Category: Rights

Leaked memo states that in NYC anyone carrying a firearm, legally, is now presumed guilty until proven innocent

NEW YORK CITY, NY – Leaked documents from the New York Police Department (NYPD) indicate that anyone carrying a firearm is now presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The new guidance highlighted in the leaked memo proves that almost anywhere in New York City — public or private — is a gun-free zone.

It basically states that unless someone is a police officer or a former cop, no one can bring their legal firearm out of their house for protection, like on public transportation.

The memo, titled New York State Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Firearms, states very clearly in its “key points”:

“Anyone carrying a firearm is presumed to be carrying unlawfully until proven otherwise.”

The other “key points” are listed below:

Possessing a firearm in New York City requires a special license issued by the New York City Police Department;

Carrying a firearm in New York City requires a concealed carry license issued by the New York City Police Department;

License holders are required to carry their license when carrying a firearm and must provide their license to law enforcement upon request; and

Recent changes in law do not impact the way officers conduct investigative encounters. Officers may stop an individual when the officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying a firearm (Level 3) and may frisk that individual since the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.

The memo also describes what are to be considered “sensitive” and “restricted” locations throughout the city. According to the memo:

“Even though a person may be licensed to carry a firearm, they may not bring a firearm to a ‘sensitive’ location … All private property (residential and commercial) that is not on the sensitive location list is considered ‘restricted.’ People who are licensed to possess firearms may not bring firearms to a restricted location unless they get permission from the property owner.”

ATF Requests Funding for Pistol Brace Amnesty Registration Program

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- AmmoLand News has uncovered information showing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is planning to force gun owners to register firearms with pistol braces as a National Firearms Act (NFA) ATF Form 1 item.

The document (embedded below) was uncovered in a budget justification from the ATF to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This form confirms the leaked information AmmoLand News has heard for months from our inside sources at the ATF.

The document reads: Due to the upcoming Amnesty Registration of Pistol Brace weapons, photos of the weapon being registered will be required to prove the weapon does utilize a pistol brace in its configuration and would qualify for an amnesty registration.

Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

Our ATF inside sources have told AmmoLand News that the ATF was planning for an amnesty period where gun owners would be able to register their braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBR) and that it is expected they will receive a free tax stamp. The ATF charges $200 per SBR. Currently, there are at least four million braced pistols in the United States.

The ATF posted the proposed pistol brace rules to the Federal Register late last year for public comment. Over 250,000 comments were submitted, with most comments being against any new regulations. The gun community let their voices be heard, and the ATF ignored them.

ATF Funding Request for Pistol Brace Amnesty Screengrab
ATF Funding Request for Pistol Brace Amnesty

According to this document, owners of braced pistols would have to submit photos of their firearms to the ATF to prove that they qualify for “amnesty registration.”

The ATF has issued multiple letters stating that pistol stabilizing braces are legal to put on pistols, but this action would change agency’s course.

The White House ordered the ATF to redefine the definition of a firearm and change rules surrounding pistol stabilizing devices. The proposed rule covering frames and receivers was unveiled 30 days later, and the proposed rule for braced pistols was revealed 60 days later. The frames and receiver rule went into effect on August 24th after a 120-day grace period.

The final pistol stabilizing device rule has not been finalized. Based on this budget request and information from our sources, it seems to include a registry. The ATF recently implemented the eForms systems for some Form 1 NFA items. The new system automates a lot of the tedious work that ATF employees and the National Firearms Act (NFA) division used to do manually. It remains to be seen if the system can withstand millions of additional form submissions.

This influx of millions of new applications will also backlog any other forms submitted for processing. The ATF promised that the average time to process a Form 1 tax stamp application would be 90 days. The ATF is nowhere close to that number, with only 30% being processed in the promised time period. With millions of additional applications, the 90-day period seems to be a pipe dream.

The new rule is expected to be announced by December of this year.

More on the case out of Pennsylvania

BLUF
This is a strong ruling restoring Second Amendment rights. As a Circuit Court ruling, it is a precedential ruling which applies to the entire Third Circuit. The Third Circuit includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the District of the Virgin Islands.

For New Jersey, Delaware, and the District of the Virgin Islands, this is a tsunami in firearms law, potentially washing away decades of Second Amendment infringements.

Ownership of Arms Protected by Takings Clause, 2nd and 14th Amendments

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– On August 30, 2022, a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the Pennsylvania government violated the Takings clause, the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment when they refused to return a gun collection of the parents of a man who was convicted of murder.

The parents never committed a crime. The state never used the parents’ gun collection as evidence.  From a list of properties, I estimate 47 guns, accessories, computers, and other items valued at $40,000 or more were taken.

The State refused to return the parents’ property under the rule of force: we have them, and we won’t give them back.

After their son had lost his appeal, the parents asked for their property back. It had not been used as evidence in the case.  The state refused. The parents sued in federal district court under U.S. 42:1983, civil rights act. The case was filed on June 10, 2020.

The District Court ruled against the parents. The parents appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court ruling, written by Judge Bibas, appears to be unanimous (no dissent was seen) and very strongly written. The Bruen decision was important in this case. From the order of the three-judge panel:

Continue reading “”

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

Biden Is the Semi-Fascist He Is Looking For

JOE BIDEN IS THE FASCIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Biden and his administration are framing out an ideological war which puts Democrats in possession of the “soul of the nation,” and paints conservatives as fascists, bigots and any other insult they can come up with. The goal is to try to seize the moral high ground, only they are doing it on behalf of butchers disguised as doctors, groomers disguised as academics, and racists disguised as equity professionals.

When Biden spoke to Democrats last week and proclaimed that conservatives and Trump supporters are semi-fascist, his handlers knew exactly what they were doing. When Biden was asked what he meant with the comment, he said “you know exactly what I mean,” leaving explanations to flow from the podium in the White House briefing room.

“We have seen MAGA republicans take away our rights, make threats of violence, including this weekend,” Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked about Louisiana Senator Lindsey Graham’s caution against prosecuting former President Donald Trump, “and that is what the president was referring to when you all asked me last week about the ‘semi-fascism’ comment.”

Congress is held by Democrats, the White House has a Democrat in the Oval Office. The approval rating for the president and his administration is trash. Yet somehow, they continuously blame the opposition party for their own failures. Democrats could not, in 50 years, pass a bill federally legalizing abortion. In recent years, their efforts to obstruct states from enacting their own voting laws were met with realizations that Delaware, Biden’s home state, as well as bastion of liberal thought New York, each have voting laws more “restrictive” than Georgia and Texas.

Using the term “fascist” is a language game designed to paint the opposition as something they are not, and obfuscate the fact that it has been Democrats in power that have repeatedly and consistently limited the rights of Americans. Charlie Kirk rightfully noted that Joe Biden is a fascist.

Continue reading “”

Pennsylvania can’t keep guns in trooper ambush case, court rules

Pennsylvania may not keep a cache of weapons seized from the parents of a  gunman who killed one state trooper and permanently disabled another eight years ago, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The parents of Eric Frein sued after authorities refused to return 25 rifles, 10 pistols and two shotguns that were taken from their home in September 2014, days after Frein ambushed the troopers outside a state police barracks in the Pocono Mountains.

Eugene Michael Frein and Deborah Frein were not charged in their son’s crime — for which he was convicted and sentenced to death — and none of their weapons were used in his deadly late-night assault.

The Pike County district attorney, who was named as a defendant in the parents’ suit, had argued that authorities had the right to hold the seized weapons, saying they might be needed as evidence during Eric Frein’s state and federal appeals.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Tuesday that state authorities never used Michael and Deborah’s weapons as evidence at their son’s trial and violated the parents’ constitutional rights by holding on to the guns indefinitely.

Curt Parkins, the Freins’ attorney, called the seizure a “terrible case of government overreach.”

“It’s really the government being vindictive,” Parkins said in a telephone interview. The Freins, he said, were “punished for being the parents of Eric Frein.”

State police declined to comment on the ruling, which overturned a lower court decision to dismiss the parents’ lawsuit. A message was sent to the district attorney seeking comment.

The state seized the Freins’ property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and hindered their ability to keep firearms in violation of the Second Amendment, the appeals court said.

“The police understandably seized the parents’ guns in 2014 while a killer was still at large. But he has long since been captured and convicted, and his conviction has been affirmed,” the panel wrote in its decision. “The judicial warrant does not authorize keeping the guns past this point.”

The state would have to get another warrant to justify keeping the parents’ property, which the district attorney’s office conceded was unlikely because of a lack of probable cause, the court said.

Prosecutors have said Eric Frein was hoping to start an uprising against the government when he opened fire with a rifle on the Blooming Grove barracks. Cpl. Bryon Dickson II, a Marine veteran and married father of two, was killed in the late-night ambush, and Trooper Alex Douglass was left with devastating injuries.

Frein was captured after a 48-day manhunt. He was convicted and sentenced to death, though Pennsylvania has a moratorium on executions.

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

ProPublica Horrified That a Lawful Business is Defending Itself in the Courts

After the 2021 ghost gun law passed in Nevada, Polymer80 hired the New York City law firm Greenspoon Marder to file the lawsuit in Yerington, an onion farming town that’s the seat of the county that’s home to Polymer80. One of the firm’s managing partners, James McGuire, traveled to Yerington to argue before Judge John Schlegelmilch that the law was written so vaguely it would be impossible to enforce and would be ripe for abuse.

McGuire said in an email he no longer represents Polymer80 and referred questions to another lawyer at the firm, who didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In court, McGuire argued the law failed to define key terms such as “receiver” and “frame,” and used “murky and undefined terms” to explain what an “unfinished receiver” is. He also argued the law doesn’t specify when in the manufacturing process an unfinished receiver actually becomes a receiver.

During two hearings on the lawsuit, Schlegelmilch seemed to have little patience with the state’s argument that the law relies on industry-specific terms that are well understood by Polymer80. Instead the judge agreed with McGuire that the law didn’t adequately define an unfinished receiver. At one point he asked whether his 5-year-old’s rubber band gun could be considered an unfinished receiver simply because it looks like a gun

“What if I’m at home, and I’m machining a piece of wood. OK? And my 5-year-old wants a rubber band gun. OK? So, I take that piece of wood, I turn it, I make it into — you know, I take a band saw, and I cut out what looks like a firearm. And I put a couple of sticks on it so that you can put a rubber band on it when you push it up. You’ve seen a rubber band gun before, right? So, is that mostly completed?”

“I mean, a rubber band gun’s not a firearm,” responded the state’s attorney, Greg Zunino. “I don’t think you would ever be prosecuted under that scenario because you still have to have an intent to turn something into a firearm.”

Schlegelmilch ruled in favor of Polymer80 and enjoined the state from enforcing the section of the law that prohibited the possession and sale of unfinished frames and receivers. Schlegelmilch let stand the rest of the law, which Polymer80 didn’t challenge and prohibits the possession of a completed ghost gun

The state has appealed Schlegelmilch’s ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Schlegelmilch declined an interview request because the appeal is pending.

[Polymer80 president Loran] Kelley declined to comment on the decision to file the lawsuit on his home turf in Lyon County.

Other courts have ruled differently.

A similar lawsuit filed in federal court in Reno the same month was quickly tossed by a judge who decided the law “is a valid exercise of the government’s police power.”

“What happened here, with the state court being more successful for them, indicates politics and ideology within the judiciary,” [Giffords deputy chief counsel David] Pucino said.

This month, a judge in Washington, D.C., found Polymer80 sold illegal firearms in the district and ordered it to pay $4 million in penalties.

The ATF is also seeking to impose a new rule that would require unfinished receivers and frames to include a serial number — one of the federal strategies that Pucino said would be more effective than a state-by-state approach. The new rule, seen as a way to close the ghost gun loophole, is set to take effect on Aug. 24, but it faces at least three lawsuits from the ghost gun industry seeking to block its implementation.

McGuire, the lawyer who represented Polymer80, authored a 27-page public comment submission on the new rule arguing, in part, that it’s impermissibly vague, the same argument that he used successfully to stop the Nevada law.

To some, there’s an easy solution: Polymer80 could stamp serial numbers on the unfinished frames and receivers they sell.

Kelley said putting a serial number on his products wouldn’t hurt his company. But using those numbers to require background checks is a “critical threat” to his business, which he said relies on a growing market of individuals who “value their Fourth Amendment rights” to privacy.

“There’s a problem when people’s right to privacy is infringed and a government agency is looking at what you bought whenever they want,” he said.

Fact Check: Are Armed Civilians to Blame For Mass Shootings?

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Our country has been buried in hoaxes, one after another. Lies have become part of American culture.

They are intended to change our thoughts and actions, even if those changes are not to our benefit. A familiar hoax is that guns and gun owners are dangerous. This hoax is almost invisible; it has become an assumption that politicians use to claim we need more laws to deal with gun violence.

The gun violence hoax is bolstered by pseudo-scientific articles published in medical journals, even in a few criminological journals. A proper scientific article is easily identified because the researcher is honestly searching for truth; unscientific ones use complex scientific language to dress up their biases to prove what they already believe. That’s pseudo-science.

Unfortunately, too many editors and reviewers share this bias against guns, so pseudo-science easily slips through the review process.

Any time journalists need an emotional article about guns, a pseudo-science piece is easily found. It is false but looks convincing. The gun violence hoax gets another boost.

In fact, many articles in scientific journals have been discovered to be fraudulent and unscientific. The problem is even worse in social science and medicine.

Journalists typically ignore complex scientific methodology, so they are easy to fool. Besides, most journalists share the same anti-gun biases.

Fortunately, there are honest, competent academics who can see through the pseudoscientific claptrap and are willing to point out the truth.

A recent dust-up between two researchers in Justice Quarterly is illustrative. For the sake of simplicity, we shall only cite 2 of those feisty articles. First, Emma Fridel, a Florida criminologist, wrote Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearm Homicide. Attempting to clear up her errors, Professor Gary Kleck soon after published a stinging critique, The Continuing Vitality of Flawed Research on Guns and Violence: A Comment on Fridel.

The point to take away from this ‘battle of the boffins’ is that without any math at all, you will be able to understand Fridel’s flaws. It’s that obvious that Fridel fiddled with the books to find the answer she sought, not reality. That’s not science.

Continue reading “”

How “sensitive area” battle is shaping up in New York

In the Bruen decision, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that there were a handful of places where guns could be constitutionally banned. He called these “sensitive areas” and they include places like courthouses, jails, and things of that sort.

On one level, it makes sense. These are places where some are more inclined to be violent. Plus, they’re easily secured so that virtually no one is able to bring a gun in. In other words, they use metal detectors, not signs on the door.

However, in so doing, the term “sensitive area” is getting used to justify a whole lot of restrictions. In fact, the battle over them in New York is just starting to fire up.

“Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department,” wrote Thomas.

While New York politicians have yet to declare Manhattan a gun-free zone, they have pushed back against the ruling. In a long list of new “sensitive places,” state legislators named parks, which by definition includes the biggest park in the lower 48, the Adirondack Park in upstate New York. Interestingly, the Adirondack Park is home to about 130,000 residents—all of whom will effectively see their Second Amendment rights erased when the law takes effect on Sept. 1.

This law is in direct conflict with NYSRPA. When the U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed the right of Americans to “bear” arms in this case, it didn’t do so in some mealy-mouthed manner that indicated the ruling was a difficult decision or was uncertain in any way.…

For residents of the Adirondack Park, which is about half private land and half publicly owned, the law puts them in a dilemma. Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the state NRA affiliate, said he has received “hundreds of calls” about the ban from residents of the Adirondacks who are confused and frustrated.

Of course, Adirondack Park is only one of the battlegrounds. In fact, the above-linked piece goes on to quote a Democratic lawmaker who takes issue with this particular measure and how it impacts these good folks.

However, I’m going to go a step further and note that while Thomas explicitly wrote that the entire island of Manhattan couldn’t be declared a sensitive area, what has actually transpired there is just a step shy of precisely that.

For example, a large number of areas are declared sensitive areas, for one thing. Then there’s the idea of carrying on private property.

Now, in many states, business owners can put a sign up to serve notice that the building is gun-free. I know it’s not popular, but I’m actually fine with this because property rights are also a thing that needs to be respected. If a business owner doesn’t want guns on their property, they’re free to do so.

However, in New York, the default is that guns aren’t permitted.

While that’s fine for anti-gun businesses, it also means those ambivalent on the subject of concealed carry are, in effect, determined to be essentially the same as sensitive areas. Since most people try to actively avoid politics, the default for these folks is likely to be that ambivalence.

So, in effect, the majority of the island of Manhattan–and the rest of the state, really–has been essentially declared a sensitive area.

Yes, I support businesses being able to declare themselves gun-free–why would I want to spend money with companies who don’t support my fundamental rights–the default position on something like that should be toward freedom.

What New York did looks to have gone beyond what Justice Thomas intended.

The battle over what actually can constitute a sensitive area has just started. It’s going to be rough going for a lot of people, too, unfortunately, before it’s all settled.

America’s Standing Army

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison

The IRS has stockpiled 4,500 guns and five million rounds of ammunition in recent years, including 621 shotguns, 539 long-barrel rifles and 15 submachine guns.

The Veterans Administration (VA) purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition (equivalent to 2,800 rounds for each of their officers), along with camouflage uniforms, riot helmets and shields, specialized image enhancement devices and tactical lighting.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acquired 4 million rounds of ammunition, in addition to 1,300 guns, including five submachine guns and 189 automatic firearms for its Office of Inspector General.

According to an in-depth report on “The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies,” the Social Security Administration secured 800,000 rounds of ammunition for their special agents, as well as armor and guns.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) owns 600 guns. And the Smithsonian now employs 620-armed “special agents.”

This is how it begins.

We have what the Founders feared most: a “standing” or permanent army on American soil.

This de facto standing army is made up of weaponized, militarized, civilian forces which look like, dress like, and act like the military; are armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; are authorized to make arrests; and are trained in military tactics.

Mind you, this de facto standing army of bureaucratic, administrative, non-military, paper-pushing, non-traditional law enforcement agencies may look and act like the military, but they are not the military.

Rather, they are foot soldiers of the police state’s standing army, and they are growing in number at an alarming rate.

Continue reading “”

Some still cling to idea of Second Amendment and militias

The Second Amendment reads: [no, it does not read that way. I wish these authors would not be so ignorant]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[FIFY- fixed it for you]

We also know that our Founding Fathers were fearful of a standing army, having seen that army used as a tool of oppression. As such, they favored citizen soldiers, much like how the Greek city-states maintained their armies.

Little did they expect the debate that we would see since then over a single sentence. Unfortunately, the debate continues.

What’s more, we get pieces like this one for LA Progressive subtitled, “Most constitutional experts argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of State militias to bear arms. Not private militias or individuals.”

Now, I’m not sure how they figure most constitutional experts agree with them unless they dismiss anyone who doesn’t as a constitutional expert, but it doesn’t get any better moving forward.

Why does the United States have more civilian gun deaths than the entire rest of the world combined? Is it because people in the US are more violent? NO.

Except, we don’t. Not even close.

If you look at a list of civilian gun fatalities by nation, you’ll find a lot of places whose numbers are far worse than ours, especially if you look at the per capita figures.

Further, are Americans more violent? The author dismisses this out of hand, yet a look at non-gun homicides compared to total rates from places like Europe suggests that yeah, we might just be.

And now look at all of this and we’ve only gotten to the subtitle and the first paragraph. You know this is going to be a disaster.

However, it should be noted that most constitutional experts argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of State militias to bear arms. Not private militias or individuals. Be that as it may, exactly what “well regulated Militias” did [redacting mass killers’ names]

I’m sorry, but that line of “reasoning” is just absolutely insane.

First, why would the government need to protect the “right” of the government to have guns? Yes, it’s different levels of government, but it’s still government.

Further, why is it that throughout the Constitution, when the Founding Fathers wanted to specify the states, they said “the states” in every other instance but this one? And that every other place protecting a right of the people, it meant actual individuals everywhere but here?

On ever level, this argument is absolutely insane. “But militia!” they scream.

Sure, but look at the Second Amendment for a moment. What exactly in the rest of it suggests that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed for everyone but the militia? Even if the right is to be taken as protecting state militias versus private ones, where in the Second Amendment does it preserve the right just for those state militias?

After all, it says “the people’s right right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So what gives? Well, it seems some parties are more interested in manipulating the text of the Second Amendment to mean anything they want it to mean, and they expect the American people to swallow it whole.

Sorry, that’s not our style.

Obviously, we haven’t delved too deeply into this piece, but why should we? It’s already clear they can’t be reasoned out of this position because they haven’t shown they reasoned themselves into it. They’re simply trying to play games and hoping people are too stupid to see what they’re doing.

Well, we do.

Biden invites gun control groups to White House to help “heal the soul of a nation”

Makes sense. After all, nothing promotes unity like demonizing 80-100 million gun owners and threatening to turn them into criminals if they don’t register or turn their AR-15s over to the government, right?

Next month Joe Biden’s going to be hosting a “United We Stand Summit” that’s ostensibly about the “corrosive effects” of threats of violence on our political system and public life; an event that White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claims will be “important opportunity for Americans of all races, religions, regions, political affiliations, and walks of life to take up that cause together.” If you don’t believe in gun-controlling our way to “unity”, however, expect your invite to get lost in the mail.

Biden will deliver a keynote speech at the gathering, which the White House says will include civil rights groups, faith leaders, business executives, law enforcement, gun violence prevention advocates, former members of violent hate groups, the victims of extremist violence and cultural figures. The White House emphasized that it also intends to bring together Democrats and Republicans, as well as political leaders on the federal, state and local levels to unite against hate-motivated violence.

You know, there are plenty of new gun owners out there who specifically bought a firearm because they’re worried about being the victim of “extremist violence” who might also have a thing or two to say about the idiocy of trying to reduce violence by preventing people from defending themselves, but Biden and his allies have no interest in hearing from those folks. In fact, for an event that’s ostensibly about promoting unity, it sure seems awfully divisive in nature.

Sindy Benavides, the CEO of League of United Latin American Citizens, said the genesis of the summit came after the Buffalo massacre, as her organization along with the Anti-Defamation League, the National Action Network and other groups wanted to press the Biden administration to more directly tackle extremist threats.

“As civil rights organizations, social justice organizations, we fight every day against this, and we wanted to make sure to acknowledge that government needs to have a leading role in addressing right-wing extremism,” she said.

… Benavides said Biden holding the summit would help galvanize the country to address the threats of hate-inspired violence but also said she hoped for “long-term solutions” to emerge from the summit.

“What’s important to us is addressing mental health, gun control reform, addressing misinformation, disinformation and malinformation,” she said. “We want policy makers to focus on common sense solutions so we don’t see this type of violence in our communities. And we want to see the implementation of policies that reduce violence.”

Sounds like less of a summit and more like a pep rally for Democrats to me; a day where Biden and his closest allies can portray Republicans as “right wing extremists” and push for more divisive gun control laws ahead of the midterms.

The divides in this country are obviously growing deeper by the day, but this event is likely to flame those tensions instead of alleviating them. I truly hope I’m wrong, but given the blatantly partisan nature of this “unity summit,” it’s hard to predict otherwise.

Brazils’ Gun Economy Thriving Under President Bolsonaro

Brazilian President Jai Bolsonaro supports a civilian “army” by implementing looser gun policies, allowing many to own firearms.

The 67-year-old ex-army captain promised the country to “give my life to defend our freedom.” And now, one way he’s reportedly doing that is by allowing Brazilians to have an accessible process for gun ownership.

Wagner Carneiro, a former Brazilian army sergeant, said he needed the gun to protect his family. Carneiro cited a previous incident when a man asked for random directions and then suddenly pointed a gun to his head and stole his mobile phone. He believes that with a weapon, incidents like these would be more preventable.

Many are thanking Bolsonaro after the implementation of the new policy as the country loosens restrictions on gun ownership for civilians.

“Expanding the right of the population to bear arms has been one of Bolsonaro’s main electoral promises from day one,” says Fábio Zanini, a columnist for Folha de S.Paulo, a leading Brazilian newspaper. “Gun owners are one of his main electoral bases.”

Schutzenfest
Schutzenfest Poster (Source: Schützenfest Jaraguá/Facebook)

Aside from Brazilians expanding their interests around gun ownership, a lot of private-owned gun stores are thriving. In addition, there are various shooting tournaments happening all over Brazil, including the large-scale Schützenfest, where nationals of German descent can join and participate. The event will also include beer-drinking parades like Oktoberfest (but with guns).

Continue reading “”

California church that was fined over $200K for defying COVID-19 restrictions gets fines dropped
The church continued to defy pandemic restrictions for nearly two years on First Amendment grounds

A California church that continued to hold services in defiance of county health orders that it close down during the COVID-19 pandemic has had its fines dropped after a nearly two-year battle.

“This is a significant victory for churches and pastors across this country,” Robert Tyler, president of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said in a press release after the California Court of Appeal reversed an injunction against Calvary Chapel San Jose. “We are honored to represent pastors and churches who are willing to take the heat in defense of liberty because it benefits everyone.”

At issue was the church’s refusal to comply with health officials in Santa Clara County, who obtained a temporary restraining order and injunction in November 2020 against Calvary Chapel and two pastors, Mike McClure and Carson Atherly, after the church failed to follow pandemic health orders that included restrictions on in-person services, mask mandates, and a submission to the county of the church’s social distancing protocols.

County officials were able to successfully argue that the Santa Clara County Superior Court should hold the church and its pastors in contempt of court and to impose fines.

But the ruling didn’t change anything for Calvary Chapel, which continued to defy the orders and injunction on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment, leading the superior court to once again hold the church and McClure in contempt of court and issue monetary sanctions, adding Atherly to the order as well.

The defiance eventually resulted in over $200,000 in fines for the church, which continued to hold worship services as the monetary penalties mounted.

Calvary Chapel’s persistence eventually paid off. The California Court of Appeal reversed the injunction, contempt orders, and fines on Monday.

“For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are facially unconstitutional pursuant to the recent guidance of the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion in the context of public health orders that impact religious practice,” the court said in the ruling. “As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt in their entirety and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions.”

McClure celebrated the ruling, saying that the county orders represented an “intrusion” on the church’s religious liberty.

“I thank God that our actions have been justified by the Court of Appeal,” McClure said in the release. “We are here to help the hurting, save the lost, and worship God without governmental intrusion.”

However, the church’s legal battle does not end with the case. Santa Clara County is still attempting to enforce $2.8 million in fines that it unilaterally levied against Calvary Chapel for violating county health orders. That case is currently making its way through the federal court system.

“The state Court of Appeal ruling should foreshadow the expected outcome in federal court,” attorney Mariah Gondeiro said in the press release. “We expect complete victory in the end.”

BLUF
This isn’t searching for common ground to arrive at real solutions. This rhetoric is dangerous and reveals the hostility these gun control groups, and the politicians they support, have for the Constitution and those who exercise the rights protected by it.

GUN CONTROL GROUP REPEATS PRESIDENT BIDEN’S WAR THREATS AGAINST GUN OWNERS

The problem with outlandish threats against law-abiding gun owners is they get repeated. That’s especially true when gun control groups seize upon careless remarks by President Joe Biden that the U.S. government would consider using actual weapons of war against those who dare to believe the Second Amendment protects the nation against a tyrannical government.

Newtown Action Alliance’s Po Murray tweeted, “A gun rights activist from Newtown told me he needs an AR15 to defend himself from a tyrannical government. I told him the CIA has drones with missiles. Hellfire R9X/“knife bomb”/“flying Ginsu” was used to kill al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri.”

The irony here is rich. An antigun activist that wants to disarm law-abiding citizens for exercising their right to keep and bear arms is repeating a threat of lethal force – and – comparing those gun owners to international radical terrorists.

She attempted to clarify her tweet with another three days later tweeting, “Let me be clear. The government is not coming for you with a drone.”

Ramping Rhetoric

Newtown Action Alliance’s Murray isn’t a stranger to inflammatory and hyperbolic language. She labeled Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis “a racist homophobic misogynistic power hungry fascist,” and tweeted that NSSF is a “Trumpian right wing gun lobby.”

For the record, NSSF works with elected officials on both sides of the aisle. That’s harder these days, as most Democrats adopted a radical antigun agenda that would violate the U.S. Constitution and deny law-abiding gun owners their rights.

Murray, though, thinks it is perfectly fine to threaten those gun owners with lethal force from Hellfire-equipped drones. In her estimation, those gun owners exercising their God-given rights that won’t consider surrendering to her radical gun control agenda are no better than terrorists.

If the line of using U.S. government-owned actual “weapons of war” sounds familiar, it’s because that was a line repeated again and again by the Commander-in-Chief himself. President Biden said in 2021, “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

Continue reading “”

Federal Prosecutor Sets Up Hotline for Reporting, Among Other Things, People “Espousing … Hate-Filled Views.”

A press release Wednesday by the U.S. Attorney in charge of the federal prosecutor’s office in Massachusetts, Rachael S. Rollins announced the rollout of an “End Hate Now” telephone hotline (emphasis added):

The “End Hate Now” hotline [1-83-END-H8-NOW] is dedicated for reporting hate-based incidents or potential criminal activity. Massachusetts residents and visitors are encouraged to call the hotline to report concerning or troubling incidents of hate, potential hate crimes, or concerns regarding individuals believed to be espousing the hate-filled views or actions we learn of far too often in the wake of mass shootings and/or acts of hate-based violent extremism. Callers are encouraged to leave their contact information but may remain anonymous….

Hate crimes are illegal acts committed based on a victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Beliefs are not hate crimes. Distasteful ideologies, advocacy of political or social positions, use of discriminatory rhetoric, or the general philosophic embrace of biased or hate-filled beliefs are not crimes. Under federal law, investigations may not be based solely on an individual’s beliefs or their protected First Amendment activity.

“With the uptick in horrific mass-shootings and unimaginable acts of racially motivated violent extremism we have seen across our country, people are scared. In Massachusetts, we have recently seen multiple incidents of groups espousing deeply offensive and hurtful ideologies displayed on our streets. A recent act of hateful vandalism at the future PRYDE senior housing facility in Hyde Park threatened burning and death against the LGBTQ+ community. Enough is enough. My office is offering our residents and visitors a new outlet for bringing these critical and concerning issues seeped in bigotry and hatred to the attention of law enforcement,” said U.S. Attorney Rollins. “I am asking people – when you see hate, call this number and let us know. If you have serious concerns about a loved one, a friend, or even an acquaintance, call this number and let us know….” …

 

“Protecting Massachusetts residents from violence and hate is the top priority of my administration,” stated U.S. Attorney Rollins. “In Massachusetts, we have a long history of standing up to hate and intolerance. Today, we continue that honored tradition. By establishing this 1-83-END-H8-NOW hotline and a Civil Rights and Human Trafficking Unit, my office is fully equipped and dedicated to fighting hate-fueled criminal activity across our Commonwealth.”

A sound means for a prosecutor’s office to investigate potential violent crimes or vandalism? (Though saying, for instance, “killing [police officers / Jews / my ex-wife] is completely morally justified” is constitutionally protected speech, if such a killing had actually happened nearby, prosecutors might reasonably want to look into whether the speaker actually acted on his beliefs and didn’t just express them.) A tool that, if indeed effectively publicized, would chill public expression even of constitutionally protected speech by people who have no plans for crime? Both? Neither? I’d love to hear what people think about this.