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 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…

The Minority Report is Now a Reality

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, March 12, 2018: 

Cover of "Minority Report [Blu-ray]"

Cover of Minority Report DVD

Movie buffs will remember the 2002 science fiction film Minority Report based on a short story written by Philip Dick. Set in 2054 in Washington, D.C., a division of the local police department called PreCrime would arrest individuals based on crimes that they were going to commit. The precriminals were targeted by three psychics called “precogs.”

That “PreCrime” unit is now called the Crisis Response Squad, is part of the Seattle Police Department, and is now arresting precriminals based on testimonies from family members, friends, former wives or husbands, and even former roommates. This isn’t 2054, but 2018.

Here’s this from Seattle.gov, dated March 2, 2018:

Keep reading…

Florida Republican Legislators Turn Backs on Second, Fourth Amendments

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, March 9, 2018: 

Official photo of Florida Governor Rick Scott

Florida Governor Rick Scott

In 1970, Florida’s legislature officially adopted “The Sunshine State” as the state’s nickname. It was designed for the tourists: beaches, warm weather in the winter, and so forth.

About the same time, a 4’10” grandmother teamed up with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and, over time, successfully added another nickname to the state: “The Gunshine State.” When the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968, Marion Hammer decided to do what she could to overturn it. She started in Florida. She was the first female president of the NRA, and the rest, as they say, is history. In 1987, she almost single-handedly persuaded the state’s legislature to pass the first concealed carry law in the nation. In 2005, she was inducted into Florida’s Women’s Hall of Fame.

That was then. This is now.

Keep reading…

Utah Nurse Waives Lawsuit, Settles for $500,000 in Patient Privacy Case

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, November 1, 2017:

Alex Wubbels, the Utah nurse who was violently arrested after trying to protect her patient’s Fourth Amendment rights last July, received a $500,000 settlement on Tuesday from Salt Lake City and the University of Utah which owns and operates the hospital. She waived any plans to sue, saying: “We all deserve to know the truth and the truth comes when you see the actual raw footage [from the officer’s body camera] and that’s what happened in my case. No matter how truthful I was in telling my story, it was nothing compared to what people [actually] saw and the visceral reaction people experienced when watching the footage of the experience that I went through.”

She is donating part of the settlement to

Keep reading…

Two Fourth Amendment Cases Prove the Constitution Still Works

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, September 8, 2017:  

A nurse in Utah and a couple in Texas stood up for their rights as guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights. The Utah nurse hasn’t filed suit, but the Texas couple did, and in both cases law-enforcement officials have been exposed and shamed for their illegal conduct. Both cases were aided with the help of videos taken of the incidents.

The first has caught national attention and has stirred national outrage. On July 26 Alex Wubbels was on duty as head nurse of the University of Utah Hospital’s burn unit when a truck driver was wheeled in suffering from severe burns. He had been hit by a driver fleeing police and was comatose when he arrived in the ER.

Salt Lake City police detective Jeff Payne arrived at the hospital with instructions to obtain a blood sample from the comatose driver to test for elicit substances and ran into nurse Wubbels who knew the hospital’s rules: There would be no blood drawn unless

Keep reading…

Trump’s Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sends a Strong Message

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Saturday, August 26, 2017:

speaking in Phoenix, Arizona on February 26, 2011.

President Trump pardoned former Maricopa County (Arizona) sheriff Joe Arpaio (shown), the White House announced Friday evening: “Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration,″ the statement said. “Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.”

For his part, the veteran sheriff was grateful but called his conviction the result of unceasing efforts by the Obama administration to silence him. In one tweet, Arpaio said:

Thank you @realdonaldtrump for seeing my conviction for what it is: a political witch hunt by holdovers in the Obama justice department!

And in another:

I am humbled and incredibly grateful to President Trump. I look fwd to putting this chapter behind me and helping to #MAGA

Arizona Senator John McCain was ambivalent about the presidential pardon:

Keep reading…

Pew Research: Americans Getting More Comfortable With Firearm Ownership

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, June 23, 2017:  

Pew Research Center’s latest in-depth report on what it calls “America’s Complex Relationship with Guns” is revelatory. According to the report, released on Thursday, Americans are becoming more and more comfortable with guns and gun ownership, and less and less enchanted with more gun laws to fight perceived gun violence.

When 3,390 U.S adults were polled in March and April, they were asked whether it was more important to protect gun rights or to control gun ownership. In the year 2000, two-thirds of those polled then favored more gun control. Today, that has dropped to less than half,

Keep reading…

Joliet, Illinois is About to Write a Very Large Check to Elijah Manuel

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, March 31, 2017:

Interstate 80 bridge over the Des Plaines Rive...

Interstate 80 bridge over the Des Plaines River near Joliet, Illinois.

Joliet is a pleasant township of about 150,000 souls located on the Des Plaines River 40 miles southwest of Chicago. It describes itself as going through “a modern day renaissance” after having a near-death financial experience. Then-Mayor Tom Giarrante said three years ago this month:

I am proud to once again report that the State of the City continues to be … stable. As mayor, I will continue to work hard to keep Joliet financially sound by controlling our spending. It won’t be easy, and it won’t always be popular, but I will work to keep our checkbook balanced and we will not balance it by raising property taxes.

Three years earlier, the town had a $17 million deficit. It’s about to have another similar experience.

The Supreme Court last week paved the way. In Manuel v. City of Joliet, the court ruled unanimously that Elijah Manuel was free to bring a claim against the city based on Fourth Amendment violations conducted by Joliet police officers back in 2011. The opinion, written by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, gave Manuel the go-ahead:

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