Category: Rights

Senators Want EARN IT Bill to Scan All Online Messages.

People don’t want outsiders reading their private messages —not their physical mail, not their texts, not their DMs, nothing. It’s a clear and obvious point, but one place it doesn’t seem to have reached is the U.S. Senate.

A group of lawmakers led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have re-introduced the EARN IT Act, an incredibly unpopular bill from 2020 that was dropped in the face of overwhelming opposition. Let’s be clear: the new EARN IT Act would pave the way for a massive new surveillance system, run by private companies, that would roll back some of the most important privacy and security features in technology used by people around the globe. It’s a framework for private actors to scan every message sent online and report violations to law enforcement. And it might not stop there. The EARN IT Act could ensure that anything hosted online—backups, websites, cloud photos, and more—is scanned.

New Internet Rules, From Juneau to Jackson

The bill empowers every U.S. state or territory to create sweeping new Internet regulations, by stripping away the critical legal protections for websites and apps that currently prevent such a free-for-all—specifically, Section 230. The states will be allowed to pass whatever type of law they want to hold private companies liable, as long as they somehow relate their new rules to online child abuse.

The goal is to get states to pass laws that will punish companies when they deploy end-to-end encryption, or offer other encrypted services. This includes messaging services like WhatsApp, Signal, and iMessage, as well as web hosts like Amazon Web Services. We know that EARN IT aims to spread the use of tools to scan against law enforcement databases because the bill’s sponsors have said so. In a “Myths and Facts” document distributed by the bill’s proponents, it even names the government-approved software that they could mandate (PhotoDNA, a Microsoft program with an API that reports directly to law enforcement databases).

The document also attacks Amazon for not scanning enough of its content. Since Amazon is the home of Amazon Web Services, host of a huge number of websites, that implies the bill’s aim is to ensure that anything hosted online gets scanned.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Again, dumb + vicious = trouble.
Do not, not even for a second, underestimate what the ruling caste will do to hold onto its power.
It has shown it is willing to take your job, to silence you, even to throw you in jail. Why would you imagine it would not go as far as it had to in order to preserve the power of a young dummy by sending help from an old dummy?

If there are two things we’ve learned lately, it is that anything can happen, and that the people in charge are fully capable of screwing up beyond our wildest dreams.

Will We End Up Invading Canada?

The old stereotype of Canadians as slow-talking, syrup-slurping igloo jockeys has been dashed this week as our friends to the north have launched a peaceful working class revolt against the blackface-wearing clown they have as their prime minister, as well as against that country’s entire ruling caste. We patriotic Americans stand in solidarity with the big rig truckers pushing back against The Man – although that assumes their oppressor’s gender. But, in this Age of Insanity, there’s always the possibility of chaos – even in Canada.

While the good-natured, polite pushback against the globalist establishment has been entirely pleasant so far, the terrified elite’s reaction to it has not. It’s been ugly and could get uglier. All over the world, it is the same when the people of what we once knew as the Free World challenge the powerful. The failed global elite is getting desperate to retain its power, from Austria to Australia. All those alleged principles you hear so much about when you try to protect or pursue your own interests? Forget them. Silencing dissenters. Banning assemblies. Even turning the cops on peaceful protestors. These are the tools in the rulers’ toolbox. You see it here in America too, in government and out. Even Neil Young wants to shut down and gag Joe Rogan for refusing to enforce the official narrative, and is anyone surprised? They adore censorship. They won’t call it that. They call it suppressing “misinformation,” with the definition of that term being anything they don’t want people to hear. And they call protest against the corrupt incompetents of the ruling class “insurrection.”

But the elite’s reaction won’t work. Yet, while that’s good, what’s bad is that this will not stop their bitter defense of their rule. They will take the next step, and the next, to keep their power.

Continue reading “”

Truckers are starting a working-class revolution — and the left hates it.

So we’re finally seeing a genuine, bottom-up, working-class revolution. In Canada, and increasingly in the United States, truckers and others are refusing to follow government orders, telling the powerful that, in a popular lefty formulation, if there’s no justice, there’s no peace.

Naturally, the left hates it.

For more than a century, lefties have talked about such a revolt. But if you really paid attention, the actual role of the working class in their working-class revolution was not to call the shots — it was to do what it was told by the “intellectual vanguard” of the left.

A working-class revolution led by the working class is the left’s worst nightmare because the working class doesn’t want what the left wants. The working class wants jobs, a stable economy, safe streets, low inflation, schools that teach things and a conservative, non-adventurous foreign policy that won’t get a lot of working-class people killed. It’s not excited about gender fluidity, critical race theory, “modern monetary theory,” foreign adventures and defunding police.

Worse yet, a huge part of the lefty self-image revolves around feeling superior to the working class and openly expressing disdain for it. One need spend only a few minutes tuning into left media like NPR, CNN or MSNBC to hear the disdain for working-class Americans, inhabitants of “flyover country,” people who live in the middle of nowhere.

Trucker protest
The left has vilified the Canadian truckers protestors as Russian agents, Nazis and white supremacists.
REUTERS

So naturally, the idea that those people might be staging a revolution is intolerable.

Continue reading “”

Propaganda O’ The Day

Biden’s DOJ announces new crackdown on home-built firearms

Joe Biden’s Justice Department is launching a National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative, which they say will crack down on home-build firearms, which they call “ghost guns.”

To be clear, Americans have been making firearms in their homes since before there was a United States of America. Home-built firearms remain perfectly legal in most free states.

Today’s announcement states that the DOJ will bring federal charges against those who use home-built firearms in the commission of a crime.

The DOJ’s press release claims that “local law enforcement reported 1,750 suspected ghost guns in 2016, and that number had grown to 8,712 by 2020, according to DOJ statistics.”

These statistics have not been borne out in conversations Armed American News has had with senior local law enforcement officials.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday the “ghost gun” initiative is but one anti-gun measure his department will be undertaking to target “community violence.”

“Garland is directing U.S. attorneys to prioritize federal prosecutions of those who illegally sell or transfer firearms that are used in violent crimes, and the department is announcing a new initiative seeking to curb drug-related violence and overdose deaths by partnering with local law enforcement,” according to the press release.

When religious freedom and gun laws tangle

Last week, there was an interesting case. An Amish man was arrested for being an illegal firearm dealer. The Amish aren’t generally known for such things, which is what made it interesting.

The reason he sold guns to people was that the Amish don’t believe in having their photographs taken. As a result, they don’t have picture IDs, which makes it difficult for them to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

However, some in Lancaster County are unsympathetic:

As Nephin reported, “Federal laws require photo identification when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The Amish contend their religious beliefs prevent them from being photographed, so they cannot buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. However, private sellers don’t have to require the buyer to present photo identification.”

We mean no disrespect to the Amish faith and its beliefs and practices regarding photography. But we’ve long maintained that all firearms sales — including sales of long guns — ought to be handled by licensed dealers and be subject to background checks. (Pennsylvania law requires background checks on handgun sales, but not on private sales of long guns by unlicensed sellers.)

Now, the editorial goes on to advocate for universal background checks and all that, but I want to note something else.

In particular, how little the editorial board of this publication values religious freedom.

Oh, they make some platitudes about respecting the Amish’s beliefs, but then immediately take a big, steaming dump on them by essentially saying they believe the Amish shouldn’t get to exercise both their religious freedom and their right to keep and bear arms.

Now, understand that it wasn’t that long ago when everyone was up in arms about a woman who the state of Florida wouldn’t let get a driver’s license with a veil. Others have lashed out over laws preventing women from wearing a hijab in their license photos.

In those cases, religious freedom was paramount, even though the courts have routinely classified driving as a privilege, not a right.

Yet keeping and bearing arms is a right, one explicitly protected by the United States Constitution. How can demanding a photo ID from people who don’t believe in having their pictures taken not run afoul?

Of course, we must remember that to people like this, the Second Amendment is a second-class right. Apparently, religious freedom is as well.

Continue reading “”

Just because they’re ridiculous doesn’t mean they’re not dangerous…..

BLUF:
There is no backing down. We can’t. Not if we want to survive.
It’s going to get very rough from here on out, and I want you to know that. Prepare, prepare, prepare, and gird your loins.
Just remember in the end we win, they lose.
Be not afraid, but don’t be rash.
Keep your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.

WHEN THEY HONK PEOPLE OFF

This weekend, I found that the truckers who have had enough of Little Castro’s Justin Trudeau’s insanity, enough to drive to the capital in convoy and who appear to be supported by a majority of Canadians are “really” Russian agents dressed like truckers.

My first reaction to this was to laugh so hard my son, who had just come into my office, thought I was having a stroke or heart attack or something. BTW this morning he tells me that now the NYT is running with the idea that everyone who is against mandates is “really” a Russian agent.

It’s all SO FAMILIAR.  So deja vu. So full of repeat.  So where have I heard that before.

Frankly, I almost titled this post “All the Truckers are Russian Agents, or How I became a White Mormon Male.” which would be a very accurate title, and also way too long, and would give whiplash to anyone who hasn’t been around for a few years.

Also, not completely accurate, because as well as a white Mormon male, I was also racist, sexist and homophobic (which is probably making some of you laugh till you hiccup) and and one time — briefly — a robot and a Russian robot. (I don’t know is Sad Robot Puppies is still active on Twitter (I never go there) but it was started by one of you adorable maniacs when that accusation came out.)

For those not around at the time, a lot of crap happened around and between, and if you guys feel you need clarification, ask someone in comments. Other people can explain. I woke up very late, and we were dealing with business taxes which makes me too cranky for words.

Continue reading “”

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION SUES CAL. TO PROTECT GUN OWNER PRIVACY

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenging the constitutionality of a recently-enacted section of the state Penal Code requiring the state Department of Justice to share private information on millions of gun owners in the state, with the California Firearm Violence Research Center and others.

Joining SAF in this action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC and Doe Brandeis, a private citizen. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay with the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento. The lawsuit is known as Brandeis v. Bonta.

The lawsuit contends disclosure of personal information about California gun owners under provisions of Assembly Bill 173, passed by the Assembly last year, violates their privacy rights, which are specifically protected by the state constitution. This information sharing also violates provisions of Proposition 63, the ammunition background check measure passed by voters back in 2016, which specified that personal information was to remain confidential, and shared “only for law enforcement purposes.”

“This is clearly an attempt violate the law, and the constitutional privacy rights of California gun owners for reasons we could only begin to imagine,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This proves once again that gun prohibitionists are willing to trample on laws they previously passed with a new law that violates the rights of gun owners for the alleged purpose of so-called ‘research,’ the nature of which seems dubious at best.

“In their zeal to treat California gun owners as second- or even third-class citizens, anti-gunners in Sacramento forget that those citizens have rights including the right to privacy,” Gottlieb added. “More than 4 California million gun owners have a reasonable expectation that their personal information is protected by the law and the state constitution. We will not stand idly by while their privacy is violated under the guise of research that has nothing at all to do with law enforcement.”

The ‘gentry class’ has gotten too full of itself

One More Time: It’s Not ‘Gun Violence’ It’s Gang Violence.

Every time you hear a politician or a media personality mention “gun violence,” you should mentally translate that phrase to “gang violence.” Not only that, but ask yourself if that politician or media outlet has an agenda by mislabeling gang violence as something entirely different.

Obviously politicians who have enabled the “criminal justice reforms” that have directly resulted in the out-of-control increases in violent crime across America don’t want to talk about criminals and gangs. In fact, California’s Gov. Newsom even went so far as to actuall apologize for using the word “gang” when describing the organized groups of criminals who commit crimes (otherwise known as ‘gangs’).

Rather than correctly identify those who commit the majority of violent crimes in this country, countless failed and inept politicians like the Land of Lincoln’s Governor J.B. Pritzker and Murder City, USA’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot instead blame law-abiding gun owners.

They continue to promote more gun control laws and more government spending to redirect peoples’ attention away from the failures of their feckless policies and misplaced spending priorities.

As for the media, there’s a reason the great majority of Americans don’t trust them any more. Nine percent of Americans now have “a great deal” of trust in what they hear in the media. To put that into perspective, roughly four percent of the population think lizard people “control our societies by gaining political power.”

Too many of today’s media members are nothing more than Democrat party operatives with bylines who dutifully spout leftist talking points. They willfully ignore stories that are bad for their political allies and their agenda. Or they cover them…with a pillow. Until they stop moving.

At the same time, they’re quick to castigate law-abiding gun owners for the actions of actual criminals, terrorists, and lunatics who commit crimes with firearms.

The next time you see some politician or candidate talking about the problem of so-called “gun violence,” call them out on it. Pols usually squirm if you make them address the real issue that drives the majority violent crime in cities: gangs.

In centers of corruption like Chicago, they may aggressively deflect the discussion away from gangs because a lot of gangs in places like Chi-town have some very cozy relationships with local elected officials to provide votes in exchange for the politicians avoiding discussions about gang-related crimes.

As for the media, do the math. If they’re trumpeting talking points like “gun violence,” they’re probably gaslighting you about other topics too. Look deeper to see what else they’re lying to you about.

He called the NRA terrorists. Now he’s running for Congress to “restore civility”

Andy Parker has experienced one of the worst things that can ever happen to a parent; the murder of their child. Parker’s daughter Alison was killed along with her co-worker Adam Ward in August of 2016 as they were conducting a live television interview at Smith Mountain Lake in central Virginia. Their killer was a former colleague at the Roanoke television station where Parker and Ward worked who’d been fired two years earlier after complains that he had been making co-workers feel threatened and uncomfortable.

In the aftermath of his daughter’s death, Andy Parker became a vocal proponent of gun control and an outspoken critic of anyone who dared to disagree with his ideas. In fact, in 2016 Parker even called me a terrorist during an interview with CNN in reaction to my comments on NRA News about a Democratic pro-gun control publicity stunt on the floor of the House of Representatives.

“The real terrorists are the folks at the NRA. Those are the terrorists. And unfortunately, you have politicians that are complicit — they’ve pledged allegiance to the NRA versus the United States of America and the safety of its citizens,” Parker said to CNN.

Parker made these comments in response to a NRA radio host, Cam Edwards, who criticized the democratic lawmakers and the leader of the sit-in, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who were holding a sit in on the House floor.

“So in order to push legislation that the sponsors say would not have prevented the attacks in Orlando, Florida, they’re also going to flout the House rules. Kind of like, you know, criminals and terrorists flout the rules that we have in place right now and will continue to do so,” Edwards said.

Honestly, I didn’t take Parker’s insult personally at the time and I feel the same way today. Alison Parker and Adam Ward’s deaths were senseless and tragic, and while I will never agree with him that more gun control laws will lead to a safer society, he’s certainly entitled to his own opinion and activism. That doesn’t mean, however, that I want him representing me in Congress.

Continue reading “”

Video ~ China’s Foreign Ministry on Americans’ Second Amendment rights: “That’s the freedom the US advocates — freedom to shoot other people.”

 

The old line from a James Bond movie is;
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action
Paul will affirm that I don’t believe in ‘coincidence’, and I allow for ‘happenstance’ only in very limited instances.
From that, take what you will about what is termed ‘mistakes’ here.

Florida case shows inherent flaw with red flag laws

Red flag laws are a particularly onerous piece of gun control legislation. While a number of states have such laws on the books, all of them have serious problems. Part of that is because they start from a presumption of guilt and then you have to essentially prove your innocence.

But there tend to be layers to problems, and red flag laws aren’t uniquely devoid of those, apparently.

Take this case from Florida recently highlighted by USA Carry:

A case in point. The Lakeland, FL police department petitioned for a Red Flag Risk Protection Order through the Florida Statute 790.401(3)(a) and (b), in May 2020. Under the Order, a man I will call “E.P.” (identity protected because it is an active case) was taken into custody and his firearms and ammunition were seized.

His Hearing on the Order was scheduled for June 12, 2020 “in the court facility located at 255 N. Broadway Ave., Bartow, FL.” This date and time were confirmed on June 3, 2020, by the police department’s attorney, and again in a court notice issued before June 12. So, E.P. arrived at the appointed date and place at 1:30 pm and waited until 3:00 pm. He testified that “he was not let into the courtroom, nor was he aware that the Hearing would take place virtually or how to attend.” The Hearing was held at a remote video conferencing event, without notice of this change to E.P.

At that hearing, the court determined, incorrectly, that E.P. had “elected not to attend” and entered a Red Flag Protection Order against him. He was prohibited from having custody or control of, or purchasing, possessing, receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for up to a year, and was required to surrender any and all guns or ammo not already in the custody of the police to law enforcement. E.P. appealed the Order on the basis that it was made without giving him the chance to appear or a notice that the proceedings would take place by means other than those designated in court documents. This non-legal layman understands that a Notice of Hearing must be issued by the court, received, and followed by involved parties about the specifics given.

From May of 2020, the Order was in effect, and not until August 13, 2021, was the Order invalidated. The Appellate Court ruled that E.P.’s Due Process rights were violated by the failure to notify him that the Final Hearing would take place virtually instead of in the court facility listed in the Order. His right to be heard was deprived and the Order was reversed in his favor. I also recognize that his Second Amendment rights were violated.

Note that E.P. spent much time and money to correct the mistakes made by the government court system and to restore his inalienable rights to his guns, ammo, and property… his Second Amendment and Due Process Rights.

Now, as the above-linked piece points out, for poorer people, this simply isn’t an option. E.P. was in a position to seek legal assistance, but a lot of people really just can’t do so. That means they’re stripped of their Second Amendment rights, sometimes because of a bureaucratic screw-up and not because they represent an actual danger to anyone.

E.P. did what he was supposed to, but the state didn’t. Yet because of their mistakes, he was ordered to surrender any and all firearms he might still possess, was denied the ability to even shoot a gun lawfully, and had to spend time and treasure fixing the issue.

Nothing about that is right and there are no repercussions for those who make such mistakes.

If this were the only issue with red flag laws, that would be enough, but it’s not. Red flag laws can be used by those with a grudge against the person, and we’ve seen attempts to do just that. How many have we not heard about?

This is especially troubling since red flag laws aren’t even needed. Those who represent a risk to themselves or others can be held for psychological evaluation for up to 72 hours as it is. Those planning a mass shooting can be arrested under existing laws as well.

There’s really no reason for red flag laws, and yet, here we are.

ANTI-GUNNERS IN THE GRASS

Something insidious is underfoot, a strategy so subtle it is likely going unnoticed in your own neighborhood, school district, small town, larger city and in your county.

If you don’t wake up and pay attention, you may instead wake up some morning to discover you slept through a takeover of your community. Now is the time to stop it.

Comrade Workman

For more than a year, I have been receiving emails from an organization calling itself the “National Democratic Training Committee” which seems to support every far-left item on the liberal agenda and every far-left politician. Buried down near the end of each of these messages is this ominous note: “Listen, there are 518,000 elected positions in this country. Imagine if Democrats fought for every race — no matter how small. Imagine a world where our values of compassion and dignity for all people are upheld on every school board, on every city council, and in every state legislature.”

Got your attention, yet? This group also includes a hard link to find out more about running for public office. Just click on “I want to run for office” and the Democratic Training Committee will start indoctrinating — oops, we mean “training” — you for what they hope will be a winning campaign.

To paraphrase their own message, “Imagine if puppets for this group won every race — no matter how small. Imagine a world where their values became law, overruling your values, from the level of school board up through the state legislature.”

Continue reading “”

Data shows there’s more diversity at a gun range than a university faculty lounge

“Gun-ownership in America is diversifying, because of safety fears,” says a headline over at The Economist. As those of us in the Second Amendment community have known for a while, the sociopolitical climate since the start of the pandemic – egregious criminal–coddling behavior by the state, releasing dangerous prisoners because of COVID, nationwide “fiery but mostly peaceful” riots, rising violent crime, looting / shoplifting, hate crimes, falling trust in law enforcement – contributed to a sudden surge in gun purchases by groups historically not inclined to own them. The Economist reported the following:

Of the 7.5m Americans who bought firearms for the first time between January 2019 and April 2021—as gun-buying surged nationwide—half were female, a fifth black and a fifth Hispanic, according to a recent study by Matthew Miller of Northeastern University and his co-authors.

The 7.5 million number may well be a low estimate; one estimate from the NSSF is that there were 8.4 million new gun owners in 2020 alone. As I’ve written before in these pages, adding up numbers for 2020 and the first half of 2021 points to a potential 11.6 million first-time gun owners. The team here at Bearing Arms has written a lot about growing diversity in the Second Amendment community. We see this not only in data collected nationally and over the long-term, but also experience it first-hand at gun ranges. (As an immigrant who grew up without guns and didn’t touch one well into his adult life, I’m living proof of this demographic shift myself.)

However, diversity is a whole lot more than ethnic bean counting or about the superficial differences – religion, sexual orientation, etc. – among us. What counts the most, in my opinion, is diversity of thought and opinion, and the ability to express those freely without the fear of retaliation or retribution. This is where I think gun owners are simply outstanding; respect for individual freedom, for not treading on someone else lest our freedoms be tread upon, appears to come naturally to lawful gun owners. There is some data on political diversity among gun owners. Anecdotally speaking, the gun owners at my local club cover the gamut from traditional blue-collar tradesmen to Ph.D. holders, from the MAGA coterie to Medicare-for-All supporters.

Contrast that with a typical university faculty lounge and the difference is night and day. There is hard data showing how limited diversity is among university faculty. They may look different, have different national origins or sexual orientations, but politically they are incredibly alike. There’s also plenty of publicly available data that shows how faculty donations to candidates for office is overwhelmingly left-wing. Consider these recent examples: 96% at Harvard University, 97% at Yale University, and 98% at Cornell University.

Continue reading “”

The Economist: Growing Diversity of Gun Owners Is ‘Bad for Gun-Control Advocates’

The Economist pointed to the growing diversity of gun owners in America and noted that it is “bad for gun-control advocates.”

According to The Economist, a study by of Northeastern University shows that of the millions of first time buyers between January 2019 and April 2021, “half were female, a fifth black and a fifth Hispanic.”

Moreover, The Economist noted that “the share of black adults who joined the gun-owning ranks, 5.3%, was more than twice that of white adults.”

The demographics are a marked shift from 2015, when first time gun buyers “skewed white and male.”

Gun ownership changes things, thus The Economist observed that people who own guns “are more politically active around gun issues than non-owners.”

The Biden Family’s arrogance and corruption are astounding. Joe Biden issued several new executive orders on gun control while his son, Hunter Biden, is accused of lying on his gun background check. https://t.co/2HDrArsSZa

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) April 8, 2021

Therefore, a drop in gun control support at this point in American history is not altogether surprising. On November 17, 2021, Breitbart News pointed to Gallup’s findings that support for stricter gun control was at its lowest point since 2014.

Gallup’s findings are in line with The Economist’s opinion that the growing diversification of gun owners is “bad for gun-control advocates.”

The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: Negligence and the Robber’s Explicit Demands

I’ve just finished up a rough draft of my The Right to Defy Criminal Demands article, and I thought I’d serialize it here, minus most of the footnotes (which you can see in the full PDF). I’d love to hear people’s reactions and recommendations, since there’s still plenty of time to edit it. You can also be previous posts (and any future posts, as they come up), here.

Let’s return to situation 3 from the Introduction: Craig comes to rob Danielle’s store; he is demanding money, and Danielle has reason to think that, if she doesn’t comply, he’ll injure some of the patrons. Does this make Danielle legally liable if she refuses to comply, on the theory that she has an affirmative duty to protect her business visitors, and failing to give in to the demands violates that duty?

No, several courts have ruled, expressly recognizing a “no duty” rule. The most prominent case is Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior Court, from the California Supreme Court:

[A] shopkeeper does not have a duty to comply with the unlawful demand of an armed robber that property be surrendered…. Recognition of a duty to comply with an unlawful demand would be contrary to public policy as it would encourage similar unlawful conduct….

[T]he standard of a “reasonable prudent person under the circumstances” is the general standard of care [for property owners’ duty to protect their visitors]…. [But] in particular situations a more specific standard may be established by judicial decision, statute or ordinance.

Continue reading “”

This will be appealed
Maybe, maybe not, the appeals court will issue an injunction to stop access until the case is heard.
Two years from now, a 3 judge panel of the appeals court will finally rule.
Either way, the losing party will seek an en banc hearing.
If the first panel makes a ‘pro’ rights ruling, then the en banc panel will vacate it and make a ruling to let anyone get the list.
yada-yada-yada
There is a more definite and sure way to keep these records safe.
All it takes is the gun owners of California to summon the willpower to retain their rights the  ‘old fashioned way’.

Judge Allows Violence Researchers Access to CA Gun Owners’ Personal Info

U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns has declined to block California’s enactment of Assembly Bill 173, an amendment to California firearms laws authorizing the attorney general to disclose gun owners’ personal information to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis and any other “bona fide research institution” meeting certain requirements, reports the Courthouse News Service.

Burns found that there was no “emergency” to warrant restraining California from sharing millions of gun owners’ personal information with gun violence researchers.

Gun owners’ personal information — including their name, address and age — is collected with every firearms sale in California and entered into the “Automated Firearms System” database.

Additional personal information is collected from applicants who apply for a “Carry License” to carry a concealed firearm including Social Security number, California driver’s license or ID number, occupation, address, weight, height and reason for applying to carry the weapon.

Michael Reynolds of Snell & Wilmer raised concerns that the personal information could slip through the cracks of research institutions and be published publicly. Reynolds added that his clients believe that allowing researchers to access their personal information was not for “law enforcement purposes” and violated their privacy rights.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
As with any crime, and to be clear, willfully violating the Constitution is a criminal act. You have to look at motive, means and opportunity. Joe Biden has the motive to violate our rights and the means to do so. And although I believe it will happen sooner rather than later, unless fate or the 25th Amendment intervene, for the next three long years he’ll have opportunity for all the infringing he and Kamala desire.

The Question On Gun Owners’ Minds: What Will Joe Biden’s Next Pivot Be?

The Biden-Harris administration is trapped inside a hostile media spotlight, a victim of their own incompetence. They’re like a cornered animal – desperate for a way out, but clearly willing to settle for anything that would shift the public focus off of their ever-growing list of failures.

They’re a consistent bunch, that much is true. They consistently lurch from one self-inflicted crisis to another, while we pay the price for their mistakes.

It began with Joe’s unconditional surrender of Afghanistan and was followed by the Build Back Better bust and the deadly fiasco on our Southern border. Added quickly to the mix were skyrocketing inflation, lots of empty shelves, the Supremes embarrassing denouncement of a clearly unconstitutional vaccine mandate, COVID tests becoming unobtainium while omicron surged.

All the while, the filibuster remaining as strong as it was a year ago thanks to good Sens. Manchin and Sinema, and the fact that Russia is making ready to launch an invasion of the Ukraine, which could trigger a third world war, in which Joe Biden (!) would be the defender of the free world.

The Biden-Harris administration tried to get the focus off of its near-daily faux pas by uploading a Jan. 6-themed “democracy is under threat” speech onto Joe’s teleprompter. The speech caught hold of the media’s news cycle for about a day, but the respite didn’t last long, despite hard-sell attempts by Pelosi et al.

Next, Joe tried pivoting to voting rights, but when voting rights advocates themselves boycotted his speech, his pivot lost its luster. The speech itself – “Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?” – was about as easy for most Americans to stomach as a fistful of ghost peppers. It was, in fact, more of a cry for help – another what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-Joe exemplar.

Now, what has me and some of my much smarter and more experienced friends losing sleep, is trying to fathom what Joe will try next. It is time, we fear, for Joe to pivot once again toward gun control, as he did right out of the box a year ago.

Continue reading “”

A not so modest proposal for mandatory training

In the past week or so, we’ve seen a push by anti-Second Amendment folks to call for mandatory training prior to people being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. And not just to carry a gun, but to simply own one.

Now, we oppose this when it comes to gun rights for obvious reasons. However, it’s very clear that many don’t. As such, I figured I’d offer something of a compromise.

In particular, if gun control folks are going to be insistent on mandatory training, then I’m going to push back with calls for mandatory training before exercising other rights.

To start with, we should require mandatory training before allowing people to vote.

After all, an uninformed electorate could lead to all kinds of problems. I mean…<gestures toward the White House>.

We should require all citizens wishing to vote to undergo a mandatory training course prior to being able to cast a ballot. The course should require some degree of basic civics as to which elected officials can do what they cannot.

It should also include the constitutional limits to the government so that these voters don’t get led astray by promises that won’t pass legal muster. You know, things like free money, forgiveness of college loans, things like that.

Additionally, we should also require mandatory training before anyone can attend a house of worship of any faith.

After all, you wouldn’t want someone to walk into a mosque and do everything wrong, deeply offending our Muslim neighbors, now would you? The mandatory course would include a basic primer on all faiths worshipped in the United States so people can make an informed decision as to where to worship and what to do when they arrive.

The fact that such a course would amount to the coursework for a theology degree is completely irrelevant.

We should also require mandatory training before exercising one’s freedom of speech. After all, some people talk a lot of nonsense. I mean, I saw someone advocating for communism just yesterday. That shouldn’t be allowed!

So clearly, before people speak, they should be required to undergo a mandatory training class. I mean, they might offend someone by advocating for socialism, communism, or some other faulty line of thinking.

And while we’re at it, we need to mandate training for journalists. No, I’m not talking about journalism school–something that’s not actually required for one to become a journalist–but a government-mandated training course one must go through, lest they report inappropriately. I mean, we can’t have journalists giving government officials a hard time like they did President Trump, right?

What? What’s that? You think this is all out of line and unconstitutional?

Well, that may be, but if you’re someone who thinks I should be forced to undergo training before exercising a right protected by the Constitution, then why shouldn’t you be forced to undergo training before exercising some right precious to you?

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is treated as a second-class right. The idea of mandatory training in order to exercise it illustrates this idea perfectly. Especially since we know that many of these other proposals I just made would be shot down in a heartbeat.

After all, how is something a right if you must pass a course first in order to use it? At that point, it becomes a privilege.

If you have an issue with any of those proposals above, then you should at least show some consistency and stand against mandatory training for gun ownership.

When the anti-self defense writer uses ‘information’ from the Brady pro gun control group, he immediately showed his views were not based on actual biblical principles, even though scriptures were used to support them. (Remember, satan himself quoted scripture for his own nefarious purpose)
But read both at your convenience

Guns or Roses?

The issue of Christians owning and using guns, especially against other humans, has been debated almost since firearms and gunpowder appeared in Europe in the 13th century. In today’s fragmented religious environment, many opinions are advanced in churches, in the public square, and on media. Seventh-day Adventist Christians, often influenced by polarizing political, social, or cultural viewpoints, debate this issue both publicly and privately. We asked two authors with contrasting opinions to engage in an imagined conversation with a respected Adventist friend who holds a different opinion about this divisive topic, each explaining their viewpoint from a Christian and Adventist biblical worldview.—Editors.

Continue reading “”