Category: Goobermint

Just to clarify.
This requirement isn’t for concealed carry. It’s to simply BUY a firearm.
I think this monstrosity isn’t going to make it through the court system, but it does illuminate just how mindless a lot of people are, which isn’t a new thing, as the Framers recognized the malady even back then when they demanded a Bill of Rights.

Measure 114’s live fire training component leaves trainers in limbo

While Oregon’s new voter-approved gun control measure is getting worked out in the courts, there remains uncertainty among local gun shops and firearms instructors in Central Oregon.

Sharon Preston, owner of Ladies of Lead in Redmond — and an instructor who specializes in self-defense training for women — says there are a lot of questions that still have not been answered about the implementation of Measure 114.

Preston says business has been through the roof. But she says she’s had to stop firearm sales, not knowing what is next with the measure. But she says selling guns is only part of what she does.

“Selling guns is a very small portion of my business. I do it as an added value to my clients, so it’s educational based gun sales. But my main focus is always going to be in training,” said Preston.
She’s been forced to find alternatives as 114 is in limbo.

“I’ve heard too many stories in this store from women, locally. The brutality and violence they have been through, survived through. They want a tool that will allow them to live their lives large again, and they’re not going to be able to get on. That’s why I’m switching to crossbows, pepper ball guns, tasers, knives,” Preston said.

Preston’s biggest concern with the measure lies in the required live fire training — meant to prove shooting proficiency. As of now, she says no guidelines have been spelled out as to how the state will facilitate the training courses. And no one knows who will be authorized by the state to lead those courses.

And there are other unanswered questions.

“They don’t know how many rounds we have to shoot, at what distance we have to shoot, at what target we have to shoot. They don’t know what firearm we can use. So there’s so many questions out there,” said Preston.

The next hearing on Measure 114 will be held Tuesday at Circuit Court in Harney County. Those who support the measure will be able to argue against the temporary hold set in place by Judge Robert Raschio.

 

original:

Image

Reworked to fit the narrative:

Image

 

 

BLUF
The larger objective of U.S. involvement in social media has always been monitoring and surveillance of the public conversation, and then ultimately controlling and influencing public opinion.

It’s All Making Sense – Elon Musk Has No Idea What He Purchased with Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop…

… And if he does, the outlook is worse.

According to both the Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI), via Chairman Mark Warner, and the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) via Mike Turner, the Chinese social media platform TikTok represents a “national security risk” to the United States.  South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, soon to be the vice-presidential candidate for the DeSantis-Noem 2024 ticket, has also called TikTok a national security threat and banned it in the state. Now, think about that carefully.

What is it about a social media app that allows short video sharing that would constitute a national security risk?  The answer is not about dog and cat videos, or dancing diatribes or funny, weird or goofy content; nor is the national security risk attached to any data of the app users or content providers.  The national security risk is found in the ability to influence public opinion that is not under the control of the United States government, or more specifically the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS).

The need for control is a reaction to fear.  TikTok, as a social media platform, is not considered a national security threat because the Chinese government can control it.  TikTok is considered a national security threat because the United States government does not control it.

Continue reading “”

Buried in the ‘Bipartisan’ Immigration Bill Is an INSANE Provision That Republicans Have No Business Supporting

A few years ago, one of my closest friends went on a mission trip to Honduras with one of the missions our church supports there. He fell in love with a young woman who was helping the mission with their work, and he wound up making several trips back to spend time with her. (Talk about a long-distance relationship!)

Eventually, they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. She began the process of getting her visa to come to the U.S. They married in November 2019, and she continued the legal process to acquire her green card.

That process got ever more complicated during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it took her months longer than it normally would have because of lockdowns and the complications that the virus brought us.

I know she’s not alone, but at the same time, illegal immigrants are pouring across our southern border to the tune of tens of thousands a month. The month my friends got married, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency processed 51,857 encounters with illegal immigrants.

It’s no secret that our border is in crisis. Just read any of the reports from my Townhall colleague Julio Rosas if you don’t believe it. Federal inaction at every level has only exacerbated the problem. So when we hear of a good faith effort, especially a bipartisan one, it gets our attention.

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) are putting forth a bill in the lame-duck session of this Congress that’s simply bad. Over at Townhall, my colleague Matt Vespa explains just two of the major components of this bill:

“There is no funding to complete the border wall—that would make sense,” Matt writes. That’s bad enough, but another proposal in the bill creates a potential ripple effect that could become disastrous.

Matt writes that this bill “will permit some two million recipients of Obama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to get on the citizenship track. The buried portion of this provision is that once these two million are through the process, they can sponsor extended family members so that two million-figure could be closer to seven million, and I’m being conservative in that estimate.”

Blanket forgiveness for two million people who arrived in this country illegally when they were children with a ripple effect that could more than triple that number? How can anyone from either party think that’s a good idea?

In a conversation, my PJ Media colleague Athena Thorne made a perceptive analogy.

She said this type of amnesty bill is akin to “If some squatters bring a kid into the house they’re squatting in and the kid gets comfortable, the kid gets to keep the house!” With that ripple effect, the whole family could get to make their home in a house they don’t have any rights to.

There’s a little bit of a trade-off, as the Washington Post reports: “It gives Republicans faster removal from the country of migrants who fail to qualify for asylum, a continued restriction on applications for the next year, and more border security.”

That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t make up for the millions of illegal immigrants who will suddenly become legal. This will allow millions of people who broke the law to jump the line ahead of those who have waited out the legal immigration process. These people already cut in line once when they made their way across the border — and they’ll get to bypass the process again? That’s not right.

One of the characteristics of this nation that people like to brag about is that we’re a “nation of immigrants.” That’s a nice thing to be proud of, but we’re also a nation of laws. We need to honor those laws, too. If an immigrant wants to become part of this “nation of immigrants,” he or she should abide by our laws, and that starts with coming to this country legally.

An immigration policy starts with enforcing the immigration laws that are already on the books before we try to enact more. A bill like the one Tillis and Sinema are proposing is worse than no immigration reform at all. We can only hope that it won’t get enough traction to pass.

Biden admin disbands ‘fake’ parents council after pushback from parental rights groups

WASHINGTON (CITC) — The Biden administration is disbanding its newly formed national parents council after several advocacy groups accused it of violating federal law.

The National Parents and Families Engagement Council was formed in June as a way to “facilitate strong and effective relationships between schools and parents, families and caregivers.” Representatives were handpicked by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) to help the agency engage with communities at the local level.

Less than a month later, the Biden administration was hit with a lawsuit by parental rights groups claiming the council was ideologically divisive. Plaintiffs Parents Defending Education (PDE), America First Legal (AFL) and Fight for Schools and Families (FFS) noted that members of the council included those who stood by a National Schools Boards Association (NSBA) letter that likened concerned parents at school board meetings to “domestic terrorists.”

The lawsuit also argued the council failed to meet other various federal requirements, including open and transparent public meetings and public oversight.

The DOE appeared to concede Monday, as it announced that while it “disagrees” with the notion that it violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), it will no longer move forward with the council.

“Parental rights and voices matter,” the announcement reads. “That’s a clear and consistent message we hear from education stakeholders throughout our nation, whether they’re parents themselves, students or educators, or partners in government or the private sector.”

The DOE added that it strives to hear from “as many parents as possible” and that it recognizes the concern shared by all for the future of American students, regardless of political, social and cultural backgrounds.

The three groups behind the lawsuit have quickly taken to social media to celebrate the victory.

“Parents should NEVER be used as political props to advance radical policies that harm students,” PDE founder and president Nicole Neily, who calls the outcome a “huge win,” reacted on Twitter.

We Now Have the Full Transcript of Fauci’s Deposition in Social-Media Collusion Case

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry deposed Anthony Fauci last month in the states’ case accusing the Biden administration of “colluding with social media companies to censor speech” related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Today, they released the full transcript of that interview (you can read the entire document below).“Today, Louisiana and Missouri are releasing the full transcript for the deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci, which was taken on November 23rd, 2022. The deposition was taken as part of Louisiana and Missouri’s landmark lawsuit against the federal government and the Biden Administration for colluding with social media companies to censor speech,” said Landry in a press release. “Fauci’s recent deposition only confirmed what we already knew: federal bureaucrats in collusion with social media companies want to control not only what you think, but especially what you say. During no time in human history was this more obvious than during the COVID-19 crisis where social engineering tactics were used against the American public, not to limit your exposure to a virus, but to limit your exposure to information that did not fit within a government sanctioned narrative.”“Missouri and Louisiana are leading the way in exposing how the federal government and the Biden Administration worked with social media to censor speech. In our deposition with Dr. Fauci, it became clear that when Dr. Fauci speaks, social media censors,” added Schmitt in his own press release. “I invite everyone to read the deposition transcript and see exactly how Dr. Fauci operates, and exactly how the COVID tyranny that ruined lives and destroyed businesses was born.”

In a Twitter thread, Schmitt noted that know-nothing Fauci blurted out, “I don’t recall,” 174 times during the deposition, “including when asked about emails that he sent, interviews that he gave, and other important information.”

Fauci did, however, “vaguely recall” telling former HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell in early 2020 not to wear a mask when traveling. “Just a couple months later, he was advocating for universal mask mandates,” Schmitt noted.

Also from Schmitt: “One of Fauci’s deputies joined a WHO delegation to China in February of 2020, and in talking to Fauci afterwards, was impressed with how the Chinese ‘were handling the isolation, the contact tracing, the building of facilities to take care of people.’”

Indeed, Fauci admitted that this American official told him the U.S. “may have to go to as extreme a degree of social distancing to help bring our outbreak under control.” But then Fauci clammed up and said he “didn’t recall” the individual discussing this with him when he returned home.”

This is a breaking story. We’ll have more details to report in an upcoming article. 

Full Redacted Fauci Transcript by PJ Media on Scribd

Oregon’s attorney general concedes state unable to put permit-to-purchase gun program in place by date Measure 114 becomes law

Two days after telling a federal judge that Oregonians will be able to apply for a permit to buy a gun by the end of this week, Oregon’s attorney general Sunday night acknowledged the state isn’t ready to have a permitting process in place as required by the voter-approved gun control Measure 114.

In a three-page letter to the court filed at 9:14 p.m. Sunday, Senior Assistant Attorney General Brian Simmonds Marshall conceded that local law enforcement agencies have made it clear that “necessary pieces of the permit to purchase system will not be in place” by this coming Thursday, the date the measure is set to take effect.

The attorney general’s concession echoes what gun rights advocates have argued for the past several weeks and have informed U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut in multiple legal briefs filed in pending lawsuits.

The attorney general has recommended the permit requirement be postponed until February while the measure’s other regulations are allowed to go into effect.

“The State’s position that Measure 114 is constitutional on its face remains the same,” Marshall’s letter said.

The voter-approved measure, which narrowly passed with 50.7% of the vote, will ban the sale, transfer and manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; require a permit to purchase a gun; and not allow a gun sale or transfer to occur without a background check completed.

The attorney general’s office admitted in its letter to the court that the firearms safety courses that are required before someone can obtain a permit to buy a gun are not yet available.

Oregonians should be allowed to continue to buy guns without a permit during a ‘‘limited window,’’ until the state has a full permitting process in place, the attorney general’s letter recommends. Meanwhile, the state will continue to work to get a process up and running, Marshall wrote.

“The State’s proposed postponement would mean that, while the permitting system is brought online, Oregonians who lack a permit will be able to purchase and transfer firearms. Meanwhile, the State and local law enforcement would continue to work towards implementing Measure 114′s permit provisions. Moreover, Oregonians would be able to begin the application process. When the Court’s order expires, Measure 114′s permit requirement for purchases would go into effect,” Marshall wrote to the judge.

The attorney general’s office pointed to the court declaration by Jason Myers, a retired Marion County sheriff who is now executive director of the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association. Myers estimated it will take at least another month to prepare an operational permit system.

In a press release, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum recommended the permit to buy a gun requirement be postponed until February.

“Postponing the permit requirement by approximately two months should give Oregon law enforcement time to have a fully functional permitting system in place. If Judge Immergut agrees to the postponement, then starting in February anyone who purchases a gun in Oregon will be required to have a permit,” Rosenblum said in the release.

Marshall wrote to the court that the state is “committed to working cooperatively with its partners in local law enforcement.”

For the measure to achieve its goal of enhancing public safety, “it is critical that local law enforcement has adequate time to effectively implement the Measure,” Marshall’s letter said.

Under the measure, anyone applying for a permit to buy a gun must complete a training course that includes instruction on state and federal laws related to purchase, ownership, transfer, use and transportation of guns; safe storage of guns including reporting of lost and stolen firearms; how to prevent the abuse or misuse of firearms, including the impact of homicide and suicide on families, communities and the country; and a demonstration that the applicant knows how to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency.

Myers had informed the judge in writing that the sheriffs’ association was unaware of any firearms safety course in Oregon that currently covers all the training requirements.

Immergut held a two-hour hearing Friday morning on the Oregon Firearms Federation’s motion for a temporary restraining order to block the regulations from going into effect as its lawsuit proceeds, contending the measure impinges on their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Most of the argument Friday, though, focused on the provision banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

When Immergut asked Marshall during the hearing if the regulations will be ready to take effect on Thursday, he pledged that Oregonians will be able to apply for a permit then. State police later in the day issued a news release, saying a permit application would be on the agency’s website on Thursday.

Other suits filed challenging the gun control measure included declarations from the sheriffs’ associations and the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police. They argued that their agencies are unprepared and not staffed or funded to support a permitting program for prospective buyers.

Immergut had said at the end of last week that she would rule by Tuesday on whether to grant a temporary restraining order that would put the voter-approved measure on hold.

The judge has given parties to the pending four federal lawsuits until noon Monday to submit any friend of court briefs in support or against the pending motions for a temporary restraining order.

The Rev. Mark Knutson, one of the chief petitioners behind Measure 114, said Sunday night that the Lift Every Voice Oregon interfaith group that obtained signatures to put the measure to voters “wants the most equitable and just process possible…We want this done right to save lives.”

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said he’s concerned about the tens of thousands of prospective gun buyers currently waiting to have their background checks completed by state police. “They are not going to clear that backlog quickly,” he said by email.

Since Election Day, gun sales in the state have spiked. As of Friday, state police had 41,160 background checks pending for gun purchases or transfers, Capt. Kyle Kennedy said. On Black Friday, the state police received 6,055 new background check requests, the highest amount since Election Day, he said.

— Maxine Bernstein

Well, they’re welcome to apply for admittance.

As Canada Prepares to Confiscate Guns, Some Provinces Rebel Against the Policy

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada’s government is coming for people’s firearms. There will be a mass gun confiscation program, as his administration banned some 1,500 firearms with a freeze on handgun sales for the time being. Gun control advocates up north have long advocated for a handgun ban, which could be the next step amid Trudeau’s anti-gun crusade. It’s estimated that some 150,000 legally registered firearms are scheduled to be seized by the government. The rash of new gun laws comes after the 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooter, which left 22 people dead. The shooter, Gabriel Wortman, was later killed by police.

These new anti-gun measures were proposed but not passed until after the 2021 Canadian federal election, where Trudeau’s government hung onto power. One of their promises is to enact stricter gun control laws. The rough draft of the proposal called for a voluntary gun buyback policy, a fancy word for confiscation. Now, fresh off an election win, it’s a mandatory act, though some provinces will not assist in the effort. Trudeau’s gun seizure agenda has led to a further straining of relationships between the capital, Ottawa, and the rest of the country it would seem (via Washington Post):

After a gunman rampaged across rural Nova Scotia in 2020, killing 22 people in Canada’s worst mass killing, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banned some 1,500 makes and models of “military-grade” assault-style firearms and pledged to buy them back from owners.

Now, as Canada’s Liberal government prepares to launch the first phase of the mandatory buyback, several provinces and territories say they won’t help.

The most strident opponents, including the United Conservative Party government in Alberta, are suggesting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police “refuse to participate.” Tyler Shandro, the province’s justice minister, declared the buyback was not “an objective, priority or goal” of the province or its Mounties. Alberta, he said, is “not legally obligated to provide resources for it.”

Marco Mendicino, Canada’s public safety minister, has cast Alberta’s “reckless” position as a “political stunt.” But Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick have also balked at using “scarce RCMP resources” for the program.

“New Brunswick’s bottom line is this: RCMP resources are spread thin as it is,” said Kris Austin, the province’s public safety minister. “We have made it clear to the government of Canada that we cannot condone any use of those limited resources, at all, in their planned buyback program.”

The dispute is one of several that’s inflaming tensions between Ottawa and the provinces. Alberta and Saskatchewan, long estranged from the capital, recently introduced bills to seek greater “sovereignty” for their provinces and to fight what they see as federal “intrusion.”

Yukon’s government said it supports Trudeau’s gun-control proposals and is committed to finding a balance between counteracting the adverse impacts of illegal firearms and respecting hunting rights. But Tracy-Anne McPhee, the territory’s justice minister, has told Mendicino that its RCMP lacks the “administrative, personnel or the financial resources” to participate without additional support, a spokeswoman said.

I like the Second Amendment sanctuary attitude some of these premiers have taken. Still, sadly, without an explicit right to bear arms, that’s codified like the one in our Bill of Rights—I think there will be some chilling videos of Canadian federal police officers showing up at people’s homes and taking their private property. And somehow, there will be a slew of liberal writers defending how the government taking the property of law-abiding citizenry is essential to the health of a democracy. That’s not healthy—that’s cancer.

BLUF
Immergut said she expected to rule on Monday or Tuesday as to whether to issue a temporary restraining order. Regardless of what she decides, a more involved hearing is still expected on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to block the law from being implemented until a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality.

Judge says she’ll decide next week whether to delay new Oregon gun law

The new law requiring a permit to purchase a gun and banning high-capacity magazines was approved by voters in November, but faces multiple legal challenges

A federal judge Friday said she will decide early next week whether or not she would block a voter-approved gun law days before it is set to take effect.

“This is a very complicated area of law,” U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut said, explaining she wanted to review the two sides’ arguments and the cases they referenced before making her decision, particularly given a recent Supreme Court ruling dramatically changing the standards that must be applied to gun laws. “It’s a new landscape.”

Immergut said issuing a temporary restraining order to block Oregon’s Measure 114 from going into effect as scheduled on Dec. 8 would be an extraordinary remedy. Though, that is exactly what the people who have brought the lawsuit want.

The law would require anyone purchasing a firearm to get a permit first and ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

The new provisions were narrowly approved by voters in the Nov. 8 election, carried largely by broad support in the state’s more liberal, populous counties. In some rural counties, voters opposed the measure by as much as a three to one margin.

The lawsuit, one of three filed seeking to block the law from taking effect, was brought by the gun rights group the Oregon Firearms Federation, gun store owners in Marion and Umatilla Counties and three sheriffs: Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey, Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen and Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe.

Continue reading “”

Another Lawsuit Filed Against Oregon for Most Restrictive Gun Law in the Country

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Oregon State Shooting Association (OSSA), and Mazama Sporting Goods filed a lawsuit against the state’s recently passed Ballot Measure 114, which is considered one of the strictest gun control laws in the country. 

The lawsuit claims that the measure infringes upon the right of Oregon residents to buy and own firearms, imposing “severe and unprecedented burdens on individuals seeking to exercise perhaps the most basic right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

This is the third lawsuit filed since November 8, which was filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), Sherman County Sheriff’s Department, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

“The deficiencies in this ballot measure cannot go unaddressed. Forget that it is scheduled to go into effect before Oregon even certifies the election, but it requires potential gun owners to take a class that has yet to be created, at a cost yet to be determined, so that they can obtain a permit that doesn’t permit them to purchase a firearm,” NRA Oregon state director Aoibheann Cline said in a statement to the Daily Caller.

The strict measure will require residents to get background checks, firearm training (which does not currently exist), fingerprint collection, and a permit to purchase any firearm.

The lawsuit also alleges that the measure creates a “Kafkaesque regime” which they claim is not supported by history, tradition, or modern regulation.

“Oregon’s Measure 114 is blatantly unconstitutional,” NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane said, adding “the right to keep and bear arms begins with the ability of law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain a firearm through a lawful purchase at a firearm retailer.”

He also said that it threatens the most constitutional right… “Oregon has created an impossible-to-navigate labyrinth that will achieve nothing except to deny Second Amendment rights to its citizens. The measure is an affront to civil liberties which belong to People, not to the state to grant on impossible and subjective criteria,” Keane added.

The state has rushed to pass the measure, meaning no one will be able to buy a firearm beginning on December 8.

“Saint Benitez” delivers another win to gun owners (and legal smackdown to California AG)

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, affectionately known as “Saint Benitez” among Second Amendment activists for his string of decisions striking down California gun control laws (decisions that have, unfortunately, largely been stymied by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges), has unleashed his latest opinion on California Attorney General Rob Bonta in two cases that deal with a weaselly attempt by Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers to make it financially risky to challenge the state’s gun laws in court.

Shortly after the state of Texas passed their anti-abortion law allowing abortion providers to be sued by private citizens and the Supreme Court declined to block it from taking effect, Newsom declared his intent to fire a responding shot in the culture war; this one aimed at the Second Amendment.

Not long after the Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, Newsom and his legislative allies approved SB 1327, which not only allows California residents to bring their own lawsuits against companies that violate California gun control laws, but imposed a new fee shifting standard on plaintiffs who challenge any of the state’s gun control measures: unless the plaintiffs are successful on each and every complaint they allege, they’re responsible for paying 100% of the state’s attorneys fees. If, on the other hand, the plaintiffs do manage to meet that impossibly high bar, the state is not obligated to pay a dime of their costs.

Two lawsuits were immediately filed in the wake of SB 1327’s enactment; Miller v. Bonta, brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and South Bay Rod & Gun v. Bonta from a coalition including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (where, in full disclosure, I serve as an unpaid board member), Gun Owners of California, Second Amendment Law Center, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

On November 28th, Judge Benitez held a hearing on a request for an injunction in the cases. The arguments from the plaintiffs were quite simple; in fact, they were able to throw Bonta’s own words back in his face, since the California AG had previously filed an amicus brief in the challenge to the Texas abortion law on constitutional grounds. Bonta is now forced to defend the very practice he declared unconstitutional just a few months ago, and his chief argument was a weak one: his claim that he won’t enforce the law unless or until the Supreme Court has officially ruled on the constitutionality of the Texas abortion statute. That stance, he argued, should be enough to moot both of these cases, but in today’s ruling Judge Benitez rejected Bonta’s defense in no uncertain terms.

The American court system and its forum for peacefully resolving disputes is the envy of the world. One might question the wisdom of a state law that dissuades gun owners from using the courts to peacefully resolve disagreements over the constitutionality of state laws.

The law at issue here is novel. As four concurring Justices recently said in a Texas case with similarities, “where the mere ‘commencement of a suit,’ and in fact just the threat of it, is the ‘actionable injury to another,’ the principles underlying [Ex parte] Young authorize relief against the court officials who play an essential role in that scheme. Any novelty in this remedy is a direct result of the novelty of Texas’s scheme.” Whole Woman’s Health, 142 S. Ct., at 544-45 (citations omitted). The same principles authorize relief against the state officials here.…

If Defendant Attorney General committed to not enforcing § 1021.11 and entered into a consent judgment binding himself, his office, his successors and district attorneys, county counsel, and city attorneys, it might be a closer question. Again, this does not prevent future Attorneys General or other state statutes from being enacted and enforced. But that is not this case. In this case, the commitment of non-enforcement is conditional. The Defendant Attorney General says that his cessation of enforcement in a seeming case of tit-for-tat will end if, and when, a purportedly similar one-sided fee-shifting Texas statute is adjudged to be constitutional. Certainly, that condition may or may not occur. In the meantime, the statute remains on California’s books. And the actual chilling effect on these Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights remains. Therefore, the case is not moot.

Bonta’s attempt to avoid having to defend the indefensible has failed, and both Miller and South Bay Rod & Gun will now move forward. In response to Benitez’s decision, Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb declared that “California cannot be permitted to use the law to suppress constitutional challenges to its increasingly radical gun control schemes”, and today’s decision is a key step towards a broader decision consigning SB 1327 to the dustbin of history.

FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging Oregon “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban as Unconstitutional

PORTLAND, OR (November 30, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues. The complaint and motion in Fitz v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The State of Oregon has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” argues the complaint. “By banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (‘standard capacity magazines’), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring or possessing common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.”

“Today’s filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

Bans on “Assault” Weapons Do Not Reduce Crime

Prominent Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have repeatedly expressed interest in reinstating a federal assault weapons ban. Biden himself included an assault weapon ban in his 1994 crime bill, which lasted ten years until its expiration in 2004. Biden has claimed that the ban did its job and reduced mass shootings: “When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

But a detailed review of the data demonstrates that the ban had no real benefits whatsoever, and neither did it lessen the frequency of major shootings.

Continue reading “”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy questions law enforcement funding for ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Sunday that there needs to be a “conversation” about whether to continue to fund law enforcement in a “Second Amendment sanctuary state” or counties that are “refusing to implement” gun laws that are on the books.

Murphy said “Second Amendment sanctuaries” are counties that have declared that they are “not going to enforce state and federal gun laws” and that there needs to be discussion in the Senate over whether they want to continue to fund law enforcement in these counties.

CNN’s Dana Bash followed up and asked if he wanted to withhold funding for law enforcement.

“I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they’re refusing to implement these gun laws,” Murphy said. “I’ll talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be to this problem. But 60% of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We’ve got to do something about that.”

Murphy said the county where the Colorado shooting at Club Q happened is a “Second Amendment sanctuary state.”

Continue reading “”

Skynet smiles

Dystopia Arrives in San Francisco: Authorities Introduce Policy Granting Robots a License to Kill.

In this episode of Dystopian Moments on the Left…

While I hesitate to make comparisons to George Orwell’s dystopian account of a future totalitarian state in the classic “1984” while writing about the crazy goings on in today’s America, what term is better suited when dystopia finally arrives? That is if you consider killer robots taking out human beings in the streets.

The San Francisco Police Department has submitted a proposal to city officials, which is likely to be approved on November 29, that would give robots the license to use deadly force against suspects who threaten the lives of citizens or police officers — with military-style weapons, no less.

Look, I’m all in on the notion that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, but — and maybe it’s just me — robots armed with military-style weapons killing human beings sounds a bit creepy and, well, Orwellian. Nonetheless, as reported by Mission Local, the draft policy reads:

Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when the risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD.

San Francisco’s rules committee unanimously approved a version of the draft last week, which will face the Board of Supervisors on November 29th, where it’s likely to sail through. The Board will also be required to sign off on the purchase of any new military-style equipment, but the police will be able to replace existing equipment up to a value of $10 million without approval.

Tifanei Moyer, senior staff attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, wrote in an email, as noted by Mission Local, that the policy isn’t standard and that legal professionals and citizens should reject the idea.

We are living in a dystopian future, where we debate whether the police may use robots to execute citizens without a trial, jury, or judge. This is not normal. No legal professional or ordinary resident should carry on as if it is normal.

That’s a bit nonsensical in my book, given that an officer in the same situation, as outlined earlier, would make the same deadly force decision — or would he or she? Jennifer Tu, a fellow with the American Friends Service Committee, appears to disagree:

There is a really big difference between hurting someone right in front of you, and hurting someone via a video screen.

The SFPD has 17 robots in its arsenal, 12 of which are fully functional. According to police spokesperson Officer Robert Rueca, they have never been used to attack anyone. That appears about to change. If the policy is approved as expected, it will just be a matter of time before a robot takes out a suspect.

Hell, let’s extrapolate. How long will it be before deadly robots patrol the crime-infested streets of cities across America? If it someday happens, would that be a good thing or bad? Questions abound.

On November 29, San Francisco and its citizenry will likely take a giant step forward — or would that be backward?  All the way to George Orwell’s 1984.

BLUF
Biden may have directly named Elon Musk at that press conference, but his threat was aimed at every household in America.

Biden’s not-so-subtle lurch toward dictatorship

In the wake of the midterm elections, President Joe Biden was asked during a rare press conference, in reference to Twitter’s new owner, whether he thought Elon Musk was a threat to national security. With a pause and a smirk, the president said that topic was “ worthy of being looked at. ”

With those words, Biden made it clear that if you even seem to oppose his politics, your private life will be under the direct scrutiny of the state. Despite his constant prattle about saving our democracy, Biden seems to think he’s running an authoritarian police state.

In truth, the federal government already maintains entities that review acquisitions such as Musk’s for anything from foreign influence to anti-competitive business practices. After many months in which Musk’s negotiations to purchase Twitter happened in full public view, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said last week that she sees no basis for the government to investigate that purchase.

Despite Musk’s having followed the law, Biden, on a whim, wants to change the game. Suddenly, and after years of Twitter and other social media having significant foreign investors, a normal and transparent voluntary transaction is a potential “threat to national security.”

Biden signaled his desire to strip off the veneer of the rule of law and use the power of the presidency as a dictator would—by his whim and without respect for the rules that everyone else must abide by.

Continue reading “”