Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Constitution

Anti-Trump Lawyer Spills the Beans: Mar-a-Lago Raid Seeks to Keep Trump From Running in 2024

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, August 8, 2022:  

The raid by the FBI on Trump’s Florida residence has nothing to do with “national security” or the “National Archives.” It has everything to do with finding something — anything — in those 15 boxes to nail him under a law that, if he is convicted, would prevent him from ever running for president again.

The hubris of Marc Elias — who served as Hillary Clinton’s top lawyer in her failed 2016 presidential campaign and was invested heavily in almost all of the Deep State’s attacks on Trump since then — not only may be his undoing, but also may help propel Trump into the presidency in 2024.

On Monday — 48 years to the day after President Nixon resigned from the presidency — the raid on Mar-a-Lago was followed by rejoicing by Elias on Twitter:

The media is missing the really, really big reason why the raid today is a potential blockbuster in American politics.

This revelation was followed by a screen shot of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071, with the following text highlighted:

[Anyone] having the custody of any such record [filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States], proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. [Emphasis added.]

On the surface, it appears that the FBI could either find, or create, evidence that could be used to charge the former president under this law.

But a closer look reveals that Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution under this identical law when she destroyed those highly sensitive personal emails. In fact, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey sought clarification and found that “disqualification extends only to statutory or appointed offices, but not to any constitutionally-mandated or elected positions.”

Since Trump was elected and not appointed, he could run in 2024 even if he were in jail.

But that is highly unlikely, as Elias noted in a follow-up tweet:

Yes, I recognize the legal challenge that application of this law to a president would garner (since Qualifications are set in the Constitution).

 

But the idea that a candidate [Trump] would have to litigate this during a [presidential] campaign is in my view a “blockbuster in American politics.”

On the contrary, it could turn out that the raid on Mar-a-Lago was the greatest law-enforcement mistake ever made in American history. It could galvanize Trump’s base and cement into place his reelection in 2024 while destroying what might remain of the FBI’s credibility, possibly leading to its dismantlement and restructuring by Congress.

Trump is the Teflon President, having survived all efforts by the Clinton camp, the Democrat establishment, the administrative agencies (i.e., the Deep State), the NeverTrumpers, the sold-out media, and the RINOs to get rid of him. In announcing the raid on his Florida residence, Trump said:

After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate.

 

It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for President in 2024.

His announcement that he will run for re-election in 2024 is expected shortly. Until then, this three-minute ad that he released following the raid will suffice.

Politicians’ Canards Promoting Passage of Assault Weapons Ban

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 8, 2022:  

Hoping to ride the momentum from passage of the first major anti-gun legislation in 30 years — the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act — Joe Biden and various anti-gun politicians are pushing the Senate to pass another anti-gun House bill, this one banning all “assault” weapons.

And they’re using the same lies and exaggerations.

Said Biden in July:

Assault weapons need to be banned.

 

They were banned. I led the fight in 1994.

 

And then, under pressure from the NRA [National Rifle Association] and the gun manufacturers and others, that ban was lifted in 2004.

We won’t waste readers’ time correcting the errors in this statement, but instead will focus on what he said next:

In the 10 years it was law, mass shootings went down.

 

But after Republicans let the law expire in 2004 and those weapons were allowed to be sold again, mass shootings tripled.

 

Those are the facts.

This was echoed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “We know that an assault weapons ban can work because it has worked before.… we witnessed gun crime with assault weapons drop by up to 40 percent.”

Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Federation, told The Epoch Times:

Supporters of the bans are calling their assertions “facts,” in an effort to mislead the public. Many of the Democratic Members of Congress were purposefully misleading in their assertions that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban reduced crime.

 

This level of willful ignorance would be comical if … what they are trying to do wasn’t so blatantly unconstitutional.

John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, agreed: “The number of murders with rifles actually increased slightly when the ban went into effect.” He pointed out that the percentage of all firearm-related murders with any type of rifle was 4.8 percent prior to the ban, and remained essentially constant during the ban. After the ban expired in 2004, rifle homicides dropped to 3.6 percent of all gun-related homicides.

Reuters reported that Biden, Pelosi, and other opponents of the Second Amendment used a 2021 study from Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine to promote the bill. When this writer attempted to obtain a copy of that study, however, he found that it was not readily available to the public.

However, in its summary review of the study the university provided this highly revealing disclaimer about the study’s results:

In conclusion, with a few exceptions, there is a surprisingly limited base of rigorous scientific evidence concerning the effects of many commonly discussed gun policies. This does not mean that these policies are ineffective; they might well be quite effective. Instead, it reflects shortcomings in the contributions that scientific study can currently offer to policy debates in these areas….

 

[N]one of the policies we examined would dramatically increase or decrease the stock of guns or gun ownership rates in ways that would produce more readily detectable effects on public safety, health, and industry outcomes.

 

The United States has a large stock of privately owned guns in circulation—estimated in 2014 to be somewhere between 200 million and 300 million firearms (Cook and Goss, 2014).

 

Laws designed to change who may buy new weapons, what weapons they may buy, or how gun sales occur will predictably have only a small effect on … homicides … which are affected much more by the existing stock of firearms.

Let’s recap: this study is one that House Speaker Pelosi and others used to promote the bill that is now headed to the Senate. But other studies are much clearer: The 10-year ban on semi-automatic rifles didn’t reduce gun violence by any scientifically measurable amount.

In fact, in 2013, after reviewing all the available data, FactCheck (funded by the left-wing Annenberg Foundation) noted that it is “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime.”

Research done by Criminology & Public Policy in 2019 found that the ban “didn’t appear to have much of an effect on the number of mass shootings.” The group reported a year later, in January 2020, that such bans “do not seem associated with the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said its own studies on the issue were “inconsistent” and concluded that “evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of the 1994 ban.”

The Congressional Research Service concurred: “Public mass shootings account for few of the murders … related to firearms that occur annually in the United States.”

And so, when someone like Biden or Pelosi, or even hard-left Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett representing Austin, Texas (who sports an “F” rating from the NRA), spouts off with something like this:

[Assault weapons are] easier for a teenager to get than to buy a beer. We’ve turned our churches, our schools, our shopping centers, our entertainment venues, almost any place into a battleground with one massacre after another…

then we know he’s making it up out of whole cloth, and he likely knows it. Such fabrications hide the true intent: these bills have nothing to do with gun control, but everything to do with people control.

Forbes notes that the most recent bill has little chance in the Senate, where Democrats would need 10 Republican defectors to gain the 60 votes needed for passage.

Department of Justice Sues Idaho in First Lawsuit Following Dobbs Decision

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 3, 2022:  

The lawsuit announced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the first of many likely to emanate from that federal department. It’s suing to invalidate Idaho’s nearly complete ban on abortion due to become effective on August 25.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was fulfilling a promise to use every tool at his disposal to neuter or invalidate as many of these state laws as he could:

On the day Roe and Casey were overturned, we promised that the Justice Department would work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom. That is what we are doing, and that is what we will continue to do.

 

We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that pregnant women get the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law. And we will closely scrutinize state abortion laws to ensure that they comply with federal law.

The federal law that Garland claims overrides Idaho’s pending law is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that provides funds to state hospitals under Medicare — along with the obligatory federal strings that are always attached to such grants of federal largesse.

EMTALA requires, says the department, “hospitals that receive federal Medicare funds to provide necessary stabilizing treatments to patients who arrive at their emergency departments … state law cannot prohibit the provision of that care.”

That “stabilizing care,” according to the department, might include an abortion, and Idaho’s pending law “directly conflicts with EMTALA and stands as an obstacle” to implementation of that federal law.

Said Garland:

Every hospital that receives Medicare funds must provide necessary stabilizing treatment to a patient who arrives in an emergency room suffering from a medical condition that could place their life or health in serious jeopardy.

 

In some circumstances, the medical treatment necessary to stabilize the patient’s condition is abortion.

In response, Idaho’s governor, Brad Little, said he will “vigorously uphold state sovereignty” against what he described as “federal meddling.”

The DOJ’s 17-page complaint makes it clear that that is where the battle will be fought: over “state sovereignty.”

The Supremacy Clause — Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, what if that law — the EMTALA — is found to be unconstitutional? If the Supreme Court gets the opportunity to hear this case on appeal, it very well might be, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Garland and his department are just assuming that the Supremacy Clause will allow them to ride roughshod over Idaho’s pending abortion law. But if the phrase “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” is taken literally (as intended by the Founders), then EMTALA is unconstitutional, as such “meddling” (Brad Little’s word) involves powers “not delegated to the United States” and not “made in pursuance” of the Constitution.

The present complaint isn’t likely to make it to the Supreme Court. It will probably be settled — hopefully in favor of Idaho — at a lower level. But given the high court’s ringing endorsements of what the Founders intended in Dobbs and other recent decisions, it is likely that such federal overreach will be exposed for what it is: unconstitutional federal tyranny over the states and their citizens.

Christian Flag Will Fly Tomorrow in Boston

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, August 2, 2022:  

Following the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Camp Constitution will fly its Christian flag on one of the three flagpoles outside Boston City Hall on Wednesday morning.

It will be the last time any such flag will fly there, as Boston has changed its rules, thanks to the Supreme Court decision.

The implications are immense, and reach further than many expected. The city declined Camp Constitution’s initial request five years ago for fear that it would somehow violate the faux “separation of church and state” mantra adopted by anti-Christian forces.

Simply put, the faux reasoning is based on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a religious group. There was no other basis for thinking that the Founders meant to keep Christianity from having an influence in American culture. There is no phrase “separation of church and state” in the Constitution, nor can it be found elsewhere in America’s founding documents.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that Boston’s defense was faulty, and that the city violated Camp Constitution’s right to free speech when it denied its request to fly the Christian flag from that flagpole five years ago.

The ruling forced Boston to change its rules. It is also forcing numerous towns, cities, and municipalities to reconsider their own rules, in favor of free speech, and away from concerns over violating the nebulous but dangerous “separation of church and state” thought to be part of the Constitution.

Since 1971, the Supreme Court used something called the “Lemon Test” to handle the cases that came their way: the government (local, state, or federal) violated the Constitution unless it met the Lemon Test criteria:

  1. Did it have a secular, or non-religious, purpose?;
  2. Did it advance or inhibit a religion?;
  3. Did it promote an “extreme entanglement” with religion on the government’s part?

As Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurrence in Shurtleff:

This dispute arose only because of a government official’s mistaken understanding of the Establishment Clause.

 

A Boston official believed that the City would violate the Establishment Clause if it allowed a religious flag to briefly fly outside of City Hall as part of the flag-raising program that the City had opened to the public.

 

So Boston granted requests to fly a variety of secular flags, but denied a request to fly a religious flag.

 

As this Court has repeatedly made clear, however, a government does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because it treats religious persons, organizations, and speech equally with secular persons, organizations, and speech in public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like.

 

On the contrary, a government violates the Constitution when (as here) it excludes religious persons, organizations, or speech because of religion from public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like.

 

Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, made it even clearer:

Lemon sought to devise a one-size-fits-all test for resolving Establishment Clause disputes. That project bypassed any inquiry into the Clause’s original meaning. It ignored longstanding precedents. And instead of bringing clarity to the area, Lemon produced only chaos.

 

In time, this Court came to recognize these problems, abandoned Lemon, and returned to a more humble jurisprudence centered on the Constitution’s original meaning.

 

Yet in this case, the city chose to follow Lemon anyway. It proved a costly decision, and Boston’s travails supply a cautionary tale for other localities and lower courts.

The attack on Christianity continues, despite the high court’s shift to originalism. Wrote Gorsuch:

This is why some still invoke Lemon today. It reflects poorly on us all.

 

Through history, the suppression of unpopular religious speech and exercise has been among the favorite tools of petty tyrants.

 

Our forebears resolved that this Nation would be different. Here, they resolved, each individual would enjoy the right to make sense of his relationship with the divine, speak freely about man’s place in creation, and have his religious practices treated with respect.

The day governments in this country forage for ways to abandon these foundational promises is a dark day for the cause of individual freedom.

The high court has abandoned the Lemon test, to the benefit of all who cherish religious freedom. In recent cases it ruled that a football coach shouldn’t have lost his job merely because he prayed on the football field after a game. It also ruled that religious schools in Maine must be allowed to participate in the state’s voucher system.

The “separation of church and state” canard, promoted for so long by so many opposed to the impact Christianity has on American culture, is now on the wane at the highest court in the land.

And all because of its return to “originalism” — restoring the understanding of the Constitution as its writers originally intended. That’s what makes tomorrow’s flag raising in Boston so important.

On Tuesday, Kansas Voters Can Undo State’s Court Ruling Granting a “Right” to Murder an Unborn Child

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 1, 2022:  

On Tuesday, Kansans have a unique opportunity to override their state’s high court’s ruling from 2019 that a mother has an inherent right to kill her unborn child.

Pro-life advocates are calling the ballot issue the “Value Them Both Amendment,” and are giving Kansas voters a clear choice: toss the high court’s ruling granting an “inherent” right to pregnant mothers to kill their unborn child, or not.

The ballot reads:

Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion.

 

To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.

 

Yes

 

No

At the moment polls show “Yes” leading “No” at 47-43. But millions of dollars are being spent to sway voters on both sides.

A “Yes” vote affirms that there is, despite the 2019 high court ruling, no constitutional right to abortion in the Sunflower State, and consequently any legislation relating to abortion rests with the people’s elected representatives.

A “No” vote would leave things as they are, giving abortion promoters a major victory. let their voices be heard on the issue.

In 2019, in appealing a previous ruling, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas ruled that, according to their interpretation of the state’s constitution, a pregnant mother had an inherent if not clearly enunciated right to kill her unborn child. From that decision:

Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides: “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We are now asked: Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, “Yes.”

 

We conclude that, through the language in section 1, the state’s founders acknowledged that the people had rights that preexisted the formation of the Kansas government. There they listed several of these natural, inalienable rights—deliberately choosing language of the Declaration of Independence by a vote of 42 to 6.

 

Included in that limited category is the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.

The decision had but a single dissenter, and the court ruled for abortion 6-1.

The decision tomorrow in Kansas is being cast as a “bellwether” moment, as the vote is the first of at least four other opportunities — in California, Kentucky, Montana, and Vermont — for voters to “clarify” their intentions on the contentious issue.

17 State AGs Sue ATF Over Unconstitutional Expansion of Powers

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 29, 2022:  

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich submitted a complaint on Wednesday against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Attorneys general from 16 other states, along with some gun-rights groups, joined him in the complaint.

At issue is the ATF’s attempt to prohibit the making of “ghost guns” by private individuals by declaring the parts needed to make them as firearms themselves and therefore subject to ATF regulation.

As Brnovich noted, the ATF seeks to “regulate unfinished, non-functional parts as if they [are] complete firearms.” This move “overshoot[s] the authority granted to it by Congress. The rulemaking is unconstitutional.”

The issuance of the agency’s “final rule,” says the complaint,

unconstitutionally subverts Congress’ authority, exercising quintessentially legislative powers in a manner that could never pass either (let alone both) houses of Congress today, which is precisely why defendants have no intent whatsoever to ask for legislative authorization to take such unprecedented actions.

In other words, the ATF action is another example of the administrative state — the unconstitutional fourth branch of government — run amok.

The complaint makes clear, from the agency’s own words, that its purpose is to eliminate ghost guns altogether by regulating their parts into oblivion:

The Final Rule can be viewed as an effort by ATF to eliminate the market for 80% frames and receivers (and DIY homemade firearms) entirely, through arbitrary standards, intimidation, and threats of criminal charges for vague federal crimes.

 

In fact, ATF admits that the Final Rule “will reduce the overall supply and demand for … firearm parts kits,” and “estimates … that 98% of such companies “will end up dissolving their businesses”….

 

The Final Rule can best be understood as an effort to eliminate entirely the market for DIY firearm parts that can be manufactured into functional firearms by law-abiding, “do-it-yourself” gun owners.

The 161-page complaint declares that

The Final Rule upends existing federal gun law, imposing onerous burdens on federal firearms licensees and private gun owners alike, and creating out of thin air a new federal crime with respect to what ATF terms “privately made firearms,” all in clear disregard for the statutory text that Congress enacted.

To create that “new federal crime,” the ATF first must create a new definition of ghost gun. The new definition reads:

Privately made firearm (PMF): A firearm, including a frame or receiver, completed, assembled, or otherwise produced by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, and without a serial number placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was produced.

Under the new definition, any PMF that doesn’t have a serial number (none of them do) automatically becomes illegal to own.

The complaint states that the “ATF does not have the power to create new crimes,” just as the Executive Branch cannot, either through the president or one of its agencies, create criminal statutes. Under the Constitution, only Congress can do that:

Defendants may only exercise the authority conferred upon them by statute, and may not legislate through regulation in order to implement [the agency’s] perceived intent of Congress or congressional purpose behind federal gun control statutes.

The complaint spells out how the Constitution works, and how the ATF works to violate it:

Article I, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

 

Article I, § 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution mandates that “[e]very Bill … shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and “shall … be presented to the President of the United States … before it become a Law….”

 

The [ATF’s] Final Rule violates these provisions, usurping legislative powers. The Final Rule represents an attempt by an administrative agency to implement policy change and enact omnibus federal gun control legislation through bureaucratic regulation, rather than through legislation.

The complaint provides a helpful analogy:

The Constitution protects the corresponding right to sell firearm components, magazines, ammunition, and accessories, just as the freedoms of speech and press protect the right to buy and sell newspapers, books, paper, and ink.

 

Indeed, it would not mean much if there was a right to make a firearm, but no ability to purchase the materials necessary to do so.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court of North Dakota, asks the court to rein in the ATF by declaring that

the Final Rule is unlawful and an ultra vires [“beyond the powers”] agency action and of no force and effect;

 

the Final Rule is an act “not in accordance with law” and of no force and effect;

 

the Final Rule violates the Separation of Powers doctrine embodied in the United States Constitution; and

 

the Final Rule violates rights protected by the Second Amendment and is of no force and effect.

Unfortunately, the complaint doesn’t address the issue of the constitutionality of the ATF itself, or of Congress’ original abrogation of the separation of powers doctrine by granting legislative authority to the ATF in the first place. As the complaint itself states, in its effort to perform an end run around the constitutional limitations built in by the Founders,

ATF has created an informal definition, within another informal definition, within a regulatory definition, within another regulatory definition, within a statutory definition, of a statutory term.

This will continue until such time as the ATF is abolished, or the Second Amendment is abolished by it.

House Committee Seeks Apologies From Gun Makers After Recent Mass Shootings

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 29, 2022:  

The Democrat-laden House Oversight Committee demanded apologies from CEOs of gun manufacturers Ruger and Daniel Defense on Wednesday for selling weapons used by murderers in recent mass shootings.

The chairwoman of the committee, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), asked the CEO of Smith & Wesson to show up for the grilling as well, but he declined. In her letter “inviting” the three company presidents to the inquisition, she wrote:

The information you provided has heightened the Committee’s concern that your company is continuing to profit from the sale and marketing of weapons of war to civilians despite the harm these weapons cause, is failing to track instances or patterns where your products are used in crimes, and is failing to take other reasonable precautions to limit injuries and deaths caused by your firearms.

She picked on those three companies deliberately, as their products were involved in the Uvalde, Texas, and Highland Park, Illinois, shootings.

This set the stage for her grilling of the two CEOs who agreed to subject themselves and their companies to the attack. The weapons are the offending criminals in those recent shootings and, by clear inference, so were the company executives.

Behind her was a white board showing how much each company made in recent years from the sale of their products.

She began:

The gun industry has flooded our neighborhoods, our schools, and even our churches and synagogues with these deadly weapons.… How many more American children need to die before your compan[ies] stop selling assault weapons?

Each president began to present a reasonable response to such a provocative and intentionally offensive question, but each time Maloney cut them off, citing time limitations. She, of course, had plenty of time to rant but precious little time was granted for any response.

However, Daniel Defense president Marty Daniel was able to declare: “These acts are committed by murderers. The murderers are responsible.”

Ruger’s president, when given a chance to respond to the outrageous question posed by Maloney, refused to answer directly but instead argued that a gun is “an inanimate object,” adding that “it is wrong to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to purchase a lawful weapon … because of the criminal acts of [a few] wicked people.”

He said, “The difference is in the intent of the individual possessing it,” and then added that her committee ought to look at the criminals using the weapons illegally rather than on the makers:

We respectfully submit [that] should be the focus of any investigation into the root causes of criminal violence involving firearms.

A Republican member of the committee, Jody Hice (R-Ga.), called out Maloney for her misleading and offensive questioning: “It’s absolutely disgusting to me and unthinkable … the height of irresponsibility and lack of accountability [by Maloney]. My colleagues seem to forget that the American people have a right to own guns.”

Another Republican on the committee, Clay Higgins (R-La.), called out Maloney and her cohorts: “What my colleagues are doing [here] is unbelievably beyond the pale of anything reasonable or constitutional. Will we have that debate reasonably … through the legislative branch? Or will [the issue] be settled on the front porch of Americans, when the FBI and ATF show up to seize legally owned weapons?”

Happily, the confrontation that Maloney hoped would capture national exposure and attention failed miserably. As of this writing, there were fewer than 5,000 views of the committee’s inquisition that was posted on YouTube.

Delaware “Assault Weapons” Ban Unconstitutional, Declares New Lawsuit

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 27, 2022:  

Following the Uvalde, Texas, mass shooting, Delaware’s Democratic Party — which controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state’s legislature — rushed through nine gun-control bills in response. They largely ignored not only protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also broader protections guaranteed by Article 1, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution: “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

And they largely ignored as well the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Following that ruling, the high court remanded (returned) pending lawsuits impacted by that ruling to the states to comply accordingly.

On Wednesday, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association and several other groups and individuals sued Delaware state officials charged with enforcing the new law, asking the U.S. District Court of Delaware to render the law unenforceable.

The Delaware law makes it illegal to make, sell, purchase, or possess so-called assault weapons, including semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles such as the immensely popular AR-15 platform. It also bans possession of “large capacity” magazines, arbitrarily defined as containing more than 17 rounds of ammunition.

The law provides a long list of the newly-prohibited handguns and rifles and then, to make sure that if any were not included in the list they would also be banned, defined “assault” rifles as having detachable magazines and pistol grips, a flash suppressor, having a barrel shroud, and — unbelievably — the capability of launching grenades as well.

The lawsuit declares that “the State of Delaware recently enacted in law [a bill] which flouts the fundamental civil rights of Delawareans … by making them criminals — felons — for exercising one of their most exacted rights enshrined in both the Delaware Constitution and the United States Constitution.”

House Bill 450 and its companion Senate Bill 68 were signed into law on June 30 (the Uvalde shooting occurred on May 24) by Democrat Governor John Carney, who said at the time that “we have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen around the country from happening here in Delaware.”

He said nothing about how similar bans have failed to prevent such shootings, nor did he say anything about the mental states of the shooters. It was all about inanimate objects and punishing their innocent owners in order to make a political statement.

From the lawsuit:

When House Bill 450 was signed into law on June 30, 2022, the State of Delaware criminalized possession, transportation and sale of common firearms used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes — mislabeling them as “assault weapons” — making it a felony for law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear such arms.

The plaintiffs

seek declaratory and injunctive relief not only on the basis that the Regulatory Scheme violates their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but also on the fact that the Regulatory Scheme violates their rights under Delaware Constitution, Article I Section 20; their rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution; their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit referred to the Bruen decision coupled with the Heller decision (District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008) which “assert that the Second Amendment protects the carrying of weapons that are those ‘in common use’ at the time.”

It derided Delaware officials who passed the law, using the phrase “assault weapons” in the text:

The banned semiautomatic firearms deemed as “assault weapons” under the Regulatory Scheme, like all other semiautomatic firearms, fire only one round for each pull of the trigger.

 

They are not machine guns.

 

What is more, the designation “assault weapons” is a complete misnomer, “developed by anti-gun publicists” in their crusade against lawful firearm ownership.

Further, banning such “assault weapons” has historically had almost no impact on mass shootings:

According to a widely cited 2004 study, these arms “are used in a small fraction of gun crimes.” See Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control [for] evidence [that] indicates that “well under 1% of [crime guns] are ‘assault rifles.’”

More recent data confirms Kleck’s 2004 conclusions. FBI crime statistics found that of the average of 14,556 homicides committed annually for the past decade, rifles typically account for just 314 of them. And in 2019, the latest year for which records are available, Delaware suffered 48 homicides, with none of them attributed to a rifle.

Of the five judges currently sitting on the U.S. District Court of Delaware, two were appointed by President Donald Trump, one was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and the other two were appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden.

The New American will keep its readers advised of developments in the case.

LAPD No Longer Enforcing “High-capacity” Magazine Ban Thanks to SCOTUS Ruling

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 22, 2022:  

Reverberations from the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen holding that both the Second and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self defense outside the home reached Los Angeles on Wednesday.

Ernest Eskridge, assistant commanding officer for the LAPD’s Detective Bureau, announced suspension of enforcement of the city’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, effective immediately.

He saw the writing on the wall. After ruling in Bruen in June, the high court also disposed of a number of other related lawsuits, including one challenging the Los Angeles magazine ban, Duncan v. Bonta.

“Due to this ruling,” wrote Eskridge, “Department sworn personnel shall not investigate, detain, or arrest any persons … [in] possession of firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

The city’s ban was authored by LA City Councilmember Paul Krekorian, and enforcement began in November of 2015. Krekorian celebrated the event at the time:

The City Council banned the possession of large-capacity magazines to give law enforcement another tool to keep people safe and get these dangerous devices off the streets.

 

Starting next week, Los Angeles wilI start enforcing and upholding the ban. I urge anyone currently in possession of these illegal magazines to dispose of them legally at an LAPD station before enforcement begins.

That a limit on magazine capacities would somehow “keep people safe” is another gun-control myth used to justify infringing on the Second Amendment. The argument goes like this: A higher “rate of fire” from a firearm with a “high-capacity” magazine allows perps to kill more people in a shorter period of time.

In his book Countering the Mass Shooter Threat, author Michael Martin examined the evidence by looking at the actual rates of fire from recent mass shootings:

 

The cowardly Newtown shooter fired at a rate of fire no faster than the 150-year-old lever-action Henry rifle [used during the Civil War] — even though he had ten 30-round magazines and an AR-15.

 

The despicable Fort Hood shooter was one-third slower than that, while the mass murderer at Virginia Tech was 50 percent slower.

 

Even the San Bernardino shooters, who carried AR-15s and 30-round magazines, fired at a rate no faster than one round every 3.3 seconds. This is 40 percent slower than the lever-action Henry.

 

The coward who shot up a theater in Aurora, Colorado, fired at a rate no faster than the 170-year-old single-shot Sharps rifle — even though he had a 100-round magazine. Keep in mind, the Sharps rifle has a capacity of one round!

 

Finally, the Red Lake shooter and the Columbine shooters fired at a rate of fire no faster than the 240-year-old, muzzle-loading flintlock Kentucky rifle.

In the real world, Martin explained, large magazines are heavy, make a firearm difficult to handle, and result in a higher incidence of misfires. Take the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, for example:

The Aurora, Colorado theater shooter brought one single AR-15 magazine with him, which held 100 rounds. Not only did that make his firearm incredibly heavy and unwieldy, the magazine also failed completely after approximately 45 rounds, and his incredibly slow rate of fire (one round every four to seven seconds, no faster than a single-shot rifle) would indicate that he most likely was fighting misfeeds right up until the point that the magazine failed.

In fact, commands that magazines be limited to 10 rounds might actually increase the rate of fire:

Had he been using 10-round magazines, it’s unlikely that any failure would have occurred, and his rate of fire could have been much higher. [Emphasis added.]

Martin concluded:

When politicians who know absolutely nothing about firearms attempt to make firearms policy, they shouldn’t be surprised when their actions don’t have the desired effect.

The effects of the Bruen decision (thanks to originalists nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump) continue to resonate throughout the land, to the benefit of law-abiding gun owners specifically and the populace in general.

Missouri Sheriff Warns FBI That Demands for Data on CCW Permit Holders Will Be Denied

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 21, 2022:  

When Scotland County, Missouri, Sheriff Bryan Whitney learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was going to be conducting an audit in 24 counties in the state next month, he launched a preemptive strike:

As the sheriff of Scotland County, I want all my citizens to know that I will not allow, cooperate or release any CCW [Concealed Carry Weapons] information to the FBI, even at the threat of a federal arrest.

 

Point Blank, I will go down with the ship if need be.

His defiance of a potential demand from the FBI that sheriffs release information on Missourians with concealed-carry permits was not the only one. Sheriffs in Howard, Gasconade, Camden, Macon, Osage, and Randolph counties also agreed to keep such information away from the FBI.

To back up his letter, Whitney told Fox News, he is preparing to move all that CCW information to a secure location in case the FBI threatens him with a search warrant for it.

Why all of a sudden is this a concern?

Last month there was a massive data breach in California that released the detailed personal information of CCW permit holders that included names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, and residence addresses, along with any criminal history that might have been included.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta — who is endorsed by the anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety while carrying a 0% rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) — was “deeply disturbed and angered” over the breach and said he would be launching an “investigation” into how it happened.

The breach was far-reaching, and just happened to occur days after the Supreme Court ruled against New York’s gun-control law. It allowed sensitive information about concealed-carry permit holders in the state to be accessed and downloaded.

Additionally, data from other sites was open to public display and access: the state’s Assault Weapons Registry, its registry of Handguns Certified for Sale, its Dealer Records of Sale, its listings of those receiving a Firearm Safety Certificate, and anyone subject to a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

Bonta was terribly sorry but didn’t apologize, and provided no assurance that the promised investigation would actually take place, nor any assurance that such a breach would never happen again.

In addition, Missourians still remember the demand the FBI made of sheriffs’ offices under the Obama administration, wanting to know which Missourians had firearms, supposedly to establish who was “entitled to federal benefits.”

This “plausible” reason was seen for what it was, and the state legislature passed a law making it illegal to share such confidential information with any agency of the federal government.

The FBI, of course, denied that there was anything to worry about. It released a statement that under the planned Missouri audit, “a small sampling of system transactions is to be inspected for compliance and to ensure there is no misuse of the [FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division] systems.” It added, of course, that it was just a “routine auditing program” — nothing to see here, we’re just doing our job.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt exposed the danger and added to Whitney’s defiance. In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray last week, Schmitt wrote:

The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri.

 

The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.

He added:

You may wonder why there is such strong suspicion of federal agents here in the “Show Me State.” Simply put, Missourians are hard-working, law-abiding citizens who don’t need a national nanny-state keeping tabs on us.

 

But more than that, over the last couple of years, we’ve seen story after story of incompetence and corruption at the highest levels of the FBI.

Court Rules Biden Administration’s Collusion With Social Media be Exposed

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 19, 2022:

History is likely to record that the decision by a District Judge in Louisiana on Tuesday — allowing that state, along with the state of Missouri, to expose the bureaucrats imposing censorship through collusion with social media — marks a historic milestone victory for the First Amendment.

The First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” And yet bureaucrats in the executive branch often act as if the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them and have, over the past months and years, worked diligently to limit, restrict, cancel, and otherwise abrogate those precious freedoms with impunity.

Now, thanks to the ruling by Trump-appointed Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, those bureaucrats’ days of hiding their identities from public view are shortly coming to an end.

Ruled Judge Doughty:

Within five business days after this ruling, Plaintiff States [Louisiana and Missouri] may serve interrogatories and document requests upon Government Defendants [including Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, former White House Secretary Jen Psaki, and others] and third party-subpoenas on up to five major social-media platforms [i.e., Meta/Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc.] seeking the identity of federal officials who have been and are communicating with social-media platforms about disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and/or any censorship or suppression of speech on social media, including the nature and content of those communications.

In other words, as soon as the attorneys general of those two states and their staffs can issue those “interrogatories and document requests,” those individuals and platforms will be exposed to the exquisitely painful and disinfecting light of day.

The court is going to monitor those demands closely to make sure the bureaucrats comply with them in a timely manner. There will, in other words, be no escape for those working in the bowels of the executive branch to censor conversations that expose their radical, anti-freedom agenda.

The quest to expose them began in May when Missouri’s State Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced:

Missouri and Louisiana just filed sued against Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, Dr. Fauci, and other top-ranking officials for allegedly colluding with social media companies to suppress freedom of speech under the guise of combating “misinformation.”

That “misinformation” included the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Wuhan lab-leak story, the election-fraud story, and others.

Schmitt provided evidence:

In October 2020, after publishing an article on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the New York Post’s main Twitter account was locked, and Twitter blocker other users from sharing the link….

 

Over a year and a half later, the Washington Post and the NY Times acknowledged the truth and reliability of the story, but not before the damage was done and free speech was suppressed by Twitter and companies.

The original complaint, filed on May 5, described the attempt to shut down freedom of speech and press:

In 1783, George Washington warned that if “the Freedom of Speech may be taken away,” then “dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”

 

The freedom of speech in the United States now faces one of its greatest assaults by federal government officials in the Nation’s history….

 

Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left, senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation.”…

 

Federal officials — including, most notably, certain Defendants named herein — have repeatedly and aggressively threatened to remove these legal benefits and impose other adverse consequences on social-media platforms if they do not aggressively censor and suppress disfavored speakers, content, and viewpoints on their platforms;

 

and Defendants named herein, colluding and coordinating with each other, have also directly coordinated and colluded with social-media platforms to identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content and thus have procured the actual censorship and suppression of the freedom of speech….

 

As a direct result of these actions, there has been an unprecedented rise of censorship and suppression of free speech — including core political speech — on social-media platforms.

 

Not just fringe views, but perfectly legitimate, responsible viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally silenced in the modern public square.

 

These actions gravely threaten the fundamental right of free speech and free discourse for virtually all citizens in Missouri, Louisiana, and America, both on social media and elsewhere.

The complaint and the proper response by Judge Doughty illustrate once again the brilliance of the Founders in “binding [men] down by the chains of the Constitution.”

As the exposure of those working to censor speech and press begins, The New American will keep its readers apprised of who they are and what charges they will face for their misdeeds.

Former Trump Advisor Peter Navarro Turns Down DOJ Plea Deal

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, July 18, 2022:  

After being violently arrested and mistreated by the FBI, former Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro was indicted on June 3 on two counts: 1) refusing to produce documents demanded by the January 6 committee; and 2) refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoena to testify.

Navarro pleaded not guilty, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed a deal: plead guilty to one of the two charges, and they’ll send him to jail for just 30 days rather than up to a year for such infractions. Navarro’s attorney told (Obama-appointed) U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta on Friday that Navarro declined to take the plea deal.

Part of the deal would require that Navarro turn over to the committee the various papers, documents, and other materials they had originally demanded.

Navarro, it will be remembered, produced the three-volume report on the 2020 presidential election fraud called “The Navarro Report.” It was based on evidence compiled in more than 50 related lawsuits and thousands of affidavits and testimonies, all of which provided ample proof of “a coordinated strategy to effectively stack the deck against the Trump-Pence ticket.”

Navarro’s conclusion has since been amply confirmed by Dinesh D’Souza’s movie 2000 Mules, which has now been viewed by more than 20 million Americans.

In Navarro’s report, as in the movie, it was revealed that there was massive voter fraud perpetrated in the battleground states where the final outcome of that election was determined.

One of Navarro’s attorneys, John Irving, said his client’s denial of both the committee’s demands and the plea bargain stems from a “constitutional case involving separation of powers.… It involves not only the President of the United States asserting his executive privilege but [also] over 50 years of DOJ opinions that make it clear that top presidential aides are able to assert absolute immunity and not testify before Congress.”

Another Navarro attorney, John Rowley, told reporters: “This is the first time in our nation’s 250-year history that a senior adviser to a president has been criminally charged for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena.”

That the Department of Justice, through its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), has now become the enforcement arm of the January 6 committee, reaching far outside its legitimate and constitutional prerogatives, is evident in how they treated Navarro.

As Navarro himself explained:

On June 3, 2020, five armed FBI agents swooped down on me at Reagan National Airport as I was about to board a flight to Nashville and an interview with Mike Huckabee.

 

I was denied the opportunity to call an attorney, quickly handcuffed, jammed into the back seat of a government car, sent first to the FBI for a mug shot and fingerprinting, and then to a Washington, DC jail.

 

At the DC jail, I was first spread-eagled and stripped searched [sic] and then put in a set of leg irons. A prison guard then led me to solitary confinement and placed in same cell in which John Hinckley once sat after shooting President Reagan.

At issue is not so much the separation of powers, but the legitimacy of the committee. As Navarro noted:

The issue is whether the so-called January 6 Committee — a Kangaroo Democratic Committee empaneled by Nancy Pelosi without support of the Minority House Republicans — can illegally weaponize the investigatory powers of the U.S. Congress.

 

Last February I received a subpoena from this unduly authorized, illegal, and highly partisan committee. I made it clear from the outset that I was honor- and duty-bound not to comply with that subpoena because President Trump had invoked “Executive Privilege.”  By law, President Trump’s executive privilege is not mine to waive.

 

In my repeated communications, I directed the Jan. 6. Committee to go directly to President Trump and his attorneys and negotiate a possible waiver of the privilege. If President Trump had negotiated such a waiver, I further indicated that I would have complied with the subpoena.

 

Instead of following the law in this matter — or even bothering to go to court to have a federal judge weigh in on the matter — the Jan. 6 Committee voted to hold me in contempt of Congress.

 

They shared the contempt charge with the Department of Justice. And the DOJ, which has never acted in such a manner in the entire history of our Republic, targeted me for a brutal arrest and show trial prosecution.

The actions of the FBI, an agency of the Department of Justice, against a private citizen were historic:

In the history of our nation, no senior White House official has ever been arrested on a contempt of Congress charge, put in leg irons, and pushed into a prison cell.

 

No one!

 

From the outset, I have made it clear this fight is not just about my freedom.

 

This fight is also about fighting against the illegal weaponization of Congress’ investigatory powers.

 

It is about stopping the political weaponization of the FBI.

His trial is set for November 17.

Constitutionalist Judge Stands Up to Unconstitutional Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 14, 2022:  

A federal judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan wrote in a recent opinion that the illegitimate brainchild of far-left Senator Elizabeth Warren has been operating unconstitutionally since it was created back in 2009.

Called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the rogue agency created in response to the 2008 financial crisis has been writing its own rules, interpreting them, and then prosecuting any miscreants they can find based on those rules — all without executive or legislative oversight and just as Warren originally proposed back in 2007.

Federal Judge Edith H. Jones, circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, wrote an opinion in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. All American Check Cashing, Inc. intending to stop it in its tracks.

The CFPB charged All American with trying “to keep consumers from learning how much they would be charged to cash a check” along with other alleged violations of its self-written rules. Instead of folding and paying a fine, All American sued.

All American claimed that the CFPB is unconstitutional because it has no accountability. It claimed that it is, in effect, a rogue agency, violating the separation of powers doctrine intrinsic to the Constitution.

When a district court sided with the CFPB, All American appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Jones put the matter well:

[The] separation of powers [doctrine] is at the heart of our constitutional government in order to preserve the people’s liberty and the federal government’s accountability to the people….

 

Created in 2009, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an administrative agency that was expressly designed to answer to neither of the politically accountable branches.

 

Unlike other agencies, Congress put the CFPB’s staggering amalgam of legislative, judicial, and executive power in the hands of a single Director serving a five-year term and removable by the President only for cause; and Congress insulated the agency from the ordinary congressional appropriations process….

 

I write to show that the CFPB’s budgetary independence is antithetical to the constitutional origins of the Appropriations Clause; contrary to the Constitution’s structural allocation of powers; unsupported by the funding structure of any previous federal agency; and indefensible by the CFPB.

It’s all about the money. The Founders deliberately and intentionally placed the “power of the purse” in the hands of the legislative branch of the federal government. If the executive branch wanted to spend some money it had to get permission from the legislative branch first.

Explained Jones:

All American argues that the CFPB’s budgetary independence contravenes the Constitution’s separation of powers by violating the principles enshrined in the Appropriations Clause.

 

All American emphasizes that the Framers, drawing from British experience, crafted the Appropriations Clause because they well understood the importance of exclusively vesting the legislative branch with the power of the purse as a check on the executive.

 

Congress ran afoul of that foundational principle “by abdicating its exclusive power of the purse and insulating the CFPB from congressional oversight with an unprecedented two layers of fiscal independence.”

She meant that by following Warren’s design Congress placed the CFPB outside of executive control, making it a part of the Federal Reserve and allowing the CFPB to access funds directly from the Fed whenever it “reasonably” needed them. The bureau with its 1,600 employees lives inside the Federal Reserve’s offices in Washington, D.C.

Jones said the insulation of the CFPB from executive or legislative oversight, constraint, or control, was a violation of the Founders’ intent:

It is not mere happenstance that Congress is the chief guardian of the purse strings. Drawing on the British experience, the Framers placed the national government’s fiscal powers in Congress’s hands to check the propensity for aggrandizement and consequent loss of liberty endemic to a powerful executive branch. The CFPB’s budgetary independence violates this essential maxim of separated powers….

 

Importantly, the CFPB’s funding structure is wholly unprecedented. No executive agency with broad legislative, adjudicative, and law-enforcement powers has ever enjoyed complete funding independence….

 

A feature so subversive to the Constitution’s separation of powers as the CFPB’s budgetary independence cannot withstand scrutiny.

She quoted from James Madison’s The Federalist, No. 51 to buttress her position:

The CFPB’s budgetary independence makes it unaccountable to Congress and the people.

 

An agency that wields vast amounts of executive, legislative, and adjudicatory power and is completely unaccountable to Congress is inimical to the Constitution’s structural checks and balances.

 

The Framers created a federal system and divided the national government’s power among three branches to disperse power and preserve individual liberty.

 

But a mere parchment barrier would not guarantee individual liberty.

 

To prevent the “gradual concentration of the several [governmental] powers in the same” branch, the Framers armed each one with “the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others”; the idea being to let “[a]mbition … counteract ambition.”

That “ambition” Madison warned about has revealed itself in the person presently running the rogue agency, Rohit Chopra. In a recent speech Chopra said his agency, in addition to levying fines, would move to cap the size of growth of firms violating his rules; ban certain types of business product lines; require divestitures of certain product lines; put limitations on their ability to raise equity capital; and even revoke a company’s government-approved patents or registration.

Chopra has so overreached that even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a campaign to rein him in. Said Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s chief policy officer,

Rohit Chopra has an outsized view of the CFPB’s role and the Director’s power. By willfully mischaracterizing the state of competition in the market Chopra is laying the groundwork to force the financial services sector to comport with his personal vision of the appropriate size of companies and what products and services should be offered and under what conditions. No previous CFPB Director has thought they had such power.

Exactly. Removing from sinful man the restraints that the Founders wisely placed has led to such overreach.

If the CFPB appeals to the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh et al. are waiting for them. In the fall of 2016, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the then-current director had overreached, with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, one of the three, writing:

The director of the CFPB possesses more unilateral authority — that is, authority to take action on one’s own, subject to no check — than any single commissioner or board member in any other independent agency in the U.S. government.

 

The CFPB’s concentration of enormous executive power in a single, unaccountable, unchecked director not only departs from settled historical practice, but also poses a far greater risk of arbitrary decision-making and abuse of power, and a far greater threat to individual liberty, than does a multi-member independent agency.

Kavanaugh went further, adding:

The independent agencies collectively constitute, in effect, a headless fourth branch of the U.S. Government…. Because of their massive power and the absence of Presidential supervision and direction, independent agencies pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Now that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court are originalists like Jones, the CFPB would risk extinction if they appeal.

Judge Edith Jones concluded her opinion:

The CFPB’s double insulation from Article I appropriations oversight mocks the Constitution’s separation of powers by enabling an executive agency to live on its own in a kingly fashion.

 

The Framers warned that such an accumulation of powers in a single branch of government would inevitably lead to tyranny.

 

Accordingly, I would reject the CFPB’s novel funding mechanism as contravening the Constitution’s separation of powers.

 

And because the CFPB funds the instant prosecution using unconstitutional self-funding, I would dismiss the lawsuit.

Philadelphia Mayor says he Would take Away all guns from Owners if he Could

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 8, 2022:  

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney let slip what he would do if he were dictator: “If I had the ability to take care of guns, I would.” This faux pas occurred during the mayor’s rant that followed the shooting of two PPD officers on Monday night:

It was a chilled back day … beautiful weather.

 

But we live in America where we have the Second Amendment, and we have the Supreme Court of the United States telling everybody they can carry a gun wherever they want.

 

I was in Canada two weeks ago and never thought about a gun. The only people I knew who had guns in Canada were police officers.

 

That’s the way it should be here.

As a result, continued the mayor:

There’s a lot of goofballs out there with guns and they can get them anytime they want, so this is what we have to live with.

What Philadelphians have to live with — a 25-percent increase in gun violence in just the last two years — is a direct result of policies he and the city council have instituted. Those policies include no traffic stops for minor offenses such as expired license tags or inspection stickers or burned-out taillights. These apparently were somehow racist, and something had to be done.

As a result, law enforcement was deprived of a valuable tool that oftentimes turned up illegal weapons during a routine traffic stop.

If Mayor Kenney were serious about reducing gun violence by removing firearms from criminals, he would listen to former Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Sullivan. Sullivan was relieved of his duties in 2015 after serving the city for 38 years as he “wasn’t needed any longer.”

Said Sullivan:

In Philadelphia at one point … 80% of the illegal guns they took off the street were the result of car stops. Legal vehicle investigations [were] a critical part of … gun violence strategy.

But after the city council, at the behest of council member Isaiah Thomas, passed a bill in October 2020 called the Driving Equality Bill, gun violence began to escalate. The bill decriminalized nearly a dozen traffic violations as data the council relied on appeared to show that Philadelphia police were pulling over a “disproportionate” number of black drivers for minor traffic infractions.

The new law prohibited law enforcement officials from performing a traffic stop unless the violation presented an “imminent and articulable risk of bodily injury to specific person or damage to private or public property.”

It prevented police from performing traffic stops for violations involving the vehicle’s registration, a broken brake light or headlight, illegally tinted windows, or “lack of inspection.” It also barred police from performing stops related to failure to follow traffic signals, stop signs or other traffic lights.

Accordingly, those involved in illegal gun trafficking were all but guaranteed free and unrestricted entry into the city.

The measure was considered to be an experiment. As Jerry Ratcliffe, a former police officer and now a criminology professor at Temple University, expressed it at the time: “This really is an experiment. If we go through with this … it could go either way.”

The results are in. The experiment is over. It failed.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) told his members:

The same politicians tying the hands of police and preventing them from putting a crimp in gun trafficking are constantly demanding more laws to restrict law-abiding gun owners. It’s as though liberal city politicians are on the side of criminals rather than cops and honest citizens.

 

[Philadelphia Mayor] Jim Kenney is a perfect example of the liberal urban political mindset. He complained there are “a lot of goofballs out there with guns and they can get them anytime they want.”

 

His administration made that a lot easier with these ridiculous reforms that prevent police from actually intercepting gun traffickers and discovering guns possessed by people who shouldn’t have them, during routine traffic stops.

 

It is because of such policies, and soft-on-criminal prosecutors, that the nation is seeing criminals operate with impunity.

 

When criminals know they’re not going to be vigorously prosecuted, they are simply emboldened to continue committing crimes that often turn violent.

 

Then what happens? Law-abiding gun owners take the heat from self-righteous politicians for crimes they didn’t commit.

If he had the power, Philadelphia Democrat Mayor Jim Kenney said he would solve the crime problem in the City of Brotherly Love by removing firearms from law-abiding citizens while leaving criminals free to bring in firearms without interference by law enforcement.

Highland Park Shooting: Calls for More Gun Control Miss the Point

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 5, 2022:  

The shooting began at 10:45 a.m. on Monday, July 4 — Independence Day in Highland Park, Illinois. The lone gunman, using what police called “a high-powered rifle,” killed six parade watchers and wounded at least 30 others, was captured eight hours later.

On cue anti-gunners polished their scripts. First was Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park:

Obviously, we have a problem in this country if we have weekly mass shootings involving these weapons of war, and it’s important for us to talk about how to provide … protection on a broader scale, whether it’s statewide … whether it’s nationally.

Right behind Rotering was Illinois Governor JP Pritzker:

If you’re angry today, I’m here to tell you, be angry. I’m furious. I’m furious that yet more innocent lives were taken by gun violence. And I’m furious that their loved ones are forever broken by what took place today.

 

I’m furious that children and their families have been traumatized. I’m furious that this is happening in communities all across Illinois and America. I’m furious because it does not have to be this way. And yet we as a nation, well, we continue to allow this to happen.

Pritzker then zeroed in on guns:

There are going to be people who say that today is not the day, that now is not the time to talk about guns.

 

I’m telling you, there is no better day and no better time than right here and right now.

 

It’s the Fourth of July, a day for reflection on our freedoms. Our founders carried muskets, not assault weapons. And I don’t think a single one of them would have said that you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine.

Behind Pritzker was the current occupant of the Oval Office whose staff posted a statement over his name on the shooting:

I recently signed the first major bipartisan gun reform legislation in almost thirty years into law, which includes actions that will save lives.

 

But there is much more work to do, and I’m not going to give up fighting the epidemic of gun violence.

The most telling and relevant of all statements came from an attendee of the parade who survived the shooting. Said Angela Sendick: “It’s just crazy [that] no one can figure out how to put a stop to all this.”

More gun laws certainly aren’t the answer. Highland Park is a gun free zone that bans “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines.

Illinois, according to Mike Bloomberg’s anti-gun Everytown for Gun Safety, is the state with the most stringent gun laws in the country. It has a red flag law, a waiting period to buy a gun, a law requiring gun owner licensing, “open carry” limitations, among others.

Just purchasing a firearm in Illinois involves the following process:

• Buyer must possess a valid FOID (Firearm Owners Identification) card;

• Buyer must show knowledge of local firearm ordinance requirements;

• Buyer must display a valid FOID card to FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer prior to handling firearm;

• Buyer must complete Federal Form ATF 4473;

• FFL notifies the Illinois State Police (ISP) to perform a background check in accordance with state and federal laws;

• FFL receives an “Approval” from the ISP to transfer the firearm;

• Buyer must abide by the State of Illinois waiting period before taking possession of the firearm (the waiting period for a long gun is 24 hours and 72 hours for a handgun);

• Upon taking possession of the firearm, the firearm must be unloaded and enclosed in a case to transport.

Police have reported that the shooter obtained his firearm legally.

Conservative Christian radio host Erick Erickson nailed it:

Evil is the absence of God. God does not cause evil. Evil is just that state wherein there is no God of all Creation. Mankind, left to his own devices, is evil….

 

Another young man, white, young, no real family life, lots of warning signs — another in the ongoing pattern of collapsed nuclear families and societal failures — takes a gun and fires into a crowd killing many….

In the absence of any internal moral compass or restraint, says Erickson, “the solution is to take guns away, of course, or whatever fits the political agenda of the loudest voices on television — it’s always guns, never anything else.”

The Founders knew the true nature of man. John Adams said that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

James Madison, the primary author of that document, concurred with Adams:

[Our Constitution requires] sufficient virtue among men for self-government. [Otherwise] nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

Those chains are continuously being forged following every incident like this one. Without an internal moral compass or restraint the state will apply them externally, and the people will happily trade their former freedom for their newfound security. Princeton professor Robert George, who is also senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, put it well: :

People lacking in virtue could be counted on to trade liberty for protection, for financial or personal security, for being looked after, for being taken care of, for having their problems solved quickly. There will always be people occupying or standing for public office who will be happy to offer the deal.

Unless the foundations that originally rested upon individual responsibility and internal moral restraints are restored, then it’s just a matter of time before external tyranny replaces internal restraint.

100 Georgia Sheriffs Condemn Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate Stacey Abrams

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, June 29, 2022:  

More than 100 Georgia Sheriffs issued a statement on Monday supporting Republican Governor Brian Kemp’s campaign for reelection. In that statement the sheriffs decried moves by his opponent, Democrat Stacey Abrams, to defund and abolish law enforcement:

Over the last four years, Governor [Brian] Kemp and his family stood shoulder to shoulder with the men and women serving in Georgia’s law enforcement community.

 

Working alongside our departments, Governor Kemp has championed legislation to recruit and retain more officers into the profession, strengthen penalties for criminals and help keep Georgia’s streets safe, and prevent rogue local governments from stripping critical funding and resources from police.

 

In stark contrast, Stacey Abrams has repeatedly shown complete disdain for law enforcement and the risk we take every day putting our lives on the line to serve our communities.

 

Ms. Abrams actively serves on the governing board of – and has profited from – an anti-police organization which openly advocates for abolishing prisons and stripping local police departments of their funding.

That “anti-police organization” is the Marguerite Casey Foundation. Begun in 2001 by the founder of United Parcel Service (UPS) and named for his sister, it issues grants to various anti-police and anti-capitalist groups and individuals. In May 2021 Abrams joined the board and almost immediately the board approved an anti-law enforcement project, “Answer the Uprising”, using the group’s funds to support numerous liberal anti-police groups.

The foundation has also given grants to left-wing groups like the Movement for Black Lives and the Black Organizing Project, among others.

The foundation has also made no effort to disguise its contempt for law enforcement, often ending its tweets with hashtags “DefundthePolice” and “AbolishthePolice.”

The sheriffs’ complaint, however, just touches the surface of what Abrams really stands for and who supports her. In May Fox News reported that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) revealed that George Soros made a $1 million donation from his Democracy PAC II to One Georgia Inc., launched to support her candidacy for the governorship.

Nor is the first time Soros has aided Abrams in her quest to become governor of the Peach State. In 2018 he poured $1.3 million into the campaign chest of the Democratic Party of Georgia in support of her candidacy.

In that campaign Abrams had the support of all manner of far-left individuals and groups, including Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Democracy for America, MoveOn Political Action, the Working Families Party, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, and Our Revolution.

In addition, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and California Senator Kamala Harris went to Georgia to campaign for her.

Abrams is stridently and vocally opposed to the Second Amendment, having sponsored a bill while minority leader of Georgia’s House of Representatives designating many popular semi-automatic firearms as “contraband.” If it had become law, it would have required Georgia’s Bureau of Investigation to seize these firearms from their rightful owners.

She supports “red flag” laws in her quest to disarm the citizenry. She supports “mandatory gun buybacks.” The list goes on.

Abrams is infamous for losing the election for Georgia governorship to Kemp in 2018 by more than 50,000 votes but declaring it was stolen, and never conceding the election. Yet she is not referred to as an “election denier” by the same major media that will apply that label to Trump supporters who have concluded that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

She supports reparations, declaring that African Americans and Native Americans have “been stripped of their autonomy and their participation in our society.”

She has nothing but contempt for the 45th president, declaring repeatedly that Trump is a racist.

She favors abolishing the Electoral College, declaring that “those in power did not believe that working people had the intellectual capacity to directly elect the leader of the free world.”

She has repeatedly stated that the 2020 presidential election was fair and honest, and that claims that there was massive fraud “is by and large, a myth.” She added: “You are more likely to be struck by lightning than for there to be an incident of voting fraud [in that election].”

If she is being totally honest in that assessment, then she must not have seen 2000 Mules, which provides all the proof one needs about that the vacuity of that “myth.”

Low-information voters in Georgia either don’t know about Abrams’ radical background and intentions, or they don’t care. At the moment Kemp (according to the average of the last five polls reported at RealClear Politics) leads Abrams by a scant five percentage points.

Football Coach Has First Amendment Right to Pray, Rules the Supreme Court

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, June 28, 2022:  

In its ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District released on Monday, the Supreme Court not only upheld the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech and the exercise of religion, but it also challenged, for the first time, the canard that the Establishment Clause creates the illusion of “separation of church and state.”

Bremerton School District bought the canard and refused to renew football coach Joe Kennedy’s contract when he persisted in praying on the 50-yard line at the conclusion of each game. The district thought it was avoiding a lawsuit.

Instead it brought on an eight-year-long series of lawsuits that could have been avoided if the district had simply issued a statement that Kennedy wasn’t speaking for the school when he prayed.

Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch reamed the district for not only punishing Kennedy by not renewing his contract, but for deliberately and intentionally making his religious expression its target.

Wrote Gorsuch:

The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.

At issue was Kennedy’s kneeling and praying in public view after each game. This was, in the district’s view, a violation of the separation of church and state. Such view has been pushed for decades, using Thomas Jefferson’s private letter to the Danbury Baptists as the battering ram to remove all religious expression from the culture.

Gorsuch explained:

The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students after three games in October 2015.

 

In forbidding Mr. Kennedy’s brief prayer, the District’s challenged policies were neither neutral nor generally applicable.

 

By its own admission, the District sought to restrict Mr. Kennedy’s actions at least in part because of their religious character.

 

Prohibiting a religious practice was thus the District’s unquestioned “object.”

Gorsuch concluded:

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic.

 

Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. [Emphasis added]

 

The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims.

Nowhere in the 75-page ruling does the phrase “separation of church and state” appear. But Rachel Laser, the president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented Bremerton, saw the threat clearly enough. In anticipation of the ruling Laser said:

[I]f we lose this case, it would be a radical departure from decades of well-established law protecting students’ religious freedom.

 

We think it would open the door that could be kicked in, in particular in this climate where there’s a real escalation in religious extremists across our country, to allow teachers and coaches to be able to pray again and pressure students to pray in school.

Without this writer commenting on her claim of the “real escalation of religious extremists” except to say that it is highly welcome and timely, Gorsuch answered her charge that those former freedoms to pray in school might be in jeopardy in future court rulings: “That the First Amendment doubly protects religious speech is no accident. It is the natural outgrowth of the framers’ distrust of government attempts to regulate religion and suppress dissent.”

As for Coach Kennedy, it has been a long and difficult eight years. But in his letter to Fox News, he wrote:

No one should be fired from their job just because [he or she] can be seen engaged in private prayer….

 

I hope [the ruling] means that our public school teachers and coaches don’t have to hide their faith from view….

 

Win or lose, when the whistle blows and everyone shakes hands, you’ll find me at the 50-yard line on a knee in private prayer.

Biden Signs Gun Control Bill After 29 Republicans Sell Out

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, June 27, 2022:  

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.), along with 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 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 afterwards.

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.

Supreme Court Upends New York’s Gun Law, Confirms Right to Carry in Public

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, June 24, 2022:  

The Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen — aka Bruen — released on Thursday gave Second Amendment supporters more than they hoped for. The high court not only tossed New York’s requirement that a citizen applying for a concealed-carry permit show “proper cause,” it also made crystal clear that citizens may not only “keep” firearms at home but may also “bear” them in public.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the six-justice majority, ruled that New York’s demand that an applicant show “proper cause” in order to obtain permission to carry a concealed firearm is unconstitutional:

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

He referred back to two previous key Second Amendment decisions that didn’t answer the question about carrying in public. In District of Columbia v. Heller — aka Heller — the high court held that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm … to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

In McDonald v. City of Chicago — aka McDonald — the high court held that “the right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one’s home is protected under the Second Amendment.”

These rulings left open the obvious question: What about outside the home? Thursday’s ruling in Bruen answered that question. But in explaining, Thomas also changed significantly the reasoning lower courts must now use in ruling on future Second Amendment lawsuits:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

 

Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

In other words, from this time forward, lower courts must use the Founders’ original intent in judging Second Amendment cases.

That, in a nutshell, is the impact that “originalist thinking” by a majority of the Supreme Court justices is having on issues coming before the court.

It is also reflected in the decision announced today in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — aka Dobbs — that overturned Roe v. Wade.

For decades abortion was considered to be murder, with sanctions appropriately applied to those performing them. But the high court erred in 1973 in many ways, including ignoring that past history in “granting” a right for a mother to kill her unborn child.

In Bruen, Thomas reiterates the importance of past history and tradition in determining whether a particular law can pass Constitutional muster:

After reviewing the Anglo-American history of public carry, the Court concludes that respondents [the state of New York] have not met their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-cause requirement.

 

Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.

 

Nor have they generally required law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” [New York state’s license requirement] to carry arms in public.

Thomas recognizes that this decision raises the Second Amendment from a “second-class right” — one that could only be exercised with government permission — to a preeminent one:

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.”

 

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.

Lest readers become excessively ebullient over the high court’s ruling in Bruen, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the decision only tossed New York’s requirement that “proper cause” be proven before an applicant can be granted a license to carry. He wrote in a concurring opinion that 43 states use licensing “schemes” that pass constitutional muster, including background checks, firearms training, a check of mental-health records, and fingerprinting.

Nevertheless, the ruling is a major victory for gun-rights advocates, and impacts not only New York but other states that have similar restrictions. Seven states — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey — each have “may issue” laws which give government officials discretion to deny permits to applicants. Each of them is now scrambling to come up with other ways to prohibit or limit the private ownership and public possession of firearms.

So, while a major battle has been won, the war continues.

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

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, June 23, 2022:  

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) could hardly contain himself. On Wednesday he rejoiced:

I am pleased Congress is on the path to take meaningful action to address gun violence for the first time in nearly 30 years.

 

This bill is real progress. It will save lives.

He has the support of 10 Republicans (In Name Only):

Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Thom Tillis and Richard Burr of North Carolina, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

They all will violate their oaths of office in order to pass what is laughingly called the Bipartisan Safe Communities Act. It should be, and more accurately would be, called “The Bipartisan Fourth and Fifth Amendment Sellout Act to Destroy the Second Amendment.”

For its primary purpose is to bribe states not already inflicting unconstitutional red flag laws on its innocent citizens with federal money — $750 million to start with — so that eventually all of them will accept the bribe — the money along with the strings attached — so that there will soon be in place a de facto federal red flag law.

Such laws, wrote Michelle Malkin at The New American,

empower disgruntled strangers, duplicitous family members, biased police, and ideologically driven judges to disarm [innocent] citizens by labeling them mental health threats to themselves and others.

The unconstitutional nature of red flag laws was made clear by Nikki Goeser, executive director of the Crime Prevention Research Center. In an article co-authored by a Republican congressman who hasn’t sold out his constituents, Kentucky’s Thomas Massie, Goeser said:

These laws allow judges to seize a person’s guns without a trial, based solely on a written complaint that the person might be a danger to themselves or others. All a judge needs is “reasonable suspicion.”

This contrasts with the provisions the Founders of our Republic put in place to prevent such violations of precious rights. The Fourth Amendment requires the much higher standard of “probable cause” instead of the much weaker “reasonable suspicion”:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [Emphasis added.]

The Fifth Amendment requires “due process” against such illegal seizures:

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. [Emphasis added.]

Red flag laws, freed from those constitutional constraints, pose a direct and immediate threat to everyone who owns a firearm. As Malkin explained:

If you stray from the politically correct position on VA incompetence, guns, masks, vaccines, transgenders in sports, Drag Queen Story Hour, election fraud, demographic transformation, Black Lives Matter, or abortion, you and your children can be tagged, flagged and bagged for life.

She understates the threat. The “reasonable suspicion” standard is so low that ultimately anyone owning a firearm could be “tagged, flagged and bagged” for that reason alone.

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.

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann