Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

The Growing Reach of Government Surveillance with Alex Newman

Tonight IN FOCUS... Another week, another major win - for the Democrats - as the House GOP betrays Americans yet again. Also why is famed Attorney John Eastman being "unpersoned" - and who's next? Plus FBI Director Christopher Wray recently warned of a cyber attack on U.S. infrastructure by China -- but when is the last time any of these characters told us the truth? And perhaps all hope is not lost on the wicked as a noticeable shift has been emerging within the public sphere -- Kevin Sorbo joins the discussion.

Catch the Full Episode on One America News Network or by downloading the OAN Live App!

Follow IN FOCUS Host, Alison Steinberg @AlisonOAN

For more information about One America News Network please visit www.OANN.com

High School Student Suspended For Saying “Illegal Alien”

A North Carolina male high school student, Christian McGhee who’s 16, was suspended for using the term "illegal alien" when asking his English teacher a question. The journalist who broke the story, Brianna Kraemer, joins One America's Stella Escobedo.

Just Like That: Biden ATF Criminalizes Tens of Thousands of Private Gun Sellers

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/just-like-that-biden-atf-criminalizes-tens-of-thousands-of-private-gun-sellers/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The ATF are up to their gun-banning tricks again. IMG NRA-ILA

We have long been warning of the rule that the Biden ATF has been preparing to redefine who is considered a firearm “dealer” under U.S. law.  The administration’s explicit objective was to move as close to so-called “universal background checks” for firearm sales as possible. Aiding in this effort was 2022’s lamentable (and misnamed) Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which made a subtle change to the underlying standards for when a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and therefore required to be federally licensed. Licensees, in turn, must run background checks when making sales to unlicensed buyers. The BSCA’s removal of a single word from a federal statute has now resulted in a 466-page monstrosity of a rule that redefines what it means to be a firearm “dealer” and threatens to turn untold thousands of upstanding citizens into criminals for exercising their constitutional rights.

Previously, an individual only needed a federal license to sell firearms when engaged in “a course of trade or business “involving “repetitive” buying and reselling of firearms with the “principal objective” of “livelihood and profit.”

The BSCA removed the “livelihood” element so that profit-seeking alone would fulfill the required objective of the sales.

Certain supporters of the BSCA claimed this change was merely a codification of how courts had applied the previously existing law. They wanted to make clear, they said, that a person could be subject to licensure even if the person had means of support other than selling guns. But the NRA, in opposing the BSCA, warned that it “leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.” In other words, there was no telling what sort of spin the most anti-gun administration in American history would try to put on changes to statutory language that had existed for decades and for which there were well-established histories of case law and enforcement policy.

The ATF’s sprawling background check rule is the most glaring and sinister example of the havoc the BSCA has unleased. In typical fashion, the anti-gun Biden administration has treated the law as a mandate to pursue the firearm prohibition movement’s longstanding aspiration to ban private gun sales. Channeling sales through a network of federally licensed dealers ensures that there is a paper trail of privately-owned guns. Proponents of the policy claim it will promote public safety by allowing police to trace the origins of guns recovered from crime scenes.  But the government’s own data shows that violent criminals either avoid the background check requirement, through measures such as theft or black-market sales, or they use “straw buyers” to purchase guns from dealers on their behalf. Forcing law-abiding gun owners to go through a dealer to sell a gun to a trusted neighbor or co-worker won’t change this, but it will put more lawfully owned guns “on paper,” a prerequisite to any future scheme of large-scale registration and confiscation, whenever guns are retroactively banned.

As for the rule itself, its main feature is a series of “rebuttable presumptions” about when a firearm seller is either “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms or has the objective to “predominantly earn a profit.” These presumptions are meant to guide the “fact-specific” inquiry into when a person’s gun sales cross the threshold that require that person to be federally licensed. We commented on those presumptions in previous articles, and they remain essentially unchanged in the final rule.

Yet, demonstrating the ATF’s skepticism of its own legal interpretations, these presumptions are explicitly meant to apply only in “civil or administrative proceedings,” even though the underlying statutes may also be criminally enforced. Such proceedings include applications for, or renewals of, firearm licenses or civil forfeiture actions by the government seeking to confiscate firearms, ammunition, and profits from gun sales.

Courts subject administrative rules to more stringent scrutiny when they are used in criminal cases, which is undoubtedly why ATF claims its presumptions are only meant for civil enforcement. ATF knows that none of the presumptions appear in or are authorized by the language of the underlying statutes themselves. To the extent they are tied to any legal authority at all, ATF claims they are derived from case law applying the pre-BSCA standard for dealer licensing. But that standard no longer exists, so it’s not clear why a court should give any deference to those cases as applied to the new BSCA standard. But ATF still hedges its bets, suggesting that its new criteria “may be useful to a court in a criminal proceeding – for example, to inform appropriate jury instructions regarding permissible inferences.”

This supposed distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, however, goes to the heart of the rule’s overall game plan. Normally, administrative rules are meant to give more specificity and detail to broad statutory regimes so regulated entities have a clearer understanding of their obligations under the law. In this case, however, the ATF merely wants to create more confusion and uncertainty. They know the rule is irrelevant to the behavior of real criminals, and they even admit their new standards cannot be strictly applied in criminal cases. But the rule may create enough doubt in the minds of conscientious, law-abiding gun owners that they simply avoid engaging in or facilitating private transfers altogether. It is, in other words, regulation by intimidation.

There is already a push for proposed federal legislation to disallow the rule; however, the current makeup of Congress makes its passage extremely difficult. Like the Biden administration’s other illegal anti-gun rules, this one is destined for a long march through the federal courts, a campaign that inherently favors the government, which can and will expend any amount of resources to try to vindicate its dubious interpretations of the law. Indeed, from the administration’s point of view, litigating the rule at taxpayer’s expense merely allows it to extend the political capital of the campaign with its anti-gun supporters by demonstrating the administration’s aggressiveness and commitment to gun control.

NRA-ILA will keep you apprised of all legislative and legal challenges to this egregious rule as they develop. Please stay tuned.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the rights of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)


Gun Lobby Honors U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan As 2023 Legislator Of The Year

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/gun-lobby-honors-u-s-rep-jim-jordan-as-2023-legislator-of-the-year/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:


Jim Jordan IMG jordan house gov
Jim Jordan IMG jordan house gov

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, proudly honored U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) as the 2023 NSSF Legislator of the Year for his persistent pursuit of accountability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Biden administration for unconstitutional attacks on the firearm industry and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

Congressman Jordan is the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and is a member of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. In these roles, Chairman Jordan has exposed the abusive policies forced by the Biden administration through the DOJ and ATF to attack the firearm and ammunition industry. He has demanded answers for Executive Branch overreach that has infringed on lawful commerce in arms and the ability of Americans to freely purchase the firearms they choose to own in the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

“We are honored to present Chairman Jordan with the 2023 NSSF Legislator of the Year Award for his unwavering leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives to protect the firearm and ammunition industry and the growing community of gun owners,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

“Chairman Jordan’s dogged determination for accountability from agencies within the Executive Branch have reasserted Congress’s role in the balance of authority between the three co-equal branches of government and has served as a backstop against an administration intent on decimating the firearm and ammunition industry. Our industry, and the American public, is deeply grateful for Chairman Jordan’s fierce determination to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans and the industry that makes the exercise of those rights possible.”

Chairman Jordan chastised ATF Director Steven Dettelbach for overstepping his authority when the bureau imposed new regulations on “stabilizing braces” in a 2023 hearing. Chairman Jordan told Director Dettelbach that the policy “turns law-abiding gun owners into felons as a result of unelected bureaucrats simply enacting a new regulation.”

Chairman Jordan added in that hearing, “That’s not how it’s supposed to work." In our great country, Congress writes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. Here, the executive branch has taken power from Congress in deciding what the law should be … Director Dettelbach has, in essence, become a one-man Congress.”

The ATF’s stabilizing pistol brace rule has been enjoined nationally by a federal court judge in Texas. Several challenges to the ATF rule have been consolidated and are pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Chairman Jordan also demanded answers from Director Dettelbach on the ATF’s “zero-tolerance” policy that has seen firearm retailers lose their licenses and livelihoods due to unintentional administrative errors. Chairman Jordan further demanded answers from Director Dettelbach on why the ATF proposed a new “engaged in the business” rule that would require near-universal background checks for firearm transfers when Congress specifically rejected the idea.

Chairman Jordan’s investigation into the Weaponization of the Federal Government uncovered the collusion between the FBI, DOJ, U.S. Treasury Department, and private banks to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of gun purchasers by creating a watchlist of potential “violent domestic terrorists” simply for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Chairman Jordan’s investigations exposed Bank of America’s voluntary disclosure of private financial transactions at firearm and ammunition retailers, purchase records, and private data to the FBI without a warrant or notification to the bank’s customers. The investigation revealed that Citibank was also complicit in warrantless searches.

Chairman Jordan’s investigations continue. Just last month, he castigated the Biden administration in a hearing on the weaponization of the Federal Government, explaining that the Executive Branch illegally spied on Americans’ lawful gun purchases because they were politically out of step with The White House’s gun control agenda.

“And… and if you’re a gun owner, look out,” Chairman Jordan said. “You’re going to the top of the list. For simply exercising your Second Amendment right, you’re on the FBI’s target list. Never forget, the federal government got this information without any process. No warrant and frankly, no notification.”

He added, “Since then, we’ve learned that the financial surveillance was broader, and there was a specific objective." The federal government is building profiles on the American people. And the profile isn’t based on criminal conduct. It’s based on political beliefs, and if you’ve got the wrong political beliefs, well, you’re a potentially violent domestic extremist.”

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Biden Tries To Blast Trump, But Blunders Instead: ‘Elect Me; I’m In The 20th Century’

Biden Tries To Blast Trump, But Blunders Instead: ‘Elect Me… I’m In The 20th Century’

US President Joe Biden listens during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida (out of frame) in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, April 10, 2024. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

OAN’s Brooke Mallory
3:23 PM – Wednesday, April 10, 2023

SEE: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/biden-tries-to-blast-trump-but-blunders-instead-elect-me-im-in-the-20th-century/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

Another embarrassing blunder went viral online among those who argue that President Biden is too mentally incompetent for another four-year term. It was related to the president’s statement on Wednesday, when he said that voters should “Elect me… I’m in the 20th century.”

At the end of a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in the White House Rose Garden, Biden, 81, made the remark.

“Why doesn’t everybody holler at once?” the president asserted sarcastically as reporters asked questions.

Biden was questioned by Peter Alexander of NBC News during an abortion debate in Arizona, where the state Supreme Court decided on Tuesday that a 1864 law that outlawed abortions from the time of conception is still in force, with the exception being to save a mother’s life.

“Elect me,” Biden replied. “…I’m in the 20, 20th century,” continued the president.

A minute later, Biden realized his mistake and added, “21st century! Not back then. They weren’t even a state.”

The country’s oldest-ever president then began to ramble on as reporters barked out more queries.

Biden also later stated, “The war in Ukraine comes to an end by the House leader allowing a vote [on additional military aid]” while answering a question from another reporter regarding how the conflict would conclude.

According to polls, most voters are uneasy about Biden’s mental capacity and age in regards to the upcoming election. If he serves out a second term, he will be 86 years old by the time his term ends.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

Religious-Themed Designs Banned From WH Easter Egg Roll Art Event

Religious-Themed Designs Banned From White House Easter Egg Roll Art Event

White House Easter Egg Roll
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 10: U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden attend the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn of the White House on April 10, 2023 in Washington, DC. The tradition dates back to 1878 when President Rutherford B. Hayes invited children to the White House for Easter and egg rolling on the lawn. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
White House Easter Egg Roll WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 10: U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden attend the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn of the White House on April 10, 2023 in Washington, DC. The tradition dates back to 1878 when President Rutherford B. Hayes invited children to the White House for Easter and eggs rolling on the lawn. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

OAN’s Abril Elfi
11:18 AM – Saturday, March 30, 2024

SEE: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/religious-themed-designs-banned-from-wh-easter-egg-roll-art-event/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The White House has banned religious-themed designs from the Easter egg art event. 

Religious Easter egg designs will not be accepted by the National Guard children for the 2024 “Celebrating National Guard Families” art event at the White House.

Along with the yearly Easter Egg Roll, the White House celebrates Easter with an art competition. A contest flyer specifies that an Easter egg design entry “must not include any questionable content, religious symbols, overtly religious themes, or partisan political statements.” 

“As part of the White House Easter traditions, America’s Egg Farmers—for nearly 50 years—have proudly presented an intricately decorated Commemorative Easter Egg to the First Lady of the United States. In 2021, the White House expanded on this long-standing tradition by displaying youth-designed Easter eggs in the White House East Colonnade,” the flyer explains. “On behalf of First Lady Jill Biden, the Adjutants General of the National Guard are asking youth from National Guard families across the United States and all U.S. territories to submit artwork inspired by the theme ‘Celebrating our Military Families.’”

Kids are asked to paint eggs with pictures from their own lives. “Selected designs representing the unique experience and stories of National Guard children will be brought to life on real hen eggs by talented egg artists from across the country and displayed at the White House this Easter and Passover season,” the advertisement states.

Additionally, content that encourages “bigotry, racism, hatred, or harm against any group or individual or promotes discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or age” cannot be used in educational settings by children. 

Children will paint a few chosen designs on actual eggs, which will be on display at the White House.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

Kamala Unveils ‘Red Flag’ Centers to Take Away Guns~Repressive states~Gun control governors

Higbie: Any government that takes guns away is going to do something terrible

Repressive States: No Right to Carry, Ban on Semi-Autos, No Suppressors, and High Taxes

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/03/repressive-states-no-right-to-carry-ban-on-semi-autos-no-suppressors-and-high-taxes/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:
gun control gun rights iStock-gguy44 962772470
gun control gun rights iStock-gguy44 962772470

Nine states show up again and again as the most repressive states in the union of the United States of America. With the occasional exception, these states refuse to honor the Constitution; they have extremely restrictive policies on who may bear arms, they ban common rifles, they ban the ownership of suppressors, and they tend to have high taxes. They are all controlled by the Democratic Party.

The nine most repressive states are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

Of those nine states, all but Rhode Island have enacted bans on some semi-automatic firearms, usually under the politically defined label of “assault rifles.”

Washington State has also banned certain semi-automatic rifles. Litigation challenging such bans as unconstitutional is moving forward in several states, including Maryland, New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey. At some point, the Supreme Court will rule on one or more of these cases.

Of those nine states, all but Rhode Island have enacted bans on some semi-automatic firearms, usually under the politically defined label of "assault rifles." 
Of those nine states, all but Rhode Island have enacted bans on some semi-automatic firearms, usually under the politically defined label of “assault rifles.” 

Of the nine repressive states, eight of them have laws that prevent most of the population from exercising their Second Amendment rights, especially the right to bear arms outside of the home.

The right-to-carry map shows the current state of the right to carry in the United States of America by state.
The right-to-carry map shows the current state of the right to carry in the United States of America by state.

Out of the nine repressive states, eight have “may issue” laws whereby a government official has discretion to deny a carry permit based on his subjective opinion.

In this way, Martin Luther King was denied a carry permit in Alabama in 1956. John Stossel was denied a carry permit in New York City. Illinois is shown as a “shall issue” state. Illinois was forced by the Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit to pass a “shall issue” law or risk being forced to become a permitless carry state.

Of the nine repressive states, all but one ban the possession of silencers/suppressors in their state.

Suppressors/silencers are effective safety devices, which are common in Europe and many other countries. The American Suppressor Association maintains a map showing which states ban the legal possession of silencers/suppressors. Maryland does not ban the ownership of suppressors and allows them to be used for hunting. Suppressors/silencers are banned in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

Of the nine repressive states, all but one ban the possession of silencers/suppressors in their state.
Of the nine repressive states, all but one ban the possession of silencers/suppressors in their state.

Now, taxation, of the nine most repressive states, is in the top ten highest tax states: New York, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Illinois, and Delaware.

All of the nine most repressive states are Democratic party trifectas, as shown by Ballotpedia. A Democratic party trifecta means both houses of the legislature and the governorship are in the hands of the Democratic party.

A similar situation existed with states in the South when they refused to follow Supreme Court rulings to desegregate public schools. Eventually, under a Republican administration, President Eisenhower enforced the desegregation order in Arkansas schools. Do not expect a Biden, or any Democratic administration, to use troops to enforce Second Amendment rights in repressive states.  Just as the Democratic party was the party of government power and segregation through the 1950’s, the Democratic party has been the party of government power and repression of Second Amendment rights since the Supreme Court rulings in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), Caetano (2016) and Bruen (2022).

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten was a peace officer, a military officer who was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.


Gun Control Governors Need a Hard Reality Check

By Matt Manda

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/03/gun-control-governors-need-a-hard-reality-check/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

Crime Scene Tape NRA-ILA
Shutterstock 56280433

Several of the nation’s most ardent gun control activist governors and mayors of the largest metropolitans are staring down a divergent reality. They continue to stick with publicizing increasing gun control restrictions on law-abiding citizens, as crime is going down in many – though not all – major cities, while gun sales continue to increase at “new normal” historically high rates.

The tired scare tactic of warning “more guns means more crime” is crumbling apart as millions of law-abiding Americans are awakening to what it means to be a lawful and responsible gun owner. The streak of more than one million NSSF-adjusted FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verifications processed for the purchase of a firearm that hit 55 months in February 2024.

Those firearm sales figures include significant increases in gun ownership in some of the country’s bluest states and cities. In those same areas, crime has been rampant over the past several years as politicians embraced “Defund the Police” efforts, bail reform policies and going soft on criminals.

The rest of the law-abiding population has pushed back in a resounding way.

Eyes on the Big Apple

One city where the divergent reality is most prominently seen today is New York City. Perhaps no city has seen more dissatisfied citizens about their feelings toward public safety than the Big Apple. It was a major factor under former accidental Mayor Bill de Blasio and continues under Mayor Eric Adams. That includes a stretch in 2022 where 70 percent of New York City residents felt unsafe.

That figure hasn’t improved much in the past year. The New York Times reported on a new poll showing that only 37 percent of city residents felt satisfied with the level of safety in their neighborhood. The same poll found that only half of residents admitted they planned to stay in the city past 2028.

“People are fed up with the quality of life. There’s a general sense of lawlessness. You go into CVS and there’s shoplifting. "People's cars get vandalized,” Queens Councilman Robert Holden told The New York Post about the polling.

Despite residents still feeling unsafe in their city – particularly while New Yorkers still face spikes in crime on the city’s subway – two trends have overlapped to demonstrate why crime is falling a bit in New York City from the recent highs over the past few years: increases in gun ownership and law enforcement getting tough on criminals.

In New York City, the rampant crime of the past several years, as well as more recent events including rises in antisemitism, have contributed to large numbers of new law-abiding gun owners in the city. WomenAfrican AmericansJewish residents, and even a collection of hundreds of the city’s bodega owners have all taken the Second Amendment into their own hands to purchase firearms. It’s also led to a decrease in crime so far compared to last year.

“Anyone that’s out there looking to rob us, hurt us, kill us – beware,” Fernando Mateo, a spokesperson for the United Bodegas of America, recently said. “You may be walking into the wrong bodega because now we have the same firepower you have.”

All told, NSSF-adjusted FBI NICS verifications for the purchase of a firearm in New York have totaled nearly 1.6 million. There's a lot of new, empowered New Yorkers taking their personal safety into their own hands and not relying on delayed or understaffed law enforcement. Criminals are taking note.

Busting Bad Guys

In addition to the massive number of new gun owners in the Big Apple, the falling crime rate is likely due to another logical effort that has nothing to do with placing more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Instead, it turns out that going after and getting tough on criminals who break the law has a real, positive impact on the city.

Gothamist reported on a new survey released by the mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and the New York Police Department that highlighted new information about what types of illegal guns police are seizing and where. The report breaks down more than 6,200 firearms that police seized between July 2020 and December 2021.

“About a third of [the seized firearms] had been used in a crime and about two-thirds had not. The guns that had not been used in a crime included those seized from people who didn’t have a license to possess a firearm, and weapons that people voluntarily turned over to law enforcement at gun buybacks,” the report stated. It should be noted that illegally possessing a firearm is, in fact, a crime.

The report also demonstrated that most of the seized firearms connected to a crime came from police precincts with high crime rates, reinforcing that police know where violent criminals are, that they are using and possessing illegal firearms and that those areas deserve the most attention.

Lastly, the crime report reinforced that illegally possessed handguns are, by far, the most commonly used firearm when a crime is committed. More than 70 percent of all the guns seized were handguns, with only eight percent being either a rifle or shotgun. When the report segments those guns out further to look at the “crime guns” the numbers are even more telling. More than 80 percent of recovered firearms were handguns, with only three percent being a long gun.

This data tracks fairly closely with what the firearms industry has said for years: that the overwhelming majority of firearms used in crime are illegally obtained handguns and that, also, Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), which there are more than 28 million in circulation, are seldom used in a crime.

Not an Outlier

While crime is staying high in Washington, D.C., even though the city already implements nearly every gun control law imaginable, and a few other major cities that have notoriously soft-on-crime prosecutors or that severely cut police budgets, New York City isn’t an outlier. Across the country, in major cities crime seems to be trending downward in the right direction.

Not all major cities can point towards new gun restrictions or gun control laws as the reason behind the decrease. But, in every state – including many of the major cities which often have Left-leaning, gun control supportive mayors – firearm sales have kept up at a blistering pace.

With more law-abiding gun owners, and with more states like Louisiana and South Carolina opting for permitless carry, it’s abundantly clear criminals have recognized they are facing more empowered and confident residents that won’t be such easy targets as victims anymore.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES

President Biden’s Department of Justice has launched a new office to train state and local authorities on how to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who could pose a “threat.” But what does it consider to be a threat? People have already accused this "National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center" of violating the Second Amendment. But Glenn believes it may violate a handful more of the Bill of Rights. Glenn reviews how the Department of Justice has sidestepped Amendments 1-6 of the Constitution with this order, along with others.

Censorship & Surveillance Increasing in America with Mel K

Supreme Court Should Reject Clandestine Government Censorship of Online Speech

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/03/supreme-court-should-reject-clandestine-government-censorship-of-online-speech/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN); republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

free speech freedom censorship iStock-spukkato 887987546
iStock-spukkato 887987546

When federal officials persistently pressured social media platforms to delete or downgrade posts those officials did not like, a government lawyer told the Supreme Court on Monday, they were merely offering “information” and “advice” to their “partners” in fighting “misinformation.”

If the justices accept that characterization, they will be blessing clandestine government censorship of online speech.

The case, Murthy v. Missouri, pits two states and five social media users against federal officials who strongly, repeatedly and angrily demanded that Facebook et al. crack down on speeches the government viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy, or national security. Some of this “exhortation,” as U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher described it, happened in public, as when President Joe Biden accused the platforms of “killing people” by allowing users to say things he believed would discourage Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who echoed that charge in more polite terms, urged a “whole-of-society” effort to combat the “urgent threat to public health” posed by “health misinformation,” which he said might include “legal and regulatory measures.” Other federal officials said holding social media platforms “accountable” could entail antitrust action, new regulations, or expansion of their civil liability for user-posted content.

Those public threats were coupled with private communications that came to light only thanks to discovery in this case.

As Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguinaga noted on Monday, officials such as Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty “badger[ed] the platforms 24/7,” demanding that they broaden their content restrictions and enforce them more aggressively.

Those emails alluded to presidential displeasure and warned that White House officials were “considering our options on what to do” if the platforms failed to fall in line. The platforms responded by changing their policies and practices.

Facebook executive Nick Clegg was eager to appease the president.

In emails to Murthy, he noted that Facebook had “adjust[ed] policies on what we’re removing”; had deleted pages, groups, and accounts that offended the White House; and would “shortly be expanding our COVID policies to further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content.”

Facebook took those steps, Clegg said in another internal email that Aguinaga quoted, “because we were under pressure by the administration.” Clegg expressed regret about caving to that pressure, saying, “We shouldn’t have done it.”

According to Fletcher, none of this implicated the First Amendment, because “no threats happened.” He meant that federal officials never explicitly threatened platforms with “adverse government action” while urging suppression of constitutionally protected speech.

That position is hard to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court held that Rhode Island’s Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth had violated the First Amendment by pressuring book distributors to drop titles it deemed objectionable.

Notably, the commission itself had no enforcement authority, and at least some of the books it flagged did not meet the Supreme Court’s test for obscenity, meaning the distributors were not violating any law by selling them. The Court nevertheless concluded that the commission’s communications, which ostensibly sought voluntary “cooperation” but were “phrased virtually as orders,” were unconstitutional because they aimed to suppress disfavored speech and had that predictable result.

The Biden administration’s social media meddling bears a strong resemblance to the situation. But Fletcher argued that federal officials were simply using “the bully pulpit” to persuade platforms that they had a “responsibility” to curtail dangerous speech.

“Pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all,” Aguinaga noted. “That’s just being a bully.”

Free Press, an inaptly named organization that aims to promote “positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life,” warns that a ruling against the government “could allow social-media platforms to leave up misinformation.” In other words, a ruling for the government would empower it to define “misinformation” and require its removal — something the First Amendment plainly forbids.

About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum

The Tulsi Gabbard Show: The Right to Religious Liberty With Jay Sekulow

Tulsi Gabbard opens up about the importance of her faith and how the Democrat party has come to resent religion. The former Hawaii Congresswoman shares how her personal relationship with God grounded her on the presidential campaign trail while opening her eyes to the growing hostility from inside the party towards people of faith. Tulsi is joined by the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), Jay Sekulow to discuss his career defending religious liberty and the ongoing battles that threaten this essential freedom.

Democrat, MUSLIM AG Ellison Continues War on Legal Gun Sales with Complaint Against Fleet Farm~SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT KEITH ELLISON HERE: https://ratherexposethem.org/?s=Keith+Ellison

“I’m proud to be a Protect Minnesota Orange Star Candidate. Gun violence has disrupted the lives of Minnesotans of all ages and all walks of life, and it’s long past time to do something about it. I will always be an ally in that fight as Attorney General.” (Keith Ellison/Facebook)

“Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is accusing Fleet Farm of violating state law when the retailer allegedly sold firearms to ‘straw purchasers,’ according to newly filed court documents,” ABC affiliate KSTP Eyewitness News reported Monday. “Defendants knew or had reason to know, based on the circumstances of the sales and the information known to Defendants, that straw purchasers were not purchasing for themselves and were buying firearms for others,” Ellison charged, accusing the Midwest retail chain “of violating the Minnesota Gun Control Act.”

“A citizen can purchase traditional rifles and shotguns without a permit. Purchase of a handgun, however, requires a valid permit that will include a criminal background check. Likewise, the purchase or transfer of a pistol or a semi-automatic military-style assault weapon will require completing a purchase/transfer permit,” John Mascolo, Esq. of FindLaw writes. “Applicants for a gun permit in Minnesota must undergo a criminal background check through the Minnesota Crime Information System and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS. Those seeking to purchase a firearm may seek a permit from their local police chief or county sheriff.”

Is Ellison saying Fleet Farm, which as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) is routinely audited by an ATF notorious for “zero tolerance” revocations over innocuous paperwork flubs, transferred guns without going through the process? No? Then what’s his beef?

“It’s alleged Fleet Farm sold 13 guns during a 12-month period to a straw purchaser who later pleaded guilty to helping straw purchase nearly 100 firearms,” KSTP explains. “The lawsuit mentions specific firearms used in the Truck Park Bar shooting in October 2021 that left one person dead and another 14 injured.”

And that is Fleet Farm’s fault…how? Does Minnesota law limit how many firearms purchases a citizen can make in a year? It does not.

Curiously, one of the “commonsense gun safety laws” the prohibitionists have tried to enact everywhere, (in Everytown!), is a “one-gun-a-month” law. They do things incrementally, and many would prefer “no-guns-a-month,” but as an aside, a U.S. District judge just held that California’s purchase limitation edict “did not fit within the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

So, Ellison is running afoul of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), of Bruen, and more to the point, of the clear Second Amendment proscription that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” And his excuse for going after Fleet Farm is that its retail employees can’t do the impossible and read the hearts and minds of customers, and that it is therefore responsible for not just their criminal actions, but for the subsequent actions of those they deal with.

In truth, he just wants to use the virtually unlimited resources of the state to rob a victim with deep pockets blind through lawfare and shut all gun dealers down, which is par for the course with this character.

When he was in Congress, he was part of a group of Democrat gun prohibitionists who staged a sit-in, which “shut down the House’s legislative work” to demand more citizen disarmament. He and the two were clearly and defiantly obstructing and impeding official proceedings, a charge used to throw J6 Capitol protestors into the federal gulag.

Ellison is a former leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, co-founded by Bernie Sanders. And the Caucus (with Ellison specifically lauded) maintains “ties” with the Communist Party USA and “close ties” with another “progressive” group, the Democratic Socialists of America, the domestic arm of Socialist International.

The DSA devoted a page on their website (until they took it down to try to hide it—this link goes to the Internet Archive record, which may load slowly but they can’t erase) to hymns glorifying their “struggle.” The following example should be of special interest, since the people they’re talking about are pretty much you and me:

Are you sleeping, are you sleeping, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie, And when the revolution comes, We’ll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie

That’s what he represents. And this is what Fleet Farm does:

“Fleet Farm has been serving hardworking families since 1955. We’re built on a foundation of Midwestern values. You could say we’re a lot like our customers. We believe in honoring tradition, taking pride in our work and doing what’s right.”

It’s all part of a wider movement to ban not just guns (Ellison doesn’t like the First Amendment any better than he does the second), but to demonize and exclude those with traditional American values. Look at the government and media push going on before the upcoming November elections to conflate rejection of collectivism, immorality, and treason with “white rural rage,” for the DOJ/FBI to portray those Americans as “the greatest threat,” and to condemn “Christian Nationalists” as theocratic Nazis for believing rights are “endowed by our Creator” instead of privileges to be portioned out or withheld by the state.

There’s no room in Keith Ellison’s America for such outcasts. That’s why they’re so desperate to disarm us. And that’s why the government monopoly of violence subversives masquerading as “gun safety advocates” at Giffords proclaimed “We are proud to endorse Keith Ellison for attorney general.”

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

White House Warns Fox News to Stop Covering Biden Corruption

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/03/white-house-warns-fox-news-to-stop-covering-biden-corruption; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

And the media is cheering it on.


I remember when White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer made an off-hand remark about what he thought was Bill Maher praising the Al Qaeda terrorists, suggesting that people should watch what they say, and we have spent years hearing about the Bush administration “terrorizing”, “censoring” and “intimidating” the press.

Bush was compared to Hitler and the incident still continues to be brought up today even as the Biden administration is fighting in court for the “free speech right” to censor political opponents on social media, and now the White House has fired off a letter to FOX News warning it to stop covering Joe Biden’s corruption.

The White House is formally calling on Fox News to walk back its coverage of bribery and corruption allegations against President Joe Biden.

In a letter sent to the right-wing network’s top brass this week, which has not been previously reported, Ian Sams, a top White House spokesperson, noted that the ex-FBI informant who was the source of the bribery claims has now been charged by federal authorities for allegedly fabricating the story.

“Despite this, Fox has taken no steps to retract, correct, or update its reporting on this false allegation from 2023,” Sams said in his letter to Fox News chief executive Suzanne Scott, president Jay Wallace, and Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton.

Despite media misinformation, Smirnov’s allegations were a late-arriving cherry on the cake in an investigation that involved IRS whistleblowers, business partners of Hunter Biden and extensive information from his own laptops.

Yet forget that for a moment.

Imagine the response if the Bush or Trump administrations had sent such a threatening letter to CBS News.

This isn’t even coming from the Biden campaign, a distinct organization, or any of the numerous leftist groups it has at its command, but from a special assistant to the president, with Anita Dunn cc’ed on it.

And the media is cheering it on.

Mills, Gottlieb at CPAC: Gun Control is about Weakening America

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/02/mills-gottlieb-at-cpac-gun-control-is-about-weakening-america; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:
‘Shooting from the Hip’ was a segment at the Conservative Political Action Conference. From left: moderator Carl Higbie, Congressman Cory Mills (R-FL), and Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation. (Courtesy of CPAC)

An important segment of last weekend’s Conservative Action Political Conference, virtually overlooked by the media, featured U.S. Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), telling the audience that gun control is not about public safety, but about public control.

Mills, who was elected to office in 2022, came out swinging, referring to the text of the Second Amendment, which he said “cannot be clearer.”

“It doesn’t say ‘may.’ It says ‘shall not be infringed,’” Mills stressed.

He accused the administration of mounting a “multi-pronged attack” on our liberties. The administration is allowing open borders while at the same time pushing for more laws and regulations that will not be obeyed by criminals who are already violating existing laws. These restrictions prevent U.S. citizens from protecting themselves from criminal harm, he suggested.

A self-described constitutionalist, Mills—who served with the 82nd Airborne—told the audience, “This is not about policing, it’s about politics. They are trying to do everything they can to weaken the American people to make us dependent upon the administrative state.”

The 18-minute segment, headlined “Shooting from the Hip,” was moderated by Carl Higbie, host of Frontline, with Newsmax. Turning his attention to Gottlieb, who serves as executive vice president of SAF, Higbie inquired about legal actions challenging gun control laws in the wake of the 2022 Bruen ruling.

Right now, Gottlieb disclosed, SAF has a whopping 59 cases filed against gun control laws across the country, from one coast to the other. He pointed specifically to lawsuits against laws in Connecticut and New York, observing that some states have adopted gun laws as a means of “thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court.”

“I expected after Bruen they would pass laws that would be a little less restrictive…to see what they could get away with,” the veteran gun rights leader observed. “They didn’t do that. They doubled and tripled down and passed laws that are worse.”

He reminded the audience that days before the CPAC event, the Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a ruling in a gun case which said the “Aloha spirit” essentially outweighed the Second Amendment. The bizarre ruling is almost certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

SAF currently has two cases asking certiorari before the Supreme Court, in Maryland and Illinois. Both challenge bans on semi-auto rifles and so-called “high-capacity” magazines. The court has not announced yet whether it will take either case for review.

A few moments later, Gottlieb bristled as he commented about the left’s gun control crusade.

“It is so blatantly political, their agenda of socialism and controlling people’s lives,” he stated. “I mean, gun control isn’t about controlling guns; it’s about controlling people. That’s what their agenda really is. Facts, figures don’t matter to them. All they care about is taking away our rights.”

Higbie, who served as a Navy SEAL for nine years, had a solid grasp of the current political environment.

“You look at all of these mass shootings that are happening recently,” he noted. “Most of them happened in Joe Biden’s gun-free zones that he was the original architect of…The top ten most dangerous cities are Democratically-held cities, some in Republican states.”

Elsewhere during the discussion, Mills acknowledged he would like to abolish the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The remark drew applause from the audience.

All three men concurred that Democrat gun control efforts have resulted in more gun sales. Gottlieb noted how high-profile crimes, terrorist attacks, and other domestic factors invariably result in increased firearms sales.

Higbie observed, “Democrats are the greatest gun salesmen. Every time a Democrat comes into office, they actually help drive those numbers up.”

The discussion wrapped up with Mills and Gottlieb reminding the CPAC audience about media bias against reporting stories in which law-abiding citizens have used firearms, including semiautomatic rifles, in self-defense.

“They only report on mass shootings when it fits a certain narrative,” Mills said about the media, calling it “fake news.”

“What they want to do is to not vilify the actual criminal who is committing an act which is obviously illegal,” he said, “they want to criminalize our ability to hold arms.”

“It’s such a one-sided debate with the national media, which carries the agenda for the gun ban movement it’s actually disgusting,” Gottlieb said.

“This is about them controlling the message,” Mills added, “and we can’t allow that. We have to be louder. Utilize your platforms…We have to control the narrative. We have to control our ability to hold our own rights.”

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

1 2 3 100