A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
"The case is Caniglia v. Strom. It originated in 2015 when Cranston, Rhode Island, police paid a "well call" on 68-year-old Edward Caniglia. His wife had been unable to reach him after they had a fight and she was worried that he might be suicidal. So she called the authorities. The police took Caniglia to the hospital, where he was examined by a nurse and a social worker and discharged that same day. Meanwhile, the police entered his home without a warrant while he was gone and seized his two handguns. The present case centers on Caniglia's claim that this warrantless police action violated his Fourth Amendment rights."
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens against warrantless searches of their homes. A police officer cannot enter your home unless they have shown a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime. There are “exigent circumstances” exceptions to this right. If a police officer is witnessing an assault or murder in the home, or if the officer sees that the person in the home is in need of “emergency aid” they may enter the home in good judgement. Overall, the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect a citizen’s private home above all other places.
The Supreme Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on the case Caniglia v. Strom. The Caniglia v Strom is a case that involves the police untruthfully telling the wife of Mr. Caniglia that her husband had given them permission to seize his guns, and searched the home of Mr. Caniglia without obtaining a warrant. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the police, and the Supreme Court is going to be reviewing Caniglia v Strom to possibly overrule the lower court’s decision.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Bank of America, it turns out, is selling out their customers who bought guns or ammunition to federal authorities as people who should be investigated for ties to the criminal acts witnessed on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6.
Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, uncovered evidence that Bank of America is turning over the private transaction records of its customers to federal investigators it believes need to be probed for “extremism” or even domestic terrorism. The chilling move by the second-largest corporate bank in America with more than 60 million customers and $2.16 trillion in assets was this:
Customers confirmed as transacting, either through bank account debit card or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C. between 1/5 and 1/6.
Purchases made for Hotel/Airbnb RSVPs in DC, VA, and MD after 1/6.
Any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant between 1/7 and their upcoming suspected stay in D.C. area around Inauguration Day.
Airline related purchases since 1/6.
Did you notice No. 3? Bank of America is vocally antigun, but this is crossing into secret lists, big brother, sci-fi truth-is-stranger-than-fiction territory. The bank’s criteria included any purchase at a gun store, but not just guns. If someone bought a t-shirt, baseball hat, or even a trigger lock, that flagged their account for “review.”
Who Told Who?
Carlson reported that Bank of America identified 211 people and turned that information over to investigators without notifying those customers their private financial transaction data was being shared without their consent. Federal authorities interviewed at least one person, and that individual was cleared of any wrongdoing.
Bank of America dodged Carlson when confronted with the allegations it was singling out customers who made a purchase at a gun store. They said, “We don’t comment on our communications with law enforcement. All banks have responsibilities under federal law to cooperate with law enforcement inquiries in full compliance with the law.”
However, “compliance with the law” here is questionable at best. Bank of America didn’t say that the FBI subpoenaed the information. They only said they “cooperated.” Carlson pointed out that banks are allowed under 12 U.S.C. 3403 to provide information that “may be relevant to a possible violation of any statute or regulation.”
In Bank of America’s estimation, visiting a gun store and buying any product, much less a firearm that is protected by the Second Amendment, is suspicious enough to put their customers on a secret watch list without their knowledge.
The New York Post interviewed New York City’s former top cop who blasted the decision to hand over private financial data.
“That’s just not a good reason to hand over private information. If that’s the way they do business now, then the people of this country really have something to worry about,” said Bernard Kerik, a security consultant who headed the NYPD in 2000 and 2001.
Another former law enforcement official called the move “a fishing expedition.”
In a follow-up, Fox News’ Mark Steyn interviewed former federal prosecutor Francey Hakes, who noted Bank of America’s response was peculiarly-absent of any mention of “search warrants, court orders or subpoenas…” Hakes noted that the Fourth Amendment protects against searches that aren’t “particularized” or when a judge signs off an order to search the records of a specific individual based on evidence.
“Financial information is highly private in this country and is given heightened protection,” she added.
Telegraphed Move
So far, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo haven’t responded if they’ve conducted similar internal search efforts of customer information. Yet, this follows an antigun animus by Bank of America. In 2018, Bank of America announced they would end financial relationships with manufacturers of modern sporting rifles, which they erroneously called “military-style rifle.” The move followed a similar announcement by Citigroup.
Delving into private transactions and using big banks to approve of purchases isn’t a new idea. In fact, this is the fulfillment of New York Times’ columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin’s call for such action and who proposed the notion in 2017 and 2018. It was later parroted by Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke as a potential gun control program.
It also shouldn’t be surprising that big banks with antigun agendas are emboldened to violate their customers’ privacy, turn them out and label them as “extremist” and “domestic terrorist.” The Biden administration yanked the publication of the “Fair Access” banking rule by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. That gave banks the green light to continue to openly discriminate against firearm business, which is just privatization with a wink-and-nod to continue the illegal Operation Choke Point that was begun under the Obama administration.
It is no longer the Bank of America. It is a gun control cabal working to undermine American freedoms, label gun owners as criminals, and use their customers’ money and information as the tools to get it done. Welcome to the Bank of Gun Control America.
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 right 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
Consolidate all federal terrorism investigation intelligence under the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), strengthening the FBI’s capabilities and making sure dangerous individuals do not fall through the cracks.
Require the FBI Director and the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) be immediately notified of any request to transfer a firearm to an individual who was the subject of a federal terrorism investigation within the last 10 years.
When an individual who was the subject of a federal terrorism investigation within the last 10 years tries to obtain a firearm, allow the U.S. Attorney General to delay the purchase or transfer for up to ten business days and file an emergency petition in court to prevent the transfer. If the court finds probable cause that the individual is or has been engaged in terrorism, the Attorney General may arrest the individual.
Protect the due process rights of law-abiding Americans by ensuring emergency petitions filed by the Attorney General are only granted if the transferee receives notice of the hearing and has the opportunity to participate with legal counsel. If the court denies the Attorney General’s petition, the federal government is responsible for all reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees.
Require the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) to conduct an audit of the federal government’s terrorism screening and watch list procedures, and identify any problems in the processes of adding or removing individuals from the system. Based on the audit, the IC IG must then submit a report to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees with recommendations for improving the system.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Senator Marco Rubio introduces bill to suspend gun rights of anyone who has ever been ‘investigated’ for domestic terrorism,”The Unz Review reported Sunday. “The Senate bill, named the Terror Intelligence Improvement Act, was reentered last week in hopes of exploiting the hysteria surrounding the January 6th Capitol protests. The law intends to violate the civil liberties of American citizens who are not charged or convicted of a crime if somebody is deemed politically dangerous.”
“Reentered”?
Yes, Rubio tried this before in 2016 as a “kinder, gentler” alternative to a bill being pushed by then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. No doubt the rationale is if Republicans throw a scrap of flesh to the circling pack of Democrat jackals, it will satisfy them and keep them from pushing through something worse.
Like that works in nature.
You don’t give the gun-grabbers an inch because they will take it and then come back for more. They always have and you’d have to be an idiot not to see it. Their end goal has also been clear for anyone willing to admit the truth to the lie about “commonsense gun safety laws” and see them for what they are (and what their early “leaders’ have admitted to — incremental steps on the way to total disarmament).
And while Rubio’s bill makes noises about “due process,” those are just that. It would still remove guns from citizens not only not convicted of any crime, but not charged with any. And who among us has the financial resources to take on the government’s virtually limitless reserves in the hopes that the judge won’t be a robed Democrat apparatchik, and/or that the Roberts Supreme Court would hear our appeal if he was?
Then again, “due process” and “Marco Rubio” don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand, as Rubio’s flat-out lie of a promise that “A red flag law will reduce bloodshed and respect the rights of gun owners” shows anyone willing to look behind the weasel words.
So first “red flag laws” and now a “blacklist,” despite NRA assigning Rubio an “A+” rating and telling members he “has a proven record of support for our Second Amendment freedoms,” pointedly adding:
“Opposes Government Blacklists – Voted against denying persons on secret government lists their Second Amendment right to purchase or own a firearm without due process.”
What goes unsaid in all the “national security” flag-waving (ironically much of it being done by politicians who otherwise demonize nationalists as “extremists” and worse), is that if I were a terrorist, I’d want to be on the blacklist. That way, if I wanted to find out if I’d been made, I’d try to buy a gun, see if I was flagged, and plan my next evasion moves accordingly.
Suddenly the list isn’t so secret. I’m no surveillance pro, but isn’t it a cardinal rule not to let your subject know he’s being watched? The thought strikes: Maybe that’s not what this is really about?
OK, but what about all those other items on NRA’s list, all those things we’re told Rubio “opposes” and “supports”?
Most of them are meaningless happy talk: What does “Opposes Anti-Gun Supreme Court Justices” really mean when the whole system is set up to protect them – during their “job interview” – from telling us what the Founders intended when they declared “shall not be infringed”? And it’s easy to say you support permit “reciprocity” when you know the “Republican leadership” has no intentions of bringing a bill to the floor, and when your symbiotic relationship with NRA protects you from answering direct questions about “Constitutional” carry (really “permitless” carry, as gun bans and “gun-free zone” prohibitions, still apply).
That’s not saying Rubio hasn’t voted “right” much of the time and that an overt Democrat gun-grabber wouldn’t have voted “worse.” But the thing about that is, his (and other Republiquislings’) actions on another issue will ultimately undo and reverse every one of those “good” votes:
“Republican Senators Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, Susan Collins, and Thom Tillis will attend a Thursday “summit” meeting hosted by the “American Business Immigration Coalition,” a pro-amnesty group consisting of big business donors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as the George Soros-funded United We Dream organization.”
We know where that will lead, particularly after Joe Biden fast-tracks millions of illegals on his superhighway to citizenship: All credible polls and all real-world experience in places like California and Virginia demonstrate that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) will overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners. This will result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts. It will also result in confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date.
I know there are some who discourage such talk under the false assertion that we must focus exclusively on the “single issue.” Nonsense. Anything that threatens the right to keep and bear arms IS the single issue. These are the same people who tell us it’s OK for gun owners to consider other issues more important than guns and vote for Joe Biden. Again, nonsense. If appreciation of firearms and shooting was what mattered, we’d have no better friend than Lon Horiuchi. They’re (deliberately!) disregarding that it’s really not about guns at all. It’s about freedom, and nothing is more important than that.
So what do we do about politicians like Rubio?
If we don’t vote for him, we’ll get someone really, really bad, the common excuse goes, pretty confident that in the interim, we’re not going to be doing what we can to look for “primarying” alternatives. Based on the ratio of gun owners complaining about things to the number actually doing the hard and consistent work of organizing to change things, they probably have a point.
“Politics is the art of the possible,” a “gun rights leader” once told me, using silly platitudes to persuade me to tone down on the hardline rhetoric. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
How anyone afraid to push the envelope with just words is able to determine what is possible is beyond me. And forgive me for not acknowledging that a flexible-principled political ingrate subverting our efforts from inside the gates is “good.”
“He votes our way 90 percent of the time, the argument goes. Well then make the damn political rating reflect that. We’re smart enough to know the difference between a “C” and an “A,” and to present things otherwise smacks of cynical deception to maximize fundraising. And here I thought the object was to have an informed membership.
Just for argument’s sake, would you accept that level of “fidelity” from your wife or husband?
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.
In this episode Dinesh makes the case that the "great reset" is really an effort by the Left globally to create a "new man," by persuasion if possible, by force if necessary. AOC goes full Christine Blasey Ford:what's her motive? Dinesh also explains why Republicans sell out Marjorie Taylor Greene while the Democrats protect Ilhan Omar--who has been described as "ISIS with lipstick"-- at all costs. And newly elected Rep. Lauren Boebert joins Dinesh to talk about why she needs to carry a gun in the nation's capital. Dinesh D'Souza is an author and filmmaker. A graduate of Dartmouth College, he was a senior domestic policy analyst in the Reagan administration. He also served as a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of many bestselling books, including "Illiberal Education," "What's So Great About Christianity," "America: Imagine a World Without Her," "The Roots of Obama's Rage," "Death of a Nation," and "United States of Socialism." His documentary films "2016: Obama's America," "America," "Hillary's America," "Death of a Nation," and "Trump Card" are among the highest-grossing political documentaries of all time. He and his wife Debbie are also executive producers of the acclaimed feature film "Infidel."
In this episode of The Silent War, The Marxist Democrats seek to MAGA & wrong-think Whites in Federal Government & Military. No joke! 2nd Amendment death bill is being introduced! Updates on the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020-2021
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Leftists have made clear that they believe only the government should have guns, and a new bill proposed in Congress would be a huge step toward making this a reality.
Submitted January 4 by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act (H.R. 127) would, one observer warns, “end your 2nd Amendment rights permanently.”
The bill’s provisions are staggering, in fact, according to analysts who’ve tried to make sense of its technical language.
“First, HR 127 establishes a federal firearms registration system that will be accessible by federal, state, and local governments, including the military — even the GENERAL PUBLIC!” relates writer Howie Katz.
“The system will track the make, model, and serial number of all firearms, their owners, the dates they were acquired, and where they are being stored.”
Note that when The Journal News in Westchester County, New York, printed the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in its coverage area in 2013, it caused an uproar. And one point made at the time also applies to a universally accessible registration system: If someone wanted to rob you, he could know precisely how you were armed or if you were unarmed — and hence easy prey.
In fact, in that incident’s wake, the Rockland County Times “asked several former convicts what they thought about the publication of registration information,” related America’s 1st Freedom in 2016. “The convicts all agreed that it would be an outstanding list for burglars to use.”Moreover, making such records public can render you vulnerable to cancel-culture action in today’s political climate.
Worse still, H.R. 127 is retroactive, states author and blogger Michael Snyder. “Within three months, you would have to report to the government where you bought all of your guns, when they were purchased, and where they are currently being stored,” he writes.
Firearm owners “would also have to report the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to that individual,” adds Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms chairman Alan Gottlieb.
Of course, this makes it easy for the government to confiscate your weapons in the future. In fact, as in Australia, the historical pattern is for registration to precede confiscation.
Yet selective “confiscation” could occur long before the collective variety because H.R. 127 also requires licensing, inclusive of a psychological evaluation.
“The licensing requirement mandates that the license applicant undergoes a criminal background check, and then submits to a psychological evaluation to determine whether the person is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm,” as Gottlieb puts it. “Successful licensees must show they have an insurance policy which will cost $800.”
By the way, if a poll tax is illegal because it places an undue burden on the poor, why should what’s in essence a gun “tax” be allowed, especially since at issue is a constitutionally guaranteed right?
While Snyder points out that many guys wouldn’t want a government-approved psychologist assessing their mental fitness, more must be said. The reality is that the social sciences in general are a bastion of liberalism.
As Quartz wrote in a 2015 article titled “Social psychologists are almost all liberals — and it’s really hurting the field,” “In 2011, Professor Jonathan Haidt, of New York University’s Stern School of Business, asked a gathering of some 1,000 psychologists to raise their hands if they identified as politically conservative. Exactly three people did.”
Thus is it unsurprising that the social sciences have become what they are: the (pseudo)scientific arm of leftism. That is to say, liberals in politics make a claim, and social scientists provide a specious “scientific” basis for it.
Moreover, we’ve for years heard that conservatives are mentally ill. This columnist states that “Trumpism Qualifies as Psychosis,” for example, and Psychology Today has claimed that trump supporters generally have “5 key” negative traits and that they exhibit distortion of reality.
So what do you think the chances are that deviation from approved orthodoxy would be used, social-credit-score style, to deny gun licensing?
Yet there’s still more. According to Katz, “For the psychological evaluation, a licensed psychologist will interview individuals’ spouses and at least two other family members or associates to ‘further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms. Licenses will be denied to individuals hospitalized for issues such as depressive episodes; no duration for license disability is specified, and it does not matter whether the individual sought help voluntarily.”
“Finally, HR 127 also criminalizes the possession of ‘large-capacity magazines’ (those carrying greater than 10 rounds) and ‘ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater,’” Katz also writes.
“There is no grandfathering clause in Jackson Lee’s bill,” he continues. “That means if you have an old rusting .22 rifle sitting in … one of your closets, you will have to comply with all the provisions of the bill or face a heavy fine and possible imprisonment.”
The good news is that H.R. 127 does not as yet have any co-sponsors. The bad news is that it absolutely aligns with Democrats’ aims. So we should expect something of its nature to pass the House in the foreseeable future.
As Snyder points out, all of this is happening at precisely the time crime rates are skyrocketing because of many Democrats’ refusal to enforce just laws and their releasing of criminals onto the streets. So it’s not enough for the leftists to throw a cat to the wolves — they want to declaw him as well.
Of course, all this means far more if we confuse the feds with feudal lords and government with God. These proposals don’t mean as much if we on the state level just say to the feds, “If you can nullify constitutional amendments, we can nullify you.”
Does this look like the face of a man interested in unity? Joe Biden can’t unify the nation when he’s vowing to crush the rights of 100 million gun owners.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- In a video message broadcast by CNN, Democrat Joe Biden put the lie to his widely-reported intent to preach unity during his inaugural address to what essentially will be a capitol city occupied by some 22,000 National Guard troops by basically declaring war on about 100 million of his constituents.
“My first day in office,” he declares in the video, “I’m going to send a bill to Congress repealing the liability protection for gun manufacturers, closing the background check loopholes and waiting period that now let too many people slip through the cracks.”
The Guardian is reporting that Biden “ran as a rebuke to the divisiveness and cynicism of Trumpism, promising to ‘restore the soul of the nation’ and serve as a president for ‘all Americans.’” The story quotes former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang observing “that everything he does becomes the new reasonable.”
But just how “reasonable” is Biden’s widely-read plan to “end our gun violence epidemic” if it promises to pressure state governments to require licensing of private citizens before they can purchase a firearm?
Where does it say in the Constitution, and specifically in the Bill of Rights, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…provided you get a license from the state to exercise that right?
Biden’s plan, as Ammoland has previously reported, calls for a ban on the sale of so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines. How does it unify a nation by essentially criminalizing the property of an estimated 17-20 million honest citizens who have harmed nobody?
How “reasonable” is it to make citizens endure a “waiting period” before they can take possession of a firearm? No other right protected by the Constitution mandates a waiting period.
How “reasonable” does it sound when the President-elect releases a statement in which he pledges “to defeat the NRA?”While the National Rifle Association appears to have serious troubles—announcing last week it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as part of a strategy to “dump New York” and reorganize as a non-profit in Texas—the organization is as American as they come, with members from all walks of life, all races, creeds and corners of the country. As the announcement noted, NRA wants to be “free from the toxic political environment of New York.” NRA was incorporated in New York in 1871.
In his message to NRA members, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre noted the move to reincorporate in the Lone Star State is “subject to court approval.”
And it is true the NRA has its share of criticism within the firearms community. The Guardian reported one major donor to NRA may “challenge key aspects of the gun group’s bankruptcy filing, in an attempt to hold executives accountable for allegedly having defrauded their members of millions of dollars to support their own lavish lifestyles.”
There has been no small amount of discussion about the NRA’s announcement on social media, but Biden’s threat to “defeat” the 5-million-member association, which celebrates its 150th anniversary this year as the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, is like throwing down a gauntlet to tens of millions of gun owners who may not be members, but still consider NRA as their voice in Congress and state legislatures.
And this week, the Second Amendment Foundation—a separate gun rights organization specializing in education and litigation—is running a blistering 60-second commercial on more than a dozen networks, critical of Biden’s gun control scheme. SAF’s message encourages grassroots rights activists to join in a project called “2nd Amendment First Responders.” NRA’s announcement was followed by a ramped-up interest in this effort.
SAF and NRA have worked together in the past on legal actions, and they are currently partners in a lawsuit challenging an effort by the City of Seattle to violate Washington’s 35-year-old gun law preemption statute.
The SAF advertisement is scheduled to air 79 times during inauguration week, split among these networks: DirecTV, Fox News, Fox Business, CNN, MSNBC, The Weather Channel, One America News Network, CNBC, HLN, Bloomberg, Dish TV, the Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel.
“Biden wants to regulate and tax popular firearms and their magazines under the National Firearms Act, or mandate they be turned in through a so-called ‘gun buyback’ program that amounts to compensated confiscation,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Our campaign is alerting the nation about the extremist Biden-Harris agenda.”
Recently, after Biden tweeted his intention to defeat NRA, Gottlieb declared in a swift rebuttal, “He may attack one group by name, but his goal is to crush the rights of every gun owner in our country.
“By attacking the Second Amendment Rights of 100 million Americans,” he said, “Biden is not bringing us together but dividing us further.”
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.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- At a news conference on January 7th, President-elect Joe Biden announced he will nominate U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Judge Merrick Garland for Attorney General. Biden’s choice of a noted Second Amendment opponent to lead the Department of Justice is an overt assault on gun rights and gun owners.
Following the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Garland as Justice Scalia’s replacement. With an understanding of Garland’s unacceptable jurisprudence, NRA strongly opposed Garland’s nomination and the Senate wisely chose not to consider the nomination.
Garland’s anti-Second Amendment position is clear from his record. Garland does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. On March 9, 2007, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in Parker v. District of Columbia, the precursor to Heller v. District of Columbia. The opinion struck down the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the civilian ownership of handguns and recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Expressing disapproval of the panel’s ruling, Garland voted to rehear the case.
Moreover, Garland has worked to undermine a federal statute meant to protect gun owners from firearms registration. In the 2000 case NRA v. Reno, NRA sued to stop the Department of Justice from retaining successful National Instant Criminal Backgrounds Check System (NICS) transaction records in what the agency termed an “audit log.” In relation to NICS, federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(t)(2)(c)) requires the government to “destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.” In a three-judge panel, Garland joined a colleague to uphold this Department of Justice practice, imperiling the privacy of gun owners.
Given his long history of hostility towards the Second Amendment and gun owners, Judge Garland is the wrong choice to lead our nation’s Department of Justice.
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 right 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
ABOVE: If you’re on the list, fist-pumping Assemblyman Perry has plans for you! And he’s doing his utmost with “gun safety laws” to make sure it’s an offer you can’t refuse. (N Nick Perry/Facebook)
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Covid camps? Put disease ‘carriers’ in DETENTION CENTERS, proposed New York law suggests,” RT News reported Saturday. “Authored by a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly N. Nick Perry, Bill A416 calls for the ‘removal and/or detention’ of individuals who are identified as a ‘case, contact or carrier’ of a contagious disease.”
RT News? Aren’t they Russian? Doesn’t that mean they have an anti-American agenda, and anyone citing them is being their dupe?
My experience with them has been they’re just as good – if not better – than our homegrown DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media). They gave a forum for friend and colleague, the late Mike Vanderboegh, and me to have our say on the subjects of the militia keeping tyranny in check, and on open carry (even if they did mispronounce my name), subjects no domestic establishment outlet want to present unless they control the narrative.
Still, some will no doubt cling to the logical fallacy of discrediting the report based on who the messenger is, so don’t listen to them; listen to the language of the bill itself:
“Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease that, in the opinion of the governor, after consultation with the commissioner, may pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality, the governor or his or her delegee, including, but not limited to the commissioner or the heads of local health departments, may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons by issuing a single order, identifying such persons either by name or by a reasonably specific description of the individuals or group being detained. Such person or group of persons shall be detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his or her delegee…”
Clearly, there are plenty of questions that can’t be answered because no one really knows yet. But here is what can be answered, with certainty, if this obscene, tyrannical, and anti-American New York bill becomes enforceable law: Those are ultimately enforced at gunpoint. That means if you don’t want to go, they’re not giving you a choice. Likewise, if you want to leave the facility, expect armed “camp guards” to say “No.”
“Fortunately,” for New York, both Gov. Cuomo and Assemblyman Perry are both big advocates of what the totalitarian-minded like to call “commonsense gun safety laws.” Particularly, as Perry explains, against “weapons of mass destruction” (unless in the hands of enforcers, of course).
Just make sure you wear your masks and practice social distancing when the “conductor” yells “All aboard!” to take you to the “detention center”!
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.
Members of the public are reminded that DC CODE: § 7-2509.07 expressly prohibits anyone from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of any First Amendment activity, to include members of the public who have been issued a Concealed Carry Permit in the District of Columbia.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- New Jersey's tyrannical Attorney General, Gurbir Grewal, is adding to his dubious list of anti-Second Amendment activism. On 15 December 2020, Smith & Wesson sued Grewal, asking for relief, for using his office to violate the First Amendment, Second Amendment, as well as the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution.
Defense Distributed won a significant victory in September of 2020, with the Fifth Circuit agreeing Defense Distributed could sue AG Grewal in Texas. The case is ongoing and alleges Grewal violated Defense Distributed's First Amendment rights.
The Smith & Wesson lawsuit is about a subpoena issued on October 13, 2020, by Grewal, alleging fraud on the part of Smith & Wesson, for advertising with claims such as Smith & Wesson products are safe, or they enhance a person's lifestyle.
1. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to free speech “no matter whether the government disagrees with that speech. Benjamin Franklin articulated itthis way: “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government . . . . When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved.”1 Indeed, governments throughout history have abused their power by punishing speech to suppress dissent and harm political opponents.
2. Following in the abusive footsteps of these repressive regimes, the New Jersey Attorney General has taken a series of actions to suppress Smith & Wesson’s speech, and with the intention of damaging Smith & Wesson both financially and reputationally. The most recent such action is the issuance of an administrative subpoena (the “Subpoena”) on October 13, 2020 that allegedly seeks evidence of consumer fraud relating to advertising – but in reality, it seeks to Amendment agenda that the Attorney General publicly committed to pursue.
3. The Subpoena presents no legitimate inquiry into any purported fraud, and instead targets mere opinions and other protected statements allegedly made by Smith & Wesson, such as (1) whether Smith & Wesson’s products are “safe,” make a home safer, or enhance one’s lifestyle; (2) whether an untrained consumer could successfully and effectively use a Smith & Wesson firearm for personal or home defense; and (3) whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. The only fraud here is the Attorney General’s abuse of his position to suppress a political viewpoint with which he disagrees.
Grewal is expanding one of the lines of attack against the Second Amendment pioneered in Connecticut, where private parties sued Bushmaster in an attempt to avoid the protections given by the United States Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The lawsuit was allowed to proceed because it claimed Bushmaster violated a broad and vague provision of Connecticut consumer law. They claimed the lawsuit was valid, under the theory Remington had illegally marketed the rifle by “glorifying its use to civilians.” That appears to be a direct violation of Remington's First Amendment rights.
Gurbir Grewal is a Sikh, not a Muslim or Hindu. He was born in New Jersey of Indian immigrant parents. Grewal seems to be ignorant about guns. He grew up in an extremely restrictive firearms environment. New Jersey is one of six states which does not have protection for the right to keep and bear arms in its constitution. The other five without such a provision are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York.
Grewal's foundational philosophy appears to be a form of progressivism. Progressivism detests the concept of the Second Amendment in its bones.
With the unwillingness of the Court to take on Second Amendment cases for 10 years, many Second Amendment supporters were hopeful the appointment of three originalists by the Trump administration would break the logjam.
Now, the same supporters are wondering if the Court will uphold the First Amendment, or nullify the First Amendment when it comes to Firearms.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, 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.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Opinion Editors Note: Despite the negative outcome for customers the action of turning over FFL documents, in this case, customer 4473 forms from a firearms retailer that is closing is legally required under current federal law.
Signs Suggest Walmart to Turn Over Customer's 4473 Records to ATF
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Walmart could be transferring an estimated 20% of customer sales records for firearms purchases to the ATF. This information comes to AmmoLand News from a recently leaked internal ATF conference call.
A former ATF Assistant Director confirmed to AmmoLand News that Walmart plans to discontinue gun sales at 500 of its stores nationwide. As of January, of this year, 2388 Walmart stores sell guns.
Options
When an FFL closes a location the ATF allows the transfer of documents to a “successor” federal firearm licensed dealer. Walmart could transfer the 4473 records from those stores that are ending sales to another regional store location that still sells firearms.
If Walmart chose to, they could shield their customer's information from direct access by ATF.
Instead, Walmart appears to be handing over, for locations ending gun sales, the customer's records to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives (ATF).
Internal ATF communications appear to show the massive retailer's internal “compliance manager” is working with the ATF to transfer their records to the federal agency. The ATF will then scan all received documents into a searchable database. In recent years the ATF has started using high-speed scanners to catalog out of business FFL’s records into a searchable database using optical character recognition software (OCR).
Federal law prohibits the creation of a national gun registry. Yet, this appears to be what is happening, not only with Walmart’s records but all other out of business FFL records that are turned over at the close of business.
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.
Following the Law
The ATF is permitted by statute to collect “out of business records” from FFLs under 18 USC. Section 923(g)(4) (Where a firearms or ammunition business is discontinued [and is] absolute, such records shall be delivered within thirty days after the business discontinuance to the Attorney General). It is only recently that the ATF has started scanning the records into a searchable database. For many years, FFLs would ship their out of business records to the ATF’s “Out-Of-Business Records Center” in Martinsburg, WV. The records sat undisturbed unless there was something specific ATF needed to go looking for (such as tracing a firearm).
ATF National Tracing Center Division Flyer
AmmoLand News' internal sources provided evidence that the ATF has been employing third-party contractors with high-speed scanners to digitize these records, perform “optical character recognition” (OCR) on them, and transform the documents into a searchable database.
In other words, the ATF has or is in the process of creating a searchable registry of all firearms sold through now-defunct gun dealers.
By using this technology, the ATF could search on a person’s name and pull every gun purchase by the person from any dealer that has gone out of business. Soon this will include the 500 Walmart locations that appear to be in the process of turning over their records to the ATF. The ATF does not view this list as a de facto registry even though serial numbers, names, and addresses are searchable. The ATF’s recent changes to the 4473, which puts the firearms information on the front page, could speed up the creation of the database. This change will increase the speed a document can be indexed and retrieved for information.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) became aware of the scanning practice in May of this year, 2020. The GOA submitted an FOIA request to the ATF to determine what information is searchable, the policies surrounding the scanning of documents, and the current number of searchable records. The ATF has not responded to the FOIA request, leaving us wondering what the agency is hiding.
AmmoLand News reached out to Gun Owners of America and spoke to legislative counsel, Michael Hammond.
“The McClure-Volkmer Amendments prevents the federal government from keeping a gun registry,” Hammond told AmmoLand. “We have a federal agency that is supposed to be enforcing the law but is actually breaking the law. What type of country do we live in where law enforcement agencies are allowed to break the law?”
AmmoLand reached out to Walmart for comment, but the retail giant did not return AmmoLand News’ calls.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Honest citizens should enjoy the right to assemble their own firearms for lawful purposes, and they should be able to do so without being terrorized by their government.” — GOA's Erich Pratt, AmmoLand, December 11, 2020.
For years, Polymer80 has been producing “80% complete” lower receivers which the ATF determined to be incomplete and non-regulatable by the ATF as firearms. These receivers require holes to be drilled and surfaces filed before they become an actual, usable receiver, hence the term 80% receiver.
You might have heard an anti-gunner refer to a completed homemade firearm as a “ghost gun” before.
According to the ATF in numerous letters to Polymer80, their 80% receivers did not require a manufacturer's license, the unconstitutional Pittman-Robertson tax, a serial number, or a NICS check before purchase.
Anti-gunners have been advocating for a ban on homemade firearms for years, even recently appealing to the Trump Administration.
Once again, the ATF appears to be reversing its longstanding interpretive guidance and is arbitrarily redefining a crucial term to enact a gun ban.
The ATF did raid or show up at other companies that sell other kits that include 80% part kits, barrels, and slides that are not Polymer80. AmmoLand News sources inside the ATF say that the agency is now considering 80% kits with all the parts needed to finish a pistol as a firearm. None of the companies had any warning on the change to ATF’s regulations before actual agents showed up making attempts to retrieve customer information.
Apparently, the ATF now considers an 80% lower receiver sold with a parts kit — such as the one offered by Polymer80 as a Buy Build Shoot Kit — to be a firearm requiring a background check. .
But the statute defining a firearm hasn’t changed.
ATF Leadership 2020 Acting Director Regina Lombardo & Associate Deputy Director Marvin Richardson
What did change?
ATF is arbitrarily redefining firearms using interpretive guidance. Acting Director of the ATF Regina Lombardo must feel emboldened by the apparent victory of presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Her reported priorities? Pistol braces and 80% receivers.
But this is more than cooperating with a transition team. Lombardo has begun advancing the Biden-Harris gun control agenda during the Trump Administration!
Aidan Johnston Director of Federal Affairs Gun Owners of America
PS: If any readers have been contacted by ATF regarding 80% receivers or Polymer80 products please contact AmmoLand News.
About Gun Owners of America
GOA spokespeople are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America, and its sister organization Gun Owners Foundation, are nonprofits dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. For more information, visit GOA at www.gunowners.org.
The McCloskeys successfully defended themselves and their home from an Antifa mob, after which they were smeared relentlessly by the media. Criminal charges were brought against them by one of the most leftist cities in the nation. (St. Louis, Missouri). The political nature of those charges has just been exposed. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/
Judge dismisses St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner from Mark McCloskey case
The couple's attorneys argued Gardner's email solicitations for campaign contributions demonstrated she and her office have a personal interest in the case
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
In late November, the Trump administration took its firmest action yet to counteract ongoing banking discrimination against firearms-related companies.. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In late November, the Trump administration took its firmest action yet to counteract ongoing banking discrimination against businesses that serve America’s gun owners. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a significant banking regulator, issued a proposed rule to prohibit politically-motivated service denials and to ensure large, nationwide banks would have to make offered products available to all law-abiding customers without ideological bias.
Of all the Obama/Biden administration’s attacks on the Second Amendment, Operation Choke Point (OCP) was one of the most insidious. Frequent readers of this page will recall how federal banking regulators, under the guise of shielding banks and the public from fraud, pressured financial service providers against doing business with lawful but politically-disfavored customers. These included sellers of firearms and ammunition, which were specifically singled out as “high risk” by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in regulatory guidance provided to banks in 2011.
What made these firearm-related businesses high risk? In the circular reasoning of OCP, it wasn’t their creditworthiness or financial performance but the “reputation risk” they supposedly posed to banks that, so the story went, could anger third parties by serving the “high risk” clients. And the regulators made sure the banks understood that no one might be angrier than the regulators themselves: failing to heed their “risk-based” guidance could subject the banks to costly and embarrassing investigations. The simple solution was for the banks to avoid conducting business with “high risk” customers entirely.
The Obama/Biden administration retreated from OCP when Congressional investigators and other watchdogs revealed its obvious wrongdoing. The FDIC revised its infamous 2011 regulatory guidance in 2014, and issued further clarification in 2015, refocusing on case-by-case risk management, rather than debanking of entire industries. Nevertheless, the regulators portrayed the furor over OCP as a big misunderstanding, with banks supposedly overreacting to legitimate attempts to hinder scammers.
Subsequent events, however, confirmed that political activists were indeed deliberately trying to weaponize the financial services industry against the targets of their activism.
On February 18, 2018, the New York Times published an infamous essay by Andrew Ross Sorkin that called upon the financial services industry to adopt restrictions on relationships with gun companies to demonstrate its commitment to “moral responsibility.” The plan was for banks and payment processors to defund activities – like the making and sales of semiautomatic rifles – that anti-gun activists had unsuccessfully lobbied the political branches to ban.
Sorkin’s proposal, like OCP, recognized that financial services are the lifeblood of any successful business. But the pressure this time was to come from the social justice mob, not faceless government bureaucrats. The new OCC rulemaking actually cites Sorkin’s article as an example of how politics have infected the provision of financial services.
Even some in the government itself have retroactively embraced the tactics of OCP. After anti-gun Democrats took over control of the House Financial Services Committee following the 2018 midterms, the committee hauled a Wells Fargo Bank executive to a hearing to berate him for, among other things, the bank’s transactions with gun companies.
Other banks, Rep. Carolyn D. Maloney (D-NY) lectured, had forced their firearm-related customers to adopt “best practices” that limited the scope of their lawful activities. These practices just happened to mirror unsuccessful legislative proposals pushed by anti-gun Democrats, that included such constitutionally dubious measures as refusing to sell otherwise-legal long guns to otherwise-eligible adults of military age. To his credit, the executive stood his ground, asserting, “We just don’t believe that it is a good idea to encourage banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”
The tenor of the hearing, however, made it unmistakably clear that certain committee members were unabashedly trying to pressure the bank to curb its business with certain customers, not because those customers were behaving illegally, but because the committee members found them objectionable.
For its part, the Trump administration explicitly repudiated OCP, with the U.S. Department of Justice (which had participated in OCP under the Obama/Biden administration) providing written assurance to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee that the program had been terminated and would not be revived. Characterizing OCP as a “misguided initiative conducted during the previous administration,” the DOJ’s Aug. 16, 2017, letter stated:
“the Department will not discourage the provision of financial services to lawful industries, including businesses engaged in … firearms-related activities.”
Still, whether from lingering doubts left by OCP or in the vain hope of appeasing the social justice grievance lobby, some of America’s biggest banks have continued to shun lawful, creditworthy, and financially sound businesses within the firearm and ammunition sectors.
The proposed OCC rule aims to end politically-motivated manipulation of the financial service industry and to require large banks to provide fair access to all the products they offer to law-abiding customers who are able to satisfy predetermined “quantitative, impartial risk-based standards.” It reiterates that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires “fair treatment of customers by . . . the institutions” subject to its jurisdiction. The rule would therefore establish enforceable standards of fairness for America’s largest banks. Those standards would prevent activists and banks from conspiring to deprive otherwise eligible customers of financial services for purely political reasons.
The rule, in other words, would refocus banks on doing their jobs of helping to promote lawful economic activity and managing financial risk while leaving policy decisions about what sorts of businesses are permissible in the first place to the political branches and the U.S. Constitution.
While some have questioned whether it is an appropriate role for government to tell private banks who they must provide financial services to, the major banks affected by the proposed rule have themselves been the beneficiary of support by American taxpayers. As Senator Kennedy (R-La.) pointed out last year, “[b]anks should not be able to discriminate against lawful customers on the basis of social policy. The banks should keep in mind that these lawful customers are the same hard-working taxpayers who bailed them out during the recession.”
Beyond bailouts during the recession, major banks regularly benefit from taxpayer dollars. We noted just this year that
“[m]any of the same institutions that discriminate against lawful firearm activity are now the clearinghouses for the COVID-19 SBA loan programs, reportedly picking up billions of taxpayer dollars for processing fees along the way.”
If major banks get to benefit at the expense of the American taxpayer, especially at times when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, then, at a minimum, they can be required to respect those same Americans’ constitutional rights.
The OCC is accepting comments on the rulemaking through the government’s online regulatory portals, (among other options) until Jan. 4, 2021. The NRA encourages all firearm-related businesses that have been harmed by political discrimination in the provision of financial services to provide their respectful and constructive feedback on the proposal.
We also thank the Trump Administration and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks for their leadership in seeking to restore fairness and sanity to the nationwide market for financial products. Ideological discrimination in the services businesses need to survive is a shameful, pernicious, and thoroughly un-American trend. The proposed OCC rule is a welcomed step toward eliminating it.
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 right 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
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
So you’re on the House Intelligence Committee, and you take into your inner circle a national from our main geopolitical adversary — which just happens to be a nation dictating that all its citizens must engage in spying when asked. What could possibly go wrong?
What could possibly go wrong is what did: Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) ended up with a Chinese spy in his midst, a comely young woman named Fang Fang (a.k.a. “Christine Fang”)
What’s more, the married politician is accused of having had a sexual affair with Fangs. This would make it a classic “honey pot” scenario, which is when an operative initiates a relationship with a target in order to gain influence over him (and a married Intel. Committee member is ripe for blackmail).
Moreover, Fangs sank her teeth into other politicians as well, as she also “allegedly slept with at least two Midwestern mayors while cozying up to a slew of pols across the country in a bid to infiltrate the US political system,” reports the New York Post.
In fairness, it’s not believed Fangs obtained classified information, and Swalwell did break ties with her in 2015 after being warned of her activities in a “defensive briefing.” Yet what does making ties with her in the first place say about his, and the other politicians’, judgment?
More on that momentarily. But first we have some story details about the “Chinese Mata Hari,” as the Post dubs Fangs.
The fetching Beijing spy “entered the US through California as a college student in 2011 — and spent the next four years wooing everyone from local politicos to US congressmen, said the Web site Axios, citing current and former US intelligence officials,” the paper related.
Aside from Swalwell, Fangs “also once helped raise funds for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), sources said,” the Post further informs. The paper continues:
“She was on a mission,’’ a US counter-intelligence official said of Fang — and it included plenty of seduction before the feds got wind of her antics and she vanished in 2015.
The idea was for Fang to maneuver herself into key government circles — and sometimes politicians’ beds — to gain personal information about them while ingratiating herself with unwitting potential up-and-coming heavy-hitters, intelligence sources told Axios.
US officials know of at least two mayors who had romantic relationships with Fang, likely now in her late 30s or early 40s, for about three years, the site said.
The accused spy had sex with an Ohio mayor in a car, an incident caught on FBI electronic surveillance, an intelligence official said.
The mayor asked Fang at one point why she was into him, and she allegedly replied that she needed to improve her English.
(And, not suspicious at all, that’s always a great reason to jump into bed with somebody!)
As for the congressman, why did Swalwell fall well for Fangs? Aside from the allure of being a comely coed, Axios tells us that the spy “took part in fundraising activity for Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign, according to a Bay Area political operative and a current U.S. intelligence official.”
“Swalwell’s office was directly aware of these activities on its behalf, the political operative said,” the site continued.
In addition, Fangs “helped Swalwell secure the support of his district’s Asian-American community,” according to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
To be clear, Shanghai Swalwell isn’t accused of illegality, but he may be guilty of two other “itys”: immorality and stupidity. And for certain, as Carlson points out (video below), he doesn’t belong on the Intel. Committee.
In fact, Swalwell was a prime target for Chinese espionage, stated ex-federal prosecutor Brett Tolman, a former counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Swalwell had to have known this, too, informs Tolman.
What’s more, there were enough red flags with Fangs to drive a bull to Xanax. Consider:
She’d just arrived from China, an aggressively imperialistic nation and our main geopolitical adversary.
Beijing is infamous for infiltrating American power structures.
Many Chinese are intensely nationalistic; politically correct “internationalism” isn’t in their vocabulary.
Shortly after arriving, Fangs tried to insert herself into the American political system.
She’s an attractive young woman, precisely the kind of honey-pot operative an intelligence agency would use.
So what explains Swalwell’s Shanghai surprise? Stupidity first comes to mind, but the second possibility is even more troubling.
Leftists’ identity politics/cultural affirmative action mentality corrupts their judgment. That is to say, instead of seeing red flags with Fangs, she’d get hiring points because she’s non-white. She’d get more points because she was a foreigner and, oh my, even (likely) had an accent! What a chance to value-signal and show how enlightened you are!
But there’s a reason our Constitution contains a natural-born clause relating to the presidency. Oh, this doesn’t mean an immigrant can’t become a good citizen, and there certainly have been native-born American traitors. Nonetheless, it’s logical to suspect that a recently arrived foreigner’s heart will lie with his native country — and a Chinese national should set off alarm bells.
The third possibility is that, as with too many leftists, Swalwell just doesn’t care about our country at all. And power-lust does appear his only principle, as his frequent lying about President Trump and mythical “Russian collusion” evidenced (meanwhile, he was the one subject to foreign influence).
Of course, two or all of the above possibilities likely explain Swalwell’s behavior. He may not be a Manchurian congressman, but he’s surely a bad one.
And the bottom line about Fangs’ role with Swalwell is, was that really a job Americans won’t do? She didn’t belong there, period — and the congressman doesn’t belong on the Intelligence Committee.
Then again, maybe Swalwell just wanted to help Fangs improve her English. What are we, all cynics now?
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Democrat Joe Biden sent another strong signal about the direction on guns his administration will take by announcing his pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services is Xavier Becerra, the anti-gun California attorney general who replaced another gun prohibitionist, Kamala Harris, when she was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Becerra is the defendant in several ongoing gun rights lawsuits filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and others. He’s been sued at least five times by SAF.
If he is confirmed as HHS Secretary next year, he will be in a position to put the full force of the federal government behind the notion that guns are a health risk.
Various anti-Second Amendment groups have been crusading for years to declare “gun violence” a public health crisis. None of these groups ever seem to create a ripple in the news when there is a fatal stabbing or someone is bludgeoned to death. Becerra would likely get plenty of support from such organizations.
But he may have trouble being confirmed depending upon the outcome of the double Senate election in Georgia on January 5th. If Republican incumbents Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue are re-elected, it gives the GOP a thin majority. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Alabama already said he will vote against confirming Becerra.
Fox News is reporting “Republicans slammed President-elect Joe Biden after he announced his choice of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for secretary of Health and Human Services on Monday, and they criticized Becerra's record on abortion and other issues.”
Conservative groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Susan B. Anthony List has labeled Becerra an “extremist,” Fox added. Religious leaders are also slamming the choice, again on the abortion issue.
In September, Becerra’s office made a big splash with the announcement that he was leading a “coalition” including the anti-gun Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence “in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) correct its interpretation of what qualifies as a firearm.”
The lawsuit is aimed at defining so-called “80 percent” frames as firearms.
It’s no small wonder why Giffords Executive Director Peter Ambler issued a ringing endorsement of Becerra when news broke Monday about Biden’s pick.
“After four years of Donald Trump, Americans desperately need strong leadership from the top to confront public health crises like the coronavirus pandemic and gun violence,” Ambler said in a prepared statement. “Xavier Becerra is a superb choice to take charge of Health & Human Services, which will have one of the most critical missions in the Biden-Harris Administration. Becerra has an impressive record of taking action to protect and improve public health, he’s been a partner in the fight against gun violence, never backing down from special interests like the gun lobby in his mission to save lives. We look forward to working with him and the rest of the cabinet to address gun violence.”
No doubt most of the resistance to Becerra will relate to the abortion issue, but Becerra would remain no friend to American gun owners as head of HHS.
Last year, when a killer opened fire at the annual Garlic Festival in Gilroy with a semi-auto rifle he brought from neighboring Nevada, Becerra lamented “We cannot enforce California laws in Nevada.”
At the time, KGO reported that despite California’s restrictive gun control laws prohibiting the sale or import of so-called “assault rifles” into the state, “the suspected gunman brought one into the state.”
Gun rights activists shook their heads because the media, and Becerra, missed the point entirely. Determined killers will ignore gun control laws and find ways to commit their heinous acts. Transporting the gun into California simply underscored the problem with such laws: They don’t really prevent crimes.
While he was in the state assembly representing California’s Legislative District 31, Democrat Becerra voted against legislation prohibiting junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers for crimes committed by third parties misusing their firearms. He voted against reducing the waiting period for firearms purchases from three days to one day. He was rated “F” by the National Rifle Association.
Biden is in the midst of picking people to fill his cabinet positions as the possibility of any reversal of the election grows increasingly remote. Over the weekend, President Trump traveled to Georgia in an effort to get out the vote for Loeffler and Perdue, while insisting he won the state and contending he won elsewhere.
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.
"Joe Biden will nominate California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) as secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the department notorious for railroading religious freedom via the Obamacare contraception mandate. Becerra has attacked religious freedom and free speech with zeal at the beck and call of radical-Left activists in Planned Parenthood and other groups."
"Becerra has abused his power as attorney general in pursuit of silencing pro-life activists and organizations."
Becerra also vigorously defended a California law that mandated pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), most of which are pro-life, must advertise abortion on placards.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Biden's nomination of CA AG Becerra is a bad omen for American's gun rights.
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- President-elect Joe Biden is taking an early turn to the far left with his nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to take over the Department of Health and Human Services.
That nomination would put a firebrand gun control collaborator at the helm of the nation’s leading health organization delivering services and support of scientific advances in medicine, public health, and social services. This is a harbinger that the federal office that employs 80,000 and has a $1.3 trillion budget will be used to push an antigun ideology over science. Attorney General Becerra’s nomination means that the next four years will be an administration pushing firearm ownership as a public health crisis and using the cover of a national health emergency to trample on Constitutional rights.
Attorney General Becerra’s public career started in California, working as a deputy attorney general for California’s Department of Justice before he was elected to the State Assembly, then to the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993-2017. He left Congress when he was chosen by California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to succeed U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as California’s Attorney General.
California Gun Control Parade
When it comes to gun control, California’s jockeying to lead the parade with Attorney General Becerra as the drum major waving the giant stick. He’s embroiled in two lawsuits challenging California gun control laws that could have national impacts. The first is Duncan vBecerra, a case challenging California’s ban on standard capacity magazines, or what the state labels “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs). In 2000, the state banned the sale of new magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, but a 2016 voter initiative called Proposition 63 made possessing those magazines purchased before the ban illegal. U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez blistered the law in his ruling that it’s unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling earlier this year.
Another high-profile challenge to California’s onerous gun control laws is Miller vBecerra, a case that challenges the state’s nearly 20-year ban on modern sporting rifles, or what they knowingly mislabel “assault rifles.” That case, too, was brought before Judge Benitez, who ruled the law was unconstitutional. Attorney General Becerra also appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where it was denied a motion to dismiss the case.
That’s Not All
Attorney General Becerra’s fights to place stumbling blocks in the way of lawful firearm ownership don’t just involve modern sporting rifles and their magazines. He’s also defending a law that requires universal background checks for ammunition purchases. California passed a law requiring background checks for ammunition sales, which was challenged by U.S. Olympic Gold Medalist Kim Rhode. The case, Rhode vBecerra, challenges the burdensome regulation that was fraught with inaccuracies and outages. Judge Benitez thrashed that law and issued a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the law. Attorney General Becerra again appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and won a stay against the preliminary injunction while the case awaits hearing there.
Attorney General Becerra also led the defense of California’s slow-motion handgun ban. In Pena vHoran, a challenge to California’s Unsafe Handgun Act that bans handguns in common use for lawful purposes. That case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but denied review last summer, along with nine other firearm-related cases. He also defended the law in NSSF v State of California, filed in 2014 that went to the California Supreme Court, the state’s mandate to incorporate microstamping technology for firearms that doesn’t exist. In 2007, California gun control advocates knew they couldn’t outright ban handguns, so they put a condition on their approved sale. They would be required to incorporate technically-unfeasible microstamping technology, that would make identifying marks on two places of each cartridge casing fired from the firearm. The state’s Department of Justice created a list of “approved” handguns that’s only shrunk. They haven’t added a new semiautomatic handgun since 2013 when then-Attorney General Kamala Harris triggered the law. A new law passed in California last session only speeds that shrinking roster. The new law calls for three handguns to be removed for every new one added.
Wrong Prescription
The problem with Attorney General Becerra leading the nation’s health agency is that any issue he finds politically unfavorable can be labeled a public health crisis and be used to justify unprecedented restrictions on Constitutionally-protected individual liberties. Gun control advocates have been trying to do this for years as if criminal activity could be cured with a pill. Thinking this wouldn’t happen would be foolish. The evidence abounds that this not only could happen, it has and is happening. The COVID pandemic saw governors order firearm retailers and ranges to close, reversing course only after threats of lawsuits, or their orders were tossed out by judges. Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo trampled on religious liberties by attempting to block people from attending services at churches and synagogues. They didn’t stop until the courts told them, and even then, they’re grousing that they’re the authority.
They’re neglecting that they are accountable to the people. That’s us. Don’t expect Attorney General Becerra to be any different at the Department of Health and Human Services. He’ll make you swallow the gun control pill and it will come in one color. Blue.
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
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Last week, Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed a pair of pro-Second Amendment bills that had passed both chambers of the Legislature with solid support. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Last week, Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed a pair of pro-Second Amendment bills that had passed both chambers of the Legislature with solid support. The move was not unexpected, given that the anti-gun Governor has been unilaterally demonstrating his disdain for freedom and liberty for months.
Nevertheless, we want to thank the legislators who took a bold stand for the rights of Pennsylvanians. House Bill 2440 and House Bill 1747 had both passed the Senate in November on votes of 29-20 after easily clearing the House earlier this Fall. These bills were written to protect constitutionally guaranteed rights during declared states of emergencies.
House Bill 2440, by Rep. Bill Kortz, would have designated shooting ranges, sportsman clubs, hunting facilities, and business relating to the sale or production of firearms and ammunition as life-sustaining. House Bill 1747, by Rep. Matthew Dowling, would have prevented state and local governments from suspending or limiting the sale, dispensing, or transportation of firearms during a declared emergency. It also would have removed the carry prohibitions that exist with exemptions.
COVID-19, and the closures occurring across much of the country, have forced a reexamination of statutes in many states with regard to declared states of emergency. Citizens are guaranteed basic fundamental rights that should never be infringed, particularly in these tumultuous times. We have witnessed firsthand the inability of the government to protect people, and it is absolutely essential that citizens be able to provide for their own self-defense, especially during a declared state of emergency. While Gov. Wolf's veto is disappointing, NRA will continue to fight for the rights of all Pennsylvanians.
We would like to thank all of the NRA members who contacted their legislators and the Governor.
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 right 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
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The Biden-Harris ticket could spell the end of the Second Amendment if elected. IMG NRA-ILA
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- While there are still recounts and likely litigation to take place in several close states, there is a very real possibility that Joe Biden will get the necessary 270 electoral votes to take the Oval Office. With two Senate races in Georgia going to January runoffs, there is a chance for a pro-Second Amendment majority, but even then, there will be threats to our rights.
Judicial Nominations
Biden will work to nominate anti-Second Amendment extremists to the federal bench, which means that at the Supreme Court, we will likely see 6-3 in favor of the Second Amendment as the best case option (pray for the health of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito). Then of course, should the Senate fall, there is the very real threat of packing the Supreme Court with anti-Second Amendment extremists. The threat to the landmark Heller and McDonald cases is very real, and it is very imminent.
A Weaponized IRS Attacks Pro-Second Amendment Groups
You think it was just about Trump, right? Wrong. A Biden Administration means that anti-Second Amendment extremists will be seeking to silence their opposition. Remember, one of Elizabeth Warren’s campaign promises was to sic the IRS on the National Rifle Association. Don’t think that other pro-Second Amendment groups will be safe, either. Whether you prefer the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, or the Firearms Policy Coalition, a Biden Administration will sic the IRS on them, too.
ATF Regulations
That AR-15 pistol with a brace? That just became a short-barreled rifle, subject to the National Firearms Act. That will likely just be the first of many regulations. They won’t just be to put some firearms out of meaningful reach, though. You can bet other regulations will be used to drive up the cost for FFLs to do business, and still others will be aimed at making it harder to exercise our Second Amendment rights.
Environmental Regulations
Hunters and other participants in the shooting sports have long been among those who most want to protect this country’s natural beauty and help wildlife. But they will actually be among those facing the worst in the name of the environment. The biggie? Forget the traditional ammo. That will be targeted. In addition, you can bet that the Biden Administration’s ideas for public lands do not involve access to them for hunters and others who take part in the shooting sports. And of course, the less access to hunting, the less hunters there are, and fewer people who (in the mind of Biden and others) have a justifiable “need” to own guns.
The Bully Pulpit
One of the big risks with Joe Biden as President is that he often “sells” his push for infringements on our Second Amendment rights with a somewhat effective outreach to hunters and others. This will be magnified by a media that will turn the Briefing Room into a steno pool. You can bet we will find our efforts to protect ourselves from being punished for crimes and acts of madness that we didn’t commit will have us be characterized as accessories before the fact to the next mass shooting. Worse, this bully pulpit will be used to coordinate corporate gun control, which is far more resistant to grassroots pressure.
Control of the Justice Department
Under President Trump, Second Amendment supporters and pro-Second Amendment groups had an ally in the upcoming legal battles, like the Duncan case, which could head to the Supreme Court. Should Biden hold on, now the Justice Department will be arguing in favor of anti-Second Amendment laws. While this may not make a big difference with the current court, what happens if the court is packed?
The fact is a Biden presidency is very dangerous for the Second Amendment. Second Amendment supporters will need to be ready for a very desperate fight for the next two to four years, and we will not come out unscathed.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
If Joe Biden is elected president, millions of gun owners would suddenly owe taxes on weapons they already own and millions would see the Justice Department deployed to confiscate their entire arsenal.
Specifically, Biden has announced that as president he would require everyone who owns an AR-15 to register that weapon per the mandates of the National Firearms Act of 1934. That would amount to a surcharge of $200 for each AR-15 in your arsenal.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) estimates that there are at least 18 million AR-15s owned by Americans. That’s a low-ball estimate.
Do the math: That’s $3.6 billion in new taxes. It should be noted, however, that there’s no way a President Biden would stop at slapping taxes and registration requirements on AR-15s. Nope.
On his campaign website, Biden describes the Second Amendment as “limited” and boasts that if he’s elected he would:
enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality.
What happens, though, if Congress refuses to enact such sweeping, unconstitutional legislation? Biden’s got a pen! Again, from his own campaign website:
“While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.”
There it is. That’s the sort of autocratic, authoritarian government we’ve seen established over the past several decades. Any time a president — of either party — doesn’t want to wait on the lawmakers to make laws, they simply take the cap off a pen and sign a decree, claiming it’s done under their “constitutional authority.”
Biden’s war on “weapons of war” won’t end there, though. He promises he will “restrict the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.”
You read that right. As president, Joe Biden would not only tax the guns you already own, but he would prohibit the sale of “assault weapons” and he would restrict every American to only purchasing one weapon — one Biden-approved weapon — per month.
Biden’s gun grab will include re-enacting the requirement that the Social Security Administration and the Veterans Administration report to the federal background check system anyone who has sought treatment for mental illness.
To President Trump’s credit, this humiliating attack on veterans was one of the first federal programs he repealed upon taking office. Biden would bring it back.
If for some reason you’ve not completed your background check within 10 days, Biden would order the FBI to inform him so that he can “eliminate this occurrence.”
A thorough reading of Biden’s campaign website reveals that there is no firearm he won’t confiscate, no firearm he won’t tax, no firearm he won’t regulate, no firearm he won’t restrict, and no American who would, during his administration, enjoy the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
Then, with all those prohibitions are in place, Biden promises to put boots on the ground to make sure all those weapons are confiscated. Here’s the promise from his website:
As president, Biden will direct the FBI and ATF to outline a model relinquishment process, enact any necessary legislation to ensure relinquishment when individuals newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions, and then provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to establish effective relinquishment processes on their own.
Not only would a president Biden bring to bear the full force of the federal government to enforce his gun confiscation scheme, but he would co-opt the money, means, and men of states and towns, too. The bottom line: He will get your guns. Period.
Do not underestimate Joe Biden’s commitment to confiscation. He will stop at nothing to see all “weapons of war” and “assault weapons” removed from the hands (and homes) of civilians and placed in the exclusive control of the federal government.
If states permit the federal government to rob the people of their ability to resist tyranny, then all other liberties will be at the mercy of that same federal force, for a disarmed populace is a slave populace.
On November 3, more is at stake than just the name on the White House letterhead. The ability of Americans to resist the imposition of armed tyranny will be on the ballot, as well.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Marxism is infecting America and, as predicted, is now our guns’ and liberty’s greatest enemy. The 2020 election is turning out to be the deciding vote for or against communism in America.
The Real Threat to Your Guns Is Not Just Rust & Dirty Politicians
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The biggest threat to your fundamental right – your right to keep and bear arms – may not be what you’ve always feared. It may not be new laws. The risk may not even be from the two main political parties, though they both need constant watching, as Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers warned.
No, the threat may be coming from something we were keenly alerted to back in the 1950s and 1960s, which we’ve grown inured to, bored with, discarded onto history’s trash heap. We may have forgotten it as a guns-and-ammo threat, but it’s still there. As alive as ever, active as ever, working its nefarious magic, seeking to take every gun you own, every round of ammunition you possess, either by direct force or through subversive covert action. That enemy is our old friendly villain, Marxism, and communism.
Marxism and Communism
Marxism and communism is now in control of fully one-third of the world’s population and making inroads here in the USA. Mass media, infected with that scourge, is not alerting us. They hide it, disguise it, aiding and abetting a mortal enemy of our Constitutional Republic.
Thomas Jefferson warned, “Be eternally vigilant” to preserve freedom. He could never have imagined an enemy like Karl Marx. The rioting, looting, arson, and upheaval we have witnessed on our televisions every night, is being run by dedicated Marxists with announced plans, signage, upraised fists. They make no secret of it. Class warfare. Call it “racism” if you want, but that’s not it, we are as free from racism as any nation you can name, which is why American immigration is basically a one-way street – all inbound. No one is breaking into Cuba, China, Africa, or lining roadways escaping here. These nightly mobs have communist influences and international provocateurs at their heart. Leaving you armed to resist is not their plan.
In fact, leaving your police armed to resist is not the plan either. Stop and think. Could true Democrats or Republicans support any version of eliminating armed police, abandoning swaths of cities to mobs? No. They have been overwhelmed by a mindset, a propaganda wave, a core tool of communism. The very brainwash that turned 5,000 years of a brilliant Chinese empire’s art, music, religion, history, culture and the rest, into a monolithic, terrified, follow-the-leader brutal dictatorship is here, proposed right now, in your face.
“The United States will eventually fly the communist flag. The American people will hoist it themselves.” ~ Nikita Khrushchev
The proof is in writing, in Congress (HR5717), and the Senate (S3254). While our primary gun-rights networks have been distracted with familiar lists of horribles – these bills have them all – the real gun bans are more subtle, more total, and more devastating than anything our enemies ever presented before.
You’ve heard these before. Sure, it’s not good. At least it’s familiar, mostly:
AR-15 Confiscation
AR-15 Lookalike Confiscation
Ammunition and Magazine Limits
Shopping Restrictions
Carry and Loaded-Possession Bans
Semi-auto Bans
Bans by gun type – Including guns with grips
Taxation on Arms, Ammo, Accessories
Registration Schemes
Background Checks
Personal Transfer Bans
Private Sale Bans
Gun Show Bans
Training Restrictions
A “Heller Ban,” Overturned in D.C. by the U.S. Supreme Court, no loaded or accessible gun at home unless under attack
None of that matters though. It’s a distracting smokescreen – a diversion. Hidden in page after page of gun bans and conditions, no one will be allowed to have a gun or ammo at all – including anything you already own – without the new “comprehensive” federal gun license. That’s only issued at an official’s discretion.
Democrats wrote this and put it in both houses of Congress, ignoring the fire it sets to the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. Republicans have stayed quiet, regardless of their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Gun ownership under Democrat’s control requires a psychological evaluation. There is no indication who will conduct this, or how it might be appealed if unfavorable. An unelected federal board of decision-makers will decide:
Are you of “sound mind and character” (no standards described, to be Board determined later);
Do you have “factors that suggest that the individual could potentially create a risk to public safety” (what armed citizen doesn’t potentially pose such a risk?);
Do you meet or fail to meet “any other requirements the State determines relevant” (to be set after elections, without any statutory parameters – completely arbitrary limitless control);
And then authorities shall, “make a determination of suitability” for your ownership and possession of arms, including your own (in other words, a “may issue” vs. “shall issue” license at the federal level, with socialists in charge, if they get their way);
These are written into the bill. In addition, authorities, “shall establish standards and processes by which licensing authorities can revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of a covered license” required to possess firearms;
The new required federal gun license, with mandatory written and shooting testing in addition to the psych tests, and numerous other conditions, applies to all guns you own or seek.
Gun-averse mass media has “overlooked” this. The Second Amendment is being changed from an uninfringed right to a might-be-issued license and scrutiny under dictatorial control. Go ahead, say it: “They can’t do that!”
How can an armed electorate even resist this wild scene? Democrats’ “representatives” are “with them.” Speak against them, they attack your principles. The few people standing up against this cultural revolution find themselves the ones facing “hate” charges – thought crime. Police are ordered to stand down! The ones who stand up are decommissioned, disbanded, and defunded.
It’s the socialist way. One election is all that stands between this and the collapse of the Constitution.
“The United States will eventually fly the communist flag. The American people will hoist it themselves,” Nikita Khrushchev predicted. Even now, our leaders propose funding Red Flag Laws (in HR5717/S3254). Mass media and many citizens think that’s great.
“No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism…. We will destroy you from within,” Khrushchev again.
In 1963, communism’s 45 goals were put in the Congressional Record. These few lines illuminate the mob’s involvement and their threat to your guns and way of life:
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
How many of these then goals are now a reality?
It’s Marxism, infecting America – as predicted – our guns’ and liberty’s greatest enemy.
About Alan Korwin
Award-winning author Alan Korwin has written 14 books, 10 of them on gun law, and has advocated for gun rights for nearly three decades. See his work or reach him at GunLaws.com. This article originally appeared in Dillon’s Blue Press.
We are less than one month away from the presidential election. Joe Biden has called a lid, which means he stopped public appearances for the day, dozens of times over the past month. He still dodges reporter questions, and he straight up refused to answer questions the American people want to know during the first presidential debate. So, here are 10 things you need to know about Joe Biden.
