Wrong Ideas? No Guns for You

It may be coming to your state soon.

BY MATTHEW VADUM

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/07/wrong-ideas-no-guns-you-matthew-vadum/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Gun permits based on political views. It’s on the horizon for many Americans.

That’s because left-wingers in California, a trend-setting state, have cooked up a new way to stop Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and anyone else who refuses to toe the politically correct line from defending themselves from the crime wave that their policies have unleashed on America.

The day after the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right of Americans to carry guns in public for self-defense, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, began pressing officials across the state to deny public-carry gun licenses to people deemed to harbor feelings of “hatred and racism.”

Bonta, for what it’s worth, is in trouble because his office leaked the names and addresses of every single concealed carry permit holder in California. Some now fear for their lives thanks to his incompetence.

The high court ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, came down June 23. It held that part of New York state’s concealed carry gun permitting system was unconstitutional because it only authorized public-carry licenses “when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense.” The landmark 6-3 decision (pdf), written by Justice Clarence Thomas, recognized a constitutional right to carry guns in public for self-defense for the first time in the nation’s history.

Of course, early gun control laws in America were in some cases motivated by racism. The “Black Codes” adopted in southern states prevented blacks from keeping and bearing arms.

As High Country News reported last year, in California a 1923 law blocked non-citizens from having concealable firearms. Because of the federal Chinese Exclusion Act, many Chinese people in the state could not own guns because they could not become citizens. A San Francisco Chronicle article from back then celebrated the disarming of Chinese and Latino residents.

“Where the officials have the discretion in terms of gun licensing, there’s a very clear historic pattern of discrimination,” the article quoted Robert Cottrol, a history professor at George Washington University, saying.

After the Supreme Court spoke, Bonta promptly pulled a bait-and-switch, following Bruen by dropping the state’s “good cause” requirement but beefing up California’s “good moral character” requirement. In his June 24 “legal alert” (pdf) to gun permit issuers, he said that to assess whether an applicant had “good moral character” authorities could rely on the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department policy, which states:

“Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the Constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.” [italics added]

Bonta also reminded the permit issuers that they “may search publicly available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant’s character.”

Although some of the “good moral character” criteria seem straightforward, some seem unfair.

The requirement for “fiscal stability” seems likely to deprive poor people living in dangerous neighborhoods and those with bad credit ratings from getting a carry permit, leaving them at the mercy of violent illegal gun-toting criminals.

But the phrase “absence of hatred and racism” really, really, really raises red flags.

What exactly are “hatred and racism” in the eyes of Left Coast public safety bureaucrats?

The answer seems to be: anything a woke government official says it is.

Racism, of course, is an infinitely malleable concept in the hands of people who despise America and all it stands for.

To leftists, opposition to critical race theory, Islamism, affirmative action, open borders, and tax cuts are some of the more obvious current examples of racism. Respecting the American flag, the Constitution, the police and law and order, capitalism, tradition, and Israel are also seen as evidence of racism. And liking Donald Trump and Republicans is, at the moment, the worst kind of racism there is, according to leftists.

This is not, by the way, an exhaustive agglomeration of hallucinated racism and with the continuing popularity of inventive woke gurus like Ibram X. Kendi the list grows longer every day.

And what about hatred?

By hatred, leftists are really referring to ideas they regard as hateful because they run counter to the radical worldview. In other words, wrongthink.

“Hatred,” though, is a difficult word to make money off of. Like the fundraising-obsessed charlatans at the Southern Poverty Law Center, radicals prefer the shorter, more marketable word “hate.”

They don’t care that actual, plain old dictionary definition hate, and the expression of it, “hate speech,” an admittedly nebulous concept, is entirely lawful.

Leftists will adamantly deny it until they’re Democrat-blue in the face, but hate speech is protected by the Constitution, as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reminds us.

Americans are allowed to express anger and hostility. Nothing in the Bill of Rights requires everyone to think happy thoughts and say nice things.

“Speech by adults as free citizens does not lose First Amendment protection because it is considered hateful. This is because hate speech in and of itself is protected speech, particularly when spoken by adults on their own time,” according to a February FIRE report.

The only categories of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment are instances of “incitement to imminent lawless action,” “speech that threatens serious bodily harm,” and “speech that causes an immediate breach of the peace,” the so-called fighting words exception.

Worryingly, eradicating “hate” –which, like racism nowadays, is in the eye of the beholder— is an official priority for Bonta.

Hate is everywhere in California, he claimed on June 28.

“The pandemic gave way to an epidemic of hate. We saw the bigoted words of our former president turn a trickle of hate into a flood that remains with us,” Bonta said.

In May of last year, he created a new “Racial Justice Bureau” within the California Department of Justice. His press release at the time said the new office will “help tackle some of California’s most pressing racial and social justice issues head-on.”

The bureau is tasked with doing a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with law enforcement.

Among other things, it will monitor “the insidious effects of white supremacy and hate organizations on our society” and assist a task force in studying and developing “reparation proposals for African Americans.”

California already gives grants to left-wing community organizations to fight “hate,” which leads to predictable results.

On March 28, the state announced grants to several groups including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Chinese Progressive Association, and UCLA’s Labor Center. On June 20 it awarded a little over $2.6 million to one of America’s most prominent real-life hate groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a subversive, anti-Semitic organization that leftists reflexively defend because they abhor Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian Western Civilization.

Returning to the good moral character provision, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in a Reason column that he was disturbed at Bonta’s suggestion “that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified.”

Bonta giving issuing authorities a green light to sift through applicants’ social media accounts in search of evidence of their character “strikes me as clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, even apart from the Second Amendment.”

This writer recently interviewed C.D. “Chuck” Michel of the law firm Michel and Associates about Bonta’s mischief-making.

Michel is president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Law Center. Michel also wrote California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations, a 532-page vade mecum that is in its ninth edition.

“The problem with the good moral character policy that the attorney general seems to be encouraging is that it’s completely subjective and would allow a city to evaluate an applicant based on their politics, not on whether they’re a threat or not or whether they’re actually some kind of a bad character,” Michel said.

“So we’re deeply concerned that that kind of subjective, politicized criteria creeps into this process. It’s something that the Supreme Court warned against, and it’s something that will definitely bring legal action if cities or counties try and adopt something like that.”

“Trying to evaluate somebody’s good moral character by the comments that they make, or the articles—maybe they don’t even say anything—they may just curate, pass along, share” on social media, is dangerous, the lawyer said.

“And you’re going to be judged for that … by someone who’s politically inclined, perhaps, to try and find a way not to issue permits,” he said.

“So they’re looking for things that they can use as an excuse to not issue a permit—that’s what the subtext of Bonta’s alert really is.”

“This is what we’re calling the blue resistance,” he said. It is part of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) strategy “to minimize the real effect of the Supreme Court ruling and try and get around it by setting up all these other types of roadblocks. Basically, red tape the right to death.”

Michel made it clear that he is “100 percent against hate speech and racism, but anything can be called hate speech, and anything can be labeled racism these days, so I’m very nervous about a policy that does some kind of a blanket [approach].”

“Anybody can define those terms in a way that condemns a broad swath of society that in my view is neither hateful [nor] racist.”

Interestingly, a handful of left-wingers say that the good moral character provision in other laws is itself racist. In a 2017 piece at Sociology In Focus, Siena College sociology professor Beverly Yuen Thompson applied a disparate-impact-like analysis, writing, “A modern example of structural racism can be found in the ‘good moral character’ clause that bars many people of color from the legal marijuana industry.”

“In legal marijuana states, their laws often include a ‘good moral character’ clause, requiring prospective owners and employees, to submit to a criminal background check. Marijuana legalization laws often ban workers with drug convictions from working in the industry, especially in medical marijuana states.” In states with the clause, “these prior convictions disproportionately prevent people of color from joining the newly legal marijuana economy.”

This perspective is an outlier among leftists, and their ideas about so-called structural racism in America are absurd, but hey, it’s something. Maybe an ACLU attorney somewhere agrees and this will in some small way help the cause of California gun-permit applicants trying to avail themselves of their Second Amendment rights.

The real issue here is whether gun permit-issuing authorities in California can be trusted to apply the good moral character provision in a politically-neutral, ideologically-neutral way in light of Bonta’s commitment to using fuzzy, social-justice criteria in the gun-licensing process.

Don’t bet your life on it.

Firearms Policy Coalition Statement on Steven Dettelbach’s Confirmation to Head ATF

BY F. RIEHL

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/07/fpc-statement-on-steven-dettelbachs-confirmation-atf;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Steven Dettelbach IMG By Lonnie Tague for the Department of Justice Public Domain

ABOVE: Steven Dettelbach IMG By Lonnie Tague for the Department of Justice Public Domain

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST: https://ratherexposethem.org/2022/04/07/biden-to-nominate-another-gun-grabber-to-lead-atf/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement in response to the United States Senate’s confirmation of Steven Dettelbach as permanent director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF):

The Senate failed the People this week. The purpose of agency directors is to serve ministerial duties, not to subvert law and cheerlead the abrogation of our rights. By confirming an anti-rights zealot to helm one of the nation’s most infamous agencies, the Senate has all but promised that the ATF will continue, or even worsen, its violations of the trust of the People.

Steven Dettelbach–who aggressively promoted “universal background checks” and “assault weapon” bans–will serve as the first permanent ATF director since Byron Todd Jones, who stepped down in 2015.

ATF has a storied history of civil rights violations, arming cartels, and not to mention the commission of atrocities such as those at Waco, Texas. It cannot be understated how concerning it is that an anti-rights zealot will now be taking the helm of that agency.

With several members of the Senate absent due to varying health issues, Republicans had the power to avert Dettelbach’s confirmation. For reasons beyond our comprehension, two GOP Senators seemed to salivate at the opportunity to advance a hand-picked anti-rights activist, thus allowing him to narrowly gain confirmation in a 48-46 vote. By confirming Dettelbach, the Senate has once again failed the People in spectacular fashion.

The Senate Republicans who made Dettelbach’s confirmation possible are:

Sen. Susan Collins (ME) and Sen. Rob Portman (OH)

FPC remains vigilant against the weaponization of federal law enforcement against peaceable people. As this new chapter of the ATF begins under Dettelbach’s leadership, FPC will use all tools available to meet any infringement of individual rights with the appropriate corresponding response.


About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

 

Firearms Policy Coalition

  

UPS Issues New Rules for Shipping Firearm Parts – Serial Numbers Now Required

UPS Cancelling Gun Dealers’ Accounts, Destroying Packages in Transit

BY LEE WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/07/ups-issues-new-rules-for-shipping-firearm-parts-serial-numbers-now-required/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- United Parcel Service has issued new rules for shipping firearms and firearm parts, but the announcement comes a week after UPS canceled the accounts of gun retailers who may have violated the rules that weren’t yet made public or even in effect.

In a story published July 1, we revealed that UPS was terminating the accounts of gun dealers and that any packages currently in the UPS system could be “seized and destroyed.”

In a letter sent to one Florida gun dealer, Ghost Firearms, UPS said they were terminating the account because they “may be violating” laws concerning homemade firearm parts.

“We write to inform you that UPS has learned that your company may be violating applicable laws concerning the shipment of “ghost guns” to unauthorized locations,” the letter states. “In light of our concern, UPS has determined that it will cancel your account, effective immediately.”

In a follow-up story published July 5, we revealed that five Democratic Senators recently sent ominous letters to UPS and 27 other carriers, blaming them for escalating violent crime rates.

“We are concerned that lax shipping security measures are contributing to the epidemic of gun violence in this country by allowing criminals to use stolen firearms to commit crimes,” the letters each state.

They were signed by Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory A. Booker (D-N.J.), Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

In their letters, the Senators peppered the shippers with 20 questions and document requests. They were sent May 19 to UPS, FedEx, the U.S. Postal Service, and trucking and rail carriers located in the United States and Canada.

UPS media relations personnel did not respond to calls or emails seeking comment for either story.

Now, UPS has quietly updated its rules for shipping firearms on its website.

Now, they require a serial number on any frame or receiver, as required by a federal rule that hasn’t yet taken effect.

Any item that meets the definition of a firearm (including firearm mufflers or silencers) or a “frame” or “receiver” under federal law (including any partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver as defined by 27 CFR § 478.12) must be identified and bear a serial number in satisfaction of the requirements for identifying such items under federal law, including 27 CFR § 478.92 and/or 27 CFR § 479.102, regardless of whether any such items are otherwise exempt from or not subject to identification requirements under applicable law.  This prohibition applies even before the effective date of 27 CFR § 478.12.

UPS’ previous rules contained no serial number requirements.

Takeaways

Over the past two weeks, UPS’ messaging has been a hot mess.

They threatened dealers’ livelihoods. They seized and destroyed property – all with no advance notice – and when they were caught and their actions became public, they failed to address their mistakes.

In other words, they punished gun dealers for violating secret UPS rules that weren’t even public – all because they got a scary letter from five anti-gun politicians.

As a private business, UPS is free to enact whatever shipping rules they want, but we are free to choose a carrier that’s not so schizophrenic.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

__________________________________________________________________
  

UPS Cancelling Gun Dealers’ Accounts, Destroying Packages in Transit

UPS Cancelling Gun Dealers’ Accounts, Destroying Packages in Transit

BY LEE WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/07/ups-cancelling-gun-dealers-accounts-destroying-packages-in-transit;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- United Parcel Service is terminating the accounts of gun dealers. Any packages currently in the UPS system may be “seized and destroyed.”

In a letter sent to one Florida gun dealer, Ghost Firearms, UPS said they were terminating the account because they “may be violating” laws concerning homemade firearm parts.

“We write to inform you that UPS has learned that your company may be violating applicable laws concerning the shipment of “ghost guns” to unauthorized locations,” the letter states. “In light of our concern, UPS has determined that it will cancel your account, effective immediately.”

Ghost’s owner, Joe Zatar was told all scheduled pickups will be canceled, and that he cannot reopen another UPS account or ship anything from a UPS store or website.

He is most concerned about the packages already in the UPS system, which he may have already lost.

“Please note that any package found in the UPS system determined to have been tendered by GHOST FIREARMS may be seized and destroyed,” the letter states.

“I just shipped more than $30,000 worth of products,” he said.

Zatar immediately called his UPS sales rep, who said he had no idea the account was terminated.

Ghost Firearms sells uppers, lowers, handguards, and OEM parts for a number of manufacturers. They also sell 80% receivers.

“We do not ship to states where they’re not allowed,” Zatar said. “We are in total compliance. We had ATF in here just two weeks ago, and they told us we were completely legal.”

Retail giant Brownells told their customers in a Facebook post on Friday that they too were terminated by UPS.

“Heads up! UPS has made the decision to no longer accept Brownell's packages,” the post states. “We are working to put an email together to send to customers who have their account defaulted to UPS, or who have open orders with UPS selected as the carrier.”

Brownells did not specify in their post the reason why UPS terminated their account.

UPS’ Media Relations personnel did not return calls or emails seeking comment for this story.

Photo courtesy Ghost Firearms

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

 

Biden Signs Gun Control Bill After 29 Republicans Sell Out

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/biden-signs-gun-control-bill-after-29-republicans-sell-out/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

With the assistance of 14 Republicans in the House and 15 Republicans in the Senate, the present occupant of the White House signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law on Friday.

The Senate passed the bill, S. 2938, by a vote of 65-33 on Thursday, with 15 Republicans voting aye to break the 60-vote filibuster threshold that otherwise would have kept the bill from moving forward. Later that day the House rubber-stamped the bill, 234-193, supported by 14 Republicans, before sending it to the Oval Office.

Biden read this from his teleprompter:

From Columbine to Sandy Hook, to Charleston, Orlando, Las Vegas, Parkland, El Paso, Atlanta, Buffalo, Uvalde, and for the shootings that happen every day in the streets … how many times have we heard that, “just do something, for God’s sake just do something”?

Today, we did.

What he did was something that wouldn’t have happened if those Republicans had kept their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. Instead, they looked the other way and voted aye.

The fourteen House Republicans who voted for the bill include Steve Chabot (Ohio), Liz Cheney (Wyo.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Tony Gonzales (Texas), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Christopher Jacobs (N.Y.), David Joyce (Ohio), John Katko (N.Y.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Peter Meijer (Mich.), Tom Rice (S.C.), Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.), Michael Turner (Ohio), and Fred Upton (Mich.).

Of those 14, five are retiring at the end of their terms, and Congressman Rice just lost his primary.

The fifteen Senate Republicans who voted for the bill included Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), John Cornyn (Texas), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), and Todd Young (Ind.).

Four of them are leaving office this year (Portman, Blunt, Burr, and Toomey), while all but two (Murkowski and Young) aren’t up for reelection until 2026 (except Romney, whose election is in 2024).

The law now allows the U.S. Treasury, with the assistance of the Federal Reserve, to create billions in new digital currency in order to fund it. The law contains many onerous and unconstitutional programs, including funding for state mental health services and school security.

It targets the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” which allows those convicted of domestic abuse to have guns unless they have been married to, lived with, or had a child with the victim.

But the most egregious is the camel’s nose into the tent: $750 million to bribe states without red flag laws to pass them.

The attempt to appease so-called Republican gun rights supporters to go along with the travesty included this hat tip to the Constitution in the bill:

[State red flag laws must include] pre-deprivation and post deprivation due process rights that prevent any violation or infringement of the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, and the substantive or procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the States, and as interpreted by State courts and United States courts (including the Supreme Court of the United States).

Such programs must include, at the appropriate phase to prevent any violation of constitutional rights, at minimum, notice, the right to an in-person hearing, an unbiased adjudicator, the right to know opposing evidence, the right to present evidence, and the right to confront adverse witnesses.

First, there is no assurance that states accepting the bribe and creating red flag laws will include such niceties as respecting the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Second, as a practical matter, judges are presented with a demand that they issue immediately an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) or else a potential killer might run loose will issue one first and worry about following the law afterward.

Thirdly, nothing in the law requires states already able to flag their citizens with ERPOs to reinstate the Fourth Amendment’s demand that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” in place of the much lower “reasonable suspicion” presently enacted.

Fourth, there is no assurance that red flag laws will have any impact on gun violence. New York has a red flag law in place and it failed to prevent the Buffalo shooter from wreaking havoc. Texas doesn’t have such a law in place, but it has similar laws available to law enforcement that failed to prevent the massacre in Uvalde.

As this writer declared last week:

The “bipartisan” act is an indirect but effective attack on the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with stemming gun violence. It has everything to do with confiscating, under the color of law, every firearm from every gun owner in the country, thus paving the way for the imposition of a communist dictatorship on the once-free United States of America.

Related article:

Ten Senate RINOs Poised to Sell Out Fourth, Fifth Amendments to Get to the Second

Court Rules: Armed Self-Defense a Right NOT a Privilege Needing Permission

Second Amdnment Gun Permision Slip twitter.com/LilSouthernSass/status/1539992520356237312/photo/1

BY ROGER KATZ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/06/court-rules-armed-self-defense-is-a-right-not-a-privilege-needing-permission;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Supreme Court Has Spoken on This and In the Clearest Language yet seen to date.

The long-awaited and highly anticipated Bruen case decision is out! It is better—much better—than we had anticipated.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the Opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined him. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett also filed concurring opinions.

Justice Breyer, who filed an extensive dissenting opinion in Heller, filed a dissenting opinion in Bruen. The two other liberal wing Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan, joined him.

So that there would be no mistake, Justice Thomas provided, for the Nation, the Bruen Holding upfront in the first paragraph of the detailed majority opinion. He said,

“In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.”

“We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

How Important Is Bruen——

Bruen now joins, in the clearest language possible, the distinguished pantheon of seminal Second Amendment cases that, together, make categorically clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It is much more concerning and disconcerting to the Nation’s Destructors than a High Court decision in the Dobbs abortion case—a leaked version of which created a furor among the Nation’s Neo-Marxist and Anarchist malcontents.

Bruen is at the apex of critically important High Court cases defending our Country as a free Constitutional Republic and establishing our people as Sole Sovereign over Government.

Unrestrained exercise of this Fundamental God-Given Right by the people goes to the heart of our Nation’s history, heritage, traditions, ethos, culture, and ethical and legal foundation.

The Nation’s enemies, both inside it and outside it, detest America’s armed citizenry. They hate the Nation’s freedoms and liberties. They disdain the Nation’s belief and faith in Divine Natural Law.

The Bruen decision won’t change the attitudes of the would-be killers of the one, true free Republic on the face of the Earth. The naysayers will become only more hardened, more entrenched. But, in that fact, even the most naïve of Americans must now come to know the danger that the treacherous creatures among us pose to the preservation of a free Republic and to the continued sovereignty of the American people, over their Government.

The abhorrence of this Nation’s Obstructors and Destructors toward our Armed Citizenry isn’t grounded on more than mere aesthetics or even on ethical concerns.

It is based on frustration, rage, and fear. After all, the Bill of Rights prevents America’s domestic and foreign enemies from taking control over the Nation and its people. And, at least one branch of our Government, the U.S. Supreme Court—it is now clear—is intent on defending, rather than denigrating and revoking, our most cherished and sacred Rights and Liberties, without which, a powerful Nation-State and a Sovereign People cannot continue to exist.

An armed citizenry of 100 million people or more can never be vanquished; the Republic can never be undone; the sovereignty of the American people can never be effectively usurped, and the will of the American people can never be undermined. Americans can now gain further encouragement from the fact that the Third Branch of Government has its back.

The fundamental Right of Armed Self-Defense is our Birthright. The Court’s Majority knows that and they asserted that now in no uncertain terms.

Armed Self-Defense As A Fundamental Right Cannot Be Rationally Denied

The fundamental right of Armed Self-Defense is subsumed in the more general natural law right of Self-Survival which is itself subsumed in the supernal Right of one’s Self-hood: The sanctity and inviolability of one’s immortal Soul, Spirit, and Psyche. It is Man’s greatest gift—an eternal gift—bestowed on and in Man by the Divine Creator. It is that gift which the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists deny and abhor and therefore intend to destroy, but which they cannot touch as long as Americans remain armed—and armed to the hilt.

Yet, when speaking of this elemental, immutable, illimitable, and eternal natural law Right, the publishers, editors, reporters, and commentators of the seditious New York Times, cannot even bring themselves to mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a Right at all, whether fundamental and unalienable or not.

A Fundamental Right is Not to be Mistaken for Mere Privilege Contrary to What Malefactors and Imbeciles Maintain!

To the Disrupters and Destroyers of a free Republic, the Right of armed self-defense is nothing more than a privilege—a privilege that, from the Times’ perspective, too many Americans cherish and endorse and too many exercise.

In colorful language, The NYTimes explains its frustration, rage, and fear over armed self-defense—frustration, rage, and fear borne of Americans’ insistent adoration for its Bill of Rights, and especially for the fundamental right of armed self-defense.

A few weeks ago, the Times said this about “‘the privilege’ of the people to keep and bear arms”:

“Most Republicans in the Senate represent deeply conservative states where gun ownership is treated as a sacred privilege enshrined in the Constitution, a privilege not to be infringed upon no matter how much blood is spilled in classrooms and school hallways around the country.” ~ from an article in The New York Times, May 26, 2022, by Carl Hulse, Chief D.C. correspondent for the NYTimes.

This substitution of words here is no small thing. It isn’t a careless misuse of words. It isn’t a benign, innocuous, trivial slip-up.

It is no accident at all that the people at the Times would use the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right’ when referencing the language of the Second Amendment. Buts this word choice is one the author of the article, Carl Hulse, didn’t even come up with.

An attorney, Warren Freedman, an outspoken critic of the Second Amendment wrote a reference book titled, “The Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms: The Second Amendment and Its Interpretation,” in 1989, nineteen years before Heller; thirty-three years before the publication of the Times/Hulse article and the Bruen case decision.

A critique of the Freedman book, written by William Walker, appeared as a law review article published by the University of Michigan Law School, in 1990.

The writer of the afore-referenced NYTimes Article, Carl Hulse, must have known this. Yet he never credited Freedman; odd that!

The Framers of the Constitution, no less than, and probably a good deal more astute than Hulse, Freedman, and Walker, were meticulous in their choice of words when drafting the Constitution, especially when drafting the words to the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in the BOR does the term, ‘privilege,’ appear.

Yet the Destroyers of our Nation don’t deign to call gun possession a Basic Right—the most basic of Rights: one grounded on personal survival, be it from a predatory creature, predatory man, or predatory Government. Rather, they prefer to utilize the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right,’ to describe those who seek to exercise it.

Tacit in the word, ‘privilege,’ is the idea of something beneficial that some people obtain by dint of special birth, advantage, or by connection whether made or acquired—and that, by implication, most do not.

The words, ‘right’ and ‘privilege,’ are often conflated. And that is dangerous. For, once the public adopts language that the propagandists intentionally and diabolically propagate through the media, that verbiage becomes a viral meme. As a viral meme, the verbiage lodges in one’s mind. It infuses one’s speech. It suffuses and litters one’s thought processes, embedding itself inextricably in the public’s psyche, replicating itself a million-fold into every corner of one’s being and outward to every individual in the Country.

One must always be vigilant to avoid being misled by terminology utilized by nefarious forces to control one’s thought processes, one’s belief systems, and one’s actions.

Consider the subtle distinction between the two words in a common dictionary definition.

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one sees——

“A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession.”

Note, in that definition, the word, ‘right’ qua ‘privilege’ denotes a thing with parameters. The term ‘right,’ in the colloquial definition, clearly means something less than a ‘fundamental right.’

A “Right” qua “Fundamental God-Bestowed Right” is something beyond mere “Privilege.” It is a thing intrinsic to a person—derived from natural law and it has no limit or boundary. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy elaborates on this:

  • “To have a right is to have a ‘valid claim.’”
  • “‘In the strictest sense’ all rights are claims.”
  • “A right, in the most important sense, is the conjunction of a [privilege] and a claim-right.”
  • “All rights are essentially property rights.”
  • “Rights are themselves property, things we own.”

A critical distinction in meaning between ‘fundamental right’ and ‘privilege’ rests at the heart of Bruen, whether one knows this or not.

The Bruen case has more impact on the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic than many Americans can appreciate or that the legacy Press and Government will let on.

In its Brief supporting the writ for certiorari, filed on December 17, 2020, the Petitioners presented the issue thus:

“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

The issue as stated goes to the heart of the import of the Second Amendment. Do Americans have a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, or not? Petitioners meant to bring that salient issue front and center for High Court review.

Heller ruled that a person has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home. But the underlying basis for that ruling and the substructure of it is this—

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Bruen emphatically reasserts this.

This means, by logical implication, that the right doesn’t reside only within the confines of one’s home, stopping at the doorstep once one ventures outside his home. It exists everywhere. Bruen now, correctly interpreting the language of the Second Amendment, explicitly asserts this.

And the tacit implication of that pronouncement is this: the exercise of that right is grounded on natural law, and beyond the power of the State to meddle in it, i.e., the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is God-bestowed, and, therefore, Absolute. The Bruen Court has issued a warning to the First and Second Branches of Government and to the State Governments as well: Don’t meddle with the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

Roberts And the Liberal Wing Of The Court Had Hoped To Lessen The Impact Of An Expected Strong Ruling In Bruen By Reconfiguring The Issue, But, Fortunately, To No Avail.

To lessen the impact of a ruling expected to favor the Petitioners, the Roberts’ Court limited the issue on review to consideration of the Constitutionality of the NYPD’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The High Court redrafted the issue on review to this:

“Whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court attempted, through reconfiguration, to chop the legs of Bruen off at the knee, to reduce the reviewable issue to one merely looking at the propriety of NYPD procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The aim was to prevent the Court from reviewing the basic constitutionality of Government licensing of/meddling in the exercise of a fundamental, God-Given Right.

Justices Thomas and Alito would have none of that. They stuck by their guns.

The New York City Gun Transport case fiasco was in their mind.

Rather than be caught on the losing side of one of the most important case decisions in our Nation’s history, which would diminish his influence as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roberts joined the Court’s majority, however, apparently reluctantly.

Chief Justice Roberts had to accept the majority’s holding and tacit reasoning that the God-Given right of armed self-defense is the most important Right that any human can exercise if he is to retain his sacred and inviolate Right of Selfhood and Free Will against the tyranny of Government.

Thus, despite the drastic whittling down of the Bruen issue for review, the arch concern we originally had, that concern is fortunately laid to rest.

The Bruen case holding isn’t lame and feeble. Justice Thomas and the Court’s majority responded to those lunatics that sought to intimidate them, in the furor made over Dobbs.

The U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the First Two Branches, is not, in its present arrangement will not be intimidated, and that frustrates the Biden Administration and the Democrat Party-Controlled Congress.

Unlike the first Two Branches of Government, the Third Branch is determined to do its duty to defend God, Constitution, the Country, and the Sovereign American People.

How will the Malcontents and Miscreants Respond to the Bruen Decision?

The High Court has thrown down the Gauntlet to the Obstructors and Destructors intent on dismantling our Republic and subjugating our people.

How will the corrupt, seditious legacy media respond? How will New York State Governor Hochul and New York City Mayor Adams respond? How will their counterparts in other affected jurisdictions respond?

Also, how will the corrupt Biden Administration respond? How will the poisonous vipers in the Democrat Party in Congress respond? And last, how will the effete Eunuchs in the Republican Party respond?

We will discuss these questions and issues and analyze Bruen and its impact on Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist influences and responses to Bruen in upcoming Arbalest Quarrel articles.

For the moment, at least, the Nation can breathe a shared sigh of relief, and the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia can smile down upon both our Nation and its people from Heaven above and lay serenely at rest.

Here is the recent court opinion in full for your reading pleasure.

https://www.scribd.com/document/579433922/New-York-State-Rifle-Pistol-Assn-Inc-v-Bruen-Decision#download&from_embed


About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Arbalest Quarrel

 

Radical Left pushes INSURRECTION: Calls to demolish U.S. Supreme Court after landmark pro-2A decision affirming individual right to self-defense

Image: Radical Left pushes INSURRECTION: Calls to demolish U.S. Supreme Court after landmark pro-2A decision affirming individual right to self-defense

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-24-radical-left-pushes-insurrection-demolish-us-supreme-court-landmark-pro2a-decision.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The Supreme Court has struck down a longtime gun control law that barred most people from carrying a firearm concealed. And MSNBC talking-head Keith Olbermann is enraged.

On Twitter, Olbermann called for an insurrection against the Supreme Court, including its total abolishment. If that does not work, then Olbermann wants people to just ignore the court entirely and pretend as though it does not exist.

“It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States,” Olbermann declared on Twitter with about 2,700 “likes,” as of this writing. “The first step is for a state the ‘court’ has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.”

In other words, Olbermann wants law enforcement to continue prosecuting anyone in New York who is caught with a concealed firearm, even though the Supreme Court has decided that carrying concealed in New York is fully constitutional and in alignment with the Second Amendment.

“Great. You’re a court? Why and how do you think you can enforce your rulings?” Olbermann further added, along with the hashtag #IgnoreTheCourt.

Olbermann curses every Supreme Court justice who ruled in favor of the Second Amendment

Olbermann did not stop there, though. In two additional tweets, he taunted SCOTUS over the decision, mocking the court’s apparent inability, according to him, to actually enforce the new ruling.

“Hey SCOTUS, send the SCOTUS army here to enforce your ruling, you House of Lords radicals pretending to be a court,” Olbermann jested, unable to see the irony in his own statement.

The irony, in case you missed it too, is that it will be much harder to continue enforcing the concealed carry ban than it will be to just let it go. Perhaps Olbermann is planning to walk around the Big Apple strip-searching people himself in pursuit of hidden guns?

In a third tweet, Olbermann resorted to a foul-mouthed curse on Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, “and the paralegal Coney Barrett” for voting to restore New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights.

The 6-3 decision will also reportedly allow more people in other states to legally carry guns on the streets, including in larger cities such as Los Angeles and Boston where similar gun control measures were enacted.

“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” said Justice Thomas about the decision.

Olbermann obviously disagrees and wants a full insurrection on the highest court in the land in order to remedy the situation to his liking. Remember, this is the same guy who repeatedly condemned the “insurrectionists” for entering the Capitol building through the velvet ropes and wide-open doors on Jan. 6, 2021.

“I think it’s time for the dissolution of Keith Olbermann!” joked one commenter.

“This sounds kind of … seditious?” wrote another.

Someone else pointed out that at no point has the Supreme Court decided to “force guns” onto anyone, as Olbermann falsely suggested in his deranged rant.

“Holy howitzers and bazookas, Batman!” this person wrote.

“As for Twitter, it’s revealing about the people who have been thrown off of the platform, including President Trump. But it’s even MORE revealing about those whom Twitter has allowed to remain on it, in good standing.”

Others pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left in simultaneously demanding the “right” to murder unborn and even newborn children while also demanding an end to the Second Amendment because think of the children!

“Look at all the stories with the same bu****it talking point: ‘Supreme Court expands gun rights’ … more like restored a constitutional right,” added another.

More related news coverage about the war on guns can be found at SecondAmendment.news.

Sources for this article include:

CitizenFreePress.com

CitizenFreePress.com

NaturalNews.com

 

DR. STEVE TURLEY: I’ve HAD IT with Feckless RINOs!!!!

★★★ YOUR PATRIOT PROFESSOR ★★★

We’re going to look at the out-and-out betrayal of Republican voters by 14 feckless RINOs, we’re going to see what patriots are saying about it, and make sure to stick with me to the very end of this video when I’ll reveal what we need to do to finally rid ourselves of these vile Republicans in Name Only once and for all; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling Expanding Gun Rights~MANY STATES AFFECTED~New York’s “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license violated the Constitution because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”

US Supreme Court expands gun rights despite plague of mass shootings

Supreme Court CRUSHES Gun Control Across the Nation!!!!

★★★ YOUR PATRIOT PATH TO FREEDOM! ★★★

DR. STEVE TURLEY: A HUGE win for the 2nd Amendment! The Supreme Court rules in favor of constitutional carry and in effect crushes gun control across the nation! We’re going to look at the ruling, we’re going to see how it has all but killed the absurd plans for gun control among Republicans, and stick with me to the very end of this video when we’ll see how this Second Amendment revolution that’s sweeping the nation is also going to sweep these feckless Republicans out of office; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Huge Win For 2a!!

SCOTUS strikes down NY concealed carry restrictions in gun rights case

Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights, Striking New York Limits

BY PAULA BOLYARD

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/paula-bolyard/2022/06/23/breaking-supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-expanding-gun-rights-n1607473;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expanding gun rights for the first time in more than a decade.The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, held that New York’s “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license violated the Constitution because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”New York’s restrictions, enacted more than a hundred years ago, required those who wish to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense to show “proper cause” rather than have a presumption of the right to carry. Similar laws exist in Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, and California, where this ruling will have a huge ripple effect.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting.

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'” Thomas wrote in the opinion. “The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Related: The Real Reason the Left Won’t Sign Effective Gun Safety Measures

In a footnote, Thomas added that “nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which ‘a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].'”

“Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry,” he explained. “Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.'”

Thomas pointed out that “because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence… by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.” He went on to list pages and pages of statistics on gun violence.

Justice Alito rebuked the court’s liberal justices in his scathing concurrence:

Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?…

…The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.

Alito added, “And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.”

That may be the most common-sense comment on guns we’ve heard in a very long time.

Today is a very good day for the rights of citizens to protect themselves.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen by PJ Media on Scribd

Gas Just Ran Out~2A Red Flagged~GUN CONTROL!~Ukraine Losing Badly

In this episode of The Silent War: Zelensky Says Russian Attacks To Intensify During EU Summit As Moscow Claims Kalibr Strike Killed '50 Officers & Generals.'

Bidenomics: East Coast Truckers Are Stalled Out on the Highway Waiting for Gas – The Gas Stations Are Out of Diesel.

After Having His Own Flight Cancelled, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg Finally Decides to do Something About Cancelled Flights.

Protesters chant ‘stop NATO’ at massive rally in heart of EU.

Senate Releases Text Of Gun Bill That Would Mark 'Biggest Change In Decades.'

 

New Metro DC Police Report Confirms Plainclothes “Electronic Surveillance Unit” Operatives Were Embedded in the Crowd on Jan. 6 to Record Protesters – Used Rainbow Color Wristbands to Identify Each Other.

Elon Musk’s teen offspring reveals name & gender change .

Meet the 14 GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance ‘Gun Safety’ Bill

BY CHRIS QUEEN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2022/06/22/meet-the-14-gop-senators-who-voted-to-advance-gun-safety-bill-n1607115;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Tuesday night, the Senate voted to advance a “gun safety” bill in response to shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y. (the media has conveniently forgotten the shooting at a church in Laguna Woods, Calif., that took place between the other two shootings but didn’t fit The Narrative™ for the gun-control crowd).

The Hill framed the vote as the moment when the Senate “broke through nearly 30 years of stalemate on gun control legislation.”

I won’t rehash the bill here; instead, I’ll refer to my colleague Stephen Kruiser, who pointed out the worst features of the 80-page legislation:

There are two HUGE problems with this legislation, especially for conservatives: it legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is particularly problematic because implementation is rife with gray areas, no matter how many stipulations are in place. As I have been fond of saying, once red-flag laws are on the books, we’re on the most slippery of slippery slopes. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

Those facts didn’t stop the measure from passing by a vote of 64-34. Every single one of the Democrats voted in favor of advancing the bill, which means that 14 Republicans went along with it. Here they are:

Some of those names are the usual suspects, the ones who are going to “go rogue” and vote with the Dems on other issues too.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the guy whose constituents booed him over his support for compromise legislation, ran point on the negotiations with Democrats at the behest of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Hill reports the negotiations in a way that makes them sound just as sinister as compromising with Democrats to violate the Second Amendment should: “McConnell tapped Cornyn to lead the negotiations for Republicans shortly after a bipartisan group of senators met in Murphy’s basement to begin talks in hopes of finding a way to respond to the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings.”

One of the most remarkable things about this list is that, while the usual squishes (Collins, Murkowski, Romney) appear on it, none of them have a low rating with the National Rifle Association. In fact, Collins rates a B with the NRA, while the rest have an A (Portman, Romney, Blunt, Cassidy, Graham, Tillis, Capito, Ernst, Murkowski) or an A+ (Cornyn, McConnell, Burr, Young) rating from the NRA.

Related: How (and Why) the Media Deliberately Inflates the Numbers on School Shootings

Of the “GOP Gun Control 14,” as Off the Press calls them, only Murkowski and Young are facing re-election in 2022. Blunt, Burr, and Portman aren’t running for another term, so the vast majority of these senators have nothing to lose this election cycle.

Gun rights groups aren’t happy, needless to say.

“Once again, so-called ‘conservative’ Senators are making clear they believe that the rights of American citizens can be compromised away,” Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America said in a statement. “Let me be clear, they have NO AUTHORITY to compromise with our rights, and we will not tolerate legislators who are willing to turn gun owners into second-class citizens.”

“We will oppose this gun control legislation because it falls short at every level,” read a statement from the NRA. “It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners. This bill leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.”

Stephen Gutowski reports at The Reload:

“Since the shooting, my office has received tens of thousands of calls, letters, and emails with a singular message: Do something,” Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas), a negotiator from the Republican side, said in a floor speech. “Not do nothing. But do something. I think we’ve found some areas where there is some space for compromise”

“Today, we finalized bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), a key coalition member from the Democratic side, said in a statement. “Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights.”

Gutowski also points out that the vote to advance the bill suggests that the votes are there to pass the bill before Congress goes on its Independence Day break.

Biden Pressuring Delaware for Gun Control to Score a Political Victory

BY LEE WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/06/biden-pressuring-delaware-for-gun-control-to-score-a-political-victory;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- In terms of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, Delaware has never been as bad as some of its neighbors, especially New Jersey. Delawareans can own Modern Sporting Rifles with standard-capacity magazines. They can apply for concealed-carry permits, and most are granted even though it’s a may-issue state. Delaware is small – only three counties. Were it not for its most populous and liberal city, Wilmington, Delaware would likely be a red state. Southern Delaware, which is more conservative, has always had a vibrant gun culture and is a haven for hunters, collectors, and target shooters. Unfortunately, all of this may soon change.

The Delaware General Assembly, which like the Governor’s mansion is controlled by the Democrats, is fast-tracking a trio of strict anti-gun bills the likes of which have never been seen before in The First State. The legislation has the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association – the state’s NRA affiliate – scrambling. But it is the origin of the bills and how they’ll impact gun owners in all 50 states that are causing the most concern.

The DSSA has learned of a teleconference that took place just days after the mass murder in Uvalde, Texas. On the call were the leaders of the Delaware House, and Senate as well as Gov. John Carney. “That’s where the scheme was hatched. Almost immediately, we got word that we would see the bills filed at the same time. It was intended to be done as a blitzkrieg,” said John Sigler, a former president of both the DSSA and the National Rifle Association and a current NRA board member.

The DSSA, Sigler said, received leaked copies of the bills that coincided with Biden’s post-Uvalde speeches. They have also learned that Biden will be meeting with Gov. Carney next week. “We suspect it’s for a bill signing. We suspect the whole thing is being run out of the White House to give Biden a victory when he can’t get a victory anywhere else.”

The Bills

The three bills are flying through Delaware’s General Assembly. It’s become apparent the Democrats are under tremendous pressure to get them passed. The bills will likely clear the House this week and the Senate next week. In the House, public comment was limited to one minute per person. A Republican state representative tried to argue that since the bills raise serious constitutional issues, they should be given more time. He was ignored.

HB 450 is an “assault weapon” ban.

According to the legislation: “The Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022 prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of assault weapons in Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. One exception is that the Act does not prohibit the possession and transport of firearms that were lawfully possessed or purchased before the effective date of this Act; although for these firearms there are certain restrictions relating to their possession and transport after the effective date of this Act. There are also exceptions for law-enforcement and military personnel in the course of their official duties, and a limited exception for retired law-enforcement personnel. Finally, a person lawfully in possession of an assault weapon prior to the passage of this Act may lawfully transfer the weapon to a member of their family, through inheritance or otherwise. The Act directs the Department of Safety and Homeland Security to develop a procedure for issuance of a voluntary certificate of possession to show lawful possession of an assault weapon prior to the effective date of the Act. A gun owner is not required to apply for the certificate, but a certificate provides a conclusive means of proving lawful possession prior to the passage of this Act. The Department is not permitted to retain copies of issued certificates or identifying information of any applicant. The Act also adds a violation of this Act to the list of predicate crimes for possession of a weapon in a school zone.”

According to Sigler, the bill lists 63 separate firearms by name and includes rifles, pistols, and shotguns. It contains a “voluntary” provision, which would allow anyone who currently owns a restricted firearm to obtain a certificate from the state, which attests that the firearm was owned pre-ban.

“This shifts the burden from the state to a potential defendant to prove they owned it before the ban,” Sigler said. “This shifting of the burden is unconstitutional and flies in the face of case law.”

The bill also criminalizes the sale of restricted firearms, which essentially makes them worthless.

“Let’s assume someone has been collecting firearms and the purpose of their collection is to increase in value as part of their estate planning. If this bill is signed into law, their collection is now worth nothing. One collector who contacted us has a collection valued at $1 million. Now, it will be worthless because the bill prohibits him from selling it.”

The legislation also prohibits anyone from transporting a prohibited firearm through the state.

“There’s a Commerce Clause problem here,” Sigler said. “You can’t get to New York City from Baltimore without going through Delaware. This will impact interstate commerce. This isn’t just Delaware.”

HB 451 prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing firearms or ammunition. According to the legislation:

“This bill makes a person under the age of 21 prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm or ammunition of a firearm except under limited circumstances. Those circumstances are if the person is 18 years of age or older and an active member of the Armed Forces, a qualified law-enforcement officer, or has a license to carry a concealed deadly weapon. The Act does not apply to shotguns and shotgun ammunition, muzzle-loading rifles, and deadly weapons other than firearms, thus allowing those persons who are 18 to 21 years of age to purchase, own, control or possess such deadly weapons. Persons under the age of 21 may possess or control a firearm for the purpose of engaging in lawful hunting, instruction, sporting, or recreational activity while under the direct supervision of a person 21 year of age or older. This bill also makes changes to § 1445 of Title 11—Unlawfully dealing with a dangerous weapon to be consistent with the changes made to § 1448 of Title 11. In addition, the bill only criminalizes the control of a weapon which by compressed air or by spring discharges or projects a pellet, slug, or bullet by a person who is not a qualified law enforcement officer if such pellet, slug, or bullet is larger than .177 caliber shot.”

“More than 58,220 Americans were killed in Vietnam. Of that number, more than 61% killed were under 21 years of age,” Sigler pointed out.

SS 1 for SB 6 bans magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds.

According to the legislation: “This Act creates the Delaware Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition Act of 2021. The Act includes clear definitions for the term “large-capacity magazine,” as an ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 17 rounds of ammunition. After enactment, possession of large-capacity magazine will be a class B misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense. Those who possess a prohibited large-capacity magazine when this Act takes effect must, by June 30, 2022, relinquish the large-capacity magazine to a law-enforcement agency in this State. This Act establishes a buyback program for large-capacity magazines, to be overseen by the Department of Safety and Homeland Security.”

There is no grandfather clause in this bill. Anyone who owns a magazine capable of holding more than 17 rounds must surrender it to police for a “buy back” or risk misdemeanor charges for the first offense and felony charges the second time they’re caught with a 17+ magazine.

The DSSA has learned the state will pay the owner $10 per magazine, but they have only allocated $45,000 for the “buy back,” which will only pay for 4,500 magazines.

“This would cover about a quarter of the magazines in one county, and it covers retail, wholesale and private ownership,” Sigler said. “This is an unconstitutional taking as defined by the Fifth Amendment.

National Impact

Magpul, one of the most popular manufacturers of AR-15 magazines and accessories, has a production facility in Georgetown, Delaware. It employs more than 90 workers. A Republican state senator added an amendment to the magazine ban bill that would have allowed Magpul to continue manufacturing standard-capacity magazines at their Delaware facility, even though the magazines would be prohibited in the state. The Democrats rejected the amendment. Another Senator, a Democrat, said he did not want Magpul shipping their magazines to states where people can purchase magazines that are prohibited in Delaware.

“In other words, the Democrats are telling businesses what they are allowed to produce here in Delaware,” Sigler said. “If they don’t like the product, if it doesn’t fit their political agenda, they don’t want them here.”

The DSSA has learned that Magpul will likely move its production facility if the bill is signed into law, which will reduce the number of standard-capacity magazines available nationwide and impact millions of gun owners.

Officials at Magpul did not immediately return calls or emails seeking comment for this story.

The Front Lines

In a press release, Gov. Carney promised to sign the three bills.

“We have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen across the country from happening here in Delaware,” Carney said. “This is a historic, meaningful package of legislation and I look forward to seeing these bills on my desk this session.”

The legislation is strongly supported by the Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence, an affiliate of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups.

“Delaware must question what kinds of deadly weapons we allow to be sold, and to whom, in our state. To that end, we applaud the General Assembly for filing both a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons and a bill raising the minimum age for purchase,” said Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence Executive Director Traci Murphy.

For Sigler and the DSSA, the content of the bills and the speed at which they’re being fast-tracked through the General Assembly is unprecedented.

“This is the most egregious attack on the rights of law-abiding individuals I have ever seen, and I’ve been a Second Amendment Advocate most of my life,” Sigler said. “It is an organized multi-faceted, multi-front attack. It’s an attack by the Democratic party not just on the Second Amendment but on the entire Bill of Rights. This is an organized conspiracy.”

The DSSA has retained counsel, who have already started preparing lawsuits. However, it will be hard-pressed to find the financial means to pay its lawyers. The group is seeking help from all quarters. Click here for the DSSA’s donation page.

“We are going to fight this even if everyone I know has to sell their houses to pay for it,” Sigler said. “If we lose this fight, Delaware will become just another New Jersey, California or New York. In terms of our gun rights, we are not behind enemy lines, not yet, but we are definitely on the front lines.”

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

“I’m Not Even Sure We Can Make It To November” Says Wayne Allyn Root

MUST SEE: National Talk Show Host Sir Wayne Allyn Root Joins Ben Armstrong in a discussion about the future of America.

GRUESOME: MSNBC says we “desperately need” to display images of dead children to promote gun control

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-07-msnbc-desperately-need-dead-children-gun-control.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The far-left media is having trouble convincing viewers that abolishing the Second Amendment is the solution to alleged school shootings. And MSNBC‘s proposed solution is to display more gruesome imagery of dead children.

John Heilemann, the substitute host of Nicole Wallace’s Deadline: White House program, argues that forcing Americans to view pictures of dead children and babies is the only way to effectively steamroll the country’s constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms.

After offering resounding approval for The Atlantic‘s proposal that public school children not be allowed to return this fall unless Congress passes more gun control laws, Heilemann offered his own “dramatic proposal” that he claims he has been hearing “a lot” lately from people he knows.

“We need the American people to see what these children’s bodies look like when they’ve been hit, when they’ve been hit by these bullets, and make them face the ugliness of it,” Heilemann said.

“It’ll be a shocking moment, but the only kind of thing that might shock the system enough to get action.”

Shock and awe, in other words, is Heilemann’s proposal for eliminating Americans’ gun rights, calling them “fresh tactics that we’re desperately in need of.”

Don’t let either side of the political aisle manipulate you with shock and awe fear tactics

Guest Dave Cullen, a gun-grab advocate, and author who also appeared on the segment offered his agreement with Heilemann’s proposal.

“I think we desperately need some new, fresh tactics and creative thinking,” Cullen said. “And, I like this!”

Everyone who appeared on the segment was in full agreement with MSNBC‘s

extreme proposal, even though doing this would violate the privacy rights of said children and their families.

Ironically enough, Heilemann and Cullen’s proposal is actually not new or fresh at all. Back in the day during the war in Iraq, Walter Cronkite made a similar proposal that images of the dead bodies of American soldiers needed to be plastered all over the television in order to turn more people against the war.

Both sides of the political aisle, it turns out, love to use gruesome imagery of death as a means to push an agenda. The right was seen doing this most recently by blaming the Uvalde mass shooting on cannabis.

The MSNBC segment pushing more dead child imagery as a means to erase the Second Amendment was sponsored in part by Amazon, Xfinity, GlaxoSmithKline, which manufactures Flonase, and Servpro.

A full transcript of what was said during the MSNBC segment is available at Newsbusters.

“Our ‘government’ kills kids,” wrote someone at Natural News about the mass deception taking place.

“This is just like how all the world’s resources were put into keeping us ‘safe’ from some bat virus from Wuhan to the point that the solution caused greater suffering than the disease,” wrote another about how gun control would do nothing to stop shootings regardless.

“I expect we will all have to forever put up with a new solution to the shootings that will make normal life impossible.”

Many others pointed out that the Second Amendment is non-negotiable, regardless of how many dead children the corrupt media decides to show during its barely watched “news” segments.

“These so-called elites think they will live forever, but I’ve got news for them: their time is coming,” wrote another about the tyrants trying to take away everyone’s guns.

“There will be a reset for certain, but not the reset these maggots want.”

More related news about the deep state’s efforts to take away Americans’ gun rights can be found at SecondAmendment.news.

Sources for this article include:

Newsbusters.org

VICE.com

NaturalNews.com

BIDEN’S GUN CONTROL FAKE HYSTERIA: ‘How Much More Carnage Are We Willing to Accept?’ Asks President of Party That Unleashed Crime Wave

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/06/how-much-more-carnage-are-we-willing-to-accept-asks-president-of-party-that-unleashed-crime-wave;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Two sets of statistics that Biden’s teleprompter, his party, and their media don’t want to talk about.

“In 2020, one out of every 1,000 young Black males (15–34) was shot and killed.”

Even though young black males only make up “2% of the total population”, they account for  “38% of all gun homicide fatalities” with a gun homicide rate “almost 21 times higher than white males of the same age group.”

“More than half of all black teens (15–19) who died in 2020—a staggering 52%—were killed by gun violence,” it shockingly observes.

And another set.

3,595 black people were murdered in 2019. But in 2020, 5,839 black people were murdered.

That’s an additional 2,244 black people killed.

56% of the murder victims of 2020 were black.

The Democrats, with the aid of some Republican useful idiots who signed on to “criminal justice reform,” did this. Black Lives Matter did this. The entire cultural moment did this. 

Since no Democrat will talk about that, beyond timidly critiquing “defund police” as a bad slogan, here’s some more hollow posturing about guns.

“How much more carnage are we willing to accept?” Biden asked, demanding Republicans in particular end their blockade of gun control votes.

Yes, if only government gets the power to eliminate legal guns, all the drug dealers won’t be able to get hold of them. Just like they’re not able to get hold of guns.

The good news, such as it is, is no one gives a damn. With inflation out of control, people’s savings being wiped out, and the price of basic staples moving out of reach, the old issues have little zing. If Roe v. Wade getting aborted couldn’t shake things up, another “give us your guns so we can wait around for an hour during a shoot” ain’t gonna do it. Meanwhile, the Democrat criminal justice reform crime wave is destroying cities and killing thousands.

PATRIOT NURSE: Weapons for the World, but Disarm US?

When the Biden administration takes a play out of the Communist Manifesto, we can hardly be surprised. Total disarmament of the American people has been long in the sights of the Democrat party, as well as Marxist elements internationally. While this Federal government spends our tax dollars arming Marxist terror organizations worldwide, at home this same vehicle of government is being used to threaten good people and oppress their rights.

 

1 3 4 5 6 7 13