Another look at that serial number court ruling
Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
Oct 13 (Reuters) – A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston on Wednesday found that the law was not consistent with the United States’ “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.
The decision came in a criminal case charging a man, Randy Price, with illegally possessing a gun with the serial number removed that was found in his car. The judge dismissed that charge, though Price is still charged with illegally possessing the gun after being convicted of previous felonies.
Price’s lawyer, Lex Coleman, called the decision “thoughtful, measured and accurate.” A spokesperson for the office of U.S. Attorney William Thompson in Charleston, which is prosecuting the case, said the office was “reviewing the ruling and assessing options.”
The federal law in question prohibits anyone from transporting a gun with the serial number removed across state lines, or from possessing such a gun if it has ever been transported across state lines.
Serial numbers, first required by the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, are intended to prevent illegal gun sales and make it easier to solve crimes by allowing individual guns to be traced.
Price argued that the law is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s June 24 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. Bruen. That ruling held that under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot restrict the right to possess firearms unless the restriction is consistent with historical tradition.
Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.
Even in Los Angeles………
U.S. Supreme Court aids gun rights yet again
The United States Supreme Court has no troops to enforce its rulings, but the justices are doing what they can to enforce their decision earlier this year in a major Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., v. Bruen.
Last week the court took a dim view of a Massachusetts law that bars people convicted of gun-related misdemeanors from ever being allowed to buy a handgun again.
In Morin v. Lyver, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Massachusetts law using a two-step balancing test that the Supreme Court forcefully threw out in its New York State Rifle & Pistol decision. The Supreme Court has now vacated the First Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back down to be heard again under the high court’s new standard, which is based not on subjective judicial balancing tests, but on history.
This time Massachusetts will have to prove that its law barring some people from buying guns is similar to restrictions that have traditionally been viewed as consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.
Dr. Alfred Morin was arrested for carrying a gun without a permit while on a trip to Washington, D.C., in 2004. Morin was licensed to carry in Massachusetts and didn’t realize his permit was not valid in D.C. due to the city’s total ban on carrying a gun (later declared unconstitutional). He was arrested after he complied with a no-gun sign at a museum and tried to check his gun with security. He pleaded guilty to carrying a gun without a license and was sentenced to jail time, but never required to serve it.
That misdemeanor conviction now bars Morin from ever again obtaining a permit to buy a handgun. He sued the state, but the U.S. District Court found that the law was constitutional because Morin was not a “law-abiding citizen,” having been convicted of a gun-related misdemeanor warranting imprisonment. The Court of Appeals agreed with that reasoning.
However, under the Supreme Court’s new standard, it’s no longer enough for courts to find that the states have “an interest in preventing crime” and then determine if the law is “reasonably tailored” to meet those needs. The presumption now is that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. States must prove that any laws restricting that right have traditionally been consistent with Second Amendment rights going all the way back to the early days of the Republic.
Morin v. Lyver is the fifth case the Supreme Court has vacated and sent back down for reconsideration under the new standard. One is a California case, a challenge to the state’s 10-round magazine limit. In addition, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel vacated a decision in McDougall v. Ventura County, involving a challenge to the closure of gun shops early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The case has been sent back to the trial court to be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York case.
This is an important course correction. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege that governments may arbitrarily withhold or revoke. A written constitution is the consent of the governed, and it places limits on government power. Enforcing those limits is the job of the Supreme Court. Freedom depends on it.
A 15-year-old suspect was taken into custody after a “long standoff” with police in connection with a shooting that killed five people and left two others injured Thursday evening in Raleigh, North Carolina, officials said.
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper called the shooting spree, “the nightmare of every community.”
The shooting unfolded in a neighborhood northeast of central Raleigh and prompted warnings for residents to stay inside. One of the fatally wounded was an off-duty police officer, Mayor Mary-Anne Baldwin said.
In a news conference Friday morning, Raleigh police chief Estella D. Patterson said the suspect was taken into custody after an effort by a coalition of local safety agencies, and he is in critical condition.
He was not identified.
Patterson said the victims who were killed ranged in age from 16 to 52.
They were identified as: Nicole Connors, 52, Susan Karnatz, 49, Mary Marshall, 35, off-duty Raleigh police officer Gabriel Torres who was on his way to work, 29, and a 16-year-old white male. NBC affiliate WRAL of Raleigh reported the teen victim was James Roger Thompson.
In addition to the deceased, two people were injured in the shooting: Raleigh Police Officer Casey Clark, 33, who was treated and since released from the hospital, and Marcille Gardner, 59, who remains in critical condition.
“Tonight terror has reached our doorstep,” Cooper told reporters Thursday evening. “The nightmare of every community has come to Raleigh. This is a senseless, horrific and infuriating act of violence that has been committed.”
Baldwin said: “We have to end this mindless gun violence that is happening across our country. There are too many victims. We have to wake up.”
Patterson said Friday morning the crime scene was “expansive” and stretched over two miles.
The police department advised residents in the leafy neighborhood known as Hedingham to remain indoors. Aerial video from NBC affiliate WRAL showed a large police presence.
A witness named Robert Anderson told NBC’s “TODAY” that he saw the gunman from his back deck.
“He had a camouflage shirt, camouflage pants, black boots, he also had a backpack that looked like it was filled to the brim,” he said in an interview aired Friday.
“He was walking, and when I tell you he was walking, it was like nothing had happened,” Anderson explained. “He was just walking looking straight forward, he had his gun on his side and it was pointed downwards and he was just walking.”
Another witness who spotted the apparent gunman told WRAL that she saw neighbors trying to help the off-duty officer, who was inside a car bleeding.
The witness told the station that she saw the gunman run from the scene and disappear into a nearby park. He was wearing black boots and appeared to be a teenager, she said.
“He looked like a baby,” she told WRAL, adding: “I just don’t even have the words to explain. This is not OK.”
BLUF
Our deep dive into the numbers continues to expose the anti-gun crowd’s lack of evidence sufficient to warrant erosion of the 2nd Amendment.
Guess How Many Violent Crimes in the USA Involve a Gun
Harvard health policy expert Dr. David Hemenway routinely uses statistics like “250 people were shot each day in the US” and “Children aged 5–14 … are more than 13x more likely than children in other high-income populous countries to be murdered with a gun” to support a myth. That myth is that America is one of the most violent nations on the planet because its citizens possess firearms. Domestically, this myth survives by focusing on U.S. homicide rates where guns are used 74% (FBI 2019) of the time, and it thrives internationally because the U.S. outranks most all other nations for the same reason. But is the rationale rational?
Domestically speaking, citing firearm homicides to prove that America is a violent nation fails for two primary reasons: 1) homicides are 1% of U.S. violent crime (FBI 2019) invalidating it as a metric for national violence; and 2) 78% (FBI 2019) of total violent crime is committed without a gun. This bears repeating: nearly 8 in 10 violent crimes in America don’t involve a gun.
Internationally speaking, as one of the few nations that permits citizens to possess firearms, it’s unsurprising the U.S. has more firearm deaths. After all, who would be surprised to learn that Egypt has the highest international ranking for people falling to their deaths from atop a large pyramid? (Yes, it does happen.) However, in this debate, the lethality of the weapon is not at issue, but rather its relation to violence. Moreover, because proposed solutions to gun violence focus on changes to national public policy, national violence is most relevant.
Well, alrighty then
Liberals are Getting Vasectomies to Protest Overturning Roe v. Wade
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is forcing more men to take responsibility for their actions.
Those who are not ready to be fathers can no longer rely on their unborn babies being aborted, especially in the South and Midwest where many states now protect – or are fighting in court to protect – unborn babies’ lives.
So, many are choosing to be sterilized instead.
In a new Associated Press report, doctors across the country confirmed that they have seen a noticeable increase in men seeking vasectomies since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in June.
According to the AP, Dr. Esgar Guarin is working with the Planned Parenthood abortion chain to provide free and reduced-costed vasectomies in November in Missouri and Iowa. He told the news outlet that female sterilization is more common, but vasectomies are cheaper and easier to perform.
“It’s a very particular moment in reproductive rights in the United States. And we need to talk about it,” Guarin said.
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri reported an increase in both male and female sterilizations compared to last year, doing 42 vasectomies in one month compared to 10 that month in 2021.
Doctors in Florida and Texas, states that restrict or ban the killing of unborn babies in abortions, said they also have been seeing more male patients request sterilizations.
Here’s more from the report:
Dr. Doug Stein, a urological surgeon in the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida, area, said patient registrations for his practice tripled immediately after the Dobbs decision, with many patients under the age of 30.
“I think everybody is busier since the Dobbs decision,” said Stein, who co-founded World Vasectomy Day. …
In Texas, Dr. Koushik Shaw said his Austin Urology Institute saw a spike when the state enacted a strict abortion law last year and another, larger one after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, so that it’s now doing 50% more procedures. He said many are for men who don’t want children and saw access to abortion as another option should birth control not work as planned.
“I think people are afraid, No. 1, about abortion not being accessible, which is a very real and legitimate fear and in the reality for a large part of folks in our country. And then I think people are also really afraid that what else might be next,” Dr. Margaret Baum, the medical director of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, told the AP.
Baum and other abortion activists have been raising baseless claims that pro-lifers want to ban birth control next, which is not true. The goal of the pro-life movement is to protect and value every human being and their right to life, and abortions have destroyed more than 63 million unborn babies’ lives in America alone in the past 50 years.
Pro-life advocates want men and women who do not want to be parents to take responsibility for their actions by abstaining from sex, using birth control or getting sterilized. And the overturning of Roe appears to be prompting more to do so.
BLUF
There is not going to be a national divorce. There is going to be a national backlash, a backlash against the stupid, corrupt, and evil ideology of the left. We normal people are not going anywhere. We’re not chopping up our country any more than we are going to tolerate these monsters chopping up our little kids. We will not divorce them. We will defeat them. And it will be glorious.
Instead of a National Divorce, How About a National Backlash?
Dumping the libs and their garbage, blue cities – figuratively throwing their junk out on the lawn just in time for the sprinklers to go off – is so tempting and sounds so sweet. If only we could wave a magic wand and make the weirdos, losers, and mutations of the left just go away, along with annoying states like New Jersey. After all, they are pretty much a significantly less hot Amber Heard, and they are figuratively doing to America what she did to Johnny Depp’s bed.
Pack your stuff, libs, and get out. You’re someone else’s problem now.
But as much fun as it is to simply wish our pinko ex would just disappear and that we in red America could buy a Porsche, rent a condo, lose some weight and get some hair plugs, then hook up with an eager actress/model/whatever half our age, that doesn’t work out when middle-aged accountants do it, and it won’t work out for us if we try it as a country. The devil is in the details, and the details get really, really devilish.
I discuss a national divorce in my most recent non-fiction book, “We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America,” but I show the consequences of one in my seventh and latest novel in the “People’s Republic” series, the just-released “Inferno.” Beyond all the new book’s gunplay and shooting – there’s a lot – and its cruel mockery of woke, liberal nonsense – there’s a lot of that too – “Inferno” gets into the weeds about what happens when you split a country in two.
The answer is not a lot of good.
When was the last time you heard of a happy divorce, especially when the exes have to live next door to each other? And they would – right next door to us. A national divorce means splitting up the country. This state goes blue, that one red. Some places are easy to take – yeah, blues, Chicago is all yours. But what about the rest of Illinois? Once you get out of Beetlejuice’s hellhole, you are mostly among normal Americans who like America, know which bathroom to use, and don’t murder each other with gleeful abandon. What, are we going to leave them behind the lines?
That’s not going to work well, especially when the blue rulers decide to turn blue America into a giant college campus and mandate that everyone sits to pee as a Harrison Bergeron-esque nod toward urination equity.
The truth about Michael Bloomberg’s militia fetish
If you don’t control your mind, someone else will. Jim Morrison said that, and it’s as true today as it was when The Doors front man first uttered those prophetic words. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, there is no one who wants to control minds more than former New York City mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg, 80, funds a vast array of anti-gun propagandists who operate across multiple digital and print platforms. Some, such as Bloomberg News, are accepted by the mainstream media as a legitimate news source. Others, such as The Trace, masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than well-paid anti-gun activists with access to unlimited print and pixels.
Bloomberg turned to his loyal staffers at Bloomberg News to launch his latest assault on our gun rights, by trying to change how we define a militia.
The former mayor wants the public to believe that the National Guard is the “well regulated militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment, which is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Therefore, if the public accepts that it’s the National Guardsmen whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, our individual gun rights can be eliminated, Bloomberg hopes.
This misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, while laughable, is nothing new. We are the true militia the framers had in mind – everyday Americans who possess modern firearms, ammunition and the skills to use them proficiently.
Here are some recent examples of Bloomberg’s attempts to redefine militia:
- A Bloomberg News story published July 1 states that the New York Governor signed a law extending property tax relief to veterans who served at least 10 years “in the U.S. Armed Forces or in the organized militia of the State of New York.”
- A Bloomberg News story published June 29 examined a labor dispute involving active-duty Ohio National Guardsmen – those serving an Active Guard and Reserve, or AGR, tour. “The US Supreme Court accepted the Ohio National Guard’s request to consider whether the agency that oversees federal-sector labor relations also has jurisdiction over state militias,” the reporter wrote.
- A Bloomberg News story published Aug. 17 profiled an Ohio National Guard unit comprised of high-tech computer specialists including several civilians. It was headlined: “Modern-Day Militia Ready for Fight Against US Election Hacking.”
Telegraphing an attack
These confusing headlines and word-salads were not accidental. They were carefully designed, and they betray the propagandists’ true intent: Change the public’s mindset because another attack on our gun rights is coming.
Fortunately, we have case law and several strong Supreme Court decisions that protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Bloomberg’s attack will not be a legal one – at least not yet.
This is propaganda, which is designed to alter public opinion and perception, and Bloomberg’s propagandists have always played the long game. They seek to change minds first, which will make it easier to change laws later.
Keep in mind what we’re dealing with: “I don’t know why people carry guns. Guns kill people,” Bloomberg once said, while surrounded by a heavily armed personal security detail, probably.
His attitude and his billions make him our most formidable anti-rights opponent. At least this time we know something is coming
— David Wolfe (@DavidWolfe) October 12, 2022
The Bruen case strikes again. Oh my what a time to be living in.
Requirement of Serial Numbers on Guns Violates Second Amendment
From U.S. v. Price, decided yesterday by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin (S.D. W. Va.):
NJ proposal would require insurance for carry permits
Following the Bruen decision, a lot of states suddenly found their gun control laws null and void. Since these were anti-gun states, it’s unsurprising that many are trying to find new rules that they believe will conform to the ruling.
But New Jersey’s latest proposal has serious issues. Why? An insurance requirement, that’s why.
New Jersey residents hoping to carry guns in public would first be required to buy insurance and complete gun-safety training under a measure to be introduced by legislative leaders on Thursday — steps that, if enacted, would represent some of the strictest gun rules in the country.…
William J. Castner, an adviser to Gov. Philip D. Murphy on firearms issues, said the legal challenges that the New York law is facing will be instructive as New Jersey finalizes its legislation.“New Jersey at least now has the benefit of crafting this law with an eye toward defending new requirements on training, mandatory insurance, disqualifying offenses and sensitive places where guns will not be allowed at all,” Mr. Castner said.
One novel element in the proposed legislation is the statewide requirement that gun owners applying for permits to carry weapons in public also purchase liability insurance. In January, San Jose, Calif., will begin requiring all gun owners to carry liability insurance, but no state has mandated insurance as a condition of gun ownership.
Except there are issues with the comparison to San Jose.
For one thing, it turns out San Jose’s requirement is basically just homeowner’s insurance. It doesn’t require a specially-crafted policy.
However, mandating liability insurance for people who want a concealed carry permit actually does. There’s no such insurance on the market and, with New Jersey’s population, it’s not likely to create enough of a demand for anyone to actually develop it.
While I have no problem imagining New Jersey officials deciding to do something like this before even looking to see if such a policy exists, I also suspect they already know.
For them, it’s a feature, not a bug.
They can’t be accused of denying people permits if the problem is that no one can meet the requirements, now can they?
Too bad for them that yes, we can.
That’s because it’s one thing if someone is just unable to meet the requirements but quite another if it’s physically impossible for anyone to meet the requirements.
And one like this isn’t likely to survive a legal challenge anyways.
Let’s say, for example, such an insurance policy was created to meet this new demand. If that were the case, then this new requirement would amount to a poll tax. Those have long been declared unconstitutional as you cannot be charged such a fee in order to exercise a basic right.
However, some already think there’s a rebuttal for that:
“Every car on the road is required to have insurance,” said Nicholas Scutari, the Democratic president of the Senate, who is sponsoring the legislation. “We’re going to allow people to have weapons and carry them around with them without insuring them? They’re taking on a lot of responsibility.”
First, driving is categorized as a privilege, not a right.
Second, the roads are basically government property and so the government can create rules for using those roads. If I’ve got private property with sufficient area for me to drive on, I don’t need insurance, a license, or a tag to drive there. No one will say or do anything so long as I stay off public roads.
Then we get into the fact that car insurance is for accidents, not criminal acts. No insurance covers an individual acting criminally. While accidents can happen with guns, they’re a tiny fraction of the issue and are extremely rare when you consider how many guns there are in this country.
What this is, though, has nothing to do with public safety.
New Jersey wants to punish anyone who wants to carry a gun. They want to make it as hard as possible and as expensive as possible to get a concealed carry permit.
Which is what New York was basically doing before Bruen.
This will go about as well for New Jersey as Bruen went for New York.
Anti-gun advocates were formerly able to foist this off on the people because accessing a lot of the original writings had to be done by reading the actual hard copy. “But, thanks to the digitization of old texts on Google Books and Google Scholar, access to second-generation American viewpoints is easier now than ever before.” The internet and its search engines have finally been able to put the lie to this ‘collective right’ BS.
BLUF
The common assertion that the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment is a gun-lobby myth invented in the latter half of the 20th century is, to repurpose Justice Brennan’s famous quote, “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime.” The historical record shows that 19th-century Americans, whatever other disputes they had about the provision, widely viewed the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.
Analysis: Historical Texts Show Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms Isn’t an NRA Invention
For anyone who frequently discusses the Second Amendment, there is no avoiding the debate over whether it protects an individual or collective right. The prevailing view accepted by the Supreme Court in 2008 is that the amendment protects every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. But many detractors, especially gun-control advocates, still argue it only covers a collective or militia right.
When the individual right view started to gain ground (or, rather, regain ground) in the late 20th century, a common line of attack was that the pro-gun side was essentially making it all up. And it’s one that’s been repeated even at the highest levels of the legal profession.
“The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime,” Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in a 1991 PBS interview.
Gun-control advocates still use this argument, with The Intercept asserting in a June 2022 article that “no law review article from 1888 (when they were first indexed) through 1959 ever concluded the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to a gun.”
There are three ways to test the claim that the NRA and other gun-rights advocates created the individual-right view in the last several decades: What did the founders say? What did older case law say? And what did prominent second-generation American legal scholars and elected officials say?
The courts and the public writ large have already deeply examined the first two options.
Majority Of Democrats Now ‘Concerned’ About Biden’s Mental Health, Poll Finds.
Finally, Democrats are starting to get it.
After yet another mental gaffe by President Joe Biden, a new poll has found a majority of Democrats are at least “concerned” about his mental health.
The Issues & Insights/TIPP survey of 1,376 adults released Monday showed 64% of Americans are either “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned,” a 5-point jump from its last poll in August.
But the percentage of Democrats now concerned about Biden’s mental lapses leaped 13 points in two months. “Virtually all of October’s gain came from Democrats, who went from just 39% expressing ‘concern’ over Biden’s mental health in August, a high number in itself, to 52% in the latest poll,” the pollsters wrote.
“Is Biden’s mental infirmity a danger to this country? Is it time for the president, who turns 80 next month, to be tested by competent medical experts and have the results openly released to allay public fears?” said the pollsters.
They also pointed out numerous recent gaffes by Biden.
“Recent video snippets show Biden wandering off stage, apparently lost, after speaking briefly; forgetting the name of the Declaration of Independence, the nation’s founding document; not remembering that a congresswoman he was honoring at a ceremony was in fact dead, asking Where’s Jackie (Walorski)?’; invoking the possibility of nuclear ‘Armageddon’ after Vladimir Putin’s military suffered setbacks in Ukraine; and so on.”
On September 28, Biden delivered a speech at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in Washington, D.C. He recognized those involved in the effort, including Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN).
In his shout-outs, Biden said: “Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie? She must not be here.”
She wasn’t there because Walorski is dead. She died, along with three others, in a head-on car crash on August 3.
Biden, 79, had clearly forgotten that Walorski had died, even though on the day of her death, the White House released a statement from the president mourning her.
“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” Biden said at the time. He also ordered the U.S. flag at the White House to be lowered for two days.
What made the whole mess worse is that the White House decided to lie about Biden’s confusion, implying that he knew Walorski was dead but that she was simply “top of mind.”
“So, of course, she was on his mind. She was of top of mind for the President,” Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters the next day. “He looks — very much looks forward to discussing her remarkable legacy of public service with them when he sees her family this coming Friday.”
Reporters lashed out at Jean-Pierre, who simply repeated her scripted lies. But Fox News’ Peter Doocy delivered a zinger, telling the flack: “Karine, I have John Lennon top of mind just about every day, but I’m not looking around for him anywhere.”
Biden would eventually apologize to Walorski’s family when he met with them for a bill signing in the Oval Office two days later.
Maybe he should apologize to all Americans for being president.
‘plays’? He is old and ugly. He’s also stupid.
Joe Biden Plays the Old Ugly American
Having shut down America’s oil-producing abilities, Biden believes that he can strongarm his enemies to send us more of such taboo energy that we won’t produce ourselves.
The Left used to accuse imperialist, resource-hungry Yanquis in Washington of cutting selfish deals with illiberal dictatorships in Latin America to grab their natural resources.
How odd then that Joe Biden is now begging the despicable Maduro regime in Venezuela—corrupt, murderous, and anti-American—to produce more of its oil solely to send northward to America.
Biden is quite willing to ease sanctions and condone the human rights abuses of Maduro—if his dictatorship will just open its oil spigots before the November midterm elections.
Biden in 2020 campaigned on the supposed evil nature of the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Yet after vainly entreating Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, it was inevitable that Biden would once again supplicate the Saudis to pump more oil.
Biden even pleaded with OPEC to increase its output and thus lower the world price of energy—again before the midterm elections.
Biden, remember, has a bad habit of bragging that he lowered gas prices at the pump when the natural volatility of the petroleum markets leads to a fractional decrease. But once prices spike, he is utterly silent about his own role in limiting U.S. oil and gas output.
So, was it any surprise that the Saudis became the fourth non-democratic regime to refuse Biden’s entreaties? During the 2020 campaign, when gas prices were dirt cheap, and when then candidate Biden was demagoguing about ending fossil fuel, he opportunistically libeled the Saudis a “pariah” state.
Biden also claimed that his opponent Donald Trump had cozied up to these supposedly awful Saudi royals. That accusation was especially ironic given that Trump was the first American president who had no need for Saudi oil.
His administration had managed to make the United States the largest producer of gas and oil in history— precluding any energy dependence on illiberal regimes abroad.
Trump was the first U.S. president whose interest in Gulf State monarchies was not energy-driven.
New York’s new concealed carry law can remain in effect for now, court rules
A federal appeals court has agreed to let New York’s concealed gun law remain in effect until a three-judge panel weighs in on a court ruling that blocked parts of the restrictive gun measure.
In a two-sentence ruling, 2nd Circuit Court Judge Eunice Lee referred New York state’s request for a stay of the temporary restraining order to a three-judge panel while the state appeals the merits of a ruling blocking the enforcement of part of the law.
The court also granted the state’s request to pause the temporary restraining order from going into effect pending the result of the panel review.
Last Thursday, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order which would have prevented enforcement of parts of the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” The law was enacted in the wake of the Supreme Court decision this summer striking down a New York gun law that placed restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home.
The measure enacts a strict permitting process for concealed-carry licenses and it requires background checks for ammunition sales. It also restricts the concealed carry of firearms in locations such as government buildings.
But the plaintiffs in the case at hand, including at least one individual who wants to carry his firearm in church, argue the state is violating their Second and 14th Amendment rights by denying them the right to self-defense.
Nationwide, in the three months since the 6-3 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state and local levels.
Though the Supreme Court case concerned a type of gun permitting regime embraced by just a handful of states, the conservative majority used the Bruen decision to provide new instructions for how courts are to assess the constitutionality of gun laws nationwide.
The decision was the first major Supreme Court guns ruling in more than a decade, and it came after Justice Clarence Thomas — who authored the majority opinion — had previously complained that the high court had allowed the Second Amendment to be treated as “a disfavored right.”
Intruder shot, killed during Detroit home invasion
(WXYZ) — Detroit police say they are investigating a fatal home invasion near Stanley Street and Loraine Street in the city.
Police say the intruder had a relationship with the homeowner and was asked to leave. Officers say around 9 a.m. Wednesday morning, the man attempted to return to the home through a front window.
According to police, someone inside the home fired several shots at the man and he was struck and killed. Police are calling the incident “domestic in nature.”
Detroit police say two people were detained for additional questioning. It’s unclear if the victim had a relationship with was the shooter. Police also did not say if the two people detained will be facing charges.
Neighbors say they were surprised to hear about the shooting.
“I mean, it’s close to home. We got little kids on the block,” said one neighbor who did not want to be identified. “We’ve seen them there and we’ve never seen any arguments of fights since they’ve been there.”
Neighbors say the family that lived at the Loraine Street home moved in sometime this year and kept to themselves.
“It’s sad and I hate that it was them because they seemed like cool people for lack of a better word, but they were pretty good people,” said Fred Boyer who lives a few houses away from where the shooting happened. “I hate to think that they had an incident and it turned into somebody dying.”
The man who was killed is reportedly in his mid 30s. Police have not released the victim’s name. The investigation is ongoing.
On CNN, Biden's defense of Hunter illegally buying a gun is he was a drug addict. So if a drug addict claims on the 4473 form he is not an addict, his addiction is a defense for illegally filling out the form?
CNN omits Qs on Hunter's influence peddling.https://t.co/i1eNT2a5CG— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) October 12, 2022
Caryn Sullivan: A societal storm is brewing and we must stop it
We have the power to hold fast to American values and traditions by casting out the politicians who show even an inkling of wanting to move our country away from them.
Early this month, Hurricane Ian blew into Florida, leaving a swath of destruction. In a matter of hours, life changed dramatically for many residents. As I watched from afar, I was reminded of the importance of having a plan.
Nearly 13 years ago, I became a widow and single mom, after my husband suffered a fatal heart attack. Recognizing how hard it is to make decisions in the middle of an emotional storm, I executed a will, set up a trust, and bought a cemetery plot so my kids wouldn’t have to pick up the pieces after I was gone.
When I took those steps, I had a sense of what the future would hold. But that’s no longer true.
These days, I’m watching as a societal storm picks up speed. I’m watching as the metaphorical roof is ripped from homes; as limbs blow off branches; and vehicles submerge in rushing water.
Writing for Alpha News on Saturday, Julie and Allen Quist put my feelings into context. In a comprehensive piece, they walked readers through the way in which critical race theory and neo-Marxism are replacing the pillars upon which our nation was established. They explained how it’s all part of a plan to dramatically alter our country. Bit by bit, our culture is being scuttled, replaced by a wholly undesirable way of life we’ve witnessed in other countries.
Over the past six months, I’ve written about how our language is changing, about how students are asked to identify their pronouns, about how free speech has been undercut — and more. These are some of the elements the Quists highlight in their commentary. I recognized the road markers; I just couldn’t see the destination.
But it’s clearer now. I’ve had a reluctant reckoning, for this is not something I imagined would come to be in my lifetime. But George Orwell’s novel, “1984,” feels more like reality than fiction every day.
COVID provided the perfect cover for a burgeoning neo-Marxist movement. We were told to stay home, mask up, and take a novel vaccine — because it was for the greater good. And most of us did.
Though I never imagined we would live through a pandemic, it’s not hard to envision another crisis in our future. And, if — or when — one comes to pass, it’s not hard to imagine that the draconian measures we endured — and the compliance we experienced — will come to be again.
Which begs the question, how do we prepare for the worst-case scenario — another lockdown; government-run media; or, God forbid, civil war? I don’t have the answers, but we can begin by remembering that the best offense is a good defense, as we saw this past weekend.
Recently, PayPal announced a new policy whereby it would fine customers $2500 for spreading misinformation. Horrified customers quickly cancelled their accounts. And the stock price plummeted.
On Friday, the Florida surgeon general shared that a recent study demonstrated young men who take the mRNA vaccine experience an alarmingly high incidence of cardiac-related deaths. Twitter exercised its muscle by blocking him, stating he was spreading misinformation.
But people pushed back. PayPal reversed course and the surgeon general’s post reappeared on Twitter.
It was an encouraging example of how, though it’s constantly tested, we haven’t lost our power. We need to continue to summon our courage and exercise it boldly.
We still have the power to stop this neo-Marxist movement by voting for politicians who reject that course. We have the power to hold fast to American values and traditions by casting out the politicians who show even an inkling of wanting to move our country away from them.
When we head to the ballot box, we need to be mindful of the impending storm and, in the vein of ‘hope for the best and prepare for the worst,’ we must vote as if our lives and our country’s future depend on it. Because they do.