Quote of the Day

My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods.

…

And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.

…

So can you help me? Because I’m really – I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.

Ketanji Brown Jackson
Justice of SCOTUS
March 18, 2024
Judge Jackson’s ‘chilling’ First Amendment comments leave Jonathan Turley ‘very concerned’ (msn.com)

I’m reminded of something I thought the NRA had repeatedly published. But I can’t find it now. The closest I could find was this:

You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.

Rush Limbaugh

It would be best for everyone if SCOTUS understands this. As the people of Scotland are learning, if not vigorously defended, free speech is easily lost:

The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.”

There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.

Quote of the Day

California continues to push out a steady stream of absurd, unscientific, and flat out impossible regulations across many industries in an attempt to impose its extremist, green agenda on the whole country by forcing manufacturers and businesses who want to do business in California to toe its far-left enviornut agenda.

It has become so pervasive that 17 states have banded together to sue the federal Environmental Protection Agency to cancel the special rules it has for allowing California to make its own environmental rules. That began in 1970 when the federal government added that carve out to the Clean Air Act.

But, what we see here is just another example of how far California is from every other state and even from the federal government on its commitment to the shrill environmentalist agenda. And it is long past time California’s absurd regulations are reigned in and to end its special powers to coerce the rest of the country to abide by its extremist agenda.

Todd Huston
March 1, 2024
Coast Guard Refuses to Enforce California’s New Environmental Regulation (msn.com)

If only the Feds would reign in California gun laws as well. It wouldn’t be that hard. Just prosecute and send the governor, attorney general, a few senators and representatives to jail and/or death row, and California would be much better behaved for several years.

Quote of the Day

The Committee and Select Subcommittee have obtained documents showing that FinCEN distributed slides, prepared by a financial institution, explaining how other financial institutions can use MCC codes to detect customers whose transactions may reflect “potential active shooters, [and] who may include dangerous International Terrorists / Domestic Terrorists / Homegrown Violent Extremists (‘Lone Wolves’).” For example, the slides instruct financial institutions to query for transactions using certain MCC codes such as “3484: Small Arms,” “5091: Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies,” and the keywords “Cabela’s,” and “Dick’s Sporting Goods,” among several others. Despite these transactions having no apparent criminal nexus—and, in fact, relate to Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights— FinCEN seems to have adopted a characterization of these Americans as potential threat actors. This kind of pervasive financial surveillance, carried out in coordination with and at the request of federal law enforcement, into Americans’ private transactions is alarming and raises serious doubts about FinCEN’s respect for fundamental civil liberties.

Jim Jordan
Chairman Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
January 17, 2024
Letter to Noah Bishoff, former Director of the Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the Strategic Operations Division of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)

Via email from John S.

See also Financial Big Brother is Watching You – by Matt Taibbi (racket.news).

We live in interesting times. Prepare appropriately.

Quote of the Day

I just listened to the California “Assault Weapon” ban oral argument before the Ninth Circuit in Miller v. Bonta. I will do extremely detailed breakdown of the argument later. In short, 2A will NOT win with this panel.

The questions and comments from the two liberal judges Berzon and Nguyen were unimpressive. Judge Berzon called AR-15s “A-15s” (seriously).

Based on today’s argument and the efforts by the two liberal judges to avoid applying Heller/Bruen, I now understand what it was like watching a court argument in 1950s Alabama/Mississippi over racial desegregation where intellectually dishonest, results-oriented judges worked overtime to avoid the obvious, legally-compelled outcome based upon clear, binding US Supreme Court precedent.

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar @fourboxesdiner
Posted on X January 24, 2024

And, no surprise, it was the same political party deliberately infringing upon the rights of people in both instances. There is an reason they are called the evil party.

Quote of the Day

I’ll shut down the FBI & ATF and here’s one more reason why. A voter in Iowa recently reminded me of the story of Ruby Ridge & the Weaver family. In 1992, Randy Weaver sold a sawed-off shotgun to a federal informant & was then surrounded at his cabin for refusing to appear in court. First they killed his dog, then they shot & killed his son, *14-year-old* Samuel Weaver. His wife, Vicki, also was shot & killed by an FBI sniper while holding their 10-month-old daughter inside their house. Weaver was later acquitted & awarded a $3mm settlement by the DOJ. Another classic case of entrapment & a disproportionate, politicized abuse of federal police power. I will *shut down* toxic 3-letter agencies like the FBI & ATF that are beyond the point of incremental “reform,” using my Constitutional authority as U.S. President to do it.

Vivek Ramaswamy @VivekGRamaswamy
Posted on X January 9, 2024

I would vote for that.

Quote of the Day

A horribly written law that would make criminals out of careful, law-abiding citizens is not a solution to the tremendous problem we face with gun violence and firearm accidents. Publicly supported and funded, age-appropriate firearm safety education ought to be a part of it.

Brad Johnson
Anoka County Attorney
Letter to state representative Jaime Becker-Finn.

Via MN Gun Owners Caucus @mnguncaucus on April 3, 2023.

We must recognize we have allies in government.

It wasn’t too long ago that I read a book about the resistance to Nazi’s in Italy. A young woman got a job as a maid and nanny to a Nazi officer and his wife. She was also a spy who obtained information which was smuggled to the allies which was used to save countless lives. As the Nazis were retreating out of Italy local “patriots” rounded up the Nazis and collaborates they could find and killed them without trials. The young woman was among them.

Quote of the Day

Gun laws in the United States are an unmitigated disaster. The amount of asinine minutiae that can send you straight to jail is downright embarrassing, and it requires a conscious effort to believe we’re in this situation because of incompetence rather than malice. All this to say: I’ve made a genuine effort to work on this project without running afoul of any state or federal gun laws, like Tom Frickin’ Cruise navigating a hallway of laser tripwires.

Evan @ Cottage Arms
Posted in 2022

Meet Shirley: The .22LR built for the year 2022 from Cottage Arms on Vimeo.

Quote of the Day

In CCP’s China, one can find a Party Branch (党支部) in any workplace.

According to the CCP, its function is to propagate & implement the Party’s principles, policies, & resolutions.

In America today, we have a DEI office in every institution.

Xi Van Fleet @XVanFleet
Posted on X December 21, 2023

I read and really like her book.

Well, “like” in the sense of interesting and enlightening. She grew up in China during the cultural revolution and then moved to the U.S. where she now sees frightening similarities to her native country. Daughter Jaime refuses to read it because it sounds too dark.

Some of the terrible stuff in China would not fly in the U.S. because of the widespread ownership of firearms and a substantial number of the population tend to distrust the government and highly regard individualism. But other stuff can be seen closing in all around us.

Quote of the Day

Wednesday’s arguments focused primarily on this first theory: that adjudicating securities fraud before an administrative law judge violates the right to a trial by a jury. This right arises from the Seventh Amendment, which provides a jury trial in some civil cases. Current Supreme Court precedent breaks it down like this: When the U.S. government seeks to enforce a congressional statute that prohibits or punishes wrongdoing, it is enforcing “public rights.” And these enforcements don’t implicate the Seventh Amendment. That means they can be brought within an agency, before administrative law judges, who are shielded from removal by the commission. As Kagan put it on Wednesday, quoting major precedent, the Seventh Amendment “is no bar to the creation of new rights or to their enforcement outside the regular courts of law.”

This system is the only plausible way that the executive branch can carry out the duties assigned to it by Congress. Federal agencies rely on administrative adjudication to penalize polluters, scammers, abusive employers, crooked banks, and a whole range of unsavory parties. Obviously, these agencies can’t send anyone to prison, and their procedures must comply with due process. Their goal is to catch countless cases that would otherwise slip through the cracks—often because the harm involved applies to the public at large, or to potential harms that haven’t yet caused an injury. If the government had to bring these cases in federal court, the judiciary would be overwhelmed, its docket flooded with disputes that it lacks the time or resources to resolve by trial.

Mark Joseph Stern
November 29, 2023
The Supreme Court Has Figured Out How to Gut a Bunch of Crucial Federal Laws at Once

Emphasis added.

To refresh your memory on the 7^th Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by Jury shall be preserved, and no fact, tried by a Jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I’m not a lawyer, but the only exemptions to a jury trial granted by the 7^th Amendment is if the value must be less than or equal to $20 or the controversy is not a suit at common law. “At common law” appears to mean “cases that triggered the right to a jury under English law”. Article III protects the right to a trial by jury for all criminal cases.

So what are these regulations that Stern is so upset about? Are they criminal or are they civil? It would appear to be criminal cases to me. They are violations of laws created by congress, right?

So, it would appear to me that the only exemption Stern can hang his hat on when he claims the 7^th Amendment doesn’t guarantee a jury trial are those trials which involve less than or equal to $20.

Of course he doesn’t try to explain why these regulations are exempt. He just rants about how it is not practical to allow the defendants to have their right to a trial by jury. In other words, inconvenient constitutionally guaranteed rights must be ignored..

I suspect this mindset is common in those opposed to the 2nd Amendment as well.

Perhaps he would revise his option at his own trial.