse of a plea deal that would have avoided the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election. Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty and has argued he’s being unfairly targeted by the Justice Department, after Republicans decried the now-defunct plea deal as special treatment for the Democratic president’s son.

Continue reading “”

Long……

Fauci Squirms During GOP Grilling Over COVID, Pandemic Response

Update (1530ET): Former NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci was grilled by Republicans during Monday testimony in front of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, where he repeatedly denied Republican allegations that he sought to cover up the COVID-19 lab-leak theory – calling the accusation “absolutely false and simply preposterous.”

In his opening statement, Fauci denied trying to silence officials and scientists who thought the virus was created in, or at least escaped from, the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

“The accusation being circulated that I influenced these scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions of dollars in grant money is absolutely false and simply preposterous. I had no input into the content of the published paper,” said Fauci. “The second issue is a false accusation that I tried to cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite.”

Following his opening statement Fauci was grilled over the government’s response to the pandemic – defending the CDC over mask mandates, lockdowns, and other public policy – while Democrats on the panel repeatedly bent over backwards to defend him.

Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) got into a heated exchange Fauci over the measures – at one point forcing the former NIAID director to admit that the Covid-19 vaccine doesn’t stop transmission.

Continue reading “”

Cynical Publius

I get the sense that a lot of people across the entire political spectrum do not fully understand one of the very most basic reasons why the US federal government is such a tyrannical soup sandwich, so I thought I would write a quick primer.

The US Constitution limits the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states (or the People). To the extent the federal government has certain enumerated powers, it is up to Congress to make laws, and it is up to the President to enforce them. (Yes, I know that it is a very simplified explanation, but it’s basically true.)

Certain federal agencies housed in the Executive Branch have existed almost from the nation’s founding, but these related solely and directly to the President’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers, thus the War Department (for example) was necessary. However, starting with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, we began to see Congress abdicating some of its lawmaking powers to federal agencies.

Through the following decades, with the desire of the so-called “progressives” to establish rule by “experts,” that abdication of Congressional law-making responsibilities went on warp drive, through Woodrow Wilson, through FDR and even through Richard Nixon, as numerous new federal agencies came into being.

Over those decades, more and more law-making authority was delegated to those federal agencies, most of which were housed in the Executive Branch and responsive to the President, thus greatly expanding the President’s powers beyond the original Constitutional intent.

Over time, even the powers of the third branch—the Judicial Branch—were co-opted into the Executive Branch as these administrative agencies were given the power to create their own courts, thus ruling on disputes regarding and enforcement of the very laws they made.

Penultimately, we have reached the point today where the Executive Branch has subsumed many of the Constitutional authorities of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, creating the tyrannical federal government we see today—one run by life-tenured, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who rule first and foremost for the growth and protection of their own agencies.

Now Donald Trump wants to undo much of this. He wants to unwind this cabal of extra-Constitutional power, and he wants to do so by taking that power OUT OF THE VERY BRANCH HE WILL RUN and return that power to the Constitutional authorities where it belongs. This effort to unwind the power in the Executive Branch is what worries Fascist Democrats when they talk about Trump “destroying democracy,” and it’s why they call him a “dictator.”

(Which is hilarious, since Trump would be the very first “dictator” in world history whose primary purpose is to reduce his own power, thereby enhancing democracy.)

So hopefully that makes things more clear. I left a lot out and simplified some very complex issues, but I think this covers things at the most basic level. If you want to know more, Google the following:

1. Administrative Procedure Act.
2. “Abolishing the Administrative Procedure Act.”
3. Chevron v. NRDC.
4. INS v. Chadha.
5. Wickard v. Filburn

Have a patriotic day please.

Anti-Gunners Channel Orwell to Defend Bump Stock Ban

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill looming, gun control activists are engaging in some Big Brother-esque torture of the English language to defend the ATF’s abuse of its regulatory authority.

The doubleplus ungood spin from groups like Brady and Giffords is being aided and abetted by gun control-friendly writers like The Hill‘s Clayoton Vickers, who contends that if the ATF’s rule is struck down by the Supreme Court it “could quickly open an unfettered marketplace of newer, more powerful rapid-fire devices.”

David Pucino, legal director at Giffords Law Center, said lower courts are currently treating bump stocks and similar devices like machine guns, which are banned.

“The use case for new rapid-fire devices lower courts are considering is that somebody wants to have a machine gun, and the law won’t let them have one,” Pucino said.

If the Supreme Court does overturn the ban, he said, it “would be very, very dangerous for public safety.”

Pucino’s comments are erroneous on several counts. First, not every lower courts are treating bump stocks like machine guns. If that were the case the Court might never have agreed to hear Garland v. Cargill. It’s the government that asked the Court to take the case, after all, and the DOJ filed that request because the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have both issued rulings that bump stocks do not turn firearms into machine guns.

Pucino is also off base when he claims that the argument boils down to “someone wants a machine gun but the law won’t let them have one.” Garland v. Cargill technically isn’t even a Second Amendment case. The question before the Court is whether “a bump stock device is a ‘machinegun’ as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires ‘automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.'”

It’s that phrase “single function of the trigger” where Pucino and other anti-gunners are trying to play games with the English language.

Gun control advocates argue that a debate over “single function” misses the point of bans on machine guns.

“The Justices are aware there’s a sort of forced nature to the other side’s argument,” Shira Feldman, director of constitutional litigation at Brady United Against Gun Violence, told The Hill.

Brady, a gun-control advocacy group, has also filed a brief in Cargill.

“Is it really reasonable that Congress would have written the law such that we have to read these statutes in a way that we wouldn’t normally parse language?” Feldman said.

It’s the gun control groups who are wanting to read these statutes in a way that defies common sense. In their view, a “single function of the trigger” is the same as “multiple functions of a trigger”, so long as any device attached to a firearm can help increase the rate of fire. Congress didn’t define “machine gun” by how many rounds could be sent downrange in a given period of time, which is essentially how the gun control groups want the statute in question to be interpreted. A bump stock doesn’t change anything at all about how a trigger functions, and it certainly doesn’t turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic machine gun.

There’s another flaw in the logic (and I use that term loosely) of the gun control groups. Like Vickers, they claim that allowing bump stocks to be sold will be “very, very dangerous for public safety.” But they also claim that the gun industry is already flouting federal law to sell any number of devices that turn AR-15s into machine guns.

According to Feldman and fellow legal experts at Brady, the gun industry has been “disingenuous” in calling rapid-fire accessories legal and has sold them as “get them before … [they’re] banned” products.

“We’ve seen the gun industry do everything they can do to skirt federal regulation to increase the lethality of the weapons that they can sell to civilians, whether it’s a hellfire [trigger], a bump stock or a host of other accessories,” said Christian Heyne, chief programs officer at Brady.

“The main reason you have these is to kill as many people in this short amount of time as you can. And to victims, it isn’t important exactly how the trigger mechanism works,” added Douglas Letter, Brady’s chief legal officer.

“The point is that what Congress was trying to do [when it passed machine gun bans] was make these unbelievably dangerous weapons not a part of our civilian society,” he said.

It’s not disingenuous to sell products that the ATF says are perfectly legal. What’s disingenuous is the agency reversing years of determinations to the contrary, while writing rules that are so ambiguous it’s impossible to know whether you’re in compliance or violating their edicts. It’s disingenuous to claim that the main reason someone wants a bump stock or a binary trigger is to “kill as many people as possible” given the fact that hundreds of thousands of bump stocks were lawfully purchased before the ATF banned them, but were rarely used in crimes of any kind.

Garland v. Cargill is a case about bump stocks, but it’s also inherently about agency power. Will the Supreme Court give the green light to ATF and other federal agencies to ignore the plain text of federal statutes and essentially write new laws out of existing regulations, or will it rein in the multiple administrative abuses that have taken place since the bump stock ban was imposed in 2017? I have no idea where the Court will come down, but with a decision expected before its summer recess in June, we don’t have too long to wait before we learn the answer.

StunnedTater Cornyn shouldn’t have pushed this bill anyway.
The pushback mail he got must have been white hot caustic.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), along with 41 of their Senate Republican colleagues, introduced a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to strike down the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) rule on the definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms. The rule ignores the law and congressional intent and flagrantly violates the Constitution to try to require anyone who sells a firearm to register as a federal firearm licensee.

“Once again, the Biden administration is ignoring the law in their attempts to infringe on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans and their ability to bear arms. This gun-grab flies in the face of congressional intent, unlawfully shifts the burden to individuals to demonstrate to the ATF that they are not firearms dealers, and prohibits lawful conduct protected by the Second Amendment. West Virginians have my word that I will fight this rule on their behalf and continue to be a fierce defender of their gun rights,” Senator Capito said.

The resolution is endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and the National Rifle Association (NRA).