Category: Bureaucraps
Soon to be classed by SloJoe as the next national monument or some such other BS way to lock it up.
Over 2 Billion Metric Tons of Rare Earth Minerals Discovered in Wyoming.
If the bureaucrats bureaucraps and politicians get out of the way, America is poised to become the world’s leading producer of rare earth minerals.
The last time we visited the issue of rare earth minerals at Legal Insurrection, the Chinese had shut down the export of 2 important rare earth metals used in semiconductor manufacture: gallium and germanium.
In December, China imposed a trade ban on rare earth extraction equipment.
The second shot was new trade ban imposed by China on specialized rare earth production equipment, which means rivals will have to develop their own processes for extracting commercial quantities of metals needed in a variety of technologies.
Rare earths have been a Chinese specialty for decades thanks to large deposits of ore and through the application of smart mining and treatment methods which evolved just in time to catch surging demand.
While not household names it would not be possible to run the modern world without neodymium, praseodymium, terbium, or dysprosium, four of the 17 elements that make up the rare earth family.
Now I have some good news to share. Our country could soon surpass China as the world leader in rare earth minerals after more than 2.34 billion metric tons were discovered in Wyoming.
American Rare Earths Inc announced that the reserves near Wheatland dramatically surpass the Asian nation’s 44 million metric tons, saying it ‘exceeded our wildest dreams’ after drilling only about 25 percent of the property.
The company has a stake in 367 mining claims across 6,320 acres of land in the Halleck Creek Project, along with four Wyoming mineral leases on 1,844 acres on the same project now called Cowboy State Mine.
The types of minerals at the site are used in smartphones, hybrid car motors and military technologies – among others.
Since China’s extraction ban, one company, American Rare Earths, has been working hard to expand our nation’s access options. It appears they may have struck the mother lode.
U.S. Government Is Hiding Documents That Incriminate Intelligence Community For Illegal Spying And Election Interference, Say Sources: Former CIA Director Gina Haspel blocked the release of “binder” with evidence that may identify her role in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
Last December 15th, as Americans decorated trees, lit Menorahs, and prepared to tune out for winter holidays, CNN ran an extraordinary article titled, “The mystery of the missing binder: How a collection of raw Russian intelligence disappeared under Trump.”
Co-authored by Natasha Bertrand, the gargantuan exposé claimed a mysterious “binder” of “highly classified information related to Russian election interference” went “missing” in the chaotic waning days of Donald Trump’s presidency in January 2021, raising concerns that some of America’s most “closely guarded national security secrets… could be exposed.”
CNN and its intelligence sources meant “exposure” in a bad way. Sources have told Public and Racket, however, that the secrets officials worry might be “exposed” are ones that would implicate them in widespread abuses of intelligence authority dating back to the 2015-2016 election season.
“I would call [the binder] Trump’s insurance policy,” said someone knowledgeable about the case. “He was very concerned about having it and taking it with him because it was the road map” of Russiagate.
Transgressions range from Justice Department surveillance of domestic political targets without probable cause to the improper unmasking of a pre-election conversation between a Trump official and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to WMD-style manipulation of intelligence for public reports on alleged Russian “influence activities.”
The CNN report claimed intelligence officials were concerned about the disclosure of “sources and methods that informed the U.S. government’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election.”
They should be concerned. The story of how a team “hand-picked” by CIA Director John Brennan relied on “cooked intelligence” to craft that January 6th, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment is the subject of tomorrow’s story, the last in this three-part series.
Corruption, not tradecraft, is what officials are desperate to keep secret.
The ”missing binder” story has several variants. Sources offer differing answers on the question of whether anything of consequence is missing. They give mixed accounts of Trump’s frantic last efforts to declassify Russia-related material.
But nearly everyone Public and Racket spoke to agreed that the tale obscured a broader and more important story.
Dating back to the release of the so-called “Nunes memo” in 2018 exposing the corruption of the FISA application process, senior intelligence officials, including Trump’s CIA Director, Gina Haspel, have repeatedly blocked attempts to declassify information about the Trump-Russia investigation.
They had good reason to obstruct the release of these documents.
Having been in the belly of the beast, I can’t disagree.
It's the only hypothesis that fits all known facts. https://t.co/Gg6ZxiIvKh
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) February 9, 2024
This is your brain on Marxism.
Treasury Secretary: “We don’t have to get the prices down because wages are going up.”
Allow me to translate:
"Of course we're going to keep stealing your money through inflation — you're too feckless & cowardly to fight back … And otherwise we'd have to cut govt spending" https://t.co/fwPKVYdIiY
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 8, 2024
Financial Big Brother is Watching You
A brief note on an overlooked nightmare.
A few weeks ago, Ohio congressman and Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan’s office released a letter to Noah Bishoff, the former director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, an arm of the Treasury Department. Jordan’s team was asking Bishoff for answers about why FinCEN had “distributed slides, prepared by a financial institution,” detailing how other private companies might use MCC transaction codes to “detect customers whose transactions may reflect ‘potential active shooters.’” The slide suggested the “financial company” was sorting for terms like “Trump” and “MAGA,” and watching for purchases of small arms and sporting goods, or purchases in places like pawn shops or Cabela’s, to identify financial threats.
Jordan’s letter to Bishoff went on:
According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of “extremism” indicators that include “transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel to areas with no apparent purpose,” or “the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.”
During the Twitter Files, we searched for snapshots of the company’s denylist algorithms, i.e. whatever rules the platform was using to deamplify or remove users. We knew they had them, because they were alluded to often in documents (a report on the denylist is_Russian, which included Jill Stein and Julian Assange, was one example). However, we never found anything like the snapshot Jordan’s team just published:
The highlighted portion shows how algorithmic analysis works in financial surveillance. First compile a list of naughty behaviors, in the form of MCC codes for guns, sporting goods, and pawn shops. Then, create rules: $2,500 worth of transactions in the forbidden codes, or a number showing that more than 50% of the customer’s transactions are the wrong kind, might trigger a response. The Committee wasn’t able to specify what the responses were in this instance, but from previous experience covering anti-money-laundering (AML) techniques at banks like HSBC, a good guess would be generation of something like Suspcious Activity Reports, which can lead to a customer being debanked.
If Facebook, Twitter, and Google have already shown a tendency toward wide-scale monitoring of speech and the use of subtle levers to apply pressure on attitudes, financial companies can use records of transactions to penetrate individual behaviors far more deeply. Especially if enhanced by AI, a financial history can give almost any institution an immediate, unpleasantly accurate outline of anyone’s life, habits, and secrets. Worse, they can couple that picture with a powerful disciplinary lever, in the form of the threat of closed accounts or reduced access to payment services or credit. Jordan’s slide is a picture of the birth of the political credit score.
There’s more coming on this, and other articles forthcoming (readers who’ve noticed it’s been quiet around here will soon find out why). While the world falls to pieces over Tucker, Putin, and Ukraine, don’t overlook this horror movie. If banks and the Treasury are playing the same domestic spy game that Twitter and Facebook have been playing with the FBI, tales like the frozen finances of protesting Canadian truckers won’t be novelties for long. As is the case with speech, where huge populations have learned to internalize censorship rules almost overnight, we may soon have to learn the hard way that even though some behaviors aren’t illegal, they can still be punished with great effectiveness, in a Terminator-like world where computers won’t miss anything that moves.
What a crazy time we live in! See you from the Nevada caucus, and watch this space for other news soon.
50 Lawmakers Demand AG Garland Explain Illegal CCP-Linked Marijuana Farms
A bipartisan group of 50 US lawmakers have requested that Attorney General Merrick Garland provide information on illegal marijuana grow operations in the US that are linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Led by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Jared Golden (D-ME), David Valadao (R-CA), Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Sen. Angus King (I-ME), the lawmakers penned a Friday letter to Garland expressing their concerns.
“Chinese nationals—including those with potential ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—are reportedly operating thousands of illicit marijuana farms across the country,” they wrote. “The thousands of illicit Chinese marijuana growing operations pose a direct threat to public safety, human rights, national security, and the addiction crisis gripping our nation.”
According to the lawmakers, Chinese grow operations have been identified in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington.
“In some cases, the grow operators were also engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, drug trafficking, and violent crime,” the letter continues. “These farms are most commonly in states with legal marijuana programs where illicit growers try to disguise their operations in communities where law-abiding Americans live and work.”
The letter cites a 2023 DHS memo which said that 270 suspected China-linked illegal grow operations in Maine alone were generating more than $4.3 billion in revenue.
In Oklahoma, over 2,000 marijuana farmers “are linked to China,” according to the letter. “Investigators in Oklahoma discovered illicit marijuana growers engaged in human trafficking, sex trafficking, ketamine trafficking, illegal gambling, and international money laundering.”
“Experts believe there is substantial evidence implicating the CCP in directly supporting illicit marijuana grow operations across the United States,” the lawmakers wrote. “Whether located in retrofitted residential homes or on farmland, state regulatory and law enforcement entities appear unable to address these potentially CCP supported grow operations despite their significant threat to local communities across the country.”
As the Epoch Times notes further, in September last year, a group of Chinese immigrants filed a lawsuit alleging that they were lured to northern New Mexico under false pretenses and then forced to work 14 hours a day on an illegal marijuana farm.
“Allowing illicit marijuana farms tied to the CCP is a continued threat to national security, public safety, and human rights,” the lawmakers concluded.
At the end of the letter, the lawmakers wanted Mr. Garland to answer multiple questions before Feb 23, including the number of CCP-affiliated marijuana farms in the United States, and whether state legalization of marijuana has “ affected the proliferation of CCP-affiliated marijuana farms.”
“How many CCP-affiliated marijuana farms have obtained state-issued licenses to grow marijuana, either directly or through a shell company?” the lawmakers asked in the letter.
On Jan. 18, a federal grand jury convicted two Chinese nationals—Jeff Weng of Brooklyn, New York, and Chinese national Tong Lin—of a drug trafficking conspiracy involving about 28 tons of black-market marijuana shipped from Oklahoma City.
According to the Justice Department, Mr. Weng managed a marijuana-growing operation in Wetumka, Oklahoma, from December 2022 to May 2023. The pair drove delivery vans, including one disguised as an Amazon van, to transport marijuana from Wetumka to a stash house in Oklahoma City. From there, they transported a total of over 56,000 pounds of marijuana to the East Coast via semi-truck trailer.
Local law enforcement discovered 19,661 marijuana plants, more than $100,000 of vacuum-sealed cash, and a firearm during a raid of Mr. Weng’s facility in May 2023.
Last month, Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), and Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Anne Milgram, requesting a briefing over Chinese-operated marijuana farms across the country.
“Many of these illicit grow operations work in conjunction with transnational criminal organizations,” they wrote. “Illicit marijuana farms provide unregulated access for consumers to Schedule 1 substances and help provide additional revenue sources to transnational criminal organizations.”
Numerous Amici Join NCLA’s Ask for Supreme Court to Rule Against ATF’s Unilateral Bump Stock Ban
Washington, D.C., Feb. 02, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ten U.S. Senators, ten law professors, and multiple civil liberties groups, policy research organizations and attorneys have filed 13 amicus curiae briefs supporting the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s position in the Garland v. Cargill case that bump stocks are not machine guns. Representing Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran Michael Cargill, NCLA challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Bump Stock Final Rule and ATF’s expansion of the criminal scope of a statute by administrative fiat. The Final Rule reversed ATF’s long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not illegal machine guns, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rightly shot down the Rule early last year.
NCLA has arranged for former Texas Solicitor-General Jonathan Mitchell to present oral argument to the Supreme Court on Mr. Cargill’s behalf on Feb. 28, urging the Justices to confirm the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. NCLA thanks the amicus parties for standing with Mr. Cargill and thousands of other legal purchasers of bump stocks.
The Truth About the COVID Vaccine Is Finally Becoming Known
Mark Twain famously said that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even starts putting on its shoes. Here is Exhibit A in contemporary proof of the most famous American writer’s maxim.
It only took four years, the courage of a handful of independent medical experts who risked their careers by contradicting the federal government, the mainstream media, and the medical establishment, and the fact that something resembling the free press remains viable in this country, thanks largely to the internet.
Now, finally, the truth about the COVID-19 vaccine is beginning to be made known to the public. It confirms the many previous warnings such as these: here, here, and here.
It’s a research paper entitled “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” that appeared on the internet at the Cureus Journal of Medical Science. The abstract bears your close reading and then re-reading, especially if you are one of the millions of Americans who did what public health gurus like Dr. Anthony Fauci incessantly told us to do and “followed the science.”
Here’s the abstract, but I’ve broken it into multiple paragraphs to aid your reading, and I’ve included my own emphasis of highlights (it is one long paragraph on the website):
Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged.
Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders. Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards.
Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data.
The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted.
Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.
Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.
The authors of this research paper are highly qualified experts, including, according to Liberty Counsel, “biologist and nutritional epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead; research scientist Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D.; biostatistician and epidemiologist Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D.; immunologist and biochemist Dr. Jessica Rose; biostatistician and epidemiologist Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D.; Vaccine Safety Research Foundation Executive Director Steve Kirsch; and cardiologist, internist, and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.”
Don’t be surprised when the inevitable assaults are launched in the cooperating mainstream media on these courageous individuals’ ethics, training, and research methods. There will be no forgiveness for them because they have stepped in front of a criminally flawed historical narrative and yelled, “Stop!”
Liberty Counsel President and Founder Mat Staver put it well when he said in a statement: “In this exhaustive review paper, these scientists confirm what sound scientific research has been showing for years, that these shots have never been safe nor effective. The FDA and the CDC are supposed to protect the people, but they have become the lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry. This must change.”
And change it will because, sooner or later, the families of many of the legions of victims of the COVID-19 vaccine scam are going to find smart trial lawyers who are willing to file the litigation and hold those responsible legally accountable. The jury awards that will follow will dwarf anything seen before.
Whistleblowers Allege ATF Is Drafting Rule That Could Effectively Ban Private Firearm Sales
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is working on a rule that could effectively ban the sale of firearms between private individuals, agency whistleblowers told a watchdog group.
Empower Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog representing one of the Hunter Biden Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers, says that ATF whistleblowers informed it of a 1,300-page document being drafted by the agency that would require background checks for all firearm sales, including those between two private individuals. The new rule would “effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another,” according to a press release from Empower Oversight.
Empower Oversight submitted a records request to the Department of Justice seeking more information about the rule.
The rule would “violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” according to Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt. Leavitt also said the rule would “circumvent the separation of powers in the Constitution.”
Empower Oversight points out that the ATF’s rule could redefine individuals who occasionally sell guns as being “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms,” thus requiring them to acquire a Federal Firearms Licensee and run background checks on whoever they’re selling to.
In the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, Congress established that the term “engaged in the business” of selling guns “shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby.”
Leavitt pointed out that the courts would likely strike down the rule and argued that it is likely a ploy to fire up the Democratic base during an election year.
Private background checks are popular with voters, according to polling data.
A poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico in 2022 found that 81% of registered voters supported background checks at gun shows and for private transfers.
Support for background checks is lower among Republicans than among Democrats. A 2021 Morning Consult and Politico poll found that 77% of Democrats supported background checks for all gun purchases, compared to just 53% of Republicans.
While Americans are open to background checks, banning certain kinds of firearms is unpopular among Americans.
Only 27% of Americans supported banning handgun ownership as of October 2023, according to Gallup. An April 2023 poll conducted by Monmouth University found that more Americans opposed an “assault weapons” ban than supported it.
The Biden administration has consistently pushed for stricter gun laws.
President Joe Biden pushed a rule that forced people who owned pistols with arm braces to register them as short-barreled rifles, Politico reported. Pistol braces remain legal as states and gun rights groups sue the ATF over the rule.
Registering a short-barreled rifle with the ATF carries a cost of $200. The National Firearms Act, the law requiring the registration of short-barreled rifles, was last updated in 1986.
Short-barreled rifles are illegal in some states.
Biden also banned the sale of firearm parts lacking serial numbers, which can be used to construct “ghost guns,” and has continuously pushed for a so-called assault weapons ban, according to Fox News Digital.
Some gun rights groups are ready to fight the ATF’s rule should it come to fruition.
“The records of these sales will eventually end up in the ATF’s firearm registry database,” director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America (GOA) Aidan Johnston told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The ATF maintains a registry of firearms sales, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
Johnston said GOA is “actively preparing to take legal action if and when Joe Biden’s administration releases their rule change.”
Empower Oversight and the ATF did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.
If Anyone Needs to Explain Why They Need Guns, It’s the EPA
We don’t talk a lot about the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, all that much. For the most part, they don’t get into guns or gun politics. There’s no reason for us to talk about them here, even if they are managing to do a lot of stupid stuff in general.
But, it seems, that the EPA isn’t completely out of the discussion on guns.
You see, while there are many who lament the Bruen decision because we no longer have to justify why we want to carry, some rather bizarre federal agencies, including the EPA, have been spending a lot of money on guns.
Topline: The Environmental Protection Agency isn’t traditionally associated with ranged weaponry, but the federal government has spent almost $620,000 since 2018 to buy guns, ammunition, and more for EPA employees.
Key facts: Auditors at OpenTheBooks.com found that between 2018 and 2022, the EPA spent close to $400,000 of federal funds just on ammunition. That came after the EPA purchased 500,000 rounds of ammo and 600 guns from 2010-2017.
Over $100,000 went to buying armor for EPA employees. Funds were also used for “optical sighting and ranging equipment,” for “night vision equipment” and “security vehicles.”
Background: The EPA has a Criminal Enforcement Program, which had a budget of more than $70 million in 2023. Its goals include “protecting communities with environmental justice concerns” and curbing illegal sales of pesticides.
The EPA also has its own Office of Homeland Security, which provides “systemic preparation” for climate and environment related threats. Its budget was nearly $90 million last year.
Those divisions include 259 employees with job titles of “Criminal Investigation” or some similar variation. Those employees collectively earned almost $32 million in salary last year, with 217 of them making six figures.
Now, I don’t have an issue with a federal regulatory agency having investigators in and of itself. Whether I like regulations or not, the current status quo is violating those regulations constitutes a crime, so it makes sense for the regulators to have investigators.
But we’re talking $620,000 spent in firearms and ammo for 259 employees. That’s nearly $2,400 spent per investigator, and to be frank, I’m not sure any of them actually need to be armed.
See, the EPA is a regulatory agency, not a law enforcement agency. If they find an arrest is needed, they should be able to call the local FBI field office and get them to go in. The FBI, of course, has plenty of guns already.
What bothers me is that people want folks like you and me to have to justify why we “need” guns, but thinks nothing of federal agencies buying firearms left and right.
As the above-linked post notes, other agencies are also stocking up on guns including the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor. This isn’t new, though, since we’ve known for more than a decade about the Department of Education having had a SWAT Team.
The truth of the matter is that I want justification why every agency in the federal government seems to have guns purchased with our tax dollars. It’s not because I disbelieve in guns, but because every penny the federal government spends comes out of our pockets. They need to justify every dime, in my book, especially as so many federal agencies try to infringe on our right to have firearms.
Remember that the ATF started as a tax collection agency and morphed over time into federal law enforcement. If we don’t start demanding answers for this waste, we’re likely to see it happen elsewhere.
And the EPA is just one example.
After all, I’m not sure I want to trust guns to an agency that thought a mud puddle counted as “navigable waters” in any way, shape, or form.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has admitted to buying records from data brokers detailing which websites and apps Americans use, US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) revealed Thursday.
This news follows Wyden’s push last year that forced the FBI to admit that it was also buying Americans’ sensitive data. Now, the senator is calling on all intelligence agencies to “stop buying personal data from Americans that has been obtained illegally by data brokers.”
“The US government should not be funding and legitimizing a shady industry whose flagrant violations of Americans’ privacy are not just unethical but illegal,” Wyden said in a letter to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines. “To that end, I request that you adopt a policy that, going forward,” intelligence agencies “may only purchase data about Americans that meets the standard for legal data sales established by the FTC.”
Wyden suggested that the intelligence community might be helping data brokers violate an FTC order requiring that Americans are provided “clear and conspicuous” disclosures and give informed consent before their data can be sold to third parties. In the seven years that Wyden has been investigating data brokers, he said that he has not been made “aware of any company that provides such a warning to users before collecting their data.”
The FTC’s order came after reaching a settlement with a data broker called X-Mode, which admitted to selling sensitive location data without user consent and even to selling data after users revoked consent.
In his letter, Wyden referred to this order as the FTC outlining “new rules,” but that’s not exactly what happened. Instead of issuing rules, FTC settlements often serve as “common law,” signaling to marketplaces which practices violate laws like the FTC Act.
According to the FTC’s analysis of the order on its site, X-Mode violated the FTC Act by “unfairly selling sensitive data, unfairly failing to honor consumers’ privacy choices, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data without consent verification, unfairly categorizing consumers based on sensitive characteristics for marketing purposes, deceptively failing to disclose use of location data, and providing the means and instrumentalities to engage in deceptive acts or practices.”
The FTC declined to comment on whether the order also applies to data purchases by intelligence agencies. In defining “location data,” the FTC order seems to carve out exceptions for any data collected outside the US and used for either “security purposes” or “national security purposes conducted by federal agencies or other federal entities.”
I don’t have a bump stock, never did, probably never will. But when bureaucraps redefine a law to suit a political agenda restricting the people’s exercise of a right, they need to get slapped down….hard.
CRPA & Allies File SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Garland v. Cargill
CRPA has joined with several other pro 2A organizations and filed a friend of the court “amicus” legal brief in Garland v. Cargill. The case is set for argument before the Supreme Court on February 28, 2024.
The Cargill case will decide whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.”
The case is primarily about the scope of the ATF’s regulatory authority and whether it can freely change its positions and interpretations of federal law. It does not explicitly involve any Second Amendment claims. Nonetheless, our amicus brief advises the Court about the significant risk to Second Amendment rights if it rules in favor of the ATF. The ATF has shown an unfortunate willingness to reverse its opinion about the legality of a device whenever it suits the political whims of the Biden administration.
ATF did this on bump stocks, incomplete lower receivers, and pistol braces. So our amicus brief warns the Court that if it finds that a bump stock is a “machine gun,” the logical next step that ATF, or governments hostile to the Second Amendment, could pursue would be to reclassify most or all semiautomatic rifles as illegal fully-automatic machineguns because they could be converted (illegally) to fully automatic. There is support for that position in the Seventh Circuit’s recent absurd ruling upholding Illinois’s “assault weapon” ban, where it wrongly concluded that the semi-automatic AR-15 and the fully automatic M-16 were virtually indistinguishable so that semi-automatic rifles can be banned.
The amicus brief lays out a history demonstrating that Americans have always owned so-called “military” small arms, and expanding the ATF’s authority such that it believes it could regulate semiautomatic firearms would cause chaos and potentially millions of accidental criminals.
Joining CRPA on the brief are the Second Amendment Law Center, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and Guns Save Life. Multiple additional briefs are expected to be filed in the next few days.
The brief urges the Supreme Court to affirm the 5th Circuit’s ruling in favor of Mr. Cargill, and to reaffirm that commonly possessed semiautomatic rifles cannot be banned. You can read the brief HERE.
Alaska joins 28-states in urging Biden admin to not restrict ammunition sales
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor signed onto a 28-state letter to the Biden administration, responding to another letter that had urged the administration to restrict ammunition manufacturers who receive federal funds from selling ammunition to citizens.
“We Have seen this administration take full advantage of wordplay to restrict the rights of American citizens,” Gov. Mike Dunleavy said in a Jan. 26 statement. “Politicians, ignorant of the tools and practices they fight to restrict, use catchphrases like ‘military grade’ to create the illusion that these rights are not meant for the average citizen. They hate that law-abiding citizens have these rights and will use these underhanded tactics to take them away if allowed. I will always fight to preserve those rights given to citizens at the time our nation was founded and the ability to exercise those rights. In this case, that means fighting to ensure that citizens who have the right to arms also have reasonable access to ammunition.”
The original letter, written by leaders of several Democrat-led states requests that the Biden administration investigate Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The letter claims that ammunition manufacturers who receive federal funds should not be allowed to also sell ammunition to the general public, and states that the ammunition has been used by mass shooters to commit crimes.
The response letter, joined by Alaska, argues that this restriction would limit law-abiding citizens’ ability to obtain ammunition and to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
240125-LetterSloJoe couldn’t executive order his way out of wet paper bag on this subject
Biden Pushes For More Gun Control
BLUF
Our government is run by totalitarians who wish they were Chinese bureaucrats who could ban anybody from society whenever they want.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM covers this. I expect they will ignore it because, well, it was revealed by Jim Jordan and was aimed at Republicans.
Why let the Constitutional order get in the way of defending democracy?
Regulator Forced Financial Industry to Spy on Americans.
Do you shop at Cabela’s or Dick’s Sporting Goods?
Have you ever bought anything with MAGA on it or from anybody whose business includes the term?
Are you a hunter or a sports shooter?
If so, you will be happy to know that the federal government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network tasked financial institutions to spy on you and send your purchase and travel history to the feds.
We now know the federal government flagged terms like “MAGA” and “TRUMP,” to financial institutions if Americans completed transactions using those terms.
What was also flagged? If you bought a religious text, like a BIBLE, or shopped at Bass Pro Shop. pic.twitter.com/jjRaVNItWz
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) January 17, 2024
This was, of course, entirely warrantless. No legal process at all–and why should there be one? After all, you are a domestic terrorist if you support Donald Trump or like sporting goods.
You are deplorable for sure.
Observation O’ The Day
“If you’re deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the law, you’re allowing the agency to be a judge in its own case,” said Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing fishermen based in Rhode Island.
A little fish at the Supreme Court could take a big bite out of regulatory power.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Business and conservative interest groups that want to limit the power of federal regulators think they have a winner in the Atlantic herring and the boats that sweep the modest fish into their holds by the millions.
In a Supreme Court term increasingly dominated by cases related to former President Donald Trump, the justices are about to take up lower profile but vitally important cases that could rein in a wide range of government regulations affecting the environment, workplace standards, consumer protections and public health.
In cases being argued Wednesday, lawyers for the fishermen are asking the court to overturn a 40-year-old decision that is among the most frequently cited high court cases in support of regulatory power. Lower courts used the decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for monitors who track their fish intake. A group of commercial fishermen appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in front of a court that, like the rest of the federal judiciary, was remade during Trump’s presidency by conservative interests that were motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion.
The 1984 decision in the case known colloquially as Chevron states that when laws aren’t crystal clear federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details.
Supporters of limited government have for years had their sights set on the decision, which they say gives power that should be wielded by judges to experts who work for the government.
yeah, I want these kinds of people as Air Traffic Controllers
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is actively recruiting workers who suffer “severe intellectual” disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website.
“Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring,” the FAA’s website states. “They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism.”
The initiative is part of the FAA’s “Diversity and Inclusion” hiring plan, which says “diversity is integral to achieving FAA’s mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel across our nation and beyond.” The FAA’s website shows the agency’s guidelines on diversity hiring were last updated on March 23, 2022.
The FAA, which is overseen by Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s Department of Transportation, is a government agency charged with regulating civil aviation and employs roughly 45,000 people.
The Drunk-Driver Detection Tech That Could Soon Take Over Your Car.
Your car may soon be tasked with determining whether you’re sober enough to drive—but how? As we explained recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law on November 15, 2023 gave NHTSA a year to gin up a standard compelling new vehicles to either “passively monitor the performance of a driver” to detect if they are impaired, or “passively and accurately detect” whether the driver’s blood alcohol level is above the legal limit, and then “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” Said standard could go into effect as soon as 2026. At CES 2024—held within the 60-day public comment period for this standard—the Tier-I supplier community showed off some tech aimed at fulfilling the sensing aspect of this proposed drunk driver detection standard.
Blood alcohol level is the gold standard, but the “passively” requirement rules out blowing into a tube. Walking a straight line, reciting the alphabet backwards, and other road-side sobriety test methods are equally impractical. But the eye test checking for nystagmus seems reasonably practical, so several suppliers are focusing efforts on this approach. That’s where an officer asks the subject to follow their finger moving left to right without turning their heads and checks for jerking or bouncing eye movements shortly before the eyes reach a 45-degree angle. It’s still anybody’s guess how best to detect cannabis use/misuse.
Call for Regulation of Gun Industry Has Faulty Premise
The gun industry is one of the most regulated industries in the nation. A firearm can’t go from Point A to Point B without a mountain of paperwork, for example. About the only industry that can compete with it regarding the amount of regulation they deal with is the pharmaceutical industry.
But a lot of people seem to think that the gun industry is unregulated.
Now, this is usually not a big deal. It doesn’t take much to show just how wrong people who think that actually are. We can usually show them how regulated guns actually are.
Occasionally you’ll find someone who should know better but, apparently, doesn’t. An example is this guy who seems to think that toy guns are regulated more than real firearms. He also thinks that should change.
What if the United States regulated real firearms as stringently as they regulated toy guns for children?
In a forthcoming article, Benjamin Cavataro, a professor at the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, proposes that Congress empower the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to regulate guns in the same way that it regulates other consumer products, such as toys.
Cavataro argues that empowering the CPSC to regulate guns would increase their safety without encroaching on politically charged issues such as gun access and prevalence.…
Cavataro notes that subsequent efforts to introduce product safety regulations have fallen short because product safety measures for firearms are often seen as “gun control.” Cavataro contends that this characterization is misleading. Instead, he distinguishes between product safety measures, which seek to protect firearm users from dangerous mishaps, and gun control efforts, which seek to regulate the possession and use of guns.
Wrong.
What we’re seeing here is a call for a bureaucracy to oversee the gun industry, ostensibly to maintain safety standards, which might be fine for many if we could trust the bureaucracy to end there. After all, making sure you guns work as they’re supposed to wouldn’t be a bad thing, if you’re inclined to believe the government can do that job properly.
But the reason people call these efforts “gun control” isn’t due to a lack of understanding or mischaracterization. It’s because we know damn good and well where such a body would eventually take their regulatory efforts.
Think for a moment how the ATF started as a revenue collection agency and now is deciding what is legal and what isn’t. We’ve seen federal agencies try to say their ability to regulate waterways included mud puddles.
Now think about the GOSAFE Act for a second. This is, in essence, an attempt to regulate the gun industry. It’s not through a regulatory body, which means it has to battle through Congress to become law.
And a lot of people are opposed to it.
Yet if we had a regulatory body over the gun industry, the defeat of such a bill would only be part of what’s necessary. We’d then have to defeat that regulatory body when it attempted to put similar rules in place.
We call it gun control not because we don’t understand but because we understand all too well what will happen.
That’s not going to change.