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: Fourth Amendment

Judge: Fauci, WH Press Secretary Must Turn Over All Emails Pertaining to Government-media Collusion

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 7, 2022:  

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty demanded on Tuesday that additional documentation be provided to the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana in their lawsuit.

That lawsuit, filed back in May, contended that after

having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms [i.e., Facebook, Twitter, Google] 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 those platforms] under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation.”

Attorneys General Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana accused the Biden administration of suppressing the First Amendment-protected right to free speech on topics ranging from Covid lockdowns, vaccines, and masking to Hunter Biden’s “laptop from Hell.”

The court ruled that the plaintiffs Schmitt and Landry did have a case but limited discovery — the process that takes place after a lawsuit has been filed and before trial that provides information to lawyers to prepare for that trial — to just a few administration officials.

According to Doughty,

Plaintiffs allege they have, through expedited discovery, obtained information that federal officials and agencies not named in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Amended Complaint, have also engaged in communications with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and censorship of disfavored speech.

 

These allegedly include the State Department, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Census Bureau, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations [sic] (“FBI”).

He allowed those additional federal officials and agencies to be added to the original lawsuit, holding that

the requested information is obviously very relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.

 

Dr. Fauci’s communications would be relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations in reference to alleged suppression of speech relating to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin, and to alleged suppression of speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is included as well in the broadened discovery process:

This Court believes Plaintiffs are entitled to external communications by Jean-Pierre and Dr. Fauci in their capacities as White House Press Secretary and Chief Medical Advisor to the President to third-party social media platforms.

A lot of damning evidence has already surfaced, thanks to the discovery process and prior investigations into the government-media collusion. For example, in a May 5, 2021, press conference, Biden’s previous press secretary, Jen Psaki, flatly stated: “The President’s view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation.”

During a July 15, 2021, press conference, Psaki admitted that “we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff.” She added, “We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread misinformation.”

Facebook admitted that, based on communication with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the media platform has taken “aggressive action against misinformation about COVID-19.”

That “aggressive action” included pulling down disfavored posts and banning those behind the posts from using the platform.

Schmitt has learned from the information already obtained that the government-media information collusion is vastly larger and deeper:

The limited discovery produced so far provides a tantalizing snapshot into a massive, sprawling federal “Censorship Enterprise,” which includes dozens of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies and components identified so far.

 

[These officials] communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and the suppression of private speech on social media — all with the intent and effect of pressuring social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech that federal officials disfavor.

The initial tranche of information resulting from the lawsuit so far revealed that more than 50 government officials across a dozen government agencies were involved in the collusion. But some of them, specifically Dr. Fauci, refused to answer, or gave incomplete answers. Doughty corrected that by ordering Fauci and Jean-Pierre to comply. And they have 21 days to do so.

The plaintiffs’ New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) lawyer Jenin Younes stated:

We know from the previous round of discovery that efforts to censor the speech of those who disagree with the government on covid policy have come from the top.

 

Americans deserve to know Anthony Fauci’s participation in this enterprise, especially since he has publicly demanded that specific individuals, including two of our clients, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, be censored on social media.

In response to yesterday’s ruling, a spokesman for the Biden administration doubled down on the government’s perceived role as Big Censor:

We believe in and we support freedom of speech, and we also believe it is important for all media platforms, including social media, to represent factual scientific information and combat misinformation and disinformation that can cost lives.

Court Gives Trump a Partial Victory in Mar-a-Lago Documents case

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 6, 2022:  

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled on Monday on Donald Trump’s motion to appoint a “special master” (typically a retired judge or lawyer) to review all of the documents seized by the FBI from his home in Palm Beach, Florida on August 8.

In her statement, she declared that:

Pursuant to the Court’s equitable jurisdiction and inherent supervisory authority, and mindful of the need to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances presented, Plaintiff’s Motion … is GRANTED IN PART.

What does “to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity” mean? Is this a disclaimer that the entire incident is fraught with intrigue, illegality, and falsehoods? Is it a warning to the FBI and the Department of Justice that she will brook no further outrageous behavior going forward?

She approved Trump’s demand for a special master:

The Court hereby authorizes the appointment of a special master to review the seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege.

That covers the more than 33 boxes the FBI seized which, it was later learned, contained more than 11,000 documents.

It also prevents the DOJ and its FBI from “reviewing” the seized documents, despite the fact that the government had informed her that they had already completed their “review”:

Furthermore, in natural conjunction with that appointment, and consistent with the value and sequence of special master procedures, the Court also temporarily enjoins the Government from reviewing and using the seized materials for investigative purposes pending completion of the special master’s review or further Court order.

So, while the government agencies have completed their “review” of all of those 11,000-plus documents, she ordered them not to use them for “investigative purposes,” whatever that means.

But the separate investigation being performed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) will be allowed to continue unimpeded:

This Order shall not impede the classification review and/or intelligence assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The present DNI, Avril Haines, is likely no fan of Donald Trump, having served as assistant to the president during the Obama administration.

According to the enhanced listing of documents reluctantly and belatedly provided by the FBI, its two dozen agents, over a nine-hour period on August 8, seized 11,385 documents, but only 103 of them were marked “classified.”

Small matter: The search warrant issued by the notoriously anti-Trump magistrate was written so broadly that the agents raided the entire facility, including Melania’s closet and underwear drawer along with, it is now revealed, Trump’s son Barron’s bedroom. Trump should be happy they didn’t take the furniture and his grand piano.

Trump asked the court to return everything that wasn’t classified. The judge said no — not until the soon-to-be-named special master has completed his/her “review” of all those documents. The judge also failed to suppress any “evidence” that the FBI might have already uncovered as part of its investigation.

As Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich declared, “This unprecedented and unnecessary raid of President Trump’s home was not some surgical, confined search and retrieval that the Biden administration claims. It was a SMASH AND GRAB!”

In light of all that has been revealed so far, many believe the raid was conducted nefarious purposes: 1) to keep Trump so preoccupied with the legal wrangling that is likely to go on for years (a la the Mueller investigation) that he’ll be unable to focus all of his time and attention on supporting candidates and holding rallies; and 2) to continue to sully his name in the public eye and make it so toxic that candidates being supported by him or claiming to support him and his policies will lose support from voters come November.

The special master will be named on Friday. So far, the first list that appeared with potential candidates contains at least one with a history of virulent hatred of Trump.

Former FBI Official Declares Government Has “No Case” Against Trump in Mar-a-Lago Raid

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 29, 2022:  

In its attempt to justify the illegal, unconstitutional, and outrageous raid by FBI agents on Donald Trump’s home in Florida three weeks ago, CNBC claimed that “the FBI had probable cause to believe that records containing classified national defense information would be found” at his home.

CNBC quoted from an unredacted portion of the affidavit, written by an FBI agent (whose name was blacked out):

Based upon this investigation, I do not believe that any spaces within the PREMISES have been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of FPOTUS’s [former president of the United States] Presidential Administration on January 20, 2021.

That’s all that the biased left-wing media outlet could find to justify the raid: a single, unnamed FBI agent, charged with creating the document used to justify the issuance of the warrant that led to the raid, concluded that Trump’s home hadn’t “been authorized” for the storage of the documents the FBI seized in the raid.

That the mere statement made by the unnamed agent justified the raid is laughable on its face. So says Kevin R. Brock, a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI. After reviewing the 11 pages of that 32-page document that weren’t blacked out, Brock stated:

I don’t believe the affidavit articulates how a federal law was or is being broken. For those [on the left] who hold out hope that the affidavit’s redacted sections fill that gap, there is almost no chance that they do.

Brock points out that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was breached by the agent who authored the affidavit:

A criminal violation of [federal] statutes only exists if it can be established that the person being investigated was not authorized [to store the documents].

But the agent/author failed:

The unredacted parts of the affidavit make no attempt to articulate cause that Trump was not authorized to have these documents in his home.

 

The reason is that, as president, he had broad, legally intimidating authority, established by law and court determinations, to declassify any and all documents and to determine what is and is not a presidential record.

In the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of the Navy v. Egan, the majority opinion included this:

The President, after all, is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

 

His authority to classify and control access to information … flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

This was reiterated by Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law: “There’s no question that the president has broad authority to declassify almost anything at any time without any process….”

Any attempt to find Trump guilty under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2017, is also without merit. On the surface, that section appears to apply to Trump, and, according to anti-Trump lawyer Marc Elias, a conviction would keep him from ever holding office again:

Whoever, 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.]

But Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution under this identical law when she destroyed those thousands of emails.

So, one is left with only one conclusion: the raid was a political hit, without substance in law, precedent, or history. Concluded Brock:

The situation does not look good for the government.

 

The Ivy League-educated attorneys of the DOJ had to know this adventure had little chance of an eventual successful prosecution.

 

The use, therefore, of a highly intrusive search of a home simply as a forcing function to retrieve documents for the National Archives — and then not follow through with actual charges — spikes the potential abuse needle dramatically and will not help quiet the growing suspicion that this was more of a political [hit job] to take Trump off the chessboard than it was the pursuit of blind justice.

Trump Files Blistering Lawsuit Against DOJ; Demands Unaffiliated Party Examine His Records

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, August 23, 2022:  

The three lawyers representing former President Donald Trump minced no words in the lawsuit they filed on his behalf against the Department of Justice on Monday afternoon:

On August 8, 2022, in a shockingly aggressive move — and with no understanding of the distress that it would cause most Americans — roughly two dozen Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), directed by attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “Government”), raided the home of President Donald J. Trump.

 

According to the government, the agents seized documents, privileged and/or potentially privileged materials, and other items — including photos, handwritten notes, and even President Trump’s passports — that were outside the lawful reach of an already overbroad warrant.

The lawsuit implied that that broad overreach reflected the weaponization of law enforcement:

Law enforcement is a shield that protects Americans. It cannot be used as a weapon for political purposes.

The suit raises several questions by the former president:

  1. Why raid my home with a platoon of federal agents when I [Trump] have voluntarily cooperated with your every request?
  2. What are you trying to hide from the public — given that you requested that I turn off all home security cameras, and even refused to allow my attorneys to observe what your agents were doing?
  3. Why have you refused to tell me what you took from my home?

The government has, so far, claims the suit, been either unable or unwilling to answer these questions:

The Government has declined to provide even the most basic information about what was taken, or why….

 

Significantly, the Government has refused to provide President Trump with any reason for the unprecedented, general search of his home.

 

To date, the Government has failed to legitimize its historic decision to raid the home of a President who had been fully cooperative.

Building its case that the search was “unreasonable” and therefore in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of such searches, the suit claimed that “the actual chronology of events clearly establishes that there was no “exigency [pressing or urgent need] for a forceful raid.”

The lawsuit claimed that the warrant issued by the magistrate judge was so broadly written that it, for all intents and purposes, served as a “general warrant” that allowed agents to “rummage” through Trump’s private papers and personal effects. It quoted from previous rulings that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit the “specific evil” of such “rummaging in a person’s belongings.”

The lawsuit reviewed some history behind the Fourth Amendment:

That type of rummaging was permitted [demanded] during the colonial era by a “general warrant,” which the Fourth Amendment is specifically intended to preclude….

 

It is familiar history that indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of “general warrants” were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment.

The warrant failed the “particularity” test (i.e., “No warrants shall issue but upon probable cause … and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”):

In fact, the Search Warrant’s broad scope was in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement and thus the warrant permitted a “general search,” prohibited as unconstitutional since red-coated [British] soldiers created the need for the requirement in the first place.

Because Trump and his lawyers don’t trust the DOJ or the FBI, the suit asks the court to halt the investigation into the papers they seized, and to provide a third party — an outside unaffiliated party called a Special Master — to conduct the investigation. Such a third party is needed, claims the lawsuit, “to preserve the sanctity of executive communications and other privileged materials.”

The suit made it clear that Trump and his lawyers don’t trust the “Government”:

With the conclusion that the materials seized from [the Trump residence] are all presumptively privileged, it is unreasonable to allow the prosecutorial team to review them without meaningful safeguards.… Only a neutral review by a Special Master can protect the “great public interest.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, where it will be heard by a Trump appointee, Judge Aileen Cannon.

Trump to Sue DOJ Over FBI Raid on Mar-a-Lago

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 22, 2022:  

Former President Donald Trump teased his followers on Truth Social on Friday that he would very shortly be filing suit against the Department of Justice over the FBI’s raid on his Palm Beach, Florida, home two weeks ago.

Wrote Trump:

A major motion pertaining to the Fourth Amendment will soon be filed concerning the illegal Break-In of my home, Mar-a-Lago, right before the ever-important Mid-Term Elections.

 

My rights, together with the rights of all Americans, have been violated at a level rarely seen before in our Country.

 

Remember, they even spied on my campaign. The greatest Witch Hunt in USA history has been going on for six years, with no consequences to the scammers. It should not be allowed to continue!

To review: The raid — characterized by the FBI as merely the serving of a legitimate search warrant on a private citizen — took place on Monday, August 8; involved more than 20 FBI agents dressed in riot gear; and took more than 10 hours to complete.

The search included prying into Melania’s closet and underwear drawer, and resulted in the FBI carrying away at least eleven boxes (variously marked as secret or top secret, with some marked as protected by client-attorney privilege, along with Trump’s passports).

The affidavit supporting the warrant is due to be released, although heavily redacted (blacked out), later this week.

James Trusty, a former federal prosecutor and now one of Trump’s lawyers advising the former president, was interviewed on Mark Levin’s radio show on Friday. He elaborated on the pending lawsuit, outlining the tack it will take in challenging the entire operation:

We are not going to leave it to the DOJ [Department of Justice] to tell us that they are doing their filter search, and they are the guardians of what’s privileged or not.

 

We are going to have [the] court [get] involved, judicial intervention, at the district court level … that can help us vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of the [former] president.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

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.

Trusty says the warrant, issued by a magistrate judge with a far-left history, contains what is needed to invalidate it. “The Fourth Amendment requires particularity. It requires narrowness to the intrusion on the person’s home.”

However, he added:

This warrant had language in it. And keep in mind, all we’ve seen is a warrant and an inventory. But the warrant has language in it about if you find a classified document, you can take the whole box … and you can take any boxes near it.

 

And that’s really the functional equivalent of a general search. There’s just no limit to that kind of scope in the warrant.

Attachment B of the warrant states that “any government and/or Presidential Records created between Jan. 20, 2017, and Jan. 20, 2021” shall be subjected to seizure if the agent deems it relevant as “evidence, contraband, or fruits of crime.”erty are to be included, gathered up, and seized — without limit.

One of many anomalies is that the FBI already knew what Trump was storing at Mar-a-Lago, having been allowed previously to inspect the security measures being used while Trump was negotiating with the National Archives about how to ship the items to that agency securely.

This made the raid political, according to Jeffrey Clark, a former U.S. assistant attorney general in the Trump administration:

Since [federal] officers had been to Mar-a-Lago to inspect the documents there, they already knew there were [presidential] documents there, and have for [months].

 

The political nature of [the] raid [is] clear because they waited to search for what they knew was ALREADY THERE until just before the Midterms.

Jenna Ellis, a former lawyer for Trump, agreed that the pending lawsuit is necessary “to assert his constitutionally protected rights” and demand that the DOJ “show cause for their unreasonable, irregular, and politically motivated raid.”

The lawsuit is likely also to emphasize another protection provided by the Fourth Amendment: that against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It will ask the court whether the entire raid — involving armed FBI agents invading a former president’s private residence when they could have obtained through a subpoena (as they did earlier in June) the items needed — was excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable.

By taking everything in sight it’s easy to conclude the political nature of the raid. Trump has had possession of the documents for over 15 months, and so why all of a sudden does the FBI show up early on a Friday, refuse to let Trump’s attorney see the warrant until after the raid, and then not allow her to make a copy of it, all just before the midterm elections?

Once the lawsuit is filed, The New American will keep its readers informed — especially since, if this sort of raid is allowed to be perpetrated on a former president, they too would then be unprotected by the Fourth Amendment.

For, as Trump wrote on his Twitter account just after being impeached, “In reality they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.”

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.

Ten RINOs Joining With Democrats in Pushing Red Flag Laws

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, June 13, 2022:  

Anti-Second Amendment Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Murphy could hardly contain himself on Sunday. After lengthy discussions over the weekend with several Republican (In Name Only) senators, he tweeted: “We have a deal,” adding:

Today a bipartisan group of 20 Senators (10 D and 10 R) is announcing a breakthrough agreement on gun violence – the first in 30 years – that will save lives.

Murphy was no doubt referring to the dreadful infringement of Second Amendment rights that was passed in 1994, called the Clinton Gun Ban, which banned the manufacture, sale, or purchase of “semi-automatic” firearms. Ten years later, after discovering that the ban had absolutely no impact whatsoever on gun violence, the law was allowed to expire.

Murphy was also touting the “bipartisan” nature of the “breakthrough” agreement, suggesting that Democrats and Republicans had finally repaired their animosity over the issue of gun rights and had come together to infringe further on gun owners’ rights.

However, four of the five Republicans who joined with the Democrats have no fear of electoral retribution from their voters: they are retiring from the Senate this year. Further, none of the other six are up for reelection. So they can safely display their animosity towards the Second Amendment with impunity.

Another RINO, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, joined the 10 in celebrating the victory: “I appreciate their hard work on this important issue. The principles they announced today show the value of dialogue and cooperation.” He added:

I continue to hope their discussions yield a bipartisan product that makes significant headway on key issues like mental health and school safety, respects the Second Amendment, earns broad support in the Senate, and makes a difference in our country.

There is no written text reflecting the agreement. And the clock is ticking: Congress soon breaks for the Independence Day weekend, and any legislation must be written and passed before constituents back home have an opportunity to express their displeasure at their senators and representatives selling them out.

Gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association are already ramping up pressure to keep that insidious legislation from passing.

Murphy admitted as much in his series of tweets touting the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment (and anti-constitutional) provisions. Last week he told reporters that “we can’t come to agreement the last week we’re here. There are people in the Senate who are no doubt going to use every rule available to them to hold this up and slow it down.”

Those “people” are called “constitutionalists,” using procedural moves put in place precisely to limit a noisy, power-seeking minority from overriding the rights of the majority.

The 10 Republican sellouts are 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.

Buried in the bill is the most pernicious attempt to disarm gun owners: pushing for red flag laws by giving federal tax money to states if they pass them. Nineteen states already have the onerous and unconstitutional laws in place, and the remaining 31 are the targets of the Senate’s financial generosity.

In the so-called agreement that Murphy celebrated on Sunday, the phrase “red flag laws” is never mentioned, for fear of raising a red flag over the proposal from those who understand and support the Constitution. Murphy’s “law” refers to “intervention orders” that would apply to “those who are adjudicated as mentally ill” so they cannot purchase or possess firearms.

The NRA urged its members to “take action,” reminding their representatives of their rights and warning them of retribution at the polls in November if they violate them. The bills already passed by the House and being pressed for passage in the Senate

create “red flag orders” that allow for the confiscation of firearms without due process of law. The legislation would directly empower federal judges to nullify Second Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis and issue orders to seize firearms from the named individuals.

 

It would also provide funding to encourage states and localities to pass and enforce laws allowing judges to issue orders to seize firearms.

 

[The House bill] would strip Second Amendment rights of individuals by confiscating firearms without constitutional due process by allowing courts to issue ex parte (meaning the accused is not present) firearm confiscation orders.

 

A person could be forcibly disarmed of otherwise lawfully-possessed firearms before he or she had so much as an opportunity to contest the accusations — this would represent a clear denial of constitutional due process protections.

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 senator 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 that sort of behavior. 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.

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.

The vacuity of red flag laws is revealed by noting that there is little proof that they work. As left-leaning PolitiFact admitted: “It’s challenging for researchers to determine whether mass shootings are prevented by red flag laws.”

The real purpose of red flag laws is to do an “end run” around the Second Amendment. As Senator Murphy admitted in his series of tweets celebrating and expanding on his “victory”:

Will this bill do everything we need to end our nation’s gun violence epidemic? No. But it is real, meaningful progress. And it breaks a 30 year log jam….

 

Drafting this law and passing it through both chambers will not be easy. We have a long way before this gets to the President’s desk.

As the Senate is deadlocked 50-50, all 10 of those Republican Senators will have to join all 50 Democrats in order to pass the measure. If passed, it will next need to be ratified by the House, and then will be sent to the occupant of the White House for signing into law.

Judge Napolitano Asks, “Does the U.S. Still Have a Constitution?”

This article was published at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, August 12, 2021:  

In the Washington Times on Wednesday, Judge Andrew Napolitano asked rhetorically in the title above his column: “Does the United States still have a Constitution?“ Though he never explicitly says yes, it is clear from his analysis that his question refers to a de facto abandonment of, not de jure elimination of, the Constitution.

Despite being ignored and circumvented, the Constitution is still the law of the land, and still protects our freedom, needing only to be upheld and applied. Napolitano writes:

The Constitution does not permit the government to infringe upon personal freedoms, no matter the emergency or pandemic.

The founders crafted the Constitution “both to establish the government and to limit it.” Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies the powers of the Congress, the only branch of the federal government that may make law. But Congress may not make any law it chooses; in its law-making it is limited to exercising only its enumerated powers.

Others protections against the abuse of power are found in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from violating freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and “the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” And the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But in addition to the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, the people possess many other rights not articulated therein.

Napolitano explains:

The Ninth [Amendment] declares that the enumeration of rights in the first eight shall not mean that there are no other rights that are fundamental, and the government shall not disparage those other rights.

 

The Tenth [Amendment] reflects that the states have reserved [to themselves] the powers that they did not delegate to the [federal government.]

Without explanation or expansion the judge used the term “natural rights,” assuming that his readers would automatically know what he was referring to:

Natural rights collectively constitute the moral ability and sovereign authority of every human being to make personal choices – free from government interference and without a government permission slip.

In an interview with The New American magazine, Pastor David Whitney with the Institute on the Constitution gave a fuller description of the source of man’s rights by quoting from the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [Emphasis added.]

The Declaration states clearly that

All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….

 

We, therefore, the representatives of the united state of America, “appeal … to the Supreme Judge of the World….

 

With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

In other words, as expressed by Whitney’s Institute:

  1. There is a God.
  2. Our rights come from Him.
  3. The purpose of civil government is to secure and protect our God-given rights.

On the day the Declaration was signed Samuel Adams said: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and … from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.”

John Hancock wrote: “Let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the universe … let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of Him Who raises up and puts down the empires and kingdoms of the earth as He pleases.”

James Madison wrote: “Religion … [is] the basis and foundation of government … before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”

John Adams wrote: “We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”

Napolitano’s article flowed naturally from the principle that all rights come from God — though again, he uses the phrase “natural rights.” All powers that temporal government might have come only “from the consent of the governed” who are themselves governed by their Creator.

Napolitano noted in his column that

interferences with the exercise of rights protected by the Bill of Rights devolve around travel, assembly, commercial activities, the exercise of religious beliefs, and your face. These infringements have all come from mayors and state governors who claim the power to do so, and they raise three profound constitutional issues.

He then raised three critical questions regarding these infringements. First, Napolitano asked:

Do mayors and governors have the inherent power to craft regulations that carry the force of law in an emergency?

 

The answer is no … the separation of powers [crafted into the Constitution by the founders gives] each [branch of government] a distinct core function that cannot constitutionally be performed by either of the other two.

What about state legislatures that give temporary powers to the governor to handle “emergencies”? Asked the judge:

Can state legislatures delegate away to governors their law-making powers? Again, the answer is no, because the separation of powers prevents one branch of government from ceding to another branch its core powers.

Lastly the judge asked:

Third: can a state legislature enact laws that interfere with personal liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, prescribe punishments for violations of those laws, and authorize governors to use force to compel compliance?

 

Again, the answer is no, because all government in America [federal, state, and local] is subordinate to the natural rights [emphasis added] articulated in the Bill of Rights and embraced in the Ninth Amendment.

Why did the founders limit governmental powers? Why did they separate those limited powers among three branches of government, and also divide powers between the national government and the states? Because men — including men who govern others — possess a sinful nature that must be held in check. John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902), an historian and moralist who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Thomas Jefferson explained:

In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Back to Napolitano. Referring particularly to those “dangerous people” who govern on the state level and “who are again threatening to take away our ability to make personal choices and use force to compel compliance,” he ended optimistically:

We must remind them that by using the powers of state governments to do this, they will make themselves candidates for federal criminal prosecutions when saner days return.

Letter From House Members Blasts ATF Attempt to Expand Definition of a Firearm

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 11, 2021:  

When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) proposed expanding its power over firearms in May, it invited public response. On Tuesday, the bureau received a blistering response from eight Republican members of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security:

[Your] attempt to expand the definition of firearm, like other ATF regulatory efforts, is deeply flawed, beyond the scope of ATF’s authority, contrary to years of previous ATF opinions, and harmful to millions of law-abiding American firearm owners….

 

[Your] proposed rule goes well beyond the authority granted to the agency in any applicable federal statutes … [and] expands the definition of a firearm beyond the intent of Congress….

 

[Your proposed] rule appears to be a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of Congress. In so doing, ATF has also unconstitutionally infringed on American citizens’ fundamental Second Amendment rights [as well as] privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.

In its statement of proposed redefining of “Frame or Receiver” on May 21, the bureau claimed that the present definitions “fail to capture the full meaning of those terms” and it proceeds to “clarify” such terms as “complete weapon,” “complete muffler or silencer device,” “privately made firearm,” and “readily,” stating that redefining, or clarifying, such terms is necessary “given advancements in firearms technology.”

It added, “Because ‘frames’ or ‘receivers’ are included in the definition of ‘firearm,’ any person who engages in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in frames or receivers must obtain a license from ATF.”

A large portion of the 34-page expansion was dedicated to “Privately Made Firearms or ‘Ghost Guns’”:

Technological advances have also made it easier for unlicensed persons to make firearms at home from standalone parts or weapon parts kits, or by using 3D printers or personally owned or leased equipment, without any records or background check….

 

[This] makes it difficult for law enforcement to determine where, by whom, or when they were manufactured, and to whom they were sold or otherwise disposed.

The ATF cited “intelligence reports” from the FBI, the DHS, and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) that claim that “ghost guns … enable prohibited buyers to purchase deadly weapons with just a few clicks online … [while] hamstringing law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes committed with untraceable weapons.” They also claim that the “wide availability of ghost guns and the emergence of functional 3D-printed guns are a homeland security threat.”

All of which, as The New American has repeatedly pointed out, are lies (see hereherehere and here). Hundreds of millions of firearms are already untraceable, either due to inheritance or private purchase. “Ghost guns” are costly both in terms of money and time expended in their manufacture. While popular media suggest that the average “ghost gun” can be made or purchased for around $400, the real cost is over $1,000 and approaches $2,000 when all related costs are counted.

And “ghost guns” make up an imperceptibly small percentage of the estimated 400 to 600 million firearms already legally possessed by American gun owners.

Finally, criminals find it much easier to steal, or purchase on the street, a firearm rather than to manufacture one.

Unfortunately missing from the letter was mention of the fact that any attempt to regulate the possession or use of a firearm is an infringement on the Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms. That would include the first infringement dating back to 1934 — the National Firearms Act. Everything from that moment on concerning the regulation, licensing, limiting, etc., of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement.

And, it must be asked, where did Congress gets its power to assign its legislative responsibility to an unelected agency (the ATF) in the first place?

The New American has repeatedly noted that the real effort is the ultimate disarming of the American public so that all weaponry remains in the hands only of the police, the government, and criminals. As Adolph Hitler said:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject race to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

There is good news in all of this. As the effort to disarm the public becomes increasingly obvious, so does the mounting pushback. The John Birch Society, smeared repeatedly in its early days by the leftist media, is seeing enormous growth in numbers and influence. Its program is simplicity itself: A lone citizen, concerned about how to fight the coming tyranny, can do little. But organized and following a strategic plan to expose the plans where the communists are most vulnerable, just a few can make an enormous difference.

If you’ve read this far, consider JBS.org for more information on how to join the increasing resistance to the tyranny planned and being implemented by agencies such as the ATF.

Supreme Court: Gun Confiscation Without a Warrant Is Unconstitutional

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, May 18, 2021:  

In a major setback to efforts to disarm American gun owners, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously — unanimously! — that the seizure of handguns from a residence by police without a warrant was unconstitutional.

The facts of the case — Caniglia v. Strom — are these, from the ruling:

Keep reading…

Regulators are now going after the Bitcoin

This article was first published at the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, November 20th, 2013:

 

Six federal agencies were invited to a Senate committee hearing on Monday to explain why each should be granted the privilege of regulating the Bitcoin. Four showed up:

Keep reading…

Sheriff Says He’ll Go to Jail Before Violating Citizens’ Rights Under Red Flag Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, April 1, 2019:  

With Colorado, now firmly in the grasp of progressive Democrats from the Governor’s Mansion to the State House and Senate, about to pass and sign into law its own odious “red flag” law, a reporter from CNN couldn’t wait to interview Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams about his threat to go to jail before he enforces it on any of his county’s citizens:

“Are you willing to sit in your own jail to avoid enforcing this law?” CNN asked Reams. His reply:

Well, obviously, no sheriff wants to be confined in [his] own jail, but if that’s what it takes to get this bill ironed out, then I guess that’s a sacrifice I’ll be forced to make. The worst way to bring attention to it is for me to be put in that position, but I’ll do that before I’ll violate somebody’s constitutional rights.

 

We’re working hard to try to figure out a mechanism to get this into the courts before somebody is harmed by it. Unfortunately, someone has to be damaged by it first. It comes down to whether I want to take this to court for violating somebody’s rights, or for me [for] refusing to enforce a court order.

It comes down to Reams taking his oath of office seriously, or not. His oath is to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado.

Reams has a lot of support.

Keep reading…

Just How Does the ATF Plan to Enforce Its “Bump Stock” Ban?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, December 21, 2018:

Following the announcement of its “final rule” on banning possession of “bump stocks,” a Department of Justice official was asked how they intended to enforce it when it becomes effective in March. He replied:

We anticipate that the general public will be compliant with the law.

 

To the extent someone chooses not to comply with the law, we will treat this as we do with all firearms offenses. We will prioritize our resources to maximize public safety, focusing on those that pose the greatest threat. We will enforce the statute based on the circumstances of the individual case as we do with all firearms law.

Would officials from the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, usually referred to as the ATF) go door to door? He answered:

Keep reading…

A Million New Jersey Gun Owners Ignore State’s Magazine Ban

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 17, 2018: 

When New Jersey passed its ban on possession of magazines containing more than 10 rounds in June, it gave the state’s million or so law-abiding gun owners 180 days to comply. The law provided five options: 1) modify the offending magazines so they could accept no more than 10 rounds; 2) “render the firearm [that accepts such magazines] inoperable”; 3) register firearms that cannot be “modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds”; 4) transfer the firearm or the magazine to “an individual or entity entitled to own or possess it”; or 5) surrender the firearm or the magazine to local law enforcement.

The million or so law-abiding gun owners selected option No.6: ignore the law and defy its enforcement.

The 180-day period expired on December 11, and not a single magazine has been turned in to any local law-enforcement agencies, according to responses obtained from Ammoland’s John Crump: “Ammoland reached out to several local police departments in New Jersey to see how they plan on enforcing the ban, and [to learn] what the turn-in numbers have been [as of December 14]. Like the New Jersey State Police, none of these departments have a concrete plan on how to proactively enforce the ban, and none had a single report of magazines being turned over.”

The penalty for being found in possession of one of the newly offending magazines is stiff: It’s a felony, with punishment consisting of up to 18 months in jail, and up to $10,000 in fines, or both.

When gun-hating liberals in the Colorado enclave known to some as “the Peoples’ Republic of Boulder” passed a law banning possession of “assault weapons,” “high-capacity” magazines, and “bump stocks” last May, gun owners reacted similarly. The New American covered the story and estimated that law-abiding citizens living in Boulder owned approximately 150,000 now-offending firearms. They needed to be “certified”under the law’s grandfather clause by December 27 or fines and jail time would be applied to those newly minted miscreants. As of December 1, the Boulder Police Department had certified just 85 of them.

Lest law-biding gun owners reading this think that New Jersey or Colorado are a long way from where they live, and therefore they have nothing to worry about, they should consider the disheartening and threatening move by numerous states to inflict similar injury onto them through “red flag” laws. They should further consider what their response will be when law enforcement shows up at their front door, either wit a demand to turn over offending magazines or relinquish their firearms under an ERPO — an “Extreme Risk Protection Order” — now the law in more than a dozen states with another dozen or so considering such laws.

The New American has reported on the dangers of ERPOs. One individual, Gary Willis, a resident of Ferndale, Maryland, was confronted with such a situation at 5 a.m. in early November. He resisted and it cost him his life.

Local papers covered the incident.Willis was asleep early Monday morning, November 5 when two officers from Anne Arundel County knocked on his door. A law-abiding gun owner, Willis answered the door “with a gun in his hand,” according to a police department spokesman.They were there to serve him with an “extreme risk protective order” and remove his legally owned firearms.

According to a police department spokesman, Willis put his firearm down to read the ERPO but then, apparently recognizing that it wasn’t a legal search warrant issued by a judge in accordance with protections guaranteed to him by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution but instead was issued by a local judge under Maryland’s newly minted “red flag” law, he retrieved his firearm.  

The spokesman said that Willis “became irate.” In the melee that followed, one of the firearms carried either by one of the officers or by Willis went off. One of the officers then pulled his own sidearm and shot Willis dead.

FlexYourRights.com has a 38-minute video on YouTube that helps gun owners who take the risk of such a confrontation seriously. For those interested in a lawyer’s take on how to respond, one could consider purchasing Tim Baldwin’s “Police Contact: How to Respond” in DVD format for $20. Says Baldwin: “If a policeman believes you are guilty, being innocent may not be enough to keep you protected. There are many innocent people incarcerated in America’s prisons, or worse. Unfortunately, citizens themselves often help bring on improper conduct [by police] through their own ignorance of the law.”

This writer endorses Baldwin’s explanation. which is designed, as he says, to “keep you out of jail — or out of the morgue.”

Such presentations may still leave unanswered the question of how to respond when a law-enforcement official comes to the door with a warrant that clearly violates or ignores the strictures put in place by the Founders in the Fourth Amendment. How should he then respond? That question needs to be answered long before the doorbell rings.

According to Crump, New Jersey law-enforcement officials either have no plan to enforce the magazine law or aren’t willing to discuss it. Those departments he quizzed refused to answer, or responded with “We do not discuss law enforcement strategies.” 

Resistance to Red Flag Laws Cost This Gun Owner His Life

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, November 7, 2018:  

Trekkies will remember the Borg as cybernetic organisms that live in a hive mind called “The Collective.” They co-opt technology from other species and gain such power that “resistance” to them “is futile.”

Gary Willis, a law-abiding gun owner living in Ferndale, Maryland, resisted, and paid for it with his life. Local papers covered the incident. Willis was asleep early Monday morning when two officers from Anne Arundel County knocked on his door. A law-abiding gun owner, Willis answered the door “with a gun in his hand,” according to a police department spokesman. They were there to serve him with an “extreme risk protective order” and remove his legally owned firearms.

According to the spokesman, Willis put his firearm down to read the ERPO but then, apparently recognizing that it wasn’t a legal search warrant issued by a judge in accordance with protections guaranteed to him by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but instead was issued by a local judge under Maryland’s newly minted “red flag” law, he retrieved his firearm.

The spokesman said that Willis “became irate.” In the melee that followed, one of the firearms carried either by one of the officers or by Willis, went off. One of the officers then pulled his own sidearm and shot Willis dead.

Family members told Capital Gazette reporters that a distant relative had requested the ERPO the day before, due to an “incident” that occurred at his residence. The details of the “incident” remain unclear at this writing, but the backpedaling by the police chief began almost immediately.

Said Anne Arundel County police chief Timothy Altomare:

Keep reading…

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, November 6, 2018: 

Gary Willis, a resident of Ferndale, Maryland, was awakened Monday morning at 5:17 a.m. when two officers from Anne Arundel County knocked on his door. A law-abiding gun owner, Willis answered the door “with a gun in his hand,” according to a police department spokesman. They were there to serve him with an “extreme risk protective order” and remove his legally owned firearms.

According to the spokesman, Willis put his firearm down to read the ERPO but then, apparently recognizing that it wasn’t a legal search warrant issued by a judge in accordance with protections guaranteed to him by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but instead was issued by a local judge under Maryland’s newly minted “red flag” law, he retrieved his firearm.

The spokesman said that Willis “became irate.” In the melee that followed, one of the firearms carried either by one of the officers or by Willis went off. One of the officers then pulled his own sidearm and shot Willis dead.

Family members told Capital Gazette reporters that a distant relative had requested the ERPO the day before, due to an “incident” that occurred at his residence. The details of the “incident” remain unclear at this writing, but the backpedaling by the police chief began almost immediately.

Said Anne Arundel County police chief Timothy Altomare:

Keep reading…

Florida’s “Red-flag” Law Taking Guns Without Due Process

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, June 6, 2018: 

After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, it didn’t take long for Florida’s “red-flag” law to be implemented. The Florida legislature enacted the law on March 9, apparently deciding that the ends justified the means, i.e., that judicial processes in place since the founding of the Republic were just too cumbersome and took too long. So they did an end run around the Fourth Amendment, and the law now allows a family member or a member of law enforcement to ask a judge to issue a warrant to seize an owner’s firearms, lowering the constitutional bar from “probable cause” to “reasonable cause.” The new law also prevents the intended victim from knowing his accusers, or from confronting them in a court of law. If he is later deemed innocent, he must petition the court to regain possession of his confiscated firearms.

In simple terms, under Florida’s “red flag” law — presently in place or being considered in more than two dozen other states — a person is guilty until proven innocent, and he must bear the costs of proving his innocence.

Consider, for example, the case of Broward County Sheriff’s bailiff Franklin Joseph Pinter, age 60,

Keep reading…

Parkland High School Survivor Questioned After Going to a Shooting Range

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, April 27, 2018: 

When Kyle Kashuv, one of the more prominent figures in the ongoing debate about what to do to reduce high school mass shootings, went to a shooting range with his father last Friday, the first thing he did was post some pictures and some pro-Second Amendment comments on Twitter.

He should have known better. With the pain still fresh from the massacre that took place there on Valentine’s Day, he shouldn’t have been surprised at the response. A few of his fellow students at Marjory Stoneman High School took umbrage and reported his Twitter pictures and comments to school authorities. Kashuv explained what happened next:

Keep reading…

Trump Softens Gun-control Plan, Enrages Anti-gun Liberals

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 12, 2018: 

Senator Chuck Schumer

Senator Chuck Schumer

So much softer were the president’s gun proposals released Sunday night than were expected that liberals started howling immediately. They were expecting President Trump to push for a raise in the age to purchase rifles, possibly a ban on so-called assault rifles, support for universal background checks, and the NICS “fix” promoted by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Instead they got this tweet from the president: “Very strong improvement and strengthening of background checks will be fully backed by White House. Legislation moving forward. Bump Stocks will soon be out. Highly trained teachers will be allowed to conceal carry, subject to State Law. Armed guards OK, deterrent!”

Sorting it out, the president’s “gun plan” consists of

Keep reading…

Red Flag Warning: States Confiscating Guns by Ignoring Fourth Amendment

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 12, 2018: 

An assortment of new restrictions on the Second Amendment in Florida also launched an attack on the Fourth Amendment, as well. As The New American noted last week, Florida’s new “red flag” law abrogates the Fourth Amendment on the way to violating the Second Amendment:

Simply put, someone who thinks someone else might be a danger to himself or others can present his arguments to a judge who then, based upon those arguments, is free to decide whether the state (police armed with guns and badges) can forcibly remove privately and legally owned firearms from that person’s possession. The “red flag” provisions do not allow the person charged to defend himself or even to know who his accuser might be. Further, he must prove his innocence in order to get his confiscated firearms returned to him. He is “guilty until he proves himself innocent.”

All in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which states: “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.”

Jonas Oransky, deputy director of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, was delighted, calling the adoption of such laws a “new frontier” in the long war against private gun ownership in America:

Keep reading…

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