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.

This is much easier for Congress because that’s much easier than having to exert oneself to get out of that cushy chair on the .gov gravy train and actually do what they’re getting paid for.

The New Bicameralism and Presentment
The executive branch proposes a rule, a district court judge can block it, then one member of the Supreme Court determines if Congress would have approved of that rule.

The Constitution establishes a very precise process by which laws can be enacted. First, a bill must be approved by one house of Congress. Second, the other house of Congress must approve the bill. Third, the President can sign the bill into law. If the bill is vetoed, Congress can override the veto. This process is known as bicameralism and presentment: two houses must pass the bill, which is then presented to the President for his signature.

This process, regrettably, has become rarer and rare. Virtually all major changes to the law occur outside the confines of the traditional form of bicameralism and presentment. Instead, there is a different three-step process.

First, the executive branch proposes a new legal regime. Maybe there is notice-and-comment rulemaking, or maybe it is bypassed. There is always good cause when the need arises. Or an agency issues some sort of non-binding guidance document that regulated entities treat as binding.

Second, after the policy is promulgated, it is challenged in favorable forums. A district court judge then decides if the rule can go into effect, or not.

Third, if the trial court blocks the rule, the case is presented to the Supreme Court. And pursuant to the major question doctrine, the Justices must determine if this is the sort of rule that Congress would have approved of.

In this regard, there is still a familiar three-step process, involving the executive branch, the lower courts, and the Supreme Court. Congress is involved in an imaginative sense, as one Justice gets to decide what Congress would have intended. If all three boxes are checked, federal laws is changed! Call it a new bicameralism and presentment.

Pfizer Executive: ‘No, Haha!’ We Didn’t Test If COVID Vaccine Stopped Transmission of Virus.

Pfizer executive Janine Small admitted to the European Parliament with a laugh that the company did not test if its COVID-19 vaccine stopped transmission of the virus before the vaccine was put on the market. Apparently knowing whether a vaccine works isn’t important before forcing everyone to get it?

Small made the admission in a video tweeted by Dutch Member of the European Parliament Rob Roos. The Netherlands instituted a COVID-19 vaccine passport in late 2021, and Roos emphasized in the video how much Small’s admission undermines the Dutch government’s justification for the passport.

“If you don’t get vaccinated, you’re anti-social. This is what the Dutch Prime Minister and Health Minister told us,” Roos said. “You don’t get vaccinated just for yourself, but also for others—you do it for all of society. That’s what they said.” But that argument no longer holds, Roos explained. “Today, this turns out to be complete nonsense. In a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, one of the Pfizer directors just admitted to me—at the time of introduction, the vaccine had never been tested on stopping the transmission of the virus.”

Roos emphasized the importance of this admission. “This removes the entire legal basis for the COVID passport, the COVID passport that led to massive institutional discrimination as people lost access to essential parts of society,” Roos said. “I find this to be shocking, even criminal.”

The video then showed a clip of Roos asking Small in the European Parliament, “Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?” Roos said he was asking in English specifically to avoid any misunderstanding on Small’s part.

Small was clearly uncomfortable answering the question—and for good reason. “Regarding the question around, um, when we knew about stopping immunization before, um, it entered the market—no!” Small exclaimed, with a nervous laugh. Apparently giving millions of people an untested vaccine is amusing?

Small then attempted to justify Pfizer’s actions. “These, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.”

The speed of science or the speed of greed? Already, as of May 2021, Pfizer had made $3.5 billion of revenue on its COVID vaccine in just three months, almost a quarter of its total revenue, according to Yahoo News. Chinese Communist Party-owned Fosun Pharmaceuticals makes the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine in the U.S., according to Dr. Naomi Wolf.

Multiple studies recently have warned that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause serious injury and death. Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo just released an analysis showing the relative incidence of cardiac-related death increased 84 percent in men ages 18-39 within 28 days of mRNA vaccination. Ladapo recommended that young men not get the COVID vaccine.

Roos commented at the end of his video about Small’s admission, “This is scandalous. Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others.’ Now, this turned out to be a cheap lie. This should be exposed.”

3 Months After Bruen Ruling, Antis Still Trying to Dance Around Constitution

More than three months after the landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down New York’s unconstitutional, and century-old gun permit “good cause” scheme, anti-gunners continue trying to get around the Second Amendment, while the media seem content to help the whining.

According to CNN, since the June 23 smackdown of New York’s carry permit law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, “scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state and local levels.” The cable news network report also noted, “This shift in burden has put gun rights groups at a greater advantage in court. It has also changed the type of work that government defenders – and the outside gun safety groups that often support them in litigation – must do to advocate for their laws.”

Monday, anti-gun New York State Attorney General Letitia James announced she will fight a federal court ruling from last week that declared some tenets of the state’s new law—hastily adopted just days after the high court ruling—were unconstitutional. Speaking defiantly, James said her office had “filed a motion to keep the entire Concealed Carry Improvement Act in effect and continue to protect communities as the appeals process moves forward. This common-sense gun control legislation is critical in our state’s effort to reduce gun violence. We will continue to fight for the safety of everyday New Yorkers.”

In a prepared statement, James’ office said the new law “strengthens requirements for concealed carry permits, prohibits guns in sensitive places, requires individuals with concealed carry permits to request a property owner’s consent to carry on their premises, enhances safe storage requirements, requires social media review ahead of certain gun purchases, and requires background checks on all ammunition purchases.”

Critics complain the new statute is as bad, if not worse, than the original law.

The New York Times said ruling by District Judge Glenn Suddaby “dealt a sharp blow to New York, which had sought to provide a model for new gun legislation for the five other states whose laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court’s June ruling — in part by outlining how those ‘sensitive places,’ where the court said it was permissible for states to bar guns, can be defined.”

Ramping up the rhetoric, anti-gun New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced Tuesday he was designating Times Square as a “gun free zone.”

The Times story quoted Judge Suddaby, who called the “good moral character” requirement of the new law “fatally flawed.” He also said the demand for access to someone’s social media accounts for the previous three years would not pass muster.

“No such circumstances exist under which this provision would be valid,” the judge said.

Lawsuit Targets Glendale, CA Over Gun Ban On Public Property

California – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners today filed a federal lawsuit asking for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Glendale, Calif., its police chief and city clerk. The case is known as CRPA v. Glendale.

Joining SAF are the Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel, Joshua Robert Dale, Konstadinos T. Moros of Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer of Caldwell, Idaho. In addition to the City of Glendale, the defendants are Police Chief Carl Povilaitis and City Clerk Suzie Abajian in their official capacities. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

“The City of Glendale’s municipal code generally bans possession of firearms and ammunition on any city property, with no exception for citizens with concealed carry permits,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ban applies not just to city property, but also publicly-controlled property or public-affiliated private property, with the only exceptions being streets, roads and sidewalks. Such restrictions relegate the right to keep and bear arms to the status of a strictly-regulated government privilege.

“Our lawsuit is blunt,” he continued. “The Glendale ordinance is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection extends outside the home. As we note in our complaint, the burden is on the city to prove that all areas falling within the definition of ‘city property’ are so-called ‘sensitive places,’ and they cannot do it.”

As explained in the 24-page complaint, the city has 47 parks and recreation facilities (including four community centers, one golf course, three soccer fields, and sixteen ball fields), playgrounds, eight public libraries, three downtown parking structures and other city-owned or operated parking lots, the Glendale Civic Auditorium and civic center complex, a youth center, an emergency center, undefined “open spaces” and “plazas,” and an unknowable amount of properties in the possession of private companies under contract with the city.

“That broad definition essentially turns much if not most of the city into a gun-free zone where Second Amendment rights do not exist, and that simply doesn’t pass the smell test,” Gottlieb stated. “We are hopeful the court quickly recognizes this and grants our request.”

Homeowner shot armed intruder during late-night burglary in Livingston Parish

WALKER – A burglar was shot after she accidentally woke up an armed homeowner while breaking into a house early Monday morning.

The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office said residents woke up around 2 a.m. after hearing a “popping” sound under the carport at their home on Friendship Road. The department said one of the homeowners then grabbed a gun and shot the female intruder, who was also armed.

The burglar, identified as 23-year-old Paige Clark, was shot twice in the leg and hip. She was taken to a hospital and is expected to survive.

The department said Clark will be booked into jail once she’s released from the hospital. She faces charges of aggravated burglary, theft of a motor vehicle, illegal use of weapons and burglary from a vehicle.

Gun rights in flux—the next steps

The main stream media is taking notice (the Wall Street Journal):

Judges Across U.S. Expand Gun Rights, Taking Cues From Supreme Court — Courts are placing more emphasis on historical traditions, presenting new challenges for defending gun regulations

The Supreme Court’s decision this year to strengthen Second Amendment protections for carrying concealed weapons is starting to ripple through lower courts, with several judges citing the ruling to strike down other gun regulations.

This is just the first step to cementing our gains. The gun culture needs to expanded into the new territory. Fortunately, the political left has cleared a lot of obstacles for us. The whole “defund the police” movement helped the BLM and Antifa riots open a lot of eyes and made gun ownership seem like “a good idea” to many and a near requirement others. We need to welcome them and enable them to safely and responsibly exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. If we can do this with 60% or 70% of the population we will have a good chance of being able to breathe easy for a generation or two.

“MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN”

Daniel 5

1Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.
2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.
3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.
4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.
5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
6 Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.
7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.
8 Then came in all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.
9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.
10 Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed:
11 There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;
12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.
13 Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel; Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?
14 I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.
15 And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not shew the interpretation of the thing:
16 And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.
17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.
18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:
19 And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.
20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:
21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;
23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:
24 Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.
25 And this is the writing that was written, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.
26 This is the interpretation of the thing: Mene; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27 Tekel; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28 Peres; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.
30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Hello, Columbus—Celebrate The Great Man!

What if Christopher Columbus hadn’t sailed the ocean blue in 1492?

Woke critics of the great mariner insist that the world would be a better place if he’d stuck closer to the shores of Europe and that, moreover, Columbus himself is unworthy of the great admiration heaped upon him in previous times.

He is the ultimate exemplar of white, male privilege in the woke view. They are wrong.

Columbus remains an inspiring historical figure for those who have not dissolved into a frenzy of hatred of the West. Several columnists are giving us excellent advice on this Columbus Day: David Marcus urges, “Happy Columbus Day, Say It Loud, Say It Proud,” Dave Seminara argues in City Journal that we “Don’t Defend Columbus—Celebrate Him,” and the Daily Signal’s Jarrett Stepman examines the historical record in “The Truth about Columbus.”

As Marcus sees it, Columbus was the first person in history to exemplify the American Dream—he did this before we had America:

Christopher Columbus wasn’t just the man most responsible for opening up the New World to the Old; he was also an example of the American Dream centuries before our nation was born.

The son of a tradesman, he was mainly self-taught in the ways of words and letters and began acquiring his sailing chops as early as age 10. This wasn’t a privileged young man, but rather one who through pluck, will and a healthy Catholic faith, rose far above his humble origins and became one of humanity’s greatest and most ­famous heroes.

At a time when the world is battling a global pandemic and the economic catastrophe of lockdowns, Columbus offers an example to us about balancing the fear of death against the immortal human ­longing for prosperity, achievement and discovery.

Columbus, Marcus writes, contributed to the creation of the modern world—and that’s the rub. Wokesters seek to tear down the modern world. Hence it is only natural that, to the degree they care which statues they pull down (the destruction itself is primary), Columbus is a natural target. Read Marcus’ entire column. Continue reading “”

Apropos of the Tulsi Gabbard makeover

From a guy in New Hampshire:

I don’t think she fits into the fascist democrat party well, but they are probably using her as a spoiler to steal weak minded voters from the republicans. This is why she did that silly shooting photo op.

I met her a while back, and asked her about her voting record. I had notes about her voting record to have all of my facts straight. She lied to my face about it, telling me that she didn’t vote that way. Classic narcissist style.

The disturbing part of this interaction was that she didn’t even flinch when lying to my face. Not a single physical “tell” that she was lying. It was downright creepy, like talking to a robot.

She did look pretty good in tight black pants and high heeled boots. If people fall for her game, the democrats won’t have to cheat as much in the future because all of the old Fudd guys will be enthralled by the gun bunny who pretends to be one of them.

CNN Sounds Alarm: SCOTUS May Wipe Out Gun Control ‘Nationwide’

CNN sounded the alarm Sunday, warning that the pro-Second Amendment makeup of  the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) portends an end to gun control “nationwide.”

CNN’s Tierney Sneed pointed to the June 23, 2022, SCOTUS decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, noting that it not only struck down New York’s proper cause requirement but also set forward stringent rules for how lower courts must decide cases related to the Second Amendment.

On July 1 Breitbart News noted that SCOTUS remanded a number of cases, vacating the decisions and ordering them to be reconsidered in light of Bruen. The cases centered on an “assault weapons” ban in Maryland, a “high capacity” magazine ban in California, and carry restrictions in Hawaii, among other things.

Roughly two weeks later Breitbart News pointed to a Washington Times article suggesting the Bruen decision puts all types of gun control in the crosshairs of gun rights groups.

The Washington Times paraphrased Justice Clarence Thomas’s emphasis on the important of decisions like Bruen, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), saying, “The test courts must apply is whether a firearms restriction would have seemed reasonable to the founding generation that crafted and ratified the Second Amendment. If not, the law must give way to the Constitution.”

In light of this framework for testing restrictions, CNN warns that gun control in every state is in jeopardy:

Since the June ruling, federal judges in at least a half-dozen different cases have already cited the Bruen decision to rule against gun restrictions that have included local assault weapons bans, prohibitions on the manufacture of homemade firearms and bans on older teenagers publicly carrying handguns.

Several other laws now face new legal challenges under the precedent, among them zoning restrictions barring shooting ranges, licensing and training laws and the federal ban on certain misdemeanor offenders from possessing firearms.

CNN noted changes that have already occurred in jurisprudence in light of Bruen:

A federal district judge cited the ruling last month when halting Delaware restrictions on possessing and manufacturing untraceable firearms, saying that the law’s defenders failed to provide persuasive evidence that similar restrictions existed in the historical record. The precedent was also referenced when local assault weapon bans in two Colorado jurisdictions were put on hold this summer; the judges in both cases were each appointed by Democratic presidents.

CNN also noted a decision handed down on Thursday to “pause” new gun controls New York enacted in response to Bruen.

Breitbart News indicated the New York controls were paused via a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby.

The first lawsuit, against manufacturers, was thrown out. This one is against dealers and distributors. I think it’ll fare no better, but you never know. In any case, most of the weapons the cartels have are stolen from the Mexican military, or sold to them by corrupt people in the Mexican military. You don’t buy M2, M240, M4 & automatic AK machineguns at the local gun store

Mexico files 2nd lawsuit against arms dealers in US

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The Mexican government filed another U.S. gun lawsuit Monday, this time against five U.S. gun shops and distributors it claims are responsible for the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico.

Mexico’s first lawsuit, which was recently dismissed, targeted U.S. gun manufacturers. The second, which Foreign Affairs Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said was filed in Arizona’s federal district court Monday, targets gun dealers.

“We are suing them because clearly there is a pattern, we contend that it is obvious that there is weapons trafficking and that it is known that these guns are going to our country,” Ebrard said.

Ebrard promised last week the new lawsuit would target gun shops or dealers in U.S. border states who sell guns to “straw” purchasers who pass them on to smugglers, who then take the weapons into Mexico.

Mexico is suing for unspecified monetary damages and to demand the gun stores hire independent monitors to ensure that U.S. federal laws are followed in gun purchases.

Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, the legal adviser to Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department, said Mexico had chosen “the five worst stores” to name in the lawsuit, including three gun outlets in Tucson, one in Phoenix and one in Yuma, Arizona.

“They are not careful when they sell products, so they allow straw purchasers to buy guns,” said Celorio Alcántara, adding they sold multiple guns, multiple times to some purchasers. “We are saying they are negligent and facilitate straw purchasers, to the point of being accomplices.”

He claimed that U.S. criminal investigations had traced weapons purchases back to the stores, and said there was evidence that the shops had not filed required information on some purchases.

“The main argument of our lawsuit is that these businesses are an organized part of a criminal enterprise, a mechanism, to facilitate criminals and cartels in Mexico being able to use their weapons,” said Celorio Alcántara.

He said the first hearing on the suit might not come until the summer.

Ebrard said about 60% of the weapons seized in Mexico in recent years were believed to have been sold in 10 U.S. counties, mostly along the border. Mexico has very strict restrictions on weapon possession, but drug cartel violence has cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the country in recent years.

“We are going to show that many of these outlets where they sell these products in these counties I mentioned, are dealing with straw purchasers, and criminal charges have to be brought,” Ebrard said last week in an appearance before the Mexican Senate.

A recently enacted U.S. law defines straw purchasing as a crime, and sets out sentences of as much as 15 to 25 years if the offense is related to drug trafficking.

Celorio Alcántara said that was a key difference between this and Mexico’s earlier lawsuit: in the Arizona suit, Mexico is arguing a violation of U.S. laws.

The announcement comes several days after a U.S. federal judge dismissed Mexico’s first lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers; Mexico has said it will appeal that decision.

The judge ruled Mexico’s claims against the gun makers did not overcome the broad protection provided to firearms manufacturers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005.

The law shields gun manufacturers from damages “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm.

Mexico was seeking at least $10 billion in compensation, but legal experts had viewed the lawsuit as a long shot.

The Mexican government estimates 70% of the weapons trafficked into Mexico come from the U.S., according to the Foreign Affairs Ministry. It said that in 2019 alone, at least 17,000 homicides in Mexico were linked to trafficked weapons.

No, SCOTUS didn’t just rule against gun rights

Today it’s often difficult to determine when the mainstream media is being deliberately deceptive or is just incompetent. Whatever the case may be, they are routinely wrong.

Take for instance a recent ABC News headline reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) bump-stock ban:

Supreme Court upholds bump stock ban in big win for gun safety advocates

The Supreme Court did no such thing.

In December 2018, the ATF published a final rule amending the code of federal regulations to declare that items colloquially known as bump-stocks fall under the definition of “machineguns” as defined in the National Firearm Act. As these items were not registered prior to when the federal government froze the sale of new machineguns in 1986, the rule made bump-stocks contraband.

Gun rights proponents across the country took exception to what many perceived as impermissible executive branch law-making. As a result, several cases challenging the new rule were filed in federal court. Rather than concerning the Second Amendment, at issue in these cases is the permissible scope of administrative rule-making and the extent to which administrative agencies should or should not be given deference in interpreting criminal statutes.

In the case Aposhian v. Garland, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the ATF rule, at which point the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case in August 2021. Similarly, in Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Garland, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the ATF rule, prompting the plaintiffs to petition the Supreme Court in March 2022. On October 3, the Supreme Court declined to hear either case.

First, denying cert in a case is not a ruling on the merits of that case. The decision not to take a case is not an explicit endorsement of a lower court’s ruling. In his dissent in Darr v. Burford (1950) Justice Felix Frankfurter explained,

The significance of a denial of a petition for certiorari ought no longer to require discussion. This Court has said again and again and again that such a denial has no legal significance whatever bearing on the merits of the claim. The denial means that this Court has refused to take the case. It means nothing else.

Second, there is good reason in this instance why the Supreme Court may want to take a wait and see approach to how the law in this area develops in the lower federal courts.

At present, another bump-stock case, Cargill v. Garland, is making its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In December 2021 the Fifth Circuit upheld the ATF rule in this case. However, following a petition by the plaintiff, in June the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the case en banc (in front of the full court, rather than just a panel of circuit court judges).

Could the Supreme Court be waiting on the Fifth Circuit to rule en banc before entertaining a bump-stock case? That is a distinct possibility. What isn’t is that the Supreme Court has made a ruling on the merits of these important cases. Reporters should know better.