If the ‘outdoors’ has immediate access to me, I’ve got a gun in the pocket.

No Safe Place
No one can predict when and where we might have to defend themselves from a criminal attack.

I just have to shake my head when I hear comments like, “I didn’t carry my gun because, after all, we were just going to church.” Or, “I was only going down to the corner grocery, so I just dropped the little two-shot derringer in my pocket instead of my usual carry gun.” Some people just don’t learn until they survive a real deadly encounter. And that, my friends, is a tough way to learn.

Every month, I try to read the Armed Citizen column in my copy of Shooting Illustrated and you should too. Take the current issue, for instance. They list six deadly encounters, four of which occur in the home. One is at an ATM (no surprise there) and the last involves an encounter between a motorist and a cyclist. Who in the world would expect to have a deadly encounter with someone on a bicycle?

When you bother to educate yourself, you realize that deadly encounters can occur anywhere and when we may least expect it. They occur in churches, parking lots, movie theaters, sporting events, the home and in fact, everywhere that people gather. And the victims are people from all economic levels, from poor to extremely wealthy. Everyone is subject to experiencing a criminal attack and that, my friend, includes you and me.

I don’t want to hurt feelings, but the person who says they will only carry their defense gun when they think they might need it is either a fool or is just playing at personal defense. We carry a defensive handgun because we don’t know when we’ll need it. If we knew, we’d carry a rifle or shotgun … or, better yet, just stay home.

Not long ago, I changed clothes and then set out to run my morning errands. As I was cranking up my truck, I realized that I hadn’t put on my revolver, instead it was lying on the bed right where I had been changing. Since I was only going to the post office and the corner grocery, I was, for a moment, tempted to just go on. But, mentally kicking myself in the butt, I went back in and got my gun. Just a few minutes later I sat in the store parking lot while the city police arrested a drunk who was trying to get a fight started. Even though I was not involved in any way, I gave myself a mental pat on the back and went on about my errands.

When it comes to the folks who are just playing at personal defense, about all we can do is to continue to try to educate them. As for the rest of us, we remind ourselves and each other that no one can predict when and where we might have to defend ourselves from a criminal attack. We went to the trouble to be able to legally carry a defensive handgun, we got good training and we carry all the time because it is our right to do so and it is the smart thing to do.

Biden’s Physician Met with Parkinson’s Disease Expert at White House, Visitor Logs Show.

A top Washington D.C. neurologist had a meeting with President Biden’s personal doctor at the White House earlier this year, visitor logs reviewed by The Post show.

Dr. Kevin Cannard, a Parkinson’s disease expert at Walter Reed Medical Center, met with Dr. Kevin O’Connor, and two others at the White House residence clinic on Jan. 17, according to the records, which emerge as questions continue to swirl about the 81-year-old president’s mental health in the wake of his debate debacle last week with former President Trump.

Dr. John E. Atwood, a cardiologist are Walter Reed, was also in the 5 P.M. meeting, the White House visitor logs show.

Dr. Kevin Cannard, a Parkinson’s disease specialist, met with President Biden’s personal physician at the White House in January.

The fourth person has not been identified in the logs from that day, when Biden was at the White House and hosted House and Senate leaders to press them for more Ukraine funding, according to his official schedule.

Cannard is an authority on Parkinson’s who has worked at Walter Reed for nearly 20 years.

Since 2012, he has served as the “neurology specialist supporting the White House Medical Unit,” according to his LinkedIn.

Continue reading “”

Biden took a week off to prepare – and presumably rest up – at Camp David.
If Biden is this exhausted after a couple of trips then he’s not fit for the job.

Who are they trying to kid? SloJoe has been POTUS (Puppet of the United States) since day one.

BLUF  The President Has Lost All Independence

Biden staff “miserable,” alarmed as pressure builds

Many White House, Biden campaign and Democratic officials are increasingly worried that President Biden isn’t up to continuing his campaign or finishing a second term, despite his insistence that he won’t be pushed out.

Why it matters: Outside pressure for Biden to drop his re-election bid grew wider and louder on the Fourth of July, especially from major donors. Doubts also are rising inside the house.

The big picture: “Everyone is miserable, and senior advisers are a total black hole,” a White House official told Axios. “Even if you’re trying to focus on work, nothing is going to break through or get any acknowledgment” from bosses.

  • A high-ranking Democratic National Committee official told Axios: “The only thing that can really allay concerns is for the president to demonstrate that he’s capable of running this campaign.”
  • “Everything else feels like ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ by his inner circle to prop him up.”

Between the lines: Some Biden aides believe those closest to the president have created a cocoon around him that initially seemed earnestly protective, but now appears potentially deceptive in the debate’s aftermath.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Imagine what could happen if the enemies of our country, our freedoms, and our way of life were to gain access to military bases. It’s a frightening situation to think about, so it’s a good thing we don’t have to because the sentries at the gate (unlike many in the current administration) know the stakes and won’t kowtow to DEI, political politeness, or whatever the sucker-punch game of the day is. Beyond those gates are the very reasons they are willing to give their lives.

Concerning Trend: Foreign Nationals Probing Military Bases While Commander-in-Chief Naps.

We won’t soon forget KJP saying it’s “inappropriate” for anyone to assume that the President needs a nap, especially because Joe Biden himself told Democratic governors two days ago that he was no longer scheduling events after 8 p.m. so he can sleep, according to CNN. While President Biden catches up on his ZzZs, America’s enemies are actively working to bring death and destruction to America.

It’s been a month since the public became aware of a disturbing trend: foreign nationals attempting to penetrate U.S. military bases and surveil the homes of high-ranking officers. Acknowledged by the Navy when Admiral Daryl Caudle, U.S. Fleet Forces Commander, sat down with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom:

Continue reading “”

Another take on SCOTUS killing Chevron Deference

What SCOTUS’ Chevron Deference Decision Means for Gun Owners and the ATF

Much of the coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Chevron Deference doctrine suffers from one of two problems: Either it’s written by lawyers for lawyers and is therefore unintelligible for anyone without a juris doctor, or it’s written by the corporate media and is chock-full of errors, omissions and untruths.

Bill Sack, director of legal operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, agreed to help clarify this landmark Supreme Court decision, which it turns out is good for gun owners and bad for the ATF.

Q: What is the Chevron Deference doctrine?

A: “By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which gave rise to the doctrine known as Chevron Deference. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.

What the Chevron Deference doctrine did was when administrative agencies write regulations, they often will have their own administrative courts that interpret the regulations the agency has drawn up. For example, if the EPA makes a regulation that says a factory can only put out so much pollution, and there is a question as to whether a specific factory violated the regulation, the first place the factory has to go is the EPA’s administrative court, where an EPA administrative judge will interpret the EPA’s regulations. If the factory is unsatisfied with the EPA judge’s decision, they can appeal to federal court. What Chevron Deference did was this: If the administrative court’s decision was appealed, the federal court was then supposed to be heavily deferential to the findings of that administrative court.

Basically, the doctrine put a thumb on the scale in favor of the administrative agency.

The federal court was supposed to give a lot of deference to what the administrative agency found. From a liberty perspective, this is a separation of powers problem. The administrative agency, as an executive agency, is supposed to enforce the law. It’s not supposed to write the law. It’s not supposed to interpret the law. These alphabet agencies were writing regulations, which is a legislative function. They were enforcing the regulations, an executive function, and then they were interpreting the regulations, which is a judicial function.

The ATF and the alphabet agencies were doing the jobs of all three branches of government and if challenged, the federal courts were supposed to defer to what their administrative courts found. Even if the federal court thought the agency’s administrative court got it wrong, they didn’t always overrule the decision. They believed that these agencies were the experts, who were best at administering and interpreting the own regulations. For example, the courts acted like since the EPA found that the EPA did nothing wrong, we’ll defer to them since they’re the experts.”

Q: What specifically did the U.S. Supreme Court decide?

A: “Chevron was overturned formally based on the Administrative Procedures Act, which sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for the courts to review actions by those agencies. The Supreme Court decided that this deference was unlawful. The Supreme Court said federal courts should start from scratch, rather than showing deference to the alphabet agencies. The High Court removed their thumb from the scale.”

Q: How will this decision affect the ATF?

A: “Hopefully, it tones down all of the administrative agencies because it returns power to the judiciary. It should tone down the ATF just like the rest. They can no longer adjudicate their own rules and say, ‘we’re right because we said we’re right.’

The writing has been on the wall for some time that Chevron would get knocked down. In a few of the (Administrative Procedure Act) challenges, the ATF has said they are not relying on Chevron to make their point. I suspect they didn’t want to hang their hat on Chevron. During the pistol brace and bump-stock cases, the ATF specifically said they were not relying on Chevron Deference.

If Chevron Deference were still alive, the ATF could write a rule like pistol braces. If someone was prosecuted for it and believed they shouldn’t have been found guilty in an ATF court, the ATF could rely on Chevron Deference during the appeal.

It was a big tool that every administrative agency had in their quiver.”

Q: How will the Supreme Court’s decision affect cases already in litigation, such as bump-stocks, pistol braces, frame and receiver and who needs an FFL?

A: “I don’t believe it will affect any of the current cases against ATF because the ATF has already disclaimed using Chevron.”

Q: Will this decision have any impact on the hundreds of gun dealers who have had their Federal Firearm Licenses revoked by the ATF for minor clerical reasons? (This question was posed to Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s executive director.)

A: “No. Revocation is entirely within the administrative process. The ATF only has to show a single willful violation. It’s not ambiguous where it would be difficult to ascertain what Congress meant. The courts have defined what willful is — they did something the law said they can’t do. Whether it was intentional, or they transposed some numbers, it’s still willful. There’s no deference in that regard. They don’t have to defer to the ATF to interpret anything,” Kraut said.

Q: Do gun owners still need to go through the ATF’s administrative process or can they now go straight to federal court?

A: “They still have administrative courts. They will still adjudicate violations of their own regulations, but if you want to appeal, the federal court has much greater leeway to overturn the administrative agencies with Chevron gone. The courts should be much better equipped to keep the administrative state in check,” Sack said.

Q: How will the Supreme Court’s decision affect gun owners?

A: “Big picture — for ATF and all of the other administrative agencies — it will hold their feet to the fire to interpret their own regulations fairly.”