Category: You Can’t Make This Up

Uvalde Lawsuit Against UPS, FedEx the Dumbest Ones Yet

Lawsuits against companies that had no hand in something like the awful events of Uvalde aren’t surprising, but they’re stupid.

It’s idiotic.

But I thought we’d seen all the stupid we were going to see on that front. That’s a case of “shame on me” for underestimating the vile idiocy of the anti-gun movement. It seems they have found a new target.

On the day of the shooting, the gunman was armed with a weapon ordered online and shipped to Oasis Firearms in Uvalde where it was then picked up by the shooter.

The lawsuit claims the companies then shipped an enhanced trigger system to the gunman’s house. This allowed the gunman to convert it into a fully automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

The lawsuit cited the UPS conditions of carriage as proof of a violation. The UPS conditions state that, “Shipments must not contain goods which might endanger human or animal life or any means of transportation.”

The families also said that the shipment of the Hell Fire trigger to the gunman’s house was a violation of school zone area protections. The gunman’s house was less than 1,000 feet away from the Robb Elementary School zone.

Yep. This is pure idiocy.

The Hell Fire trigger has been on the market for over 30 years. It’s nothing but a trigger that allows people to fire semi-automatic weapons a bit faster, much like many other trigger modifications. These are not illegal and are perfectly acceptable to ship through either UPS or FedEx.

Moreover, it doesn’t violate the UPS conditions of carriage because the trigger won’t do any of those things. Not by itself, anyway.

“But it’s also a violation of school zone area protections.”

The courts have long found that people living less than 1,000 feet from a school zone don’t forfeit their Second Amendment rights simply because they live within walking distance of a school. That means people can lawfully buy guns and store them in their homes.

It also means that there is no reason for a carrier to question gun part going to a home within that area.

In short, UPS and FedEx had no reason to not ship the part to the individual who turned out to later become the Uvalde killer.

Let’s also be real here for a moment. UPS and FedEx aren’t gun companies. They don’t have any reason to stay in this fight. They make money shipping guns and parts, but do they make enough to deal with the negative publicity that might arise? Probably not. They’re far more likely to cave than a gun company might.

But let’s understand what this is really about. It’s not about UPS or FedEx doing anything wrong. They know this is a stretch. They don’t expect this to go to trial, even. Oh no, this is about something far different.

What these folks are trying to do is to use the legal system to bully UPS and FedEx into refusing to transport firearms or firearm parts. They want to see these carriers cut out every firearm-related company so that those companies will have a harder time shipping products to customers.

As a result of that, it becomes harder for law-abiding citizens to get not just parts but guns shipped to their FFL.

All of this isn’t about correcting wrongs committed prior to Uvalde. It’s about making it harder for you and me to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Who needs gun control if you can’t find a gun to buy in the first place?

That’s what this is about. Sure, this one lawsuit won’t necessarily change the landscape, but it’s never about one lawsuit. It’s about the death by a thousand cuts. It’s about making it just too difficult to deal with the firearm industry.

And the stupidity won’t end here, either. We’ll see more and worse.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says ‘Why should he?’ when asked why Biden isn’t using executive powers to deal with border crisis

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre brazenly fought back after being asked why Joe Biden hasn’t used his executive powers to deal with the border crisis.

The press secretary, 49, admitted on Wednesday that Biden does have the power to curtail the ever-growing migrant ordeal – but she snapped back: ‘Why should he?’

President Biden took 94 executive actions to reverse Donald Trump’s border policies after taking office – but has refused to issue any as migrant numbers have surged.

A deadlocked Congress has repeatedly failed to agree measures to cut illegal crossings at the southern border, which topped more than 2.5 million last year.

Despite this, Jean-Pierre seemed baffled at the suggestion that the president should take the initiative, when she was asked why he would not.

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre seemed baffled at the suggestion that the President should take the initiative when quizzed by reporters on Wednesday

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre seemed baffled at the suggestion that the President should take the initiative when quizzed by reporters on Wednesday

Asylum seekers walk for their interview appointment with US authorities at the El Chaparral crossing port in Tijuana, Baja California State, Mexico, on

Asylum seekers walk for their interview appointment with US authorities at the El Chaparral crossing port in Tijuana, Baja California State, Mexico, on

She demanded: ‘Why should he have to do it unilaterally?

‘Why shouldn’t we do it in a legislative way?’

Congress was given no say as executive orders flowed thick and fast in the early days of the administration to ditch Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, halt construction of the border wall and increase job opportunities for those that got through.

White House sources have repeatedly hinted he would take executive action to curtail crossings, most recently last week when outlets reported plans to shut the border should migrant crossings reach 4,000 per day.

But the president has played down the prospect in public, in the face of opposition from progressives in his party.

Continue reading “”

Ahhhhh hahahahah. Ahhhhhh HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Gas fracking for lithium production?
In order for the US to meet its domestic lithium demand to power all of the electric vehicles we are going to be compelled to buy, we have to engage in natural gas fracking?
YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS IRONY UP.

A Vast, Untapped Source of Lithium Has Just Been Found in The US

Almost two centuries after California’s gold rush, the United States is on the brink of a lithium rush. As demand for the material skyrockets, government geologists are rushing to figure out where the precious element is hiding.

In September 2023, scientists funded by a mining company reported finding what could be the largest deposit of lithium in an ancient US supervolcano. Now public researchers on the other side of the country have uncovered another untapped reservoir – one that could cover nearly half the nation’s lithium demands.

It’s hiding in wastewater from Pennsylvania’s gas fracking industry.

Lithium is arguably the most important element in the nation’s renewable energy transition – the material of choice for electric vehicle batteries. And yet, there is but one large-scale lithium mine in the US, meaning for the moment the country has to import what it needs.

Officials at the US Department of Energy are desperate to change that. By 2030, they want all lithium produced domestically.

Expanding America’s lithium industry, however, is highly controversial, as mining can destroy natural environments, leach toxic chemicals, and intrude on sacred Indigenous land.

At the same time, however, lithium-ion batteries are considered a crucial technology in the world’s transition to renewable energy, storing electricity generated by the wind and the Sun. Finding a source of lithium that doesn’t cause more environmental destruction than necessary is key, but a clean solution is complicated.

Pennsylvania sits on a vein of sedimentary rock known as the Marcellus Shale, which is rich in natural gas. The geological foundation was deposited almost 400 million years ago by volcanic activity, and it contains lithium from volcanic ash.

Over vast stretches of time, deep groundwater has dissolved the lithium in these rocks, essentially “mining the subsurface”, according to Justin Mackey, a researcher at the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pennsylvania.

“We just didn’t know how much was in there,” says Mackey.

Because of its location, Pennsylvania is a leading state in controversial fracking activities, which have spurred numerous environmental and health concerns.

Such practices could squander precious lithium. As this new study shows, in properly measuring lithium reserves in fracking wastewater, there could be another way to put the waste to good use.

The regional analysis is based on data from oil and gas companies, which report the elements found in their wastewater to government officials. Mackey and his colleagues considered data collected from 2012 to 2023 from the wastewater of 515 wells in Pennsylvania.

Their results suggest that the Marcellus Shale “has the capacity to provide significant lithium yields for the foreseeable future” – as long as fracking continues, that is.

If scientists can extract even a conservative amount of lithium from fracking wastewater in the state, they calculate it could meet more than 30 percent of the current US demand.

To fulfill our climate goals, global demand for lithium is expected to increase by 400 percent in the coming decades. It remains to be seen how lithium requirements will be met and what new environmental crises those solutions might wreak.

The study was published in Scientific Reports.

Dem. Sponsor Of WA Gun Owner Insurance Mandate Runs For Insurance Commissioner

The Democrat Washington state Senator who earlier this year introduced legislation to require gun owners to obtain liability insurance is now running to become the next insurance commissioner.

State Sen. Patty Kuderer (D-Bellevue), who has consistently supported gun control measures as a lawmaker, said in a campaign announcement,

“As a State Senator, I have been a vocal advocate for issues such as gun safety, voting rights, and women’s health. I have also been a leading voice on healthcare issues in the State Senate, including sponsoring legislation to create a public option for healthcare in Washington. As your next Insurance Commissioner, I will work tirelessly to protect consumers and to hold insurance companies accountable for their actions. I will fight to expand access to affordable healthcare, to promote transparency and fairness in the insurance market, and to ensure that all Washingtonians have access to the coverage they need to stay healthy and secure.”

She goes on to claim she is “committed to working collaboratively with all stakeholders,” although gun owners may not be included in that definition.

But Kuderer will be facing a Senate foil, at least in the primary. State Sen. Phil Fortunato (R-Auburn), an ardent Second Amendment advocate, has also filed for the position. Neither Kuderer or Fortunato would lose their Senate seats this fall.

Kuderer’s measure, Senate Bill 5963, never made it out of committee. She had nine co-sponsors, all Democrats and all whose names are often linked to gun control legislation.

Kuderer is among four Democrats running for the insurance commissioner’s spot. The three others are identified as Chris D. Chung of Tacoma, Bill Boyd of Spokane and John Pestinger of Seattle.

Fortunato also has company from Republican Justin Murta of Snohomish. Two other candidates have filed without stating party preference, Jonathan Hendrix of Seattle and Tim Verzal of Eatonville.

But only one candidate—Kuderer—can be linked to the proposed liability insurance mandate.

Under her bill, any person who owns a firearm would have been compelled to obtain “in full force and effect,” an  insurance policy “covering losses or damages resulting from the accidental or unintentional discharge of the firearm, including but not limited to, death or injury to persons who are not an insured person under the policy and property damage.”

The law would also have required the gun owner to keep valid and current written evidence of the coverage readily available where each firearm was stored.

The law would also have required insurers to ask whether anyone named on the policy owned a firearm and whether it was securely stored.

When Kuderer introduced her bill in January, she was quoted by MyNorthwest.com stating, “This …requirement does not regulate, limit or control the manner or method in which people may keep or bear arms. Instead, it simply says you must have liability insurance.”

KTTH conservative commentator Jason Rantz countered at the time, “This is astonishing. The bill literally regulates and controls both the manner and method in which we may keep and bear arms.”

A Big Week for SCOTUS and the Second Amendment

On Thursday, the Supreme Court is set to consider whether to accept challenges to “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Maryland at this week’s conference. But that’s not the only 2A issue coming before the justices this week. A case called Srour v. NYC is also scheduled for consideration in conference this week. That lawsuit is taking on New York City’s “good moral character” standard for residents trying to exercise their right to keep a rifle or shotgun in their home; a statute found unconstitutional by a district court judge, but allowed to remain in effect thanks to an inexplicable decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney Amy Bellantoni first asked SCOTUS to intervene on behalf of her client back in March, but her request for an emergency application to vacate the Second Circuit’s stay was summarily rejected by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on April 4th. The following week, Bellantoni resubmitted her request to Justice Clarence Thomas. Instead of accepting or rejecting the request, Thomas has submitted the question to the full Court.

In her initial request, Bellantoni notes that the district court judge who found New York’s “good moral character” and “good cause to deny” clauses unconstitutional did so after the state failed to come up with a single historical analogue that could justify the broad and vague powers granted to the licensing authorities.

The district court went on to analogizing Respondents’ ‘moral character’requirement to the ‘proper cause’ factor for a concealed carry handgun license thatwas stricken by this Court in Bruen. Both statutes require individuals to “prove”something to a government official before being able to exercise a protected right.

Harkening to Bruen’s discussion contrasting outlier “may issue” regimes likeNew York’s, “under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carrylicenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria,” with “shall issue”regimes, “where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability,” the district court correctly observed that Respondents’ regulations “land very close to the problematic “may issue” laws criticized in Bruen.”

… The district court concluded that 10-303(a)(2) and (a)(9) “suffer from the verysame constitutional flaws under Bruen.” Observing that Section 10-303 fails to define “good moral character” in further detail, the court held that “without doubt, the very notions of “good moral character” and “good cause” are inherently exceedingly broad and discretionary. Someone may be deemed to have good moral character by one person, yet a very morally flawed character by another. Such unfettered discretion is hard, if not impossible, to reconcile with Bruen.”

The district court then turned to whether Respondents met their burden under the Bruen test, but found they failed to produce any historical analogue for investing officials with the broad discretion to restrict an individual’s Second Amendment rights based on a lack of moral character.

Respondents offered examples of criminal laws, loyalty oath requirements, and surety statutes — laws preventing “dangerous or potentially dangerous” people from possessing firearms, which the district court found are “hardly analogous to denying someone their Second Amendment’s rights based on a City official’s discretionary determination that that person “lacks good moral character”…The latter is far broader and sweeps in significantly more conduct.”

When New York City officials appealed the judge’s order to the Second Circuit, they quickly got the relief they were asking. A three-judge panel stayed the lower court decision and allowed the NYPD to continue to use “good moral character” (or the lack thereof) as a reason to approve or deny permits, pointing to a similar preliminary ruling regarding pistol licenses that are being challenged as part of Antonyuk and other lawsuits taking on the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act. But Bellantoni argues that the Second Circuit provided no real analysis before reaching its decision. If it had, Bellantoni believes the panel would have had no real choice but to uphold the district court’s finding.

Had “due consideration” been given, the Second Circuit would have realized that Antonyuk (i) is not binding on the appeal, as it involved review of a preliminary injunction, not a merits-based determination; (ii) its ‘moral character’ analysis is confined to handgun licensing (plaintiffs challenged the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”); (iii) New York State’s moral character statute for handguns is markedly narrower than NYC Admin.

Code 10-303(a)(2) (still, any amount of discretion conflicts with the plain text); and (iv) contains no analysis of this Nation’s historical traditions of regulating rifles and shotguns, which is decidedly sparse. To be sure, when it comes to long guns, even the New York State Legislature acknowledged in 1965 that there was no ‘National tradition’ of licensing rifles and shotguns, never mind disarming the entire citizenry until a government official feels they possess “good moral character.”

We have no way of knowing which, if any, of the Second Amendment cases that are pending in conference will be granted cert by the Supreme Court, but there’s a strong argument to be made in favor of accepting all three of the legal challenges that will be discussed behind closed doors this week.

The Srour case may be the most limited in terms of impact, given that NYC is an outlier when it comes to its gun licensing laws, but there are still millions of New York City residents who are being subjected to the arbitrary and capricious whims of the NYPD Licensing Bureau before they can exercise a fundamental civil right. All three cases are worthy of the Court’s attention, and the longer the justices delay in hearing them, the worse these deprivations of liberty become.

Day Before Biden Admin Announced It Would Withhold Weapons From Israel, It Issued Sanctions Waiver To Allow Arms Sales to Qatar and Lebanon.

Less than a day before the Biden administration announced its intent to cut off U.S. arms sales to Israel, it issued a sanctions waiver to bypass congressional prohibitions on arms sales to a host of Arab nations that boycott the Jewish state, including Hamas ally Qatar and Iran-controlled Lebanon, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

On Tuesday—just a day before President Joe Biden threatened to withhold key weapons deliveries from Israel if the country moves forward with an incursion in the Gaza Strip’s Rafah neighborhood—the State Department informed Congress that it intends to bypass laws that bar the United States from selling weapons to nations that boycott Israel, according to a copy of the notification obtained by the Free Beacon.

The Biden administration, which has waived these sanctions in the past, said in the notification that it intends to extend the waiver through April 30, 2025, allowing weapons to be sent to a host of nations that work closely with the Hamas terror group and other Iran-backed terror proxies.

While the administration determined that these countries engage in Israel boycotts, a condition that triggers American anti-boycott laws, bypassing these restrictions remains “in the U.S. national interest” to maintain regional stability, according to the waiver. But this justification is drawing scrutiny on Capitol Hill as the Biden administration threatens key arms shipments to Israel in a bid to force it into abandoning its campaign to eradicate Hamas.

Continue reading “”

Indiana Prosecutor Laments That Self-Defense Laws Exist, Protect Defensive Gun Users.

Apparently, some Indianapolis public officials have forgotten how their own self-defense laws work and why they exist in the first place.

In an interview that’s equal parts amusing and alarming, Indiana’s Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears recently lamented an increase in self-defense shootings in Indianapolis.

Mears complained to reporters that shootings involving self-defense claims are challenging to prosecute. This “mean[s] that someone lost their life” and “that case might ultimately be cleared” without the shooter being charged, he said.

Mears also implied that defensive gun users who can’t be prosecuted are just as bad as the criminals they shot, simply by virtue of the fact that both parties were armed.

With all due respect to Mears, the county prosecutor seems to miss the point.

As in virtually every other state, Indiana law justifies the use of deadly force only when a person has a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury, commission of a forcible felony, or unlawful entry into a home or vehicle.

Moreover, a person generally can’t rely on the protection of self-defense laws if he or she was committing a crime or fleeing after committing one, provoked the threat, or engaged in “mutual combat.”

In other words, to the extent that self-defense shootings are difficult to prosecute, it’s because there’s pretty good evidence that the shooter was morally and legally justified in doing what he did.

You would think that someone like Mears would comprehend this, given his position as a prosecutor.

The importance of armed self-defense can’t be overstated. Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

Continue reading “”

NY Judge: The Second Amendment Doesn’t Exist Here

There’s been a case in New York that I should have been following more closely. Dexter Taylor was a hobby gunsmith. He liked the nature of putting together guns from lawfully purchased parts.

However, the state of New York disapproved of this pastime. They arrested Taylor and, on Monday, he was convicted.

My friend Jeff Charles over at our sister site RedState has been covering this case pretty much from the jump, and in his story from Monday about the sentencing, there was something we had to talk about.

You see, the judge in the case has decided that a certain right of interest to Bearing Arms readers doesn’t actually exist in her state.

From the beginning of Taylor’s trial, it was evident that the court would be biased against the defendant, according to [Taylor’s attorney, Vinoo] Varghese, who explained that two judges presided over his case before the current official, Judge Abena Darkeh, took over.

The judge disrupted Varghese’s opening statement multiple times as he tried to set the stage for Taylor’s defense. Even further, she admonished the defense to refrain from mentioning the Second Amendment during the trial. Varghese told RedState:

She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’

Varghese said he had filed the appropriate paperwork to “preserve these arguments for appeal” but that the judge “rejected these arguments, and she went out of her way to limit me.”

The Second Amendment doesn’t exist there? Excuse the hell out of me?

“This is New York?”

This just smacks of “the Aloha spirit” nonsense where some parties seem to think that the Constitution doesn’t actually apply because they really, really don’t like it.

Is the judge in this case, Judge Abena Darkeh, suggesting that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply anywhere she doesn’t approve? What other rights don’t exist in New York under Judge Darkeh’s paradigm? Do defendants not have the right to representation? Is free speech non-existent?

Oh, one might make the case that I’m being ridiculous, but I don’t think I am. Not based on Darkeh’s other actions.

Varghese also tries to take a jury nullification approach. Jury nullification basically means you convince the jury that while a crime might have occurred, the law in question is the real problem. It’s rare, but it’s still a thing. Judges aren’t supposed to encourage it, but they’re not supposed to stop it.

Yet Judge Darkeh did just that. She reportedly warned jurors in such a way as to suggest they could face consequences if they didn’t vote to convict.

So, basically, it feels like Taylor got railroaded and that Darkeh doesn’t actually think people have rights unless she, personally, approves of them.

Yet that’s not how rights work. They exist even if they’re inconvenient. They exist even if you don’t approve of how they’re used.

Varghese says he tried to preserve Darkeh’s comments for appeal and was stymied. However, her comments should still be on the record somewhere. If not, her attitude should be clear from the transcripts.

But either way, Darkeh makes it clear that at least some jurists in New York really don’t think the Second Amendment applies in either their courtroom or the state as a whole.

It’s time they’re disabused of that notion by higher courts.