Category: Rights

This Should Terrify Every American: DOJ Harasses Citizens for Exercising Their First Amendment Rights

The Justice Department has hit the Eagle Forum of Alabama with a voluminous subpoena that violates the organization’s First Amendment rights to speak freely, engage in the political process, and talk to their elected representatives. It’s an intimidation tactic, pure and simple, and shows just how partisan the department has become. This out-of-control behavior should scare every citizen and volunteer organization, no matter where they stand on the political or social spectrum.

Eagle Forum is a very small non-profit in Alabama. It only has one full-time employee and a second, part-time employee. Virtually all of its work on issues of interest to its members is done by volunteers.  It is the quintessential, uniquely American grassroots membership organization that French historian Alexis de Tocqueville lauded in Democracy in America.

As the Eagle Forum’s motion to quash the government subpoena says, one of the issues its members have been concerned over is “gender-altering medical treatment to minors” and the “permanent and adverse effects of such medical procedures on those minors.” Those serious, lifelong effects deeply concern many physicians and parents.

Members of the Eagle Forum made their worries known by doing things every American has an absolute right to do: they spoke out, made speeches, organized meetings, talked to other residents and organizations in the state, and contacted their elected state representatives. In other words, they exercised their constitutional rights to engage in “freedom of speech,” to “peaceably assemble,” and “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” They also exercised their right to associate, recognized by the Supreme Court as implicit under the Fourteenth Amendment.

None of these activities should trigger stalking by Justice Department lawyers. So how has this come about?

Earlier this year, the Alabama legislature passed the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, which became effective on May 8. It bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery to alter the biological sex of a minor. A huge number of left-wing advocacy organizations immediately sued the state, and the U.S. Justice Department intervened in the lawsuit, echoing their claims that the new Alabama law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Related: Liberal Intolerance of First Amendment Freedoms on Full Display in Biden’s ‘Pride’ Month

The Eagle Forum is not a party to the lawsuit. Yet the Justice Department has served what is referred to as a third-party subpoena on the Eagle Forum. This subpoena outrageously demands that the Eagle Forum and its members turn over all:

  • information and communications it has or engaged in over the law and any predecessor bills;
  • materials that were considered by the Forum connected to the legislation or any draft or model bills;
  • documents concerning the Forum’s “legislative or policy goals, initiatives, and/or strategies relating to medical care or treatment of transgender minors, or minors with gender dysphoria”;
  • communications with—and testimony, letters, reports, etc., sent to—state legislators or their staff; and any other government agencies and officials in Alabama over the legislation;
  • communications with any other nongovernmental organizations over the legislation;
  • internal minutes and records of meetings, polling and public opinion data, video presentations and speeches, newsletters and emails, and social media postings related to the legislation.

In other words, the Justice Department wants to turn the Eagle Forum inside out, forcing it to turn over its records on everything it does. This would let government lawyers paw through and scrutinize everything, including privileged communications and even personal discussions and communications with other private citizens and nonprofit organizations.

And there isn’t a single, justifiable reason for the department to do this. The Eagle Forum is not a party in the lawsuit. It is not a government agency. It is not the legislature. It has no power to vote to enact this (or any) legislation or sign it into law.

Keep in mind that the lawsuit is making a constitutional claim. The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, are arguing that the statute as written violates the U.S. Constitution. So, what do the Eagle Forum’s polling data or social media posts have to do with that constitutional question? What do its internal records, its “policy goals, initiatives, and/or strategies,” or the communications of its members with state legislators have to do with that issue?

The answer is: absolutely nothing. None of the documents or information sought by the Justice Department has any relevance to whether the text of a state law violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

This subpoena, issued by Jason R. Cheeks, an attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Alabama, has but one intent: to harass and intimidate a conservative organization for daring to engage in the democratic process by working on an issue that inflames the Left.

The right to associate freely with other citizens who share your interests was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1959 in NAACP v. Alabama. Ironically enough, in that case, the Alabama state government was harassing the NAACP with similar demands for information due to its work on civil rights issues and legislation.

In an affidavit filed with the court in the current case, Rebecca Gerritson, the executive director of the Eagle Forum of Alabama, correctly warns:

If this subpoena is enforced, legitimate, law-abiding organizations like ours will be subject to scrutiny for engaging in constitutionally protected activities.  Further correspondence by EFA, including emails, notes, presentations, speeches, interviews, etc. could be weaponized by government officials who hold (or are being required to assert) opposite political views.  In addition, enforcement of the federal government’s subpoena would set a precedent that would stifle other citizens who want to exercise their constitutional right to make their views known to their elected officials on public policy matters.

This is a dangerous action by the Justice Department. It’s something that all Americans who value their constitutional rights should oppose.

Well, yes they can. And it’s not just by the GPS feature. That’s because the thing has to to continually communicate with a cell tower, that’s recorded and can be tracked.

Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Can Track You on Your Phone

It is hard to imagine that James Madison — who wrote the words of the Fourth Amendment, which limits the ability of the federal government to intrude upon the privacy of its citizens — would approve of it, but law enforcement from local police to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) can now track your every movement.

How? A data broker known as Fog Data Science, based in Madison’s home state of Virginia, is now selling geolocation data to state and local law enforcement. Federal law enforcement obtains its information on American citizens from other data brokers. Either way, law enforcement can track exactly where you have been at any time over the past several years.

Personal data is collected through the multitude of applications that Americans use on either their Android or iOS smartphones. Data brokers then sell that data to others, including Fog Data Science, which in turn sells it to local law-enforcement agencies across the country, including Broward County, Florida; New York City; and Houston. And it is not just big cities. Lawrence, Kansas, police use it, as well as the sheriff of Washington County in Ohio.

Continue reading “”

Well, he’s a anti-gun (for the people) political hack, so nothing surprising here.

AG Garland ignores the importance of arms when congratulating newest citizens

The readers of Bearing Arms are no stranger to the fact that our Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as many of the three lettered agencies that fall under the supervision thereof, has become a machine to crush political opposition and push a radical progressive agenda. Just by trending what the DOJ prosecutes versus what they don’t, or what areas they focus on in their speeches and summits, people can figure out the DOJ under the Biden-Harris administration plays favorites on who/what gets prosecuted. Merrick Garland, who failed to meet the proper standards to sit on the High Court, congratulated the United States’s newest citizens the other day, and in doing so, he exposed some of his own personal history as well as neglected one of the most important civil liberties we have.

In the preamble of the Constitution, those Americans enumerated those hopes: to form a more perfect union; establish justice; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare …

And importantly – in their words – “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Like them, each of you has now made a commitment not only to this nation and your fellow Americans, but to the generations of Americans who will come after you.…

I come from a family of immigrants who fled religious persecution early in the 20th Century and sought refuge here in the United States. Some of my family entered right here, at Ellis Island. My grandmother was one of five children born in what is now Belarus. Three made it to the United States, including my grandmother who came through the Port of Baltimore. Two did not make it. Those two were killed in the Holocaust. If not for America, there is little doubt that the same would have happened to my grandmother. But this country took her in. And under the protection of our laws, she was able to live without fear of persecution.

I am also married to the daughter of an immigrant who came through the Port of New York in 1938. Shortly after Hitler’s army entered Austria that year, my wife’s mother escaped to the United States. Under the protection of our laws, she too, was able to live without fear of persecution.

That protection is what distinguishes America from so many other countries. The protection of law – the Rule of Law – is the foundation of our system of government. The Rule of Law means that the same laws apply to all of us, regardless of whether we are this country’s newest citizens or whether our [families] have been here for generations.

The Rule of Law means that the law treats each of us alike: there is not one rule for friends, another for foes; one rule for the powerful, another for the powerless; a rule for the rich, another for the poor; or different rules, depending upon one’s race or ethnicity or country of origin. The Rule of Law means that we are all protected in the exercise of our civil rights; in our freedom to worship and think as we please; and in the peaceful expression of our opinions, our beliefs, and our ideas.

Garland’s full remarks are worth a read. If our eyes were shut and we heard some of (not all) these words come from the mouth of a Regan or Trump, the rhetoric could be believable. However, these “encouraging” words are hissed out from the current Attorney General who’s complicit to allow the Second Amendment rights of the people be infringed.

Given Garland’s sharing of his personal and family’s history, and that of his wife’s, one would think that he’d be all too knowing that the atrocity of the Holocaust was able to occur in part because of a disarmed citizenry. Do we know for a fact that had the people been armed at that time that the Holocaust would have been averted? No, we don’t. But I’m willing to wage many would have rather tested the odds by fighting it out as an armed populace, instead of being led to slaughter. Regardless, we won’t ever know.

Continue reading “”

NYT Poll Finds More Voters Agree with GOP on Gun Policy

A New York Times/Siena College poll conducted September 6 to 14, 2022, finds more voters agree with the Republican Party on gun policy.

The poll questioned nearly Nearly 1,400 registered voters.

When asked, “Who do you agree with more on gun policy?” voters responded 47 percent to 43 percent, in favor of Republicans over Democrats

Voters were also asked, “Who do you agree with more on crime and policing?” They responded 47 percent to 37 percent in favor of Republicans over Democrats.

The NYT/Siena College poll also asked voters whether they support “A ban on semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.” Forty-nine percent of voters said they do not support such a ban, while 46 percent said they did.

When responses were broken down among voting patterns, 74 percent of Biden voters supported banning semiautomatic weapons and “high capacity” magazines. An identical percentage of Trump voters opposed banning semiautomatic weapons and “high capacity” magazines.

When ages were taken into account, 54 percent of the youngest voters–ages 18-29–opposed a ban on semiautomatic weapons and “high capacity” magazines, while 41 percent of the youngest voters supported it.

Demand for private security is booming in Minneapolis.

In June 2020, the Minneapolis city council famously vowed to defund the police department. Though their plans fell through, the fully funded MPD is nonetheless struggling. More than 250 officers have resigned or retired since then. Earlier this year, the Minneapolis supreme court ruled that the city has a duty to staff the MPD with a minimum of 731 sworn officers, but the department is at least 100 officers short of that target. Meantime, crime has spiked, with 96 homicides in 2021—doubling the number in 2019 and tying a 1995 record.

Private security has stepped into the breach. The number of licenses approved for new private providers rose from 14 in 2019 to 27 in 2021, according to data from Minnesota’s Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services. Demand is exploding as businesses increasingly opt for private guards over off-duty cops.

Christopher Forest started his private security firm, Unparalleled Security, after the rioting of 2020. Today, he has 175 employees. Forest did not set out to start a private security firm, having previously worked as CEO of Minnesota’s largest valet-parking company. But after June 2020, his clients began approaching him with requests for security guards. These clients had once hired off-duty police officers for their security needs, but the MPD’s image after the George Floyd killing made that more difficult.

“I think it just had to do with the temperature in the room when you have a police officer in a venue versus an unarmed security guard,” Forest says.

Michael MacDonald, who runs a smaller private security firm called JomsVikings Protection and Security, agrees. “Stores do not want cops out in front because of the negative attention it can bring to their facilities,” says MacDonald. His license to operate was issued July 31, 2020. Today, he has 18 full-time and ten part-time employees.

High crime means that new clients, such as movie theaters, are entering the market for private security, says Richard Hodson, the chairman of Minnesota’s Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services. Hodson says he knows of a retired police officer who recently got a license to run his own private security firm but has had to turn down contracts because he cannot hire enough guards to staff them. Demand exceeds supply.

Businesses still fear negative publicity from taking an aggressive enforcement stance. Forest says retail clients instruct his guards not to confront shoplifters. “Retail is in a place where they do not want you to even address the person,” he says. “You are not to talk to them. You are not to approach them. You are not to ask to see the items in their bag. If they are purchasing something, you are asked to not look at the receipt. You are 100 percent visual deterrent, and that is all.”

That approach isn’t universal. MacDonald says that his guards sometimes confront shoplifters, but never aggressively. “When we zone in on the individual who is stealing, we go over there and we say, ‘Hey, man, we know you stole. Can you just put it back and then leave?’ We start with that approach. We don’t go right to the top,” he says. “I will only take a contract for a store if there is a clear understanding that we are strictly there for employee safety. We are not loss prevention.”

Should guards call police to stop crimes in progress? MacDonald’s personnel tend not to do so for shoplifting. Forest says that some of his guards who work for hotels do intervene if guests are engaging in illegal activities; in theory, they should call the police, but they usually don’t. “If it is not a life threatening situation, the police do not show up,” Forest says. “They let my guards de-escalate on their own.”

Even a nonconfrontational approach can escalate. MacDonald describes an incident that occurred in July: “A guy stole a bag of chips and shoved it down his pants. Our guy made an approach and was like, ‘You can keep the chips, but you still got to go.’ Well, the guy brandished a firearm out of his bag. So our guy pulled his firearm. And then the guy took off running. But our employee had the level of training to remember that he could still re-holster it, and he does not have to engage any further.” That incident merited a rare call to the MPD. “If it gets higher than a theft, like what happened with my employee, then the cops will actually come, because otherwise they are not coming,” says MacDonald.

Some Minneapolis residents still prefer to hire off-duty cops, whom the department makes available through what it calls the “buyback program.” The upscale Lowry neighborhood established the Minneapolis Safety Initiative for off-duty police to conduct patrols. Residents are trying to raise $210,000, suggesting a recurring contribution from their neighbors of $220/month for at least six months. The Minneapolis Safety Initiative attracted significant coverage, including criticism from some who argue that wealthier neighborhoods are purchasing scarce police hours.

Nevertheless, demand for private security is growing. MacDonald and Forest expect to see significant expansion in the year ahead. High crime and police shortages are changing the public-safety landscape in Minneapolis.

Ahhhhh HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH IIIIIIII Like it!

New Software Negates Latest “Ghost Gun” Rules

A new software program (protected under the First Amendment) is protecting the Second Amendment. The software allows a 3D printer to create a “jig,” a simple but necessary piece of plastic that is used in assembling a firearm at home.

After the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued its latest infringement on the Second Amendment, software developers quickly created open source (free to the world) software to allow owners of 3D printers to print out their own jig. In essence this is an end-run around the latest ATF transgression of precious rights.

The continuing flow of misinformation from the ATF sets up the straw man to justify its latest violation of the Second Amendment:

To help keep guns from being sold to convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers, the rule makes clear that retailers must run background checks before selling kits that contain the parts necessary for someone to readily make a gun.

To help law enforcement trace guns used in a crime, the rule modernizes the definition of frame or receiver, clarifying what must be marked with a serial number – including in easy-to-build firearm kits.

To help reduce the number of unmarked and hard-to-trace “ghost guns,” the rule establishes requirements for federally licensed firearms dealers and gunsmiths to have a serial number added to 3D printed guns or other un-serialized firearms they take into inventory.

It admitted that its latest transgression generated a lot of pushback from gun owners:

On May 7, 2021, the Department of Justice issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, and during the 90-day open comment period, the ATF received more than 290,000 comments, the highest number of comments submitted to a proposed rule in ATF’s history.

Here’s the loophole in the new regulation that software developers are exploiting: if the jig isn’t part of the “kit,” then there’s no firearm under the latest definition and hence no required background check. Specifically, the rule states that when an unfinished frame or receiver is “distributed or possessed with a compatible jig or template,” it is now automatically considered to be a firearm. Leave out the jig, however, and the” kit” is incomplete and doesn’t fall under the rule.

On its website, Tactical Machining in Orlando, Florida, offers this update to its customers:

As many of you know or heard, ATF’s lawless and corrupt ruling went into effect on August 24, 2022. At the advice of our counsel, Tactical Machining was advised to maintain a holding pattern. Since then, we have some developing updates.

Per ATF, 80% AR-15 lowers are still legal!

In recent testimony during lawsuits against the ATF, they have admitted in open court that the “Final rule” does not restrict the sale of 80% lowers IF they are not sold with a jig/instructions or Templates.

Our local ATF agent tasked with enforcing the new rule changes also confirmed, in writing, that all of Tactical Machining’s 80% products are legal to buy and sell since we stopped offering our jigs.

Jim Jusick, Tactical’s design engineer and manager, quoted this from that letter from the ATF:

As we’ve been instructed, and our understanding here in Orlando, the unfinished receiver, with a jig, instructions, or template is NOT A FIREARM.

The combination of such an item (unfinished receiver) with other parts (excluding the jig) does not reach the standard for Readily Convertible.

In other words, your manufacture and selling of unfinished receivers with a lower parts kit [without the jig] does not meet the [newly defined] firearm threshold.

Just as was the case with radar detectors, developers were always one step ahead of the enforcers. In their zeal to criminalize all gun owners and eventually disarm them, the enforcers continue to play catch-up ball with the developers.

The Supreme Court and the uses of history

Sept. 17 is designated by federal law as Constitution Day to commemorate the signing of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787. The U.S. Supreme Court is responsible in the American system of separation of powers for deciding what the Constitution means in specific cases. The first Monday in October marks the beginning of a new Supreme Court term.

The court’s previous term was the most conservative in nearly a century. The nation’s highest court overruled its two landmark pro-abortion rights precedents, expanded Second Amendment gun rights, reinvigorated the First Amendment’s free-exercise-of-religion guarantee against establishment-of-religion clause challenges and reined in the rulemaking authority of executive branch administrative agencies on the ground that only Congress is permitted to make law.

The court’s six-member conservative majority arrived at most of these results by turning to history to understand the meaning of the Constitution’s text. Specifically, in what may be fairly called “conservative originalism,” the court endeavored to enforce the Constitution’s “original meaning” by opining about historical sources that illuminate what the men (and it was only men in 1787) who wrote and ratified the Constitution intended for the textual provision at issue in a particular case to mean.

Of course, it is impossible for Supreme Court justices who are trained as lawyers rather than as historians and who decide scores of cases on the merits every year to do the historical research for themselves, notwithstanding that they each are assisted by four bright recent law school graduates.

Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas (the court’s longest serving justice and its most unabashed proponent of conservative originalism) admitted as much in what court watchers should consider the most significant footnote since footnote 4 in the court’s 1938 decision United States v. Carolene Products Company.

In Carolene Products, the court upheld a federal law regulating “filled” milk, an imitation or adulterated milk product. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, writing for the court, declared that the justices would no longer subject economic legislation to heightened scrutiny, but would instead now apply minimal scrutiny that was deferential to the legislature.

Justice Stone then inserted a footnote (footnote 4) that declared that the court would continue to apply heightened scrutiny in situations in which a law conflicts with Bill of Rights protections, where the political process is malfunctioning and when regulations adversely affect “discrete and insular minorities.” Concisely put, footnote 4 ushered in a new role for the federal courts in the American constitutional order.

Jumping ahead nearly a century to the court’s most recent transformational footnote, Justice Thomas wrote the following in footnote 6 in the court’s 2022 decision expanding Second Amendment gun rights: “The job of judges is not to resolve historical questions in the abstract; it is to resolve legal questions presented in particular cases or controversies.” He continued: “That ‘legal inquiry is a refined subset’ of a broader ‘historical inquiry,’ and it relies on ‘various evidentiary principles and default rules’ to resolve uncertainties.” Finally, and most importantly: “Courts are thus entitled to decide a case based on the historical record compiled by the parties.”

Thomas should be commended for acknowledging in footnote 6 that the justices don’t do their own historical research. But unfortunately for conservative originalists, what he says in that footnote calls into question the entirety of conservative originalism.

After all, lawyers are notorious for cherry-picking history to try to get the result their clients are paying them to get. As Pulitzer-Prize winning historian Gordon Wood put it in a public debate about the Supreme Court and the uses of history: “Judges have to invent another kind of history: we call it ‘law office history,’ or ‘history lite.’ … It’s a necessary fiction for judges and other jurists to get along with their work—they need some kind of history to work with. History is much too complicated to be used effectively by judges and the courts.”

I agree with Dr. Wood. Consequently, my answer to the question whether Supreme Court justices should use history to decide cases is a qualified yes. This is what I mean by that: They should use history to identify the political philosophy of the American founding and then decide cases in light of that political philosophy.

In other words, judges should employ “liberal originalism,” which is “liberal” in the classical Lockean libertarian sense that the principal purpose of government is to protect individual rights, and it is “originalism” in the sense that the Framers wrote the Constitution with that principal purpose of government in mind. “To secure these rights,” the Declaration of Independence proclaims, “Governments are instituted among Men.”

Liberal originalism and conservative originalism sometimes (though not often because conservative originalism tends to be majoritarian rather than libertarian) lead to the same result in specific cases. To mention one example from the court’s most recent term, liberal originalism, like conservative originalism, reveals that the establishment clause doesn’t make the free-exercise clause meaningless. The political philosophy that the Constitution was adopted to effectuate reveals that America has been devoted since before the First Amendment was ratified to the free exercise of religion, which is a quintessential individual right.

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Mike Lindell Is Suing the FBI and the Government for Violating His Rights. Pay Attention.

Mike Lindell wants more than just his phone back. Following the incident in Minnesota during which agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation blocked his vehicle at a Hardee’s drive-through and seized his phone, Lindell made an appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room. He announced that he was filing a lawsuit against the FBI and the government. You can watch Lindell’s conversation with Bannon posted by The Post Millennial below.

Lindell makes the point that his phone is what he uses to run his company and that it even controls his hearing aids. As someone who wears hearing aids, I had the option of connecting mine to my phone and even activating the Bluetooth feature. But while I don’t need to pair my ears with my phone, Lindell chose to do so. And for better or worse (probably worse), our lives are now almost inextricably linked to our phones. While that says more about the continuing decline of Western Civilization than anything else, let’s face it: we’d all be lost without our phones, no matter how erudite we think we may be.

Continue reading “”

Once again, the political acumen of Mitch McConnell deserves praise for stopping such a political hack as Merrick Garland from being seated on the Supreme Court

FBI Agents Accuse Biden of Pressuring FBI to Fabricate ‘Extremist’ and ‘White Supremacist’ Cases.

Current and former FBI agents have come forward saying the Biden administration is deliberately exaggerating the danger posed by white supremacists. They claimed that high-ranking FBI officials were pressuring field agents to fabricate domestic terrorism cases and label people as white supremacists in order to “meet internal metrics.”

“The demand for white supremacy” coming from FBI brass “vastly outstrips the supply of white supremacy,” one agent told the Washington Times. “We have more people assigned to investigate white supremacists than we can actually find.”

The FBI agent, who requested anonymity in order to discuss internal bureau politics, said that top officials in the FBI “have already determined that white supremacy is a problem” and established a policy to prioritize investigations into racially-motivated domestic extremism.

“We are sort of the lapdogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to fit otherwise First Amendment-protected activities,” he said. “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”

The FBI denies that they are targeting people based on politics, but sadly, these revelations are the latest in a longstanding pattern of the politicization and weaponization of the Justice Department under Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Last year, the administration previously came under fire for using the resources of the Department of Justice to target angry parents at school board meetings and treat them like domestic terrorists. Merrick Garland authorized the FBI to investigate parents who protested school board meetings alleging a “disturbing trend” of teachers being threatened or harassed. However, PJ Media’s Megan Fox looked into those allegations and concluded that they’re mostly bunk.

In addition, the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which had prompted Garland to write the memo with a letter likening parents to domestic terrorists, eventually apologized for doing so. Despite this, Garland has not rescinded the memo. Late last year, a whistleblower revealed an internal email showing that the FBI was using counterterrorism tools to monitor parents despite Garland denying before Congress that the FBI was doing so. This summer, whistleblowers revealed that the FBI “pressured and incentivized” agents to classify cases as domestic violent extremism.

OREGON: Vote NO on Ballot Measure 114!

Ballot Measure 114 is the nation’s most extreme gun control Initiative and will be voted on this November! The NRA has launched a website to inform voters why they must VOTE NO on Ballot Measure 114.  It is up to you to stop Oregon from further eroding its law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights! Criminals do not obey the laws. Increasing laws and financial burdens will diminish, if not eliminate, the rights of law-abiding citizens.

If Ballot Measure 114 passes, Oregon will unconstitutionally:

-Ban magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and most modern shotguns

-Create a government registry of law-abiding gun owners’ personal information

-Require a permit-to-purchase or transfer a firearm (which will require classroom and live-fire training from law enforcement)

Please share this information with your friends, family, and fellow Second Amendment advocates, and vote NO on Ballot Measure 114!

Oregon’s early vote-by-mail system means ballots will be landing in your mailbox soon, so be on the look-out, and be sure to vote NO on Ballot Measure 114 by November 8th, to protect your rights and the rights of future generations.

FBI labeled veteran-led disaster organization a ‘terror’ group over government criticism, whistleblower says

The FBI was accused of falsely designating a veteran-led emergency prevention organization and its founder as facilitators of domestic terror, according to a whistleblower complaint made public via a letter from the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

In the letter, ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said the FBI associated American Contingency with domestic terrorism despite its own investigation proving otherwise in an effort to “advance a misleading political agenda.”

“American Contingency is a company founded by former U.S. servicemember Mike Glover, who has publicly rejected the FBI’s accusations that he is a terrorist and has described American Contingency’s charitable work on behalf of communities devastated by natural disasters,” Jordan said in the letter addressed to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

According to the letter, the FBI maintained a terror designation on American Contingency despite thoroughly investigating the organization and its founder.

The FBI investigated Glover’s “military records, his veteran’s disability rating, and even his monthly disability benefit” before ultimately determining he was not a perpetrator or instigator of domestic terror. Jordan said these details have been corroborated by an FBI whistleblower.

“We have no comment on any specific groups or individuals. However, the FBI does not and cannot designate domestic terrorist organizations. The FBI can never open an investigation based solely on protected First Amendment activity,” the bureau responded.

“We cannot and do not investigate ideology. We focus on individuals who commit or intend to commit violence and criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security. The FBI’s mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. One does not come at the expense of the other.”

Jordan said, “The FBI’s recent characterization of American Contingency as a DVE [domestic violent extremism] organization is striking in light of new whistleblower disclosures that show that the FBI had concluded as recently as 2020 that the group was not a threat.”

Following this investigation, the FBI determined Aug. 26, 2020, that Glover “is a decorated veteran of the United States” whose military record and frequent social media posts reflect his “patriotism for the United States.”

“Glover desires to assist Americans in preparing themselves for catastrophic events and not to overthrow the United States Government,” the in-line FBI administrative note said. “A background investigation and review of Glover’s social media failed to support the allegation that Glover is a threat to the United States or its citizens.”

While arguing that the designation was initially unjustified, Jordan highlighted that the FBI kept its terror designation “even after the FBI determined in 2020 that American Contingency was not a threat.”

Jordan then inquired further into the FBI’s “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide” on “Militia Violent Extremists” (MVEs) — which was publicly shared via Project Veritas — including questions about how and why the FBI pursues people or organizations such as Glover and American Contingency.

The FBI document flags symbols like “2A,” an abbreviation for the Right to Bear Arms under the Second Amendment, and “commonly referenced historical imagery or quotes,” like the “Betsy Ross Flag” and the yellow “Gadsden Flag” that states “Don’t Tread On Me” as symbols of “terrorists,” Jordan said.

Concluding the letter, the top Republican requested from Wray “all documents and communications referring or relating to the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide on Militia Violent Extremism, for the period of January 1, 2020, to the present.”

He also asked for “a full and complete explanation as to why the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Strategic Unit did not include symbols, images, phrases, events, and individuals about left-wing violent extremism of the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide.” Jordan urged Wray to “provide this information as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 28, 2022.”

The FBI had told reporters last month, “The threat posed by domestic violent extremists is persistent, evolving and deadly. The FBI’s authority to investigate a case as domestic terrorism requires the existence of a potential criminal federal violation, the unlawful use or threat of force or violence and ideological motivation of any type. We do not investigate ideology.

“The FBI investigates individuals who commit or intend to commit violence and other criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security. We are committed to upholding the constitutional rights of all Americans and will never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment activity.”

FPC Files for Injunction Against PA Carry Ban for People with Restored Civil Rights

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment in its Suarez v. Evanchick lawsuit, which challenges Pennsylvania’s prohibition on carry by individuals who have had their civil rights restored following prohibiting convictions. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

Plaintiffs in this action include Julio Suarez and Daniel Binderup, whom the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has already held to be persons who retain their Second Amendment rights in a landmark plurality decision in Binderup v. United States Attorney General. Another individual plaintiff, Daniel Miller, previously challenged 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition as applied to him for a 1998 conviction for the use of an altered PennDOT window tint exemption certificate, for which he was granted relief by a federal trial court.

“Nothing in the Constitution’s text nor the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation supports the categorical ban that the prior and continuing enforcement of Defendant’s regulations impose on Plaintiffs,” argues the motion. “Defendant’s regulations thus unconstitutionally prohibit and criminalize lawful, constitutionally protected conduct that Plaintiffs seek to engage in, including, but not limited to, carrying and transporting firearms for self-defense, including during declarations of emergency, and merely being able to stop for a bathroom break, grab a cup of coffee or bite to eat, or pick up a friend on the way to or from a firearm shooting range.”

“Despite Plaintiffs being peaceable citizens with no history of violent behavior and eligible to exercise the right to keep arms, Pennsylvania law unconstitutionally prohibits them from bearing and transporting firearms,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s Motion is an important step towards the full restoration of these individuals’ rights.”

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

DOJ Subpoenas Targeting Trump Associates Contain Disturbing Demands

News of dozens of subpoenas being sent by the DOJ to Trump supporters broke on Friday and was finally confirmed on Monday. The subpoenas, which were ostensibly tied to investigations surrounding January 6th, targeted over 40 people. Two more phones were seized from Trump associates as well, including his in-house counsel.

It marked another move in what appears to be a highly politicized investigation targeting the political enemies of Joe Biden for nothing more than wrong-speak. RedState obtained and published the subpoena Friday, and Monday night Tucker Carlson, who also obtained some of the subpoenas, highlighted some of the disturbing demands within them.

 

In the clip, Carlson provides an excerpt from the subpoena that purports to define what the current investigation is about. Here’s how that reads.

Any claim that the Vice President and/or the President of the Senate had the authority reject or choose not to count presidential electors.

To put it frankly, it is chilling to think that the DOJ could base an investigation on something that is clearly under the bounds of free speech. And to be clear, it is completely irrelevant whether Mike Pence had the above-mentioned authority or not. Americans are allowed to hold opinions, and they are allowed to discuss those opinions, even if they don’t hold up to factual scrutiny.

It is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to criminally target individuals based simply on what they said unless it is a direct incitement to violence or a threat. Nothing about that passage is either of those things. In other words, the DOJ is firmly in the territory of trying to prosecute thought crimes.

There’s also the issue of precedent here. Carlson brings up the fact that the DOJ did not seek to go after leading Democrats in 2016 that sought to stop the counting of electors for Donald Trump. He’s correct, and it’s a blind spot in all this that is simply being ignored because it’s convenient to ignore. That January 6th occurred at the hands of protesters does not suddenly wipe out the free speech rights of others.

The Fox News host then lists some of the names these subpoenas are targeting, including Stephen Miller and Jenna Ellis, but the most shocking is Boris Epshteyn. That is Trump’s current lawyer. Yet, the DOJ is demanding his communications, many of which are privileged, with a wink and a nod promise to sort through everything. That’s banana republic stuff.

Read the entire subpoena here:

Redacted Subpoena by Jennifer Van Laar on Scribd

I’ll end with something Carlson mentions near the beginning of the clip, which is that there is no accountability or transparency being demanded in the face of all this. Instead, the American press, with few exceptions, is spending its time either ignoring these overreaches or outright supporting them. That’s terrifying because it feels like we’ve reached a place where anything goes as long as seeks to harm Donald Trump, and it won’t stop there. These precedents being set are going to be abused by left-wing officials long into the future. It’s another reason why Republicans must retake the White House in 2024 and that there must be a will to gut these out-of-control agencies.

Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker introduces bill to limit how gun dealers may dissolve their businesses

Spartacus is at it again. Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey couldn’t sit idle for too long without bringing forward some sort of an anti-gun proposal. In his free time, when he’s not embarrassing Garden Staters with his antics in Congress, or allegedly slipping out of the back door of his Newark home when he was mayor to head to his real home, Booker loves to trample on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Booker, who fancied himself a people’s mayor of sorts, with his publicity stunt living in a building scheduled for demolition in a high crime area, has no need for firearms when he has security to look after him.

Funny how Booker’s alleged experience did not set off any light bulbs on why the Second Amendment is so important. Had the then mayor and now Senator been paying less attention to allegedly slipping out back doors, and having guests come in through back doors under the cloak of darkness, he would have figured out quickly that a firearm is borderline a necessity in the city he managed to mismanage. On September 8th Senator Sparticus introduced a bill to limit how dealers that lose their licenses shall deal with their inventory.

The bill, S.4812 Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act has explicit instructions on how a dealer that loses their license shall dispose of their goods. The bill is not a new bill, with the first one being introduced by former Congressman Gary Ackerman, a Democrat from New York in 2010. Every session of Congress since Ackerman’s introduction of this bill has seen a bill of the same title introduced. This is a companion bill to the previously introduced House version, which Representative David Cicilline introduced December 9th of 2021.

What’s the bill intend to do? From the bill text we have:

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.

Some select highlights from the bill include:

“(aa) (1) (A) It shall be unlawful for a person who has been notified by the Attorney General that the Attorney General has made a determination to revoke a license issued to the person under this chapter to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms, or to deny an application of the person to renew such a license, to—

“(i) transfer a business inventory firearm of the person—
“(I) into a personal collection of the person; or
“(II) to an employee of the person, or to an individual described in section 923(d)(1)(B) with respect to the person; or
“(ii) receive a firearm that was a business inventory firearm of the person as of the date the person received the notice.

Essentially, if a gun dealer loses their license, which is a very easy thing to do today with the ATF revoking FFLs over typos, transcription errors, and clerical errors, a person would be subjected to imprisonment of up to five years if their conduct was considered “willful”, if they do not dispose of inventory “properly”.

The crazy thing about this, why not a personal inventory? What’s the big deal? The loss of an FFL does not make someone a disqualified person, not in a world where the ATF is revoking left and right. Why not an employee of?

If there was ever a time when the relevance of such a measure would be lost, that’d be now. In the past, not that the ATF has a stellar record of doing what they’re supposed to, but in the past if a dealer would lose their license over some sort of an egregious infraction, I can see why we’d want to ensure the inventory would be ushered outside the control of any rogue dealers. But today? I don’t think so. Not how our current administration is dealing with things.

Understand that the requirement that a dealer even need to have an FFL in the first place can be construed as unconstitutional, further forcing said entity to dispose of their property in a manner different than the lawful owner would prefer is too close to the pinko’s dream of no private property.

It’s not likely that this measure gets passed in both chambers and makes its way to the Napper in Chief. It has been introduced and re-introduced every congress for more than a decade. Although, many laws were bills in waiting on the sidelines or advocated for many times over before they became law. We’ll be keeping an eye on the progress of this measure. With the midterms around the corner and the session ending in a few months, this is likely to gain little traction. Booker managed to wrangle in a whopping zero co-sponsors.

5 questions about New York’s new social media requirements for gun applicants

New gun laws in New York for those seeking a concealed carry license, including a review of social media accounts by law enforcement, was cleared to go into effect by a federal judge last week, but questions about how the state will enforce it and future legal challenges remain.

The new rules, part of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, followed a Supreme Court ruling in June that prohibits states from requiring residents seeking a gun license to prove a special need to carry a handgun outside the home.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, challenged a provision of New York’s 109-year-old concealed carry law that required applicants to have “proper cause” for the permit — a special need for self-defense. Five other states had similar laws.

New York responded with a number of changes, including requiring concealed carry applicants to share “a list of former and current social media accounts” from the past three years to assess the applicant’s “character and conduct.” The rule comes in the aftermath of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, where the gunmen reportedly posted warnings about their violence online.

The new state laws, which also require more classroom and in-person training for concealed carry licenses and the creation of “sensitive places” where guns are not permitted, have already been met with lawsuits. Judge Glenn Suddaby declined to put the law on hold a day before it took effect, saying the New York resident and three gun rights organizations who filed lawsuits didn’t have standing to bring the legal action. But he indicated he believed some parts of the laws were unconstitutional, and legal experts expect other challenges in the future.

While written testimonies are common for gun permits across the country, requiring social media records is an added layer that has not been implemented in other places for the purposes of gun permitting.

“I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said of the conceal carry changes in a statement last week.

The social media requirement has raised questions about privacy and what states can request in the permitting process.

Max Markham, vice president of policy and community engagement at the Center for Policing Equity, said he believes the laws as a whole are a “strong legislative package” when it comes to curbing gun violence. But he said the social media requirement is unclear in its scope and implementation, and will need to be better defined in the near future. He added that he expects conservative groups, in particular, will fight the law on constitutional grounds.

Markham said the law includes a process to appeal if a person’s application for a concealed carry permit is rejected, which he believes can help increase accountability and provide space “for individuals who may feel like they’ve been judged incorrectly.”

“I think seeing how it is enforced and ensuring that there is some degree of equity will be really key,” he said.

What is the scope of the law?

The wording of the requirement suggests applicants only need to share their public content with officials, and that the purpose of the search is to corroborate written testimony from character witnesses, according to David Greene, civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Greene believes the social media rules are intended to look for stated intent to commit crimes with a gun. But Greene said there’s a host of information unrelated to a search for criminality that can be gleaned from accessing someone’s social media history.

“[It] can say a lot about someone’s political affiliations, about the community organizations they belong to, about religious groups they’re active in … and their familial relationships,” he said.

Greene said that context – which is hard to gather from a quick social media scan – is relevant to what people share on the platforms, and it can be difficult to get that from a profile alone .

While New York’s new gun law includes welcome changes, such as requiring more firearm training, the social media requirements are a “poor” part and have “serious” privacy concerns, said Adam Scott Wandt, an associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

“I question whether or not that part of the law will subject the state to lawsuits that will eventually find the law unconstitutional. And I also have serious privacy concerns with the state requiring somebody to submit social media accounts for review based upon unclear criteria as to what constitutes ‘good character’ and moral and what doesn’t. It’s messy,” Wandt said.

The New York City Bar Association Committee on Technology, Privacy and Cyber, which Wandt co-chairs, did not have time to offer input or feedback on the laws, either, he said..

Hochul’s office did not answer a question from the PBS NewsHour about outside expert review on the new set of laws.

Is social media monitoring for licenses used elsewhere in government?

Social media monitoring to get an official government license is a rare official policy but at least one other agency has adopted the practice.

Greene said visa applicants have been required to share their social media accounts since 2019. The requirements, originally created under the Trump administration, have been continued by Joe Biden. Users are required to provide social media accounts used in the last five years from a list of 20 platforms. Applicants do have the option to select “none” if they have not used any of the social media sites.

According to the State Department, the collection and review of social media information is intended to “enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and other immigraiton benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.”

Wandt said that he is also concerned about social media reporting requirements being expanded to other professional licensing administered by the government, potentially forcing some people seeking these licenses to sacrifice privacy for their work, he said.

Wandt said there were also questions about how he social media information gleaned from firearm applications will be used or stored by law enforcement.

“Do these things go into a database when the NYPD pulls me over? Is there a database now that they’ll be able to look at and see my social media because I applied for a handgun? I think there are more questions than answers at this point,” he said.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question from the NewsHour about what happens to the records of an applicant’s social media account after a permit is processed.

Which law enforcement agencies will conduct these searches?

Who will grant gun licenses in New York under the new law is dependent on the jurisdiction. In New York City, the NY Police Department issues gun licenses and will check social media accounts. Across the state, there may be some sheriff’s departments who conduct the checks, but in many cases, a county authority, such as a judge, issues the license. However, in those cases, responsibility for ensuring requirements for a gun license are met will still fall to the sheriffs.

“Troopers remain committed to this mission, and we are dedicated to stopping the criminals who traffic illegal guns and endanger our communities,” State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen said in a statement.

NY Sheriff’s Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe said there is worry by sheriffs that the task of searching through social media accounts would be too difficult. He said there is a risk that law enforcement will miss something in the social media account of someone issued with a gun license who then goes on to commit a crime, putting that responsibility and accountability on the sheriffs.

READ MORE: Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social media accounts

“It falls on the sheriff because he missed something when he was given an impossible task,” he said.

Kehoe adds that the definition of “character and conduct” under the new statute is too vague.

“The statute says that they have to give us social media accounts and we have to use those to determine whether or not the individual has the right temperament and judgment to be entrusted with a weapon,” Kehoe said.

“What we think shows good judgment might not be the next guy’s estimate of good judgment and it’s all gonna be based on the eyes and ears of the person who’s reviewing it,” Kehoe said.

However, Kehoe denied that political biases would play a role in vetting.

“They’re going to be looking at these accounts. And if they see something concerning, they’re gonna put that in their background report to the judge then it’s gonna be up to the judge to decide, I guess, whether or not that particular concern is disqualifying for the person to have a license.”

In a statement to the NewsHour, Hochul’s office said the law doesn’t change the nature of licensing, it simply adds a new requirement for applicants.

“Local law enforcement and licensing officials have always been responsible for evaluating information provided by prospective applicants to determine whether a permit should be issued. The law doesn’t change that,” the statement said.

“It simply requires them to consider social media activity and other new information as part of their review process for concealed carry applications.”

Is there any training being provided for those doing this vetting?

The section of the law that requires applicants to disclose their social media accounts does not detail what training is required for those doing the vetting. Kehoe said law enforcement has not been given additional funding to do training for law enforcement, or to conduct checks of social media accounts. Kehoe expects “millions” of applicants under New York’s new gun licensing rules, many of whom will have more than one social media account.

“Just on a very practical level, we don’t think we can do this.”

Applicants will only be required to provide social media accounts used in the past three years, however, Kehoe said law enforcement may be required to look farther back into those accounts.

“The statute didn’t provide any resources for us to do this and it’s just not going to be possible to get it done without additional manpower,” Kehoe said.

Markham hopes the state will provide bias training for officials combing through social media, reflecting a wider push for law enforcement agencies to minimize possible unequal treatment of minority communities.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question about whether additional training or resources would be provided to law enforcement in support of the new requirements.

Can monitoring social media work?

The social media search may catch some people who shouldn’t have access to firearms but many more, including those who might be most dangerous and inhabit the darkest parts of the internet, will slip through the cracks, Wandt said.

“Putting all the constitutional and moral issues aside, I stand by my experience and research that shows me that the truly dangerous, disturbed people have multiple social media accounts, usually not under their real name, and I highly doubt that they will be reported on a application for a carry permit,” Wandt said.

Greene said asking whether it will work is the wrong question, since he believes such policies can be inherently harmful, especially if other government institutions, such as general law enforcement, adopt similar policies.

“I do think there’s something dangerous about institutionalizing and normalizing having people provide their social media accounts to the government,” he said.

FBI secretly forced some to give up their gun rights

The FBI hasn’t been an organization that garners a great deal of respect from anyone who isn’t on the left in a while. Even many on that side of things look at what the bureau has done recently with suspicion as well.

Sure, the ATF is acting shady as hell of late, and we expect them to try and infringe on our gun rights.

However, it seems that the FBI is trying to get in on that action, apparently.

The FBI secretly pressured Americans into signing forms that relinquish their rights to own, purchase or even use firearms, according to a trove of internal documents and communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The forms were presented by the FBI to people at their homes and in other undisclosed locations, according to bureau documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act by the firearm rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and shared with the DCNF. At least 15 people between 2016 and 2019 signed the secret forms, which ask signatories to declare themselves as either a “danger” to themselves or others or lacking “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives.

GOA and attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment law told the DCNF the existence of the forms raise serious legal questions.

“We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, GOA’s outside counsel who specializes in firearms law. “Which certainly is not something you expect in the United States.”

OK, but who are these people? Are they legitimately people who are a danger to themselves or others? Are they really lacking in “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives? If so, how can they be responsible enough for their affairs to sign away their rights?

Well, it seems these are people who talked a lot of crap in the wrong venue, among other things.

Many signatories allegedly made violent threats in online chat rooms, in person and on social media platforms, FBI notes show. The 15 signed forms obtained by the DCNF show FBI agents in Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine presented them to Americans — whose names were redacted by the bureau.

While the existence of the FBI form itself was first revealed in 2019 by the firearms blog Ammoland, the outlet did not provide evidence of it being used at the time. GOA obtained the signed forms as part of its lawsuit initiated in January 2020 against the bureau to compel disclosure of records related to the forms.

A spokesperson for the FBI told the DCNF the form was “discontinued” in December 2019, but they did not say why that decision was made.

“The NICS Indices Self-Submission form was created to provide an avenue for individuals to self-report to the NICS Section when individuals felt they were a danger to themselves or others,” the FBI spokesperson said.

Except when FBI agents show up to your home and accuse you of a crime, talking about the potential penalties for that crime, then say, “Here. Sign this and all of this goes away,” it’s not really people who think they’re a danger to themselves or others.

It’s people who think prison will be a danger to them.

When law enforcement of any kind shows up, there’s a certain degree of intimidation involved. Especially if you actually did what you’re accused of. Making violent threats isn’t a good thing by any means, of course, and it’s an actual crime–making terroristic threats.

If there was a crime committed, then that’s one thing, but why simply put a form in front of those accused of making such threats rather than prosecuting them for a federal crime? My guess is that the FBI likely knew that they couldn’t get a conviction because it was someone just talking smack, rather than being actually dangerous.

So they drop the form in front of some schmuck who is terrified of becoming Bubba’s boyfriend and say, “Sign this, giving up your gun rights, and you’re free to go.” Since he doesn’t want to go to prison, well, a small price to pay, right?

Wrong.

He’s still being stripped of his rights without due process. His “compliance” isn’t voluntary, it’s being extorted, and the FBI agents who did this likely know precisely what they did.

What’s more, there’s no way this should have been acceptable in the first place.

However, it seems that the FBI shared this document with both the Secret Service and Social Security Administration. Neither has commented as to whether they’ve ever used it, but it’s still troubling.

Heads need to roll over this one.