Category: Goobermint

NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’

The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.

AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”

The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”

He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

Newsom Signs Glock Ban Bill Into Law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been calling himself a Second Amendment supporter for several months now, but if anyone had any doubts about his lack of sincerity those can now be put to rest. On Friday afternoon the governor signed AB 1127 into law, which will outlaw the sale of Glock handguns in the state starting in January.

In addition to AB 1127, Newsom also signed legislation that will require sales of gun barrels to go through an FFL and a background check, as well as AB 1078, which replaces California’s “1-in-30” handgun rationing law (which is already on hold thanks to a lawsuit) with a “3-in-30” law. The bill, however, states that California will return to its previous one-gun-a-month scheme if it’s ultimately upheld by the courts.

As you can imagine, gun control activists are thrilled to see California become the first state in the nation to outlaw the sale of some of the most popular pistols in the country, and they’ll be making a major push for other blue states to adopt similar bans in the months ahead. From Everytown for Gun Safety:

“We applaud Governor Newsom and state lawmakers for putting California at the forefront of the fight against DIY machine guns, which are just as scary as they sound,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “It speaks volumes about the gun industry’s fixation on profits that only a new law can force it to take the most basic steps to prevent mass carnage.”

“Governor Newsom, state lawmakers, and California volunteers continue to prove that the days of putting gun industry profits over our lives are long gone,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action. “DIY machine guns should never have had a pathway onto our streets, and today, we’re taking a big step to get them out of our communities. Our movement will keep fighting to hold reckless gun manufacturers accountable — because they shouldn’t get to profit off our tragedies.”

AB 1127 theoretically allows for Glock to change the design of its Gen 3 model to block the installation of illegal switches, but even if the company could take that step CalDOJ would view the redesigned pistol as a new firearm subject to the state’s handgun roster, and it would be rejected due to a lack of a magazine disconnect feature. That’s the reason why newer Glock models haven’t been approved for sale in California, though the Gen 3 was previously grandfathered in to the roster.

The NRA is already vowing to sue Newsom over the ban.

My guess is most of the other national Second Amendment groups will soon be filing suit as well, and we’ll probably see a coalition or two combining forces to take on the new laws.

So far there’s been no word from Glock on the new legislation, which is part of a broader effort to prohibit the sale of the popular handguns. The cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Seattle are also suing the company, claiming the gunmaker is willfully allowing the illegal conversion of their pistols into full-auto machine guns through the installation of illegal switches. New York also has a similar Glock ban bill pending in the legislature, and now that Newsom has signed AB 1127 into law that could start moving as well.

The gun control lobby can’t ban handguns outright, so their new strategy is to go after the most popular pistols on a piecemeal basis. In the short term, Glock sales will likely skyrocket in California, but unless AB 1127 is stayed via an injunction those sales will come to a screeching halt once the new law takes full effect.

The Second Amendment Holds More Weight Than ‘Uncle Dick’s Deer Stand’

In a Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing this week, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi faced questions regarding her leadership of the Justice Department.

But at the hearing, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) used her time questioning the nation’s top law enforcement official to repeat her canned comment about her ‘Uncle Dick’s deer stand’ when reiterating her support for legislation that would infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights by banning popularly-owned firearms.

Stop us if you’ve heard this one before.

Illogical Reasoning, Rinsed and Repeated

Opening her time on the microphone, Sen. Klobuchar set the scene for an attack on our right to keep and bear arms. Addressing AG Bondi, Sen. Klobuchar got to her point.

“In 2018, after the Parkland shooting, you were attorney general and there was a bill called the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act and the bill banned bump stocks and enacted red flag laws and raised the minimum age to purchase a firearm in Florida from 18 to 21 and you actually defended the law in court from a challenge from the NRA and we know that I’m in favor of an assault weapon ban. Period,” she said.

“I look at these bills, and I think ‘Does this hurt my Uncle Dick and the deer stand?’ – we have a proud tradition of hunting in Minnesota – I don’t think they do,” Sen. Klobuchar suggested.

Sen. Klobuchar has referenced her Uncle Dick numerous times when discussing her belief that Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) can and should be banned.

Since she brought it up, though, NSSF views gun control bills through the lens and with the knowledge that our Founding Fathers didn’t add the Second Amendment to the Constitution in response to a rogue deer herd. They added it as a guarantee that law-abiding Americans had the Constitutional right and means to keep and bear arms to keep a new government in check.

Mislabels and Misinformation

Another key point to address is the term ‘assault rifle,’ which has been attributed to Adolf Hitler after he referred to the MP 43 (Maschinenpistole) by the German word Sturmgewehr – “assault rifle” in English. That the firearm, which became known as the Sturmgewehr 44, features an intermediate cartridge, controllable automatic fire, and a higher rate of fire, is not an accurate comparison to the MSRs of today.

Here in the United States, the term ‘assault weapon’ didn’t even exist in the lexicon of firearms before 1989. In 1988, anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann, who was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, recommended that gun-control groups use public ignorance and fear to ban everything they can stuff into the phrase “assault weapon.”

Sugarman wrote, “Assault weapons … are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons…. Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.”

In the past several years, though, Americans have purchased Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) by the millions and are becoming more aware of the firearm’s functionality and operation. They aren’t buying the lies repeated by gun control groups and their elected allies who seek to ban the popular firearm.

In fact, firearm industry data has shown over the past few years while law-abiding Americans purchased firearms at a blistering pace, the MSR was a popular choice, including among first-time gun owners. Since 1990, there are more than 30 million MSRs in circulation today. That includes more than 4.5 million in the last three years alone. That makes the MSR more popular and commonly-owned today than there are Ford F-150 pickup trucks on the road.

I wonder if Uncle Dick drives an F-150?

The Cold Hard Truth

Unfortunately for Sen. Klobuchar and her gun control allies, America has already experimented with a ban, and facts overwhelmingly prove the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not reduce crime.

“These are just incredibly popular firearms… they are commonly owned, commonly used,” said political economist and assistant professor William English of Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. “At the end of the day, it is a rifle that I think is very easy to shoot, it’s very easy to control, not a lot of recoil.”

“So, it’s a good gun,” English added, when speaking with Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard. “And to see it become widely owned, I suppose, makes sense in that context.”

Clearly, We the People agree. Sen. Klobuchar should take note.

In my opinion, those in the California justice system who had anything to do even tangentially with this should all be prosecuted as accessories and charged under the felony murder rule. I will be generous though, and just for them, allow them to be sentenced to life without parole. The killer though better get the death penalty.

California Ignores Detainer and Releases Serial Criminal Illegal Alien; He Kills 6

A serial criminal removed from the United States multiple times for being an illegal alien and arrested for multiple offenses, including drunk driving, was released last year by the state of California despite a federal detainer. He subsequently murdered six people.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finally caught up with Beto Cerillo-Bialva in September, but the illegal alien had had numerous encounters with law enforcement before. Unfortunately, however, the legal apparatus simply did not insist on holding him for his crimes, at least in sanctuary-state California.

“This serial criminal killed six innocent souls. Governor Newsom has blood on his hands. This serial criminal should have never been released by California authorities,” mourned Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in a DHS press release. “Sanctuary policies protect the WORST OF THE WORST criminal illegal aliens. ICE will do everything in our power to remove this serial drunk driver, abuser, and drug user from our country.”

In 2024, Cerillo-Bialva was arrested for the third time for driving under the influence, but Gavin Newsom‘s California released him. As noted above, he subsequently killed half a dozen people in a drunk driving incident.

Cerillo-Bialva has been removed from the United States seven times—a felony—and maintains an extensive criminal history including possession of cocaine, three DUIs, driving without a license, and violating a court ordered restraining order for domestic abuse.

This news about Cerillo-Bialva comes just after the announcement that the illegal alien who killed University of South Carolina Student Nate Baker this year in a hit-and-run drunk driving accident was sentenced to only a year in jail.

McLaughlin emphasized how outrageous is the miscarriage of justice: “21-year-old USC student Nathaniel ‘Nate’ Baker was driving a motorcycle when he was hit by a truck driver who fled the scene. The hit-and-run driver, Rosali Isaac Fernandez-Cruz, was in our country illegally and received just 1 year in prison for taking Nate’s precious life. ICE lodged a detainer to ensure as soon as this killer completes his one-year prison sentence that ICE is notified to arrest him and get him OUT of our country.”

 

Too much of our so-called justice system is now rigged in favor of the worst criminals and against the victims. McLaughlin deplored the series of terrible decisions by authorities that led up to the deadly crash: “Nate was a 21-year-old college student with his whole life in front of him. This monster should never have been in our country and has had a final order of removal since 2018.”

But in all those years, the illegal alien Rosali I. Fernandez-Cruz was not removed, so he was still present in the United States to kill a wonderful young American man. How many Americans have been robbed, raped, assaulted, or killed by illegal aliens who should never have been allowed here in the first place, and many of whom were even previously ordered deported?

The Democrat Party has left a trail of corpses in its wake.

Original Intent: What the Founders Had to Say About Guns
The very idea of American freedom hinges on the right to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution took effect March 4, 1789 – and the Bill of Rights a while later on December 15, 1791. Among other freedoms, this included the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. But now it’s 2025, more than 230 years removed from that great work of America’s Founding Fathers. So where do our gun rights stand – and what would those men think if they could see us today?

The Birth of Gun Control Meant Death to Liberty

In 1934 – more than 140 years after the Bill of Rights and nearly a century after the last remaining Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836 – the nation’s first successful gun control bill became law. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, and he led a trifecta in the Swamp that included a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. The gun control that they passed regulated, for the first time, various types of firearms differently. Even with the majorities necessary to bulldoze the minority opposition, they knew an outright ban wouldn’t fly. So, instead, they passed a bill technically regulating the sale and taxation of certain types of arms – and, in practice, pricing out most Americans from owning them.

Three decades later, Democrats once again held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And, once again, they capitalized on a series of crises to justify further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. With the Gun Control Act of 1968, we got the establishment of prohibited persons – entire groups of people who would be stripped of the right to be armed. Guns could no longer be bought and sold commercially without going through a federally licensed dealer, in person.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the background check as a way to weed out prohibited persons. This was followed quickly by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which made certain semi-automatic firearms illegal for anyone, though it expired in 2004. Democrats have been trying ever since to pass another ban – this time, without a sunset clause.

Every gun control law passed in this nation’s history – and the time between them seems to shrink with each one – brings us farther from the Founders’ vision of liberty. Yes, in the last few years, Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and the spread of the constitutional carry movement through the states all seemed to push back on this slow march to disarmament. But freedom today doesn’t mean what it did to the Founders. They envisioned something quite different, and nothing paints a better picture of that vision than their own words.

Continue reading “”

NAILED IT! The FBI DID Send Hundreds of Undercover Assets Into the J6 Protest!

Yet another victory for the tinfoil hat, “conspiracy theory” crew: the FBI sent 274 “plainclothes” agents into the crowd of people protesting in and near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to Just the News.

And many of those agents are not happy about how it all went down, not to mention the bureau’s liberal bias.

FACT-O-RAMA! When the House Judiciary Committee asked him if the FBI had undercover assets involved in the January 6 protest, then-FBI director Christopher Wray testified that such an idea is “ludicrous.” Maybe he and James Comey can enjoy a little yard time together.

An FBI after-action report that Kash Patel’s office recently discovered not only reveals that the agency sent 274 agents and personnel into the January 6 fracas but also how poorly planned and executed the plan was. The report also reveals that many rank-and-file FBI agents complained that they felt as though they were “pawns in a political war.” Others suggested that the FBI was too “woke.”

After the January 6 melee, dozens of FBI agents and officials lodged anonymous complaints to the bureau, outlining how the bureau sent them into a dangerous situation without safety gear or a proper way to identify themselves as armed federal agents to other law enforcement officers.

The most common complaint from the agents was the left-leaning political bias of the bureau and how the BLM rioters of 2020 received far better treatment than the January 6 protestors.

Some of the complaints were scathing. One of the bureau’s damning complaints read:

The FBI should make clear to its personnel and the public that, despite its obvious political bias, it ultimately still takes its mission and priorities seriously. It should equally and aggressively investigate criminal activity regardless of the offenders’ perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations; and it should equally and aggressively protect all Americans regardless of perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations.

That same agent also asked the FBI “to identify viable exit options for FBI personnel who no longer feel it is legally or morally acceptable to support a federal law enforcement and intelligence agency motivated by political bias.”

Another agent pulled no punches and suggested that the problem of political bias wasn’t just an FBI problem but that it extended to the Office of the U.S. Attorney:

Currently, the US Attorney’s office is dictating what it is that gets investigated. This is a dangerous precedent because we can barely get them to prosecute investigations that clearly meet thresholds needed for Federal prosecutions,” the agent wrote. “However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.

Many agents focused their ire on the “wokeness” of the Washington Field Office (WFO), with one writing, “WFO is a hopelessly broken office that’s more concerned about wearing masks and recruiting preferred racial/sexual groups than catching actual bad guys.”

Yet another agent lowered the boom and spoke directly about the FBI’s treatment of January 6 suspects:

However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.

 

FACT-O-RAMA! A vast majority of J6 defendants were charged with four misdemeanors, one of which involved trespassing. Most were not sentenced to serve time in jail.

This bombshell after-action report discovery comes hot on the heels of the arrest of former FBI Director Comey, who faces charges of lying and obstruction.

Had enough yet?

As almost always, the expense of the process was the punishment.

Second Amendment Foundation declares ‘vindication’ as Attorney General ends investigation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced this week that it has reached an agreement with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. This concludes a three-year investigation that found no misconduct by SAF or its personnel.

As part of the settlement, SAF will withdraw its federal civil rights lawsuit against the Attorney General’s Office, former Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and other named defendants. This agreement includes the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) canceling its request for public records from the Washington Attorney General’s Office.

In return, the AG’s Consumer Protection will end its investigation into SAF and the other parties involved.

Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb stated the agreement represents a “vindication of our position that SAF, its partners and personnel did nothing wrong.”

Gottlieb says Ferguson’s investigation was political retaliation, not justice.
Gottlieb expressed his dissatisfaction with the investigation initiated by Bob Ferguson, describing it as an effort to “discredit our work on behalf of gun owners and the Second Amendment.”

“Ferguson’s witch hunt wasted three years of our time and cost us thousands of man hours and more than $200,000. We’re convinced this happened because he is a devoted anti-gun rights politician and we are a national organization whose mission is to protect and defend the Second Amendment,” he added.

All of SAF’s sister companies were targeted as well, including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Merril Mail Marketing, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Service Bureau Association, and Liberty Park Press, where Gottlieb currently serves as publisher.

Gottlieb expressed relief that the ordeal is over, though he added, “we’re not happy that Ferguson is not held responsible for the damage he did. It is our sincere hope that no future attorney general in Washington state will conduct a politically motivated attack under color of law against any non-profit organization with which he or she has a fundamental philosophical disagreement.”

As parts of the agreement, the Washington State Attorney General has decided not to pursue any legal action stemming from the investigation.

This outcome comes as no surprise to Gottlieb, “since they couldn’t find any wrongdoing.”

The Federal Trade Commission Takes On the 2nd Amendment

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Andrew Ferguson requesting the FTC investigate whether the Biden Administration’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention worked with anti-Second Amendment organizations to demand that the agency crack down on “deceptive and misleading claims” made by gun manufacturers. These efforts were supported by a group of anti-Second Amendment senators who wrote to then-FTC Chair Lina Khan asking her to investigate the gun industry’s advertising practices.

The senators’ letter accused the gun industry of marketing to children because their ads referenced popular “first person shooter video games” like Call of Duty. The problem with this claim is that the majority of gamers are over 18—making it perfectly legal for the firearms industry to market their products to them. The letter also suggests that the gun industry is engaging in “deceptive” advertising by focusing on how firearm ownership can help law-abiding citizens protect themselves, their families, and their property. Once again, the senators’ claims do not fit the facts.

Gun owners use firearms in self-defense between 60,000 and 2,500,000 times per year, and private citizens are 85% more likely to use a gun for self-defense than to be killed by a firearm. It is not misleading to say that firearms can be a useful tool for self-defense. Sadly, it is also true that there are around 526 accidental gun deaths per year, as well as over 40,000 people wounded due to the careless use of firearms. However, the solution is not to restrict firearm advertising—but to promote responsible gun ownership. The gun industry, along with other pro-Second Amendment organizations, does engage in plenty of work in this area.

As weak as the arguments for restricting firearms advertising are, the main argument against such restrictions is that they violate the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedent establishes that commercial speech like advertising is protected by the First Amendment, although at a lower level than political or religious speech. Even under this lower standard of review, banning or otherwise restricting advertisements for firearms would likely be struck down by the courts.

But while a future gun-grabbing FTC Chair may not be able to directly restrict gun advertising, they may try to ban gun ads through the back door. One way to do this would be to condition approval of mergers and acquisitions of media companies—including social media companies—on an agreement to not promote “dangerous” products such as firearms. If this sounds familiar it is because it is the approach of current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson. Ferguson has conditioned approval of advertising firm Omnicom’s acquisition of fellow advertising company Interpublic on the firms agreeing not to restrict web ad placements based on the sites’ political content. Is it too hard to imagine a future progressive FTC conditioning a similar merger on a company’s agreement to not place ads on sites that promote products dangerous to public health, such as firearms?

Government agencies may not even have to directly threaten to deny approval of a merger or acquisition to get a company to disregard the Second Amendment rights of their consumers. For example, before winning approval of their purchase by Skydance, Paramount—who owns CBS—settled a lawsuit brought by President Trump alleging that 60 Minutes edited their interview with then-Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to make her appear more knowledgable and coherent. President Trump claims this was done to make the Vice President more appealing to voters, and thus constituted election interference.

A long time 60 Minutes producer resigned earlier this year, saying the network was interfering with the program’s editorial decisions to moderate criticisms of President Trump. While FCC Chair Brandon Carr did not explicitly demand these actions, his rhetoric about broadcasters being required to act in the “public interest”, and his threats to block the Paramount-Skydance deal, no doubt played a role in Paramount’s actions.

It is easy to imagine a progressive FTC or FCC Chair using this precedent to forbid a news program, podcast, or even entertainment program from including content considered pro-gun. Fortunately, the pro-Second Amendment movement is fighting any attempt to use spurious claims of “false and deceptive” advertising to infringe on the Second Amendment. According to Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, his group “is leading the charge to unravel many of Biden’s unconstitutional restrictions in the courts, and we applaud President Trump for working to roll back other abuses—because the Second Amendment isn’t a bargaining chip, it’s the cornerstone of every American’s freedom.”

DOJ Takes Troubling Position in Second Amendment Case

The case Reese v. ATF challenges the prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns. Victorious at the Fifth Circuit, they’re now working towards a final judgment at the district court level, but the Department of Justice has taken a position that’s not sitting well with Second Amendment advocates.

After the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opinion on Reese v. ATF, the case was remanded for final judgment to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The circuit court concluded that “the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.” The plaintiffs filed an important brief on Friday in support of their proposed judgment.

The government ended up exhausting their timeline to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. When remanded back to district court, both the plaintiffs and the government filed proposed judgments because “a good faith attempt to reach agreement with Government” failed.

The plaintiffs are proposing the government be enjoined from enforcing prohibitions on the sale of handguns to all eighteen-to-twenty-year-old members. The government is requesting that the law be enjoined only “with respect to the identified and verified persons described” in the proposed judgment. In short, the government essentially wants the order to apply only to the individual plaintiffs, not every member of the associations who are part of the lawsuit, which include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association.

“The laws challenged in this case prevent 18-to-20-year-old adult Americans from acquiring handguns or handgun ammunition in the ordinary commercial market. The Fifth Circuit has held that those laws and their supporting regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the filing states. “And now the Government has taken the position that even so, Plaintiffs should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

The 19-page brief goes on to explain why the final judgment should not give deference to the government by delivering what would amount to an as-applied opinion. Given the amount of time it takes to bring such cases to completion, many plaintiffs are mooted out by coming of age before there are any final judgments—something the government incorporated in their proposed order.

“What’s at stake now is the scope of the injunction–meaning, which young adults will be able to exercise their rights,” said Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Although it chose not to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it is now the ATF’s position that the scope of relief should be so narrow as to cover literally no one. That position is contrary to well-settled law. SAF sued on behalf of its members, and the relief SAF won in the Fifth Circuit flows to those very members. All SAF members should be covered by this injunction.”

“SAF’s victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition had some harsh words for the Department of Justice. FPC said the government’s brief was full of “brazen arguments” and that “the DOJ is working to push all effective, cause-driven organizations … out of court altogether, and force people to pursue their rights through slow, complex, and expensive class-action lawsuits.” FPC alleges that these moves are all part of a new government ploy.

“The DOJ’s cynical scheme to undermine associational standing and relief for our members is nothing but an attempt to put constitutional accountability out of the reach of ordinary Americans,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “The federal government, having lost on the merits, is now trying to rig the process. But we will not be deterred. While the government has placed FPC and our members in its crosshairs, we are proud to expose and oppose this dangerous strategy as we pursue a world of maximal liberty for all peaceable people.”

We’re allegedly living at a time when the most pro-Second Amendment administration is in power. The government yielding by allowing the clock to run out on appealing to the High Court certainly was a win, but not if in the next breath they’re saying that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking should be grossly limited. The Fifth Circuit was clear when it said that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people,” there should be no further argument—yet here we are.

Tennessee of all places…

Skrmetti appealing gun law decision

(The Center Square) – Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is appealing a ruling by a Gibson County Chancery Court that said two Tennessee gun laws were unconstitutional.
The laws prohibited carrying firearms in state parks and carrying a gun or club with the “intent to go armed” and use it for violence or aggression.

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and three Tennessee residents sued the state, saying the laws violated their right to bear arms.
Skrmetti said his office was asking the chancery court for a stay pending appeal because the court’s ruling was broad and went too far.

“It entirely invalidates two gun laws, even though those laws are constitutional in some situations,” Skrmetti said. “For example, it’s obviously constitutional to prohibit a 10-year-old from bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a rec league basketball game or a drunk with a shotgun from staggering down Broadway or through Market Square or across Shelby Farms. But the Court’s ruling appears to legalize this in Tennessee.”

The ruling by the Chancery Court is causing confusion, Skrmetti said in the appeal.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel has already advised the public that ‘the entire law enforcement network in Tennessee [is] on notice’ and ‘attempts to enforce these two statutes’ by any official ‘should give rise to claims of federal civil rights violations,’” Skrmetti said. “Law enforcement is rightly loath to choose between tempting ruinous civil rights lawsuits and carrying out their duty to protect the public. And there is no doubt: because of its refusal to adhere to its own judicial limits, this Court’s order would leave large gaps in the General Assembly’s efforts to protect the public.”

Rep. Chris Todd, R-Madison County, said he wanted Skrmetti to appeal the decision but not because Todd opposes it. He called the opinion “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written decisions we’ve seen.”

Sen. London Lamar, chairwoman of the Tennessee Senate Democratic Caucus, said she supports the decision to appeal the decision.

“These long-standing gun safety laws are constitutional and they exist for a reason: to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the public,” Lamar said. “If the lower court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will tie the hands of police officers — even when they encounter someone with a loaded assault rifle parked outside a children’s park. Officers wouldn’t even be allowed to question that person’s intent until it’s too late. That’s not freedom. That’s a recipe for tragedy.”

@WallStreetApe

Woman who grew up in Southern California says she saw first hand out illegals qualify for Section 8 and all our benefits

“I saw exactly how they did it and what they did and how they were able to get away with it for so long. So how they would do it is when you fill out these applications, there is a box that asks you, now they’ll initially ask you for your social security number and date of birth, whatever. But there’s a box that said check here if you do not have a social security number. Once you check that box, baby, you’re a celebrity after that.

— The border is right there. So the women and children would come over. And they’ll apply to all this aid. They’ll check that box. Do not have a Social Security number. And then they will get immediate assistance.

– They’ll get the Section 8
– They’ll get cash assistance
– They’ll get EBT
– They’ll get free lunch for the kids
– They’ll get ESL (English second language)
– They’ll get free tutoring

they’ll get everything they need, right? Because they’re not a citizen, so they need the emergency help

but here’s what they would do.

The men would be there too. They just wouldn’t include them on any paperwork. The men would be in the home, but the men would go to work. All while they woman and children are getting all this free everything, they would go to work.

They would do construction, get paid under the table, odd jobs, handyman work, paid under the table, fixed cars, paid under the table, have a food stand or food truck, cash only, okay? Selling whatever they can sell, reselling, doing whatever they can, all under the table. And the women would do it, too. So they getting all this money, cash only, tax free, no proof of anything, and living high off the hog off of our money that we’re actually paying off the government, off the handouts. That they say we take.

That’s how they were doing it.“

“That’s how they’ve been. Getting away with it. The men, they be out there making money and even the women, they be out there making money, cash only, tax free with the handouts of the government.”

She then explains what illegal businesses they run in California and how they avoid taxable income and reporting

Why Has Fort Worth – One of America’s Most Conservative Cities – Hired an Anti-Gun Police Chief?

chief eddie garcia

In a move sparking backlash from Second Amendment supporters, the city of Fort Worth has hired Eddie Garcia — the former police chief of Dallas and San Jose — as its next Chief of Police. Gun rights advocates are sounding the alarm, citing Garcia’s long and well-documented record of opposing constitutional carry, supporting California-style gun control, and pushing for “enhanced limitations” to the Second Amendment.

For a city like Fort Worth — often considered the nation’s most conservative large city — the choice is baffling.

Opposed Constitutional Carry and Civilian Rifle Ownership

During his tenure in Dallas, Garcia vocally opposed permitless carry, placing himself squarely against the will of Texas voters and the state legislature. Despite overwhelming support from grassroots Texans, Garcia parroted talking points from the gun control lobby, claiming it would make Texas more dangerous.

But it didn’t stop there.

As San Jose Police Chief, Garcia called for further restrictions on civilian ownership of AR-15s and questioned whether the Founding Fathers would have written the Second Amendment the same way if they had known about modern firearms — a tired trope often used by anti-gun politicians to justify new bans.

He went as far as to say the Second Amendment should be treated as a “living document” — a red flag for anyone who takes constitutional rights seriously. In the same interview, he referred to Black Lives Matter as a “valid movement.”

Continue reading “”