Category: Goobermint

THE HOT & COLD ECONOMY

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” George Orwell labeled the ability doublethink or indoctrination. Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance. I call it the current economy.

There are mixed signals everywhere. Inflation is running hot at an 8.5% annual rate—subtract food and energy and it’s 5.9%. Despite a string of long-overdue Federal Reserve rate hikes, credit is still loose and will be until short-term rates rise above inflation. At 2.25% to 2.5%, we have a way to go.

Prices are popping. Restaurants everywhere seem to have New York prices. Haircuts are more. Same for doctor’s bills, furniture and Uber rides. There’s still $5 rotisserie chicken, and the $1.50 hot-dog special, but it sure feels like Costco added a couple of bucks to every other item.

More heat: The U.S. economy added 315,000 jobs in August, and unemployment is 3.7% as workers are hard to find for the 11.2 million available jobs. Stores are closing or limiting hours owing to a lack of workers. And unionization is back, burdening Amazon, Starbucks and even Google’s cafeteria. A national railroad strike might hit soon.

Once wage hikes start, they are hard to stop. John Deere increased workers’ pay by 10% last November. Lowe’s is giving out $55 million in bonuses this quarter. I expect more pay increases of 10% to 15% over the next year. The new- and used-car market is still tight because of chip shortages, but that’s almost over. Container ships now are idling outside East Coast ports, as I observed flying into New York recently. Hot, hot, hot.

Policy makers keep pouring gasoline on the inflation bonfire. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law that would increase fast-food worker wages up to $22 an hour next year from $15. Expect 20% price increases, even for In-N-Out Burger’s “Animal Style” fries. After trillion-dollar spending binges in 2020 and 2021, Congress has piled on spending with the Inflation Reduction Act, a misnomer for a green pork bill, plus the unnecessary Chips+ Act with even more green goodies. And the Biden administration’s wave-of-the-hand student-loan forgiveness will have the same effect as sending out $10,000 and $20,000 stimulus checks. Fire in the hole.

But there are plenty of signs that the economy is weakening, most visibly at gas pumps. To whip inflation, rate hikes are becoming common. Chairman Jerome Powell said last month the Fed would take “forceful and rapid steps to moderate demand,” which might “bring some pain to households and businesses.” Ouch.

Beyond interest-rate bumps, the Fed is sitting on $9 trillion in reserves and running off $95 billion a month in Treasurys and mortgages. You can do the math: It will take five to seven years of quantitative tightening to return to more “normal” reserves. Continuous pain.

The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is now 5.9%, up from 2.9% a year ago. No wonder housing prices are dropping in many markets. Worse, new housing starts are headed south as mortgage payments become unaffordable for new buyers. This means construction job losses and lower demand for lumber, pipes, etc.

From Walmart to Target to Nordstom, retailers over-ordered and now face a glut of product. They are slashing prices to move it, even renting shipping containers to store their overstuffed inventory.

The pandemic and working from home pumped PC and laptop demand, but that is now cratering. Same for Peloton. Zoom usage is weakening. Chipmaker Nvidia announced a 17% shortfall in its sales outlook. Even Google had an earnings miss. Re/Max, Snap, Netflix, JPMorgan and many others are laying off employees.

Europe is a mess, with 10% or higher inflation in some countries. U.K. pub owners complain that their electricity bills are tripling. The Nord Stream pipeline is shut down, and winter is coming. China may be a bigger mess, with its flat-lining economy. While zero-Covid lockdowns are partly to blame, real estate may be in a death spiral, with Evergrande-like defaults and loss of customer prepayments that could require massive bailouts.

Won’t all these weak economic signs douse the hot economy, killing inflation and allowing the Fed to stop raising interest rates? That mythical “soft landing”? I’m skeptical. Not to be a gloomy Gus, but here’s another scenario: Inflation persists. Rates rise. Credit tightens. Housing values drop. Corporate earnings miss. Recession continues. Earnings multiples contract. Layoffs accelerate. Wages stagnate. Then and only then will the Fed start lowering rates. That could happen in 2023, but it’s more likely to happen closer to the 2024 election.

Maybe understanding the economy’s mixed signals doesn’t require Fitzgeraldian intelligence or Orwellian indoctrination. The signals cause psychological dread, like walking a tightrope across Niagara Falls (slowly I turned . . .). Cognitive dissonance makes decision-making difficult. The stock market might continue to yo-yo up and down thousands of points, maybe for years, as investors hold two competing thoughts, boom or bust, in their heads—until one thought prevails.

GVRed NJ 10-round magazine ban punted back down to U.S. District Court

In what should be a semi open and shut case, the matter of New Jersey’s 10 round magazine capacity limitation case has been remanded further down. The Grant, Vacate, Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States on Association New Jersey Rifle, et al v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al. should have been a solid indicator to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on how to rule. Based on prior arguments and the textual lens on how to view things, which was delivered by NYSRPA v. Bruen, the fact that this isn’t settled already is baffling.

The August 25, 2022 Order decided to “kick”, in the “kick or stick scenario”.

This matter having been remanded for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and upon consideration of the parties’ positions on whether it should in turn be remanded to the District Court for decision in the first instance under the standard announced in Bruen, it is hereby ORDERED that the matter is so remanded. Judge Matey dissents from this order, as described in the attached opinion.

Had the Third Circuit agreed to rule on or render an opinion on the case, there’s a possibility that Garden Staters could have had standard capacity magazines back before year’s end. However, the battle will continue, but we’re at least not starting at square one.

In a recent interview that aired on August 27th, Dan Schmutter, the attorney litigating the case on behalf of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, discussed the news. During Gun for Hire Radio Episode 588 Schmutter went into detail on that case, as well as other pending pieces of litigation, and topics.

Schmutter: So unfortunately, guys, I have to open with some not great news. We just heard from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In the magazine case, we were hoping to keep the case up at the Court of Appeals and have…and we have asked The Court of Appeals to decide the case on the merits right now. The State was urging them to send it back down to the trial court, the District Court. And unfortunately, we got a two one ruling today that the Third Circuit decided to send it back down to the District Court. And what that does is it just adds another layer of delay. And cost. And so unfortunately, you know, now we’re back at the District Court, we have to do that all over again. We’ll probably end up back at the Court of Appeals, you know, whichever way it goes, somebody’s not gonna be happy. So, you know, it’s unfortunate. We were urging the court to not give in to the state’s request to add more delay and cost. And it was a two, one decision. We got a very nice dissenting opinion from Judge Paul Matey. And he agreed with us that there was no reason to send it back down to the trial court. The usual…it is very typical for when something comes down from the Supreme Court for the Court of Appeals to send it all the way back down to the trial court. But that’s not unusual. It’s actually quite typical. The problem is, in this case, it’s not necessary. And there’s plenty of precedent for not doing that where it’s not necessary or appropriate. And I think we made a very strong case that it’s not. But, you know, the court did with the court didn’t, so we have to live with it. And so we’ll fight the fight down at the District Court. But it’s disappointing. I mean, they really…our feeling was they should have done the right thing here and just kept it, decided it. And, that’s…that’s life.

The dissent that Schmutter brought up is worthy of a read. Some of the crisper arguments made within include:

The State’s follow-on—that it missed the chance to provide historical evidence— fares no better. Round after round, in both the District Court and this Court, history took center stage. The State joined that discussion, arguing unsuccessfully that laws regulating ammunition capacity were longstanding. It strains credibility for New Jersey to now suggest it simply overlooked the focus on history and practice outlined in Heller, repeatedly applied by this Court, and vigorously advocated in this case. That the State decided not to press those points harder, whether as clever strategy or careless slip, is not relevant. We have been far less forgiving of that sort of waiver by far less sophisticated litigants.

With no new law to apply, and the historical record firm, there would seem no work remaining on remand.3 But what is the harm, some might ask? Why the rush? A question rarely raised when other fundamental rights are at issue and answered, again, by the Supreme Court: bearing arms “is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”…

To avoid further confusion, there simply is no such thing as a “large capacity magazine.” It is a regulatory term created by the State, meaning no more than the maximum amount of ammunition the State has decided may be loaded into any firearm at one time. Sixteen rounds was large yesterday, eleven rounds is large today. The State is welcome to market its policy goals using catchy slogans, but the rights of our Republic are built on sturdier stuff. Stripping away the buzzwords reveals the real question: whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text” protects possession of a firearm magazine, in which case “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2126. The only avenue around that presumption is proof—presented by the State—that its cap on magazine capacity “is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Remand is unnecessary as both questions have already been answered. First, “[b]ecause magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines [fall] within the meaning of the Second Amendment.” N.J. Rifle I, 910 F.3d at 116 (cleaned up). And second, “there is no longstanding history of” magazine capacity regulation. Id. at 116–17. Another four years of proceedings to reach those conclusions again is not needed. Nor can the United States remain “a government of laws . . . if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803). I respectfully dissent.

Judge Matey clearly points out what Schmutter and most of us already know, the State of New Jersey is going to have one heck of a time making the case that it’s okay to arbitrarily limit how much ammunition one is allowed to possess in an ammunition feeding device. The history has not changed since prior arguments, but the context in which thou shall look at a Second Amendment related case has. Is this remand stall tactics or a function of making sure the topic gets its due review? With the court situated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, once a bastion of freedom and liberty, including New Jersey and Delaware, ironically flanking the Keystone State, we can leave the motives up to the readers to decide. History, text, and tradition would say something different about that region than how it’s currently represented.

The section concerning the magazine capacity limitation case in the Gun for Hire Radio Schmutter interview ended with host Anthony Colandro asking about the process.

Colandro: Now, what do we face at the District Court? Is it one judge? Is it a panel?

Schmutter: Yeah it’s one judge, the original trial judge that heard it the first time. He gets it back, but he gets it back under a new set of rules. He gets it back now under the rules from the Bruen decision. And so you know, in a sense, he’s not starting from scratch because there is a record. It’s not like we’re starting with a blank slate here. There is a record and there is a favorable record. So, in the sense that we think that some of the findings that the court made the first time around are very, very helpful to us. So, you know the court is presumably gonna reach out to us at some point soon to…we’ll probably have a conference. The court will probably want to know how the parties think the case should proceed, and we’ll go from there. And we’ll develop our strategy as to what the right way to move this forward is. And we’ll move it forward. It’s just disappointing that we’re going to be doing this in a court where we really shouldn’t have to be. But you know, as you know, we know, this is a slog, it’s a marathon, and we’re going to continue fighting. I mean, it’s…there’s no question or option we’re gonna keep this moving. And, we like our chances. We think that…we’ve talked about this quite a few times now, about how we think Bruen gives us some very, very good tools. And we’re going to bring those to bear in the District Court on this case. We’ll see what happens. When there’s a development, you’ll certainly…I hope you’ll have me back to talk about it. And we’ll see what. We’ll go from there.

The quick answer to “What does this all mean?” is that matter’s been punted back down, again. This does not mean we’re starting from square one, as Schmutter pointed out. Will NJ’s subjects see 15 rounders again in New Jersey? Will they see them by year’s end? Will inhabitants of the land of 1000 diners see magazines larger than 15 rounds in NJ one day? All great questions, but it’s hard to read how this is going to go down. As far as the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision goes, it’s clear that putting restrictions on standard capacity magazines would be unconstitutional, as such limitations would not have been acceptable at the time of our founding. Whatever outcome may come in the District Court, we can almost bet money on the fact that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will see this one again.

Bombshell DHS Oversight Report: Biden Resettled ‘Not Fully Vetted’ Afghans in U.S. Who May ‘Pose Risk’ to Americans

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) has issued a bombshell report that accuses President Joe Biden’s administration of resettling Afghan nationals “who were not fully vetted” across the United States.

Following the U.S. Armed Forces’ withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, Biden opened a “humanitarian parole” pipeline that has resettled more than 86,000 Afghans in American communities, many of whom were not screened or interviewed in person.

Now, a bombshell DHS IG report reveals that the Biden administration “admitted or paroled” thousands of Afghans “who were not fully vetted” before their arrival in the United States and may “pose a risk to national security” as a result.

The report states:

We determined some information used to vet evacuees through U.S. Government databases, such as name, date of birth, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. We also determined CBP admitted or paroled evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States. [Emphasis added]

We attribute DHS’ challenges to not having: (1) a list of Afghan evacuees who were unable to provide sufficient identification documents; (2) a contingency plan to support similar emergency situations; and (3) standardized policies. As a result, DHS may have admitted or paroled individuals into the United States who pose a risk to national security and the safety of local communities. [Emphasis added]…

In January 2022, we issued DHS a Notice of Findings and Recommendations document notifying the Department of the urgent need to take action to address security risks of evacuees from Afghanistan who were admitted or paroled into the United States without sufficient identification documents to ensure proper screening and vetting. [Emphasis added]

According to DHS IG investigators, Biden’s DHS “did not always have critical data to properly screen, vet, or inspect Afghan evacuees arriving as part” of the massive Afghan resettlement operation.

Specifically, the report details that information in federal databases used to vet Afghans “such as name, DOB, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing.”

Two Afghans, in particular, were resettled in American communities by the Biden administration who were later found to be national security threats with ties to terrorism. One of those Afghans has already been deported, while DHS officials said the other is in deportation proceedings.

Across Biden’s DHS, officials were allowed to bring Afghans to the U.S. without providing proper IDs if they were found to have “no derogatory information” connected to their purported identities, the report states. The agency also did not keep a record of Afghans who failed to provide proper IDs but were admitted to the United States anyway.

“According to internal DHS reports, CBP admitted or paroled dozens of evacuees with derogatory information into the country,” the report states.

Although DHS IG Joseph V. Cuffari suggested two remedies to clean up the agency’s vetting procedures, the report states that Biden’s DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas “did not concur” with either suggestion and has defended his department’s improper vetting of Afghans.

The bombshell report comes after a number of alarms have been raised about the Biden administration’s failure to properly vet tens of thousands of Afghans now living in the United States.

In February, a Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General report revealed that Biden’s agencies failed to properly vet Afghans arriving in the United States, and that about 50 Afghans were flagged for “significant security concerns” after their resettlement.

Most of the unvetted Afghans flagged for possible terrorism ties, the report states, have since disappeared into American communities. The report noted that as of September 17, 2021, only three of 31 Afghans flagged with specific “derogatory information” could be located.

Likewise, a recent Project Veritas report alleges that the Biden administration resettled Afghans listed on the federal government’s “Terrorism Watch List” in communities across America.

In August, a federal whistleblower came forward to allege that the Biden administration resettled nearly 400 Afghans in American communities who are listed in federal databases as “potential threats to national security.”

In terms of vetting, the Biden administration has loosened requirements for entry to the United States. In June, DHS announced that Afghans who “provided … limited material support” to terrorist organizations would still qualify for resettlement in American communities.

Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.

9/11 and Biden’s Destruction of America’s Soul

When I think back to 9/11, the memories are very clear. It was the beginning of my senior year of college. It’s difficult to picture the United States responding differently than we did. A nation that was bitterly divided over a prolonged presidential election less than a year earlier united against a common enemy.

“A terrorist attack designed to tear us apart has instead bound us together as a nation,” President George W. Bush observed in his radio address days after the attack.

For a little while, anyway.

Disagreements over the Iraq War and the 2004 election quickly tore the country apart again, and they continued to worsen. Barack Obama’s presidency saw unprecedented partisan bitterness. Despite campaigning as a uniter, Obama shunned Republicans during the global recession, passing an expensive and ineffective stimulus plan and a national healthcare plan without Republican support. After losing one-party control, Obama unconstitutionally legislated via executive order instead of making any attempt to work with Republicans on any compromise legislation. He would then go on to use a weaponized government to target conservative individuals and groups and eventually spy on Donald Trump’s campaign and frame him over bogus allegations of Russian collusion. Adding insult to injury, Democrats would go on to shamelessly blame Trump for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Is national unity possible ever again? For over twenty years, I’ve held onto the hope that it could be, and that it wouldn’t take another deadly terrorist attack to do it.

But that dream is over.

In the past month, we’ve seen an unprecedented raid on Donald Trump’s home over a presidential records dispute and Joe Biden’s recent primetime speech, in which he declared half the country enemies of the Republic. Despite all the bitter division that plagued us before, that speech felt like the point of no return. Joe Biden destroyed the soul of America, and it’s impossible to see how we can ever recover from that. Where Al Qaeda failed to tear this nation apart, Joe Biden succeeded.

Related: White House: Trump Supporters Are an ‘Extreme Threat to Our Democracy’

America no longer stands united. We are two different countries repeatedly proving we can’t coexist peacefully.

On this 21st anniversary of 9/11, we remember the bravery of the first responders at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and of those who took down Flight 93 before it reached its intended target. Many will reflect on the attack on our nation and remember those we lost, and some will offer platitudes about American resolve.

When I look back on 9/11, what I remember most is the way Americans were able to put aside their differences and treat each other as neighbors and fellow citizens. And now I mourn that such national solidarity will never happen again.

Democrats Are Hoping We Forget They Brought Us Record Levels of Murders, Overdose Deaths, and Teen Suicides.

Democrats have this foolish belief that arresting Steve Bannon, tossing Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, and ostracizing people in MAGA hats will make voters forget about the carnage the commies have wrought upon our country when We the People step into a voting booth in 60 days, 10 hours, 14 minutes and 12 seconds. I’m here to make sure that doesn’t happen.

People are killing other people or themselves in record numbers. Thousands more are dying from overdoses on drugs, many of which are trotted over our southern border. All of these tragedies are happening because of Democrats and their clownish policies.

MURDERS

By now, you’ve heard about this week’s murder-fest in Memphis, committed by people who should have been in jail. Our own master-blaster Paula Bolyard wrote about it earlier.

Thanks to inane no-bail laws, a 20-year-old woman, arrested seven times for crimes involving a machete or another weapon, recently slashed an 82-year-old man’s face in New York City.

I have examples for days of legacy criminals attacking and killing innocent people. Criminals who should have been in the hoosegow but, thanks to the apparatchik-Americans in the Democrat party, are redrumming America with seeming impunity.

FACT-O-RAMA!  Your liberal sister-in-law and her non-binary, pansexual, femme-demi boi?friend believe that allowing black criminals (who further victimize innocent people, most of whom are black) out of jail  is somehow a sign of “open-mindedness” and not what it really is: a callous indifference to the suffering of others so that they can virtue-signal their “wokeness” to their friends as well as feel a sense of superiorty.

The nation is seeing record murder rates, thanks to bolshie policies that victimize criminals. This is the work of “woke” Democrats, and it’s happening in our large blue cities. It’s one thing to simply say “crime is on the rise,” but it’s actually worse than most people realize. You don’t always hear about violent crimes because they occur so often that reporting on all of them would become dull.

LEFTY LABOR DAY WEEKEND THUGGERY YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T HEAR ABOUT!  

  • There were 17 mass shootings in the U.S., leaving 20 dead and 64 wounded, and most of them took place in Democrat-run cities.
  • Philly had over 20 shoot-em-ups, leaving 10 people dead and 23 wounded.
  • Chicago’s annual Labor Day Weekend Festival of Lead saw 55 people shot, 11 fatally, for a total of 2,516 people shot thus far in 2022.

But Joe “allegedly showered with his daughter” Biden thinks you are the problem, rather than the insane, thug-hugging Democrats who allow created this crime blitz.

SUICIDES

When “15 days to slow the curve” turned into a draconian lockdown, I mused that this was a dress rehearsal for communism. Democrat leaders couldn’t wait to see just how much tyranny Americans would take. Embarrassingly, we accepted a lot, and now our kids are paying the price.

FACT-O-RAMA! Historically, people have accepted tyranny when it is served in small, ever-increasing doses.

Boys aged 12-17 tried to kill themselves during the pandemic at a rate that was 3.7 times higher than in 2019, which was a record-level year for kids attempting suicide. The attempted suicide rate of girls in the same age range skyrocketed by a terrifying 50.6%, in large part because Democrats couldn’t wait to take away our freedoms for as long as possible.

Related: Reasons Never to Vote Democrat Again, Vol. II: The Big, Blue Crime Wave

Children are also suffering from a “devastating” learning loss. Check out this misleading headline, which is repeated again in the opening sentence, “Significant learning loss due to COVID-19 is impacting children across America.”

No, learning losses and exploding child suicide attempt rates are not rising due to the Hong Kong Fluey; they are the result of the Democrats’ responses to it. Nice try, pinkos!

FACT-O-RAMA! Closing schools over a virus that rarely affects kids was about as stupid as closing gyms and basketball courts for the same virus that feasts on obese people. Democrats did these things.

OVERDOSES

The Democrats pretend the southern border is secure even as their own lickspittles in the Pravda media are reporting that the highest number of illegal immigrants in history are sauntering into our country, many of whom are drug mules for Mexican drug cartels and their business partners in China.

Drug overdose deaths are topping out at over 100,000 per year. More people aged 18-45 died of fentanyl ODs in 2021 than any other cause, yet Vice President Kamala Harris, placed in charge of the border, has done nothing. Black people are more likely to die from a fentanyl overdose than any other race, while black teen fentanyl deaths have surged fivefold.

HYPOTHESIS-O-RAMA! Hunter Biden’s laptop showed us that the Biden family has corrupt dealings in China. China is making billions of dollars from fentanyl sales in the U.S. Most of the fentanyl comes over the southern border, which Joe Biden refuses to secure. I’m not suggesting that Biden is keeping the border open so that his puppet masters in China can make mad stacks from drug sales but I’m not not suggesting it either.

WOKENESS

“Wokeness” is the excuse the liberal toilet people are using to bring communism to the U.S. The Democrats pretend that letting criminals out of jail and keeping them out with no-bail laws is a sign of virtue. They mislead their voters into believing that allowing illegal immigrants with pockets full of deadly fentanyl to cross the border is somehow a sign of morality. Both of these policies have brought horrendous results. And here is the real punchline: the Democrats are torching the country on purpose.

The Democrats especially like to pretend that they care about black people, but the number of murders and drug deaths directly related to liberal policies paints a different picture.

Remember to bring up these hard, ugly facts when your liberal sister-in-law shows up to borrow money while wearing her “Vote Blue in 2022” t-shirt.

You Can’t Make This Up #5,937,259

Get the Word Out About Kyle’s Law

A prosecutor who uses his or her authority to virtue signal to the public to advance his or her political career is more dangerous to society than all but the most violent criminals.

Insurance will cover many forms of property crimes, and you can legally use deadly force against somebody who menaces you with death or serious bodily injury.

A prosecutor, though, can bankrupt most people by filing unfounded criminal charges against them, ruin their lives with prison time and criminal records. Unless the case is particularly egregious like that of Mike Nifong (D-NC), or with crooked judges like Mark Ciavarella (D-PA, a.k.a., federal inmate #15008-067) or Mike Conahan (D-PA, home arrest), there is little or no recourse against these “jurists.”

To put this in perspective, Pennsylvania attorney Frank Fina was suspended from the practice of law for his role in convicting Penn State President Graham Spanier of putting children at risk. Pennsylvania’s current Attorney General, and gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro (D-PA), worked hard to reinstate Spanier’s conviction while tweeting that Spanier had been told that Jerry Sandusky was sexually assaulting children on the Penn State campus. The witness, Mike McQueary, testified, however, under oath, that he did not see Sandusky do anything he deemed reportable to police while his father and a family friend, both of whom are mandated by law to report abuse, did not encourage him to report to child protective authorities whatever he thought he might have possibly heard.

I believe that Shapiro, like Scott Harshbarger (D-MA) and Martha Coakley (D-MA) who ruined the lives of the Amiraults, used his position to “virtue signal” his concern for the children prior to the election. The latter is my perception of Shapiro, Harshbarger, and Coakley rather than a statement of fact because I cannot read their minds.

Kyle’s Law

Attorney Andrew Branca, whose opinions often appear on William Jacobson’s blog Legal Insurrection, has proposed what he calls Kyle’s Law due to what he and I both regard as a politically motivated prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse for what was obviously self-defense.

“Too often, rogue prosecutors bring felony criminal charges against people who were clearly doing nothing more than defending themselves, their families, or others from violent criminal attack. …The only motivation of the prosecutor is personal aggrandizement and political capital.” Kyle’s Law would sanction not only the jurisdiction but also the prosecutor who brings a junk case, to be defined as one in which the prosecutor lacks even preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did anything wrong.

The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct state meanwhile, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous…” and also “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause…” and probable cause requires a “reasonable belief” that the defendant has committed a crime.

If, for example, a video of a self-defense shooting shows clearly that the person who was shot initiated a deadly confrontation, perpetuated it by not allowing the subject of their attack to retreat in complete safety, and menaced the shooter with immediate deadly force, as did all three of Rittenhouse’s assailants, that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of the shooter that the shooting was justified. If we look within the four corners of the charges against Rittenhouse, the prosecutors did not contest this version of the events.  Joseph Rosenbaum initiated a confrontation in which he attempted to strong-arm rob Rittenhouse (a violent felony by itself) of a firearm he could have turned against Rittenhouse on the spot and also one which, as a convicted felon, it was unlawful for Rosenbaum to handle. Anthony Huber the domestic abuser was a member of a mob (which constitutes disparity of force and therefore deadly force) that pursued Rittenhouse while yelling violent threats, thus putting Rittenhouse in reasonable fear for his life and denying him the opportunity to retreat in complete safety. He then menaced and struck Rittenhouse with a deadly contact weapon when Rittenhouse was on the ground. The third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, pursued Rittenhouse with a drawn handgun, which again constituted an implied threat, along with the immediate means of carrying it out.

Another example would be, for example, if a politically ambitious prosecutor had tried to show his “woke” credentials by charging the officer who shot Hakim Littleton even though the latter was on bodycam video firing a handgun at the head of another officer at roughly three paces. It was fortunate that Littleton was a bad shot or it would have been “end of watch” for that officer or, as Black Lives Matter and Antifa would put it, he would have “oinked his last.” This did not, however, happen because the local prosecutors saw the open and shut case of self-defense.

Poster Children for Kyle’s Law

  • The Amiraults were convicted on the basis of “evidence” that included, among other things, accusations that one of them sexually assaulted a boy with a butcher knife that somehow left no injuries, along with a “secret room” and a “magic room” that were never found.
  • Police officer Grant Snowden was railroaded to prison on the watch of Janet Reno (D-FL).
  • Police officer Garrett Rolfe was charged with murder for shooting Rayshard Brooks after Brooks took an officer’s Taser, which the prosecutor stipulated is a deadly weapon under Georgia law, and discharged it at the officers. The charges were finally dropped but should have never been filed.
  • Nikolas Fernandez was charged with felony assault for shooting Daniel Gregory, who reached through the window of Fernandez’s car to punch him. Gregory even admitted openly, “I catch him, I punch him in the face.” He claims that he was trying to stop Fernandez from running over “demonstrators” but the video shows clearly that Fernandez had come to almost a complete stop by the time Gregory reached into his car. Note also the barrier that another “demonstrator” shoves in front of the car which a reasonable person would construe as a prelude to a carjacking or Reginald Denny-style beating.
  • Here is a long list of wrongful convictions in the United States, some of which involved willful prosecutorial misconduct and/or misconduct by rogue police officers eager to get convictions no matter what.
  • Prosecutors should not be afraid to do their jobs just as police officers should not be afraid to do their jobs. Kneeling on a helpless suspect’s neck as Derek Chauvin was convicted of doing is not, however, a police officer’s job, and Chauvin is now in prison as a result. Junk prosecutions whose sole identifiable purpose, at least from the perspective of a reasonable person, noting that nobody can read the prosecutor’s mind, is to advance a prosecutor’s legal and/or political career, should similarly bring the consequences recommended in Kyle’s Law and maybe professional disciplinary action as well.

5 questions about New York’s new social media requirements for gun applicants

New gun laws in New York for those seeking a concealed carry license, including a review of social media accounts by law enforcement, was cleared to go into effect by a federal judge last week, but questions about how the state will enforce it and future legal challenges remain.

The new rules, part of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, followed a Supreme Court ruling in June that prohibits states from requiring residents seeking a gun license to prove a special need to carry a handgun outside the home.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, challenged a provision of New York’s 109-year-old concealed carry law that required applicants to have “proper cause” for the permit — a special need for self-defense. Five other states had similar laws.

New York responded with a number of changes, including requiring concealed carry applicants to share “a list of former and current social media accounts” from the past three years to assess the applicant’s “character and conduct.” The rule comes in the aftermath of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, where the gunmen reportedly posted warnings about their violence online.

The new state laws, which also require more classroom and in-person training for concealed carry licenses and the creation of “sensitive places” where guns are not permitted, have already been met with lawsuits. Judge Glenn Suddaby declined to put the law on hold a day before it took effect, saying the New York resident and three gun rights organizations who filed lawsuits didn’t have standing to bring the legal action. But he indicated he believed some parts of the laws were unconstitutional, and legal experts expect other challenges in the future.

While written testimonies are common for gun permits across the country, requiring social media records is an added layer that has not been implemented in other places for the purposes of gun permitting.

“I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said of the conceal carry changes in a statement last week.

The social media requirement has raised questions about privacy and what states can request in the permitting process.

Max Markham, vice president of policy and community engagement at the Center for Policing Equity, said he believes the laws as a whole are a “strong legislative package” when it comes to curbing gun violence. But he said the social media requirement is unclear in its scope and implementation, and will need to be better defined in the near future. He added that he expects conservative groups, in particular, will fight the law on constitutional grounds.

Markham said the law includes a process to appeal if a person’s application for a concealed carry permit is rejected, which he believes can help increase accountability and provide space “for individuals who may feel like they’ve been judged incorrectly.”

“I think seeing how it is enforced and ensuring that there is some degree of equity will be really key,” he said.

What is the scope of the law?

The wording of the requirement suggests applicants only need to share their public content with officials, and that the purpose of the search is to corroborate written testimony from character witnesses, according to David Greene, civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Greene believes the social media rules are intended to look for stated intent to commit crimes with a gun. But Greene said there’s a host of information unrelated to a search for criminality that can be gleaned from accessing someone’s social media history.

“[It] can say a lot about someone’s political affiliations, about the community organizations they belong to, about religious groups they’re active in … and their familial relationships,” he said.

Greene said that context – which is hard to gather from a quick social media scan – is relevant to what people share on the platforms, and it can be difficult to get that from a profile alone .

While New York’s new gun law includes welcome changes, such as requiring more firearm training, the social media requirements are a “poor” part and have “serious” privacy concerns, said Adam Scott Wandt, an associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

“I question whether or not that part of the law will subject the state to lawsuits that will eventually find the law unconstitutional. And I also have serious privacy concerns with the state requiring somebody to submit social media accounts for review based upon unclear criteria as to what constitutes ‘good character’ and moral and what doesn’t. It’s messy,” Wandt said.

The New York City Bar Association Committee on Technology, Privacy and Cyber, which Wandt co-chairs, did not have time to offer input or feedback on the laws, either, he said..

Hochul’s office did not answer a question from the PBS NewsHour about outside expert review on the new set of laws.

Is social media monitoring for licenses used elsewhere in government?

Social media monitoring to get an official government license is a rare official policy but at least one other agency has adopted the practice.

Greene said visa applicants have been required to share their social media accounts since 2019. The requirements, originally created under the Trump administration, have been continued by Joe Biden. Users are required to provide social media accounts used in the last five years from a list of 20 platforms. Applicants do have the option to select “none” if they have not used any of the social media sites.

According to the State Department, the collection and review of social media information is intended to “enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and other immigraiton benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.”

Wandt said that he is also concerned about social media reporting requirements being expanded to other professional licensing administered by the government, potentially forcing some people seeking these licenses to sacrifice privacy for their work, he said.

Wandt said there were also questions about how he social media information gleaned from firearm applications will be used or stored by law enforcement.

“Do these things go into a database when the NYPD pulls me over? Is there a database now that they’ll be able to look at and see my social media because I applied for a handgun? I think there are more questions than answers at this point,” he said.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question from the NewsHour about what happens to the records of an applicant’s social media account after a permit is processed.

Which law enforcement agencies will conduct these searches?

Who will grant gun licenses in New York under the new law is dependent on the jurisdiction. In New York City, the NY Police Department issues gun licenses and will check social media accounts. Across the state, there may be some sheriff’s departments who conduct the checks, but in many cases, a county authority, such as a judge, issues the license. However, in those cases, responsibility for ensuring requirements for a gun license are met will still fall to the sheriffs.

“Troopers remain committed to this mission, and we are dedicated to stopping the criminals who traffic illegal guns and endanger our communities,” State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen said in a statement.

NY Sheriff’s Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe said there is worry by sheriffs that the task of searching through social media accounts would be too difficult. He said there is a risk that law enforcement will miss something in the social media account of someone issued with a gun license who then goes on to commit a crime, putting that responsibility and accountability on the sheriffs.

READ MORE: Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social media accounts

“It falls on the sheriff because he missed something when he was given an impossible task,” he said.

Kehoe adds that the definition of “character and conduct” under the new statute is too vague.

“The statute says that they have to give us social media accounts and we have to use those to determine whether or not the individual has the right temperament and judgment to be entrusted with a weapon,” Kehoe said.

“What we think shows good judgment might not be the next guy’s estimate of good judgment and it’s all gonna be based on the eyes and ears of the person who’s reviewing it,” Kehoe said.

However, Kehoe denied that political biases would play a role in vetting.

“They’re going to be looking at these accounts. And if they see something concerning, they’re gonna put that in their background report to the judge then it’s gonna be up to the judge to decide, I guess, whether or not that particular concern is disqualifying for the person to have a license.”

In a statement to the NewsHour, Hochul’s office said the law doesn’t change the nature of licensing, it simply adds a new requirement for applicants.

“Local law enforcement and licensing officials have always been responsible for evaluating information provided by prospective applicants to determine whether a permit should be issued. The law doesn’t change that,” the statement said.

“It simply requires them to consider social media activity and other new information as part of their review process for concealed carry applications.”

Is there any training being provided for those doing this vetting?

The section of the law that requires applicants to disclose their social media accounts does not detail what training is required for those doing the vetting. Kehoe said law enforcement has not been given additional funding to do training for law enforcement, or to conduct checks of social media accounts. Kehoe expects “millions” of applicants under New York’s new gun licensing rules, many of whom will have more than one social media account.

“Just on a very practical level, we don’t think we can do this.”

Applicants will only be required to provide social media accounts used in the past three years, however, Kehoe said law enforcement may be required to look farther back into those accounts.

“The statute didn’t provide any resources for us to do this and it’s just not going to be possible to get it done without additional manpower,” Kehoe said.

Markham hopes the state will provide bias training for officials combing through social media, reflecting a wider push for law enforcement agencies to minimize possible unequal treatment of minority communities.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question about whether additional training or resources would be provided to law enforcement in support of the new requirements.

Can monitoring social media work?

The social media search may catch some people who shouldn’t have access to firearms but many more, including those who might be most dangerous and inhabit the darkest parts of the internet, will slip through the cracks, Wandt said.

“Putting all the constitutional and moral issues aside, I stand by my experience and research that shows me that the truly dangerous, disturbed people have multiple social media accounts, usually not under their real name, and I highly doubt that they will be reported on a application for a carry permit,” Wandt said.

Greene said asking whether it will work is the wrong question, since he believes such policies can be inherently harmful, especially if other government institutions, such as general law enforcement, adopt similar policies.

“I do think there’s something dangerous about institutionalizing and normalizing having people provide their social media accounts to the government,” he said.

Gun-Rights Group Files Five New Lawsuits Against ‘Assault Weapon,’ Magazine Bans

The floodgates have opened up for new “assault weapon” and magazine ban legal challenges.

The litigation arm of the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) filed five separate lawsuits in multiple federal district courts on Wednesday. The suits all take aim at ‘assault weapon’ bans and ammunition magazine size limits passed at both the state and local levels spanning the country from Hawaii to Massachusetts.

“With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like these will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment,” the group noted on its website. “These laws and ordinances ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller.”

The wave of new suits arrives at a time when gun-rights supporters are looking to stymie the resurgence of political will behind the measures. Public support for the bans ticked up in a recent poll after declining in other post-Uvalde surveys, and the House of Representatives was able to pass the first federal ban in nearly three decades. At the same time, other court battles have called into question the long-term viability of assault weapon bans, which ban popular guns such as the AR-15, following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In the aftermath of that decision, the Court ordered the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a decision that upheld Maryland’s ban. States like California have struggled to mount a cogent legal defense of their “assault weapon” ban using the required Bruen test. NAGR’s Colorado state affiliate has also been successful in getting temporary restraining orders against two separate local “assault weapon” bans over the last two months.

The latest lawsuits take aim at statewide AR bans in Massachusetts and Connecticut, a similar ban in the state of Hawaii on “assault pistols” and magazines holding more than ten rounds, and two local “assault weapon” bans in the Illinois towns of Naperville and Highland Park. By casting such a wide geographical net, the group intends to set precedents in multiple federal court circuits to have the widest effect possible. The group hopes that the effort will eventually lead to a nationwide rollback of such bans.

“On September 7, 2022, the National Foundation for Gun Rights filed five new lawsuits in four federal court circuits to eliminate unconstitutional magazine and gun bans everywhere!” the group said. “Combined with our lawsuits in Colorado these represent nearly half of the country. This nationwide legal blitz aims to take out every single ban on semi-automatic weapons and standard capacity magazines for good.”

The group asked for an injunction against each of the respective bans.

The Reload reached out to each of the named defendants in the latest NAGR suits for comment but has not received any.

The cases are NAGR v. Naperville (IL), NAGR v. Highland Park (IL), NAGR v. Shikada (HI), NAGR v. Healey (MA), and NAGR v. Lamont (CT).

FBI secretly forced some to give up their gun rights

The FBI hasn’t been an organization that garners a great deal of respect from anyone who isn’t on the left in a while. Even many on that side of things look at what the bureau has done recently with suspicion as well.

Sure, the ATF is acting shady as hell of late, and we expect them to try and infringe on our gun rights.

However, it seems that the FBI is trying to get in on that action, apparently.

The FBI secretly pressured Americans into signing forms that relinquish their rights to own, purchase or even use firearms, according to a trove of internal documents and communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The forms were presented by the FBI to people at their homes and in other undisclosed locations, according to bureau documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act by the firearm rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and shared with the DCNF. At least 15 people between 2016 and 2019 signed the secret forms, which ask signatories to declare themselves as either a “danger” to themselves or others or lacking “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives.

GOA and attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment law told the DCNF the existence of the forms raise serious legal questions.

“We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, GOA’s outside counsel who specializes in firearms law. “Which certainly is not something you expect in the United States.”

OK, but who are these people? Are they legitimately people who are a danger to themselves or others? Are they really lacking in “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives? If so, how can they be responsible enough for their affairs to sign away their rights?

Well, it seems these are people who talked a lot of crap in the wrong venue, among other things.

Many signatories allegedly made violent threats in online chat rooms, in person and on social media platforms, FBI notes show. The 15 signed forms obtained by the DCNF show FBI agents in Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine presented them to Americans — whose names were redacted by the bureau.

While the existence of the FBI form itself was first revealed in 2019 by the firearms blog Ammoland, the outlet did not provide evidence of it being used at the time. GOA obtained the signed forms as part of its lawsuit initiated in January 2020 against the bureau to compel disclosure of records related to the forms.

A spokesperson for the FBI told the DCNF the form was “discontinued” in December 2019, but they did not say why that decision was made.

“The NICS Indices Self-Submission form was created to provide an avenue for individuals to self-report to the NICS Section when individuals felt they were a danger to themselves or others,” the FBI spokesperson said.

Except when FBI agents show up to your home and accuse you of a crime, talking about the potential penalties for that crime, then say, “Here. Sign this and all of this goes away,” it’s not really people who think they’re a danger to themselves or others.

It’s people who think prison will be a danger to them.

When law enforcement of any kind shows up, there’s a certain degree of intimidation involved. Especially if you actually did what you’re accused of. Making violent threats isn’t a good thing by any means, of course, and it’s an actual crime–making terroristic threats.

If there was a crime committed, then that’s one thing, but why simply put a form in front of those accused of making such threats rather than prosecuting them for a federal crime? My guess is that the FBI likely knew that they couldn’t get a conviction because it was someone just talking smack, rather than being actually dangerous.

So they drop the form in front of some schmuck who is terrified of becoming Bubba’s boyfriend and say, “Sign this, giving up your gun rights, and you’re free to go.” Since he doesn’t want to go to prison, well, a small price to pay, right?

Wrong.

He’s still being stripped of his rights without due process. His “compliance” isn’t voluntary, it’s being extorted, and the FBI agents who did this likely know precisely what they did.

What’s more, there’s no way this should have been acceptable in the first place.

However, it seems that the FBI shared this document with both the Secret Service and Social Security Administration. Neither has commented as to whether they’ve ever used it, but it’s still troubling.

Heads need to roll over this one.

Gun control fans won’t like lessons of New Zealand

When the Christchurch massacre took place, New Zealand acted. They responded to what happened the same way American anti-gunners would have us react. They banned AR-15s and went on a rampage of stomping on the gun rights of folks there.

Of course, New Zealand doesn’t have a Second Amendment. There’s no protection of gun rights. In fact, gun rights aren’t even acknowledged as rights there, which is a bit of an issue as well.

However, right now, the biggest issue is how the country tripped over itself passing gun control, yet absolutely none of it worked.

Gun control laws disarm victims, not criminals. That’s common sense to everyone but the politicians who promise peace, rainbows and dancing unicorns if only you’ll give up your firearms.

New Zealand’s gun control advocates — including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern– remain slow on the uptake of that fundamental principle of life. In multiple gun confiscation drives, the Kiwi government grabbed most of the good guys’ guns. And now, a year after the final confiscation push, gun-related violence has reached new, record levels.

Try to suppress your shock and surprise.

Is it really that bad? Are the good folks over at The Truth About Guns spinning things a bit to make a point?

Actually, no, they’re not.

Rates of injury and death caused by firearms are tracking higher than ever before.

Data released by police under the Official Information Act shows 10 murder or manslaughter deaths in 2022, up until 31 July. There were 11 in total in 2021.

Injuries are also running at a record rate, on track to exceed 300 firearm-related injuries for the first time. In 2021, there were 298 gun-related injuries recorded by police, the highest ever.

Now, the numbers aren’t overly impressive, but we have to remember that New Zealand has a total population of just over 5 million people. If you put all of them together in one city, it would only be the second-largest city in the US by population.

Yet those 5 million are spread out over 103,000 square miles, which is enough to drive down the violent crime rates all by itself.

That said, comparing their numbers to ours is silly. Other countries aren’t the United States and vice versa. When looking at the impact of gun control, one thing you have to look at are the trends from before and after its passage.

Prior to Christchurch, New Zealand’s homicide rate was pretty low. In fact, the 49 people killed in that massacre were enough to produce a nearly 254 percent increase in the homicide rate that year, which is kind of telling all on its own.

Yet since then, we’re clearly seeing homicides increase as well as violent crime as a whole. That’s likely because criminals no longer have much reason to fear ordinary citizens. They can kill as they want with impunity because no one is there to stop them.

Oh, sure, the police may come looking for them, but few criminals believe they’ll be caught. They tend to think that if no one is there to prevent a crime, no one will know who did it. That’s not quite true, as we know, but that’s how they tend to think.

New Zealand gave those criminals a gift.

What’s more, American gun grabbers want to give our own criminals the same gift. However, the carnage here would be orders of magnitude worse by virtue of this country simply being more violent. Take away good guys’ guns and watch how the bodies pile up.

If it’s happening in New Zealand, there’s not a shred of doubt that it would happen here.

And this is what gun control got them.

Even if you dismiss gun control as causing this issue, you cannot ignore that it did nothing to prevent it, which is par for the course and why it’s so infuriating that people still push it.

DOJ Admits Only 692 ‘Ghost Gun’-Related Homicide Cases in Last 6 Years

Buried in President Biden’s Department of Justice’s (DOJ) explanation of the new “ghost gun” rule is an admission that only 692 “ghost guns” were involved in homicide cases during the past six years.

The DOJ noted:

As the final rule explains, from January 2016 to December 2021, ATF received approximately 45,240 reports of suspected privately made firearms recovered by law enforcement, including in 692 homicide or attempted homicide investigations. The chart below demonstrates the total annual numbers of suspected PMFs recovered by law enforcement over the past six years.

When one considers that there are on average 12,000 to 14,000 homicides in the United States annually–sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower–692 “ghost gun”-related homicide cases are a mere fraction of all firearm-related homicides.

Take, for instance, the higher number–14,000 firearm homicides annually for six years. That is 84,000 firearm-related homicides during that time frame, while during that same time frame there were fewer than 700 “ghost gun”-related homicide cases.

Breitbart News pointed out that the DOJ’s “ghost gun” rule change was announced August 24, 2022. The rule classifies parts in a gun parts kit as firearms that require a background check to purchase, like the one required for “traditional firearms.”

Anti-Gun States Blatantly Ignore U.S. Supreme Court’s Recognition Of The Right To Bear Arms

Lawmakers debate legislation to consider new firearms regulations for concealed-carry permits during a special legislative session in the New York Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol Friday, July 1, 2022, in Albany, N.Y.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the NRA-backed case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. It was a resounding victory for the Second Amendment and vindicated the principle (obvious to all but gun-control advocates) that Americans have an individual right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

The opinion also prescribed a standard of review that lower courts must apply in resolving Second Amendment cases. This demanding test requires respect for the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms and prohibits infringements on this right unless a similar legal tradition existed when the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment were adopted.

Success in Bruen did not happen accidentally. It was the result of tireless advocacy, strategic litigation and electoral victories that culminated in former President Donald Trump’s appointment of three originalist justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yet, Bruen is only the first of many steps that will need to follow. Anti-gun states, including New York, remain in open rebellion against the right to keep and bear arms. They will not comply in good faith. The rebellion will have to be put down in the courts, the legislatures and with the weight of public opinion. Your NRA, as always, will be leading the way.

Anti-gun states, including New York, remain in open rebellion against the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”