Bill filed in Illinois to ban "armor plates, body armor, and military helmets." All existing items would have to be declared to the state police, and current police, retired police, and private security guards would be exempt. https://t.co/QvsS2pV2mJ pic.twitter.com/HBRncq8R7H
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) February 21, 2023
Go figure:
3 Warning Signs The FBI Might Label You A ‘Radical Traditionalist’ Christian
Federal agencies have long targeted social conservatives, so of course Latin Mass Catholics are on their bad-guy list. So are all serious Christians.
Intelligence analysts and the chief counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Richmond, Virginia field office are concerned “radical-traditionalist Catholics” are a threat to our democracy and could be ripe for recruitment by white supremacists.
Although FBI headquarters has tried to distance itself from the memo, that does not change the fact that multiple staffers, including a senior attorney, signed off on the intelligence bulletin. That bulletin relied on an Atlantic article about rosary prayer beads being a “weapon” and the grifting hate group called the Southern Poverty Law Center. The retraction does not remove the attitude within the Richmond field office that Catholics who like the Latin Mass or hold conservative views are threats.
Given how the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, and federal government in general have repeatedly targeted conservatives for their speech and beliefs, it might be good to consider some warning signs that possibly landed traditional, faithful Catholics on the radar of law enforcement.
As someone who attends the traditional Latin Mass and knows many traditional Catholics across the country, I think I know several things that prompted the memo.
1. Interest in Homeschooling
A common interest in Latin Mass parishes and among traditional Catholics is homeschooling. This should not be surprising given the degeneracy and filth in U.S. public schools. Of course, another reason is that many Latin Mass Catholics take seriously the biblical directive that parents are the primary educators of their children.
“Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states. “The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery—the preconditions of all true freedom.”
It just drips with radicalism. “Forgiveness” and “self-denial” are obvious codewords for white supremacy, I assume the FBI would say.
Given that faithful Christians are concerned about the moral upbringing of their children, it makes sense they would gravitate to flexible educational options that put parents and kids in charge. But we already know that the Department of Justice views parents who want more say in what their kids are taught as similar to domestic terrorists.
That is why U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered federal law enforcement to look for ways to prosecute parents and other citizens who spoke out at public school board meetings against critical race theory, sexualized curricula, and lockdown policies. People who opt out of the government system are usually seen as a threat by those in charge.
So it makes sense the FBI would be concerned about parents who have opted out of the public school program. After all, the federal government has lost control over what those kids learn and can’t make those kids wear masks and accept state-mandated medical treatments.
2. Meeting Every Sunday with Other People Who Want Good Lives
The FBI, U.S. Department of Defense, and other national security entities have gone woke and embraced critical race theory and LGBT sexual ideology, so it’s no wonder institutions that have held fast to traditional principles would be their target.
It also makes sense, then, that faithful Catholics who spend their Sundays not on drag shows but at church would threaten such a regime. Also, in contrast to the many churches that are dying out, the Latin Mass remains popular, and many churches that celebrate it are bursting at the seams. It is not that people who attend the Latin Mass are somehow inherently more virtuous, but most at least want to embrace virtue and try to grow closer to God.
The message of traditional priests goes against the libertine attitude of LGBT activists who have greatly influenced our federal government. Also, the Christian idea that individuals are responsible for their actions and people should be judged as individuals, not as a collective group responsible for past wrongs, is a threat to critical race theory.
After all, CRT supporters do not want Catholics going to the sacrament of Confession to share how they have failed to live virtuously. Instead, they should pay hundreds of dollars to go to a white privilege talk.
3. Valuing Life, Organic Marriage, and the Sexes
It is well established that federal government entities have it out for pro-life, biblical marriage, anti-gender ideology individuals and groups. After all, the DOJ just lost a case against Mark Houck, a Catholic pro-life dad who stopped an aggressive abortion escort from harassing his 12-year-old son. Couple that with the IRS targeting of Tea Party and conservative Christian groups, and it only follows that churches that hold similar views are on the radar.
According to one popular survey, Catholics who attend the Latin Mass almost exclusively reject abortion and same-sex “marriage.” Even worse for the leftists in the FBI, these Catholics tend to have more kids, given their openness to life. That means even more traditional Catholics are born each day, amplifying the threat. These Christians raise their kids to stay true to the faith, support biblical marriage, and turn to God and their faith, not government and political ideology, in times of trouble.
Even to those who are not Catholic but believe in the sanctity of life or homeschool their kids, the FBI memo should be concerning. An already politicized and weaponized Department of Justice was caught once again targeting innocent Americans for their beliefs.
A worthy repetition. Also something to consider is that U.S. law that created the National Guard (simply a reserve force of the military) and defined it as the ‘organized militia’ created the select militia the founders and framers were righteously concerned about
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & militia clause
The Supreme Court in the Heller decision explained that the second amendment guarantees an individual right of the people to keep and carry arms for their defense in the event of a confrontation.
The anti-gun crowd, however, refuses to accept this common sense reading of the amendment. The best way to interpret the Constitution begins with actually reading it. The next best thing is to read what the Constitution’s chief drafter, James Madison, had to say about America’s founding document. Madison was the chief author of the Federalist Papers, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Papers offer great insight into the political theories of the day that led to our system of government.
Students of the second amendment should be familiar with both Federalist 29 and 46, which discuss the role of an armed populace in protecting the precious freedom which had so recently been won. It was that thinking that led to the adoption of the second amendment.
Madison was also the original drafter of the Bill of Rights, including what would become the second amendment. The anti-gun crowd regularly accuse second amendment supporters of only focusing on what Justice Scalia called the operative clause of the second amendment, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They assert that we ignore the prefatory clause that reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” To them the prefatory clause confirms that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the right of the states to have militias or as they sometimes phrase it, the right to bear arms when in militia service.
However, beyond that, they never exactly explain what is meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The anti-gun crowd cling to the so-called collective rights view of the amendment that held sway with a number of federal circuit courts pre-Heller. However, beyond denying an individual right to keep and bear arms, those courts said precious little on exactly what the amendment actually protected.
It was commonly stated outside the court room that the operative clause meant that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. But that is not what the amendment says and no federal circuit court actually provided any reasoned discussion supporting such an interpretation. In any event, if that were what the amendment was meant to accomplish, one would think the amendment would have been written in some way like “A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, Congress shall not infringe the right of the states to arm the militia.” However, this interpretation of the amendment would have worked a radical transformation of Congress’s power over the militia.
The Constitution addresses the militia in Article I, Section 8. It states “The Congress shall have the power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
Thus, it was Congress’s responsibility, not the states, to organize and arm the militia, with the states having only the responsibility to appoint officers and train the militia as Congress mandates. The militia is not treated by the Constitution as a creature of the several states, but of the nation as a whole to be organized, armed and disciplined by Congress, while being trained by the states as Congress directs.
Congress has in fact exercised this authority.
Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 311 defines the militia of the United States with certain exceptions as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and … female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”
The National Guard is the organized militia and the unorganized militia consists of those militia members not in the Guard. In the Second Militia Act, passed in 1792, Congress specified the arms militia members were to have. It was incumbent on militia members to report for training and duty with their own arms. The second amendment did not change Congress’s authority over the militia, nor was that the intent of the amendment. Most notably, the second amendment did not provide that the states would or could arm the militia. If that were the meaning of the second amendment, then states could be free to arm the militia in any way they saw fit. States could for instance under the collective rights view of the second amendment, authorize each member of the unorganized militia to own a fully automatic weapon such as the M-16. That would raise issues with respect to the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which greatly restricts the ownership and transfer of automatic weapons. States could also abrogate many other federal firearm restrictions. It is certainly the case that some founders, such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, feared that Congress would neglect its responsibility to arm the militia. And so it is not an unreasonable view that a primary purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the militia would not be disarmed by taking guns away from the people who constituted the militia.
However, that view is perfectly consistent with the wording of the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment thus ensured that there could be a body of the people armed and available to serve in the militia. It had nothing to do, however, with transferring to the states the right to arm or specify the arming of the militia. That remains the prerogative of Congress. Review of the legislative history of the second amendment confirms that it was designed to protect an individual right of the people generally to possess and carry arms.
When Madison initially introduced the various proposed amendments that would later become the Bill of Rights, he proposed to insert the bulk of them, including what would later become amendments one through five, part of the sixth amendment, and amendments eight and nine, into Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4. His speech to Congress can be found here.
This is the portion of the Constitution which limits Congressional power over individuals. Clause 3 is the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.
Clause 4 is the limitation on the imposition of taxes directly on individuals as oppose to excise taxes on economic transactions. This clause has been substantially abrogated by the sixteenth amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes. In other words, Madison proposed to put these amendments into that part of the Constitution that protected individual rights of the people from the federal government. The context of Madison’s original introduction to Congress of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to confirm an individual right of the people to arms.
Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
NRA predicts Supreme Court will finally define Second Amendment
A coalition led by the National Rifle Association this week sued to stop the Biden administration’s bid to regulate AR-style “pistols,” an effort that could prompt the Supreme Court to finally define what is allowed under the 231-year-old Second Amendment.
While its suit is specifically aimed at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and its flip-flop on regulating and taxing guns, it has the potential to both smoke out the court on what is legal under the Second Amendment and end years of practice by federal agencies and states to make up rules that Congress is supposed to set.
“At some point, the supremes are gonna say, ‘To hell with you. We can’t trust you. We’re gonna strike it. This is what you can do. Anything outside of that you cannot,'” said NRA President Charles Cotton.
Former Twitter executive Yoel Roth justifies censorship:
"Unrestricted free speech, paradoxically, results in less speech, not more." pic.twitter.com/e8tkoqPjyp
— Young Americans for Liberty (@YALiberty) February 9, 2023
Congress is set to expose what may be the largest censorship system in U.S. history.
This coming week a new House select subcommittee will hold its first hearing on the FBI and the possible “weaponization” of government agencies. A variety of such controversies have contributed to plunging public trust in government and the FBI in particular.
The role of the FBI in prior scandals will remain a point of heated debate in Congress. However, members of both parties should be able to agree on the need to investigate one of the most serious allegations: Censorship by surrogate.
Many of the allegations of FBI bias are worthy of investigation. Some of those allegations are problems of personnel who can be removed. But a far more menacing problem has emerged in recent months with the release of information from Twitter.
The “Twitter files” revealed an FBI operation to monitor and censor social media content — an effort so overwhelming and intrusive that Twitter staff at one point complained internally that “they are probing & pushing everywhere.” The reports have indicated that dozens of FBI employees worked on the identification and removal of material on a wide range of subjects and that Twitter largely carried out their requests.
Nor was it just the FBI, apparently. Emails reveal FBI figures like a San Francisco assistant special agent in charge asking Twitter executives to “invite an OGA” (or “Other Government Organization”) to an upcoming meeting. A week later, Stacia Cardille, a senior Twitter legal executive, indicated the OGA was the CIA, an agency under strict limits regarding domestic activities.
Twitter’s own ranks included dozens of ex-FBI agents and executives, including James Baker, who featured greatly in prior FBI instances of alleged bias.
The Twitter files also show various FBI offices monitoring social media and flagging “misleading” information on various subjects.
The dozens of disclosed emails are only a fraction of Twitter’s files and do not include still-undisclosed but apparent government coordination with Facebook and other social media companies. Much of that work apparently was done through the multi-agency Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), which operated secretly it seems to censor citizens.
Ironically, during the outcry over establishing a Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security, Biden administration officials had to have known they already were employing an extensive censorship system. When the administration finally relented and disbanded the disinformation board, that censorship work appears to have continued unimpeded through the FITF and agency censors.
According to reports, one email in August 2022 sent “long lists of newspapers, tweets or YouTube videos” deemed to be voicing “anti-Ukraine narratives.” Even satirical and comedy sites reportedly were pegged by the social media police.
What is most striking is that the FBI was not responding to false claims about its operations. Instead, these censorship demands were the result of policing “misinformation” and “disinformation” on subjects ranging from political corruption to elections.
Some apologists continue to defend this process, saying the FBI was only objecting to disinformation the way that citizens did on Twitter. That is not true; the government reportedly used back channels and regular meetings to flag unacceptable statements. Indeed, even if it were true, many things are more dangerous when done by government. When your neighbor attacks your opinion, it is just the crank next door. But when it is your government on the attack, it is far more threatening and stigmatizing.
Even if this operation did not cross the constitutional line, there are ample reasons why a democracy does not want the government in the business of targeting those whom it views as misleading or misinforming the public. While the FBI has every reason to pursue criminal fraud, this operation appears to have targeted speech it deemed harmful to political or social discourse.
For years, many politicians and pundits have dismissed free-speech concerns by noting that the First Amendment only applies to the government. So long as corporations do the censoring, they contend, it is not a free-speech problem.
This obviously is wrong on several fronts.
The First Amendment is not the exclusive measure of free speech. Corporate censorship of political commentaries or news stories are denials of free speech that harm our democratic system.
Second, this is a First Amendment violation. The Twitter files have substantiated long-standing concerns over “censorship by surrogate” or proxy. As with other amendments like the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches or seizures, the government cannot use private agents to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Just as a police officer cannot direct a security guard to break into an apartment and conduct a search, the FBI cannot use Twitter to censor Americans.
To be fair, there were occasions when Twitter reportedly balked at government demands for raw political censorship — in one case, a demand by Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) led a frustrated Twitter censor to object that “We don’t do this.”
Nevertheless, Twitter’s management certainly now seems to admit that the company worked as an agent of the FBI and carried out most demands for social media suspensions, removals or blocks of individuals. At the same time, the FBI pushed for closer collaboration on content removal.
We do not know the full extent of this operation or its impact, but Congress should want to know if the FBI and other agencies created a system of censorship-by-surrogate. The only reason we now have Twitter’s previously secret communications is because an eccentric billionaire bought the company.
The broader effort with other companies could well constitute the largest censorship program ever run by the government — a system designed to escape both public and judicial scrutiny. It also shows how it is no longer necessary to have a “Ministry of Information” to maintain a state media: You can have an effective state media by consent rather than by coercion or control.
The FBI’s response to disclosure of these long-secret communications is particularly chilling. When some critics denounced it as raw censorship, the FBI accused them of being “conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation.” So, criticism of the FBI’s work to censor citizens resulted in an official statement denouncing those citizens.
None of these denials or attacks succeed, however. The public understands the threat and strongly supports an investigation into the FBI’s role in censoring social media. Despite the push for censorship by some politicians and pundits, most Americans still want free-speech protections. It is in our DNA.
This country was founded on deep commitments to free speech and limited government — and that constitutional tradition is no conspiracy theory.
Iowa student sues over 2A t-shirt suspension
An Iowa high schooler has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that her school district and a civics teacher violated her First Amendment rights by suspending her for wearing a pro-Second Amendment t-shirt to class; a case that could one day have far-reaching implications for students across the country.
In the complaint, which is the topic of today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, the student (identified by her initials A.B.) alleges that just two days after discussing students’ rights to free speech in class, teacher Thomas Griffin “removed her from class and suspended her” for wearing a t-shirt promoting the Second Amendment, claiming it was “inappropriate”.
Griffin told his students that, although they had some right to free speech, that right was “extremely limited” when the students stepped on school property. Griffin told his students that their teacher (in this case, him) would decide what was acceptable speech in the classroom. And with respect to clothing—which was at the very core of the Tinker case—Griffin told his students that he would not allow students to wear any clothing that depicts guns, alcohol, or any other “inappropriate material.”
A.B. knew that Griffin was wrong about the scope of the First Amendment, so the next time she had Griffin’s government class, September 1, 2022, she wore a shirt to school that said “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” with a depiction of a rifle underneath it.
A.B. had worn the shirt to school before, with no complaints from students, teachers, or administrators. And A.B.’s brother, who graduated from Johnston High School in 2019, had worn the same shirt to school multiple times with no complaints.
Griffin, who teaches the Bill of Rights, knew that shirt was quoting the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and he knew it was a commentary on gun control efforts. Nevertheless, he claimed that the shirt violated the school’s dress code and he removed A.B. from the classroom, sending her to the school administration office.
A.B. told Griffin she had a right to wear the shirt, which was not causing any disruption in the class—other than any disruption Griffin himself created by removing A.B. from the classroom. But Griffin said she was wrong about the First Amendment and that the administration would back him up.
As you can see, there are no depictions of violence on the shirt worn by A.B., but the school administration did indeed originally stand by Griffin’s actions, suspending her after she refused to change her shirt in order to return to class.
The lawsuit alleges that later that evening, however, A.B.’s mom Janet Bristow received a call from the school district’s superintendent to apologize for their actions, as well as a similar mea culpa from Chris Billings, the Executive Director of School Leadership.
We recently discussed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit striking down a ban on gun ownership by individuals accused of domestic abuse. Now, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick in Oklahoma City dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison for violating a federal law that makes it illegal for “unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances” to possess firearms. It is only the latest such loss for the Justice Department as the Biden Administration pushes sweeping rationales for limiting Second Amendment rights in the wake of last year’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Harrison was arrested by police in Lawton, Oklahoma, in May 2022 after a traffic stop where police found a loaded revolver as well as marijuana.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), Congress prohibited the possession of firearms by users of substances made unlawful by the federal Controlled Substances Act. The court noted that this provision “is rarely used by prosecutors, as it accounts for only about 5% of prosecutions brought under § 922.”
The Justice Department argued that such a ban was “consistent with a longstanding historical tradition in America of disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated.” It is similar to the broad rationale used unsuccessfully before the Fifth Circuit. Indeed, the Justice Department again tried to argue that such bans are allowed because Bruen’s described the plaintiffs in that case as “ordinary, law-abiding, and adult citizens.” It is clearly an argument that the Biden Administration wants to push in cases across the country despite the rather poor reception from the courts. I agree with these judges that the reference is being radically overblown by the Justice Department. Indeed, it cuts against the department’s credibility in arguing for Second Amendment limits.
This latest loss shows the Biden Administration pushing a post-Bruen claim that could find itself back before a skeptical Court majority. Notably, as discussed in the earlier post, a similar issue was addressed by Justice Amy Coney Barrett when she was sitting as an appellate judge. This court also relies on Barrett’s dissent in Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 451–53 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J., dissenting).
In September, U.S. District Judge David Counts in Midland, Texas also struck down a firearms law that banned individuals under felony indictment from buying guns.
The opinion by Judge Wyrick is very interesting in its comprehensive exploration of historical sources. It also dismantles the Justice Department’s suggestions that marijuana users are both law breakers and threats to society:
“under the United States’ own conception of the historical tradition, such restrictions would only apply to those who are both unvirtuous and dangerous. And as explained above, because the mere use of marijuana does not involve violent, forceful, or threatening conduct, a user of marijuana does not automatically fall within that group.”
I particularly liked this observation from the court about reading discretion into the amendment to bar those deemed untrustworthy by the government:
[I]t would be odd indeed for the Framers to have incorporated such a trojan horse into the Second Amendment. The purpose of enshrining a right into the Constitution is to limit the discretion of a legislature. But if the United States’ theory is correct and all a legislature must do to prohibit a group of persons from possessing arms is to declare that group “untrustworthy,” then the Second Amendment would provide virtually no limit on Congress’s discretion. The Framers weren’t perfect, but they also weren’t fools.
Here is the opinion: United States v. Harrison
You may want to read a bit about why the Founders wrote the Constitution as they did with respect to public opinion.
— Patrick H.🇺🇦 (@Patrick_am_I) February 3, 2023
When they write articles like this, they merely indicate the title of their site is incorrect. They are not ‘good men’. And it begs the question: Which right will be the next one they decide the people should not have?
I love life, and I love the people of my country far far far more than I value the “freedom” to bear arms. I don’t know if any “reforms” will really solve the problems of gun violence in the United States. In all actuality, I believe, therefore, that we must repeal the Second Amendment now!
There! I uttered the unutterable, the ultimate taboo in U.S. political discourse. But I am not running for public office or reelection. I am not expecting large payouts from the National Rifle Association or from the firearms manufacturers through their lobbyists.
As the horse once served as a primary means of transportation in earlier times, it now grazes and prances peacefully on rich pastures. Possibly during former moments in our history, we may have had reason to enact and enforce the Second Amendment of our great Constitution, but those bygone days have long since passed. Now we must put the Second Amendment out to pasture.
Disarming The People: How Dictatorships Used Gun Control
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Mao Zedong once said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Which is why he made sure no one in China could access that political power. Throughout history and well into the modern world, gun control legislation heralded the death of democracies. Usually, it preceded an attempt by the government to take full control of people’s lives. Weapon bans frequently led to human rights abuses, including massacres and sometimes outright genocide.
It’s almost as if they don’t remember the lockdown. Granted, it was for the sake of public health ….in the beginning. Still, once the United States government began restricting travel and requiring the entire population to take a COVID vaccine designed in just a couple of days, as was the case with Moderna, many Americans began to view this as an abuse of government authority, especially when some who took the “life-saving” vaccine died from COVID anyway.
A government gets away with whatever its people allow. A recent attempt to ban semi-automatic firearms across the state of Illinois was met with widespread resistance. 88 percent of the state’s counties refuse to enforce the governor’s mandate, and they can because of the Second Amendment. Additionally, sheriffs work for their communities, not for the state.
Rights Protected by the Second Amendment are Being Restored, NOT Created
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— The jurisprudence of the Second Amendment is: it was ratified to protect the existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. It did not create new rights. One reason to protect the right was to enable the creation of militias from the armed population.
It was well understood, at the time of ratification, the right to keep and bear arms included the right to do so for self-defense as well as community defense, for hunting, and included the ancillary rights to practice, buy, sell and make weapons, as well as ammunition and accessories for them. These rights were not disputed and were considered to be derived from the natural rights to life and liberty. From Heller:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
The American Second Amendment was recognized as needed because the English right to arms had been construed too narrowly to protect the colonists against the exercise of power by King George and the British Empire. The Americans had recently fought a long and bitter war sparked by the British attempts at disarming the American colonists. The initial battles of Lexington and Concord were direct attempts by the representatives of the British Crown to confiscate gunpowder and, particularly, cannon. Cannon were crew served weapons. The officers of the Crown confiscated plenty of individual weapons as well.
Well, just to put it bluntly:
No, Second Amendment does protect AR-15s
I get that there are some people who don’t like AR-15s. They see these guns that look an awful lot like what our troops use and they get uncomfortable. They see people traipsing around the woods or our communities with them, often espousing what they think are extremist points of view, and it makes them even more uncomfortable.
So, they want AR-15s banned. After all, then no one could get such weapons and the extremists wouldn’t be as much of a threat anymore.
And every so often, someone thinks they’re clever enough to find a loophole, that the Second Amendment actually allows banning such firearms.
Gun advocates insist that the AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment. This is not true – yet.
Neither the law nor the Second Amendment prevents Congress from banning such weapons. The obstacle is not just public opinion — polls show that far more people support such a ban than oppose it — but failure of political will before a powerful gun lobby and donors, a polarized Congress and a divided and fearful nation in thrall to the Cult of the Second Amendment.
Justice Clarence Thomas does not mention the AR-15 in his June 23 majority Supreme Court opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This most expansive interpretation yet of the Second Amendment strikes down restrictions on the ability to carry guns outside the home in New York and five other states. The AR-15 also goes unmentioned in the bipartisan bill signed into law June 25 – the first major gun legislation in nearly 30 years.…
Gun advocates commonly cite District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case authored by Justice Antonin Scalia. That opinion, which Thomas mentions frequently in Bruen, struck down the District’s banning possession of all handguns by non-law enforcement officials. That law required that owners of firearms of other kinds keep them unloaded, disassembled or locked when not located at a business place or while being used for lawful recreational activities.…
However, the Heller opinion, far from protecting a weapon like the AR-15, made clear that such a weapon could not only be regulated but banned once again. Heller specifically affirmed the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, concluding that the Second Amendment does not protect “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns.”
Heller makes it clear that the Second Amendment, like most rights, is not unlimited and does not grant the right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner for whatever purpose.
But that right there is where the author screws up. See, he’s a lawyer, so he figures he knows the law. And I’m not, so he probably knows it far better than I do.
Where he makes his mistake, though, is in his lack of understanding about firearms in a far more general sense.
What he leaves out is that the Heller decision permitted the banning of guns not “in common use.” This is why machine guns could remain banned. I disagree with that interpretation by Justice Scalia and figure it was to make the ruling a bit more politically palatable, but my agreement or disagreement changes nothing.
Yet that phrase, “in common use,” matters with regard to the AR-15.
That gun is one of the most popular firearm models in the country. Millions of them are sold every year. An estimated 20 million of them are in circulation right now.
Maybe it’s just me, but that sure sounds like they’re in common use.
See, the author doesn’t like AR-15s, so he presents his interpretation. It misrepresents what Scalia actually wrote so badly that one can’t help but believe it’s intentional. Especially since the author is an attorney, someone who not just should understand what Scalia said but also knows how to twist things from a legal standpoint.
I’m sorry, but this is just a reinterpretation of the tired argument that, frankly, ignores a large part of the Second Amendment. You know, that whole “shall not be infringed” thing?
Sadly typical, unfortunately.
New Hampshire Bill Would Take on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present, and Future
CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 15, 2023) – A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would end state enforcement of a wide range of federal gun control measures; past, present and future. The passage of this bill would take an important step toward nullifying federal acts in practice and effect that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.
Rep. Tom Mannion (R) introduced House Bill 474 (HB474) on Jan. 11. Titled “Protection of Natural Right to Property and Self-defense,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
The bill is similar to the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) enacted in 2021.
Mannion said he was building on the momentum created by a bill passed last year that took a small step toward banning state and local enforcement of federal control. Mannion called that bill a “foot-in-the-door” and said he was “adding teeth to this law.”
DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION
The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including:
The proposed law defines a “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”
CCRKBA Tells Lawmakers: ‘Rights Not Subject to Opinion Polls’
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has a message for state lawmakers, members of Congress and the media: Second Amendment rights are not subject to public opinion polls, especially when such surveys are used to justify proposed bans on certain types of firearms.
The right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment does not discriminate between types of arms, whether they be rifles, handguns or shotguns, or type of actions, including lever- or bolt-actions, single-shots, pump-actions or semiautomatics. Recent polling suggests pollsters don’t understand this.
“Fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, must never be determined by the whims of survey respondents,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We don’t have popularity contests to determine the rights of free speech or the press. We would hardly allow a public opinion poll to dictate whether people should worship in a church, mosque or synagogue. So, why would we think it’s allowable for a survey to tell us whether we should ban a whole class of firearms, when the Second Amendment has protected the rights of gun owners for more than two centuries?”
But in his home state of Washington, Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson, both Democrats, are calling for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” this year. A press release from Ferguson’s office pointed to opinion polls last summer showing public support for such a ban. The release pointed to a July poll, sponsored by The Seattle Times, KING 5, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public and Washington State University’s Murrow College of Communication, “found that more than 60 percent of Washingtonians support a ban on assault weapons in the state.”
A June survey for the Northwest Progressive Institute said 56 percent of Washington voters “support a ban on the sale of assault weapons,” the release said. That poll was done by Public Policy Polling.
In Illinois, the state House passed a ban last week 64-43.
The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported on a Utah poll showing 60 percent of Beehive State residents “support banning both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” The story cited a summer 2022 Fox News survey that also found public support for a ban.
“Anyone who honestly believes a survey should justify the erosion of any right guaranteed by our constitution needs a refresher course in high school civics,” Gottlieb observed in a statement to the media. “Rights are special. We don’t need government permission to exercise them, nor do we need the blessing of a vocal minority, because in this country, citizens do not answer to the wishes of a mob.
“At the moment we allow ourselves to fall into this trap,” he said, “we stop becoming a republic and start being an oligarchy, if not a dictatorship. This is not how rights are decided, because a right popular one week might fall out of favor the following week with a different polling sample, and then where would we be? Within a few weeks, we would have no rights at all.”
The Bruen decision’s ‘Text-History-Tradition’ mandate will go down as ‘the’ way we get 18 USC §922 (o) – the ‘Hughes amendment’ ban on new manufacture of automatic firearms that can be possessed by the private citizenry ruled unconstitutional.
Wyoming Man Sues For Right To Make His Own M16 Machine Gun
A Wapiti man who wants to make a machine gun is suing the U.S. government for denying his application to do so, saying a federal anti-machine gun law violates his Second Amendment right.
Jake Stanley DeWilde filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for Wyoming last week, asking for the court to issue a declaration against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The Argument
DeWilde’s complaint says that on Dec. 8, 2022, he submitted an ATF form asking to make and register an M16 machine gun. But 12 days later, the ATF denied his application, citing federal law that forbids both the transfer and possession of machine guns.
The statute doesn’t apply to U.S. government and military forces or machine guns owned before 1986.
The lawsuit relies on case law from 2008, District of Columbia vs. Heller, and 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen.
These cases together indicate that guns cannot be considered “dangerous and unusual,” and therefore legitimately unlawful if the guns are in “common use,” DeWilde says in his complaint.
DeWilde argues that because the M16 is in “common use” by the U.S. military, it should be made legal for the nation’s citizenry. He also argues that his Second Amendment right has been violated.
“Plaintiff desires to own an M16 machine gun for all lawful purposes, including defense of hearth and home and militia functions,” reads the complaint, which then asks the U.S. District Court for Wyoming to proclaim the ATF and the nation’s attorney general in violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
DeWilde filed the lawsuit on his own behalf without legal counsel.
BLUF
It is essential for the perseveration of a free society for citizens to have greater control over their government than that government has over citizens. The balance of power has in recent decades been tilting in favor of government, and this move by the Biden administration would undoubtedly continue that disturbing trend. It must be stopped immediately.
Biden wants your next airport visit to include a face scan. That’s a huge threat to your freedom
Face-scanning technology already abused by authoritarian states like China and Russia
In December, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA), an agency within Biden’s Department of Homeland Security, acknowledged it has significantly expanded facial recognition technology at security checkpoints in airports across the United States.
Under the expanded program, 16 of the nation’s largest airports are now using face scans as a way to verify the identities of travelers, including in Atlanta, Boston, Denver, and Los Angeles. The TSA’s initial test facial recognition program started under the Trump administration in 2017.
The system asks passengers to insert a photo identification into a security kiosk and then look at a camera. After a few seconds pass, the machine uses artificial intelligence to compare the face scan with the photo ID. If the system says the two match, the passenger can move forward to his or her gate. If a potential mismatch is identified, a human TSA agent will determine whether to deny access to the traveler. Eventually, humans will be removed from the verification process altogether.
If the new program is deemed successful, TSA plans to expand facial recognition at airports nationwide, making it one of the largest efforts to collect advanced biometric data of law-abiding citizens in US history.
The FBI’s Response to the Twitter Files Is Not Going Over Well
As Matt covered, the FBI responded to revelations from the Twitter files that the federal law enforcement agency worked with the social media platform to categorize Hunter Biden’s laptop as “Russian disinformation” by hurling accusations about “conspiracy theorists.”
“The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers,” the FBI released in a statement Wednesday. “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public,” the statement concluded. “It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”
That response isn’t going over well, especially among First Amendment advocates with deep concerns about the government using private companies to censor information.
How are actual screenshots of FBI communications with Twitter employees asking them to censor people a “conspiracy theory?” pic.twitter.com/MoItGijTf1
— Joel Berry (@JoelWBerry) December 22, 2022
FBI calls Twitter Files "misinfo" but doesn't deny that it
– had Hunter Biden's laptop since Dec 2019
– told Twitter a hack-and-leak involving Hunter may occur in Oct 2020
– was spying on Giuliani when he gave a copy of laptop hard drive to NY Posthttps://t.co/Iq3EBm3IAC
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 22, 2022
NSSF DENOUNCES U.S. SENATE CONFIRMATION OF OPERATION CHOKE POINT ARCHITECT TO FDIC
WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, condemned the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Martin J. Gruenberg as Chair and Member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Gruenberg led the FDIC from 2011-2018, during which the Obama administration conducted the illegal Operation Choke Point scheme to deny banking services to firearm businesses. NSSF opposed his confirmation in the strongest terms as he has already demonstrated a lack of respect for the law and unparalleled disdain for the Constitutionally-protected firearm and ammunition industry.
“The Senate’s confirmation of Martin Gruenberg is a flagrant disregard for his role in illegally using the levers of government to force discriminatory banking policies on the firearm and ammunition industry,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “His culpability in shepherding this illegal operation was not only previously investigated by Congress but was also highlighted by Senate Banking Committee Republicans. Mr. Gruenberg’s leading role in creating, administering and punishing the firearm industry through illegal means simply because he, President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder found this industry politically-disfavored clearly disqualified him from being reconfirmed to a position of public trust.”
Under the Obama administration, an initiative called “Operation Choke Point” was launched by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to stop financial institutions from offering services to some regulated industries in an attempt to choke off banking services. This operation, which represented an abuse of the agencies’ statutory authority, was first aimed at non-depository lenders (so-called payday lenders) but expanded to ammunition and firearms sales, tobacco sales and pharmaceutical sales, among other industries.
The goal of the operation was to coerce banks, third-party payment processors and other financial institutions into closing or denying business accounts of clients that the FDIC has classified as “high risk” or as a “reputational risk” for the financial institution. According to a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigation, the FDIC, “equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia.”
The FDIC included federally licensed firearm retailers and other companies in the firearm and ammunition industry – some of the most heavily regulated businesses in the country – on this list of risky businesses without any evidence or justification. In fact, in its guidance to banks, the agency “justified itself by claiming that the categories had been previously ‘noted by the FDIC.”
Working with the DOJ, the FDIC guidance targeting the law-abiding firearms industry and others was included on DOJ subpoenas. This sent a message to banks that they were to remove those clients from their services or risk a federal investigation.
