Courts Broadly Interpret the 1st Amendment, While Hypocritically Limiting the 2nd Amendment – FourG

While judges act like their restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment is in accordance with constitutional law, they hypocritically don’t apply the same narrow interpretation to the First Amendment. Courts read the First Amendment to create a presumptive immunity for expression, striking down regulations unless they survive the most stringent review. The First Amendment has always been broadly interpreted.

In contrast, the Second Amendment (even after the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 expanded it beyond a collective right to an individual one) has been treated as a limited individual right hedged by presumptively valid police-power regulations. And after Heller, the courts have continued chipping away at the Second Amendment.

Both amendments make it very clear they cannot be regulated away. The First Amendment states in part, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The Second Amendment provides, “the right…to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So why is one treated as if it comes with caveats but not the other?

The Supreme Court applies a rigorous standard of review to the First Amendment, strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions, which requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored. This is the highest level of scrutiny, and most restrictions fail the test. Laws regulating the First Amendment are presumed unconstitutional unless they have the narrowest possible tailoring — time, place and manner restrictions must be content neutral.

In contrast, longstanding regulations are presumed lawful when interpreting the Second Amendment. There is no requirement that time, place and manner restrictions be content neutral. Even in Heller, the court stated that “dangerous and unusual” weapons could be banned, and firearms could be banned in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings.

Instead of applying strict scrutiny to firearms regulations — which would invalidate almost all firearms regulations — lower courts after Heller developed a two-step test: assessing if a law burdens core protected conduct, then applying intermediate scrutiny. This requires an important governmental objective, such as public safety or reducing gun violence, and a reasonable fit between the law and the objective, which doesn’t need to be the least restrictive means.

In a recent case from 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court backed off from the lower courts’ two-step test, replacing the second step with requiring that the government show how the regulations are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Ruling that a state law which required a reason to obtain a concealed weapons permit was unconstitutional, the court said bans on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines were acceptable if analogized to historical limits, and the court allowed red-flag laws, mental-health prohibitions and domestic-violence restraints.

Courts have upheld laws that impose a 10-round magazine limit, safe-storage mandate, 5-day waiting periods and restricting someone with a stalking conviction from owning a firearm.

The Supreme Court unanimously held in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment protects advocacy of illegal conduct unless it incites imminent lawless action. Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism Act for a speech at a rally that included threats against government officials and called for “revengeance“ if suppression continued. SCOTUS ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

Considering much of the justification for restricting the Second Amendment comes down to preventing violence, this distinction is strange.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment’s protections has expanded over the years. It’s almost impossible for a public person to win a defamation or libel lawsuit, since the Supreme Court ruled in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan that the plaintiff must prove “actual malice,” which means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.

Commercial speech used to be unprotected. Now, it receives intermediate scrutiny after SCOTUS’ 1980 ruling in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission.

Hate speech, flag burning, violent video games and lies about military honors are all protected now.

If the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to firearms regulations, they would fail due to the lack of historical tradition. Requiring a minimum age of 21 to own a firearm would fail, since 18–20-year-olds served in the 1791 militia. Red flag laws would fail, since there are no pre-deprivation hearings. Magazine limits would fail since there is no founding-era analogue. Many felons are nonviolent, so laws prohibiting their possession would fail as too broad.

Judges justify the hypocrisy by pointing to the need to prevent gun deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 44,400 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. last year. However, when compared to a similar country, England (and Wales), which bans firearms, the U.S. has lower overall violent crime rates. This reveals that judges are making decisions based on emotion, not relying on a purely constitutional analysis.

Investigators Say National Guardsmen Shot Near White House Were Ambushed in Targeted Attack

FBI Director Kash Patel, Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, DC Metro Police Department Executive Assistant Chief Jeff Carroll provided an update after two West Virginia National Guardsmen deployed to D.C. were shot Wednesday afternoon. Despite a previous report by West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morissey stating that both National Guardsmen had succumbed to their injuries, the assembled officials confirmed that both are alive but are in critical condition.

Patel said that the FBI is leading the investigation into the shooting of the guardsmen, whom he said “were brazenly attacked in a horrendous act of violence.”

Carroll said:

“At approximately 2:15 this afternoon, members of the National Guard were on high visibility patrols at 17 and I when suspect came around the corner, raised his arm with the firearm, and discharged at the National Guard members.

The suspect is in custody, being treated at a local hospital, and Carroll said that it’s unclear at this time whether the suspect was shot by other National Guard members or other law enforcement officers in the area. He added that investigators believe that the suspect in custody acted alone “and ambushed these members of the National Guard.”

Mayor Muriel Bowser described the attack as “a targeted shooting,” also saying, “I, too, want to send my thoughts and prayers to the families of the guardsmen and to the guardsmen.”


In response to the shooting, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that more National Guardsmen will be surged to the city.

Preemption Laws Make Lawful Carry Easier…That’ Why They’re Under Attack by the Gun Control Industry.

Preemption laws offer legal protection for gun owners, but only when they are enforced. The work to advance any pro-gun legislation is arduous, more so in Minnesota than most states. But passing a law is only half the battle. This is also especially true in Minnesota, where local officials are concocting yet another illegal scheme to defy the state’s firearm preemption statute.

This has sadly become the norm, as defying preemption is a recognized way for municipal politicians to signal to their anti-gun supporters and donors that if the Second Amendment is no impediment to their plans, neither is a state statute. This contempt is now playing out in Minnesota, where mass noncompliance and legal fairytales are the order of the day.

The city of Saint Paul, Minnesota, recently declared that their city council “stands ready to act on day one when the state lifts preemption” to establish the complete ban on possession of semi-automatic firearms, “large capacity” magazines, binary triggers, “ghost guns,” as well as to create even more “gun-free zones.” It admits, however, that none of their new gun control is actually enforceable under the law as it presently stands.

Current Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. § 471.633, states:

The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that:

(a)   A governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms and

(b)   A governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law

       Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.

State law speaks clearly on the matter, and no parts of the adopted or proposed ordinances qualify under the exceptions. Meanwhile, passing illegal legislation on the pretext that the law may someday change doesn’t remedy the violation. Try withholding presently owed taxes in the hope of future amendments to a state’s revenue laws to see where that gets you.

Yet even while acknowledging these efforts as unconstitutional in Minnesota due to the existing firearm preemption law, the Saint Paul City Council unanimously passed the ordinance and became the first city among a coalition of 17 cities that have pledged to do the same.

The city of Edina, Minnesota, attempted a similar effort last week which is now reportedly on hold. Edina Mayor James Hovland noted he wants residents to be able to weigh in at a public hearing first before the city council takes a vote while seemingly ignoring Edina City Attorney David Kendall’s legal input that the city cannot put an effective date on a gun ban until state law is changed and that he doesn’t, “think that the council is in a good position to direct police to enforce [such] an ordinance.”

Without any enforcement ability, these actions are transparently performative political theatre. However, a deeper dive at the continued audacity of jurisdictions to ignore the superior authority of the state illustrates the ongoing danger posed to the rule of law. Fundamental to the principle of law is clarity, and while these local politicians may feel empowered, their actions continue to create confusion and fear for residents and law enforcement officers.

Of course, lawsuits that should not have to be filed have and will be to defend gun owner rights. Judicial ping-pong on an already established legal principle will further contribute to havoc as gun control advocates perceive a dual benefit of virtual signaling and depleting the coffers of their adversaries, who are forced to defend settled law against frivolous attacks.  Taxpayer money will also be spent to defend these “contingent ordinances,” with no material benefit to anyone. The best that can be hoped for, from the gun prohibition point of view, is pure symbolism.

Nevertheless, it’s imperative to hold the line on all laws that protect citizens from officials wanting to create a confusing patchwork of gun control, a long-fought battle for the Second Amendment community as a whole. Preemption vindicates the principles that laws should be consistent, understandable, and fairly applied. The alternative is a regime in which compliance — if it is practical at all — inevitably involves forfeiting one’s own rights. A Minnesotan could travel from one end of the state to another, or he could exercise the full measure of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by state. But he could not do both at the same time.

The enactment of a law is often the beginning of the legal battles, not the end. NRA-ILA’s work involves not only making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self- protection but also providing a protective framework to ensure the law works as intended. The infringement on display in Minnesota is merely one example of many. That’s why state preemption laws, and national efforts like H.R. 38, remain among ILA’s highest priorities.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America
— Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

The Modern “Healthy Diet” Is The Same One They Fed Slaves

Obesity rates have been reaching breakneck pace in recent times, and the projections from here are all doom and gloom. 26% of adults in England are now classed as obese. By 2040, we’re estimated to reach 36%. This calamity has been happening in blissful disregard for any attempts put up by the NHS to get the nation back on track.

In fact, anyone with a pair of eyeballs can make the case that the introduction of the National Dietary Guidelines in 1983 made the situation worse. In what was essentially a copy and paste job from USA’s Dietary Guidelines of 1977, the nation was encouraged to treat animal fat like the plague and swap them for more carbs and more polyunsaturated fats.

Obesity surged upwards right from that point, and an emerging problem became a fact of life that everyone seems resigned to dealing with. The establishment’s vision of a healthy high carb diet only appeared to fan the flames.

dietary guidelines failure

Luckily, the NHS has since realised their mistake, and amended it with the EatWell Plate in 2006, which was then upgraded into the EatWell Guide in 2016. The issue was that the 1983 version didn’t recommend whole grains over refined grains.

None of this has done anything to arrest the momentum of obesity, but don’t let that get in the way of another classic tale of government competence. The crisis has been averted. The problem was that we’ve been refining the grains that used to be the beacon of health across countless civilisations stretching back to the dawn of agriculture.

Because nothing spells out optimal human health quite like following the diets that slaves and peasants were forced to eat. Traditionally-made whole grain bread, a sprinkle of some legumes, and a good smattering of fruits and vegetables to add a tinge of rainbow to a diet of love and freedom.

It did the job for the slaves, who always exemplified the pinnacle of health in society. It will do the same for us now.

Contents
  1. The EatWell Slave Diet

Continue reading “”

Democrats Calling for Mutiny Must Be Punished

By now everyone is aware that six Democrats in Congress created videos in which they openly encourage members of the U.S. military and Intelligence Community to mutiny against the commander in chief.  They couched their seditious statements in the pretense that they are interested only in protecting the Constitution, but their message is unmistakable: Resist President Trump’s lawful orders, and we’ll have your backs.

Americans whose minds have not been pickled by leftism are not impressed.  The Democrat instigators have been called “TikTok Traitors,” the “Seditious Six,” the “Idiot Six,” and worse.  President Trump immediately accused the lawmakers of sedition and demanded that they be arrested and stand trial for their potentially deadly provocations.  In response, the Democrat provocateurs have pretended to be outraged that the commander in chief would correctly describe their seditious actions as seditious.

Democrat word games have become so exhausting over the last thirty years.  Remember when Bill Clinton lied about his affair with twenty-two-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky by telling a grand jury, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”?  No matter how corrupt American politicians were before Clinton’s galling equivocation, it has seemed as if rhetorical obfuscation began exponentially accelerating after that moment.

Fast-forward to 2025, and former CIA director John Brennan is entirely comfortable going on national news shows and telling the world that he and fifty other “intelligence professionals” never lied about Hunter Biden’s “laptop from Hell” being Russian disinformation because the spies clearly stated in their 2020 pre-election op-ed defending the Bidens that the laptop’s treasure trove of criminality had merely “the hallmarks” of a Russian operation.  If Americans were confused about their attempt to blame Hunter’s crimes on the Russians, that’s because Americans are poor readers!

Senator Elissa Slotkin — one of the “Seditious Six,” a former CIA analyst, and a protégée of John Brennan — is busy playing the same sick word games as Slick Willy and commie Brennan.  She claims that her seditious video is meant only to draw attention to President Trump’s “illegal orders,” but when she is pressed to name one such “illegal order,” she admits that she is “not aware” of any.

If Slotkin can’t identify any of President Trump’s orders as illegal, why is she making videos encouraging rank insubordination among America’s military and intelligence personnel?  The Democrats are executing the exact same playbook that they have been using against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.  For months, Democrat governors and lawmakers have threatened federal agents with future prosecution for doing nothing more than enforcing existing immigration law and arresting criminal illegal aliens in their states.  In order to protect millions of foreign nationals from deportation, Democrats have been obstructing law enforcement operations by promising to punish officers who do their jobs.

Threatening ICE agents with unlawful and malicious prosecutions will inevitably get people killed, because in the real world, hesitation invites disaster.  When prominent Democrats encourage military and intelligence personnel to resist orders, the consequences are potentially catastrophic.  As one astute commenter notes, “the threat of weaponized lawfare against U.S. troops is seditious psychological warfare.  It’s seditious sabotage aimed at breaking the chain of command.  It’s a seditious plot to erode trust in leaders and it undermines the oath that keeps the military united and effective.”  The Democrat strategy is nefarious and straightforward: Induce service members to question the orders of their commanding officers.  Hesitation and delay during combat will not only get Americans killed, but also directly serve enemy interests.

Democrats’ attempts to confuse American service members also encourage our geopolitical adversaries to be more aggressive.  As Glenn Beck argues, “if a video like this were aimed at Putin’s military, we’d assume Russia was unstable or nearing a coup.”  Therefore, Democrats have severely “weakened America — signaling doubt to allies and opportunity to enemies.”  If you were a general in China’s military, would you be less or more willing to invade Taiwan after prominent Democrat officials encouraged division and subversion among America’s rank-and-file troops?  Public calls for insubordination make America appear destined for civil war at home and ill-prepared to defend its own interests or those of its allies abroad.

In describing his disgust with Democrats’ efforts to instigate a military rebellion against the Trump administration, Congressman Byron Donalds pulled no punches: “Donald Trump is the commander in chief, not Mr. Crow, not Senator Slotkin.  They are not the commander in chief!  And like I said before, they would not tolerate any Republican launching any video like that!”

Can you imagine?  After patriotic grandparents and Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans protested the fraudulent 2020 election by walking through the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Democrats (and useful RINO idiots Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) spent tens of millions of dollars producing a theatrical congressional hearing meant to demonize all MAGA voters as “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists.”  If prominent Republicans in Congress had subsequently encouraged members of the military and Intelligence Community to disobey orders coming from installed-president Biden, the backlash against them would have been swift and brutal.  Not only would they have been expelled from Congress, but they also would have been arrested in the most publicly humiliating fashion.  In contrast, the “Seditious Six” sit for ego-stroking interviews during which they play victim.

This is what Republicans mean when they denounce “Democrat privilege” in the United States.  Time and again, Democrats do things with impunity that would land a normal Republican in prison for decades.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, and their fellow Russia Collusion Hoax co-conspirators will never be held accountable for manipulating intelligence to frame President Trump as a Russian spy.  Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats who bailed out arsonists during the most destructive riots in American history will never be held accountable for putting violent repeat offenders back on the street.  Alexander Vindman will never be held accountable for undermining the Trump White House and triggering a farcical impeachment.  None of the conspirators who violated state election laws and used fraudulent mail-in ballots to pretend that Sleepy Joe Biden was the most popular presidential candidate in our nation’s history will ever be held accountable for stealing the 2020 election.  Anthony Fauci won’t be held accountable for covering up the laboratory origin of COVID or hiding the worst side-effects of the mRNA “vaccines.”  Social media companies won’t be held accountable for censoring Americans who protested the stolen 2020 election or the unconstitutional “vaccine” mandates imposed by installed-president Biden’s administration.  It appears that neither Jim Comey nor Letitia James will be held accountable for respectively committing perjury and mortgage fraud.  Democrat prosecutors and judges will never be held accountable for abusing the criminal justice system to railroad President Trump, his friends, and his voters.

In the United States, two-tiered “justice” protects Democrats and renders Republicans defenseless.

Now we will see whether six Democrats can actually get away with encouraging a military mutiny.  If past is prologue, the answer is surely “yes.”

There’s a popular social media meme that succinctly describes our situation: When leftists say “our democracy,” what they mean is “our regime.”  Democrats have taken over so much of the permanent bureaucracy that even when they are out of power, they still command much of the American government.  They are emboldened to commit sedition and treason because they know that no left-leaning prosecutor, judge, or jury will hold them accountable.  This kind of in-your-face double-standard will eventually end the Union.

Let’s hope, for the sake of our country’s future, that guilty Democrats begin to pay a price.  Forgive me for not holding my breath.

Newsweek Puts Out Misinformation on our New Research Comparing Armed Civilians to Police in Stopping Active Shootings: Study Praising Armed Civilians Sparks Criticism

Our research is available here. After the Newsweek was published on Friday, November 21, 2025, the reporter updated her article on Monday, November 24, 2025.

Devin Hughes, founder and president of gun violence research organization GVPedia, told Newsweek, “The paper is fraud, which I do not use lightly.”

Hughes alleges that the study defines active shooter incidents differently from the FBI.

“Lott’s study then only applies that new definition to cases in which there was a defensive gun use, while deliberately excluding thousands of cases in which a defensive gun use did not occur,” Hughes said. “This deceptive tactic allows Lott to claim that the percentage of active shooter cases stopped by a defensive gun use is vastly higher than it is in reality, regardless of what definition of an active shooting one uses. The end result is blatant statistical malpractice.”

Lott told Newsweek that the FBI’s definition excludes gang violence, drug related violence and shootings in relation to another criminal act.

“The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area,” Lott said. “But it does not include those it deems related to other criminal activity, such as a robbery or fighting over drug turf. Over the period from 2014 to 2024, the FBI includes 14 cases where a legally armed civilian used a gun to stop an active shooting attack. We think that the number is 199. We thought it was useful to fill in the rest of these cases using the exact same definition that excluded ‘gang violence,’ ‘drug related violence,’ and ‘shootings in relation to another criminal act’ to see how police and civilians compared in dealing with these attacks.”

Jenna Sundel, “Study Praising Armed Civilians Sparks Criticism,” Newsweek, November 24, 2025.

Dr. Lott’s response to this point included this.

While I appreciate you making some updates to your article, you make it sound as if it is just our word versus Hughes when you simply write “Lott told Newsweek that the FBI’s definition excludes gang violence, drug related violence, and shootings in relation to another criminal act.” But I have provided you links to the FBI active shooting reports where you can confirm for yourself that the FBI does in fact exclude these types of crimes (see the fourth paragraph on page five in their first report and page 2 in their latest report. It is something that they list out in EVERY report in between these two reports).

Continue reading “”

Homeowner shoots and kills would-be burglar in Kendall

Four people trying to break into a Kendall home were met with gunfire Saturday evening, leaving one of the suspects fatally shot by the homeowner, Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office officials said.

The attempted burglary happened just before 7 p.m. at a home near Southwest 141st Street and 110th Avenue. Detectives told NBC6 the homeowner was inside the home and opened fire when the four suspects tried to force their way into the home.

“I heard two shots,” said a neighbor who added that he had never seen gun violence in the neighborhood before.

One suspect was shot in the upper extremities, police said. That person later died at the hospital.

The other three people fled the scene and remain on the run.

Deputies are investigating the home invasion.

Like that ‘not a cartel per se’ matters

US labels Maduro-tied Cartel de los Soles as a terror organization. It’s not a cartel per se

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration has ramped up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by designating the Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization. But the entity that the U.S. government alleges is led by Maduro is not a cartel per se.

The designation, published Monday in the Federal Register, is the latest measure in the Trump administration’s escalating campaign to combat drug trafficking into the U.S. In previewing the step about a week ago, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Cartel de los Soles, or Cartel of the Suns, of being “responsible for terrorist violence” in the Western Hemisphere.

The move comes as Trump evaluates whether to take military action against Venezuela, which he has not ruled out despite bringing up the possibility of talks with Maduro. Land strikes or other actions would be a major expansion of the monthslong operation that has included a massive military buildup in the Caribbean Sea and striking boats accused of trafficking drugs, killing more than 80 people.

Venezuelans began using the term Cartel de los Soles in the 1990s to refer to high-ranking military officers who had grown rich from drug-running. As corruption expanded nationwide, first under the late President Hugo Chávez and then under Maduro, its use loosely expanded to police and government officials as well as activities like illegal mining and fuel trafficking. The “suns” in the name refer to the epaulettes affixed to the uniforms of high-ranking military officers.

The umbrella term was elevated to a Maduro-led drug-trafficking organization in 2020, when the U.S. Justice Department in Trump’s first term announced the indictment of Venezuela’s leader and his inner circle on narcoterrorism and other charges.

“It is not a group,” said Adam Isaacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America organization. “It’s not like a group that people would ever identify themselves as members. They don’t have regular meetings. They don’t have a hierarchy.”

Maduro’s government in a statement Monday categorically denied the existence of the cartel, describing the Trump administration’s accusation as a “ridiculous fabrication” meant to “justify an illegitimate and illegal intervention against Venezuela.”

Up until this year, the label of foreign terrorist organization had been reserved for groups like the Islamic State or al-Qaida that use violence for political ends. The Trump administration applied it in February to eight Latin American criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking, migrant smuggling and other activities.

The administration blames such designated groups for operating the boats it is striking but rarely identifies the organizations and has not provided any evidence. It says the attacks , which began off the coast of Venezuela and later expanded to the eastern Pacific Ocean, are meant to stop narcotics from flowing to American cities.

But many — including Maduro himself — see the military moves as an effort to end the ruling party’s 26-year hold on power.

Since the arrival of U.S. military vessels and troops to the Caribbean months ago, Venezuela’s U.S.-backed political opposition also has reignited its perennial promise of removing Maduro from office, fueling speculation over the purpose of what the Trump administration has called a counterdrug operation.

 

Rapper 4 Block Lil Mari got shot by concealed carry holder during botched carjacking, officials say

A south suburban teenager who raps under the name “4 Block Lil Mari” has been jailed after prosecutors accused him of shooting a woman during a botched South Shore carjacking that ended with the victim, a concealed carry holder, shooting him as well.

Kamari Bonslater, 17, of Steger, was already on pretrial release for allegedly possessing a machine gun and a stolen vehicle at the time of the shooting, prosecutors said.

The charges stem from a failed carjacking on September 7 in the 6700 block of South Cregier. Chicago police initially described the incident as a drive-by shooting that left a 16-year-old boy in critical condition with three gunshot wounds and a 34-year-old woman shot twice in the leg. It now turns out that Bonslater, who has since celebrated his 17th birthday, was the critically wounded teen.

According to a detention petition, the episode did not play out the way CPD first believed.

Instead, prosecutors say, the victim, a 34-year-old woman, and a 31-year-old female companion were sitting in the victim’s parked car when “multiple individuals” approached and struck up a “brief conversation.”

Prosecutors said Bonslater tried to yank open the passenger door while pointing a gun at the women. The victim, a licensed concealed carry holder, reached for her own firearm, prompting Bonslater to shoot her in the leg before she returned fire, hitting him multiple times, according to prosecutors. She then sped away from the scene.

The victim’s companion later told police she recognized the gunman as a local rapper and provided his stage name: 4 Block Lil Mari.

Bonslater was found near the scene with multiple gunshot wounds. Surveillance footage shows him standing by the victim’s car at the moment shots were fired and collapsing as the vehicle sped away, prosecutors said.

The video also shows several accomplices carrying him into an alley. Officials said Bonslater and at least two of those accomplices, who remain at large, fired at the fleeing car.

Bonslater, who has the word “Murda” tattooed on his neck, is charged with attempted second-degree murder, attempted vehicular hijacking, and aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon.

Judge Susana Ortiz ordered him detained pending trial.

Bonslater is the 20th person charged with killing or trying to kill someone in Chicago this year while on felony pretrial release. Those crimes involved 38 victims, nine of whom died.

The “not horrible” series

This report continues our coverage of individuals accused of killing, shooting, or trying to kill or shoot others on pretrial release for a felony allegation. CWBChicago began our series of reports in November 2019 after Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans publicly stated, “We haven’t had any horrible incidents occur” under the court’s bond reform initiative.

The actual number of murders and shootings committed by people awaiting trial for felony allegations is undoubtedly much higher than the numbers seen here. Since 2017, CPD has brought charges in less than 5% of non-fatal shootings and 33% of murders, according to the city’s data. You can see all of the “not horrible” stories here.

BLUF
They assume they are exempt from following the law because they believe they are our moral and intellectual superiors.

And so for the next four years, they will once again insist they can ignore or violate with contempt any federal law they please—as the nation is heading toward widespread civil insurrection of the left’s own neo-Confederate making.

Insurrection Chic

Who is the real, or fictional, inspiration for the new insurrectionary wing of the Democrat Party?

The fictitious Hollywood insurrectionist, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “James Mattoon Scott” (Burt Lancaster), who in the 1964 film Seven Days in May attempted to overthrow the presidency?

Or perhaps Jefferson Davis? He ultimately ordered the attack by South Carolina state forces against the federal garrison at Fort Sumter, which ignited the Civil War.

Or is the better inspiration the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door?” Alabama Governor George Wallace likewise vowed to use his state’s law enforcement to nullify a federal law.

Yet how odd that the left, which had lectured us so often about a January 6th “insurrection”—a charge that not even the Javert-like special counsel Jack Smith ever lodged against Donald Trump—now talks frequently about the proud nullification of our nation’s federal laws.

The New Confederacy

Democrats weirdly boast of the subordination of the Constitution to international statutes. Our governors and mayors in blue states and cities take neo-Confederate vows to oppose the national government’s right to protect its own property, to direct its own employees, and to enforce our shared federal laws.

Over a decade ago, some 600 “sanctuary cities” declared that they were immune from the full enforcement of federal law. They further boasted that they would not hand over illegal aliens, detained by state or local authorities, to federal agents.

These were strange threats. Not long ago, at the 1992 and 1996 Democratic conventions, liberal grandees like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi had vowed to stop all would-be illegal aliens from unlawfully entering the U.S. Apparently, they all flipped to open borders when spiraling numbers turned the undocumented into a new Democratic constituency.

Moreover, being the left, their loud nullificationist vows were, of course, purely political and never principled.

Once, an exasperated Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, had beseeched the Obama administration in vain to enforce its own federal laws at the southern border. In frustration, she finally sought ways to use her own state’s resources to do what Obama refused.

And the reaction of the Obama administration?

It was certainly not gratitude for Brewer’s efforts to enforce federal law. Instead, the Obama crowd sued her. It successfully sought out left-wing judges to stay her state’s efforts.

How strange that our current “principled” district judges once ruled that states could not interfere with federal border policing—even in cases where the federal government was illegally refusing to enforce its own laws.

Continue reading “”

DOJ Official Says Congress, Not Courts, Should Address NFA Taxes, Registration

Despite ongoing objections from Second Amendment groups and a letter from Rep. Andrew Clyde and more than two dozen other members of Congress urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to recognize congressional intent and stop defending the National Firearms Act’s taxes and registration requirements for National Firearms Act items, the DOJ’s latest brief in an NFA case offers a full-throated defense of those measures.

The  brief, filed in Silencer Shop, et al v. BATFE, not only argues that the Constitution empowers Congress to adopt the challenged NFA requirements and that the $200 tax and registry of who has paid it remain a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, but that the tax and registration mandates “comport with the Second Amendment” as well.

… the NFA’s regulation of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, suppressors, and AOWs is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” As the Supreme Court has consistently observed, American legislatures have long “prohibited the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Laws dating back to theFounding Era targeted, through outright bans or lesser regulation, particularly dangerous weapons that were uniquely susceptible to criminal misuse. Similarly, many states have long regulated the size of firearms. The NFA fits within that historical tradition by targeting particularly dangerous weapons that “could be used readily and efficiently by criminals,” though its requirements are much more modest than the categorical bans of the past. That alone demonstrates that the NFA comports with the Second Amendment.

Gun Owners of America, among others, has objected to the DOJ’s continued defense of the NFA, which led to a rebuke of the 2A organization from a DOJ official.

McGavick’s argument is an odd one, given that the Supreme Court does have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. And in the case of the NFA’s taxation and registration schemes, it’s clear that the intent of Congress was to repeal those provisions. The $200 tax has been zeroed out as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but though the Senate also removed the accompanying requirement that those who pay the tax have to register that payment with the federal government, the Senate parliamentarian objected to that provision, so the registry remains.
The DOJ could have taken the position that, since the registration is actually a registry of all those who’ve paid the tax, and the tax has no been zeroed out, the registration requirement is moot. It could also, of course, have taken the position that the NFA does violate the Second Amendment, despite what the Court has said in cases like Miller and Heller.

Part of the DOJ’s problem is that it has previously admitted in the Peterson case that challenges the NFA’s restrictions on suppressors that those items are, in fact, protected by the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ took the position that the $200 tax and registration requirements are only “modest burdens” on the right to keep and bear arms, at least as they apply to those items.

The Supreme Court has never suggested that there are various levels of protection for arms that fall under the Second Amendment’s umbrella, so the DOJ’s position arguably leaves the door open for similar requirements on all arms protected by the Second Amendment. If the DOJ is going to to defend the National Firearms Act, it might have been better for the agency to argue that NFA items aren’t protected at all instead of coming up with a convoluted theory about tiers of protection and what kind of restrictions might be allowed for some arms. That still wouldn’t satisfy groups like GOA, FPC, and NRA, but it also wouldn’t allow gun control groups and anti-gun polticians to adopt the DOJ’s language and apply it to handguns or semi-automatic long guns in the future.

When Rep. Clyde joined me on Bearing Arms Cam & Company to discuss the letter to Bondi, he indicated that if the DOJ didn’t fall in line behind Congress’s intent he might re-open the letter to gather more signatures before submitting its rebuke into the official congressional record. Clyde says he’s also working on an appropriations bill that would remove the registration requirements, which would be fantastic if it comes to pass, but that action in the legislative branch still doesn’t mean that the executive branch’s hands are tied when it comes to the NFA and its infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.