IT consultant arrested after posing with gun on LinkedIn

An IT consultant was arrested by police in Britain after he posted a picture online of himself posing with a gun in the US.

Jon Richelieu-Booth said he was shocked by the “Orwellian” decision by West Yorkshire Police (WYP) to prosecute him over the social media post.

The 50-year-old said that on Aug 13 he had posted a picture of himself on LinkedIn holding a shotgun while on a private homestead with friends during a holiday in Florida.

Mr Richelieu-Booth claims the LinkedIn message contained nothing he considered threatening, with the picture attached to a lengthy post about his day and work activities.

However, he said that a police officer later visited his home to warn him that concerns had been raised about the post.

“I was told to be careful what I say online and I need to understand how it makes people feel,” he said.

Mr Richelieu-Booth said he offered to provide officers with proof that the picture of the firearm had been taken while he was in the US but the officers said that was not necessary.

Mr Richelieu-Booth said two officers then returned to his home shortly after 10pm on Aug 24 and arrested him.

Continue reading “”

The “Seditious Six” — A Long History of Gun Control Efforts, Now Trying to Foment Treason

The group of six Democratic lawmakers (all with military or national-security backgrounds) — now widely dubbed the “Seditious Six” — are attempting to cloak themselves in constitutional righteousness.

In a highly politicized video, they urged U.S. service members to “refuse illegal orders,” a message so ambiguous and inflammatory that the Pentagon launched a formal misconduct investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly.

Their “constitutional” posturing now is not an isolated event. It is the latest escalation in a long, coordinated effort to weaken the Second Amendment while hiding behind military credentials and patriotic language.

Here’s the breakdown.

The Shared Agenda: Every Major Gun-Control Proposal, Straight Down the Line

Continue reading “”

Without real data, the human mind ceases to function, and its disparate parts begin hallucinating information that doesn’t exist, and which will often be confidently and violently defended. The modern political Left is a product of delusional psychology that’s hell bent on enacting the worst possible policies because its adherents are fundamentally neurologically broken… and they may not be fixable. – Copernican

Trigger warning: Immigrants, armed and American

It was a revolver, handed to her at a Pennsylvania range after years of quiet fascination — years spent in Brazil, where guns were the domain of criminals, police, or politicians, often overlapping categories. “It was like the forbidden fruit,” she said. “In Brazil, very few people own guns, legally. And I was just … drawn to them.”
She squeezed the trigger, heard the crack, felt the recoil — and then asked to try the next one. And the next.
“Love at first shot,” she said, laughing. “I became completely addicted.”
Soon she was shooting weekly, working at a gun shop, and entering competitions. Today, Andrejczyk is a certified instructor, a divorced mother of two, and the self-proclaimed “Gun Evangelist.”
Stereotypes paint gun culture as America’s most insular tribe: old, white, rural, passing their weapons from one generation to the next. Yet some of its newest recruits are immigrants — from countries where weapons belonged only to criminals or the state, now claiming America’s most contested freedom as their own.

The ‘Gun Evangelist’

Andrejczyk grew up in Vitória da Conquista, one of Brazil’s most violent cities. “Brazil is lawless,” she told me when we met at Tanner’s Sports Center, the suburban Philadelphia gun shop where she works. When her parents’ store was robbed in broad daylight, the police never came. “They’re underpaid, corrupt. If they do show up, they twist the story and take money from you. Most people don’t even bother.”
Nayara Andrejczyk. (Photo by Daniel Allott)
Nayara Andrejczyk. (Photo by Daniel Allott)
Her father, a soldier, kept a shotgun hidden in a closet. She never touched it, but it left a mark. “The right to self-defense is paramount,” she said. “And we didn’t have it.”

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Denies Challenge to Illegal Alien Gun Ban

The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge to the federal statute prohibiting illegal aliens from possessing firearms, but did not take action on two other cert petitions dealing with gun bans for those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.

The Court denied cert, without comment, to Carbajal-Flores v. United States in its orders list released on Monday morning. That case, along with Vincent v. Bondi and Duarte v. U.S., were all heard during the justice’s conference last Thursday.In Carbajal-Flores, the Court was asked to consider whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits firearm possession by all “unlawfully present noncitizens”, was unconstitutional in all respects or, if not, whether the “government must demonstrate that the individual is dangerous before disarmament is permissible.”

The case involved Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, a resident of Chicago who is now a lawful permanent resident, but was apparently not at the time he was arrested for illegally carrying a gun during what his attorneys called “an infamous night of unrestin Chicago after the murder of George Floyd in 2020.”

Though a district court found that Carbajal-Flores “presented none of the indicia of ‘dangerousness’ or disloyalty historically associated with disarmament,” the federal government appealed and the Seventh Circuit overturned the initial ruling. Carbajal-Flores then appealed to the Supreme Court, but now that his case has been rejected prosecutors are free to go after him once more.

Carbajal-Flores’ attorney had argued that there’s a circuit court split on as applied challenges to 922(g)(5)(A), with the Fifth Circuit and Eighth Circuit allowing for individualized review regarding someone’s dangerousness and whether unlawfully present noncitizens fall within “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Despite that, the Court appears willing to let those circuit court splits develop, even if it means defendants in the Seventh Circuit can’t raise an as-applied challenge to their cases going forward.

Meanwhile, the justices took no action on a pair of cases dealing with a different section on 922(g). Vincent v. Bondi and Duarte v. U.S. both challenge 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison. There are multiple disagreements in the appellate courts over whether that statute is facially constitutional or whether it requires and individualized finding of dangerousness, but the justices are also considering a similar question in the Hemani case, which challenges 922(g)(3)’s prohibition on “unlawful” drug users possessing firearms.

It’s possible, if not likely, that SCOTUS will keep Vincent and Duarte on ice until after Hemani has been decided, and then remand the cases back to the lower courts for a do-over in light of what the Hemani opinion says. The DOJ has encouraged the Supreme Court to simply deny cert to both cases, arguing that Melynda Vincent and Stephen Duarte can apply to the Attorney General to have their rights restored once a proposed rule on rights restoration takes effect, and it’s also possible that the Court will keep ahold of those cases until that rule is officially in place.

The Court won’t hold its weekly conference this week because of the Thanksgiving holiday, but it’s slated to consider several hugely important cases at its December 5 conference; Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, which deal with state-level bans on commonly owned “large capacity” magazines, and Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to the ban on so-called assault weapons put in place by Democrats in Cook County, Illinois. The Court could also re-list Vincent and Duarte for next week’s conference along with several other cases dealing with gun bans for under-21s that have previously been considered in conference but have received no action from the justices.

There are already two Second Amendment cases that will be addressed this term; the Hemani case that I previously mentioned and Wolford v. Lopez, which is a challenge to Hawaii’s default carry ban on all private property. Given the circuit court splits involved in both the under-21 and 922(g)(1) cases, as well as the fundamental importance of addressing bans on commonly owned magazines and firearms, I’m hopeful that we’ll see SCOTUS greenlight at least three others, but the odds of that happening are honestly pretty low.

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.
– Supreme Court Justice Billings Learned Hand

FLASHBACK:(Deceit O’ The Day)

What is Operation Allies Welcome? The refugee scheme that allowed DC shooting suspect into the US

The man accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House Wednesday night entered the country through Operation Allies Welcome, a resettlement program to assist Afghan nationals.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the suspect – an Afghan man identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal – arrived in the U.S. in 2021. He later applied for asylum in 2024, which was approved this year under the Trump administration.

The U.S. has now suspended all Afghan immigration requests in response to the shooting outside a metro station in downtown Washington D.C., which officials described as a targeted ambush. The two guard members are still in critical condition.

In a televised address from Mar-a-Lago, Trump condemned the attack – the day before Thanksgiving celebrations get underway – as a “crime against humanity”.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out at former president Joe Biden’s administration for letting in “20 million unknown and unvetted foreigners” to the US through the Operation Allies Welcome program. However, this figure appears to be an enormous exaggeration.

The scheme was launched in August 2021 during Biden’s presidency, following the chaos of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return to power.

Continue reading “”

Missouri prosecutors fear ruling means deadly force can be self-defense against simple assault

Missouri prosecutors are concerned that a recent decision by the state Court of Appeals could open self-defense laws so broadly that the slightest threat of a minor attack could justify a person responding with deadly violence.

The Nov. 12 ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, would threaten public safety by making it difficult to charge, try or resolve violent crimes, Robert W. Russell, president of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, wrote in an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief.

“If the opinion becomes law, mere shoving matches could justifiably be escalated to gun battles,” Russell wrote.

The ruling was made on a case that involved a fight between two women outside Anchor House, a veterans’ homeless shelter in Warren County, west of St. Louis, in November 2022.

Danielle Lechocki, a former Marine with several medical issues, said she felt “extremely threatened” after another shelter resident threatened to “mollywock” her, meaning hit her. Lechocki pulled a knife from her backpack, according to court documents, after the other woman lunged at her.

The other woman denied she went after Lechocki, who said she was just trying to show she wasn’t a “pushover.” A third person stepped in between the two women and no one was hurt.

But the county judge denied Lechocki’s request to use self-defense to justify her actions, agreeing with the prosecutor who argued that as a matter of law, deadly force cannot be used to repel a simple assault and battery.

The jury ultimately found Lechocki guilty of attempted unlawful use of a weapon but acquitted her of fourth-degree assault. Lechocki was sentenced to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000, which would be waived if she served 25 hours of community service.

The appellate court ruled that the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. The lower court’s ruling was reversed and the case was sent back for a retrial.

The Missouri Legislature changed the law on deadly force in 2007, the appeals court ruling said, allowing the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself or herself or a third person “against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony,” which was defined as “included but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense.”

Continue reading “”

New York’s Assault on the NRA — and Free Speech — Gets a Court Bailout

In 2017, under the direction of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York launched a coordinated campaign to cripple the National Rifle Association (NRA) because of its defense of the Second Amendment and protected speech. New York’s Department of Financial Services contacted banks and insurance companies that did business with the NRA and delivered an unmistakable message: Continue associating with the NRA, and the state would investigate, cite, and regulate your business into oblivion. Coming from the state’s top financial regulator, the warning carried real weight – exactly as intended.

The strategy worked. Financial institutions and insurers quickly distanced themselves from the NRA, leaving the organization unable to secure even basic corporate services in the state. If that sounds like an obvious First Amendment violation, that’s because it is. More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that government “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against third parties to suppress disfavored speech are flatly unconstitutional.

Because that rule remains as clear today as it was in 1963, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLJ’s amicus brief and ruled unanimously for the NRA last term. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, put it plainly: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” When regulators use the power of their office to pressure private actors into isolating or punishing a speaker, they violate the First Amendment just as surely as if they had censored the speech directly.

This case sits squarely at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments. The NRA’s policy views related to the Second Amendment, its speech, its advocacy, and its expression are all protected by the First Amendment. A government that can strangle a gun-rights group through financial coercion can use the same tools to silence pro-life organizations, religious ministries, parental-rights groups, or anyone else who falls out of political favor. That is why the ACLJ fights not just for the substance of constitutional rights, but also against government efforts to punish those who speak about them.

That unanimous ruling should have ended the matter. It should have allowed the NRA’s lawsuit to proceed so a jury could determine the full extent of the constitutional violations. But the Second Circuit had other ideas. In defiance of both the Supreme Court’s clear command and the First Amendment itself, the court held that New York’s officials were entitled to qualified immunity – meaning the case had to be dismissed.

Qualified Immunity Was Never Meant to Shield Deliberate Speech Suppression

Continue reading “”

Thanksgiving is a federal holiday in the United States celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November. Outside the United States, it is sometimes called American Thanksgiving to distinguish it from the Canadian holiday of the same name and related celebrations in other regions. The modern national celebration dates to 1863 and has been linked to the Pilgrims 1621 harvest festival since the late 19th century. As the name implies, the theme of the holiday generally revolves around giving thanks with the centerpiece of most celebrations being a Thanksgiving dinner.

In 1789, per a request by Congressional resolution, President George Washington proclaimed “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.” In 1863, President Lincoln issued a proclamation making Thanksgiving an official annual holiday to be commemorated each year on the last Thursday of November.

To stimulate economic recovery following the Great Depression, in 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt moved the holiday to the second to the last Thursday of the month to extend the holiday shopping season.

To alleviate confusion, Congress passed H.J. Res. 41 (77th Congress) on October 6, 1941, to establish Thanksgiving Day as a legal holiday on the fourth Thursday of November. President Roosevelt signed the joint resolution into law in December of 1941, to take effect the following year

 

“There appears to be no act of Congress that has ever designated a particular day as Thanksgiving Day. In short, this bill will fix the last Thursday in November as the permanent day for our annual Thanksgiving.”
– Earl Michener, Michigan 2nd Congressional District Representative October 6, 1941