Trigger warning: Immigrants, armed and American

It was a revolver, handed to her at a Pennsylvania range after years of quiet fascination — years spent in Brazil, where guns were the domain of criminals, police, or politicians, often overlapping categories. “It was like the forbidden fruit,” she said. “In Brazil, very few people own guns, legally. And I was just … drawn to them.”
She squeezed the trigger, heard the crack, felt the recoil — and then asked to try the next one. And the next.
“Love at first shot,” she said, laughing. “I became completely addicted.”
Soon she was shooting weekly, working at a gun shop, and entering competitions. Today, Andrejczyk is a certified instructor, a divorced mother of two, and the self-proclaimed “Gun Evangelist.”
Stereotypes paint gun culture as America’s most insular tribe: old, white, rural, passing their weapons from one generation to the next. Yet some of its newest recruits are immigrants — from countries where weapons belonged only to criminals or the state, now claiming America’s most contested freedom as their own.

The ‘Gun Evangelist’

Andrejczyk grew up in Vitória da Conquista, one of Brazil’s most violent cities. “Brazil is lawless,” she told me when we met at Tanner’s Sports Center, the suburban Philadelphia gun shop where she works. When her parents’ store was robbed in broad daylight, the police never came. “They’re underpaid, corrupt. If they do show up, they twist the story and take money from you. Most people don’t even bother.”
Nayara Andrejczyk. (Photo by Daniel Allott)
Nayara Andrejczyk. (Photo by Daniel Allott)
Her father, a soldier, kept a shotgun hidden in a closet. She never touched it, but it left a mark. “The right to self-defense is paramount,” she said. “And we didn’t have it.”

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Denies Challenge to Illegal Alien Gun Ban

The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge to the federal statute prohibiting illegal aliens from possessing firearms, but did not take action on two other cert petitions dealing with gun bans for those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.

The Court denied cert, without comment, to Carbajal-Flores v. United States in its orders list released on Monday morning. That case, along with Vincent v. Bondi and Duarte v. U.S., were all heard during the justice’s conference last Thursday.In Carbajal-Flores, the Court was asked to consider whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits firearm possession by all “unlawfully present noncitizens”, was unconstitutional in all respects or, if not, whether the “government must demonstrate that the individual is dangerous before disarmament is permissible.”

The case involved Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, a resident of Chicago who is now a lawful permanent resident, but was apparently not at the time he was arrested for illegally carrying a gun during what his attorneys called “an infamous night of unrestin Chicago after the murder of George Floyd in 2020.”

Though a district court found that Carbajal-Flores “presented none of the indicia of ‘dangerousness’ or disloyalty historically associated with disarmament,” the federal government appealed and the Seventh Circuit overturned the initial ruling. Carbajal-Flores then appealed to the Supreme Court, but now that his case has been rejected prosecutors are free to go after him once more.

Carbajal-Flores’ attorney had argued that there’s a circuit court split on as applied challenges to 922(g)(5)(A), with the Fifth Circuit and Eighth Circuit allowing for individualized review regarding someone’s dangerousness and whether unlawfully present noncitizens fall within “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Despite that, the Court appears willing to let those circuit court splits develop, even if it means defendants in the Seventh Circuit can’t raise an as-applied challenge to their cases going forward.

Meanwhile, the justices took no action on a pair of cases dealing with a different section on 922(g). Vincent v. Bondi and Duarte v. U.S. both challenge 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison. There are multiple disagreements in the appellate courts over whether that statute is facially constitutional or whether it requires and individualized finding of dangerousness, but the justices are also considering a similar question in the Hemani case, which challenges 922(g)(3)’s prohibition on “unlawful” drug users possessing firearms.

It’s possible, if not likely, that SCOTUS will keep Vincent and Duarte on ice until after Hemani has been decided, and then remand the cases back to the lower courts for a do-over in light of what the Hemani opinion says. The DOJ has encouraged the Supreme Court to simply deny cert to both cases, arguing that Melynda Vincent and Stephen Duarte can apply to the Attorney General to have their rights restored once a proposed rule on rights restoration takes effect, and it’s also possible that the Court will keep ahold of those cases until that rule is officially in place.

The Court won’t hold its weekly conference this week because of the Thanksgiving holiday, but it’s slated to consider several hugely important cases at its December 5 conference; Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, which deal with state-level bans on commonly owned “large capacity” magazines, and Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to the ban on so-called assault weapons put in place by Democrats in Cook County, Illinois. The Court could also re-list Vincent and Duarte for next week’s conference along with several other cases dealing with gun bans for under-21s that have previously been considered in conference but have received no action from the justices.

There are already two Second Amendment cases that will be addressed this term; the Hemani case that I previously mentioned and Wolford v. Lopez, which is a challenge to Hawaii’s default carry ban on all private property. Given the circuit court splits involved in both the under-21 and 922(g)(1) cases, as well as the fundamental importance of addressing bans on commonly owned magazines and firearms, I’m hopeful that we’ll see SCOTUS greenlight at least three others, but the odds of that happening are honestly pretty low.

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.
– Supreme Court Justice Billings Learned Hand

FLASHBACK:(Deceit O’ The Day)

What is Operation Allies Welcome? The refugee scheme that allowed DC shooting suspect into the US

The man accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House Wednesday night entered the country through Operation Allies Welcome, a resettlement program to assist Afghan nationals.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the suspect – an Afghan man identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal – arrived in the U.S. in 2021. He later applied for asylum in 2024, which was approved this year under the Trump administration.

The U.S. has now suspended all Afghan immigration requests in response to the shooting outside a metro station in downtown Washington D.C., which officials described as a targeted ambush. The two guard members are still in critical condition.

In a televised address from Mar-a-Lago, Trump condemned the attack – the day before Thanksgiving celebrations get underway – as a “crime against humanity”.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out at former president Joe Biden’s administration for letting in “20 million unknown and unvetted foreigners” to the US through the Operation Allies Welcome program. However, this figure appears to be an enormous exaggeration.

The scheme was launched in August 2021 during Biden’s presidency, following the chaos of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return to power.

Continue reading “”

Missouri prosecutors fear ruling means deadly force can be self-defense against simple assault

Missouri prosecutors are concerned that a recent decision by the state Court of Appeals could open self-defense laws so broadly that the slightest threat of a minor attack could justify a person responding with deadly violence.

The Nov. 12 ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, would threaten public safety by making it difficult to charge, try or resolve violent crimes, Robert W. Russell, president of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, wrote in an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief.

“If the opinion becomes law, mere shoving matches could justifiably be escalated to gun battles,” Russell wrote.

The ruling was made on a case that involved a fight between two women outside Anchor House, a veterans’ homeless shelter in Warren County, west of St. Louis, in November 2022.

Danielle Lechocki, a former Marine with several medical issues, said she felt “extremely threatened” after another shelter resident threatened to “mollywock” her, meaning hit her. Lechocki pulled a knife from her backpack, according to court documents, after the other woman lunged at her.

The other woman denied she went after Lechocki, who said she was just trying to show she wasn’t a “pushover.” A third person stepped in between the two women and no one was hurt.

But the county judge denied Lechocki’s request to use self-defense to justify her actions, agreeing with the prosecutor who argued that as a matter of law, deadly force cannot be used to repel a simple assault and battery.

The jury ultimately found Lechocki guilty of attempted unlawful use of a weapon but acquitted her of fourth-degree assault. Lechocki was sentenced to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000, which would be waived if she served 25 hours of community service.

The appellate court ruled that the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. The lower court’s ruling was reversed and the case was sent back for a retrial.

The Missouri Legislature changed the law on deadly force in 2007, the appeals court ruling said, allowing the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself or herself or a third person “against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony,” which was defined as “included but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense.”

Continue reading “”

New York’s Assault on the NRA — and Free Speech — Gets a Court Bailout

In 2017, under the direction of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York launched a coordinated campaign to cripple the National Rifle Association (NRA) because of its defense of the Second Amendment and protected speech. New York’s Department of Financial Services contacted banks and insurance companies that did business with the NRA and delivered an unmistakable message: Continue associating with the NRA, and the state would investigate, cite, and regulate your business into oblivion. Coming from the state’s top financial regulator, the warning carried real weight – exactly as intended.

The strategy worked. Financial institutions and insurers quickly distanced themselves from the NRA, leaving the organization unable to secure even basic corporate services in the state. If that sounds like an obvious First Amendment violation, that’s because it is. More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that government “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against third parties to suppress disfavored speech are flatly unconstitutional.

Because that rule remains as clear today as it was in 1963, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLJ’s amicus brief and ruled unanimously for the NRA last term. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, put it plainly: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” When regulators use the power of their office to pressure private actors into isolating or punishing a speaker, they violate the First Amendment just as surely as if they had censored the speech directly.

This case sits squarely at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments. The NRA’s policy views related to the Second Amendment, its speech, its advocacy, and its expression are all protected by the First Amendment. A government that can strangle a gun-rights group through financial coercion can use the same tools to silence pro-life organizations, religious ministries, parental-rights groups, or anyone else who falls out of political favor. That is why the ACLJ fights not just for the substance of constitutional rights, but also against government efforts to punish those who speak about them.

That unanimous ruling should have ended the matter. It should have allowed the NRA’s lawsuit to proceed so a jury could determine the full extent of the constitutional violations. But the Second Circuit had other ideas. In defiance of both the Supreme Court’s clear command and the First Amendment itself, the court held that New York’s officials were entitled to qualified immunity – meaning the case had to be dismissed.

Qualified Immunity Was Never Meant to Shield Deliberate Speech Suppression

Continue reading “”

Thanksgiving is a federal holiday in the United States celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November. Outside the United States, it is sometimes called American Thanksgiving to distinguish it from the Canadian holiday of the same name and related celebrations in other regions. The modern national celebration dates to 1863 and has been linked to the Pilgrims 1621 harvest festival since the late 19th century. As the name implies, the theme of the holiday generally revolves around giving thanks with the centerpiece of most celebrations being a Thanksgiving dinner.

In 1789, per a request by Congressional resolution, President George Washington proclaimed “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.” In 1863, President Lincoln issued a proclamation making Thanksgiving an official annual holiday to be commemorated each year on the last Thursday of November.

To stimulate economic recovery following the Great Depression, in 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt moved the holiday to the second to the last Thursday of the month to extend the holiday shopping season.

To alleviate confusion, Congress passed H.J. Res. 41 (77th Congress) on October 6, 1941, to establish Thanksgiving Day as a legal holiday on the fourth Thursday of November. President Roosevelt signed the joint resolution into law in December of 1941, to take effect the following year

 

“There appears to be no act of Congress that has ever designated a particular day as Thanksgiving Day. In short, this bill will fix the last Thursday in November as the permanent day for our annual Thanksgiving.”
– Earl Michener, Michigan 2nd Congressional District Representative October 6, 1941

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carroll said:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dietary guidelines failure

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

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

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

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

Contents
  1. The EatWell Slave Diet

Continue reading “”