Category: Goobermint

How Much are Gun Laws Repressing Exercise of 2A Rights?

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– The states with the most restrictive gun laws are repressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights.  How much damage are they doing?

In the 2022 Bruen decision, released by the Supreme Court on June 22, the court named six states and the District of Columbia as polities where the governments were violating the rights of their residents to keep and bear arms.

Those states were California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia.

There are reasonably good measures to compare those states to the rest of the country, where laws restricting the sale, ownership, and carry of arms are less burdensome.

The National Instant background Check System (NICS) tracks retail gun sales in all the states. Gun sales are much closer than NICS background checks alone because NICS checks are done for many other things as well.

Gun sales, measured in the NICS system, give us a strong representation of how many guns were purchased in a given year in each state.

Looking at the restrictive states compared to the non-restrictive states will show if the restrictive state laws are repressing the exercise of the right to keep arms by repressing the number of people who purchase firearms.

The number of people who have permits to carry is not as easily obtained. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CRPC) has worked to determine how many carry permits exist in each state. The numbers reported in 2021 will be used for this comparison.

This is a quick, first-order comparison to see if any obvious disparity exists. If no disparity exists, a more sophisticated analysis may or may not show those laws repress the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Population figures for the states were taken from the 2020 census. Gun sales and carry permits will be expressed as rates so as to make a state-to-state comparison meaningful. The numbers of gun sales are from two years, 2020 and 2021.

2020 is a particularly useful year, as there was both a significant increase in violent crime and political posturing to restrict firearms sales and possession. The motivation to exercise Second Amendment rights should have been high.

2020 recorded all-time records for gun sales.

Gun sales for the restrictive states and the District of Columbia in 2020, as calculated from the NICS data, were 2.05 million. Per capita firearm sales were .024 firearms per person.

In 2021, for the restrictive states and DC, the numbers were: 1.93 million, and .023 firearms sold per person.

Restrictive states gun sales per capita: 2020 – .024; 2021 – .023.

Gun sales for the rest of the USA in 2020 were 18.6 million, and .075 firearms sold per person. In 2021, there were 16.2 million firearms sold, and .065 firearms sold per person.

Less restrictive states, gun sales per capita: 2020 – .075; 2021 – .065.

This is significant evidence of repressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights.  In 2020 and 2021, the sales of firearms in the restrictive states were only one-third as many per capita as in non-repressive states.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Blocks Latest New York Gun-Carry Restrictions

New York’s attempt to restrict gun carry after its previous law was struck down by the Supreme Court has failed.

Federal district judge Glenn Suddaby issued a temporary restraining order against the state’s enforcement of most provisions in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). He found all of the novel policies restricting gun carry by those with valid permits were unconstitutional under the standard set in New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, though he also upheld some more common regulations.

“Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction,” Suddaby wrote. “And, by doing so, it has further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense (which, during the 19th and 18th centuries in America, generally came with an assumption that law-abiding responsible citizens were not a danger to themselves or others unless there was specific ground for a contrary finding) into a mere request (which is burdened with a presumption of dangerousness and the need to show ‘good moral character’).”

The ruling represents a further victory for gun-rights advocates who have challenged severe restrictions on gun carry and a further setback for states that have sought to severely limit who can carry a gun and where they can carry it. Judge Suddaby’s decision is also one of the first to apply the Bruen standard to a gun-carry law passed in response to the ruling. It could serve as a guide for other federal courts across the country dealing with challenges to similar laws.

Suddaby ruled the state could not enforce its “good moral character” clause unless there is a preponderance of evidence the applicant is a threat to others with the exception of self-defense. He blocked the requirement that applicants turn over their social media history and information on others who live with them. He also blocked the CCIA’s requirement that applicants meet with permitting officials for an in-person interview,

Mexican official says new lawsuit against US gunmakers is on the way

There’s no reason to believe the outcome will be any different than the first lawsuit that the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador brought against U.S. gun makers; a dismissal of the case long before it ever reached trial. Still, with AMLO’s cartel strategy of “hugs, not bullets” resulting in even more cartel violence, it’s no surprise that he and other officials are trying to distract from their own failures by pinning the blame on the US firearms industry.

Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told the Mexican Senate on Wednesday that the government’s next lawsuit will be filed in the border state of Arizona, though he didn’t say whether any gun control groups will be a part of this new effort as they were the first time around.

During his speech on Wednesday, Ebrard referred to a bipartisan package of gun safety measures passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden in June. The law blocks gun sales to those convicted of abusing unmarried intimate partners and cracks down on gun sales to purchasers convicted of domestic violence.

“Illicit arms trafficking is already a crime in the United States,” Ebrard said.

“You have to start establishing criminal responsibilities because the companies that are selling these weapons in these counties (in Arizona), which are very few, of course they know where those weapons are going,” he added, but did not specify which companies he was referring to.

Ebrard makes it sound as if there are no laws whatsoever governing gun sales from licensed firearms retailers, even though border state gun dealers not only have to follow the long list of federal regulations surrounding firearm transfers, but even have special requirements placed on them like reporting multiple sales of modern sporting rifles to the ATF.

Frankly, if he really wants to talk about establishing criminal responsibilities, I’d say he should start much closer to home and crack down on the graft, corruption, and theft within the Mexican armed forces.

Continue reading “”

It’s easy to get ‘consensus’ when you persecute and prosecute anyone who disagrees.

Image

Psaki Buries Her Knife in Biden’s Back

Jen Psaki is usually wrong, not because she’s stupid, but because she’s an ideologue, a rabid partizan, and statist zealot. And, she seems to savor a well placed lie. But that’s expected from a former White House press secretary, and William and Mary graduate, who spent her entire tenure contorting the borders of reality, gleefully creating fictions to explain Joe Biden’s precipitous decline into senility.

Joe Biden has always been a dummy. Obama admitted it when he commented on Lunch Bucket Joes’ propensity to always screw things up. Biden is a comic book character inked and colored by media hacks and stooges like Psaki.

Jen’s recent statement is a concession to the spectacular proportion of Joe Biden’s failures. To ignore this would produce a lie that would simply be too big to sustain its own mass — even Psaki has to face the facts at some point:

“If it is a referendum on the president, they [democrats] will lose. And they know that.”

The Biden calamity is everywhere. Even casual, single issue voters are forcefully confronted by Biden’s imbecility, ineptitude, and brittle vindictiveness at every turn. Contrary to Psaki’s statements, no one down ballot is safe from this democrat owned and operated national calamity.

He’s that mean old man, raging in his senility from the front porch at all the kids enjoying a bright summer’s afternoon — a pervert showering with his daughter and sniffing the hair of little girls. With a grumpy, malevolent, misanthrope occupying the White House, the November election cycle is there for the taking — and Jen knows it, is gathering her skirts, hoping to salvage a shred of credibility.

The only things standing in the way of a sweeping Republican win in November are the calcified crony capitalists like Mitch McConnell, diddling the Chinese yen in his pocket. Or the moon-faced warmonger Lindsay Graham. This brand of Republicanism is in league with Democrat statists who all vie, like squealing piglets, at the slop trough of tax payer funded slush.

Continue reading “”

It’s not ‘seemingly unrelated’.
Pagans have always sacrificed their children to their gods

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Biden Compares Himself to the Devil

President Joe Biden has been incessantly bringing up abortion, in hopes that the issue will save the Democrats from losing their narrow majorities in the House and Senate in the upcoming November midterm elections. On Sunday night, Biden’s tactic got even more desperate, and bizarre, as he appeared to compare himself to the Devil.

Biden’s tweet mentions how his father told him “don’t compare me to the Almighty,” but “to the alternative,” presumably the Devil. The president then goes on to tweet a seemingly unrelated point claiming “Democrats want to codify Roe. Republicans want a national ban on abortion,” and that “The choice is clear.”

In addition to making quite an odd comparison, Biden isn’t even being all that truthful. As Guy has highlighted, the Democrats don’t merely want to “codify Roe v. Wade,” but rather expand it through extremist legislation known as the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). The bill would not only make abortion legal up until birth without limit, it would invalidate pro-life laws passed at the state level.

Further, the “national ban on abortion” that Biden is referring to is a 15-week abortion ban, with exceptions, to reflect that unborn children can feel pain at this point and that the particularly brutal method is also more dangerous for women. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced the legislation last month.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced the legislation last month.

The Sunday night tweet brought about considerable attention, and as our friends at Twitchy highlighted, some suggested the tweet was so nonsensical that it actually made it likely Biden himself wrote it.

Other users also pointed out how Democrats have a veto-proof majority in Congress before, and yet failed to pass such legislation then. This included during the first few years of the Obama administration, during when Biden even served as vice president. Along with such urgency has also brought about a more radical position from the Democratic Party, which has not only rejected the mantra of keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare,” but even opposes the Hyde Amendment, which protects taxpayers from having to fund elective abortions.

Biden, who presents himself as Catholic, has brought up faith in the context of abortion before. “I happen to be a practicing Roman Catholic, my church doesn’t even make that argument now,” Biden claimed just last month, as Sarah covered. The president was referring to Graham’s bill. As Sarah also pointed out, Biden lied about the bill’s exceptions as well, which include rape or incest that a woman receives treatment for and for when it is reported if there is a minor involved.

The Catholic Church takes an abundantly clear stance against abortion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who is similarly pro-abortion, has been told by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco that she should not present herself for Holy Communion.

In response to such a tweet, RNC Director of Faith Communications Andrew Brennan told Townhall that “Democrats will lie and desperately try to distort their pro-abortion agenda to mislead voters. Folks aren’t buying it. In 36 days Americans will vote to reject Democrats’ radical, out-of-touch late-term abortion extremism.”

Such fear-mongering from Biden and fellow Democrats doesn’t appear to be working, as polls not only show that abortion just isn’t that major an issue for voters, but also that Republicans are gaining in the polls.

Happy Anniversary to ‘Let’s Go Brandon!’

It’s hard to believe it, but one year has passed since Americans nationwide began using the ironic catchphrase “Let’s Go Brandon!” to mock Joe Biden.

It all started with an interview when NBC reporter Kelli Stavast claimed during an interview with NASCAR driver Brandon Brown that chants of “F— Joe Biden!” at the NASCAR Xfinity Series race at Talladega were actually “Let’s go, Brandon!”

The phrase was quickly adopted by conservatives as a family-friendly alternative for expressing anger and defiance at Joe Biden and his policies, as well as a dig at media bias. Before long, “Let’s Go Brandon!” went from a viral social media meme to being recited at sporting events all over the country. It wasn’t a short-lived fad either; it became a chart-topping song on iTunes, and it even made its way into the House chamber.

Triggered leftists insisted the phrase was vulgar. At-home fitness company Peloton even banned its users from using the hashtag #LetsGoBrandon and other variants on their profiles. Some on the left have even tried to reclaim the Brandon moniker by giving Biden the nickname “Dark Brandon,” which is just as silly as it sounds.

My personal favorite moment was when Joe and Jill Biden did a video call into NORAD to see where Santa was on Christmas Eve last year. After speaking with some kids, a father said to the Bidens: “I hope you guys have a wonderful Christmas as well. Merry Christmas, and Let’s go, Brandon.”

“Let’s go, Brandon. I agree,” Biden replied.

It was awesome.

“Let’s Go Brandon” has gone through quite a journey over the past year. It’s been amusing, to say the least, and I can’t wait to see what other joys it will bring this coming year.

A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19

The current report presents the case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination.
The patient was first vaccinated in May 2021 with the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vector vaccine, followed by two doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in July and December 2021. The family of the deceased requested an autopsy due to ambiguous clinical signs before death.
PD was confirmed by post-mortem examinations. Furthermore, signs of aspiration pneumonia and systemic arteriosclerosis were evident. However, histopathological analyses of the brain uncovered previously unsuspected findings, including acute vasculitis (predominantly lymphocytic) as well as multifocal necrotizing encephalitis of unknown etiology with pronounced inflammation including glial and lymphocytic reaction. In the heart, signs of chronic cardiomyopathy as well as mild acute lympho-histiocytic myocarditis and vasculitis were present.
Although there was no history of COVID-19 for this patient, immunohistochemistry for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins) was performed. Surprisingly, only spike protein but no nucleocapsid protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels.
Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. The findings corroborate previous reports of encephalitis and myocarditis caused by gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.

SAF Sues to Block Connecticut’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in federal district court, challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Connecticut, and asking for declaratory and injunctive relief.

SAF is joined by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Eddie Grant, Jr., Jennifer Hamilton, and Michael Stiefel. Named as defendants are Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, plus James Rovella, commissioner of the state’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and several other officials. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Conn., Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford, Conn., and Cameron L. Atkinson of New Haven.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. 

Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” dates back to 1993. The state criminalizes the possession, sale or transfer of such firearms—about 160 guns named in four subsections—even though many of these guns are in common use across the country. 

“The ban was previously upheld, but that was before the Supreme Court handed down its Bruen ruling earlier this year,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “That landmark decision eliminated the ‘two-part test’ which included an interest-balancing provision that didn’t pass constitutional muster.”

According to the lawsuit, the current ban deprives “responsible citizens of their Second Amendment rights under the guise of providing a panacea for social problems that Connecticut remains unable to solve.” 

Gottlieb said there is no historical foundation for such a ban, and the complaint actually details the historical development of firearms including repeating rifles developed and manufactured in Connecticut and elsewhere. The lawsuit also mentions incidents in which modern semiautomatic rifles were used by private citizens to stop violent crimes.

Update: Man Who Ran Over Republican Teen in North Dakota Now Charged With Felony Murder

Charges have been upgraded for Shannon Brandt, the suspect who allegedly ran over 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson on September 18 for being a Republican in McHenry, North Dakota.

According to local news, Foster County State’s Attorney Kara Brinster filed new criminal charges against Brandt including Murder, which is a Class AA Felony, and Duty in Accident Involving Death or Injury, a Class B Felony. The charges of vehicular homicide were dropped in lieu of the upgrade.

Early on the morning of Sunday, September 18, Brandt is accused of running down Ellingson, of Grace City, North Dakota, after a street dance held at a local bar. Brandt told State Radio that the young man was part of a “Republican extremist group” and that his targeting of Ellingson was politically motivated.

There is “no evidence” Ellingson was part of any such group, according to North Dakota police. Witnesses have said that the two did not engage in a verbal dispute.

New details emerged from the new filings, as Brandt called 911 and spoke with dispatcher, or State Radio, and said, “I just wanna ask you a question, am I going to go to prison?”

Brandt also said “he [Ellingson] wasn’t going to let me go, I hit him” and “he’s subdued.”

“He can’t do anything to me now,” Brandt told the dispatcher.

An autopsy showed that there were no acceleration marks or skid marks near the location of the 18-year-old victim’s body, indicating no rushed or threatened vehicle acceleration.

Further, the autopsy indicates that Ellingson’s primary injuries were caused from the SUV running over him, not from an initial impact.

The 18-year-old called his mother as Brandt chased him in his SUV to ask if she knew Brandt. She told her son she was on her way to get him directly before Brandt allegedly murdered the young man by running him down.

Man Exchanges 3D Printed Guns for $21,000 at New York Gun Buyback Program

Since 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James has been encouraging residents of her state to participate in her office’s gun buyback program, wherein the government offers money for firearms, “no questions asked.”

At an event held in Utica, NY in August, one man allegedly gamed the system, walking away with thousands of dollars after turning in over 100 guns he made using his 3D printer.

According to WKTV, the man, known only as “Kem,” had seen posts online about people pulling off such stunts, and decided to try it for himself.

Using his $200 3D printer, Kem quickly birthed a battery of plastic firearms, and drove six hours from his home to Utica, where the buyback program was holding an event.

“I 3D-printed a bunch of lower receivers and frames for different kinds of firearms,” said Kem.

Kem explained that upon arriving in Utica, he was asked how many guns he wished to turn in, to which he replied, “110.”

After spending the rest of the day negotiating with staff, Kem was presented with 42 gift cards, each worth $500, making the total payout $21,000.

“I’m sure handing over $21,000 in gift cards to some punk kid after getting a bunch of plastic junk was a rousing success,” Kem told WKTV, adding that, “gun buybacks are a fantastic way of showing, number one, that your policies don’t work, and, number two, you’re creating perverse demand.”

He argued that programs such as James’ “don’t actually reduce crime whatsoever.”

According to James’ office, the August 27 buyback event “resulted in the collection of 296 guns, including 177 ghost guns, 42 long guns, 41 handguns, 33 non-working guns, and 3 assault rifles.”

Ghost guns are firearms that are unregistered and unregulated, often built by users themselves. Kem’s 3D-printed weapons would fit into this category.

Since 2019, James’ program has resulted in the buyback of 3,500 guns, and she has no intention of stopping any time soon.

In a statement to KWTV, her office slammed Kem for his actions, and explained that they have “adjusted [their] policies to ensure that no one can exploit this program again for personal gain.”

Anti-gun politicians aim for private property gun ban

From Hawaii to New Jersey anti-gun officials are scrambling to adopt sweeping restrictions on the right to carry modeled after New York’s latest infringement on our Second Amendment rights. That includes a de-facto ban on concealed carry on all private property, despite language in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen that made it clear broad and expansive “sensitive places” don’t comport with a general right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we’re taking a look at a couple of the latest indigo-blue locales to adopt New York’s model legislation; Hawaii County and the state of New Jersey. Both places have long been hostile to the right to keep and bear arms, and in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the “good cause” requirement that the jurisdictions have used to deny almost every applicant in years past, the goal is to now restrict where folks can carry as much as possible in addition to continuing to impose as many barriers as possible to all those who want to exercise that right.

Hawaii County council member Aaron Chung says Supreme Court “opened the door” for his exhaustive list of places where concealed carry may soon be banned by not explicitly defining the limits of ‘sensitive places”, but he’s ignoring what Justice Clarence Thomas actually had to say about trying to broadly define most places open to the public (including all private property by default) as off-limits to the exercise of our Second Amendment rights; “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.”

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense.

I don’t know of any other right that’s de-facto forbidden on private property unless it’s explicitly authorized in writing by the property owner either. I’ve never once encountered a sign on a business that said “Freedom of Speech Welcome Here”. Then again, I’ve also never run across a law charging people with a felony for unlawfully uttering their opinion in someone else’s home without prior permission as New York’s de-facto ban on concealed carry on private property does.

The glaring constitutional issues with this language isn’t worrisome to anti-gun politicians like New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, however. He’s still hellbent on criminalizing the right to carry in almost all circumstances by adopting the New York model.

Murphy issued an executive order shortly after the court ruling, requiring state agencies to review their statutes and regulations and determine whether they could designate gun-free zones. But so far, no legislation barring guns from public spaces in New Jersey has been introduced.

On Tuesday, Murphy said churches, entertainment venues and even private property “unless you the homeowner explicitly says otherwise” would be designated as gun-free areas under a proposed bill.

We need that now based on the actions of this very right-wing U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.

He said action hasn’t come more quickly for “mostly benign reasons here” — due to other legislative activity and because the Legislature only recently came back into session.

“I don’t want to speak for [the Legislature], but I’m confident this ball will be rolling, and God willing, will get something sooner than later,” he said.

God willing, the courts will have shut down the expansive list of “sensitive places” by the time New Jersey’s legislature gets to work on its own list of gun-free zones. If that doesn’t happen, then the state will be facing another lawsuit just like New York; one I’m confident it will ultimately lose. We still have plenty of challenges ahead of us, but these anti-gun politicians are on the wrong side of history and the Constitution and we aren’t going to rest until we’ve secured our right to keep and bear arms from their authoritarian power grabs.

GOA IMMEDIATELY SUES PHILADELPHIA OVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDER

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 28, 2022

Philadelphia, PA – Yesterday, lame-duck Mayor Jim Kenney signed an executive order prohibiting individuals from lawful carry at all City of Philadelphia recreational facilities. The mayor’s actions are in clear violation of Pennsylvania law prohibiting these types of local gun restrictions. Within hours of Mayor Kenney’s signing ceremony, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of this illegal gun regulation.

“Mayor Kenney knows this executive order is pointless: law abiding gun owners aren’t the people committing the violent crime and murder in Philadelphia,”  said Dr. Val Finnell, Pennsylvania Director for GOA. “Instead, Mayor Kenney is trying to deflect attention from his failing policies and failing City by enacting more ‘feel good’ regulations that scapegoat guns for the crisis of crime in Philadelphia. Rather than take responsibility for city policies that created two years of record homicides, Kenney is attempting to capitalize on the tragic deaths of Philadelphia residents to disarm more people and create more victim-only, ‘gun-free’ zones. All this executive order does is put a bullseye on the back of every person at Philadelphia recreational facilities, because they know that Mayor Kenney won’t let you defend yourself there.”

“The lack of respect for taxpayer money is appalling,” said Andrew Austin, attorney for GOA and the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. “Pennsylvania law is clear here: Philly is not allowed to make gun regulations. Every appellate court in Pennsylvania has made this clear multiple times. Yet, they continue to waste taxpayer money by attempting to enact these illegal laws.”

Gun Owners of America will be seeking to enjoin enforcement of Mayor Kenney’s Executive Order in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In addition, GOA has previously filed several other lawsuits in Philadelphia in the last two years in pursuit of Second Amendment rights, and will continue to fight as long as necessary to ensure every citizen has the ability to defend themselves, particularly in lawless cities such as Mayor Kenney’s Philadelphia.

Dr. Val Finnell, or another GOA spokesperson is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

FPC Files for Injunction Against New York “Sensitive Location” Handgun Carry Bans

BUFFALO, NY (September 28, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Boron v. Bruen, its lawsuit challenging New York’s “sensitive location” handgun carry bans in public parks, public transportation, and all private property without express consent. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Under S51001, ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens,’ like and including Plaintiffs, are again prevented from carrying handguns in public for self-defense in almost all corners of the State, except in what Governor Hochul said were, ‘probably some streets,’” argues the motion. “S51001 makes a mockery of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen, which reaffirmed that personal security extends to more than just ‘those . . . who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force,’ but also emphatically extends to include ordinary, law-abiding Americans ‘outside the home.’”

“The New York Legislature appears to think that when the Supreme Court closed the door on New York’s may issue permit regime it opened a window for equally onerous location restrictions,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s motion for preliminary injunction is the opportunity for the Court to remind New York lawmakers that those windows are nailed shut by the Constitution.”

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 constitutionally protected 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.

The Perils of America’s Woke Military
The high – and destructive – cost of Marxism’s infusion into our Armed Forces.

Last week we shared the disturbing news that the Sergeant Major of the Army recommended our soldiers apply for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps, to keep up with the growing inflation. I find it unconscionable that we are sending billions of dollars to foreign nations, but our troops are being told to sign up for assistance to afford food.

But this is just a small example of what is happening for our military. The perilous infusion of cultural Marxism into our Armed Forces is far more dangerous.

Recently, the Department of Defense Chief of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Kelisa Wing, who self describes herself as a “woke administrator,” made some very disconcerting comments towards white Americans…or folx as she asserts. I have to ask, how much is this racist person being paid while our soldiers are being told to apply for food stamps? But even more troubling is that such a radical individual is allowed access to our military? How can we have an effective, cohesive fighting force when you have a radical Marxist disparaging one demographic of our military force? Cultural Marxism has no place in our Armed Forces and the last thing we need is an office of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our Department of Defense, a cover for enabling these radicals.

It was not too long ago that our military was being focused on combat readiness, capability, and capacity to fulfill its mission. Now, we have a Secretary of Defense, with whom I served at Ft. Bragg NC, who is issuing memorandums telling members of our military to get used to troops suffering from gender dysphoria entering shower and latrine facilities with them. Basically, female troops are being told that biological men will be naked, showering with them. Now, if you are an adult and want to play make believe, fine, go ahead, but this should not be happening in our military. As well, the American taxpayer should not be responsible for subsidizing hormonal therapies or surgical procedures for individuals affected by this mental condition…the previous diagnosis of the American Psychiatric Association.

Just this past week, the United States Air Force Academy announced new rules about promoting gender neutral language. Can you imagine that the USAFA now advises against saying such simple things as Mom and Dad? They are advising cadets to inquire about a person’s desired pronouns before making any declarations. A few months ago, the U.S. Navy issued a video about correct pronoun usage. Hmm, I can remember some very interesting names that Drill Sergeants would use, and they did not inquire about pronouns. Matter of fact, knucklehead is gender neutral, along with stuck on stupid. There seems to be a lot of that in our military and its senior leadership at this time.

But what has to be most worrisome for our military has been the illegal, immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional COVID shot mandate forced upon our servicemen and women. Earlier this month, seven cadets at the US Coast Guard Academy were expelled for refusing to take the jab; the same has occurred at the United States Military Academy, West Point. And we are all aware of the countless stories of men and women in uniform who are being persecuted for not taking this shot. There are troops who are being segregated into deplorable living conditions, treated like lepers. They are having their constitutional rights denied, such as religious exemptions. They share their stories with us at the American Constitutional Rights Union’s Committee to Support and Defend, America’s constitutional conservative Veterans organization.

What should cause us concern is that our troops are being treated in such a disgusting manner even as we now know that Dr. Deborah Birx admitted they knew the shot would not prevent being infected with the virus. SecDef Austin, Commander in Chief Biden, and Dr Fauci all contracted the virus after having the shot and boosters. Last week, Joe Biden stated that the pandemic is over, so why are we still punishing our troops and mandating this shot on some of the most physically fit in our country? When you study the objective facts and statistics you will see that the infamous shot has caused more harm than what is being reported. There are countless cases of cardiac issues such as myocarditis. One has to ask, will our troops be able to file lawsuits against those who forced this untested shot upon them? Yes, it was only under emergency use authorization, not full FDA approval.

Will there be legislation passed in the U.S. Congress that will allow our troops to seek legal recompense? Will military members who were discharged from the military be reinstated? Heck, if the GOP is successful in the midterm elections, will the Department of Defense office of diversity, equity, and inclusion be defunded? Will our military find senior leaders who will honor their oath to the Constitution, not to political ideology, certainly not to cultural Marxism?

America’s constitutional conservative veterans’ organization, the Committee to Support and Defend, is taking the lead on these issues. Our U.S. military is being led down the perilous road of “wokeness.” The last thing America needs is a politicized military and kommissars advocating an ideology that is anathema to our rule of law, our Constitution…of which our military members take an oath to support and defend.

Steadfast and Loyal.