The Medal of Freedom is going to an anti-freedom activist:
President Biden announced he will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 17 individuals including ex-lawmaker and gun control activist Gabby Giffords…
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/1/biden-medal-freedom-giffords-trump-critic-khan/
She, and Biden, should be prosecuted.
This is incredibly good news. The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.
Our attorneys are already reviewing earlier cases to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen and we are confident other cases now remanded back for further review will also fare better in the lower courts.
It is also important that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.
Alan Gottlieb
Executive Vice President
Second Amendment Foundation
SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW
[See also SUPREME COURT REVERSES LOWER COURT RULINGS ON MAG BAN, “ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN, CARRY BAN
The lower courts will, of course, drag their feet. My guess is that it will be months, at best, before we see real change in things like “assault weapon” bans and restrictions, and magazine bans.
But this does make for a very happy 4th of July.
And be sure to make your lists and document all the anti-gun politicians infringements of our rights. A right delayed is a right denied. Perhaps sometime in 2025 we will have a glimmer of hope that these criminals will be prosecuted.—Joe]
I was in Idaho yesterday. Among other things I was getting the Boomershoot weather station and webcam back online. A bunch of weeds had grown up high enough that the solar panels were severely shaded and the batteries had discharged to the point that everything shutdown.
Despite the “bird repellent” wires, birds had used the rain gauge as a toilet:
Everything is now fixed.
It was nearing sundown as I was leaving and I noticed an unusual cloud formation:
The sky picture goes with the earth pictures I took not too far away earlier in the day:
This was formed where there was standing water on clay which dried up.
When my brothers and I were growing up we would sometimes marvel at a similar formation a short distance from the house. There was the added thrill of seeing sparkles in the “mud chips”. We wondered if it was gold or silver. It was probably just fine sand, but still we found the formations fascinating.
If the Left got the “bodily autonomy” they claim to want, there wouldn’t be much of their State remaining.
So, you really want bodily autonomy do you, including autonomy in time, resources, property, wealth, speech and health, do you?
Naw, thought not.
Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith
Tweeted on June 26, 2022
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Anne: Do you have numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes?
Hochul: I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to say this. I know that I have a responsibility for this state to have sensible gun safety laws. pic.twitter.com/NiCp7POO88
— Anne McCloy (@AnneMcCloyNews) June 29, 2022
She probably feels this way because she doesn’t trust numbers to give her the correct answer.
Politicians should be limited to two terms: 1 in office and 1 in prison.
Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs
Tweeted on June 20, 2022
[This merits serious consideration. In a few rare cases, after completing their term in office, the death penalty is probably too harsh.—Joe]
A historic economic nightmare is here, and the guy in the White House is all out of answers.
So buckle up and try to enjoy the ride.
The months ahead are going to be quite chaotic, and you probably don’t even want to think about what is coming after that.
Michael Snyder
June 2, 2022
Americans Will Never Forget The Historic Economic Collapse During Joe Biden’s Presidency
[I want an underground bunker in Idaho.—Joe]
Big gun = tiny dick.
Also.
Small gun = tiny dick.
Mark @mark_melbin
Tweeted on April 12, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
Or, in this case, “doesn’t know what science is”.
Via a tweet from Ben Rondeau@BenRondeau4.—Joe]
This is fascinating in a horrifying sort of way:
Why we must nationalize Big Oil
… the government should nationalize Big Oil. That would allow the government to manage the industry’s drawdown, a process the private sector is ignoring.
…
“We will likely need to take over and decommission the large fossil fuel extraction corporations that are both one of the leading causes of climate change and one of the primary institutional impediments to addressing,” Hanna concludes.
…
The federal government typically nationalizes companies to save them. In this case, it must nationalize Big Oil to save us all from a future we don’t want.
“Drawdown” is this character’s euphemism for controlled destruction.
They are referring to the manufacturer of a product that provides the energy to produce and transport food to billions of people who would otherwise die. This product is the basis of the worlds greatest triumphs over poverty, hunger, shelter, transportation, and pestilence. And these people want to deliberately destroy access to it.
To the best of my knowledge nothing of this sort has ever before been advocated, not even by the most evil communist regimes the planet has ever seen. This would be the deliberate murder of the vast majority of the world population.
Yes, people have been saying the deliberate and violent extinction of humans is what the environmental fascists “really want”. But prior to this the worst I have actually seen is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
Prepare appropriately.
Do you want to know what type of gun used to be advertised for riots?
Skip the riot shotguns. Go straight to the real thing.
Read the fine print:
I expect that even with moderate application of the belt fed 30.06 there would be very few repeat offenders.
Originally tweeted by Sal the Agorist @SallyMayweather
Referred to me via a tweet from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.
Via sacrebleu14 / SA Hinchcliffe @sacrebleu141
She does awesome memes. Over the years I am certain I have posted dozens, if not a hundred or more, of them here.
From Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation:
Our Mission
Establish a regulatory environment in which every individual adult in the United States who is not prohibited from exercising rights under an analysis consistent with the Constitution’s text, informed by American history and tradition, can:
Acquire and possess (“keep”) all bearable arms in “common use for lawful purposes”:
including but not limited to semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns regulated as “assault weapons”;
firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds; blades; and, other defensive arms.
Carry (“bear”) loaded, operable arms on their person and in their vehicles, in public, for self-defense and all lawful purposes;
Personally build (self-manufacture) arms, including by and through the acquisition and possession of the tools, information/files, and materials/supplies to do so; and,
Protect the resources, markets, and conduct essential to the above.
Expand young peoples’ understanding and adoption of the philosophy of natural rights and private property, and the adoption and lawful use of the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and other essential liberties to maximize preservation and expansion of freedom in future generations.
Establish clear protections against prohibition and/or seizure of personal property, as well as unjust incarceration for the exercise of fundamental rights.
Opportunistically leverage changing cultural, political, and legal environments to achieve tactical victories and divert enemy resources (i.e., funding and personnel) away from strategically critical areas to reduce enemy effectiveness.
Upon achieving all of the above, establish a new vision and strategic objectives consistent with the Organization’s Purpose and expanded field of operation.
I support this. I like the way the content is expressed.
And from the Firearms Policy Coalition
OUR CURRENT AREAS OF OPERATION
CULTURE: Using the FPC Team of advocates:
- Grow and support a nation-wide network of informed, vocal individuals who actively promote the philosophy of natural rights and work to eliminate laws and policies that limit or otherwise conflict with liberty;
- Support policy changes consistent with the [FPC] Purpose and Mission;
- Encourage the People to draw a hard line and reject government expansion and interference with the People’s rights and liberty (i.e., “Fuck you. No.”).
I follow them on Twitter and I really like their constant engagement and feisty attitude.
Each month I donate, matched dollar for dollar by my employer, to the foundation
When I read something like this I am inclined to dismiss everything they say because of the exaggeration (emphasis added):
In overruling Roe v. Wade, and with it nearly 50 years of American law, and expanding the reach of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is a jurisprudential innovation of more recent vintage, the Supreme Court wants the public to accept that history rules the present — and that our founding charter, which is hailed as a beacon of liberty pointing to a more perfect union, reflects rules set in stone that no judge should dare disturb.
This is just one example from the article.
I almost want to scream at them:
Judges must interpret the law as written! They don’t get to change it.
If the constitution needs to be changed to allow a new law, or strike down an existing one, then there is a process to change the constitution. USE IT! Do not expect judges to be some sort of super legislators.
The problem is not Mental illness! In the best-case gun control is a stupid attempt to address a symptom of the breakdown of society. The ills of society that we are seeing is due to that very society and addressing the symptoms cannot fix the ills. It is society that has gone amuck. It is society that needs fixing.
Look back 50+ years. Guns could be purchase if you had the money. You could live in a shack if that is what you could afford. There were definite expected roles for men and different expected roles for women. Boys were given a gun on becoming of age usually in their early teens. There were jobs even for people on the lower half of the IQ curve. A single wage earner was sufficient to raise a family though it was preferable not to be a hired hand.
So today, it is women and POC that get the jobs and the promotions. What is a young man to think when society is saying that he has no role? That he is not wanted? Yet, he can look at what is being achieved and be alarmed.
Does recognizing reality make him mental ill?
Chet
June 12, 2022
Comment to Insightful observation
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
We never claimed to be law-abiding.
Slaves were law-abiding.
We are peaceful.
Now, if you want to threaten our rights, our families, or our property, you can discover the limits of that peacefulness.
In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on June 14, 2022
[See also Huffman’s rule of firearm law.—Joe]
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. 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 dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1
The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. 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.
Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions. By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.
And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.
That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.
Prepare appropriately.—Joe]
I suspect Justice Thomas has had this teed up for many years and got a great deal of pleasure whacking the opposition in the face with it today:
Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America. After the Civil War, of course, the exercise of this fundamental right by freed slaves was systematically thwarted. This Court has already recounted some of the Southern abuses violating blacks’ right to keep and bear arms. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 771 (noting the “systematic efforts”
Thomas goes on at length with sections such as:
The reports described how blacks used publicly carried weapons to defend themselves and their communities. For example, the Bureau reported that a teacher from a Freedmen’s school in Maryland had written to say that, because of attacks on the school, “[b]oth the mayor and sheriff have warned the colored people to go armed to school, (which they do,)” and that the “[t]he superintendent of schools came down and brought [the teacher] a revolver” for his protection. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 658 (1866); see also H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 68, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 91 (1867) (noting how, during the New Orleans riots, blacks under attack “defended themselves . . . with such pistols as they had”).:
In other news, Mike B. and I exchanged some text messages this afternoon:
Mike: We need to start renaming streets, “Clarence Thomas Blvd.”.
QOTD candidate by Mike’s wife.Joe:
Hmmmmm… How about renaming NYC “Clarence Thomas City”?Mike: Honoring the black man
Constitutional law is something to be disposed of and/or ignored ::
It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States. The first step is for a state the “court” has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling. Great. You’re a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?
Olbermann probably doesn’t know this, leftists seem to be ignorant or in denial of history, but other people once had a similar attitude about SCOTUS. The National Guard convinced them to change their behavior. There is another parallel which should also be pointed out to Olbermann. And that is, in that previous encounter it was also Democrats obstructing freedom.
From What the Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling Means For Gun Control
So the future will depend, at least in part, on what state lawmakers try to do. Lawmakers in a state like New York or California could test the limits of the Supreme Court’s ruling by designating the subway, Broadway theaters or grocery stores as “sensitive places” where heightened restrictions can be applied. The risk for them, of course, is that the next Supreme Court ruling could expand gun rights even further.
It could be that the slippery slope is leaning in the correct direction.
I won’t be satisfied until the opposition knows the slightest misstep will be like a greased tin floor at a steep angle with a Federal prison cell at the bottom.
This just takes. The concessions are only things law and order GOP swamp creatures care about.
This bill is garbage and should be opposed, and any Republican who votes for this needs to be tossed out on their asses in a primary if they aren’t retiring.
Sebastian
June 22, 2022
Breaking Silence Over Gun Control
[The best thing I can say about it is that it isn’t as bad as I expected it would be.
All is not lost yet. It appears Senator Dianne Feinstein is improving the odds it will fail:
I just filed an amendment to the Senate’s bipartisan gun bill that would raise the age to purchase an assault weapon to 21.
I still think everyone that votes for it or contributes to the enforcement of it should be prosecuted.—Joe]
