Fauci proves again that bureaucraps believe themselves to be above law, or the Constitution.


Anthony Fauci Seems To Think The CDC Outranks Our Courts

Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have the authority to mandate mask wearing regardless of whether it is in compliance with the law.

After a circuit court judge in Florida ruled that the CDC could not impose a mask mandate on public transportation Monday, Fauci blasted the decision in an interview with CNN’s Kasie Hunt released Thursday. The top medical advisor to President Joe Biden said he was “surprised and disappointed” that a court would step in on a public health issue.

Continue reading “”

This is nothing more than political grandstanding from a known anti-gun politician to try to garner support for her campaign for Florida goobernor.

In any case, ATF and/or DOJ can’t do anything about this – and Fried undoubtedly knows that – as the prohibition on drug users is under Federal statute law  18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug under Public Law 91-513 (1970)- not just bureaucrap regulation and repeal has to go through Congress.

This suit will eventually get thrown out of court, but probably not before the election this fall, which – again – you can be assured, Fried knows too.


Nikki Fried suing Biden, ATF over cannabis prohibition on Form 4473
Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner says she is suing for 2A rights of cannabis users.

Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried has always been a bit of an enigma in the Sunshine State. She’s the only Democrat elected to statewide office. She’s running for governor against popular Republican incumbent, Gov. Ron DeSantis, if she can make it through a tight Democratic primary. Her office oversees Florida’s Concealed Weapon and Firearm Licensing program, and she’s a former lobbyist for the cannabis industry and a vocal cannabis advocate.

Fried has said publicly she possesses both a Florida CWFL and a state medical marijuana card — Florida is one of 37 states that have legalized medicinal cannabis. This has raised questions about how Fried purchases firearms, because of the cannabis prohibition on the 4473. The form asks would-be gun purchasers if they are an unlawful drug user, and it explains that cannabis is still considered an illegal drug under federal law:

“Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

Lying on a 4473 is a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

Now, according to NBC News, Fried is suing the Biden-Harris administration, the ATF and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland over the cannabis prohibition on the 4473, claiming that it violates the Second Amendment rights of lawful cannabis users. She brought the lawsuit officially as the state’s Agriculture Commissioner, on behalf of three Floridians who she claims were barred from purchasing firearms based upon their use of medical cannabis. The suit has yet to be formally filed — NBC says they were given a draft copy, which Fried’s staff said they hoped to file today, on 4/20.

Continue reading “”

Far from being a ‘wise Latina™’ (having known some real ones, I am assured she’s nowhere near an exemplar), Sotomayor is just flat out stupid


Justice Sotomayor Argues People Familiar With FBI Crime Stats Should be Banned From Capital Case Juries

Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that jurors who express familiarity with FBI crime stats should be banned from Capital case juries for “racial bias.”

Yes, really.

The opinion was in relation to Kristopher Love, a black man who was convicted of capital murder in the course of a robbery that happened in 2015.

Before Love’s trial, prospective members of the jury filled out a questionnaire which included the following two questions.

“68. Do you sometimes personally harbor bias against members of certain races or ethnic groups?”

“69. Do you believe that some races and/or ethnic groups tend to be more violent than others?”

The prospective juror answered no to the first question but then answered yes to the second and explained that he understood “[n]on-white” races to be the “more violent races” because he had seen statistics to this effect in “[n]ews reports and criminology classes” he had taken.

Despite the juror making clear that his views were based on statistics and not his personal feelings about black people, Love’s counsel moved to exclude the prospective juror based on “his stated beliefs that . . . non-whites commit more violent crimes than whites.”

“Leaving this man on the jury would be an invitation to leaving someone on there that might make a decision on Special Issue No. 1 that would ultimately lead to a sentence of death on his preconceived notions and beliefs that have to do with the race of the defendant,” counsel argued.

The trial court ended up denying counsel’s request to have the juror removed and Love was later sentenced to death.

Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion is republished in part below.

Continue reading “”

JUST IN: CDC APPROVES BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S APPEAL TO BRING BACK AIRLINE MASK MANDATE.

The CDC has announced that they will support an appeal to reinstate masks for public transportation — piggybacking off the Biden administration’s recommendation on Tuesday.

The Justice Department announced that it would proceed with its appeal, pending a decision by the CDC to veto a federal judge’s order to remove masks from public transportation.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle filed a 59-page ruling to end mask mandates on airline travel and other public transportation, defining the restrictions as an infringement on Americans’ rights.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their statement Wednesday afternoon:

To protect CDC’s public health authority beyond the ongoing assessment announced last week, CDC has asked DOJ to proceed with an appeal in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Biden, et alIt is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public healthCDC will continue to monitor public health conditions to determine whether such an order remains necessary.  CDC believes this is a lawful order, well within CDC’s legal authority to protect public health.

CDC continues to recommend that people wear masks in all indoor public transportation settings. CDC’s number one priority is protecting the public health of our nation. As we have said before, wearing masks is most beneficial in crowded or poorly ventilated locations, such as the transportation corridor. When people wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over their nose and mouth in indoor travel or public transportation settings, they protect themselves, and those around them, including those who are immunocompromised or not yet vaccine-eligible, and help keep travel and public transportation safer for everyone.

Americans reacted positively when they were alerted that masks were no longer required. Still, the Biden administration’s nudging of the CDC may be the catalyst in bringing back the masks.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Admin’s Travel Mask Mandate

A United States District Court judge in Florida vacated the nationwide travel mask mandate on Monday in a ruling that found the mask requirement for travel via mass transit, planes, and trains violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lengthy ruling explains how the Biden administration “improperly invoked the order and interpretive rule exceptions to notice and comment,” “improperly invoked the good cause exception” to such rulemaking in a manner that “was not harmless error” and how the mandate “is arbitrary and capricious because the CDC failed to adequately explain its reasoning.”

047124235804

Continue reading “”

Heller Foundation gets settlement from DC

Ghost guns are everywhere! The latest assaults on the civil liberties have yet to fully manifest from the Biden-Harris administration, but we know that the matter of homebuilt firearms are in the crosshairs of the anti-freedom caucus. Regardless to what the Feds have in store for us, people are dealing with local level infringements. Back in November I reported on Dick Heller suing the District of Columbia, again. And getting a win, again. What was the suit about? Homemade firearms and so-called ghost guns. The lawsuit against the District did yield the result of some temporary and emergency rule changes to the laws, however nothing final has been implemented to date. Also wrapped up in the suit was DC seeking to settle with Heller in the form of monetary damages for his rights being usurped. A recent announcement talked about some of that settlement being fulfilled.

The Heller Foundation formally announces a settlement with the city of Washington, DC in his Second Amendment challenge of their infringement on citizens’ Firearms Freedom Civil Rights. Consequently, there was a small financial award to the foundation and the retraction of the unlawful restrictions.

The case was initially filed by George Lyon, Esq. and plaintiffs Dick Heller, Elby Godwin, and others, were told they could neither construct nor own any partial-polymer firearm kits, the so-called Ghost Guns, within the DC city limits. Heller’s gun kit was forcibly returned-shipped to the retailer, Stephen Bozich, President of Bare Arms in Robbins, North Carolina.

The regulations would have also outlawed all police firearms and made individuals’ possession of Glocks illegal. In a Free Country, paid for with the Blood of Patriots, citizens may construct a boat, airplane, or bow & arrow, or a firearm. However, even though residents of DC may purchase or own most types of firearms, they were not allowed, themselves, to construct a firearm within the city limits for private use in the defense of self or one’s household, or any other lawful purpose.

More legal challenges to government’s overzealous and whimsical overreaching Infringements on our Second Amendment Rights are underway. Typical court challenges to these radical state infringements usually start in the $100,000 range. Patriots can support HellerGunCase.org (aka HellerFoundation.org). Losing these cases means we must prepare for the slow erosion of our Second Amendment Rights and for government confiscation of our guns.

I had a chance to catch up with  George L. Lyon, Jr. from Arsenal Attorneys, Heller’s attorney, and talked with him about the settlement. As part of the agreement, the District agreed to pay out to Heller five thousand dollars for the usurpation of his rights. While this is a big step towards having the lawsuit dropped, the settlement has yet to be fully executed. The District still owes about $81,000.00 in attorney and legal fees. Lyon had the following statements to add:

Mr. Heller ordered a Polymer 80 kit and had the kit sent to one of the District’s FFLs in anticipation of registering it. The FFL in turn inquired of the Metropolitan Police Department as to how to handle the matter and was told that the kit was illegal and to send it back to the vendor.

In response, Mr. Heller sued in Federal District Court for the violation of his constitutional rights. Two other District residents who own polymer frame handguns sued as well in light that the District law appeared to criminalize their possession of their legally acquired and registered polymer framed pistols.

In response, the District, concluding that the law was indefensible, enacted temporary legislation to address the plaintiff’s claims. Among the changes the District made to its law was a provision allowing District residents to make their own firearms subject to registration and placing a serial number on the self-made firearm. In addition, the District repealed the ban on unfinished receivers, and amended its definition of “undetectable” firearm to avoid criminalizing the possession of polymer frame receivers.

As compensation for the denial of Mr. Heller’s civil rights, without admitting liability, the District paid the Heller Foundation $5,000.

While the attorney and legal fees have yet to be paid out, Lyon is confident there will be full financial amelioration. I asked Lyon “What’s next?” He did not give me specifics but did note that he and his firm plan on continuing to go after all unconstitutional laws in the District of Columbia, adding that if someone from DC is interested in being a plaintiff, to reach out to the firm as well as keep their eyes peeled for any upcoming suits.

Anytime there’s an opportunity to bring forward news about Heller and these patriots is welcomed. The work that’s getting done in the District of Colombia has a huge impact on the rest of the country, as indicated by the original Heller case. DC is a great petri dish of progressive and unconstitutional laws which are ripe for challenge and poised to be overturned by the judicial system. We’ll be following the progress of this settlement as well as any other cases brought forward by Heller and his representation Lyon.

Whitmer kidnapping trial collapses: Two not guilty, two walk free after mistrial

A jury acquitted two defendants in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping trial on Friday but was unable to come to a verdict on the alleged ringleaders of the plot.

The not guilty verdicts are a serious blow to the FBI, which had been accused by defense attorneys of having “conceived and controlled every aspect” of the kidnapping plot through the more than a dozen confidential informants it embedded into the defendants’ group in the summer of 2020.

The jury announced Friday afternoon that it had ruled unanimously to find Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta not guilty on charges of conspiring to kidnap the Democratic Michigan governor in 2020. Harris was also acquitted of charges related to explosives and firearms.

Cries of relief were reportedly heard in the courtroom as the jury read Caserta’s verdict.

GRETCHEN WHITMER KIDNAPPING: CRACKS FORMING IN FEDERAL CASE

“Best birthday gift ever,” Caserta said in the courtroom after the verdict was read.

Caserta and Harris will be freed from jail following the verdict after spending nearly two years behind bars, the Detroit News reported.

Jurors also announced they were unable to reach a unanimous decision on the charges against the alleged ringleaders of the plot, Adam Fox and Barry Croft. Judge Robert Jonker declared a mistrial in those cases.

The jury’s decision to find two defendants not guilty in the kidnapping conspiracy and its failure to reach a unanimous decision for Fox and Croft will likely renew questions about whether the defendants, who were members of the Three Percenters and Wolverine Watchmen militia groups, were entrapped by undercover FBI informants embedded into their group.

Continue reading “”

Judge restores Jan. 6 defendant’s gun rights over DOJ objection

A judge has restored a Texas woman’s right to possess firearms just weeks after she was sentenced for illegally entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden issued an order on Thursday granting florist Jenny Cudd’s request to lift a term of her probation that forbade her to own or possess any “firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or dangerous weapon.”

Cudd had asked that the condition be set aside, citing threats she received following publicity about her role in the storming of the Capitol as lawmakers were preparing to certify Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election.

The judge’s ruling was a rebuke to prosecutors, who opposed the change, and it was the latest setback for prosecutors dealt by McFadden, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. The decision further cements the judge’s reputation as the most skeptical member of the D.C. District Court bench about the stance prosecutors have taken in the wake of the Capitol riot.

In his two-page ruling on Thursday, McFadden noted that Cudd wore a “bulletproof sweatshirt” to the Jan. 6 rally, but he credited her explanation that she wore the defensive garment because she feared violence, not because she was seeking it.

“The Government presented no evidence that Cudd incited anyone to violence,” McFadden wrote. “Nor did it present evidence that she participated in violence. She has no prior criminal history. And Cudd’s bullet proof sweatshirt is consistent with her fear of being attacked at the rally preceding her entry into the Capitol. This says nothing about her danger to others.”

McFadden cited the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in D.C. v. Heller that held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right of self-defense.

“The Court will not limit that right for a nonviolent misdemeanant who credibly fears for her safety,” the judge wrote.

McFadden’s order came one day after he delivered the first outright acquittal of a Jan. 6 defendant, finding a former government contractor from New Mexico, Matthew Martin, not guilty on four misdemeanor charges.

McFadden, who also served as the No. 2 official in the Justice Department under Trump before being confirmed to the bench, has openly questioned the priorities of federal prosecutors. He has suggested that they’re taking a more aggressive stance toward the Jan. 6 defendants, while taking a more lax approach to people accused of violence during racial-justice protests in 2020.

Other judges have expressed disagreement with McFadden about the 2020 protests, saying some participants in violence got stiff sentences. They’ve also said the storming of the Capitol during the election-related proceedings was uniquely dangerous, since it posed a threat to the democratic transfer of power.

Prosecutors had sought a 90-day jail sentence for Cudd, noting that she made a slew of incendiary statements on Jan. 6. In one Facebook video she said she participated in pushing against police and was “proud” of her actions.

“I’m proud of everything that I was a part of today,” she said in the video. “And I’ll be proud of everything that I’m a part of at the next one.”

Typically, judges have imposed harsher sentences for defendants who celebrated their actions on Jan. 6.

While McFadden has offered criticism of prosecutors’ approach, he has uniformly rejected motions from Jan. 6 defendants to have their cases dismissed on grounds of selective, politically motivated prosecution.

McFadden’s latest stances are something of a sharp turn for the judge against the government. Despite his past skepticism, he had largely ruled in accordance with other judges on the court.

He rejected claims by one rioter who is accused of setting off a firework amid the most violent confrontation during the Jan. 6 riot that he was being selectively prosecuted. He also ordered the pretrial detention of Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a former Army reservist who expressed hope for a civil war and was described by former colleagues as openly racist and antisemitic. Hale-Cusanelli, who remains incarcerated, is not charged with violence for his role in the Capitol attack.

McFadden’s handling of Cudd’s case generated headlines last year when he approved her request to take a trip to Mexico that she said was work-related and prepaid.

Prosecutors did not oppose the proposed international trip, but coming just weeks after the riot, McFadden’s decision drew criticism as an indication that the courts were not dealing sternly with those accused of participating in the takeover of the Capitol.

Suspect in Sacramento Mass Shooting Released on $500,000 Bond

One of the suspects arrested after Sunday’s mass shooting in Sacramento that claimed the lives of six people has been released on a $500,000 bond.

Daviyonne Dawson, 31, was released from the Sacramento County Jail Wednesday, only two days after being arrested and booked on one count of unlawful possession of a weapon. It remains unclear if Dawson paid all of the $500,000 bond or only a portion of the total.

Two other men arrested after the shooting are brothers Smiley and Dandrae Martin, aged 27 and 26 respectively who remain in custody on gun possession charges.

Currently, investigators don’t believe Dawson fired his weapon during the gang fight between two rival groups that led to the shooting, but that he was in the same place at the same time and was armed.

Continue reading “”

Judge considers novel privacy challenge brought by California gun owners
The overarching question of the privacy challenge brought by California gun owners is what personal information is needed to conduct gun violence research.

SAN DIEGO (CN) — An attorney representing millions of California gun owners said Tuesday their challenge to a California law disclosing their personal information to gun violence researchers is the first of its kind.

“We have been unable to find a single case like this one where vast amounts of information that have been collected and stored by the government is then sought to be disclosed to third parties without notice where people could not consent to disclosure,” Michael Reynolds of Snell & Wilmer told U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns.

At issue is a constitutional challenge by California gun owners who claim Assembly Bill 173 — a 2021 law which amended California firearms laws to authorize the state attorney general to disclose gun owners’ personal information to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis — violates their privacy rights.

Burns was tasked Tuesday with deciding whether the case should be dismissed.

Previously, personal information collected by California gun owners during sales transactions and license applications was authorized to be used only for “legitimate law enforcement purposes.”

But AB 173 now allows the California Department of Justice to share gun owners’ personal information with researchers who study firearm-related crime, suicide and accidents.

Reynolds reiterated arguments he made during an unsuccessful temporary restraining order hearing in January seeking to block the release of gun owners’ information.

He suggested the disclosure of gun owners’ information including the addresses of their personal residence and business could make them “subject to attack” by people opposed to gun ownership or burglars looking to steal the weapons.

Continue reading “”

NEW VERDICT IN CAPITOL RIOT CASE THROWS A WRENCH INTO POLITICAL NARRATIVE:

A federal defense contractor who had been charged with four misdemeanors for walking into the Capitol on Jan. 6, fought the charges and was acquitted on all counts today by Judge Trevor McFadden. Matthew Martin was charged with: entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building, violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, as well as parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

But Martin didn’t commit any violence or break into the building. He argued that he believed that the Capitol Police had allowed him into the building, and he just walked in.

From Politico:

McFadden said that, based on video of the scene, that assertion was at least “plausible” and that prosecutors failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“People were streaming by and the officers made no attempt to stop the people,” said the judge [….]

“I do think the defendant reasonably believed the officers allowed him into the Capitol,” the judge said.

McFadden said that the government did not show any evidence of Martin crossing police lines, and that Martin’s “conduct was about as minimal….as I can imagine.”

This is a significant verdict. While some are charged with more serious offenses, many of the people charged for Jan. 6 offenses are in a similar position to Martin — they didn’t do much beyond walk into the building. Some have argued — as Martin did — that the police let them in.

Remember when they said Trump was ‘the’ existential threat to the rule of law?


Reporters call for White House to ‘simply ignore’ Supreme Court decisions

Some reporters are calling on President Biden to ignore Supreme Court decisions that they believe are politically motivated.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court temporarily reinstated a Trump-era that limits the power of the states to block energy projects that can potentially pollute rivers, streams and other waterways. In a split 5-4 decision, the justices overturned a lower court judge’s order to throw out the rule until the Biden administration can implement a new rule which is expected in spring 2023.

Democrats condemned the decision, but some reporters went even further and called for the Biden administration to ignore the Supreme Court.

Former Niskanen Center Vice President for Research Will Wilkinson posted a Twitter thread explaining why he believes the White House should ignore SCOTUS decisions.

“If SCOTUS rules on regulation without a hearing or argument, the administration should simply ignore it and state that, in the absence of a normal process judicial review, it sees the court’s judgments as advisory but not binding,” Wilkinson tweeted.

Will Wilkinson tweeted "If SCOTUS rules on regulation without a hearing or argument, the administration should simply ignore it and state that, in the absence of a normal process judicial review, it sees the court’s judgments as advisory but not binding."

“The court famously has no enforcement authority. It’s authority is based in acceptance of the court’s legitimacy. But it can’t do whatever the hell it wants however it wants and expect deference. [E]xecutive ought to brush off the court’s junta-like attempts to rule by edict,” he added.

Wilkinson said the courts are behaving in a “political way” so it deserves “political pushback.”

The thread was retweeted by \New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie who added his own commentary.

“The court does not stand above or outside the constitutional system, and when it oversteps its boundaries, other constitutional actors have the right to push back either formally or informally,” he tweeted.

Jamelle Bouie tweeted "the court does not stand above or outside the constitutional system, and when it oversteps its boundaries, other constitutional actors have the right to push back either formally or informally"

Historian and Politico contributing editor Joshua Zeitz, responded to Bouie’s tweet, and said he had the same feeling.

 

Joshua Zeitz tweeted "It’s been my feeling for some time that Democrats should meet the erosion of democratic norms more forcefully. Obama should have said that Senate non/action on judicial nominations, including Garland, were implicit consent and that as of X date, they were judges/justices."

 

Zeitz continued, “The administration should similarly ignore shadow docket decisions as non-binding. SCOTUS can choose whether it wants to erode its own authority.”

Bloomberg Law reporter Robert Iafolla also reposted the entire thread, agreeing with the “shadow docket” description of the court.

“54% of U.S. adults said they have a favorable opinion of SCOTUS as of January 2022, down from 70% in August 2020, according to Pew Research Center. The court’s growing legitimacy problem coincides with its expanded use of the shadow docket,” Iafolla tweeted.

Robert Iakolla tweeted "54% of U.S. adults said they have a favorable opinion of SCOTUS as of January 2022, down from 70% in August 2020, according to Pew Research Center The court's growing legitimacy problem coincides with its expanded use of the shadow docket."

 

Fourth Circuit: A Person has a Right to Come to the Door with a Firearm

On March 30, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit published an opinion in the case of Knibbs v Momphard. The Court found for the Estate of Knibbs, which is suing Deputy Momphard of the Macon County Sheriff’s Department. It was a split opinion, for the Knibbs Estate.

Important precedents involving firearms and the Second Amendment are solidified by this opinion, which cites several previous cases.  The Constitutional Amendment primarily cited is the Fourth Amendment. However, the citation to the Fourth relies on the Second Amendment, which includes the possession of a firearm in the home for self-defense.

This author sees the important issues in this case, clarified by the March 30 opinion, as:

  1. The mere possession of a firearm by a homeowner is not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force by officers.
  2. There is a right to come to the door with a firearm.
  3. Officers must identify themselves as officers to gain qualified immunity.
  4. Mere verbal announcement, without visual confirmation, is not sufficient to gain qualified immunity.
  5. Sufficient precedent exists for officers to be aware of their duty in these situations.

A brief synopsis of the case and disputed events:

Continue reading “”

I hope the court decides to show some more backbone and decide to hear this case. It only take 4 of them. and I’d like to think that Barrett, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch would join Alito & Thomas in granting certiorari.


23 Attorneys General Support SCOTUS Magazine Case

In February, NRA-ILA, in partnership with the California Rifle & Pistol Association, petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear Duncan v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

On April 1st, 23 Attorneys General filed an amicus brief supporting the case.  Drafting was led by:

  • Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich,
  • Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry,
  • Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor, and
  • West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.

Nineteen other Attorneys General joined the brief:

  • Steve Marshall of Alabama,
  • Treg Taylor of Alaska,
  • Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas,
  • Chris Carr of Georgia,
  • Lawrence Wasden of Idaho,
  • Todd Rokita of Indiana,
  • Derek Schmidt of Kansas,
  • Daniel Cameron of Kentucky,
  • Lynn Fitch of Mississippi,
  • Eric Schmitt of Missouri,
  • Austin Knudsen of Montana,
  • Doug Peterson of Nebraska,
  • Dave Yost of Ohio,
  • Alan Wilson of South Carolina,
  • Jason Ravnsborg of South Dakota,
  • Herbert Slatery III of Tennessee,
  • Ken Paxton of Texas,
  • Sean Reyes of Utah,
  • Bridget Hill of Wyoming

As the chief legal and law enforcement officer in their respective states, these Attorneys General offered critical support in defense of the Second Amendment. “Calling Standard Magazines ‘large-capacity’ is a misnomer,” the brief argues. Standard magazines “often hold only in the range of eleven to fifteen rounds (in no way a large absolute number) and come standard with many of the most popular firearms.” The brief further argues that “There is nothing sinister about citizens bearing Standard Magazines. Law-abiding citizens bearing Standard Magazines with lawful firearms benefit public safety, counter-balance the threat of illegal gun violence, and help make our streets safer.”

The Supreme Court Says You Can Sue Cops Who Frame You on False Charges
The previous standard barring such lawsuits made “little sense,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the majority.

Police officers could frame people, file bogus charges, conjure evidence out of thin air—and, in most of the U.S., they would still be immune from facing any sort of civil accountability for that malicious prosecution. Until yesterday.

In January 2014, Larry Thompson’s sister-in-law called 911 after noticing his baby had a rash. That call resulted in several police officers showing up at Thompson’s Brooklyn apartment, entering without a warrant, arresting him when he objected to that, jailing him for two days, and charging him with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest after they allegedly lied about what happened.

The initial 911 call was bogus: Thompson’s sister-in-law struggles with mental illness and assumed the mark was a sign of sexual abuse; an inspection at the hospital revealed it to be diaper rash. The charges resulting from that call were bogus as well; the prosecutor ultimately moved to dismiss them, and a trial judge closed the case.

Yet when Thompson attempted to sue the officers involved, he was barred by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit: In order to bring such a suit, victims were required to prove that false charges were dropped because the defendants in question had affirmatively proven their innocence.

Which is no feasible task. “When charges are dismissed, you generally have no opportunity to introduce evidence, let alone indicate your innocence,” says Amir Ali, Executive Director of the MacArthur Justice Center and an attorney for Thompson.

Yesterday, the highest court in the country struck that requirement down, ruling that Thompson should indeed have a right to sue the officers at the center of his case. “A plaintiff such as Thompson must demonstrate, among other things, that he obtained a favorable termination of the underlying criminal prosecution,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. “We hold that a Fourth Amendment claim…for malicious prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence.”

The absurdity of that standard was not lost on the court. “Requiring the plaintiff to show that his prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of innocence would paradoxically foreclose a…claim when the government’s case was weaker and dismissed without explanation before trial, but allow a claim when the government’s evidence was substantial enough to proceed to trial,” wrote Kavanaugh. “That would make little sense.” Continue reading “”

She quotes ( as a ‘theory’) the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Then when asked if she agrees with that states “I do not hold a position”
That a judge and SCOTUS nominee “do[es] not hold a position” on rights, tells me she should never have been a judge in the first place.
She’s like any other ivory tower elitist:
“The law – and your rights – are what I say they are”


Here’s a copy of the pertinent questions:

15. Please explain, in your own words, the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers’ generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or inalienable.

RESPONSE: The theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

16. Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?

RESPONSE: I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.
a. If yes, what is your position?

RESPONSE: Please see my response to Question 16.

17. Please articulate your understanding of the distinction between natural law and positive law, and state whether you consider each to be relevant to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, congressional power, or federal law?

RESPONSE: I understand natural law to refer to principles derived from nature that govern human conduct. I understand positive law to refer to enacted legal texts, such as the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties. I interpret federal law according to the methods of interpretation employed by the Supreme Court, including by resolving cases or controversies based on the text at issue, any pertinent history, and any applicable precedent.

Judge Overrules Motion to Dismiss Missouri AG’s Lawsuit Against SPS Over Critical Race Theory

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3) — A lawsuit against Springfield Public Schools will continue to proceed after a judge overruled a motion to dismiss the lawsuit earlier this week.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed the lawsuit against SPS on Nov. 16 over alleged Sunshine Law violations. His office had previously requested public records from the school district pertaining to critical race theory.

The lawsuit filed on Nov. 16 alleges, “Springfield Public Schools violated the law by demanding a deposit for items or services other than copies as a precondition to making public records available to the Attorney General’s Office.”

The original lawsuit asked the court to issue a judgment declaring the Springfield Public Schools violated the Sunshine Law, ordering the Springfield Public Schools to release all responsive records to the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, and ordering $1,000 in civil penalties for any knowing violation under the Sunshine Law…………

Fifth Circuit Rules Against New Jersey In 3-D Gun Ban Case

The Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed today are celebrating a court victory in a long-running battle to allow online publication of information related to the 3D printing of firearms, thanks to a ruling by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that returns claims against the New Jersey attorney general (NJAG) to its jurisdiction.

A district court order had wrongly severed the case against the NJAG, from a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, and transferring it to a federal court in New Jersey. Today’s ruling in the Fifth Circuit directs the district court in Texas to “request retransfer from its counterpart in New Jersey.”

“It’s a huge victory for us,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because New Jersey wanted to be severed from our legal action in their effort to prevent publication of the information by Defense Distributed, thus violating the company’s and SAF’s First Amendment rights to promote the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”

The Second Amendment Foundation is calling for an investigation of possible gun law violations by NBC News and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office while producing and filming an undercover “hidden camera investigation” at a gun show focusing on sales of so-called “ghost gun” kits.
This effort began when anti-gun-rights attorneys general, led by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, filed suit in the Western District of Washington to enjoin the State Department from authorizing the release of Defense Distributed’s files on the internet under a settlement from a previous SAF and Defense Distributed lawsuit.

That effort was an offshoot of attempts by then-New Jersey AG Gurbir Grewal and several of his peers to prevent the plaintiffs’ distribution of materials related to the 3D printing of firearms.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones stated, “Correctly assessed, the NJAG did not carry its burden to clearly demonstrate that transfer is clearly more appropriate than the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.

The district court erred legally and factually in virtually every aspect of this issue, and its decision, which has unnecessarily lengthened this litigation even more, represents a clear abuse of discretion for which mandamus is an appropriate remedy.”

An earlier ruling by a Fifth Circuit panel held that the NJAG is “subject to the jurisdiction of Texas courts” in this case because Defense Distributed is a Texas-based company. Today, the Fifth Circuit ruling directs the district court to:

  • Vacate its order dated April 19, 2021, that severed Defense Distributed’s claims against the NJAG and transferred them to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
  • Request the District of New Jersey to return the transferred case to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division; and,
  • After return, to reconsolidate Defense Distributed’s case against the NJAG back into the case still pending against the State Department.

“This case has dragged on for years,” Gottlieb noted. “What today’s ruling clearly demonstrates is that attorneys general who violate our First and Second Amendment rights will be held to answer by the courts, wherever the violations occur.

“NJAG wanted their case severed and transferred,” he added, “and now that will not happen. It’s unfortunate that justice has been delayed so long. It’s time to move forward. This is a case we fully expect to totally win.”