Category: Rights

Michigan Golfers Flouting Lockdown Rules Right Next Door to Governor’s Mansion

Seig Heil! THBBT!Heil! THBBT! Right in the Führer’s Face!

Country Club of Lansing allows members to ignore lockdown

The Country Club of Greater Lansing is again allowing its members to play on its course along Moores River Drive after a brief shutdown. And that’s despite guidance today from the state’s top law enforcement official that said otherwise. 

“We cannot rely on the superfluous statements made by each respective office and must only rely on the text of the order itself,” according to an email from the Country Club to its members sent earlier this week, again allowing golf to be played. “If the governor intended the order to specifically ban golf, she would have included such specific language in the order.”

Despite Pandemic, Churches Persevere, Push Back Against Overreach

As politicians and lawyers argue over emergency powers claimed by government officials, the faithful are finding ways to cope amid aggressive public health orders that make it difficult or impossible to come together in person for worship.

As religious people go about their daily lives, battles are raging in courts across the land about how far governments can go in their efforts to combat the CCP virus.

Some Americans have been appalled at what they say are examples of government overreach. Before Easter Sunday, a federal judge in Kentucky enjoined Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer from enforcing a sweeping social-distancing order that banned drive-in church services.

On April 18, a federal court in Kansas granted a temporary injunction against an executive order limiting church gatherings to 10 people, Fox News reported. The order came a week after the state’s supreme court ruled in favor of Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat whose order was reversed by a Republican-led panel of state lawmakers.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, a Republican, said he supported the federal court ruling, which he said was “a much-needed reminder that the Constitution is not under a stay-home order and the Bill of Rights cannot be quarantined.”

He added, “The Constitution protects our liberties especially during times of crisis, when history reveals governments too quick to sacrifice rights of the few to calm fears of the many.”

The Trump administration is siding with the churches, which argue First Amendment rights are being abridged by overreaching executive orders by governors and mayors.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has been monitoring government regulation of religious services. On April 14, he weighed in by issuing a statement.

Even in times of emergency, “the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers,” Barr wrote………..

The Bill of Rights Matter – Even in a Pandemic

The Founding Fathers realized one of the most important aspects of life – our rights are not granted by man, but by God. They understood that if any government is responsible for giving rights to an individual, those freedoms and liberties can be quickly taken away. Instead, when the Bill of Rights was composed, they agreed and recognized that God is the authority of our prerogatives. Whether an elected official likes the Bill of Rights or not, they must adhere to them at all times, not just when it is convenient for them.

New Jersey Democratic Governor Phil Murphy was on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight this past week for an interview on the condition on the state. During the conversation, Carlson mentioned the widely publicized incident of 15 men arrested at a synagogue after attending an orthodox Jewish funeral, accused of violating the governor’s edict against large gatherings. Carlson asked Murphy,” By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order? How do you have the power to do that?”

Murphy’s response is indicative of an authoritarian. He chuckled at Carlson’s question and said, “that’s above my pay grade Tucker,” but did not say who’s pay grade it was. Murphy is the governor of the state of New Jersey. He sits in the highest political office. His decisions affect every citizen and anyone who passes through while traveling or on business. There is no one else above him politically. Murphy rejected responsibility.

Also, did you notice Murphy’s reaction to the question about the Bill of Rights? He chuckled. That is what he thinks about your rights as a United States citizen. His response should not surprise anyone. The Democrats laugh at the Constitution daily – they hate it. They abhor the fact that it restricts them from doing what they want to accomplish full-blown socialism.

Murphy could not answer Carlson’s question directly. He made excuses and blamed an imaginary person who is making other executive decisions in the state of New Jersey. Why? He knows that he cannot answer the question truthfully – the Democrats are in a power grab.

Carlson’s question was necessary for this reason: we have seen too many Democratic politicians act like the Bill of Rights does not apply to them. Since we are amid a pandemic, certain governors are governing by executive edict.

There were congregants cited for attending a drive-in church service in Mississippi after the Democratic mayor issued an executive order against them. The mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, Democrat Greg Fischer, attempted to ban the same type of church service but failed after a judge overruled him. The Kentucky governor ordered the State Police to record all vehicle license registration plates of any vehicle in a church parking lot on Easter Sunday with the threat of forced quarantine.

It is ironic. Democrats are proponents for a more powerful federal government with less power handed to states, except now there is a Republican president in office. All of a sudden, they are enjoying States Rights, perhaps to the point of illegal decrees.

The Bill of Rights guarantees us individual freedoms in America. It gives power to the people and restricts the government from reaching too far into our lives. It is one of the most precious documents in the founding of our country – without it, there is tyranny.

The COVID-19 virus is dangerous. It is responsible for the death of thousands of people. Pandemics do not annul our Constitution, and Civil liberties are under assault by the left.

The Democratic Party does not care about liberties and freedoms as initially intended. They are more concerned with creating a victim mentality nationwide, making their victims feel entitled to certain rights, government checks, and social entitlement.

Pandemics are not new and have been around for thousands of years, causing countless deaths. The Founders did not place anything in the Bill of Rights about widespread illness, and there are no clauses in the Constitution about them. Freedom is inherently dangerous. Much less perilous than security granted by the government, however. 

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Is Peaceful Assembly a Right?

We are approaching April 19. It’s an important date in history because it brings to our recollection the events of 1775 when the British Monarch sent troops to disarm his subjects at Concord, Massachusetts. The patriots who would not get off the Lexington Green were shot and or bayoneted. The British [or the Colonists – no one really knows ed.] fired, “The Shot Heard Round the World,” and history took a different path than that the people of the day may have anticipated on April 16th.
We have a republic and the only way that we will keep it is through eternal vigilance. I understand that we face a Chinese Plague, but the Chinese and their plague have not canceled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have the right to assemble peacefully, the right to worship according to the dictates of our conscience and the right to be armed and to defend ourselves.
The situation in some US states where governors have offered bounties for denouncements on people who may be walking a dog or sitting on a park bench by themselves taking air are most disturbing. The situation in Virginia with the recent passage of intolerable acts, or laws if you will, which are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, also create concern.

Even in a Pandemic, ‘Constitutional Rights Still Exist’

Raleigh Police Department: ‘Protesting Is a Non-Essential Activity’
The government has broad emergency powers, but that doesn’t mean the Constitution is suspended

In response to a protest calling for North Carolina’s economy to reopen yesterday, the Raleigh Police Department arrested at least one person for violating the state’s stay-at-home orders.

But wait, don’t you have a constitutional right to assemble? Not so fast, says the Raleigh Police Department:

This blithe assertion that fundamental First Amendment activities are “non-essential” did not go over well, to put it mildly

and it got this from the state senate:

Image

and the Rahleigh police apparently ‘doubled down’.

Image

Image

in effect: Honest! We is just following orders!

Drivers swarm Michigan capital to protest coronavirus lockdown measures

Hundreds of cars, trucks and SUVs descended on Michigan’s state capital Wednesday afternoon as part of a noisy protest against Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s social-distancing restrictions that critics say have gone too far.

Dubbed “Operation Gridlock” and organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, the protest did just that – creating bumper-to-bumper traffic throughout downtown Lansing as demonstrators blasted their horns, waved Americans flags and hoisted placards deriding Whitmer’s orders and demanding that she reopen the state’s economy.

The lockdown measures are meant to curb the spread of the coronavirus outbreak, but Whitmer has gone further than some other governors — and the backlash in Michigan is among the most heated in the country.

“Let’s start with the fact that some counties have no or very few COVID cases and yet are totally shut down,” Rosanne Ponkowski, president of the Michigan Conservative Coalition, said in a statement. “When did a one-size solution solve everyone’s local issues? Governor Whitmer will put you out of business before allowing mere citizens to be responsible for their own behavior.  That is madness.”

Whitmer announced over the weekend an expansion to her state’s stay-at-home orders, which among other things prohibits residents from visiting family or friends with exceptions for providing care, bans public and private gatherings regardless of size or family ties, and places restrictions on what types of businesses may operate and in what capacity.

Michigan has the fourth-largest number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States, with more 27,000 being reported as of Wednesday afternoon, according to the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University.

The orders, which are in place until at least May 1, quickly drew criticism from conservative Republicans in the state, who argue that the governor is turning Michigan into a “nanny state” and impeding their civil liberties.

“Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of healthy people,” Meshawn Maddock, an organizer of “Operation Gridlock” with the Michigan Conservative Coalition, told Fox News. “Every person has learned a harsh lesson about social distancing. We don’t need a nanny state to tell people how to be careful.”

3 Southern California churches sue Gov. Newsom over physical distancing orders

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Three Southern California churches that want to keep their doors open during the coronavirus outbreak sued Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials on Monday, arguing that physical distancing orders violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and assembly.

The suit, filed in the federal court for the Central District of California, also names state Attorney General Xavier Becerra and officials of San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

The suit seeks to block Newsom’s month-old stay-at-home order and two county orders designed to slow the spread of COVID-19 by having people mostly stay at home, closing businesses except for those deemed essential and barring group gatherings. The orders don’t list houses of worship among the critical infrastructure where face-to-face contact is permitted.

A message to the governor’s office seeking comment was not immediately returned.

The suit names three churches in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

One plaintiff, James Moffatt, senior pastor at Church Unlimited in Indio, was fined $1,000 for violating Riverside County’s order by holding a Palm Sunday service, according to the lawsuit.

Moffatt “believes that Scripture commands him as a pastor to lay hands on people and pray for them, this includes the sick,” the suit said. “Moffatt also believes that he is required by Scripture to baptize individuals, something that cannot be done at an online service.”

Also named are a parishioner and the head pastor of Shield of Faith Family Church in Fontana and the senior pastor of Word of Life Ministries International in Riverside, which usually has 20 to 30 regular attendees, according to the suit.

The churches argue that the state and local orders are overly broad and that they can practice safe physical distancing in the same manner as grocery stores and other outlets that are considered essential services and allowed to remain open.

“The state does not get to dictate the method of worship to the faithful,” said Harmeet K. Dhillon, chief executive of the Center for American Liberty, a California nonprofit organization that filed the suit. The lawsuit argues that the orders are unconstitutionally broad.

“If a Californian is able to go to Costco or the local marijuana shop or liquor store and buy goods in a responsible, socially distanced manner, then he or she must be allowed to practice their faith using the same precautions,” she said in a statement.

The center was founded in 2019 by Dhillon, who is on the Republican National Committee that helps steer the party’s platform and election strategy.

“I believe the suit has merit,” said John C. Eastman, a professor of law and community service at Chapman University in Orange.

“Obviously, stopping a pandemic is a compelling government interest” but the issue is whether the orders are narrowly tailored enough to meet the strict scrutiny required of laws dealing with religion, Eastman said in an email…………..

Attorney General Bill Barr Intervenes In Mississippi Church Case, Says City Appeared To ‘Single Churches Out’ In Social Distancing Orders

Attorney General Bill Barr announced Tuesday that the City of Greenville in Mississippi appeared to have “singled churches out” as essential services that may not operate according to state social-distancing guidelines, Fox News reported.

The Justice Department intervened in Temple Baptist Church’s lawsuit against Greenville police for ticketing congregants during a drive-in service amid coronavirus social-distancing rules, saying that it “strongly suggests that the city’s actions target religious conduct,” according to Fox.

Police began issuing $500 tickets to congregants who refused to leave a parking lot where the church was holding a drive-in service, prompting the Justice Department to file a statement of interest following the church’s lawsuit. “The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of its citizens’ fundamental right to the free exercise of religion, expressly protected by the First Amendment,” the statement says…………..

‘Karen‘ is a mocking slang term for an entitled, obnoxious, middle-aged white woman. Especially as featured in memes, Karen is generally stereotyped as having a blonde bob haircut, asking to speak to retail and restaurant managers to voice complaints or make demands, and being a nagging, often divorced mother from Generation X.

Someone asked what is it about liberals that brings out their inner fascist when they have power?
My answer is that they want government to control everything and they want to control government.
They’re meddling, nosy, busybody control freaks that deep inside seem to be scared to death that the unwashed ignorant masses will do something stupid and mess up their plans to create their version of Utopia. So they do their level best to get in positions of political power to control things as they see fit, whether or not what they do makes any sense at all.
The same mental derangement powers their gun-controller fantasies for they consider guns too dangerous for the unwashed to have the ability to own because, among other dread notions, the masses might decide they’ve had enough of the busybodies sticking their noses where they don’t belong, rise up and decide matters ‘permanently’.
The proggie/lefist/libs are actually more stupid than everyone else and usually wind up causing more problems than if they’d simply left things alone. Mores the pity.

The Rise of Karen-ism Means This Lockdown Nonsense Needs To End Soon

One of the least appealing aspects of the American character is the residual Puritanism that still compels a certain percentage of our countrymen, women and others, to nag, pester, and generally annoy the rest of us by trying to make us conform to their stick-up-the-Lieu vision of propriety.

These people – these obnoxious Karens, for lack of a better FCC-compliant term – are delighted by the Chinese Bat Biter grippe and the opportunity it presents for them to try to impose their arbitrary will upon the rest of us. These mewling Mussolinis need to be slapped back, verbally if not physically, but as long as we are under this lockdown, they will not stop. They live for this, the chance to dictate to and control us, and the problem is some of them have positions of power.

This is yet another reason – as if the failure of the “We’re all gonna die!” model and the mass economic devastation the Twitter blue checks ignore were not reasons enough – that we need to be focusing on coming out of this Wuhan flu funk. If would be a pity if pangolin licking not only killed thousands of our most vulnerable citizens but also our will to resist petty tyrants who presume to scold us for such crimes as worshipping our God, seeing our families, and buying tomato seeds.

This is not to say that the Chinese coronavirus pandemic is fake or unserious, nor that we should ignore it and pretend that it’s just another flu. It is to say that there is more going on now than a respiratory ailment. There’s an economic ailment that most of us are painfully aware of, and there is a freedom ailment, where the Karens in everyday life and in the corridors or power are taking advantage of this crisis to let their fascist flag fly.

When you have some petty official commanding Christians not to gather together in worship, that’s a line that they don’t get to cross. No official gets to ban religious services. My church is doing its services by video, because that’s what we decided. Government officials don’t get to decide. The question of whether they can ban religious services got decided by the First Amendment, and while they may think it’s a really, really good idea to tell us what to do, they don’t get to. As federal judge Justin Walker put it in a powerful opinion that every American of any faith, or no faith, should read in its glorious entirety:

On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter. That sentence is one that this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of The Onion. But two days ago, citing the need for social distancing during the current pandemic, Louisville’s Mayor Greg Fischer ordered Christians not to attend Sunday services, even if they remained in their cars to worship – and even though it’s Easter. The Mayor’s decision is stunning. And it is, “beyond all reason,” unconstitutional.

By the way, Judge Walker was appointed by Donald Trump and his confirmation was shepherded by Cocaine Mitch. Don’t channels the Fredocons by pretending that judges do not matter because you know there would be plenty of Clinton and Obama judges eager to rubberstamp the banning of Christian or Orthodox Jewish services by liberal political Karens seeking to own the normals.

In Michigan, Governor Karen O’Karenheimer decided that buying non-essential stuff should be outlawed, and guess who decided what’s non-essential? Well, dope appears essential, but dope smokin’ morons make up a lot of the Democrat base (and the Libertarian base too), so off course hopheads get a pass. But gardening supplies and seeds? Nah. Why? Because, that’s why. You might think it was mind-bendingly stupid if you did not understand her real motivation – it’s the giddy joy of bossing you around. To paraphrase a great line from Heat, which everyone should do as often as possible, the fascism is the juice.

The Karenists love this. Love it. And that’s why they are fighting tooth and nail to extend this lockdown in perpetuity. Oh, they have excuses and rationalizations to make it seem like this is for our own good as opposed for their jollies. “Safety.” “Lives at stake.” You know them all. And in theory, those are real considerations. But they are not the only considerations. Not for the Karens – they can want to save lives even as they gleefully get off on their own power – and not for us either. We need to balance all the considerations in deciding when this ends. Safety is an important thing, but not the only thing. If the standard is no life can ever be put at risk, say good-bye to cars, to steak, to swimming pools, to any kind of freedom to make choices. And to the Karens, that’s a feature, not a bug………….

Kentucky State Police record churchgoers’ license plates at Hillview in-person Easter service

Dozens of families attended Easter service at the Bullitt County church despite an executive order from Gov. Andy Beshear that prohibits mass gatherings in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. Beshear said Friday that anyone who participates in mass gatherings of any type during Easter weekend will be required to self-quarantine for two weeks.

The troopers also placed notices under cars’ windshield wipers that say, “This vehicle’s presence at this location indicates that its occupants are present at a mass gathering prohibited by Orders of the Governor and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. As a result, this vehicle’s occupants, and anyone they come into contact with, are at risk of contracting COVID-19, a respiratory illness that can be severe and lead to death, particularly for older adults and those with underlying heart, lung, kidney and immunity issues.”

According to Beshear, the license plate information will be forwarded to local health departments, which will then present orders to self-quarantine for 14 days at the car owners’ homes. Failure to comply could result in further enforcement, the notices say.

“I don’t know whether they took our license plates or not; it don’t really matter,” the Rev. Jack Roberts said during Sunday’s service, which was livestreamed on the church’s Facebook page. “Church, I’ll just tell you something: If you get a ticket, if you get a ticket for being in church this morning, bring it to me; my lawyer said he’ll take care of it. It’s garbage; it’s just garbage. I took a picture of my license plate on the back of my car and sent it to the governor yesterday. I just said, ‘Save yourself a trip, right here it is. Ain’t no need in coming out.'”

During his opening remarks Sunday, Roberts acknowledged people who drove from Dayton, Ohio, and two women who drove from South Brunswick, New Jersey, to Kentucky to attend Maryville’s Easter service. Roberts also said that someone scattered “at least one keg, one box” of nails throughout the church’s parking lot before the congregation arrived for service.

Too bad. So sad…..not

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York closing centers, laying off staff

NEW YORK — Planned Parenthood of Greater New York has begun laying off and furloughing employees and will temporarily close a dozen of its health centers, citing a strain on resources posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

The organization — which formed in January through the merger of five Planned Parenthood affiliates, including the Mohawk Hudson affiliate in the Capital Region — began terminating and furloughing staff on Monday, according to emails obtained by the Times Union. Staff will be reduced by about 28 percent across all departments, either through permanent termination, or through furloughs and reduced hours through June 30.

The temporary closure of health centers will leave some communities, such as Rome and Oneida in Central New York, with no nearby options for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing or abortion services, according to staff at those centers.

In August 2013, DEFCAD released the public alpha of its 3D search engine, which indexes public object repositories and allows users to add their own objects. The site soon closed down due to pressure from the United States State Department, under the pretense that distributing certain files online might violate US Arms Export ITAR regulations.

From 2013 to 2018, DEFCAD remained offline, pending resolution to the legal case Defense Distributed brought against the State Department, namely that ITAR regulations placed a prior restraint on Defense Distributed’s free speech, particularly since the speech in question regarded another constitutionally protected right: firearms. While the legal argument failed to gain support in federal court, in a surprise reversal in 2018, the State Department agreed that ITAR did in fact violate Defense Distributed’s free speech. Therefore, for a brief period in late 2018 DEFCAD was once again publicly available online.

Shortly thereafter, 20 states and Washington DC sued the State Department, in order to prevent DEFCAD from remaining online. At its core, this new suit (correctly) cited a procedural error: the proper notice had not been given prior to enacting the change in how ITAR applied to small arms. As such, DEFCAD was once again taken offline, pending the State Department providing proper notice via the Federal Register.

On March 28, 2020, DEFCAD once again became publicly available online

Gun-Rights Activist Releases Blueprints for Digital Guns
Cody Wilson calls the move impervious to legal challenge

A U.S. technology company made thousands of digital-gun files publicly available, including blueprints that will enable users to make plastic guns with three-dimensional printers, a scourge of gun-control advocates.
Cody Wilson, a director of the company, Defcad, has waged a multiyear legal battle against the federal government over the right to share 3-D-gun-related materials. This was the third time he has released such files, but the first time he has abided by U.S. foreign export controls online, using what he said are digital verification tools to ensure legal file downloads.
Mr. Wilson said he believed his release of the files would be “impervious” to legal challenge and would help normalize the distribution of such material for easy download in the future.
Mr. Wilson is offering access to the files for an annual fee of $50, characterizing his service as “Netflix for 3-D guns.”
His opponents quickly condemned the action, saying that he is bypassing federal gun laws, including those providing for background checks of gun buyers. Foes are also concerned about the proliferation of 3-D-printed guns, which don’t have serial numbers, making it difficult for law-enforcement officers to track them should they be involved in a crime.
“The biggest concern with 3-D-printed guns and the technical data for them is that they’re not traceable,” said Kelly Sampson, counsel at Brady: United Against Gun Violence, a gun-control group. “It’s a huge loophole and opportunity for people who would otherwise be unable to access firearms to be able to do so.”
Federal law generally permits the manufacture of guns for personal use.
The State Department, which oversees the distribution of 3-D-gun blueprints, regardless of export intent, has the responsibility of scrutinizing Mr. Wilson’s new effort. The department declined to comment.
Mr. Wilson said he is fighting the imposition of limits on personal freedoms and that he expects people to download the 3-D-gun files not necessarily to manufacture guns, but “as a form of internal resistance.”
“For me, this is a political battle,” Mr. Wilson said.
Mr. Wilson first alarmed lawmakers when his company, Defense Distributed, published 3-D-gun design files in 2012. In 2013, the State Department ordered him to take down the plans.
The Obama administration ultimately reasoned that the files could be downloaded by foreign nationals and were thus classified as exports regulated by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, a U.S. control on the export of defense and military technology.
Mr. Wilson had run afoul of laws designed to control sales for export, not those restricting domestic transactions.
Mr. Wilson engaged in a lengthy legal fight with the federal government, ultimately prevailing in 2018 when the State Department amended its policy and allowed the files to be posted, issuing Mr. Wilson a license to do so.
President Trump waded into the discussion that summer, writing on Twitter that he was “looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!”
Mr. Wilson again published the plans on his site, before a group of 19 state attorneys general brought suit against him in Seattle federal court. U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik issued an injunction ordering Mr. Wilson to take down the plans.
In his ruling, Mr. Lasnik wrote that Mr. Wilson aimed “to arm every citizen outside of the government’s traditional control mechanism.”
Mr. Wilson said he had been waiting for a long-planned transfer of 3-D-gun oversight from ITAR to the Commerce Department to go through before reissuing the blueprints. Commerce Department oversight is in some respects more lenient than that of ITAR, as it isn’t subject to congressional approval.
But when a new suit was brought in Seattle federal court last year, blocking the transfer of 3-D guns to the Commerce Department’s oversight list, Mr. Wilson charted a new course.
Instead of openly publishing the plans, he said that he would now first vet people who would like to download them, ensuring that they are U.S. citizens or legal residents and that they are located within the U.S., maintaining compliance with ITAR export rules.
To achieve this, Mr. Wilson said he would employ four levels of security, including IP geolocation and proxy detection and technology developed for credit bureaus and anti-money-laundering specialists.
“The internet is not an airtight, hack-proof system,” Ms. Sampson said. “Even some of our most secure databases are vulnerable. It’s not quite living in reality to assume that you can 100% secure information that’s online.”
Mr. Wilson’s proposed system can’t prevent people who download blueprints from sharing them with others, including with those outside the U.S. “I can only tell them that it’s against the law to do so,” Mr. Wilson said.
Nevertheless, Mr. Wilson said his approach adheres to export rules. “I’m a compliant part of the system,” he said.
Defcad has so far made 3,680 files available. Mr. Wilson said that the site will ultimately offer more than 25,000 files, the great majority of which will be for traditional guns and gun components. Many of those are already in the public domain.
Mr. Wilson, who lives in Austin, Texas, timed his Friday release to coincide with the anniversary of the 1836 execution of several hundred soldiers in the Texas revolution in the town of Goliad.

 

NRA and 3 other gun groups suing L.A. County Sheriff Villanueva over shutting down firearms dealers

Four gun-owners rights organizations on Friday sued Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva over his repeated attempts this week to shut down firearms dealers, contending that his actions violate citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms.

“Shuttering access to arms necessarily shutters the Constitutional right to those arms,” says the federal lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association of America, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition on behalf of individual gun buyers and a Los Angeles firearm and ammunition retailer.

Meanwhile, libertarian economist and actor Ben Stein sued Gov. Gavin Newsom, challenging whether California’s unprecedented restrictions on social movement can actually be enforced.

Gun-owner rights organizations have asked the federal government to end the debate nationwide over whether gun shops can remain open despite growing stay-at-home orders aimed at reducing the spread of the coronavirus. They want the U.S. government to specifically add them to official lists of essential services.

They say the Los Angeles lawsuit is the first in California to challenge forced closures. It could end a patchwork of such decisions that has Villanueva ordering them closed to the public in the nation’s most populous county, while other California sheriffs declare them to be vital.

Villanueva’s office did not respond to telephone and email requests for comment.

The sheriff first ordered a total shutdown on Tuesday, saying long lines from panic buyers risked spreading the coronavirus. The disease causes mild or moderate symptoms for most people, but for some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia and death.

He again on Thursday ordered the stores closed to the public, challenging the county legal counsel’s finding that the stores are essential businesses that should remain open. However, his second order said the stores may still supply security guard companies, and anyone who already has purchased a gun and possesses a valid safety certificate can pick up their firearms.

Those exceptions aren’t good enough, the lawsuit says, because gun stores provide “the only lawful means to buy, sell, and transfer firearms and ammunition available to typical, law-abiding Californians.”

It also argues the shutdown violates the constitutional right to due process, and says even those who can pick up their previously purchased firearms now can’t buy the ammunition they need to go with them.

Meanwhile, Stein’s lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court asks that a judge clarify the rights that citizens have under Newsom’s executive order, which it notes has not been enacted into law by state legislators nor by voters at the ballot box.

His requirement that residents stay home except for essential errands “approximates the house arrest of 39.5 million healthy and uninfected California citizens,” says the lawsuit filed by the actor perhaps best known for his dry, monotone delivery in the 1986 movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”

“Ben respects the governor and he respects people doing social distancing and good health hygiene. But what he has an issue with is that the governor’s order appears to be dictatorial,” said prominent right-wing attorney Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch who sued on Stein’s behalf.

He argued that Newsom’s order, while laudable as a recommendation, “cannot be enforced.”

Newsom administration officials did not respond to requests for comment. It’s unclear when or if the suit might be considered, because most court functions have been shut down due to the coronavirus.

So far, officials generally deny that they are conducting stops or making arrests if someone doesn’t comply.

But Stein, who lives in Beverly Hills, said in the lawsuit and on Klayman’s radio show Friday that a friend who is a pastor has been threatened with arrest if he holds religious services even for fewer than 10 people.

“This is outrageous, this is a police state, and it’s an interference with freedom of religion, it’s an interference with freedom of assembly,” Stein said on the show. “It’s what I call a soft police state.”

The freedom included being able to go to the LGS and buy what guns, ammo & whatever else you decide you need to help ensure your safety.

Why Economic Freedom Is Critical to Beating the Coronavirus

The debate in the United States over whether to move away from free markets and toward socialism may change dramatically as the latest coronavirus spreads throughout the world. That’s because in the fight against the global pandemic, we’ll likely witness one of the most compelling arguments in our lifetimes emerge in favor of free-market systems – and lives will be saved in the process.

The pandemic will demonstrate that nations with the freest markets and freest people tend to have the health care systems with the greatest capacity to handle such a crisis. Free-market incentives have produced health care systems that have better capacities in terms of beds, equipment and medical personnel to handle increased caseloads. Those incentives have also spurred innovations that have led to some of the greatest medical advances in history.

Moreover, nations with both private-sector companies that are financially incentivized to work quickly for a cure, and governments willing to remove regulatory obstacles to innovation, are more likely to develop the treatments to abate the disease or possibly even find a cure.

Countries with freer markets also tend to be more resilient in times of crisis and more capable of handling external shocks. Thanks to their free-market incentives as well as the flexibility to respond to changing conditions that comes with less government central planning, they have the widest availability of food, medicine, and other crucial necessities.

This is not conjecture. The Heritage Foundation’s annual “Index of Economic Freedom,” the latest edition of which was released just days ago, provides the indisputable data showing that citizens who live in nations with greater economic freedom have better health outcomes overall.

Economic freedom is represented by a variety of factors such as smaller, less intrusive government; lower taxes; reduced regulations on people and businesses; an environment that makes it easier for average citizens to start or operate a business; and the protection of private property rights, including protections like patents for new innovations.

The index has measured economic freedom in approximately 180 countries around the world for the last 26 years and shows that greater economic freedom has decreased poverty, created more prosperous economies, and increased positive health outcomes and life expectancies across the globe. Greater economic freedom has led to better health care systems, better education systems, a greater abundance of food, cleaner environments, and a higher quality of life for citizens.

Recently, Heritage Foundation researchers put the Index of Economic Freedom side-by-side with the Johns Hopkins’ Global Health Security Index, which measures countries’ capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats. Not surprisingly, they found a high correlation between economic freedom and health security.

Countries that Heritage ranked as “free” or “mostly free” in the economic freedom index also tended to score the highest on the health security index, while countries ranked as “mostly unfree” or “repressed” tended to score the lowest, indicating a poor ability to respond to infectious diseases.

In the coming months, we will be watching how countries across the economic freedom spectrum respond to the coronavirus pandemic. I have little doubt that we’ll see it’s the world’s freest nations that will do the best job of finding treatments and possibly a cure. Ultimately, their medical advances will be shared with all nations and used to save lives around the world.

That isn’t gloating; that is a sincere hope that such a critical demonstration of the power of economic freedom will encourage every nation to adopt more free-market approaches so that their citizens don’t just overcome this pandemic, but go on to live longer, healthier, and more prosperous lives.

It’s also my hope that some in our own government learn these lessons as well and don’t use this crisis as an opportunity to erode our personal and economic freedoms and push for spending free-for-alls. Any legislation to address the crisis must be targeted to the people who actually need it, temporary for only as long as the crisis lasts, and transparent – directed at fighting the coronavirus and aiding public health, not aiding special interests.

That is how we will emerge from this pandemic stronger than we were before.

I don’t think there was ‘confusion’ as much as there was ‘push back’.

Justice Department responds to ‘confusion’ about ’emergency powers’ request during coronavirus outbreak

The Justice Department responded to an article about its congressional request for “emergency powers” for courts during crises such as the coronavirus, arguing that these proposals would empower judges to ensure criminals don’t avoid justice during national emergencies.

Facing bipartisan backlash from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Kerri Kupec, the spokeswoman for Attorney General William Barr, shared a statement Monday that claimed it was Congress that first asked for the proposals.

“There has been some confusion re: reports about DOJ asking Congress for certain ‘emergency powers.’ This was triggered by Congress asking DOJ for suggested proposals necessary to ensure that federal courts would be able to administer fair and impartial justice during the pandemic,” the lengthy statement tweeted by Kupec said.

The report on the draft legislative text by Politico said, “The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the novel coronavirus spreads throughout the United States.”

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Does The Coronavirus ‘National Emergency’ Endanger The Constitution And The Bill Of Rights?

Original copies of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights remain on display at the National Archives in our nation’s capital. Many Americans consider that the system of government established by those documents is as strong as the pieces of parchment themselves. Quite the contrary. The system of government bequeathed to us more than 230 years ago – one of defined and limited powers designed above all else to protect individual liberty — is far more fragile than most citizens realize.

At no time is the fragility of guaranteed individual liberty more at risk than in times of “emergency;” including, as we face today, one posed not by outside human forces, but by nature. Many in our country clamor for the federal government to control virtually every aspect of dealing with the COVID-19 virus, including use of the military and virtual suspension of civil liberties (as some cities and states are already doing).

If the system of limiting government power and maximizing individual liberty as delineated in the Constitution is to continue in any meaningful degree, we need to remember that our Founders and their generation faced challenges far beyond those we face today. They knew the country they were establishing would face serious threats, including military threats from beyond our shores. They knew as well that Americans would be challenged by Mother Nature, whether by natural forces or by disease.

Yet knowing all that, the system of government they created was one of deliberately limited and defined powers and premised on fundamental pre-existing individual liberties. Our Founders clearly understood that individual liberty protected by the limitations on government power incorporated in the Constitution, could not survive if temporal challenges were permitted to justify circumventing those very restrictions.

In the intervening decades, of course, many U.S. presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and others, have ignored the profound and correct understanding of human nature reflected in the Constitution. Predictably, civil liberties suffered with little if any real or lasting “safety” gained in return.

Nineteen years ago, the United States faced a serious and very real challenge. Some of the measures undertaken by the federal government in response to the 9-11 attacks violated existing laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Other measures, imposed in accord with the hurriedly enacted USA PATRIOT Act, were clearly at odds with the Bill of Rights. But all such steps were justified by government officials at the time because they would “make us safe.”

Less than four years after the World Trade Centers were attacked, one of America’s oldest cities – New Orleans – was beset with a disaster not of terrorists’ making, but of nature’s wrath. Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, officials in that city worked to disarm law-abiding citizens trying to protect their homes, families and businesses from looters and other criminals. In one of the most counter-productive government decisions in modern history, officials deliberately swept aside the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to arm one’s self in self-defense simply because the city faced an “emergency.”

The precedents set by those constitutionally ill-advised actions present troubling questions today for officials in our nation’s capital and in cities across the country. As I wrote in this publication just one week ago, troubling steps already have been taken that severely limit the civil liberties supposed to be protected by our Constitution as against infringement by federal, state and local governments.

Now, it appears the federal government is readying additional measures that would undercut one of our Founders’ deepest fears – use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Steps likely under consideration include further expanding exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act (the law designed to prohibit use of the Armed Forces in domestic matters), and broadening the president’s power to deploy the military to quell an “insurrection” in circumstances having nothing to do with such a domestic uprising. Additionally, federal officials may impose other clever sleight-of-hand measures to undercut the “great writ” of habeas corpus to facilitate arresting and detaining individuals for the duration of the declared “emergency.”

Whether it is these contingencies, or others creatively contrived by lawyers in Washington, none would be in accord with the principles and mechanisms mandated in the Constitution. “National Emergency” Phase Two would be even more constitutionally troubling than Phase One.

Federal judge blocks release of 3D-printed gun files

Talk about examples of shutting the barn door after the horses have not just left, but also foaled.

NEW YORK (WENY) — A federal judge has blocked the Trump Administration from allowing 3D-printed gun files, or ghost guns, to be released on the internet.

According to New York Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. District Judge Richard Jones granted a multistate request for a preliminary injunction of the files.

Allowing the release would yield widespread online access to downloadable files with specifications for particular firearms, including AR-15s.

The ghost guns were given their name because they are unregistered and untraceable. They lack a serial number and can be difficult to detect, even with a metal detector.

“Ghost guns threaten the safety of every man, woman, and child in America,” Attorney General James said. “We filed this lawsuit to stop the Trump Administration from making it easier for our schools, our offices, and our places of worship from turning into killing fields, and, thanks to the court, the president has been rebuffed in his attempt to cater to the one constituency he cares about: the gun lobby.”

The National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates, however, argue that 3D-printed gun blueprints are already available online, and that disseminating them further should be allowed as free speech.

On Friday evening, Judge Jones ordered a preliminary injunction, blocking the administration from allowing the files to be released, while the lawsuit brought by Attorney General James and a coalition of 20 additional attorneys general from around the nation continues in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Does the Second Amendment Mean You Have a Right to a Gun Shop Near You?

Imagine if gun rights groups demanded that gun shops did not have to meet state safety regulations because the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms and that fundamental constitutional right requires a similar right to be able to access firearms. Americans have a right to bear arms, therefore Americans have a right to purchase guns within a 30-mile radius of their homes, therefore states cannot pass safety regulations that have the effect of causing gun shops to go out of business.

This is the pro-abortion argument in the Supreme Court case June Medical Services v. Gee in a nutshell. Abortion clinics argue that the State of Louisiana cannot enact regulations intended to keep women safe because those regulations would lead to the closure of abortion clinics, and that would infringe on women’s rights not just to have an abortion but to access one in their area. This right to access is one of the key arguments against Louisiana’s law requiring abortionists to secure admitting privileges at a local hospital. The law intends to protect women who get abortions. The admitting privileges would allow the abortionists to bring a woman facing abortion complications into the hospital and treat her there.

During oral arguments last week, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Julie Rikelman, the lawyer representing abortion clinic June Medical Services, whether a state regulation would still be unconstitutional if it had no concrete effect limiting abortion.

“If a state passed an admitting privileges law, therefore, and suppose a state had ten clinics and two doctors for each clinic, but all 20 doctors could easily get the admitting privileges, so that there would be no effect on the clinics, no effect on the doctors who perform the abortions, and, therefore, no effect on the women who obtain abortions, would a law be constitutional in that state?” Kavanaugh asked.

Rikelman’s response proved rather revealing. “That law may still be unconstitutional if it’s restricting access because of the 30-mile limit, Your Honor,” she replied, referring to the requirement that abortionists get admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their facilities. She later condemned the Louisiana law by insisting that if it were enforced, “hundreds of thousands of women would now live more than 150 miles from the closest provider.”

In other words, any law instituting the kind of safety requirements Louisiana passed would be unconstitutional even if it did not force a single abortionist out of work, because in Rikelman’s reading the Constitution protects not only a woman’s right to have an abortion but a woman’s right to access that abortion near where she lives. In Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Supreme Court struck down a more restrictive Texas admitting privileges law claiming it posed an “undue burden on a woman’s access to abortion.” The Court’s decision to take up June Medical Services suggests a willingness to reconsider this stance — although the Louisiana law is less restrictive.

The Court’s precedents on abortion are extreme in many ways, and this access point seems particularly noteworthy. Most constitutionally-protected rights do not also include a right to access.

The First Amendment right to free speech does not also involve a right to a platform. The right to free assembly does not include a right to force other people to assemble with you.

Yet the case that seems most analogous to this “right” to access abortion is the right to keep and bear arms, as Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, noted last week. After all, the government has an interest in an armed citizenry being able to stave off a foreign invasion. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” the amendment states.

Even so, the Supreme Court has not struck down state laws regulating the operation of gun shops in the name of expanding access to firearms.

If gun rights groups claimed that it should, gun control advocates would object that firearms are dangerous and are designed to end human life, so it is eminently reasonable for states to restrict their sale. They might also argue that firearms can be dangerous for the people wielding them as well as the people targeted by them.

Yet both of these objections hold for abortion, as well. Abortion is designed to kill human life in the womb, and it carries a wide range of potential harms for the mothers, as well.

Of course, there is a monumental difference between these hot-button political issues. Unlike the right to abortion, which was “discovered” in the “penumbras” of the Fourteenth Amendment — an amendment passed by state legislators that were even then enacting laws to ban and restrict abortion — the right to keep and bear arms is clearly expressed in the Second Amendment. There is arguably far more reason for the Supreme Court to uphold the right to access firearms than there is for the Court to uphold the “right” to access abortion.

However, no one is calling for a Second Amendment ban on all state laws regulating gun shops, because it’s a ridiculous argument. Yet it helps illustrate the absurdities of the radical abortion argument currently before the Supreme Court.

Second Amendment supporters attend militia muster in Amherst County

1st & 2nd Amendments in action.
1st Amendment you ask? The ‘right of the people peaceably to assemble’!

AMHERST CO., Va. (WSET) — Amherst County has joined the growing list of militias.

Residents of Amherst County gathered on Saturday, March 7 to participate in a militia muster call.

Over 130 people lined up to volunteer as part of the militia.