"You see, Sheriff, you CAN herd people into cattle cars if you want.
Just follow orders"- @GovMLG https://t.co/LU4bdbrBua— Just a RKT guy….. (@barnacles71) September 12, 2023
Category: Rights
More than a hundred people openly carried their guns in Old Town as they protested Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s recent controversial move on firearms. https://t.co/Rh5CsuP0ge
— KOB 4 (@KOB4) September 11, 2023
We all know New Mexico goobernor Grisham issued an Emergency “Health Order” suspending concealed and open carry of guns in New Mexico even for concealed carry permit holders.
Over the weekend, at least four lawsuits, two of which seek immediate injunctive relief, have been filed.
National Association For Gun Rights is the only one I can find at the moment
National-Assoc-Gun-Rights-v.-Grisham-New-Mexico-Emergency-Motion-for-TROGroup sues after New Mexico governor suspends right to carry guns in Albuquerque in public
Seems everyone else concerned know the goobernor stepped in it.
The most salient part of the article is this ⇓.
Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, who once served as a Democratic party leader and was appointed by Lujan Grisham, on Saturday joined Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and Police Chief Harold Medina saying they wouldn’t enforce the order.
“As an officer of the court, I cannot and will not enforce something that is clearly unconstitutional,” said Bregman, the top prosecutor in the Albuquerque area. “This office will continue to focus on criminals of any age that use guns in the commission of a crime.”
Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he was uneasy about how gun owners might respond.
“I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts,” Allen said, “as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”
The crimes that are ‘felonious’ has been so broadly expanded that it’s almost like it’s a plan, a feature, not a bug, to disarm as many people as possible. Also, it’s only been an actual federal prohibition since 1968.
Ramaswamy: Former felons should be allowed to carry guns
The GOP presidential candidate fleshes out what it means to be a “Second Amendment absolutist” on a podcast.
Vivek Ramaswamy says convicted felons should be allowed to carry weapons.
Appearing on former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s podcast, set to air on Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate was asked to flesh out what it meant to be a “Second Amendment absolutist,” as Ramaswamy has labeled himself.
“Everyone has a gun?” asked Cuomo, once a prominent figure in Democratic Party politics. “Everyone has an assault weapon? A former felon? No background check? Concealed carry?”
“Has the right to,” Ramaswamy responded. “And I do think concealed carry is important, constitutional carry is important.”
He said background checks are “absolutely a legitimate part of the process” but that “law-abiding” gun ownership “deters many violent criminals from being able to roam the streets with guns as they do today.”
Ramaswamy emphasized high crime in cities and inadequate mental health resources while calling for more support for police officers. The discussion of guns was part of a wide-ranging conversation on Cuomo’s “As A Matter Of Fact” podcast.
Ramaswamy, as he has before, endorsed the idea of re-institutionalizing people deemed dangerous and brushed aside Cuomo’s description of a mass school shooting, saying, “That case that you described is not a real case that presents itself very often, compared to real-life violence between a lot of violent criminals in cities who are breaking a lot of other laws.”
Cuomo — who resigned from office amid sexual abuse allegations he has denied — said after recording the podcast: “The Republican candidates all insist on trying to appeal to the ultra conservatives within their own party and take positions that alienate a majority of Americans. Deporting millions of immigrant families who have been here for years peacefully and successfully and arming felons with guns, everyone carrying a concealed weapon, returning to the Wild West, etc. It’s all absurd.”
PRIVACY: It’s Been a Good Week for Keeping Bossy Busybodies From Spying on Your Phone
Tech giant Apple is standing firm on protecting customers’ privacy rights, even on one of the thorniest, hot-button issues — and that’s not the only good news this week on the privacy front.
Today’s issue is preventing the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) from one encrypted device (like a pedo’s smartphone) to someone else’s. It’s a serious problem but one with no easy solution.
Apple had a couple of years ago planned to build CSAM-scanning software right into the iOS operating system that runs every iPhone. Had it been implemented, software known as client-side scanning would examine literally every photo on every updated iPhone in the world, including embedded location data. Privacy groups were aghast at the prospect. Had the scanner been built into iOS, there would have been nothing preventing it from scanning for anything the government might demand in one of its infamous secret warrants.
“Hi, Apple? This is Jerry from the FBI. Yeah, we’re going to need you to scan everybody’s photo libraries for MAGA hats near the Capitol building on or around January 6, 2021. And next month we’re going to have you start sending us location data from gun stores. Kthnxbi.”
Apple scrapped those plans last year. I kinda doubt that CEO Tim Cook was worried much about the MAGA folks, but a privacy win is a privacy win. This week, however, a new anti-CSAM group called Heat Initiative presented its demand that the company “detect, report, and remove” CSAM photos and videos from its cloud servers, according to an Ars Technica report. Going further, Heat Initiative also wants Apple to create even more CSAM reporting tools for users.
ATF FFL DEFINITION EXPANSION ISN’T JUST UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT’S UNFEASIBLE.
The Biden administration is forcing the federal agency charged with overseeing the strictly-regulated firearm industry to tighten a vice grip on private gun owners, claiming if they privately sell guns and offer to sell more, they’re “engaged in the business.”
This is just the latest salvo from President Joe Biden, who declared from the debate stage in 2019 that the firearm industry is “the enemy.”
Now, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is snuffing out firearm retailers at a record pace due to an unrelenting attack of historically-high firearm license revocations under the guise of its “zero-tolerance” policy, the administration has unilaterally proposed an expansion of the definition of who is required to obtain a dealer’s license and therefore run a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification to transfer a firearm. Recall, failing to obtain a dealer’s license when required by law is a crime.
This latest gambit does more than exceed the ATF’s statutory authority. It’s an unfeasible requirement. There is no way ATF could keep up with another 328,000 federal firearm licensees.
President Joe Biden continues to barrel around Congress to generate unconstitutional laws when Congress stands against him trampling on citizens’ rights. That’s after conceding he’s powerless to do anything without Congressional action.
Unilaterally Making Law and Criminals
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the proposed rule that would redefine who qualifies as “engaged in the business” and would require a federal firearms license (FFL) and run a NICS background check when selling or transferring a gun, as well as to maintain all the required records and paperwork. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to create a universal background check scheme – which even the Department of Justice (DOJ) has admitted would necessitate a federal firearm registry to work. That’s forbidden by federal law.
The irony is, Congress clarified the “engaged in the business” definition in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). Congress made a one-word change to the “engaged in the business” definition by removing the word “livelihood” the courts had effectively read out of the statute. The law still defines a firearm dealer as, “a person who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”
ATF Proposes Significant Overhaul of “Personal Collection” Definitions
The newly proposed regulations by the ATF aim to dramatically revise key terms such as “personal collection,” “personal collection of firearms,” and “hobby.” These revisions have the potential to significantly impact how the agency regulates firearms sales and ownership. Historically, there have been exemptions for individuals involved in occasional sales or trades of firearms, either to augment their own collection or as a hobby. This existing language was left untouched by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which became effective in June 2022. However, the ATF is citing this act to introduce these sweeping changes.
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.
The proposed changes would significantly narrow these exemptions. According to the new rule, “personal collection” would be limited to firearms acquired for study, display, or recreational activities like hunting and target shooting. Notably, firearms acquired primarily for self-defense or with the intent of resale for profit would be excluded from the definition of a “personal collection.”
E. Definition of “Personal collection,” “personal collection of firearms,” and “personal firearms collection”
Specifically, this rule proposes to define “personal collection,” “personal collection of firearms,” and “personal firearms collection” as “personal firearms that a person accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition, or for a hobby (e.g., noncommercial, recreational activities for personal enjoyment such as hunting, or skeet, target, or competition shooting).” This reflects a common definition of the terms “collection” and “hobby.”85 The phrase “or for a hobby” was adopted from 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C), which excludes from the definition of “engaged in the business” firearms acquired “for” a hobby. Also expressly excluded from the definition of “personal collection” is “any firearm purchased for resale or made with the predominant intent to earn a profit” because of their inherently commercial nature. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C).
This shift in language could put people at risk of being classified as “firearms dealers,” even if their activities were previously considered a hobby under the old rules. Furthermore, individuals who occasionally sell or trade firearms for personal reasons, such as needing money or wanting to change their collection, would find themselves in a precarious position under the new definitions.
It’s worth noting that these proposed changes were not ratified by Congress and could have far-reaching implications. They appear to exclude self-defense as a legitimate reason for owning firearms, a purpose which has been constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment.
While the new rule is meant to standardize definitions, it grants the ATF greater flexibility in interpretation, potentially altering long-established norms in the regulation of firearms. Critics argue that these changes seem designed to narrow the scope of acceptable reasons for firearm ownership, thereby curtailing individual freedoms protected under the Second Amendment.
FBI Admits It Has Lots Of Documents About Targeting Christians
If ever you thought that the Biden Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Deep State that we knew had been used to punish groups since the days of the Obama administration, had been weaponized to target Christians, here is hard proof.
I mean, we already HAD proof in the horrendous case of Mark Houck, who was arrested by the FBI (after a SWAT raid at his home that traumatized his family) for alleged violations of the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act. Houck was acquitted in federal court, which left a whole lot of egg on the face of the DOJ. But it has become increasingly clear that the DOJ has a target on pro-life activists and parent groups that support traditional values – and as a result, it has turned its Eye of Sauron onto those they call “radical traditionalist” Christians.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) submitted a FOIA request to the FBI, and then sued when the FBI failed to comply. Well, the FBI did finally submit a response, which chief counsel Jay Sekulow (whom you may remember as one of Donald Trump’s lawyers from his first impeachment) is now highlighting on Twitter/X.
For some clarity, here is some of what the ACLJ requested in the FOIA.
Some of our specific requests are reproduced below:
1) All records of communications between or including the FBI’s Director, Deputy Director, Chief of Staff, General Counsel, or any of their senior staff or assistants, or of any other FBI official of a GS-13 or appointee level or higher personnel (including forwarded email messages or CC or BCC email messages), about pro-life people OR Catholicism (including adherents of Catholicism) OR Christianity (including adherents of Christianity) – all in the context of analysis, threat assessment, domestic terrorism, or the monitoring of such people.
2) All records of briefings or communications between or including the FBI’s Director, Deputy Director, Chief of Staff, General Counsel, or any of their senior staff or assistants, or of any other FBI official of a GS-13 or appointee level or higher personnel (including forwarded email messages or CC or BCC email messages), that mention the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. __ (2022).
3) All records of communications between or including the FBI Richmond field office personnel, including analysists, senior staff or assistants, or of any other FBI official of a GS-13 or appointee level or higher (including forwarded email messages or CC or BCC email messages), about the memo described in the “Background” section above.
4) All records of communications between or including the FBI Richmond field office personnel, including analysists, senior staff or assistants, or of any other FBI official of a GS-13 or appointee level or higher (including forwarded email messages or CC or BCC email messages), about pro-life people OR Catholicism (including adherents of Catholicism) OR Christianity (including adherents of Christianity) – in the context of analysis, threat assessment, domestic terrorism, or the monitoring of such people.
Congratulations to Catholics and Protestants – full ecumenical parity has been achieved, for we are all seen as threats to the Department of Justice if we follow Biblical teachings! Wow. Mary I and Elizabeth I are surely thrilled with this development.
Liberty Safes apparently builds in a ‘backdoor’ passcode – like a master key – on its safes with electronic digital dials. Maybe all electronic dials are made with such.
— Liberty Safe (@libertysafeinc) September 6, 2023
Is liberty safe with Liberty Safe?
Last week, an Arkansas man was arrested in connection with the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Nathan Earl Hughes has four charges pending against him, including a felony count of interfering with police during a civil disorder. Arkansas Online has an article (archived links) detailing the investigation and the charges against him.
With ubiquitous cellphone cameras, the video of Hughes’ arrest quickly made it online (archived):
There is an important sentence in the above tweet/post from the Hodge Twins, and that is this:
“The feds called the manufacturer of his Liberty Gun Safe and got the passcode to get into it too.”
It comes as a surprise to many of us (although it shouldn’t) that an electronic keypad has a secret factory default passcode that allows entry into the safe besides the customer-configured passcode. We don’t know if this default passcode is unique to each safe, or if it’s a model default passcode (like a silly default “admin/admin” username/password combination you find in most wireless routers) that will get you entry into any Liberty Safe of the same model. (Looking at the customer FAQ’s on the Liberty Safe website, it looks like the default passcode may be unique to each safe.)
Missouri has state preemption of any and all gun control laws, except they let cities ban open carry if a person doesn’t have a concealed carry permit. Strange, but that’s how permitless carry worked out when the different bills were combined and passed.
Gov. Mike Parson criticizes Kansas City’s new gun rules: ‘You can’t supersede state law’
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson spoke to KCUR’s Up To Date about the case of Kansas City Police officer Eric DeValkenaere, the expansion of I-70, the 2024 gubernatorial race, and Kansas City’s new gun ordinances.
Criminal justice advocates across Kansas City have speculated that Gov. Mike Parson might pardon Eric DeValkenaere, the former Kansas City Police detective who was convicted in 2021 for killing Cameron Lamb.
Parson told Up To Date’s Steve Kraske that he hasn’t sat down to discuss a potential pardon. He said that the legal process has to work out before he comes into play — DeValkenaere is currently appealing his conviction.
“It’s been unfortunate,” Parson said of the speculation. “I think a lot of people got spun up by that, elected officials up there are kinda claiming that. But the reality of it is that I haven’t had a conversation about that.”
Parson also criticized the new gun laws recently passed by Kansas City Council, outlawing certain modified firearms and prohibiting the transferring of weapons and ammo to minors.
“You can’t supersede state law, just like I can’t supersede federal law. I wish I could sometimes, there’s lots of things I’d like to change,” Parson said. “The reality is that it needs to go in front of the General Assembly or needs to be voted on by the people to make those changes.”
In 2021, Parson signed into law the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” which penalized law enforcement for enforcing federal gun restrictions. However, that law was ruled unconstitutional.
It still amazes me this isn’t a fake picture. https://t.co/pRn1dIp6zS
— Santa Cruz Mountain Goat (@SCMountainGoat) September 3, 2023
Now in Effect: Texas Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act
AUSTIN, Texas (Sept. 1, 2023) – Today a Texas law goes into effect that prohibits financial institutions operating in the state from requiring a credit card merchant code to track the purchases of firearms and ammunition.
Rep. Matt Schaefer and Rep. Candy Noble introduced House Bill 2837 (HB2837) on Feb. 24. Titled the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, the law prohibits a financial institution operating in Texas from requiring or assigning a firearms code, which is defined as “any merchant category code approved by the International Organization for Standardization for a firearms retailer, including Merchant Category Code 5723.”
The law now limits the merchant codes that can be assigned to the sale of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.
“For the purposes of the sale of firearms, ammunition for use in firearms, and firearms accessories, a firearms retailer may provide a firearms code to a payment card issuer or payment card network and may only use or be assigned a merchant category code for general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers. Any agreement or contractual provision to the contrary is void.
Saturday is Constitutional Carry Day in Nebraska!
On Saturday, September 2nd, constitutional carry and statewide preemption laws will take effect in Nebraska. Thanks to the significant victories from this year’s legislative session, law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms for self-defense without unnecessary government interference and can exercise their rights freely across the state without having to navigate a patchwork of local gun control ordinances.
The NRA is grateful to Senator Tom Brewer for championing this legislation and all the Nebraska state legislators who fought for these laws to pass. We also thank all of our members and other Second Amendment advocates whose vigilance made this victory possible.
We encourage you to stay engaged, support pro-Second Amendment candidates, and be prepared to defend our rights whenever necessary. Together, we can continue making strides in protecting our cherished heritage and ensuring that future generations enjoy the freedoms bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers.
🚨BREAKING🚨
The @ATFHQ sent notice of a new rule to essentially create backdoor Universal Registration Checks to require a background check where any "profit" is made.
We will share details after we've reviewed the rule & our attorneys will be preparing a lawsuit.
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 31, 2023
The Washington Post Calls for Reducing Free Speech to Improve Democracy
In very post-2016 fashion, The Washington Post last week published an article implying democracy might require curbs on freedom of speech. This unsettling approach suggests concerns around “misinformation” on social networks supersede freedom of speech, a move that has elicited intense debate and, rightly so; criticism.
In what appears to be a shift in public discourse towards further censorship, the widely-read Washington Post article critiqued Elon Musk’s reinstatement of former President Donald Trump on the social media platform, X, previously known as Twitter.
The article suggested that the proliferation of what it calls “political misinformation” disturbs democracy, sparking concern amongst proponents of free speech.
The perspective is reflected in the reporting by The Washington Post journalists Naomi Nix and Sarah Ellison. However, their piece lacks critical analysis of the ambiguity surrounding the term “misinformation” and fails to address the consequential question of how to moderate content in situations where politicians’ statements are arguably false or misleading.
The article’s glaring omission of any mention of the First Amendment – a core pillar of American democracy fostering media freedoms – also raised eyebrows amidst media and legal circles.
The Washington Post reporters worryingly suggest the retreat of social media companies from combating online falsehoods could impact the 2024 presidential election. They fault Musk, along with Facebook and YouTube, for taking a step back from reining in what they call misleading claims and conspiracy theories.
Nix and Ellison also critique X for permitting Tucker Carlson’s President Trump interview, which they deem as a platform for Trump to reiterate his allegations about the 2020 election. They contend that social media should only host political content if its accuracy can be proven, posing an unrealistic expectation that conceals underlying issues of censorship under the pretext of curbing “misleading” or “hateful” speech.
This is as serious as it gets. It is scandalous when millions of us are put at risk by bad government policy. Likewise, it is vitally important to recognize when we’re doing the right thing and saving thousands of lives every day. This is hard to understand because some of the problem is political, but some of the difficulty is simply the size of our virtue. How can we begin to understand that millions of us prevented serious injury and saved a huge number of lives every year?
Ordinary citizens like us legally use a firearm in self-defense about 2.8-million times a year. Sure, that is a number, but how big is that really?
This is a matter of life and death and society takes it very seriously. In the simplest terms, we are not allowed to use a firearm, or even threaten to use a firearm, unless an innocent victim faces the most serious threats. We are expected to use less violent tools when we face less dangerous threats. We’re only allowed to defend ourselves with a gun when it is the safest thing to do, yet we were forced to use a firearm in self-defense over 76-hundred times a day. That says a lot about how often ordinary citizens were thrown into very dangerous situations.
As background information, the FBI said violent criminals committed these 1.2 million crimes in 2019-
- Aggravated assaults- 821,182
- Robberies- 267,988
- Rapes- 139,815
- Murders- 16,425
Louisiana Man Arrested for Making a Joke About COVID-19 and Zombies Wins Appeal
5th Circuit overrules grant of qualified immunity for officers who made warrantless arrest
NEW ORLEANS—During the COVID-19 pandemic Waylon Bailey made a joke about the virus, zombies, and his local sheriff’s department on Facebook. Today, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Waylon’s joke was protected by the First Amendment and that deputies violated his free-speech rights and his Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested him. Waylon teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to appeal a lower court decision that granted qualified immunity to the detective and sheriff responsible for his arrest.
“I’m relieved that the court recognized that the deputies were wrong to arrest me for making a joke on Facebook,” said Waylon. “I’m glad that I will be able to hold the detective and sheriff accountable, and hopefully my case will stand as a strong statement to officers about what the First Amendment protects.”
Judge Dana M. Douglas, writing for the unanimous panel, said that: “The First Amendment’s protections apply to jokes, parodies, satire, and the like, whether clever or in poor taste.”
“The court’s opinion makes clear that the First Amendment applies with full force to online speech,” said IJ Attorney Ben Field. “Government officials can’t get away with stretching criminal laws to go after people who make jokes at their expense. This is a victory for free speech and common sense and against the pernicious doctrine of qualified immunity.”
Waylon Bailey’s March 2020 Facebook post used over-the-top language, emoji, and a hashtag referencing the Brad Pitt movie World War Z in facetiously warning that the local sheriff’s office had been ordered to shoot the “infected.” Despite the obvious indications that it was a joke, sheriff’s deputies decided to arrest Waylon, without a warrant, under an anti-terrorism law and sent a SWAT team with guns drawn to his garage.
Waylon was taken to jail and booked, though the absurd charge was dropped when a prosecutor reviewed the case. But when Waylon brought a civil-rights lawsuit, the deputy responsible for the arrest was granted qualified immunity by the district court. To add insult to injury, the court also said that Waylon didn’t have any free speech rights to make a joke in the first place. The 5th Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court, which will now fully consider Waylon’s civil-rights lawsuit.
“Any reasonable officer would have known that Waylon’s zombie joke was clearly protected by the First Amendment, and certainly wasn’t ‘terrorizing,’” said IJ Attorney Caroline Grace Brothers. “By denying qualified immunity to the detective who arrested Waylon, this decision confirms that government officials should not escape accountability when it should have been obvious that their actions were unconstitutional.”
Aside from the constitution, why are citizens allowed to purchase semi automatic rifles?
Because there is no “aside from the Constitution”. You have appreciated the American system opposite to how things work here.
You ask why we’re ‘allowed’ to do something? It doesn’t work that way. We Americans can say, do, own, buy, sell, possess whatever we want. We’re not ‘allowed’ anything. We need no ‘permission’. Read the whole Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and you’ll find nothing among the powers given to government, by the people, saying we must first seek to be allowed to do something.
This is the main difference of the American way where we are free citizens not government subjects. America has the ethos that anything not explicitly banned is allowed. Not that anything not explicitly allowed is banned.
To stop, ban, or restrict this freedom, a law, eventually found to be ‘constitutional’ if someone thinks it isn’t and takes it to court in our judicial system, must be passed in the legislative political process. Not the other way around.