Category: Rights

Justice Kavanaugh Just Boiled the Abortion Debate Down to Its Most Fundamental Core

Today’s oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court have been incredibly instructive, educational, and inspiring. As Salem radio (and Townhall colleague) host Hugh Hewitt said, “This entire argument is one of the most accessible, informed, civil discussions of abortion and the Constitution I’ve ever heard.”

Indeed.

The live-streamed audio allowed interested Americans to hear exactly how well-suited each of the nine justices are for the weightiest of all topics they will probably ever hear. It’s a fine departure from the made-for-television Senate confirmation hearings that end up shedding hardly any light on anything.

The contrived and partisan battles that transpire in the Judiciary Committee do little to inform us as to what type of justice the nominee to the bench might be and instead serve as grotesque works of performance art for the individual senators who are merely auditioning for their eventual presidential campaign.

Hearing the nine justices actually quizzing the attorneys charged with arguing the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization enlightened us profoundly on their intellect, empathy, and abilities to carry out the critical job they’ve been given for the rest of their lives.

In some cases, the level of banal and insulting queries mixed with political pontifications left quite a bit to be desired (looking at you, wise Latina). However, some of the justices rose to the occasion of the historic day this may very well turn out to be.

Toward the very end of the arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh succinctly articulated exactly what today’s discussion is really all about:

That’s it. That’s the ballgame.

When deciding between the interests of a pregnant woman and the interests of an unborn child, “You can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick.”

Kavanaugh then went on to point out how the courts should figure out how to make that choice. “What does the Constitution say about that?”

Period. Literally end of discussion. The rest is all noise. 

On the one hand, a woman has a right to body autonomy and the right to make medical decisions without government interference. On the other, if exercising that right results in the violent death of another life, whose rights then prevail?

In 1973, Roe v. Wade weighed the same question and came down on the side of the woman’s rights over the unborn baby’s rights, but to get there, they had to force themselves to believe unscientific mythology about that unborn life.

The baby in question was consistently referred to as “a meaningless clump of cells” or a “zygote” or even a “parasite.” When the unborn human baby is dehumanized to such an extent, it eases the way for its tidy removal.

Tens of millions of extinguished “fetuses” later, and the dismal results of the evil arguments made in Roe look like a genocide now that science has caught up to the moral and ethical truths behind this ghastly procedure.

With increased scientific discoveries surrounding ultrasound technology (why do you think abortion enthusiasts are so resistant to pre-abortion sonogram requirements?), it’s clear now that the target of the Democratic Party’s beloved abortion procedure is a human life.
The Ultrasound, DNA discoveries that show clear individual life characteristics between the baby and her mother and miraculous medical advancements that save the lives of premature babies as young as 21 weeks of gestation make it clear that to be pro-abortion, you must be anti-science.

The “a woman should be able to do whatever she wants to her body” argument can no longer hold water since it is so very clear that it isn’t just her body affected by her “choice.”

There’s no way to know how the Court will decide, and we will probably have to wait six excruciating months to learn of the decision. What we do know is this all boils down to the fundamental conundrum Kavanaugh articulated:

You have to pick one interest over the other; they can’t both prevail. So… what does the Constitution say?

If they truly rule based on that simple question, they must come down on the side of life.

Say a prayer. Say a few.

1, Behar has the intellectual capacity of an amoeba.

2, This was already addressed by SCOTUS in Heller. to wit:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,…….
., and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search……….., the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding

Joy Behar: It’s Time To ‘Tweak’ 1st And 2nd Amendments Because Founding Fathers Didn’t Have AR-15s And Twitter

“The View” co-host Joy Behar said Tuesday that the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the U.S. Constitution needed to be “tweaked a little bit” because the Founding Fathers did not have things like AR-15s and Twitter.

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg began the discussion with the news that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey had stepped down a day earlier and noted that he had been proactive in policing hate speech — namely because Twitter was first to eject former President Donald Trump from its platform.

Continue reading “”

We’ve heard in the past that it was not just one right, but all of them that TPTB wanted to restrict. Well, those saying that were right.

Second Amendment Censorship

When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the Biden administration’s desire for speech restrictions from Big Tech “our asks” last July, tremors shook the foundation of the First Amendment so hard they reverberated all the way to the Second.

Gun owners are already acutely aware that Facebook, Twitter and other Big Tech companies censor, demonetize and outright ban a lot of firearm-related content. It also isn’t a secret that President Joe Biden (D) and his administration want a long list of gun-control laws, gun bans and more sent to his desk. So the notion that this administration could pressure—or, as Psaki says, “ask”—Big Tech to help them control the conversation about the Second Amendment in order to sway public opinion is worrying.

Continue reading “”

In early colonial times, some colonies often ordered the populace to bear their weapons to work and even to church services. Even farther back than that, in medieval Europe, the practice of being armed at certain public functions finally devolved into carrying huge, ornately decorated ‘Bearing Swords’ which was more an indication of class status. The bigger and more expensive, the higher up the ladder you- or the master a squire was carrying for -was.
The city council of this town wants everyone attending council meetings to bear arms…. if they want to.
I rather like the idea.

‘Legally armed’ rule has critics gunning for New Mexico town

ESTANCIA, N.M. (AP) — Mayor Nathan Dial said a recently approved rule requiring people to be “legally armed” to attend an Estancia Town Council meeting is just a way of sending notice that the town is not going to let the state dictate what it can and cannot do.

“Rural New Mexico is just tired of being pushed around,” Dial told the Albuquerque Journal as he sat in town hall with a snub nose .357 on his hip. “This is not just about the Second Amendment. This is about all civil liberties.”

Continue reading “”

Right To Dissent & The Right To Bear Arms: Bulwarks Against Tyranny

Americans remain at the moment privileged to celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas, Independence Day, Labor Day, and other Holidays. But, for how much longer.

A year ago July, Independence day we wrote of the dire threats to our Nation, coming from within.

“With Independence Day only days away, this Country can hardly be in a celebratory spirit, as the very words, ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’ are treated like obscenities.

We witness two-legged predators laying waste the Land, destroying property, intimidating innocent Americans, causing bedlam and mayhem. The police, under fire, are ordered to stand down. Government cowers. Law and Order breaks down everywhere. The seditious Press and Radical Left members of Congress, along with Radical Left State Governors and City Mayors give their blessing to the perpetrators of this violence.”

See also our sister article, posted a few days earlier.

Has anything changed, almost seventeen months later? Yes, the threat to our Nation has only grown direr.

The Trotting Horse of American Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism is now running at full gallop. It is charging directly toward a formidable defense to be sure—the Bill of Rights. But it is determined to break through, destroying the Constitution of the United States, annihilating a free Republic, subjugating a free and sovereign people.

Evidence for this is everywhere, including, inter alia:

  • Government acquiescence to violent rioting, and looting in the Nation’s cities.
  • A systematic plan to indoctrinate the Nation’s youth with “Critical Race Theory”.
  • Constraints on the exercise of Free Speech/Intolerance toward Dissent.
  • Violations of Due Process and Equal Protection Guarantees.
  • Violations of the Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. [Red Flag Laws]
  • Unlawful Government orders and mandates, such as mandatory COVID Vaccinations.
  • Failure of Government to Enforce the Nation’s Immigration Laws.
  • Debilitation of the Military: Purging of the Ranks, Politicization of Upper Echelons, Creating Dissension, and Destroying morale.
  • Consolidation of Governmental power in a single Branch.
  • Expanding Federal Government power over the people and the States.
  • Emasculation of State and Community Police Forces.
  • Politicization and Corruption of Executive Branch Departments.
  • Deliberate Destruction of the Nation’s Economy.
  • Collusion between the Government and the Press to Distort News and to indoctrinate the public. [Fake News Media]
  • The defacing, destroying, and removing of national monuments.
  • Denigration of the American Flag and other national emblems.
  • Belittlement of the notion of “Citizen of the United States”.
  • Ennoblement of Marxist Lawbreakers and Illegal Aliens.

And most ominously,

  • Concerted Attacks on Civilian Possession of firearms and of the inherent, natural Right of Armed Self-defense.

Continue reading “”

This isn’t something new. It’s been going on as long as I can remember.

Government Is Conditioning Americans To Despise Their Rights & Liberties

The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist goal is to dismantle the Republic.

To accomplish that task it is necessary to disrupt the underpinnings of our society. That society is predicated on the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism and on the Judeo-Christian ethic, not the amoral tenets, precepts, and principles of Collectivism, permeating throughout society. The manipulation of language plays an important part in the attempt to transform America into a Collectivist Dictatorship.

Language offers a more emphatic and critical need for serious discussion. For political theorists and sociologists, the politico/socio import of reshaping language is important. It is certainly important to the Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic. It is important for the Destroyers of our Nation to change our perception of it; of its basic underpinnings. Manipulation of language becomes an important tool in the arsenal of those forces bent on dismantling a free Republic.

If language is perception, and reality is built on perception, and a million people say the “emperor” is wearing fine apparel, when he is stark naked, is this delusion, then, to be taken as reality? Perhaps not; probably not. But, if a few sane people exist in a Nation that has gone insane, who claim to see the emperor as he really is, “in the buff,” and dare to say it is so, then all the worse for those rational people. They will not be long tolerated. They must play along, just as the masses have played along, pretending the emperor is fully draped in his finest apparel, lest they be targeted for special, unpleasant treatment.

But, through time, the delusion becomes more entrenched. And as more and more people seemingly “buy into” the delusion, to avoid negative repercussions for pointing out the delusion, then the distinction between reality and illusion will truly become blurred, distorted, and at some point, the intellect will not be able to tell the two apart.

But we are not quite there, yet. Sanity may still prevail.

Many Americans are coming to perceive the imminent threat the Marxist/Globalist poses to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic.

Americans see that the Marxist/Globalist aims are not compatible with the continued existence natural law rights go unchecked. One or the other must go.

Continue reading “”

The Rittenhouse Trial Underscores the Left’s Determination to Eliminate the Natural Right of Self-Defense

The American left’s determination to conduct a media-inspired political trial of Kyle Rittenhouse had as its objective the ultimate disarming of Americans and the elimination of the Second Amendment.  While Kyle Rittenhouse was listed as the defendant, it was the right of self-defense that was on trial.

To what extent does man have a natural or God-given right to self-defense and protection of himself and his property?  This question has been bandied about for thousands of years and that issue, not guns (which are an instrument of self-defense), is at the heart of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States is the only nation in the annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given, rights.
Among these are self-defense and property.  Property rights are the bedrock of the American political system; without that foundation, there is no freedom.

The Founders held that property rights encompass not just physical property but also one’s life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of that life which can be traded in free exchange with others.  Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, that would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.

Continue reading “”

Tools in the service of tyranny

What do a virus, a Marxist movement, and bans on firearms have in common?  Nothing, superficially.  Delving deeper, they are tools of federal oppression.

An obvious common element of the three tools is the fear they engender: of infectious death, of unchecked rioting and looting, and of gun violence.  These dangers are in fact greatly exaggerated or fabricated altogether.

Stanford economist Paul Romer is credited with first saying, “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”  Washington has taken this idea to heart.

In 2019, when no crisis existed, the Washington establishment created the perception of existential threat from COVID that would kill 2.2 million Americans without drastic federal intervention.  In fact, COVID carried a risk for the general, healthy population similar to seasonal flu and was dangerous only to elderly, immuno-compromised individuals with pre-existing conditions.  Biden, Fauci, and the media made it seem as if we all would die if we did not follow Washington’s draconian orders for lockdowns, social distancing, and vaccine mandates.

Fauci commanded Americans to put aside concerns about “personal liberties” for the greater public welfare.  We had to accept federal suppression of constitutionally guaranteed rights such as free speech, religious liberty, right to assemble, and even right to work to defeat the “common enemy.”

The “swamp” used fear of COVID as a tool to impose pseudo-martial law.

Biden COVID mandates exceeded federal authority.  They are unconstitutional, as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently reminded Washington.  Public health measures are state, not federal, responsibility.

BLM (Black Lives Matter) is a proudly Marxist, domestic organization hiding behind the obvious slogan that the lives of black people matter — just as the lives of all people matter.  Yet the Biden administration has tolerated the violence, arson, looting, and even murder by armed BLM agitators in all-black garb and ski mask anonymity.

Washington and Biden’s DoJ tacitly condone BLM’s domestic terrorism for one reason: it promotes an atmosphere of fear and insecurity.  This led to cries to the federal government: do something, anything!  In response, they changed or suspended rules, laws, and constitutional rights using violence in the name of social justice as an excuse.  Washington encouraged defunding local police departments while offering federal “policing” for local communities.

Washington’s tolerance and covert encouragement of BLM is another way to justify extending federal power and reach.

When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no real difference in military power of a state militia compared to the Continental Army.  They both had muskets, handguns, bayonets, horses, and even cannon.  The Second Amendment does not use words such as “may” or “should” or “cannot.”  It reads “shall not [italics added] be infringed” — a simple, unambiguous, and unarguable command.

The Founders wanted private citizens to have the military capability to resist central government attempts to reimpose tyranny on its citizens.  Thus, after free speech and religious independence, the next most important “right” was to keep and bear (use) firearms, in armed defense, if necessary, of personal liberty and American freedom.

This is why Democrats seek to circumvent the Second Amendment and take away guns from private citizens.  Gun bans are another tactic of federal oppression.

In progressive hands, COVID, BLM, anti-gun laws, and many others are tools in the service of tyranny…if we allow it.

BLUF:
This trial has highlighted the free-wheeling ways in which prosecutors lie about the facts and the law before a jury with impunity. The judge claimed that — finally — “a day of reckoning” was at hand for their outrageous misconduct, but, like every other call for a mistrial, he’s waiting for the jury to weigh the evidence before he calls this outrage of a trial to a merciful end.

Stuck Rittenhouse Jurors Ask to See Hocus Pocus Out of Focus ‘Provocation’ Video and All Hell May Break Loose

Screenshot via YouTube
The jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial finished the third day of deliberations, and the tea leaves show that there is a disagreement between jurors on a case that is clearly self-defense. At least one person on this jury seems to want to make Rittenhouse pay for taking the lives of others — though it’s clear they attacked him.What the jurors appear to be hung up on is the thin vestige of a scintilla of a chance that Kyle Rittenhouse, by dint of supposedly pointing his weapon in a fuzzy video, somehow “provoked” the deadly attack by Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man the teen shot on August 25, 2020. People who may not want Rittenhouse to go free for defending himself, which resulted in two men killed and one man wounded, may want to grasp this theory  and this “evidence” to get Rittenhouse on something so he’s not set free.Trial watchers believe the jury forewoman is the hold-up. She asked to see the drone “Hocus Pocus out of focus” video as well as surveillance video taken by an FBI fixed-wing aircraft that was spying during the riots.

Continue reading “”

Free States Must Defend the Right to Self-Defense

The jury is still out as I write this; I wish I could be confident that our justice system will provide what it promises and that the unjustly accused will leave the courthouse wearing a smile instead of handcuffs. Kyle Rittenhouse, who went into the void created by the cowardly leftist officials who refused to protect decent citizens from the militarized wing of the Democrat Party, might well be convicted.

He got dragged through a legal nightmare, and if that’s all that happens to him, then that’s the best-case scenario. Us lawyers understand that evidence and law are not what determine jury verdicts; they are merely factors in a much bigger picture. Instead of facing life in prison, Kyle ought to get a medal for taking out several degenerates, including a promising potential Lincoln Project intern.

If you are looking for justice, you won’t necessarily find it in a courthouse.

Continue reading “”

On the Larger Goals of the Left in Bringing Rittenhouse to Trial
Stamping out the right to self-defense

It’s jury deliberation time in the Rittenhouse trial, and while we wait I’ve been reflecting on the big picture of where we are right now. I don’t think there’s any way a case as weak as that against Rittenhouse would have been brought ten years ago and certainly not twenty years ago, and the fact that he was charged at all is a bad sign.

Not that we need any more bad signs. But this trial is a reflection of the ways in which the left has gained power lately, despite the fact that there’s been a current backlash against it.

The left wants power to be invested in the state and the state only, and they intend to be the ones in control of the state – and by “state” I don’t just mean an individual state such as Wisconsin. Their preferred repository of power is the federal government, and they want that power strengthened. That means that the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense must be quashed or at least greatly weakened and that only certain people will be allowed to have that right.

The message is that someone such as Kyle Rittenhouse – a young white man of conservative leanings – is not allowed to have that right. But this trial isn’t primarily about Rittenhouse himself nor is it really about the situation in which he found himself that August night in 2020 in Kenosha. That’s just the pretext. The fact that there is an enormous amount of evidence that would overwhelmingly support his claim of self-defense is just a small obstacle easily brushed aside with a combination of media lies, prosecution lies, and threats to destroy the city if Rittenhouse is acquitted.

To the left, Rittenhouse the person is just a vehicle for delivering the message, which goes like this:

(1) Rioters in causes that the left deems righteous are allowed to destroy cities, and ordinary citizens must lay low and take it. They may not defend property or even their lives.

(2) The most they can do if attacked is take a beating and hope to not be killed, throwing themselves on the tender mercies of the mob screaming for their destruction.

(3) The prosecution of those who would defend themselves goes hand in hand with the lack of prosecution, for the most part, of the rioters. This has the intended result of emboldening rioters.

(4) The MSM and the left will mount a defamatory campaign against their designated enemies (in this case Rittenhouse, but it could be anyone who meets their criteria). That will attempt to taint jury pools so badly that a lack of evidence to bolster the prosecution’s case won’t matter. This is especially true if the goal isn’t necessarily conviction (although that’s desired), because a hung jury will do for the purpose. The principle is that the process is the punishment, and the state will not relent in its pursuit of its quarry – multiple trials if necessary in the case of a hung jury.

Do the prosecutors realize Rittenhouse is not guilty? They may or may not, but they simply don’t care about his actual innocence. He is guilty of being who he is, and that’s enough. Rittenhouse is useful to them as an object against which to stir up hatred and to deter future self-defense from anyone not on the left, which is their larger goal. The individual is nothing; the goal is everything.

[Neo is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at the new neo.]

The importance of a guilty verdict in the Rittenhouse case

This case has nothing to do with the punishment of alleged murders or seeking justice for the poor misguided fellas that only wanted to surrender/stop an active shooter or whatever other BS they are pushing in the selected media sources.

This case is for the survival of the BLM movement and the resurgence of Antifa and similar conglomerations. Full Stop.

Forget about the backgrounds of the Kenosha attackers, they do not mind much (they do have some bearing) and think of their actions and what led them to their deaths/injuries. They all showed a level of high aggression and total disregard for what it would happen to them because until that fateful day, they were told what they did was right and they would suffer no consequences, at least legally.

What had been happening prior to that day? Antifa, BLM and assorted protesting Lefties would gather , create havoc, set stuff on fire (loses in the billions), attack police and civilians with almost impunity. And if they were arrested, 99 times out of a 100 they would be released in time to catch some waffles before sun up and their cases eventually dismissed.

And besides the immunity granted by the politicos, they would be also protected and even lionized by the Media who helped their cause by feeding their egos. They were blessed warriors in a crusade for social justice and they could do no wrong in the eyes of the “journalists” while mom & pop defending their business built with blood and tears would be nothing more that white supremacists who deserved what was coming to them, mostly in the form of ashes. And if you dared to protest too loud, your body would be suffering the consequences of the righteous indignation of the Holders of The Truth and Justice.

But by the time the killings in Kenosha happened, people were having enough of that destructive narrative and starting to either doubt or outright oppose this “revolution.” And when people start to find out how in true revolutionary fashion some were economically benefitting from the “cause”, how they were acquiring power in governmental positions, how they were accomplice to crimes in their autonomous zones which were nothing more that feudalistic fiefdoms ruled by the violent ones while others wallowed in misery, the dream of equal justice was revealed to be a cruel an deadly hoax.

And then came the new occupants in the White House who in less than a year have managed to sink the country they promised they were going to save from Mean Tweets. I won’t even bother to go over the invasion through our Southern border or how much it hurts to visit a gas station or a supermarket because you know it better than anybody else.

So back to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial: The idea that the revolution and its violent actors can legally be stopped by violence while they are trying to kill you is something the Domestic Enemies cannot be allowed to exist. Kyle needs to go to jail, not for something he did, but to serve as warning for something you might have to do in the future.

If you have ideas that run contrary to the Party dogma, you must be punished.

If your property is about to be ransacked and burned but you stand against it, you must be punished.

If you are attacked and defend yourself, you must be punished.

You should get used to the idea that you have no rights and not even privileges because you are not a pure member of the Party.

And that is why the Left needs Kyle to be found guilty. They need you to be scared for the consequences of demanding to be a Free Citizen of this country.

That is all.

Every legal beagle I have read, and I, just an ordinary citizen, figured this charge would get dismissed because it doesn’t apply. As always, you can thanks idiots elected to office to pass laws this complicated.

Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Dismisses Firearm Possession Charge.

The judge presiding over Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial has dismissed a lesser weapons charge which held that the 17-year-old was too young to legally carry the AR-15 he used to shoot three people during the riots in Kenosha, Wisc., last year.

Rittenhouse previously faced up to nine months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 if convicted on the misdemeanor weapons charge. Judge Bruce Schroeder commented in the courtroom last week that the law delineating the misdemeanor charge could be too difficult for an “ordinary citizen” to understand……………..

In Wisconsin, minors cannot possess short-barreled rifles (less than 16 inch barrel with OAL less than 26 inches) under Section 941.28.  Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with a barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches.

Under Section 948.60(2)(a) (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”), “[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”

Well, then there’s subsection (c), which states that “This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.”

Since there is no evidence that Rittenhouse violated Section 941.28, he presumably must be in violation of both sections 29.304 and 29.593.. The defense conceded Rittenhouse was in violation of Section 29.593, which requires certification for weapons. However, he is not in violation of section 29.304, entitled “Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.” As the title indicates, the section makes it illegal for persons under 16 to use firearms. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the prosecution has not challenged that fact.

There’s a simple solution to this. The less apps you have on your phone, and the less you use the apps you do have, and the less personal information you post online, the less information the goobermint will have access to.

THE U.S. TREASURY IS BUYING PRIVATE APP DATA TO TARGET AND INVESTIGATE PEOPLE
The department will use controversial firm Babel Street to hunt for tax and sanctions dodgers, raising constitutional concerns.

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT has in recent months expanded its digital surveillance powers, contracts provided to The Intercept reveal, turning to the controversial firm Babel Street, whose critics say it helps federal investigators buy their way around the Fourth Amendment.

Two contracts obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request and shared with The Intercept by Tech Inquiry, a research and advocacy group, show that over the past four months, the Treasury acquired two powerful new data feeds from Babel Street: one for its sanctions enforcement branch, and one for the Internal Revenue Service. Both feeds enable government use of sensitive data collected by private corporations not subject to due process restrictions. Critics were particularly alarmed that the Treasury acquired access to location and other data harvested from smartphone apps; users are often unaware of how widely apps share such information.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
Can’t decide if the best part is Cheryl schooling this reporter or the VA results scrolling underneath

Watch This Based Mom School A Reporter On Why Good Guys Should Have Guns

It’s no secret that corporate reporters aren’t the most poised or articulate about handling or talking about guns, but a recent interaction between ABC News reporter Devin Dwyer and a mother of five in New York might take the cake.

ABC News aired a segment on Tuesday night previewing the laws and background of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for on Wednesday. The coverage is part of the corporate outlet’s larger “Rethinking Gun Violence” series, which is often used to amplify anti-gun activists’ war on firearms.

In the interview, Dwyer asks Cheryl Apple, a small business owner and recent first-time gun owner, to justify why she felt the need to apply for an unrestricted license to carry her 9 mm pistol. Her response to Dwyer is perfect.

“Do we really want a whole bunch of Cheryls running around with pistols in the grocery store?” Dwyer asked.

“Yeah, we probably do because Cheryl is trained,” Apple replied indignantly. “I feel proficient with my weapon, I feel secure with my weapon, and I feel confident with my weapon. I don’t think the Cheryls are the one[s] out there that are hurting people and committing the crimes and being unsafe with their guns.”

Continue reading “”

No. We all know there’s no ‘geography clause to RKBA.
The founders and framers made it clear that all people had unalienable rights endowed (as in freely given) to us by the Creator, no matter how one chooses to define that. The ‘right to life’ posits a right to defend it, both as a group, and as an individual, with the means, methods and instrumentality left up to the defender.

The question he referenced at the end of this article has not been resolved because the goobermint, the elite and the ‘powers that be’ that pull their strings are scared to death of the guns in the hands of the ‘unwashed’ and that they might one day decide they’re fed up enough to take care of those who believe they should be the masters of them.

Does The Second Amendment Have A Geography Clause?
Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan recognize that a constitutional right should not mean different things in different places.

During oral arguments in NYS Rifle & Pistol, there were extended discussions of New York’s diverse geography. There are the rural areas of upstate New York, the urban jungle of New York City (never say “downstate”), and “intermediate areas” like Rensselaer County. These varied communities raise the question of whether the scope of Second Amendment rights can vary from place-to-place.

For example, Justice Thomas asked NY SG Underwood how population density affects the scope of the right to bear arms:

JUSTICE THOMAS: General Underwood, you seem to rely a bit on the density of the population. You say, I think, that states like New York have high-density areas. And implicit in that is that the more rural an area is, the more unnecessary a strict rule is. So, when you are –when you suggest that, how rural does the area have to be before your restrictions shouldn’t apply?

Later, Justice Kagan returned to Justice Thomas’s question. (We are all better off that the revised format has enabled Justice Thomas to share his wisdom). Kagan explained that it would be intuitive for rights to vary in Wyoming and New York City. But that argument does not “match with our notion of constitutional rights generally.” Rights should not vary by place.

JUSTICE KAGAN: I mean, if you think about Justice Thomas’s questions about less populated areas, the rural areas of New York versus the cities, I mean, it seems completely intuitive that there should be different gun regimes in New York than in Wyoming or that there should be different gun regimes in New York City than in rural counties upstate. But it’s a –it’s –it’s a hard thing to –to match with our notion of constitutional rights generally. I mean, Mr. Clement makes a big point of this in his brief about how we would never really dream of doing that for the First Amendment or other constitutional rights, allow that level of local flexibility that you’re basically saying we should allow in this context. So I guess I just want to hear you say why you think that is. You know, what justification is there for allowing greater flexibility here?

General Underwood’s reply focused on the importance of local officials having discretion. After all, local officials know the circumstances of their communities. Justice Sotomayor then interrupted Underwood mid-sentence. Sotomayor contended that Underwood had dodged Kagan’s question:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I don’t think that was Justice Kagan’s question.

MS. UNDERWOOD: Oh, I’m sorry.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It was on a broader level, I believe. She can correct me if I’m wrong. The issue is no other constitutional right do we condition on permitting different jurisdictions to pass different regulations or –but do we have any other constitutional right whose exercise in history has been as varied as gun possession and use?

(I’m sure someone is keeping track of when female Justices interrupt veteran female advocates, forcing them to say “I’m sorry.”)

Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan recognize that a constitutional right should not mean different things in different states. I don’t think this agreement will affect the bottom line in NYS Rifle & Pistol. But this overlap should affect how the opinions are written.

I am very sympathetic to this premise. I made a similar argument in one of my first law review articles, The Constitutionality of Social Cost. I asked whether the Second Amendment has a “geography clause”–a term I coined in a 2009 blog post. Here is an excerpt from my 2011 article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

Does the Constitution have a geography clause? This section explores whether the Second Amendment is a national right or a local right that can be limited based on circumstances, such as high crime. Proponents of the geography clause argument fall into two camps. First, Justice Stevens in McDonald contended that the Second Amendment as applied against the States should provide weaker protections than the Second Amendment as applied against the federal government.225

Justice Alito adequately rebutted this erroneous application of Justice Brandeis’s laboratories of experimentation thesis and Justice Harlan II’s never accepted incorporation jurisprudence.226

The other theory, advanced by Justice Breyer, contends that local municipalities should be able to consider whether an area has a high crime rate when construing the meaning of the Second Amendment.227

Although Justice Alito rejected Justice Stevens’s two‐track approach to incorporation, he leaves open the door for localities to devise solutions to social problems that “suit local needs and values” according to certain limitations.228

This section considers the First and Fourth Amendments, which countenance locational rights that can vary based on location, and distinguishes those frameworks from the approach Justice Breyer seeks.

I could not have fathomed that a decade after I wrote this article, the questions I posed about the Second Amendment would still be unresolved.

From what little time I spent in Maryland, I wouldn’t want to be a part of the state either.

Justice to call special session for three Maryland counties to join West Virginia

After five Maryland lawmakers from three western Maryland counties announced that they want to secede from their state to join West Virginia, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice has begun planning a special session to try to make it happen.

The lawmakers represent three counties that border West Virginia – Allegany, Garrett and Washington. Allegany and Garret are the two counties within the narrow strip of northwestern Maryland that extends between Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Part of Washington is also in that strip of land.

This week, the lawmakers sent letters to West Virginia House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay and Senate President Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, requesting the state to add them as constituent counties of West Virginia. The letters said they believe the change would be beneficial to both states and requested to be advised on the next step.

All five lawmakers are Republicans in a state that is mostly Democratic. Former President Donald Trump received a majority of votes in all three counties in a state in which nearly two-thirds of the vote went for President Joe Biden. The counties are in a more rural and more conservative part of Maryland.

Justice, Hanshaw and Blair all expressed support for the change.

“Our state supports personal freedoms, we value the Second Amendment, and we love the rights of the unborn,” Justice said in a statement. “We love and embrace our energy industry. Moving to West Virginia means job opportunities like crazy and a chance to live in paradise. No matter where you’re from, we’d love to have you in West Virginia.”

There are more than 251,000 people who live in the three counties and if they joined West Virginia, two of the cities would be among the state’s 10 largest cities: Cumberland and Hagerstown.

Welcome to the Party, Pal!

Polimath (and others) are feeling the same oppressive weight of the government boot on their necks that America’s gun owners have been feeling ever since the introduction of the Sullivan Act.

“Just give up a little bit of your rights, and you’ll make the rest of us feel safer” has been the motto of the gun control movement since day one. Now that same logic, (if you want to equate emotion of feeling safe as logic) is being applied to public health as a whole, and people aren’t liking what they’re hearing.

Stephen Kruiser once said that firearms are the gateway drug to freedom. In this case, however, firearms ownership is the canary in the coal mine. What big government and runaway political corruption have been doing to our freedoms under the Second Amendment, they’re now doing to every other civil right as well.

Welcome to the party, everyone. Don’t say we never tried to warn you.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules that the plaintiffs have standing to bring a preemption lawsuit against Harrisburg’s gun laws, even though they were not charged with violating them

FIREARM OWNERS AGAINST CRIME; KIM STOLFER; JOSHUA FIRST; AND
HOWARD BULLOCK v CITY OF HARRISBURG MAYOR ERIC PAPENFUSE; AND POLICE CHIEF THOMAS CARTER

“We affirm the Commonwealth Court because we conclude Appellees have standing to bring this declaratory judgment action before the City enforces the challenged ordinances against them.”

Virginia Parents Announce ‘Not a Domestic Terrorist’ March in Washington