Maybe the World Economic Forum globalists are behind it, maybe not. What is certain is the just-released “Died Suddenly” documentary presents abundant data and disturbing testimony from doctors, journalists, military figures, funeral directors and embalmers that lots of vaccinated people are dying suddenly and with strange fibrous blockages in their arteries and veins. What the hell is going on?- Mark Tapscott

 

Observation O’ The Day

Hi 97 Percent Team,

Thank you for putting on yesterday’s conference. I am a gun owner and member of the firearm community based in Chicago. I share your desire to decrease gun deaths and find common ground. As a sign of my good faith intentions, I recently put on a Safe Storage presentation with a Moms Demand Action representative for our school community despite vehemently disagreeing with their public policy platform.

I feel that the strongest part of yesterday’s presentation was the Hot Button Topics discussion between Amy Swearer and Fred Guttenberg. I am still shocked that Fred wold be willing to sit down with Amy. More conversations like that need to happen where each side sits down with one another to try and have good faith conversations.

I am writing after watching the entirety of yesterday’s presentation. I watched because I was interested in what the panel, which included elected officials and other policy makers, would put forward as give and take compromises to get the gun community onboard. Unfortunately I feel as if it was a hugely blown opportunity on the whole as zero policy compromises were put forward by any of the speakers except Dr. Seigel.

Many members of the gun community showed up to watch in the hopes that we may have found a partner where we could work together. Instead we were shown a parade of speakers who have all publically asked for or voted recently for assault weapons bans. Governor Roy Cooper, Rep Moulton, Rep Dean, are all elected officials who have publicly pushed for bans and made clear yesterday that not only are they unwilling to remove these bans (despite the organization’s stated policy as presented by Michael Seigel) but rather they said explicitly that they are just waiting for the opportunity to have the votes to pass it in Congress. Congressman Moulton even threw in the usual talking point about shooting deer with AR-15s and needing better aim. Is insulting comments REALLY how you intend to find common ground with the majority of responsible gun owners who train to use their firearms not for hunting, but to defend themselves and family? Our supposed “voice at the table” Former Rep Walsh put forward no push back but rather spent most of the panel virtue signaling his hatred of the NRA (who we all hate too btw). There was not one word, not one proposal that was put forward as a give-and-take compromise with the gun community. That first panel lost many of us but I continued watching.

Former Schumer aid Emily Amick’s social media is full of video clips demonizing gun owners who own AR-15s, calling for an end to the filibuster to push gun ban proposals, and glowing videos of Congressman Cellini saying “spare me the constiutional right bull sh*t.” How was including her, who again has shown no sign of willing to compromise on any policy, intended on getting buy in from the gun community?

What was the point of allowing WH Assistant Stefanie Feldman to read a 5 minute speech about Biden’s domestic policy, including once again her emphasizing that he wants to ban assault weapons and if you don’t agree with the ban then you don’t actually care about crime? Again not one word about compromises that the administration is willing to make with the gun community.

The gun community has a huge amount of respect for Stephen Guttowski and I am glad you included him in the discussion. Stephen’s method and podcasts, calmly discussing the DETAILS of firearm policy and law should be how 97 Percent moves forward in discussions with the gun community.

Unfortunately I’m not sure your organization will get the chance after yesterday’s conference as much credibility was lost. You simply cannot parade out a bunch of speakers, many of whom are board members, who have publically been strong advocates of gun bans and then ask us to trust your organization because…… your official platform says you don’t want an assault weapons ban? We all remember Conor Lamb campaigning with video of him shooting an AR-15 and then voting to ban them this year.

Richard Aborn (instrumental proponent of 94 AWB), Rep Steve Israel (proponent of AWB and on recent 97% podcast spoke favorable of NY’s Bruen-response bill and explained his idea of compromise as “getting 60% rather than 100%” of gun control policies he wants), and Rep Moulton (who’s service I respect yet again just voted for an AWB), are all prominent members of your board. Why should the gun community trust you???

So when will the gun community trust you? When you come forward with REAL policy compromises as well as fight to overturn abusive laws. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in calling out California’s Handgun Roster or New York’s post-Bruen concealed carry restrictions. We are willing to discuss federal Universal background checks in exchange for national concealed carry reciprocity. A federal license (with training perhaps!) in exchange for not needing FFL NICS checks for transfers. These were the types of discussions we were expecting when we showed up to watch yesterday. The ONLY person who in good faith touched on any of this was Dr. Siegel.

I will end with a humorous fictional story written about someone attending the conference in-person that is circulating among the gun community.

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/ninety-seven-percent

I hope your organization will take this criticism to heart and revamp how you plan on engaging in good faith with the firearm community. Many of us are still willing to talk, but not just about how much we are willing to give up in exchange for nothing.

Best,
David Rice
Chicago

An friend terms posts like this übërpösts™ (in other words: It’s looong)
I’ll append commentary and observations from around the net.

Observation O’ The Day
It’s a look into the smartest minds of the enemy. Joe Huffman

The Ad Industry’s Plan to Fix America’s Gun Crisis

If you want a crude sketch of the biggest corporate players in a given year of TV, look no further than the Emmy Award for best commercial. Twenty-five years of winners form an ensemble cast of petty bourgeois preoccupations: Nike, Chrysler, Bud Light. This year’s nominees included a commercial for Meta (the artist formerly known as Facebook), one for Chevy (repping the still-muscular auto spend), two for Apple (a perennial contender), and two for the prevention of school shootings—one of which won the Emmy.

PSAs Killed Cigarettes. Can They Help End Gun Violence?

PSAs Killed Cigarettes. Can They Help End Gun Violence?© Getty; The Atlantic

Continue reading “”

The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society.
— MARK SKOUSEN

Observation O’ The Day
However, as history teaches us, it sometimes does take downright force to ‘persuade’ those who want to exert control over others by authoritarian goobermint. Does that mean that that society isn’t civilized?

It’s apparent now that he’s considered expendable.


Observation O’ The Day
The media bail on Biden:

All polling points to Biden’s majorities in the House and Senate being wiped out come the November midterm elections. When that happens, and I mean the very next day, these innuendos and grumblings for Biden to step aside will become full-bore primal screams, and he won’t be able to survive them.

-Stephen L. Miller


CNN Crushes President Joe Biden With Fact Check.

It may not be something that CNN watchers are used to seeing, but President Joe Biden got hammered by a fact check from the network.

“Gas prices weren’t over $5 when Biden took office. The Social Security hike isn’t a Biden achievement. The Trump tax cut didn’t ‘only’ go to the top 1%. Biden didn’t cut the debt in half. Biden didn’t get Congress to pass a law to forgive student debt,” CNN fact checker Daniel Dale said.

“The unemployment rate. Biden said at the Florida rally on Tuesday: ‘Unemployment is down from 6.5 to 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years.’ He said at the New Mexico rally on Thursday: ‘Unemployment rate is 3.5% – the lowest it’s been in 50 years.

“But Biden didn’t acknowledge that September’s 3.5% unemployment rate was actually a tie for the lowest in 50 years – a tie, specifically, with three months of Trump’s administration, in late 2019 and early 2020,” the fact checker said.

“Since Biden uses these campaign speeches to favorably compare his own record to Trump’s record, that omission is significant.

“The unemployment rate rose to 3.7% in October; that number was revealed on Friday, after these Biden comments. The rate was 6.4% in January 2021, the month Biden took office,” he said.

Biden’s student debt policy

“During an on-camera discussion conducted by progressive organization NowThis News and published online in late October, Biden told young activists that they ‘probably are aware, I just signed a law’ on student debt forgiveness that is being challenged by Republicans.

“He added: ‘It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two, and it’s in effect.’

“Biden’s claims are false,” he said.

“He created his student debt forgiveness initiative through executive action, not through legislation, so he didn’t sign a law and didn’t get it passed by any margin.

“Since Republicans opposed to the initiative, including those challenging the initiative in court, have called it unlawful precisely because it wasn’t passed by Congress, the distinction between a law and an executive action is a highly pertinent fact here,” the fact checker said.

“A White House official told CNN that Biden was referring to the Inflation Reduction Act, the law narrowly passed by the Senate in August; the official said the Inflation Reduction Act created “room for other crucial programs” by bringing down the deficit. But Biden certainly did not make it clear that he was talking about anything other than the student debt initiative” he said.

Gas prices

“Biden correctly noted on various occasions in October that gas prices have declined substantially since their June 2022 peak – though, as always, it’s important to note that presidents have a limited impact on gas prices.

“But in an economic speech in New York last week, Biden said, ‘Today, the most common price of gas in America is $3.39 – down from over $5 when I took office.’

“Biden’s claim that the most common gas price when he took office was more than $5 is not even close to accurate,” the fact checker said.

“The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day he was inaugurated, January 20, 2021, was $2.39, according to data provided to CNN by Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.

“In other words, Biden made it sound like gas prices had fallen significantly during his presidency when they had actually increased significantly,” he said.

“In other recent remarks, Biden has discussed the state of gas prices in relation to the summer peak of more than $5 per gallon, not in relation to when he took office.

“Regardless, the comment last week was the second this fall in which Biden inaccurately described the price of gas – both times in a way that made it sound more impressive,” he said.

But the president may be getting desperate as on Saturday, polling analysis publication FiveThirtyEight changed its Senate forecast from a “toss-up” to leaning Republican, Newsmax reported.

At president, the analyst firm lists Republican chances of winning the Senate at 55 in 100 versus Democrats retaining control at 45 in 100.

The new predictions come after the outlet reported on Monday: “Herschel Walker’s scandals may hurt his chances against Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock. Meanwhile, Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat in Pennsylvania, but that race has gotten a lot tighter recently.”

“Other Senate races are competitive but have identifiable favorites. For instance, strong Democratic incumbents currently have an edge in Arizona and New Hampshire. And the Senate races in North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin are also close but will likely result in Republican winners,” the outlet also added.

Observation O’ The Day

So Team Brandon will stop endlessly printing money to reduce inflation? As Milton Friedman has said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”

We technically are in a recession, but Biden and many in the DNC-MSM have been holding off on actually calling it that so that they can wait until there’s a GOP majority to blame. But Biden’s crankery is the mirror image version of what Virginia Postrel dubbed in December of 2008, “Depression Lust, and Depression Porn,” when Obama-worshipping Democratic Party operatives with bylines wanted American to get it good and hard, so that Obama could enter into office as the next FDR conquering the Depression. -Ed Driscoll


Biden slams Republicans ‘rooting for a recession’ after last jobs report before election.

President Joe Biden accused Republicans of “rooting for a recession” in a statement on the final pre-election jobs report.

Friday’s report is the last major economic statistic before Election Day in a race where voters’ financial worries appear to be tilting the balance toward Republicans.

Citing historically low unemployment, a growing economy, and lower gas prices, Biden said the report “shows that our jobs recovery remains strong.”

The White House has downplayed concern of a recession on the horizon despite high inflation, slowing labor force participation, and wage growth year-over-year.

On Friday, Biden said that the “comments by Republican leadership sure seem to indicate they are rooting for a recession.”

“As long as I’m president, I’m not going to accept an argument that the problem is that too many Americans are finding good jobs,” Biden said. The president has attempted to draw a contrast with Republicans as polls indicate that key groups of voters are unhappy with the White House’s handling of the economy.

Yet Biden acknowledged rising prices Friday as the country’s “top economic challenge,” vowing “to do what it takes” to bring these down.

“I know that American families are feeling squeezed,” he said.

In October, the economy added 261,000 jobs, a higher-than-expected number amid the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes. Yet the unemployment rate rose slightly to 3.7%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed on Friday.

The figures are expected to be closely scrutinized as voters head to the polls next week and Democrats attempt to defend their congressional majorities after two years in office.

Observation O’ The Day:

Interesting!
This appears to be applicable to Markley’s Law. Liberals attack the masculinity of their political opponents because they view that as an extremely potent attack—as it would be against themselves. They are insecure about their manhood and they imagine the same of their political opponents.
As frequently suspected, projection is strong with these people.—Joe

His brain is acting like a computer with defective RAM.


Observation O’ The Day
Given how much editing NBC and its sister networks must do to get usable footage of Biden, that they allowed this to air could be a preview of how the networks will start treating him post-midterms. –Ed Driscoll

Awkward! Zoned-out Biden, 79, gives excruciating pause when MSNBC host asked if Jill wants him to run again in 2024 — before dodging question by saying First Lady thinks he’s doing ‘important work.’

 

If you can’t clearly define a federal power, then it should not exist until you can. One of the bedrock principles of our constitution is supposed to be that federal powers are limited and defined. If you can’t limit it and define it, it’s not a federal power. -Glenn Reynolds


The Sackett Oral Argument and the Problem of Defining “Waters of the United States”
The justices wrestled with the problem of identifying a clear, coherent, and administrable definition to constrain federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

Yesterday the Supreme Court opened October Term 2022 with oral argument in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case in which the Court is asked (once again) to clarify the scope of federal regulatory authority over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  In previous posts I discussed the issues in the case, the cert grant, and the decision below.

If oral argument was any indication, the justices recognize the need for greater regulatory certainty, but also recognize the difficulty in drawing a clear line to demarcate where “waters of the United States” end and non-federal waters or lands begin. Much of the argument focused on precisely this question, causing the justices to explore the meaning of the word “adjacent,” as the Court previously upheld the EPA and Army Corps’ authority over wetlands adjacent to navigable waters in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, perhaps the high-water mark of Court acquiescence to broad assertions of federal regulatory power under the CWA. Accordingly, the justices considered whether “adjacent wetlands” must be physically connected to navigable waters, must be neighboring to such waters, or must merely be nearby, and most seemed unconvinced with the answers they received from the advocates.

Continue reading “”

It’s the ongoing conflict between centrally planned and free markets. Or the zero-sum versus non zero-sum mindset. There exist people who crave and even insist on control. These people believe there MUST be someone, organization, or something in control. They are certain they and the world are a better place if control is exerted over a wide set of peoples action.

Some people believe the world would be a better place if most property and (possibly “or” instead of “and”, but this would be rare when you get down to the details) economic decisions are controlled by some supposedly superior being. This superior being is typically a government controlled by a committee and/or a dictator. These people fall in a spectrum that can generally be considered socialist to communist.

Some people believe the world would be a better place if social position and activity decisions (particularly sexual behaviors) are controlled by some supposedly superior being. This superior being is typically a government controlled or at least guided by a set of religious leaders. These people fall in a spectrum that can generally be considered democratic theists, many monarchists, to theocrats.

In the more general case people can be classified as being on a scale from anarchist to authoritarian. Here I am referring to the somewhat less common definition of anarchist as the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government rather than a state of disorder and chaos.

All social organizations have tradeoff. And under various situations some organizational types are vastly superior to others. For example an anarchist society does not do well against a communist society in search of hosts to satisfy their parasitic requirements. Yet, not too far up the spectrum from anarchist a society with government formed for the protection can economically and technologically, hence militarily defeat a similarly sized society near the authoritarian end of the spectrum.

I find our current political climate annoying because, as Robb indirectly points out above, a frightening number of people are demanding “progress” toward authoritarian government. There is actually a “sweet spot”, by many measures of societal “health”, which lies far closer to the anarchist end of the scale. This is an old, and mostly ignored, observation. History appears to be nearing another catastrophic rhyme. Joe Huffman

They want them to start tracking this so they can later force them to deny purchases in that category. It’ll make Operation Chokepoint v.2 much more effective.

Dozens of NY lawmakers want Mastercard, American Express to flag suspicious gun store purchases

More than four dozen state lawmakers have penned a letter to Mastercard and American Express, urging the New York-based credit card companies to support a measure that could make it easier to spot suspicious purchases at gun stores.

Credit card companies track spending based on the type of retailer where a card is used — though they do not track the individual items that are purchased. Each purchase is tagged with what’s called a merchant category code, with the master list set by an international standards body. Some categories are fairly broad, such as those for grocery stores and airlines, while others are quite specific. There are unique codes for tent and awning shops, wig and toupee stores — even separate categories for antique shops, secondhand stores and pawn shops.

But there are no codes just for gun retailers.

A Mastercard reference booklet lumps them into a “miscellaneous” category with magic stores, silk flower shops and bottled and distilled water dealers, or a “durable goods” category that also includes lighting fixtures and grave markers.

“I think people would be shocked to find that out,” said State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, who spearheaded the letter, which was shared exclusively with Gothamist. It asks Mastercard and American Express to support the creation of a new code for gun sellers.

“I think the public would agree that it’s important for us to keep track of these things,” Myrie said.

Financial institutions are already required under federal law to report any suspicious activity to the U.S. government, including when they think someone might be committing tax evasion, money laundering or terrorism. Those mandates were established in 1970, when Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act, and were further expanded after 9/11 through the Patriot Act.

If credit cards had a code for purchases at gun stores, the same laws would let them flag if someone were spending large amounts of money at one dealer, or traveling to multiple gun retailers in a short amount of time. The legislators say that could ultimately help law enforcement to stop crimes like firearms trafficking, or even to prevent mass shootings.

The legislators’ letter cites a 2018 New York Times investigation, which uncovered eight cases when shooters used credit cards to buy guns and ammunition. The man who opened fire inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, for instance, purchased two firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition with six separate credit cards, according to the Times. He reportedly spent more than $26,000 in less than two weeks and searched online for terms including “Credit card unusual spending” and “Why banks stop your purchases.”

Myrie said a new code would make it easier to target individuals who intend to traffic guns or use them for mass shootings. People buying guns legally with no intent to harm people, he said, would have “absolutely nothing to worry about.”

“This, I think, is simply using every tool that we have to help to stem gun violence,” he said. “And frankly, I’m not sure why anyone would be opposed to this, outside of trying to avoid controversy or the politics.”

“I’m not sure why anyone would be opposed to this, outside of trying to avoid controversy or the politics.” –State Sen. Zellnor Myrie

Critics argue it’s not that simple.

“I don’t see how it works,” Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of government and public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said. “I don’t see why it’s necessary. And the only reason it’s being advanced is for a political gun control agenda.”

Keane noted that a buyer already needs to go through a background check to purchase guns from licensed dealers. He said sellers can also choose not to go through with transactions if they feel uncomfortable.

John Deloca, who owns one of New York City’s few gun shops, the Seneca Sporting Range in Queens, told Gothamist he regularly limits prospective buyers.

“If a guy came in and he wanted to buy two AR-15s, I would say, ‘You could buy one today. That’s it. You want to buy 300 rounds of ammo? You can buy one box today, but that’s it.’” he said. “That’s my rules and regulations.”

But Keane worries a new code for gun sellers would lead to credit card companies interfering with people’s second amendment-protected rights.

“If a retailer wants to have a policy, that’s entirely up to them. I have no problem with that whatsoever,” he said. “They’re in a better position to make that judgment than some computer terminal at some bank or some credit card processor, based on some computer code or algorithm.”

The National Rifle Association said in a statement that a code for gun purchases could be used to create a “de facto firearm registration” to confiscate people’s weapons. Federal law limits the sorts of information about gun ownership the government can collect.

Keane also warned it would be logistically difficult to use a different code for firearm retailers, given that many guns are sold in multipurpose stores, like Walmart or Bass Pro Shops. Supporters of a firearm-specific code point to workarounds for other industries, such as in the case of pharmacies within grocery stores that have their own separate registers.

Igor Volsky with the gun control advocacy group Guns Down America thinks it’s at least worth a try.

“There’s no single solution to end all of gun violence,” he said. “Different actors in our society have to step up and do what they can to save lives. That extends to the president, to members of congress and to private companies.”

New York-based Amalgamated Bank, which calls itself “America’s Socially Responsible Bank,” has been at the forefront of the push to create a new code for firearm retailers. The company is outspoken in its support of regulations to reduce gun violence — a strategy Keane from the National Shooting Sports Foundation argues is about politics, not business.

Amalgamated Bank submitted an application to create a code for firearm retailers back in 2019. The bank says major credit card companies opposed that application, along with a later appeal, and both were rejected.

Officials at Amalgamated said the company is trying once again and expects the International Organization for Standardization to vote on its new application early next month. The legislators said they hope Mastercard and American Express will support the proposal this time around.

American Express did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Mastercard said in an email that the company is looking into how a new code could be implemented, if it is approved.

At an event with the Economic Club of New York in 2019, Mastercard’s then-President and CEO Ajay Banga said he personally opposed the proliferation of guns in America. But he expressed some skepticism about whether a credit card company should try to prevent people from buying firearms.

“When you go to a store and you buy diapers, but it also happens to sell guns, should I stop you? Or rather, would you let me know what you’re buying? Would you want me to know that you’re buying diapers and not guns? Is that what you want as your relationship with your card provider?” Banga wondered. “These are very easy things to toss around, but they’re really deep issues that determine — and I think that require — a fair societal conversation.”

Observation O’ The Day

There is a new trend, and it is battlespace prep. In both the US and Canada there is now a coordinated effort by the political/MSM class to portray every kind of dissent from secular progressive authoritarianism as nothing less than violent insurrection and terrorism. In the Canadian media, people who object to vaccine mandates have been promoted from Nazis to a vast network of violent insurrectionists. In the US, we are told that people angry about the Mar-A-Lago raid are about to commence terrorist actions against civilians, even using dirty bombs.


How Extremist Gun Culture Is Trying to Co-Opt the Rosary
Why are sacramental beads suddenly showing up next to AR-15s online?

Just as the AR-15 rifle has become a sacred object for Christian nationalists in general, the rosary has acquired a militaristic meaning for radical-traditional (or “rad trad”) Catholics. On this extremist fringe, rosary beads have been woven into a conspiratorial politics and absolutist gun culture. These armed radical traditionalists have taken up a spiritual notion that the rosary can be a weapon in the fight against evil and turned it into something dangerously literal.

Their social-media pages are saturated with images of rosaries draped over firearms, warriors in prayer, Deus Vult (“God wills it”) crusader memes, and exhortations for men to rise up and become Church Militants. Influencers on platforms such as Instagram share posts referencing “everyday carry” and “gat check” (gat is slang for “firearm”) that include soldiers’ “battle beads,” handguns, and assault rifles. One artist posts illustrations of his favorite Catholic saints, clergy, and influencers toting AR-15-style rifles labeled SANCTUM ROSARIUM alongside violently homophobic screeds that are celebrated by social-media accounts with thousands of followers.

Continue reading “”

There are 2 very different types of people in this Country:
1. The kind of person who accepts anything greater society dictates for the perceived good even at the cost of their own liberty. These people also love to weaponize Government against people they hate.
2. Those that understand that society is compromised of individuals. People with different views, temperaments, etc. These people generally want the most freedom for the individual, with the understanding that society will be better for it. They want smaller Government.
-Iraqveteran8888

Public Nuisance

The World Economic Forum says that the average car is “only being used 4% of the time” so most people shouldn’t be permitted to own a car. Doing the math, this means that the average person drives their car an hour a day.

Most people have a computer and a cell phone, even though they are given one by their employer. This increases your carbon footprint, they say.

If people only replace their phone every five years instead of every three, they would reduce their carbon footprint, they say.

So the World Economic Forum thinks that we, the peasants, should not own cars. We shouldn’t own phones or computers. No, if we need one, it will be issued to us. Once every five years.

Who determines what you need? Why they do, of course. Not you.

This is nothing more than Soviet style communism.

Andrew Wilkow has coined a phrase called the “everyman king.” It is the idea that the American dream turns every property owner into royalty. You own land, a home, and most of the same luxuries owned by the elites. This means that the everyman has the same access to the same luxuries that the elites have. This cannot be permitted to stand. What good is it being an elite, if any member of the public can get the same stuff that you can?

This is the essence of communism- it is sold to the public as a plan to make everyone equal, but it of course does nothing of the sort, and never has. All communism is good at doing is making those in charge of the communist party into elites who have access to those luxuries that have been denied the everyman.

I’m old enough to remember when gas prices were low, Putin was sulking in a corner and China was whining about Trump being mean to them. Now we have 4.50 gas, Russian invading Ukraine, and Biden is worried China will invade Taiwan. But no mean tweets and that is what is important!

U.S. officials grow more concerned about potential action by China on Taiwan

Chinese officials have strongly asserted this summer that no part of the Taiwan Strait can be considered international waters, contrary to the views of the United States and other nations. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said in June that “China has sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the Taiwan Strait.”

American officials do not know whether China plans to enforce that claim. But Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who is close to President Biden and deals with the administration often on issues involving Taiwan, said “there is a lot of attention being paid” to what lessons China, its military and Mr. Xi might be learning from events in Ukraine.

“And one school of thought is that the lesson is ‘go early and go strong’ before there is time to strengthen Taiwan’s defenses,” Mr. Coons said in an interview on Sunday. “And we may be heading to an earlier confrontation — more a squeeze than an invasion — than we thought.”

Chinese officials are aware that Biden administration officials, also applying lessons learned from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are trying to shape their weapons sales to Taiwan to turn the democratic island into what some call a “porcupine” — bristling with enough effective armaments and defense systems to deter Chinese leaders from trying to attack it.

This analysis is from a person who states they practiced Constitutional Law in D.C. Take is for what it is, but it appear quite reasonable to me.


It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

This is important because the antis continue to argue militia service is required.

This case finds that the Second Amendment applies to PEOPLE and that militia participation is not a requirement to exercising your 2A rights.

“Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context.”

Basically the Court is saying, look at the plain text of the 2A and the history that followed. That’s it. No balancing whether the government has a reason for the infringement. An infringement is an infringement and the law is unconstitutional if it infringes upon the 2A.

We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”

“After reviewing the Anglo-American history of public carry, the Court concludes that respondents have not met their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-cause requirement. Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense. Nor have they generally required law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” to carry arms in public.”

And here the Court finds that history does not support regulation like NYC has in place.

In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach.

In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Again, NO scrutiny – merely, does this violate 2A? Yes or no.

“The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

Here’s your standard, folks.

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 officials some special need.”

“And one scholar who canvassed 19th-century newspapers which routinely reported on local judicial matters, found only a handful of other examples in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, all involving black defendants who may have been targeted for selective or pretextual enforcement.”

I’ll say it louder for those in the back:

Gun control has its origins in racism.

New York’s cannot characterize NYC a “sensitive-place” because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.

Remember folks: the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you.

“Certain locations are sensitive places where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment.”

NYC as a whole is not one of these places.

“Expanding the category of sensitive places to simply 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.”

“Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.”

This is an originalist/plain view reading of the 2A. The Court goes on to shred NY’s arguments that historical regulations existed, citing that those regulations generally limited “dangerous or unusual” weapons or that they restricted using weapons to spread “fear and terror.”

To confine the right to bear arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

They then proceed to call out America’s largest open-air shooting gallery:

“A Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.”

“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.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self- defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Boom. Headshot.

“The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.

So essentially, they’re not just ripping up NYC’s licensing scheme – they’re canning the entire pistol permit (and now rifle-permit under the newest Hochul-signed law) scheme. They’re saying NYS (and the five others) cannot have a “may issue” and need to switch to “shall issue.”

Unfortunately, they do uphold a State’s right to require permits:

“To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a permit.”

“Because these licensing regimes to not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent law abiding, responsible citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry.”

The last sentence of that footnote about “shall-issue” licensing (FN 9) could become very significant:

“because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry”