ESSE SINE METU IN FACIE INIMICI TUI. TUENDAM INOPS ET FACERE NON MALI.
Category: Goobermint
Missouri 7th Congressional District Representative, Billy Long:
2 + 2 = 3 In New COVID Math
On Monday, the National Assessment of Educational Progress was released, and it’s not good. Known as the nation’s report card, this is considered the authoritative exam on how America’s schools are performing in specific subjects. Based on the results of this exam, math and reading scores are down significantly since the pre-COVID days. This is a concerning development for our students and shows that the lessons of COVID policy are still being learned.
Let’s start with math. All but one state saw declines in math scores since 2019. And this isn’t a small decrease either. For eighth graders, only 26% are considered proficient at math, down from 34% in 2019. Fourth graders did slightly better, with 36% being proficient in math compared to 41% in 2019. These numbers are concerning because of America’s current standing in the world. How are we supposed to compete against China and remain a world superpower if only 26% of eighth graders and 36% of fourth graders are proficient at math? We can all agree that competing against China will be a major issue in the years to come, and to do so our students must be proficient in math, it’s that simple. When it comes to reading scores, the results aren’t much better. More than half of the states saw declines in reading, with only 33% of fourth graders and 31% of eighth graders reading at grade level.
It’s not hard to find the cause of these drops. Schools were closed for months, or in some cases more than a year, due to COVID, and we’re clearly seeing the impacts of this decision. The pandemic has drastically hurt our students’ performance and that poses a serious problem for the future. President Biden and the Democrats want you to forget who did this to our students. They want you to forget that it was their idea to close schools for so long, and it was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Biden Administration that took direction from teacher’s unions on when to reopen schools. They put the interests of unions above the interests of our students, and now they want you to forget that it ever happened.
Closing schools was obviously a terrible decision, one that will have long lasting impacts far beyond our education system. We need our students to be leading the world in math and science if we are going to compete in the 21st century. Failing to compete here would give a serious advantage to China, and that should concern all of us. If we are going to compete against China, we have got to make sure our schools never close again. There is simply too much on the line.
BLUF
Those who spoke against lockdowns and mandates in early 2020 showed that they were willing to stand up for the freedoms and Enlightenment principles for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, even when doing so was lonely, thankless, and hard. For that reason, anyone who did so has reason to feel extremely proud, and the future would be brighter if they were in positions of leadership. That fact is now becoming increasingly clear—unfortunately, even to those who did the opposite. One more reason to keep all the receipts.
More than two years since the lockdowns of 2020, the political mainstream, particularly on the left, is just beginning to realize that the response to Covid was an unprecedented catastrophe.
But that realization hasn’t taken the form of a mea culpa. Far from it. On the contrary, in order to see that reality is starting to dawn on the mainstream left, one must read between the lines of how their narrative on the response to Covid has evolved over the past two years.
The narrative now goes something like this: Lockdowns never really happened, because governments never actually locked people in their homes; but if there were lockdowns, then they saved millions of lives and would have saved even more if only they’d been stricter; but if there were any collateral damage, then that damage was an inevitable consequence of the fear from the virus independent of the lockdowns; and even when things were shut down, the rules weren’t very strict; but even when the rules were strict, we didn’t really support them.
Put simply, the prevailing narrative of the mainstream left is that any upside from the response to Covid is attributable to the state-ordered closures and mandates that they supported, while any downside was an inevitable consequence of the virus independent of any state-ordered closures and mandates which never happened and which anyway they never supported. Got it? Good.
This perplexing narrative was perfectly encapsulated in a recent viral tweet by a history professor who griped about the difficulty of convincing his students that government mandates had nothing to do with the fact that they couldn’t leave their homes in 2020.
Massachusetts Gun Control Scheme an Abject Failure
Gun Related Homicides Increased 111% Since 1998 Gun Control Act
2020 Massachusetts Department of Public Health Report on Deaths Still Reflects the Commonwealth’s Gun Laws are an Unmitigated Disaster!
On Thursday, October 27, 2022, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) released a report reflecting a nearly two-fold increase in gun related homicides in Massachusetts. The report included data taken directly from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Injury Surveillance Program (ISP). The report breaks down gun deaths in the Commonwealth into three categories: Homicides, Suicides, and Accidental deaths.
“What just jumps off the page is the more than doubling of gun related homicides since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “For more than two decades we have constantly heard that Massachusetts is leading the nation in ‘common sense’ gun control laws. Using the State’s own data, we are proving that is simply a false and dangerous narrative.”
Using the State’s own data, the report reflects an 111% increase in gun related homicides since 1998. Gun related suicides are down a few points, but that marginal success is outweighed by a huge increase in suicide by hanging/suffocation. Virtually no gains have been made in accidental gun deaths as those numbers were so minuscule already.
It is GOAL’s hope that the legislature will finally see what this so-called, gun control effort for what it really is. An affront to our Second Amendment civil rights. There is absolutely no way to justify what has been done to the Second Amendment Community in the name of “safety”. One of the first things the legislature needs to address in the next legislative session is a complete revamp of the State’s gun laws in a manner that respects our community’s civil rights. Further, the political leadership needs to start addressing the human criminal element head on and the growing mental health crisis.
Crap For Brains Quote O’ the Day
Sen. Nia Gill (D- Essex) pushed back on some of Durr’s claims about the bill violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling……
“This is an exercise in legislation that we must do in order for the court to determine the legislative constitutionality of it,” Gill said.
A fast-tracked bill to limit concealed carry in New Jersey hit a snag Thursday when Assembly leaders yanked it from a scheduled vote, conceding its broad restrictions could fold under constitutional scrutiny.
The canceled vote came the same day a Senate panel approved the bill along party lines — and with about 15 amendments that appear to be aimed at appeasing critics who have vowed to fight any new law in court. The bill, introduced two weeks ago, has already been approved along party lines by three Assembly committees.
Assemblyman Louis Greenwald (D-Camden), one of the bill’s sponsors and the majority leader in the Assembly, said legislators plan to revise language in the bill to ensure “it’s directly in line with our legislative intent.”
“That may help constitutional arguments at the end of the day,” Greenwald said. “There’s a focus on making sure that it’s not too broad, not too vague, and that it withstands a challenge.”
Greenwald said lawmakers still aim to pass the bill by the end of November.
“Obviously, the day that the governor signs it, there’s going to be legal challenges — those against it have already made that clear,” said Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex), another bill sponsor. “So we’re just doing everything we need to do to cross our t’s and dot our i’s. There’s no lack of resolve. If anything, we’re even more determined to get something to the governor’s desk.”
Legislators say they drafted the bill to counter the uptick in gun usage they anticipate after about 300,000 gun owners applied for concealed carry permits in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that affirmed a constitutional right to carry. In that ruling, the nation’s highest court struck down a New York law requiring gun owners to prove a reason why they need to carry a concealed gun, prompting New Jersey to remove its similar “justifiable need” requirement.
New Jersey’s bill would create new hurdles for gun owners seeking carry permits and carve out 25 categories of sensitive places where guns are prohibited, which range from beaches to bars to parks.
But gun rights advocates have singled out various provisions of the bill they find problematic — and grounds for a court challenge. A federal judge in New York last week temporarily halted a similar ban there on guns in sensitive places, citing constitutional concerns.
Some of the amendments made to New Jersey’s bill since its introduction have addressed critics’ concerns. After gun supporters complained about one provision that would allow the state’s 565 municipalities to define their own sensitive places where guns would be banned, lawmakers amended the bill to remove it.
Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, on Wednesday sounded the alarm about other language in the bill referring to “weapons.” Such vague wording could refer to any everyday tool, including mops, kitchen cutlery, and knitting needles, the association warned in an alert to members.
Greenwald on Thursday conceded the weapons verbiage was one tweak legislators would make before rescheduling the bill for a full Assembly vote.
We’re just doing everything we need to do to cross our t’s and dot our i’s. There’s no lack of resolve. If anything, we’re even more determined to get something to the governor’s desk.
– Assemblyman John McKeon
Earlier in the day, during the Senate’s Law and Public Safety Committee, Sen. Linda Greenstein (D-Middlesex), the committee’s chair, agreed some unclear language in the bill needs further consideration.
The committee made 15 amendments to the bill. Two amendments would remove requirements that someone with a carry permit stopped by police produce the gun for inspection and show proof of liability insurance. Two more would allow active and retired law enforcement officers to carry a handgun in sensitive places where the public can’t take them.
Still, supporters and critics spent nearly three hours debating the bill Thursday, with some especially testy exchanges between the panel’s Democratic members and Sen. Ed Durr (R-Gloucester), whose political campaign centered on Second Amendment rights.
Sen. Ed Durr (R-Gloucester) testifies against a bill that would limit concealed carry at the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee on Oct. 27, 2022. (Photo by Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor)
“If I were to sit here and list all the problems with this bill, we’d be here until sometime next week,” Durr told the panel.
Durr especially objected to the increased fees proposed in the legislation, complaining they would “make it impossible for a person of modest means to protect him- or herself.”
He questioned the state’s ongoing effort to reduce its prison population while tightening gun control at the same time.
“You were making room (in prison) for all the responsible but unlucky gun owners who are going to unintentionally violate this bill,” he said.
Sen. Nia Gill (D- Essex) pushed back on some of Durr’s claims about the bill violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling.
“I’m a lawyer,” Gill told Durr.
He responded, “I’ve seen many lawyers get things wrong.”
Gill retorted: “I’ve seen legislators get them wrong too.”
After almost three hours of testimony, the panel advanced the bill.
“This is an exercise in legislation that we must do in order for the court to determine the legislative constitutionality of it,” Gill said.
In the race for governor of New York, Republican Lee Zeldin has been hammering Democrat Kathy Hochul on crime and it has been working.
Last night, during their only debate, Zeldin kept up the pressure on this issue and it led to one of those definitive debate moments that people remember.
‘Don’t know why that’s so important’: Hochul baffled when Zeldin talks jailing criminals during NY gov debate
Gov. Kathy Hochul stunningly said she didn’t know why it’s “so important” to lock up criminals when confronted by Republican challenger Lee Zeldin over the state’s controversial bail reform law during their first and only debate Tuesday night.
Zeldin, who’s pledged to declare a crime emergency and suspend cashless bail if elected, brought up the issue midway through the televised face-off.
“My opponent thinks that right now there’s a polio emergency going on but there’s not a crime emergency — different priorities than I’m hearing from people right now,” the outgoing congressman from Long Island said.
“They’re not being represented from this governor — who still, to this moment…hasn’t talked about locking up anyone committing any crimes.”
Hochul responded by saying, “Anyone who commits a crime, under our laws, especially with the changes we made to bail, has consequences.
“I don’t know why that’s so important to you,” the incumbent Democrat added. “All I know is that we could do more.”
Here’s the video
.@leezeldin: "She still hasn’t talked about locking up anyone committing any crimes.”
BLUF
“The right to carry is here, and it’s here to stay, and everybody’s got to get used to that,” Bach told the outlet. “This angry fist-shaking by various states like New York and New Jersey is going to blow up in their faces. They can pretend that Bruen doesn’t say what it says, but it’s only going to come back to bite them.”
A gun restriction bill backed by top Democrats in New Jersey is already facing legal threats after the Supreme Court affirmed a constitutional right to carry and sparked challenges to New York ‘s similar gun law.
Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, the New Jersey bill’s main sponsor, is pushing the legislation to prohibit licensed gun owners from bringing firearms into nearly 25 “sensitive places” while imposing stiff barriers for people seeking gun licenses. The bill made it out of committee via a party-line vote this week and has the backing of Gov. Phil Murphy , who has vowed to sign it into law.
If enacted, the legislation could be a tough road ahead in light of two federal court rulings in New York that held the Empire State’s new gun law fails the test established in the summer high court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen .
Just last week, a federal judge placed a temporary restraining order on a provision of a New York gun law that made it a felony for a person with a concealed carry gun license to bring a firearm into churches or other houses of worship. That ruling came just weeks after a separate lower court ruled that much of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act , signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul , failed the Bruen test. Since then, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court has restored much of the act while a three-judge panel decides on a motion to stay the lower court decision.
New Jersey’s Bill A4769 features many similar components that have been subject to judicial scrutiny in light of the 6-3 high court opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas .
Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club members engaging popup targets with rifles on Fort Devens’ Hotel Range. (Photo courtesy of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club).
A small civilian rifle club located just 50 miles northwest of Boston is suing nearby Fort Devens for violating federal law granting them access to military rifle ranges at reasonable rates, as well as violating their members’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
Ultimately, the club believes the Biden-Harris administration is responsible.
A little-known section of U.S. code requires the Army to make rifle and pistol ranges available for civilian use as long as it does not interfere with military training, and it prohibits officials from charging exorbitant fees for range access. Another federal statute requires the Army to provide logistical support to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., is an affiliate of both the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the National Rifle Association.
For decades prior to the 2020 election, club members had been using a wide array of rifle and pistol ranges at Fort Devens free of charge. Club members supplied their own targets, ammunition, Range Safety Officers and other supplies. They even policed their own brass. Most of the members are veterans, so they are intimately familiar with range safety protocols and other best practices. To be clear, in terms of taxpayer dollars, the club cost the Fort very little.
[Click here to watch a video of the club members at Fort Devens’ ranges.]
Just days after the 2020 election, the club was notified in writing that they would have to start paying a minimum of $250 per range, and that the fees would increase based upon the total number of shooters.
“This did not start until three days after Biden got into office. We found that very interesting,” said Jim Gettens, treasurer of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. “I don’t think they ever would have pulled this under President Trump’s administration. If we had contacted President Trump about this, I think it would have gone away ASAP.”
Sorry border Democrats, but this is the White House's response to the crisis that is going to sink your campaigns in the home stretch. https://t.co/k6xUClNVvU
New York’s new gun law, meant to rebuff the Supreme Court, is already having a rough go of it in federal court.
Just two weeks after a federal judge ruled broad swaths of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) unconstitutional in an opinion granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), another federal judge did the same for the law’s felony prohibition on licensed gun carry in places of worship.
“The nation’s history does not countenance such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all places of worship across the state,” Judge John Sinatra wrote in his opinion granting a TRO. “The right to self-defense is no less important and no less recognized at these places.”
Unlike the previous TRO granted against portions of the law, Judge Sinatra declined to add a temporary stay to his ruling. That means licensed gun carriers in the state are now free to carry a firearm for self-defense while attending church or any other religious institution without fear of committing a state felony. That’s a limited but key win for concealed-carry advocates.
Moreover, the decision adds to the growing body of case law examining modern gun-carry restrictions. Judge Sinatra conducted a robust evaluation of the place of worship provision utilizing the framework laid out by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations,” Judge Sinatra wrote. “New York fails that test. The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions, impermissibly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”
New York attempted to justify its church ban by pointing to place of worship restrictions enacted in the states of Texas, Georgia, Missouri, and Virginia between 1870 and 1890. Judge Sinatra, however, was unpersuaded that such laws constituted a tradition pursuant to the Bruen test because they are “outlier” laws.
“The State relies on a few laws from the late-1800s to insist that a relevant tradition exists,” he said. “Bruen anticipates this argument. Rejecting the relevance of an outlier analogous law and state-court decisions, the Court stated that it would, ‘not give disproportionate weight to a single state statute and a pair of state-court decisions. As in Heller, we will not stake our interpretation of the Second Amendment upon a single law, in effect in a single [State], that contradicts the overwhelming weight of other evidence regarding the right to keep and bear arms for defense in public.’”
In a footnote, he explained that the laws in Georgia and Missouri, unlike New York’s current law, were ultimately interpreted to allow church leaders to decide for themselves whether to allow armed congregants. He also noted that New York failed to identify a single analogous law enacted between the time of the founding and 1870. In contrast, he documented the existence of certain colonial-era laws that actually mandated carrying firearms when attending a place of worship.
“The Constitution requires that individuals be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” Sinatra said. “And it protects that right outside the home and in public. Nothing in the Nation’s history or traditions presumptively closes the door on that right across every place of worship or religious observation.”
He argued that right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, forecloses the ability of state governments to implement certain gen policies.
“New York’s exclusion violates ‘the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,’” he wrote. “It, too, is one of the policy choices taken ‘off the table’ by the Second Amendment.”
Federal courts have now twice sternly rebuked New York over its failure to heed the direction set forth by the Supreme Court. Aside from amending or outright repealing the CCIA, the state’s options for continuing to resist current Second Amendment jurisprudence are limited.
New York, for its part, has already appealed the first TRO to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It could do the same with the new order.
It has had some limited success on this front already. A Second Circuit judge threw the state a lifeline by placing an administrative stay on the first TRO issued against most of the law, allowing it to remain in full until a three-judge motions panel gets around to reviewing the validity of the TRO. That panel has yet to act so much of the law remains in force for the time being.
New York could choose to pursue the same strategy with regard to its church gun ban. But it seems likely that will only delay the inevitable. Both Judge Suddaby and Judge Sinatra have already demonstrated how the most controversial sections of the law fail under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard. And, as Judge Suddaby pointed out in his TRO opinion, the criteria for granting a TRO and a preliminary injunction are virtually identical.
Therefore, even if New York can scuttle the TROs that continue to be issued against its law, the imminent injunction hearings seem likely to put them right back where they started.
That bodes well for gun-rights advocates, not only those directly impacted by New York’s restrictive law but for those in similarly situated states as well. California and New Jersey appear to be competing to see who can be the next former may-issue state to replicate New York’s gun restrictions. If and when those copycat bills pass, gun-rights advocates in those states will have a roadmap and caselaw for challenging those laws in court.
Since I don’t think the colonies had ‘colony parks’ back then, I guess we can – maybe – extrapolate town squares? So, did any of the colonies ban guns in town squares? If not……………
A Mississippi resident has filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Alabama state parks regulation that requires written permission to carry a firearm into a state park.
William Lee Mitchum, 43, of Pascagoula filed the lawsuit on Monday, claiming the regulation is an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment. His lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction to block its enforcement.
Mitchum, who grew up in Robertsdale and said he is a frequent user of Alabama state parks, learned about the rule in July and exchanged emails and letters with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Alabama Attorney General’s office before filing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Monday.
“The constitution is there to restrict the government from infringing on our rights,” Mitchum said. “It doesn’t give us rights. And I believe they have infringed on our rights by these rules.”
Mitchum visited Meaher State Park on Mobile Bay in July. He said the firearms rule was posted and he talked to the park manager, who told him he could not bring his firearm into the park.
Mitchum had previously learned about the rule and said he went to the park specifically to establish legal standing to challenge the rule. Mitchum said he also went to the pier at Gulf State Park, where a permit is required to carry a firearm.
Attorney General Marshall and the ADCNR declined comment on Mitchum’s lawsuit.
Republicans on the Assembly Appropriations Committee took aim at Assemblyman Joe Danielsen’s (D-17) gun reform bill (A-4769), which establishes certain criteria for obtaining a permit to carry a handgun while codifying certain venues at which the right to carry firearms would be restricted due to security and safety concerns.
Danielsen wrote the bill in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. His legislation targets the state’s firearm licensing laws and establishes a list of sensitive locations where guns may not be carried, including playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, train stations, and polling places.
“Anything we can do to protect New Jerseyans, including police officers,” said Assemblywoman Lisa Swain (D-38).
Ultimately, the bill passed on the Democratic Party-controlled committee, over the 2nd Amendment-fueled protestations of the GOP.
“Do you agree we have a constitutional right to bear arms?” Assemblyman Brian Bergen (R-25) wanted to know.
“I do,” said Danielsen. “I have at many times been an advocate for gun owners. This is a safety first legislation. This bill says more about safety than it does about guns.”
Bergen took the bill apart.
“This bill discriminates against a woman’s right to carry,” said the Republican. “The bill is discriminatory. Will you commit to altering the bill to permit a woman to carry in anything she might be wearing? What’s the rationale for not permitting a woman to carry a gun in a purse? You said under your bill a woman could not carry a gun in a purse.”
Bergen also strenuously resisted another portion of the bill.
“It requires you to take your handgun and lock it to be concealed,” the GOP assemblyman griped. “There is a law against brandishing a weapon; if you show your weapon it’s against the law to do that. You are asking a person to brandish their weapon in public.”
Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-26) likewise voted no, citing a key problem.
“It gives the ability of municipalities to make up their own rules,” Webber said. “You’re talking about 565 jurisdictions. You’re going to trap people into committing third and fourth degree crimes. That is one of the worst parts of the bill. There are parts of the bill that make sense (including adjustments to the supreme Court decision on concealed carry).”
But not enough for him to cast a vote in favor.
Rob Nixon of the state PBA expressed concerns over the bills impact on retired officers.
“My understanding is there are amendments to address those issues but they don’t go far enough,” he said.
Bergen fulminated against the bill.
“The sponsor could not list one place where a person could carry a gun,” he said. “It’s insane. You’re making criminals of common citizens.”
When Hawaii County lawmakers held their first public hearing on an ordinance restricting where concealed carry holders can exercise their right to keep and bear arms, they heard from dozens of gun owners and residents who complained that the proposal was far too broad and infringed on their Second Amendment rights. Somewhat surprisingly, several county council members expressed reservations of their own, and the bill was tabled for a few weeks while tweaks were made.
Today, the public got its first look at the revised proposal, and while the measure still contains several “gun-free zones” that aren’t likely to stand up to court scrutiny, this is the first blue-state response to the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen that I’ve seen that at least half-heartedly recognizes the right to bear arms for self-defense in public rather than attempting to regulate it out of existence.
The original list of “sensitive places” outlined in the county’s concealed carry ordinance bore a close resemblance to the expansive number of “gun-free zones” included in New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”, hospitals and healthcare facilities; schools (both K-12 and colleges and universities) and day care centers, playgrounds and parks, all houses of worship, public transit, private property “open to the public”, and all businesses that serve alcohol among them.
The newly revised proposal removes many of those “gun-free zones” outright, while modifying others.
[Council Vice Chairman Aaron] Chung’s amendment, which had input from the Hawai‘i Police Department, adds a clause saying guns would be prohibited except where permission is granted at schools, colleges, universities or places where people are assembled for educational purposes. It removes language that originally included where people are assembled for literary or scientific purposes as well. The same clause was added in reference to day care centers, but playgrounds, parks and/or other places where children gather remain in the proposed bill.
I don’t think the ban on parks and playgrounds is going to hold up in court, given that there’s no evidence the state of Hawaii or Hawaii County treats them as “sensitive” in any way. There are no metal detectors or fences surrounding all parks, and no dedicated police presence at all parks or playgrounds either.
As I said, the new bill isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s still a substantial improvement.
On October 17, 2022 during a news conference, Stéphane Bancel, the CEO of the drug company Moderna, made the following statement about COVID, the so-called plague that allowed his company (and others) to make billions pushing their jabs on a terrified public:
“I think it’s going to be like the flu. If you’re a 25-year-old, do you need an annual booster every year if you’re healthy?
“You might want to… but I think it’s going to be similar to flu where it’s going to be people at high-risk, people above 50 years of age, people with comorbidities, people with cancer and other conditions, people with transplants.”
Gee, where I have heard these exact words for the past two-plus years? Could it have been on this very same webpage, said by me as well as numerous other cool-headed experts who — rather than panicking — looked at the actual data? From my first detailed post about COVID in March 2020, using all the early real data:
The death rate is mostly confined to the older population with already existing health issues, like the flu.
This early conclusion was later confirmed again and again in the months that followed. From September 2020, for example, in citing CDC data I wrote:
The Wuhan virus killed you only if you had an average of slightly less than three serious chronic health conditions. And generally you had to be elderly, with the average age of death 78 years old. Otherwise, just like the flu you might have been sick for a few days, but you would have recovered and been able to go on with your life as normal. This data once again demonstrates that the masks, the shut downs, and the economic disaster were all unnecessary.
I of course was hardly the loudest voice, or the only one. Many others with much greater expertise than I kept saying the same thing. All were pilloryed, doxed, blackballed, and censored for saying so. “How dare you? You are killing grampa by not panicking! You should be burned at the stake!”
I’ve advised homeschooling children for DECADES.
Now you know part of the reason why: Goobermint
The CDC is about to add the Covid vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, which would make the vax mandatory for kids to attend school. pic.twitter.com/Ga0EJZIVbI
Last fall, California’s oleaginous governor signed a bill into law that allows the distribution of personal information of the state’s gun buyers with academic researchers. Researchers like gun control advocate Garen Wintemute who runs the UC Davis California Firearm Violence Research Center, a producer of anti-gun “research” used to back efforts to limit Second Amendment rights.
Sharing California gun owners’ personal data is a situation that’s ripe for abuse. And given the state’s record of doxxing gun owners, it puts law-abiding citizens at risk. That’s why a group of gun rights orgs sued to block the data dumps. And the state’s abysmal record played into San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal’s decision. As she wrote . . .
Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Opp. at 17. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information. Additionally, although the most recent sharing of plaintiffs’ personal identifying information occurred in November of 2021, this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim. Furthermore, and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. See ROA # 85 at 5. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction. (emphasis added)
Judge Bacal has issued an injunction blocking the distribution of the information. Here’s the Firearms Policy Coalition’s press release . . .
Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal has issued a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The ruling in Barba v. Bonta, which was affirmed by the judge in full, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.
“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information,” wrote Judge Bacal in her ruling. “Additionally. . .this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim . . .and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction.”
“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”
FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, and Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC.
John Adams Wettergreen (d. 1989), writing in 1988 with a startling prescience of our present time:
In 1970 I believed that Tocqueville’s soft despotism was the aim of the bureaucratizers. However today we cannot be so optimistic as was possible in 1970. Today’s bureaucratizers are not soft despots at all. The political use of criminal law, such as began during the Watergate scandals and has begun to be regularized during the Reagan administration, is characteristic of tyranny-not Tocqueville’s ‘new,’ ‘soft’ one, but a harsh one. . . To the carrot-spending unlimited by law-the legislature has now added the stick-the penalties of the criminal law.
What Wettergreen perceived in the shadows more than 30 years ago is now evident to most everyone with eyes to see.
For the year 2020:
Population of Philadelphia: 1.6 million
Population of Pennsylvania: 13 million
Homicides in Philadelphia: 499
Homicides in Pennsylvania: 1,009
When gun laws are the same throughout the state, and your city accounts for 12% of the state population but nearly half of all homicides in the state, the problem isn’t guns……
California is so desperate in our challenge to their 'assault weapon' ban, Miller v Bonta, that they're intentionally misrepresenting the 'dangerous AND unusual' quotes from Heller throughout the entirety of their latest brief.
BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKBW) — On Thursday, two Western New York congregation leaders alongside Firearms Police Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against New York State.
The plaintiffs are challenging the state’s law and regulation banning guns in places of worship or places of religious observation.
The two WNY congregational leaders, Pastor Jimmie Hardaway with Trinity Baptist Church and Bishop Larry Boyd with Open Praise Full Gospel Baptist are filing this against Kevin Bruen, who recently resigned as Superintendent of the New York State Police, Niagara County District Attorney, Brian Seaman, and Erie County District Attorney, John Flynn.
According to the 49-page lawsuit, the ban denies the plaintiffs and “other typical law-abiding individuals” from carrying loaded handguns “in case of confrontation for immediate self-defense in a place of worship that would otherwise permit them to carry.”
The complaint notes that both Hardaway would typically carry a concealed firearm at Trinity Baptist, particularly on Sundays and during services.
“Reverend Hardaway has carried both for self-defense and because he feels a unique obligation to his congregants as Pastor to be prepared in case of confrontation. Trinity Baptist is in a neighborhood that has struggled with violent incidents,” the complaint argues.
It is also noted Boyd would carry a concealed firearm at Open Praise’s on Sundays and during services. “Open Praise is in a neighborhood that has struggled with crime, violence, and gang-related issues,” the complaint argues.
The plaintiffs also argue that because of tragic shootings in churches across the country, specifically in Charleston in 2015, Boyd has even more of a desire to carry for self-defense.
Boyd and Hardaway, the complaint argues, are both law-abiding, responsible gun owners.
7 News did reach out to Boyd and Hardaway for comment, but was directed to their attorneys, Nicolas Rotsko and Pete Patterson. 7 News reached out to them, but have not heard back.
7 News also reached out to the defendants. A spokesperson for the Erie County’s District Attorney’s office said Flynn would not comment on pending litigation.
