Category Archives: Enjoy Your Trial

The Rats are Leaving the Ship

Posted on by
2

Quote of the Day

ActBlue, the primary online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates, is experiencing significant internal upheaval as at least seven senior officials resigned late last month.

The departures coincide with an ongoing investigation by congressional Republicans, raising concerns about the organization’s future and its ability to continue as the party’s dominant fundraising tool.

Anthony Gonzalez
March 8, 2025
Democrat Fundraising Group ActBlue Faces Internal Chaos

This could be interesting.

I hope they enjoy their trials.

I Hope They Enjoy Their Trials

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

As Trump and Musk’s DOGE continue to drain the DC swamp—and begin dismantling the “off-the-books” shadow government (read: here)—internet search trends for “Criminal Defense Lawyer” and “RICO Laws” have erupted in the DC metro area and surrounding counties, including Northern Virginia and Maryland, according to new internet search trends uncovered by Rasmussen Reports head pollster Mark Mitchell. These spikes strongly suggest that federal workers in the area are scrambling to secure legal counsel. 

“Over three times more people in DC are googling “Criminal Defense Lawyer” than anywhere else in the US!” Mitchell wrote on X.

Tyler Durden
February 13, 2025
DC Internet Searches For “Criminal Defense Lawyer” & “RICO Law” Erupt As DOGE Drains Swamp | ZeroHedge

This is very telling. This means they knew they were involved in corruption.

I have zero sympathy for them. I hope they enjoy their trials. They earned them.

Executive Order to Protect Second Amendment Rights

Posted on by

This executive order could be a really big deal:

Trump Signs Executive Order To Protect Second Amendment Rights

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. The order, titled Protecting Second Amendment Rights, directs the Attorney General to review and address potential infringements on the right to keep and bear arms that may have occurred during the Biden administration.

In the order, President Trump emphasized the foundational importance of the Second Amendment, calling it “an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty.”

He stated that the right to bear arms is essential for protecting families, preserving freedoms, and maintaining all other rights enshrined in the Constitution.

…

The Attorney General is tasked with examining all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions taken by federal agencies from January 2021 through January 2025. The review will assess whether these actions infringed on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens under the guise of promoting safety.

…

The Attorney General’s office is expected to begin its review immediately, with a proposed plan of action due within 30 days. Once finalized, the plan will outline specific steps to ensure that federal policies align with the protection of Second Amendment rights.

The NRA says:

The order is a monumental win for gun rights in America and a clear statement from President Trump that he intends to uphold his promise to protect Constitutional freedoms.

SAF says:

“Joe Biden and Kamala Harris waged war on American gun owners and the Second Amendment for four long years,” Gottlieb recalled, “treating the right to keep and bear arms like a government-regulated privilege. That ended January 20, and we are looking ahead to actions by the Trump administration which will reverse Biden’s policies and correct the harm he has done.”

Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner:

I will celebrate when prison cell doors slam shut behind politicians who have been violating our rights for decades. They need to enjoy their trials before I really believe things have permanently changed.

I Hope They Enjoy Their Trials

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Turning lawfare on its creators is not about revenge. It will serve as a deterrent to prevent future abuse and will restore public confidence that justice is even-handed. Individuals who have carried out lawfare have not only destroyed faith in our legal system but also may have violated the law. A federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 241, prohibits conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” a person exercising constitutional rights or privileges. Clearly President Donald J. Trump had constitutional rights and privileges to run for office and govern, not to be imprisoned for contrived crimes, and not to be deprived of property based on abuse of federal and state justice systems. According to the Biden administration’s own theory, preventing a candidate from running and assuming office also deprives supporters of their rights to vote.

Victoria Toensing and John Yoo
January 27, 2025
Prosecute The Architects Of Trump Lawfare

Via email from Defens, who also said:

If the Trump administration could potentially use this, perhaps the time is actually ripe to go after folks like Ferguson, Pritsker, and other 2A infringing politicians?

It certainly seems to me they could prosecute a lot of politicians. Whether they will or not is another question. I would like to see it. And, as always, I hope they enjoy their trials.

Mass Shooters Have Unpunished Accomplices

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

While details are unknown, one thing is certain. Whatever the motivation of the shooter(s), he/they had accomplices who will go unpunished: the State of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following Bruen, New York threw a tantrum by trying to destroy the right to carry through banning carry almost everywhere relevant, even for those with a CCW permit. One of the categories of places banned is any business that serves alcohol, even if you are not drinking.

Judge Suddaby enjoined New York’s law, rightly noting that there was no historical tradition to support such a restriction. At most, history supports restricting those who are actually intoxicated, not those who are sober. But the Second Circuit reversed, citing a few outlier 19th century local ordinances that applied at only a few places (not everywhere that served alcohol).

So any New Yorkers with a CCW permit could not legally carry at the nightclub that was the site of this mass shooting tonight.

“Sensitive places” laws disarm good people and are a big help to the deranged criminals and mass murderers looking for a soft target.

New York and the Second Circuit’s hatred of the Second Amendment will have a growing bodycount. The Supreme Court needs to end its cowardice and more aggressively intervene to smack down errant circuit courts.

Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, January 1, 2025

This was in response to the mass shooting at the Amazura Night Club in Jamaica, Queens.

There are numerous politicians in need prosecution.

We Need to Raise Awareness and Respect

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.

HOUSE BILL 1152
State of Washington 69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session
January 2, 2025

See also: Gun owners could be charged with felonies if firearm gets stolen under new proposed bill.

These criminals* are trying to remove the above “does not apply if” clause from the safe storage law. The safe storage law is already bad enough and probably going to be struck down as being unconstitutional. But now, if a prohibited person unlawfully enters your home or vehicle, steals your firearm(s), then you become a criminal. You have committed a misdemeanor as soon as the criminal gains access. If they use them in a felon crime, you can also be changed with a felony.

If you have the firearm(s) “properly” stored in your vehicle then that does not apply. But “properly stored” means:

(a) A person shall not store or leave a pistol in any vehicle unless (i) the pistol is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(b) A person shall not store or leave a rifle or shotgun in any vehicle unless (i) the rifle or shotgun is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided or soft-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(c) A rifle or shotgun stored in a soft-sided container in a vehicle in accordance with this subsection must also have a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm installed on the rifle or shotgun while the firearm is stored in a soft-sided container.

(d) For the purpose of this subsection, a hard-sided container excludes a glove compartment or center console but includes a console vault or other container specifically designed to securely store firearms.

So, they want to make is so you must have handgun and long gun cases affixed in your vehicles. Otherwise, you could not stop to pick up some ammo as you left town on a hunting trip. And unless you carry your competition gun into the store to grab a case of water on your way to a match you risk becoming a criminal.

They have zero concern for this blatant violation of the Second Amendment. We need some prosecutions to raise awareness and respect.

I look forward to their trials.

* Representatives Doglio, Walen, Ryu, Ramel, Farivar, Berry, Leavitt, Alvarado, Mena, Duerr, Reed, Parshley, Fitzgibbon, Callan, Macri, Cortes, Obras, Gregerson, Simmons, Peterson, Rule, Street, Goodman, Wylie, Pollet, Nance, Berg, Davis, Ormsby, Lekanoff, Fosse, Salahuddin, Hill, and Tharinge.

Their Goal is not Public Safety.

Posted on by

The slim ball politicians in Washington State are continuing their assault on gun owners and dealers with HOUSE BILL 1132 which reads in part:

A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1)(a) A dealer may not deliver more than one firearm to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period.

(b) A dealer may not deliver more than 100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition or more than 1,000 rounds of any other caliber of ammunition to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) Any general authority Washington law enforcement agency or limited authority Washington law enforcement agency as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020;

(b) Any correctional facility as defined in RCW 72.09.015;

(c) Any private security company as defined in RCW 18.170.010;

(d) Any federal peace officer, general authority Washington peace officer, or limited authority Washington peace officer who as a normal part of the officer’s duties has arrest powers and carries a firearm, as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and is obtaining firearms or ammunition for law enforcement purposes;

(e) The criminal justice training commission;

(f) Any federal firearms dealer, federal firearms importer, or dealer, as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010, who is obtaining firearms or ammunition for resale;

(g) Any person who may, pursuant to RCW 9.41.113(4), claim an exemption from the background check requirements of RCW 9.41.113;

(h) The exchange of a firearm where the dealer sold that firearm to the person seeking the exchange within the 30-day period immediately preceding the date of exchange or replacement;

(i) The return of any firearm to its owner;

(j) The receipt of firearms by a person who acquires possession of the firearms by operation of law upon the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the firearms, provided the person in possession of the firearms can establish such provenance. Receipt under this subsection is not “distribution” under this chapter;

(k) Any private party transaction where the seller is, at the time of the transaction, required under state law or by court order to relinquish all firearms;

(l) Any private party transaction where the seller is any of the following:

(i) The personal representative of a decedent’s estate who is transferring the firearm to one or more heirs or beneficiaries of the decedent’s estate pursuant to the decedent’s will or the laws of intestate succession;

(ii) The holder of the decedent’s property who is transferring the firearms pursuant to RCW 11.62.010 to the successor of the decedent, as defined in RCW 11.62.005, or the surviving spouse of the decedent pursuant to RCW 11.04.015; or

(iii) The trustee of a trust who is transferring the firearms to one or more trust beneficiaries upon the death of a settlor of the trust; or

(m) Any person who is a licensed collector as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the department of justice.

(3)(a) Any person who violates this section commits a class 1
civil infraction and shall be assessed a monetary penalty of $500.

(b) If a person previously has been found to have violated this section, then the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for a subsequent violation of this section.

(c) If a person previously has been found to have violated this section two or more times, then the person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent violation of this section.

Who are they targeting with this law? It is just the dealer. A person purchasing ammo can go to a different seller every other day. They can then purchase 15,000 rounds in a month without running afoul of this proposed law. They can even buy any number of rounds from a friend.

Via email, Rolf proposed a motive for this seeming absurdity:

Depending on the enforcement regs, I think I may see its primary purpose.

It a limitation on FFLs selling you more than X. Not a prohibition on you buying more than X.

That means the DEALER must track by ID all purchases and maintain those records.

If they don’t, then a government informant walks in 29 days apart as part of a sting operation…..

Constant harassment of dealers is the only goal.

This is plausible. But I think it is just as likely that they really are that stupid. The law doesn’t have to make sense. It is just (what they want to be) the law.

If you insist this has to make sense in some way, then Rolf has a decent hypothesis. Think about it this way. Excluding the Las Vegas music festival shooting a few years ago, where over 1,100 rounds were fired, can you name a crime that utilized more than 1,000 rounds? And even in that incident, Purchases from just two dealers would have supplied more than enough ammo.

This makes it crystal clear their goal is not public safety.

These criminal need to be prosecuted. I hope they enjoy their trials.

It is About Bullying, not Crime Reduction

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

“Stupidity” may apply in terms of whether they honestly believe such restrictions will reduce or prevent crime, but rights-hating Democrats know such measures infuriate and frustrate gun owners, which is exactly what they want to do. Were they in elementary school, one might argue, this would be called bullying, because they know they can get away with it.

Dave Workman
December 30, 2024
WA Lump of Coal: Dems File HB 1132 Limiting Gun, Ammo Buys

They have been bullying us for decades. I expect it will get worse before it gets better. It will only get better when they start paying a price. I don’t know when or if that will happen, but I know it should happen.

There are at least two ways this can come about legally. 1), they are prosecuted; or 2), the court assigns a monitor to them. The monitor would report to the judge periodically.

I would like to see the politicians and activists supporting this crap spent time in prison. I’m thinking the sentence length should he double the number of days the offending law was in force.

Six Month Wait for an Appointment to Have Your Fingerprints Taken

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Massachusetts law prohibits the issuance of a firearms license before the State Police complete a background check based on an applicant’s fingerprints. For individuals residing in Boston, after an application is submitted to the Boston Police Department, the Department’s Licensing Unit makes them wait for many month before they are provided with an appointment to have their fingerprints taken. It is currently estimated the wait time is more than six (6) months for an appointment.

Prior to this litigation, the Licensing Unit engaged in a practice that made individuals seeking licenses wait for months on a “wait list” to merely submit their applications – a practice that was abandoned in response to litigation from some of the Plaintiffs in this case. The Boston Police Department has seemingly traded one mechanism to effectuate lengthy delays with another, all in an effort to prevent peaceable Bostonians from obtaining firearms.

Second Amendment Foundation
August 31, 2024
White v. Cox – Second Amendment Foundation

People who do this sort of crap should be prosecuted.

A Good Start

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Inadvertence and ignorance of the law by government is no more of an excuse for violating civil rights than when a citizen ‘inadvertently’ violates the law and is arrested and prosecuted. I will begin drafting my Complaint seeking relief, including personal fines against the city officials under whose jurisdiction this knowing and willful enactment occurred. You may want to inform the relevant officials that they are not allowed to use tax dollars to defend themselves from such liability, and that any fine assessed will be personally payable by them, to alleviate your concerns about tax dollars.

Eric J. Friday
General Counsel of Florida Carry, Inc.
September 28, 2024
Florida Officials Who “Inadvertently” Banned Guns Prior to Hurricane May Pay – The Truth About Guns

Remember, a couple weeks ago, when a small town in Florida decided to suspend the 2nd Amendment because of the hurricane? The quote above is the response after the town apologized and said they hadn’t prosecuted anyone for violating their illegal order.

It’s not a criminal prosecution, but Florida law does say the government officials responsible for an illegal ordinance can be personally fined for their illegal acts. I hope other politicians pick up on this clue.

It is a good start.

A Specific Enumerated Right–VOID by Passing Hurricane

Posted on by

Via a posts on X by Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras and Bryan LaFonte
@bryanlafonte:·

There are few other situations where you would need defensive weapons more than when the social structure has been ripped apart. Either this is either mind boggling stupid or deliberate enabling of criminals.

I hope he enjoys his trial.

DNC Platform as Evidence at Their Trials

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The DNC Platform states that the Democrats are determined to establish national universal background checks and red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of people deemed a danger to themselves and others. According to the platform, the party also wants a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, to require safe storage of guns and end the gun industry’s immunity from liability “so gunmakers can no longer escape accountability.

“And, because the gun violence epidemic is a public health crisis, we will fund gun violence research across the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] and National Institutes of Health [NIH] as well as community violence interventions,” the DNC platform states.

Bill Hutchinson
August 19, 2024
Gun violence among top issues in DNC Platform – ABC News (go.com)

It is good they make this so clear. It makes it more difficult for them to get away with claiming they “support the Second Amendment”. Plus, should the occasion arise, it can be used as evidence at their trials.

A Prosecutable Offense

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Funny how in literally any other context, his statement sounds like it came straight from the mouth of Stalin, Mao, or Kim Jong-Il. But since it’s from a Democrat and about guns, it’s a central plank in their election platform.

Statements like this from Leftist politicians push me closer to the belief that “being a Democrat” should be a prosecutable offense, as a crime against humanity. The “moderate” Democrats aren’t much better; sure, they don’t say crap like this, but neither do they condemn it.

Archer
August 9, 2024
Comment to Prior Restraint

I hope they enjoy their trials.

They are Getting Off Easy

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Nowadays, it is difficult to be an informed news consumer, especially if you value the right to keep and bear arms. When a story involves guns or the Second Amendment, what passes for news is usually propaganda – finely honed and served up with a purpose.

Many Americans have found alternative news sources. This is the main reason why the Associated Press and other corporate media sources are hemorrhaging readers and viewers. The legacy media’s decline is self-inflicted. Their continued adherence to pushing false narratives did them in.

Lee Williams
July 11, 2024
Associated Press Refuses to Correct Anti-gun Story – Another Symptom of its Decline

If they go bankrupt and every single person involved in this long term conspiracy to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms can’t find work for years, they are still getting off easy. They should be prosecuted.

Gun Registries Are Only Effective for One Thing

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

I think it is a wonderful idea to have a registry of every gun that is owned by a civilian in the United States of America. Because then we could have perhaps less killings in our neighborhoods. Less killings at our supermarkets. Less killings at our concerts. Less killings period in the United States of America.

Bonnie Watson Coleman
US Representative (D-NJ)
July 2024

This is all in response to the ATF spending 10s of millions on digitizing nearly a billion* 4473s from out of business FFLs:

Even if you ignore the fact gun registries are only effective for one thing, a gun registry maintained by the U.S. government is illegal.

Addressing congresswoman Coleman claim: she should do some research. Then, try to answer just one question. Registries are not associated with “less killings” of the type she refers to. The only thing registries are good for is gun confiscation. 

I hope these people enjoy their trial.

* A bit of good news in this is that nearly a billion records means it’s going to take a lot of people a lot of time to find and confiscation the guns referenced by those 900+ million records. The workers will become fewer and time required even longer as I expect they will become lead magnets.

Prosecute Them!

Posted on by

These people need to be prosecuted.:

Charged with possessing his own gun, Purple Heart recipient suing NYPD for discrimination

Purple Heart recipient Raffique Khan still can’t believe he was pulled over while driving his BMW in Brooklyn for no apparent reason — then arrested for carrying a legal gun.

Sadly, he says, he can only conclude he was charged because he’s Black.

Khan, 40, retired from the U.S. Army and now working as an armed federal environment protection specialist assigned to Fort Wadsworth on Staten Island, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination, wrongful arrest and a denial of his Second Amendment right to carry a firearm.

“There was no probable cause, to stop [Khan] other than he was a person of color operating an expensive late model vehicle…” said the suit, filed in Brooklyn Federal Court by his lawyer, Cory Morris, on May 21. A similar suit was filed by Morris June 14 in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn.

“To be honest, I’m disappointed,” Khan, a native of Trinidad and Tobago, told the Daily News in an interview. “I never thought I would serve and come home to be treated in this manner. I love my country. I wasn’t born here but what better way to pay your country than to serve. i did it honorably.

“I could understand if i was arguing or trying to fight, being belligerent — but it was nothing like that.”

The criminal complaint — filed after Officer Matthew Bessen, who Khan described as white, arrested Khan last Nov. 26 in East New York — clearly indicates that the NYPD’s own database indicates Khan has a license to carry a firearm. The complaint said Khan can only carry the weapon while at work, but Morris said Khan has no such restrictions on his license.

…

Khan said he was not told why he was stopped — and there is nothing in the complaint to indicate it, either.

But Kkan, noting his “great respect” for law enforcement, said he immediately told Bessen he was a licensed gun holder and that the weapon was in his glove compartment.

With that, Khan said he and his passengers were ordered out of the car, with Bessen reviewing Khan’s documents — including his carry permit and military identification — and questioning how he got them.

“Maybe he didn’t expect a minority to have credentials like that,” Khan said. “I did not say that to him, but I was saying that to myself. I wanted to still give him the respect he deserves but even though I’m asking him what is going on he didn’t explain anything to me at all.”

After about a half hour, Khan, his cousin and his friend were handcuffed and taken to the 75th Precinct, with Khan eventually charged and the other two let go.

I hope the officers and prosecutors involved enjoy their trials.

Via a post by Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

Sign It and Spread the Word

Posted on by

Do you remember Judge Abena Darkeh? She is the judge who said,

Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.

There is now a Change.org petition to demand her removal from her position. She should be prosecuted and sent to prison, but taking a baby step is better than nothing at all.

Sign it and spread the word.